[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 1931-2066]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 1931]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, February 16, 2006
The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan).
____________________
DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
February 16, 2006.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Candice S. Miller to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
PRAYER
Colonel Kenneth J. Leinwand, U.S. Army, Ft. Meade Installation
Chaplain, Ft. Meade, Maryland, offered the following prayer:
Almighty and sovereign God, in reverent humility, we turn heart and
mind to You as we begin today's deliberations on behalf of the American
people. We are eternally grateful for the priceless privilege of living
in this great land. May we be worthy guardians of our precious heritage
of freedom and democracy which inspires millions worldwide who long to
be free from the yoke of tyranny and despair.
We pray that Your spirit of justice and compassion will guide us as
we wrestle with the enormous challenges facing our country. Grant us
clear, prophetic vision, forthrightness, steadfast strength, and
courage to legislate and secure the American Dream for all people. Let
not impatience and expediency cloud our judgment and diminish the trust
bestowed upon us by the citizens we represent.
Lastly, Lord, we pray Your protection for all Americans, especially
those who serve in uniform in distant lands. Guard and protect these,
Your faithful servants, under the shadows of Your wings. Grant them
mission success and return them home in safety and peace.
Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has examined the Journal of the
last day's proceedings and announces to the House her approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. KUCINICH led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
WELCOMING COLONEL KENNETH J. LEINWAND
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Maryland for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam Speaker, I want to join the United States House of
Representatives today in welcoming Colonel Kenneth J. Leinwand, the
installation chaplain for Ft. Meade. Colonel Leinwand is the highest-
ranking active duty Jewish chaplain in the United States military.
The Colonel has been an active duty Army chaplain since 1977. He has
served in Iraq, Desert Storm, Bosnia and Kosovo. From 2002 to 2004 he
also served as the command chaplain for all U.S. Army ground forces in
Europe. Colonel Leinwand has a deep respect and understanding of the
religious plurality that exists in today's military. Throughout his
almost 30-year military career, he has provided spiritual comfort and
solace to soldiers of all faiths.
Colonel Leinwand has been awarded the Legion of Merit, the Bronze
Star, the Meritorious Service Medal with four oak leaf clusters, and
the Army Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster.
As installation chaplain for Ft. Meade, Colonel Leinwand has direct
authority over four other chaplains and is responsible for all
religious programs.
Madam Speaker, Colonel Leinwand has accomplished many firsts in the
military as a rabbi and as a chaplain, and it is a great honor to have
him with us today. I join the House of Representatives in welcoming
him.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 10 one-minute
speeches on each side.
____________________
NSA TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I don't know about you, but I want to use
all the tools in our arsenal to catch the terrorists and prevent
another 9/11. That doesn't mean I advocate any infringements on the
privacy of law-abiding citizens. Contrary to what some might have you
believe, that is not what the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program is
about. This program is not about domestic surveillance of law-abiding
American citizens. The NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is narrowly
focused and is aimed only at international calls and targeted to track
al Qaeda and other known terrorist groups.
Madam Speaker, we are engaged in war right now, a war of the most
unconventional means, and we need to be able to track, anticipate, and
most importantly inhibit the actions of known terrorists who
communicate with their comrades in the United States.
Madam Speaker, we need to protect the President's lawful authority to
intercept terrorist communications in this country, not demean it.
Otherwise we won't have anything to protect or defend at all.
____________________
DEMANDING DOCUMENTS ON PR CONTRACTS USED TO ``SELL'' THE WAR
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, the taxpayers of the United States of
America have a right to know whether or not their tax dollars were or
are being used to manipulate the news, falsify intelligence, or mislead
the public.
Very serious questions have been raised about a number of contracts
that have been given to public relations firms, firms that then went
ahead and devised a whole plan to try to sell the war in Iraq to the
American people. I have introduced a resolution of inquiry in the House
of Representatives that demands all documents pertaining to contracts
that the United States Government has signed with the intent to sell
the war in Iraq.
This resolution directs the President, the Secretary of State, and
the Secretary of Defense to provide the House with certain documents
relating to any entity which the United States has contracted with for
public relations purposes concerning Iraq.
The people of this country have a right to know if there was an
effort to deliberately mislead them, and the taxpayers have a right to
know how their
[[Page 1932]]
tax dollars are being spent. Support the resolution of inquiry. Reclaim
the power of Congress.
____________________
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY
(Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the national
security implications of illegal immigration. Last year, our Border
Patrol agents arrested 155,000 illegal aliens from countries other than
Mexico who attempted to cross into the United States by the Mexican
border. They included illegal immigrants from Iran, Iraq and
Afghanistan.
This poses a very serious national security problem, according to CIA
director Porter Goss. On a recent trip to the Mexican-California
border, I spoke with Border Patrol agents who had apprehended suspects
on the terrorist watch list. On the day I was there, two illegals from
Pakistan were captured. When we go to the airport, our names are
checked against a terrorist watch list, we have to produce photo ID, we
remove our shoes, we walk through a metal detector, and we send our
luggage through an X-ray machine to check for bombs.
Who is doing checks on the 8,000 people who arrive here illegally
every day? The House has recently passed a tough border security bill.
I urge the Senate to act now in the name of national security.
____________________
TOKYO ROSE--2006 STYLE
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, during the great World War II, the Japanese
were searching for a way to demoralize the American forces that they
faced. The Japanese psychological propaganda warfare experts came up
with a message that they thought would work very well for them. They
gave the script to their famous broadcaster, Tokyo Rose. Every day she
would broadcast this same message packaged in various ways hoping to
have an impact on American GI morale.
What was the message? It had three points: One, your President is
lying to you. Two, the war is illegal. Three, you cannot win this war.
Madam Speaker, does that sound familiar? Maybe that is because some
in the media and some individuals have picked up the same message and
are broadcasting it to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and to our
enemies. The only difference is these people claim to support our
troops before they demoralize them.
Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose used to tell our troops she was on
their side, too. But the Tokyo Rose propaganda machine was
unsuccessful, just as the propaganda cynics of today will be
unsuccessful in this war on terror. And that's just the way it is.
____________________
POSITIVE ECONOMIC PREDICTIONS FOR 2006
(Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, yesterday, as he
delivered his first economic update to Congress, Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke from Dillon, South Carolina, reported that the
American economy performed impressively in 2005. While hailing
increases in payroll employment, gross domestic product and
productivity, he noted that our economy achieved significant gains,
overcoming incredible obstacles.
Chairman Bernanke also predicted that the economy will continue to
grow in 2006. His positive economic outlook equals more jobs for
American workers, more income for American families, and more
opportunities for American consumers.
Today, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting permanent tax
cuts that will ensure economic expansion throughout our country.
President Bush's tax cuts started this strong wave of economic growth,
creating 5 million jobs. We must remain committed to continuing this
important policy.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
WOMEN'S NATIONAL HEART MONTH
(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize February as
National Heart Month. Heart disease is the number one killer of women
in America, taking the lives of nearly half a million women per year,
about one per minute. It claims the lives of more women than the next
five causes of death combined.
Unfortunately, only 13 percent of women view heart disease as a real
threat. This is especially troubling, considering my home State of West
Virginia consistently has one of the highest rates of heart disease
among women in the Nation. We are making progress, but there is more to
be done.
Thankfully, the American Heart Association encourages women to love
their hearts through their Go Red For Women campaign. In the heart of
every woman is the power to take care of herself and influence the
decisions of those around her. By instilling healthy habits now, it
will impact the heart health of the entire family. The key is to
provide women with the necessary knowledge and tools so they can take
positive action to reduce their risks of heart disease and stroke in
their lives.
Women should learn more about heart disease and implement healthy
habits to avoid future risks. Sixty-four percent of women who died
suddenly of coronary heart disease had no previous symptoms. High blood
pressure, smoking, and cholesterol are all risk factors.
Today, make your promise to make your heart healthy. By loving your
own heart, you can save it. If women make a promise to be heart
healthy, together we can wipe out the disease.
____________________
JUDY McDONALD
(Mr. GOHMERT asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I come today to the floor of the House to
honor the achievements of one of my constituents in the First
Congressional District of Texas, Judy McDonald. Judy has been a model
citizen and someone who deserves to be honored because of the way she
has honored East Texas. Her lifetime of work has made our country, East
Texas, and Nacogdoches a better place to live.
As the first female mayor in Nacogdoches and one of the first female
mayors in Texas, Judy worked tirelessly to increase economic
opportunities and strengthen the local economy. She has been someone
who has never shied away from firsts. She was the first woman to serve
on the advisory board of what is now known as Texas Utilities and was
later the first woman from East Texas to be named to the Texas
Utilities governing board.
The reason she deserves the honor itself does not lie in the fact
that she is a woman, but in the beauty and generosity of her heart and
soul. Through all of her many endeavors and accomplishments, she
remains a wonderful wife to her husband, Archie, and a magnificent
mother to their two sons, Tucker and Christopher.
I am proud to say she is not only a great friend of East Texas, but
she is a friend of mine. Madam Speaker, with this one piece of advice
to anyone encountering Judy, if she is pushing a project, you have two
options: number one, get on board; or, number two, get run over.
____________________
SOCIAL SECURITY
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, in the President's budget he asks for a
few hundred million dollars over the next few years for the cost of
[[Page 1933]]
privatizing Social Security. When he was here at the State of the Union
address, he commented that Congress rejected his proposals to privatize
Social Security. All the Democrats to his surprise got up and cheered,
because we think it is a terrible idea to privatize Social Security
To do to Social Security what they are doing to the pension system,
eliminating private pensions and making people depend only on 401(k)s,
we think is a terrible idea. What the President telegraphed, by putting
in his budget the money to pay for the cost of privatizing Social
Security, is that if the Republicans retain control of Congress in this
election, they are going to try it again.
They will privatize Social Security if the Republicans control
Congress again next year. If anybody thinks that privatizing Social
Security is a bad idea, that we should not destroy Social Security, you
better vote Democratic this year.
____________________
{time} 1015
RESOLUTION OF CONDEMNATION REGARDING IRAN
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of
the House, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 341)
condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international
nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts
to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council, and ask for its
immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 341
Whereas Iran is a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at
Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968 (commonly
referred to as the ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty''),
under which Iran is obligated, pursuant to Article II of the
Treaty, ``not to receive the transfer from any transferor
whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices
directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices;
and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture
of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices'';
Whereas Iran signed the Agreement Between Iran and the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of
Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Vienna June 19,
1973 (commonly referred to as the ``Safeguards Agreement''),
which requires Iran to report the importation and use of
nuclear material, to declare nuclear facilities, and to
accept safeguards on nuclear materials and activities to
ensure that such materials and activities are not diverted to
any military purpose and are used for peaceful purposes and
activities;
Whereas the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
reported in November 2003 that Iran had been developing an
undeclared nuclear enrichment program for 18 years and had
covertly imported nuclear material and equipment, carried out
over 110 unreported experiments to produce uranium metal,
separated plutonium, and concealed many other aspects of its
nuclear facilities and activities;
Whereas the Government of Iran informed the Director
General of the IAEA on November 10, 2003, of its decision to
suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, and
stated that the suspension would cover all activities at the
Natanz enrichment facility, the production of all feed
material for enrichment, and the importation of any
enrichment-related items;
Whereas in a Note Verbale dated December 29, 2003, the
Government of Iran specified the scope of suspension of its
enrichment and reprocessing activities, which the IAEA was
invited to verify, including the suspension of the operation
or testing or any centrifuges, either with or without nuclear
material, at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz, the
suspension of further introduction of nuclear material into
any centrifuges, the suspension of the installation of new
centrifuges at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant and the
installation of centrifuges at the Fuel Enrichment Plant at
Natanz, and, to the extent practicable, the withdrawal of
nuclear material from any centrifuge enrichment facility;
Whereas on February 24, 2004, the Government of Iran
informed the IAEA of its decision to expand the scope and
clarify the nature of its decision to suspend to the furthest
extent possible the assembly and testing of centrifuges and
the domestic manufacture of centrifuge components, including
those related to existing contracts, informed the IAEA that
any components that are manufactured under existing contracts
that cannot be suspended will be stored and placed under IAEA
seal, invited the IAEA to verify these measures, and
confirmed that the suspension of enrichment activities
applied to all facilities in Iran;
Whereas the IAEA Board of Governors' resolution of March
13, 2004, which was adopted unanimously, noted with ``serious
concern that the declarations made by Iran in October 2003
did not amount to the complete and final picture of Iran's
past and present nuclear programme considered essential by
the Board's November 2003 resolution'', and also noted that
the IAEA has discovered that Iran had hidden more advanced
centrifuge associated research, manufacturing, and testing
activities, two mass spectrometers used in the laser
enrichment program, and designs for hot cells to handle
highly radioactive materials;
Whereas the same resolution also noted ``with equal concern
that Iran has not resolved all questions regarding the
development of its enrichment technology to its current
extent, and that a number of other questions remain
unresolved'';
Whereas in November 2004, the Governments of the United
Kingdom, France, and Germany entered into an agreement with
Iran on Iran's nuclear program (commonly referred to as the
``Paris Agreement''), securing a formal commitment from the
Government of Iran to voluntarily suspend uranium enrichment
operations in exchange for discussions on economic,
technological, political, and security issues;
Whereas on August 29, 2005, Iran's Atomic Energy
Organization announced it has mastered the technique of using
biotechnology to extract purer uranium, adding that this
method ``substantially decreases the cost . . . in the
process that leads to the production of yellowcake'', which
is a part of the early stages of the nuclear fuel cycle;
Whereas Article XII.C of the Statute of the IAEA requires
the IAEA Board of Governors to report the noncompliance of
any member of the IAEA with its IAEA safeguards obligations
to all members and to the Security Council and General
Assembly of the United Nations;
Whereas Article III.B-4 of the Statute of the IAEA
specifies that ``if in connection with the activities of the
Agency there should arise questions that are within the
competence of the Security Council, the Agency shall notify
the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and
security'';
Whereas on September 24, 2005, the IAEA Board of Governors
adopted a resolution finding that Iran's many failures and
breaches of its obligations to comply with the Safeguards
Agreement constitute noncompliance in the context of Article
XII.C of the Statute of the IAEA and that matters concerning
Iran's nuclear program have given rise to questions that are
within the competence of the Security Council as the organ
bearing the primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security;
Whereas President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad expressed, in
an October 26, 2005, speech, his hope for ``a world without
America'' and his desire ``to wipe Israel off the map'' and
has subsequently denied the existence of the Holocaust;
Whereas on January 3, 2006, the Government of Iran
announced that it planned to restart its nuclear research
efforts;
Whereas in January 2006, Iranian officials, in the presence
of IAEA inspectors, began to remove IAEA seals from the
enrichment facility in Natanz, Iran;
Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, ``[i]t
is obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its
international obligations, in fact, the IAEA Statute would
indicate that Iran would have to be referred to the U.N.
Security Council'';
Whereas President Ahmadinejad stated, ``The Iranian
government and nation has no fear of the Western ballyhoo and
will continue its nuclear programs with decisiveness and
wisdom.'';
Whereas the United States joined with the Governments of
Britain, France, and Germany in calling for a meeting of the
IAEA Board of Governors to discuss Iran's noncompliance with
its IAEA safeguards obligations;
Whereas on February 4, 2006, Resolution GOV/2006/14 of the
IAEA Board of Governors relayed an ``absence of confidence
that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful
purposes resulting from the history of concealment of Iran's
nuclear activities, the nature of those activities and other
issues arising from the Agency's verification of declarations
made by Iran since September 2002'';
Whereas Resolution GOV/2006/14 further expressed ``serious
concern that the Agency is not yet in a position to clarify
some important issues relating to Iran's nuclear programme,
including the fact that Iran has in its possession a document
on the production of uranium metal hemispheres, since, as
reported by the Secretariat, this process is related to the
fabrication of nuclear weapon components'';
[[Page 1934]]
Whereas on February 4, 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors
reported Iran's noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards
obligations to the Security Council;
Whereas Iran has, since February 4, 2006, taken additional
steps confirming its unwillingness to comply with its nuclear
nonproliferation obligations; and
Whereas Iran has been designated a state sponsor of
terrorism for over two decades and the Department of State
has declared in its most recent Country Reports on Terrorism
that Iran ``remained the most active state sponsor of
terrorism'': Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns in the strongest possible terms the many
breaches and failures of the Government of Iran to comply
faithfully with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations,
including its obligations under the Agreement Between Iran
and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the
Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on
the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Vienna
June 19, 1973 (commonly referred to as the ``Safeguards
Agreement''), as reported by the Director General of the IAEA
to the IAEA Board of Governors since 2003;
(2) commends the efforts of the Governments of France,
Germany, and the United Kingdom to seek a meaningful and
credible suspension of Iran's enrichment- and reprocessing-
related activities and to find a diplomatic means to address
the non-compliance of the Government of Iran with its
obligations, requirements, and commitments related to nuclear
nonproliferation;
(3) calls on all members of the United Nations Security
Council, in particular the Russian Federation and the
People's Republic of China, to expeditiously consider and
take action in response to the report of Iran's noncompliance
in fulfillment of the mandate of the Security Council to
respond to and deal with situations bearing on the
maintenance of international peace and security;
(4) declares that Iran, through its many breaches for
almost 20 years of its obligations under the Safeguards
Agreement, has forfeited the right to develop any aspect of a
nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion and
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology, equipment,
and facilities;
(5) calls on all responsible members of the international
community to impose economic sanctions designed to deny Iran
the ability to develop nuclear weapons; and
(6) urges the President to keep Congress fully and
currently informed concerning Iran's violation of its
international nuclear nonproliferation obligations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). Pursuant to the
order of the House of Wednesday, February 15, 2006, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in
opposition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Reserving the right to object, we understand that
the ranking member is on his way, and he seeks time on the bill.
Therefore, accordingly, I would object to that request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
General Leave
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 341, a
resolution that I had the pleasure of drafting with my good friends,
the distinguished chairman of the House International Relations
Committee, Henry Hyde, and our ranking member, Congressman Tom Lantos.
I want to express my appreciation to our leadership for recognizing
the importance for the House to be heard on this important issue and
for moving this resolution expeditiously to the floor today.
Madam Speaker, for at least two decades, the Iranian regime has been
pursuing a covert nuclear program using multiple approaches and
technology to achieve a nuclear status. It has undertaken a number of
efforts for the manufacture and testing of centrifuges, including at
facilities owned by military industrial organizations.
It has sought completion of a heavy water reactor that would be well
suited for plutonium production, while seeking uranium enrichment
through the use of lasers.
The Iran saga within the context of the International Atomic Energy
Agency began almost 4 years ago. Every step along the way, Iran has
demonstrated contempt for the request of the International Atomic
Energy Agency and has mocked the EU 3 nations composed of France, Great
Britain and Germany, as they provided incentives to convince Iran to
suspend its enrichment activities.
It is important to quickly summarize the sequence of events of the
last few years, Madam Speaker, in order to fully comprehend the need
for this resolution as a basis for stronger legislative action
regarding Iran.
In November of 2003, for example, the IAEA reported that Iran had
been developing an undeclared nuclear enrichment program for close to
two decades and had covertly imported nuclear material and equipment,
had carried out over 110 unreported experiments to produce uranium
metal, it had separated plutonium, and it had concealed many other
aspects of its nuclear facilities and activities.
That same month, Iran informed the International Atomic Energy Agency
of its decision to temporarily suspend enrichment-related and
reprocessing activities. It stated that the suspension would cover all
activities in the Natanz enrichment facility, the production of all
feed material for enrichment and the importation of any enrichment-
related items.
But that was not to be, Madam Speaker. Iran continuously
reinterpreted its commitment. By September of 2004, Iran announced that
it had resumed large-scale uranium conversion. The International Atomic
Energy Agency called on Iran to stop. Then Secretary of State Colin
Powell called for the Iran case to be referred to the United Nations
Security Council for sanctions to be imposed.
Faced with this possibility, Iran temporarily halts these activities
in those nuclear facilities known to the International Atomic Energy
Agency and the EU 3.
By April of 2005, Iran announces that it will resume uranium
conversion in the Isfahan facility. This was met with a warning from
the EU 3 that their negotiations on trade and economic incentives with
Iran would end if Iran acted on this threat.
In August of 2005, the new radical leader is installed as Iran's new
president. Immediately following, Iran proceeded to remove the
International Atomic Energy Agency seals on the uranium conversion
plant at Isfahan, announced that it could successfully use
biotechnology for its nuclear program, decreasing the cost for the
production of the feed material for nuclear weapons. It announced that
it would provide nuclear technology to other Islamic states. Iran's
defense minister said that it is Iran's absolute right to have access
to nuclear arms, and Iran's leader publicly stated his willingness to
share nuclear expertise with other Islamic nations.
The IAEA inspectors were finally allowed into the Parchin military
site. However, after all the time Iran was given to sanitize this site,
that is to hide, to remove all signs of their nuclear activities, even
IAEA inspectors and foreign diplomats acknowledged in news reports that
they did not expect the inspections to yield any firm results.
Experts further noted that there may be no nuclear material present
at Parchin if the Iranians did dry testing of nuclear bomb simulations.
Fast forward to Tuesday of this very week. Madam Speaker, on
Valentine's Day, 2006, the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization announced
it has restarted uranium enrichment efforts which could also be
developed for use in nuclear weapons.
[[Page 1935]]
In sum, referral of the Iran case to the U.N. Security Council has
been a long time coming. We are gratified that the International Atomic
Energy Agency Board of Governors earlier this month voted to report the
Iran case to the Security Council, but it should not stop there, Madam
Speaker.
H. Con. Res. 341 therefore calls on all members of the U.N. Security
Council to immediately consider the report and take the necessary steps
to address Iran's behavior. The resolution frames the debate by
condemning in the strongest possible terms the Iranian regime's
repeated violations of its international obligations.
More importantly, it underscores that, as a result of these
violations, Iran no longer has the right to develop any aspect of a
nuclear fuel cycle.
As President Bush stated on February 11, 2004, proliferators must not
be allowed to cynically manipulate the NPT to acquire the material and
the infrastructure necessary for manufacturing illegal weapons.
H. Con. Res. 341 reiterates previous U.S. calls to responsible
members of the international community to impose economic sanctions to
deny Iran the resources and the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
But the grave threat posed by Iran is not limited to its nuclear
pursuit. H. Con. Res. 341 therefore refers to Iran's support for
Islamic jihadist activities worldwide.
Madam Speaker, it includes language highlighting that Iran has been
designated as a state sponsor of terrorism for over two decades and,
according to our own State Department reports on global terrorism, it
remains the most active state sponsor of terrorism worldwide.
Madam Speaker, too much time has already passed. Let us not waste
anymore. Let us begin by adopting this resolution and send a strong
message to the Iranian regime and other potential proliferators that
this behavior will not be tolerated.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of this resolution. Madam Speaker, unless
the international community acts quickly and decisively, the world's
chief terrorist state may soon possess the greatest weapon of terror
ever created.
A critical first step was taken on February 2 at an emergency session
of the member states of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board
of Governors. By a vote of 27-3 they reported Iran's history of
deception, lies and noncompliance to the United Nations Security
Council.
The ayatollahs of terror in Tehran were sent a bold and unambiguous
message that their clandestine efforts to build nuclear weapons and
their transparent lies of peaceful intent will no longer be tolerated
by the civilized world.
Madam Speaker, Tehran sponsors terrorism as an official state policy.
I wish to repeat this. Tehran sponsors terrorism as official state
policy.
I ask my colleagues to imagine this terrorist state armed with
nuclear weapons and in possession of large amounts of nuclear weapons
material. Even if it did not put these destructive materials up for
sale, a nuclear armed Iran would terrorize and destabilize the entire
Middle East. Terrorist-in-chief Ahmadinejad himself advocates wiping
Israel from the map.
Madam Speaker, Iran has flouted every nuclear safeguard agreement and
reneged on every single commitment it has made. The International
Atomic Energy Agency has documented that Iran acquired designs,
equipment and facilities to produce nuclear weapons grade uranium and
plutonium from the same nuclear black market that used to supply Libya.
Iran experimented with trigger material for a nuclear bomb. There is
every reason to believe that Tehran has acquired actual bomb
blueprints, as Libya used to do.
Iran has also reneged on its remaining empty assurances to negotiate
in good faith with Britain, France and Germany by breaking the
international seals on its uranium enrichment facility.
Ahmadinejad, in a rare moment of lucidity, revealed Tehran's view of
the relative balance of power in these negotiations; and I quote, ``the
West needs us more than we need them.''
With billions of dollars of existing western investment in Iran's oil
and gas fields, Tehran's ruling elite has shrewdly calculated that the
West will not impose far-reaching and meaningful sanctions against Iran
over the nuclear issue.
Madam Speaker, we must change Tehran's calculations, hopefully by
diplomacy and pressure but with international sanctions if necessary.
The United Nations Security Council should require all members of the
U.N. to reject any and all investment and nonhumanitarian trade with
Iran until Tehran verifiably gives up its nuclear fuel and weapon
material production capabilities.
{time} 1030
But, Madam Speaker, we cannot wait for the Security Council to act.
Responsible European and Asian governments must immediately ensure that
their companies, banks, and other financial organizations will suspend
and terminate their existing investments in Iraq.
Some banks and oil companies are already leaving Iran over just the
possibility of sanctions. Those that remain must be given immediate
incentives by the international community to stop business as usual
with a developing nuclear weapon terrorist state. As part of this, the
United States must finally use the sanctions authority in U.S. law to
punish and deter those who continue to invest in and thereby aid and
abet a state bent on adding nuclear weapons to its arsenal of terror.
Madam Speaker, this is the first resolution of the year regarding
Iran. I guarantee you it will not be the last one. We must reauthorize
the Iran Sanctions Act, which will be accomplished through the Iran
Freedom Support Act, a bill offered by my good friend, the gentlewoman
from Florida, and myself.
Madam Speaker, our allies in Europe have learned a hard lesson:
playing nice with a terrorist regime gets you nothing. Now that the
Europeans are with us in demanding Security Council action, it is
imperative that they take the next step by imposing a comprehensive
sanctions regime against Tehran.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the
gentlewoman from Florida for allowing me to speak on this resolution,
and also let me thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and
completely associate myself with the remarks that he just made. I think
he is right on target.
Madam Speaker, the passage of yesterday's resolution on the
Palestinian Authority once again expressed our position against funding
an ideology of terror in hope of maintaining the peace process in the
Middle East. Today's resolution has a more direct message with the
prospect, hopefully, of addressing the entire world.
In our current struggle against terrorism, no country is more
uncertain and dangerous than Iran. With an uncompromising foreign
policy and repressed trade, it often feels like the only commodity that
Iran exports involves disdain for Western culture. It is indeed
disheartening to see a nation of good people commandeered by an
individual with nuclear aspirations. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran must
not be allowed to carry out threats against Israel, the United States,
or any other peaceful nation. Nuclear weapons and the ideology of
Wahabism are a dangerous combination, and they must be prevented.
So, Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution. I
commend the gentlewoman from Florida and the gentleman from California
for bringing it forward. I believe it is time for the United Nations
Security
[[Page 1936]]
Council to take action against nuclear proliferation in Iran, and I ask
the leaders of Iran to reconsider the path that they have chosen.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member
of our Armed Services Committee.
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
allowing me to make comments on this, and I compliment the gentlewoman
from Florida for her leadership in this regard as well.
I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 341. This condemns Iran for
violating its nonproliferation agreements and expresses support for
efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
Thank you, Mr. Lantos, for the opportunity to briefly address House
Concurrent Resolution 341 on the Iranian nuclear situation. I think it
is deadly serious.
Madam Speaker, the situation in Iran is a critical matter that
demands serious attention and serious action from this administration
as well as from Congress. It threatens the security of our Nation, the
future of the nonproliferation regime and stability in the Middle East.
International support for referring Iran to the United Nations
Security Council is very encouraging, but it is not enough to address
the complexity of the nuclear situation or broader longer-term problems
posed by Iran, including its involvement in Iraq, which evidently is
quite substantial.
Direct American leadership is long overdue. There must be a
comprehensive interagency effort to develop and implement the necessary
plan, and Congress must do its part. This must be a top bipartisan
priority. And yet while the U.S. must act expeditiously, it must also
act effectively. We must sufficiently consider all tools at our
disposal, and we must take care not to inadvertently make matters worse
by our rhetoric or by our actions.
For example, we should consider ``smart sanctions'' that would target
Iran's leadership, avoid harming the Iranian population and have strong
international support.
There are no easy answers or simple solutions; but as I have
emphasized numerous times now, there are many tools at our disposal,
many more than this administration has used to date. I am committed to
doing whatever I can to effectively address the problems posed by Iran,
and I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul), a member of the International Relations
Committee.
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise to express a note of caution regarding this resolution. I see
this resolution somewhat like some of the resolutions that we debated
and passed prior to our commitment to go into Iraq. As a matter of
fact, some of the language is very similar. If you substitute the word
``Iraq'' for ``Iran,'' you would find out that these concerns are very
similar.
I do not quite have the concern that others have expressed that Iran
is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. They have never been found
in violation. There has been a lot of talk and a lot of accusation, but
technically they have never been found in any violation.
My concern for this type of language and these plans is that nothing
ever changes. This is the type of thing that occurred before. Of
course, we went into Iraq, and yet today the success in Iraq is very
questionable. Fifty-five percent of the American people say it was a
mistake to have gone into Iraq. Only forty percent of the people
support staying in Iraq. Attitudes have shifted now since the success
in Iraq has been so poor.
We went into Afghanistan to look for Osama bin Laden, and we sort of
got distracted. We have forgotten about him just about completely.
Instead we went into Iraq. Though the Iraq war is not going well, all
of a sudden we are looking to take on another burden, another military
mission. I find some things in the resolution that are very
confrontational because it invokes sanctions. People say, well,
sanctions are not that bad. That is no shooting or killing. But
sanctions and boycotts and embargoes, these are acts of war. And, of
course, many times our administration has expressed the sentiment that
if necessary we are going to use force against Iran; we are going to
start bombing. And why do we follow this policy? Especially since it
literally helps the radicals in Iran. This mobilizes them. There is an
undercurrent in Iran that is sympathetic to America, and yet this
brings the radicals together by this type of language and threats.
There is no doubt that our policy helps the hard-liners.
There has been no talk, it has been implied, but there has been no
serious talk that Iran is a threat to our national security. There is
no way. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they are not going to be a
threat to our national security. Pakistan, that is not a democratic
nation. It happens to be a military dictatorship. They have nuclear
weapons. India has nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the nuclear
weapons serve as a balance of power between two countries. The Soviets,
had 30,000 nuclear weapons, and we followed a policy of containment. We
did not say we have to go into the Soviet Union and bomb their
establishment. No. Finally that problem dissipated. And yet we create
unnecessary problems for ourselves. We go looking for trouble, and I
see this as very detrimental for what we are doing with this
resolution.
There is one portion of the resolution that concerns me about our
urging the Russians and China to take a firm stand, and that has to do
with the resolved clause No. 3; it says to the people of Russia and
China to ``expeditiously consider and take action in response to any
report of Iran's noncompliance'' in fulfillment of the mandate of the
Security Council to respond and deal with situations . . .
Any report? I mean, some report in the newspaper? Is it an IAEA
report? Or whatever. That is so open-ended that this is a risky, risky
resolution.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, let me just indicate to my friend from
Texas that he has now discovered the ultimate oxymoron, a benign
Islamic fanaticism hell bent on developing weapons of mass destruction.
This takes the concept of oxymoron to a new height.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, the international community, not just
America, is being challenged again by a dangerous, deceptive lawbreaker
whose defiant pursuit of nuclear weapons threaten America's national
security interests as well as international peace and security. Now,
this is an obligation that the Iranians undertook freely and
voluntarily. It was not imposed upon them.
I believe that this grave and gathering danger commands the
collective attention, effort, and action of the entire international
community. This time the nations of the world which are committed to
peace, security, and the rule of law must embrace their
responsibilities, not flinch from them, as, unfortunately, has been too
often the case.
Through this resolution today, the House speaks with one voice in
condemning in the strongest possible terms the many breaches and
failures of the government of Iran to comply with its nuclear
nonproliferation obligations. In this resolution, we call on all
responsible members of the international community to impose economic
sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons
and to encourage its people to get the government to change its
dangerous and reckless policies.
{time} 1045
We urge the members of the United Nations Security Council to take
action in response to Iran's noncompliance with its international
obligations.
Let no one harbor any illusions: The government of Iran, which is
recognized as a state sponsor of terrorism,
[[Page 1937]]
believes it can exploit international irresolution, and it will prey
on vacillation. The international community must stand as one against
this lawbreaker, whose record leaves no doubt of its motivations.
Iran failed to properly disclose the existence of a fuel enrichment
plant and facility at Natanz until both were revealed by opposition
groups. It has failed to meet its obligations under its safeguard
agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency to report all
nuclear material it has imported. It confirmed that it had conducted
research on uranium conversion processes, but only after it denied
doing so. On February 4, in response to a 27-3 vote by the
International Atomic Energy Agency board to report Iran to the Security
Council, Iran ended voluntary cooperation with the agency and announced
it would start large-scale enrichment activities.
I suggest to us and to our international allies that standing silent,
standing back, standing without action, is not an option. It goes
without saying that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons constitutes a
threat to the national security interests of the United States of
America. Let me remind all of us, the gentleman from Texas indicated
that they were not a threat to us. There are 250,000 Americans as we
debate this resolution right now in range of Iranian weapons, so it is
not just those who live in the Middle East who are put at risk, it is
those of us who are there, and the security of the international
community is put at risk.
Our concerns are only heightened by the inflammatory, irresponsible
statements of the Iranian president, who has stated his hope for ``a
world without America.'' That is the nation that stands on the doorstep
of becoming a nuclear power. He has further stated his desire to ``wipe
Israel off the map.'' The United States will not stand still for that.
A regime that has the objective to have nuclear weapons will make the
Middle East more dangerous in an extraordinary geometric way.
Madam Speaker, when the Security Council considers Iran's flagrant
and deceptive abuse in March, I urge it to act as one. Today, I urge us
to act as one in sending a very clear, very clear, unmistakable
message: This will not stand.
Mr. LANTOS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good
friend from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank my friend and indicate that I rise in
opposition.
This rhetoric that we are hearing on the House floor from people who
I have to say I do respect greatly is eerily reminiscent of the debate
in this House prior to the United States authorizing an attack on Iraq.
I think we can look back today and say that the U.S. rushed into war
against Iraq, only to find that there were no weapons of mass
destruction.
Madam Speaker, I will include for the Record an article from the
Washington Post dated August 2, 2005, which says, ``A major U.S.
intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from
manufacturing the key ingredients for nuclear weapons, roughly doubling
the previous estimate of 5 years.'' It goes on to say that ``this
carefully hedged assessment, which represents consensus among U.S.
intelligence agencies, contrasts with forceful public statements by the
White House. Administration officials have asserted but have not
offered proof that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear
arsenal.''
I also include for the record the remarks of Angela Merkel, who is
the leader of Germany, who says that we have not used all of our
available windows of opportunity. She saw an opportunity for a
negotiated settlement. As a matter of fact, in this news dispatch out
of Berlin from yesterday, the German chancellor says there are real
chances for a diplomatic deal to defuse the ongoing crisis over Iran's
nuclear program.
Madam Speaker, I include for the record a news report out of Moscow
and Tehran of yesterday which says that Iran and Russia will hold talks
on Monday on a Russian offer to conduct uranium enrichment for Iran in
the Russian territory. This would avert what is a building crisis.
Madam Speaker, I include for the record an analysis that was done of
the joint resolution on Iraq, this was done by myself, that pointed out
the flaws in a resolution that was presented to this House. This is an
analysis from October 2, 2002, that relates to analyzing the Iraq
resolution. I think this would be very valuable when you compare it
side by side with the resolution that we have now.
Madam Speaker, I want to call to the Members' attention the same
article that Mr. Paul called to Members' attention, section 3 of the
enactment clause, which calls on members of the United Nations Security
Council, particularly the Russian Federation and the People's Republic
of China, to expeditiously consider and take action in response to the
report of Iran's noncompliance. This is in response to a report of
Iran's noncompliance and fulfillment of the mandate of the Security
Council to respond and deal with situations bearing on the maintenance
of international peace and security.
The importance of this point and this amendment is that this point
undermines and sets aside the only possibility for a peaceful
resolution of this crisis, namely the offer by Russia to enrich uranium
for Iran to use in its nuclear power plants. Iran would not operate any
enrichment processing facilities of its own, so we have an opportunity
to put aside this crisis if we see what is developing now. This
resolution, unfortunately, would scuttle the Russian-led negotiated
settlement. I ask Members to consider that this resolution would put us
on the threshold of war.
Now, I stand with Mr. Lantos in defense of the right of Israel to
survive. I voted for legislation yesterday that challenges any nation
that would call for the destruction of Israel, and we should do that.
But we don't have to go to war against Iran or to set the stage for a
war against Iran when we have diplomatic means of resolving this. We
should continue to pursue diplomacy.
Madam Speaker, I include the articles referred to earlier for the
Record.
[From washingtonpost.com, Aug. 2, 2005]
Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb
(By Dafna Linzer)
A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is
about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for
a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of
five years, according to government sources with firsthand
knowledge of the new analysis.
The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus
among US. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful
public statements by the White House. Administration
officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that
Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The
new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran
over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he
wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that ``all
options are on the table.''
The new National Intelligence Estimate includes what the
intelligence community views as credible indicators that
Iran's military is conducting clandestine work. But the
sources said there is no information linking those projects
directly to a nuclear weapons program. What is clear is that
Iran, mostly through its energy program, is acquiring and
mastering technologies that could be diverted to bombmaking.
The estimate expresses uncertainty about whether Iran's
ruling clerics have made a decision to build a nuclear
arsenal, three U.S. sources said. Still, a senior
intelligence official familiar with the findings said that
``it is the judgment of the intelligence community that, left
to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear
weapons.''
At no time in the past three years has the White House
attributed its assertions about Iran to U.S. intelligence, as
it did about Iraq in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion.
Instead, it has pointed to years of Iranian concealment and
questioned why a country with as much oil as Iran would
require a large-scale nuclear energy program.
The NIE addresses those assertions and offers alternative
views supporting and challenging the assumptions they are
based on. Those familiar with the new judgments, which have
not been previously detailed, would discuss only limited
elements of the estimate and only on the condition of
anonymity, because the report is classified, as is some of
the evidence on which it is based.
Top policymakers are scrutinizing the review, several
administration officials said, as the White House formulates
the next steps of an Iran policy long riven by infighting and
[[Page 1938]]
competing strategies. For three years, the administration has
tried, with limited success, to increase pressure on Iran by
focusing attention on its nuclear program. Those efforts have
been driven as much by international diplomacy as by the
intelligence.
The NIE, ordered by the National Intelligence Council in
January, is the first major review since 2001 of what is
known and what is unknown about Iran. Additional assessments
produced during Bush's first term were narrow in scope, and
some were rejected by advocates of policies that were
inconsistent with the intelligence judgments.
One such paper was a 2002 review that former and current
officials said was commissioned by national security adviser
Stephen J. Hadley, who was then deputy adviser, to assess the
possibility for ``regime change'' in Iran. Those findings
described the Islamic republic on a slow march toward
democracy and cautioned against U.S. interference in that
process, said the officials, who would describe the paper's
classified findings only on the condition of anonymity.
The new estimate takes a broader approach to the question
of Iran's political future. But it is unable to answer
whether the country's ruling clerics will still be in control
by the time the country is capable of producing fissile
material. The administration keeps ``hoping the mullahs will
leave before Iran gets a nuclear weapons capability,'' said
an official familiar with policy discussions.
Intelligence estimates are designed to alert the president
of national security developments and help guide policy. The
new Iran findings were described as well documented and well
written, covering such topics as military capabilities,
expected population growth and the oil industry. The
assessments of Iran's nuclear program appear in a separate
annex to the NIE known as a memorandum to holders.
``It's a full look at what we know, what we don't know and
what assumptions we have,'' a U.S. source said.
Until recently, Iran was judged, according to February
testimony by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency, to be within five years of the
capability to make a nuclear weapon. Since 1995, U.S.
officials have continually estimated Iran to be ``within five
years'' from reaching that same capability. So far, it has
not.
The new estimate extends the timeline, judging that Iran
will be unlikely to produce a sufficient quantity of highly
enriched uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic weapon,
before ``early to mid-next decade,'' according to four
sources familiar with that finding. The sources said the
shift, based on a better understanding of Iran's technical
limitations, puts the timeline closer to 2015 and in line
with recently revised British and Israeli figures.
The estimate is for acquisition of fissile material, but
there is no firm view expressed on whether Iran would be
ready by then with an implosion device, sources said.
The time line is portrayed as a minimum designed to reflect
a program moving full speed ahead without major technical
obstacles. It does not take into account that Iran has
suspended much of its uranium-enrichment work as part of a
tenuous deal with Britain, France and Germany. Iran announced
yesterday that it intends to resume some of that work if the
European talks fall short of expectations.
Sources said the new timeline also reflects a fading of
suspicions that Iran's military has been running its own
separate and covert enrichment effort. But there is evidence
of clandestine military work on missiles and centrifuge
research and development that could be linked to a nuclear
program, four sources said.
Last month, U.S. officials shared some data on the missile
program with U.N. nuclear inspectors, based on drawings
obtained last November. The documents include design
modifications for Iran's Shahab-3 missile to make the room
required for a nuclear warhead, U.S. and foreign officials
said.
``If someone has a good idea for a missile program, and he
has really good connections, he'll get that program
through,'' said Gordon Oehler, who ran the CIA's
nonproliferation center and served as deputy director of the
presidential commission on weapons of mass destruction. ``But
that doesn't mean there is a master plan for a nuclear
weapon.''
The commission found earlier this year that U.S.
intelligence knows ``disturbingly little'' about Iran, and
about North Korea.
Much of what is known about Tehran has been learned through
analyzing communication intercepts, satellite imagery and the
work of U.N. inspectors who have been investigating Iran for
more than two years. Inspectors uncovered facilities for
uranium conversion and enrichment, results of plutonium
tests, and equipment bought illicitly from Pakistan--all of
which raised serious concerns but could be explained by an
energy program. Inspectors have found no proof that Iran
possesses a nuclear warhead design or is conducting a nuclear
weapons program.
The NIE comes more than two years after the intelligence
community assessed, wrongly, in an October 2002 estimate that
then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction and was reconstituting his nuclear program. The
judgments were declassified and made public by the Bush
administration as it sought to build support for invading
Iraq five months later.
At a congressional hearing last Thursday, Gen. Michael V.
Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, said that
new rules recently were imposed for crafting NIBs and that
there would be ``a higher tolerance for ambiguity,'' even if
it meant producing estimates with less definitive
conclusions.
The Iran NIE, sources said, includes creative analysis and
alternative theories that could explain some of the
suspicious activities discovered in Iran in the past three
years. Iran has said its nuclear infrastructure was built for
energy production, not weapons.
Assessed as plausible, but unverifiable, is Iran's public
explanation that it built the program in secret, over 18
years, because it feared attack by the United States or
Israel if the work was exposed.
In January, before the review, Vice President Cheney
suggested Iranian nuclear advances were so pressing that
Israel may be forced to attack facilities, as it had done 23
years earlier in Iraq.
In an April 2004 speech, John R. Bolton--then the
administration's point man on weapons of mass destruction and
now Bush's temporarily appointed U.N. ambassador--said: ``If
we permit Iran's deception to go on much longer, it will be
too late. Iran will have nuclear weapons.''
But the level of certainty, influenced by diplomacy and
intelligence, appears to have shifted.
Asked in June, after the NIE was done, whether Iran had a
nuclear effort underway, Bolton's successor, Robert G.
Joseph, undersecretary of state for arms control, said: ``I
don't know quite how to answer that because we don't have
perfect information or perfect understanding. But the Iranian
records what the Iranian leaders have said . . . lead us to
conclude that we have to be highly skeptical.''
____
[From Expatica.com, Feb. 15, 2006]
Iranian Nuclear Deal Is Still Possible: Merkel
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday she still
saw real chances for a diplomatic deal to defuse the ongoing
crisis over Iran's nuclear programme.
``We still have not used all our available window of
opportunity,'' Merkel said in a Stern magazine interview,
adding that she saw ``real chances for a negotiated
solution.''
Merkel said Iran had to recognize that its decision to
resume uranium enrichment and to cut inspection rights for
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors had left
Tehran isolated.
Germany, France and Britain--the EU-3--led talks over the
past few years aimed at reaching a deal exchanging aid and
trade for cut-backs in Iran's nuclear research which the US
and many European countries believe is aimed at nuclear
weapons.
But last month the EU-3 declared negotiations had reached a
``dead end'' and referred Iran to the IAEA which voted to
send Tehran to the UN Security Council.
Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful
purposes.
____
[The Indian Express, Feb. 16, 2006]
Uranium Enrichment: Iran, Russia Talks on Monday
Iran and Russia will hold talks on Monday on a Russian
offer to conduct uranium enrichment for Iran on Russian
territory. ``The Iran side has provided official notification
on their arrival . . ,'' Interfax reported.
The confirmation from Iran comes a day after Iranian
parliament speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel had called for
Venezuela to join his country in forming an alliance to
counter threats from the world's nuclear powers during his
visit to that country. He had accused the US of attacking
Iran's nuclear programme in order to undermine Iran's
independence.
Haddad Adel, part of the Iranian delegation, had thanked
President Hugo Chavez's government for its ``favorable
position'' towards Iran, especially its support on the
International Atomic Energy Agency board earlier this month,
when Venezuela voted against referring Iran to the UN
Security Council.
Asked by reporters if Iran would accept Moscow's proposal
to enrich uranium on Russian soil, Haddad Adel had said: ``If
that means we are deprived from peaceful use of nuclear
energy . . . we could study the Russian proposal.''
Haddad Adel had also denied his country had flouted
international rules by resuming small-scale uranium
enrichment activities at Natanz, the country's main
enrichment plant. ``All we've done is reinitiate nuclear
energy research at the laboratory level. We have not said
anything new or committed any crime.''
Iran's economy minister, meanwhile, warned that oil prices
could rise to unexpected levels if the Islamic republic was
subjected to sanctions over its disputed nuclear programme.
``Any sanctions in the current situation would be more
detrimental for the West than for Iran,'' Davoud Danesh-
Jaafari was quoted
[[Page 1939]]
as saying by the state TV. ``Iran is in a very important
regional situation, and any disturbance of the economic and
political situation of the country could turn the regional
situation into a crisis and increase price of oil higher than
what the West expects,'' he said.
``Iran has a high economic capacity, and by relying on its
experience during the war (with Iraq from 1980-88) is ready
to face any problem,'' he added.
____
Analysis of Joint Resolution on Iraq by Dennis J. Kucinich
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression
against an illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States
forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its
people in order to defend the national security of the United
States and enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions relating to Iraq;
Key issue: In the Persian Gulf war there was an
international coalition. World support was for protecting
Kuwait. There is no world support for invading Iraq.
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq
entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement
pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other
things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical
weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them,
and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors,
United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led
to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical
weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and
that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program
that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than
intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Key issue: UN inspection teams identified and destroyed
nearly all such weapons. A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said
that he believes that nearly all other weapons not found were
destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, according to a
published report in the Washington Post, the Central
Intelligence Agency has no up to date accurate report on
Iraq's WMD capabilities.
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the
cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons
inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which
finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on
October 31, 1998;
Key issues: Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors
always figured out what Iraq was doing. It was the United
States that withdrew from the inspections in 1998. And the
United States then launched a cruise missile attack against
Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. In advance of a
military strike, the U.S. continues to thwart (the
Administration's word) weapons inspections.
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing
weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United
States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to
take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution
and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into
compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law
105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national
security of the United States and international peace and
security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material
and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by,
among other things, continuing to possess and develop a
significant chemical and biological weapons capability,
actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting
and harboring terrorist organizations;
Key issues: There is no proof that Iraq represents an
imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A
``continuing'' threat does not constitute a sufficient cause
for war. The Administration has refused to provide the
Congress with credible intelligence that proves that Iraq is
a serious threat to the United States and is continuing to
possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear
weapons. Furthermore there is no credible intelligence
connecting Iraq to Al Qaida and 9/11.
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in
brutal repression of its civilian population thereby
threatening international peace and security in the region,
by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi
citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American
serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully
seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Key issue: This language is so broad that it would allow
the President to order an attack against Iraq even when there
is no material threat to the United States. Since this
resolution authorizes the use of force for all Iraq related
violations of the UN Security Council directives, and since
the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-Iraqi
prisoners, this resolution would authorize the President to
attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwait citizens who may or
may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with
all requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction.
Though in 2002 at the Arab Summit, Iraq and Kuwait agreed to
bilateral negotiations to work out all claims relating to
stolen property and prisoners of war. This use-of-force
resolution enables the President to commit U.S. troops to
recover Kuwaiti property.
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction
against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its
continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the
United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate
former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of
occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged
in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council;
Key Issue: The Iraqi regime has never attacked nor does it
have the capability to attack the United States. The ``no
fly'' zone was not the result of a UN Security Council
directive. It was illegally imposed by the United States,
Great Britain and France and is not specifically sanctioned
by any Security Council resolution.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing
responsibility for attacks on the United States, its
citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred
on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Key Issue: There is no credible intelligence that connects
Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to participation in those
events by assisting Al Qaida.
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other
international terrorist organizations, including
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American
citizens;
Key Issue: Any connection between Iraq support of terrorist
groups in Middle East, is an argument for focusing great
resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and the
Palestinians. It is not sufficient reason for the U.S. to
launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq.
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,
2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the
acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international
terrorist organizations;
Key Issue: There is no connection between Iraq and the
events of 9/11.
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to
use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current
Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a
surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces
or provide them to international terrorists who would do so,
and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the
United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine
to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Key Issue: There is no credible evidence that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq has
successfully concealed the production of such weapons since
1998, there is no credible evidence that Iraq has the
capability to reach the United States with such weapons. In
the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of
biological and chemical weapons, but did not have the
willingness to use them against the United States Armed
Forces. Congress has not been provided with any credible
information, which proves that Iraq has provided
international terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent
relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain
activities that threaten international peace and security,
including the development of weapons of mass destruction and
refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
687, repression of its civilian population in violation of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and
threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in
Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 949;
Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,
including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN
resolutions.
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has
authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces
pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678
(1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council
Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674,
and 677'';
Key Issue: The UN Charter forbids all member nations,
including the United States, from unilaterally enforcing UN
resolutions with military force.
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that
it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as
being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that
Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United
Nations Security Council Resolution
[[Page 1940]]
688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and
that Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to
achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688'';
Key Issue: This clause demonstrates the proper chronology
of the international process, and contrasts the current march
to war. In 1991, the UN Security Council passed a resolution
asking for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries
authorized their troops to participate in a UN-led coalition
to enforce the UN resolutions. Now the President is asking
Congress to authorize a unilateral first strike before the UN
Security Council has asked its member states to enforce UN
resolutions.
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338)
expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy
of the United States to support efforts to remove from power
the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a
democratic government to replace that regime;
Key Issue: This ``Sense of Congress'' resolution was not
binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported democratic
means of removing Saddam Hussein it clearly did not endorse
the use of force contemplated in this resolution, nor did it
endorse assassination as a policy.
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the
United States to ``work with the United Nations Security
Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to
``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making
clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be
enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be
met, or action will be unavoidable'';
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the
war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international
terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of
mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under
the 1991 ceasefire and other United Nations Security Council
resolutions make clear that it is in the national security
interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war
on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of
force if necessary;
Key Issue: Unilateral action against Iraq will cost the
United States the support of the world community, adversely
affecting the war on terrorism. No credible intelligence
exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to those
terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. Under international law, the
United States does not have the authority to unilaterally
order military action to enforce UN Security Council
resolutions.
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the
war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and
funding requested by the President to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or
harbored such persons or organizations;
Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress
with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the
events of 9/11.
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to
continue to take all appropriate actions against
international terrorists and terrorist organizations,
including those nations, organizations or persons who
planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks
that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons
or organizations;
Key Issue: The Administration has not provided Congress
with any proof that Iraq is in any way connected to the
events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence
that Iraq has harbored those who were responsible for
planning, authorizing or committing the attacks of 9/11.
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution
to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of
international terrorism against the United States, as
Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Key Issue: This resolution was specific to 9/11. It was
limited to a response to 9/11.
Whereas it is in the national security interests of the
United States to restore international peace and security to
the Persian Gulf region;
Key Issue: If by the ``national security interests'' of the
United States, the Administration means oil, it ought to
communicate such to the Congress. A unilateral attack on Iraq
by the United States will cause instability and chaos in the
region and sow the seeds of future conflicts all over the
world.
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization
for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable
to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
Key Issue: Congress can and should support this clause.
However Section 3 (which follows) undermines the
effectiveness of this section. Any peaceful settlement
requires Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution
indicates the Administration will wage war against Iraq no
matter what. This undermines negotiations.
Sec. 3. Authorization for Use of United States Armed
Forces.
Authorization. The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Key Issue: This clause is substantially similar to the
authorization that the President originally sought.
It gives authority to the President to act prior to and
even without a UN resolution, and it authorizes the President
to use U.S. troops to enforce UN resolutions even without UN
request for it. This is a violation of Chapter VII of the UN
Charter, which reserves the ability to authorize force for
that purpose to the Security Council, alone.
Under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
``The Security Council shall determine the existence of any
threat to the peace . . . and shall make recommendations to
maintain or restore international peace and security.''
(Article 39). Only the Security Council can decide that
military force would be necessary, ``The Security Council may
decide what measures . . . are to be employed to give effect
to its decisions (Article 41) . . . [and] it may take such
action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to
maintain or restore international peace and security.''
(Article 43). Furthermore, the resolution authorizes use of
force illegally, since the UN Security Council has not
requested it. According to the UN Charter, members of the UN,
such as the U.S., are required to ``make available to the
Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a
special agreement or agreements, armed forces. . .'' (Article
43, emphasis added). The UN Security Council has not called
upon its members to use military force against Iraq at the
current time.
Furthermore, changes to the language of the previous use-
of-force resolution, drafted by the White House and objected
to by many members of Congress, are cosmetic:
In section (1), the word ``continuing'' was added to ``the
threat posed by Iraq''.
In section (2), the word ``relevant'' is added to ``United
Nations Security Council Resolutions'' and the words
``regarding Iraq'' were added to the end.
While these changes are represented as a compromise or a
new material development, the effects of this resolution are
largely the same as the previous White House proposal.
The UN resolutions, which could be cited by the President
to justify sending U.S. troops to Iraq, go far beyond
addressing weapons of mass destruction. These could include,
at the President's discretion, such ``relevant'' resolutions
``regarding Iraq'' including resolutions to enforce human
rights and the recovery of Kuwaiti property.
Presidential Determination.--
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in
subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to
such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but
no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and
the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination
that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to
lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with
the United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed
or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.
[[Page 1941]]
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days,
submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this
joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of
planning for efforts that are expected to be required after
such actions are completed, including those actions described
in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act
of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report
described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of
any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to
the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War
Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a
single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section
3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by
this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to refute some of the statements that have been made against
the resolution.
Madam Speaker, H. Con. Res. 341 clearly outlines the Iran threat, not
just as assessed by the United States, not just as assessed by the
Europeans, but by the International Atomic Energy Agency. After dealing
with the Iran case for over 3 years, it reaffirms the position of the
United States, of the U.S. Congress, as articulated through the passage
of previous measures, that Iran has forfeited any right for any access
to nuclear technology or materials.
In response to previous statements regarding this resolution and
sanctions, stating that it would isolate the Iranian people, on the
contrary, Madam Speaker, sanctions would empower the Iranian people
because it would weaken this regime.
More importantly, due to the Iran economy's vulnerabilities, the
sanctions and the denial of billions of dollars of oil investments
would deny the regime in Tehran the funds that they need to carry out
this nuclear program and to continue with its extremist terrorist
activities.
In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that in the summer
of 2001 Iran's ayatollah expressed Iran's commitment to bring America
to its knees. Those were his statements. He added that ``the giant will
fall,'' the giant being the United States of America.
Combine this with what the director of the National Intelligence
Agency, John Negroponte, said in his recent testimony. He said, while
the assessment of when Iran would go nuclear is about 5 to 10 years
from now, he also expressed grave concerns that we did not really know
the extent of Iran's nuclear activities. He said that Iran's 20-year
pursuit of a covert program means that we cannot truly confirm any
specific timeframe.
Mr. Negroponte also said that Iran's missile program, with a nuclear
capability, posed a serious concern for our U.S. security interests.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Royce).
Mr. ROYCE. I thank the chairwoman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. This resolution
rightfully condemns Iranian noncompliance with its nonproliferation
obligations and calls upon the U.N. Security Council to expeditiously
consider this matter.
Madam Speaker, this is a grave matter, one deserving of this House's
full and careful consideration. Iran, the most active state sponsor of
terrorism, is seeking nuclear weapons. Its regime denies it, but the
U.S. and many other nations know otherwise. Iran has a long record of
deceiving international inspectors and has a history of dealing with
the A.Q. Khan network. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and
Nonproliferation, nothing worries me more than this deadly combination
of terrorism and WMD.
For a closed country such as Iran, we actually know a great deal
about the Iranian nuclear program. IAEA inspectors have played a key
role in spotlighting Iranian behavior. In its most recent update to the
35 member IAEA Board of Governors, inspectors reported that Iran has in
its possession a document on the production of uranium metal
hemispheres. This is of great significance, as the IAEA identified this
document as being related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon
components, the first time the international body has attributed a
nuclear weapons purpose to activities by Iran.
Madam Speaker, if Iran were to go nuclear, many other countries in
this combustible region, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and
Turkey, to name a few, might follow. This proliferation would pose a
grave threat to our security and certainly the security of our allies.
Some criticize our European partners for failing in their
negotiations with Iran. I agree that it has taken us too long to get to
this point, but, frankly, when you think about it, our hand is
strengthened at this point because of the European involvement.
At the IAEA vote the other week, we had the permanent five members of
the Security Council united. I am under no illusions that this united
front will last, but it is an important first step.
We will also hear from some that the administration has outsourced
its diplomacy to the Europeans and has stood by as Iran moves toward a
nuclear weapon. I will remind those that we alone cannot meet all
security threats. We need partners. It is time to start challenging the
norms that have developed over time.
The Iranians skillfully talk about their inalienable rights under the
nonproliferation treaty to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle,
including its most sensitive aspects. Indeed, in the eyes of the IAEA,
Iran's crime has been its failure to report its nuclear materials and
the technology, not the nuclear activities themselves, including
uranium enrichment.
{time} 1100
Under the guise of the NPT, Iran is walking right up to the edge of
developing nuclear weapons. This is a violation of the spirit if not
the letter of the NPT.
My subcommittee will soon take a close look at this issue. This
notion of rights has to be challenged, because if we don't, the world
will be a very, very dangerous place.
Mr. Speaker, there are no easy answers. We need to think long and
hard about what types of sanctions are constructive in reaching the
goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. This challenge
will require careful and marked consideration by the administration,
Congress, and our partners as we move forward. It is too serious for
anything else.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the record the statement of
the American representative to the IAEA Special Board of Governors
meeting on February 4.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to join other colleagues in expressing
condolences to the Egyptian delegation, and through them to
the Egyptian people, for yesterday's tragedy on the Red Sea.
My government is pleased to have joined an overwhelming
majority of Board members in signaling to Iran through
adoption of this resolution the Board's firm determination
that Iran must meet its nonproliferation obligations.
The Board's September 24, 2005 resolution found Iran in
noncompliance with its safeguards obligations pursuant to
Article XII.C.
That resolution also found that pursuant to Article
III.B.4, Iran's nuclear program raises questions that fall
within the competence of the UNSC.
At that time and again in November, we deferred reporting
Iran to the Council to give Iran yet another opportunity to
choose diplomacy over confrontation.
Unfortunately, Iran did not take that opportunity. As a
result, the Board today carried forward the statutory process
begun in September, by voting to report this Board's past
findings and concerns regarding Iran's noncompliance.
I agree with the distinguished Ambassador of Egypt that
today's report to the Security Council will not divest the
IAEA of the challenge posed by Iran.
We continue to expect the Agency's investigation of Iran's
nuclear program to proceed actively and urgently and we look
forward to the Director General's implementation report in
March. We note that the DG's report will also be conveyed to
the UNSC immediately after our next meeting.
By reporting Iran to the Security Council now, we seek to
add the Council's weight to reinforce the Agency's role,
reinforce its investigation, and add an imperative for Iran
[[Page 1942]]
to choose a course of cooperation and negotiation over a
course of confrontation.
The Agency has a specific mandate to deal with nuclear
safeguards issues. This mandate is without prejudice to the
rights and responsibilities of the Security Council to
address matters that raise questions of international peace
and security, as we have found is the case with Iran.
That is why the IAEA Statute expressly contemplates the
Security Council's involvement in such instances of
noncompliance. And that is why the Board made clear in
September that such a report is mandatory.
In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush
emphasized that, ``the Iranian government is defying the
world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the
world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear
weapons.''
We believe that this Board decision sends a strong and
clear message to Iran's leaders to abandon their pursuit of a
nuclear weapons capability.
We continue to seek a diplomatic solution and we do not
envision diplomacy ending as a result of this report.
Quite the contrary, we see this as part of a new phase of
diplomacy, one aimed at strengthening the ongoing efforts of
the Agency to investigate Iran's deeply troubling nuclear
activities, and underscoring the calls on Iran to resolve our
concerns through peaceful diplomacy rather than threats and
confrontation.
Through this path, and only through this path, can Iran
persuasively demonstrate that it has now chosen to confine
its nuclear program to exclusively peaceful purposes.
And through this path Iran can also start to restore its
standing in the international community to the benefit of the
Iranian people.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the resolution
adopted by the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency.
Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic
of Iran: Resolution Adopted on 4 February 2006
the board of governors
(a) Recalling all the resolutions adopted by the Board on
Iran's nuclear programme,
(b) Recalling also the Director General's reports,
(c) Recalling that Article IV of the Treaty on the Non
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stipulates that nothing in
the Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable
rights of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research,
production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and
II of the Treaty,
(d) Commending the Director General and the Secretariat for
their professional and impartial efforts to implement the
Safeguards Agreement in Iran, to resolve outstanding
safeguards issues in Iran and to verify the implementation by
Iran of the suspension,
(e) Recalling the Director General's description of this as
a special verification case,
(f) Recalling that in reports referred to above, the
Director General noted that after nearly three years of
intensive verification activity, the Agency is not yet in a
position to clarify some important issues relating to Iran's
nuclear programme or to conclude that there are no undeclared
nuclear materials or activities in Iran,
(g) Recalling Iran's many failures and breaches of its
obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and
the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is
exclusively for peaceful purposes resulting from the history
of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities, the nature of
those activities and other issues arising from the Agency's
verification of declarations made by Iran since September
2002,
(h) Recalling that the Director General has stated that
Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue for the
Agency to be able to clarify outstanding issues (GOV/2005/
67),
(i) Recalling the requests of the Agency for Iran's
cooperation in following up on reports relating to equipment,
materials and activities which have applications in the
conventional military area and in the civilian sphere as well
as in the nuclear military area (as indicated by the Director
General in GOV/2005/67),
(j) Recalling that in November 2005 the Director General
reported (GOV/2005/87) that Iran possesses a document related
to the procedural requirements for the reduction of UF6 to
metal in small quantities, and on the casting and machining
of enriched, natural and depleted uranium metal into
hemispherical forms,
(k) Expressing serious concerns about Iran's nuclear
programme, and agreeing that an extensive period of
confidence-building is required from Iran,
(1) Reaffirming the Board's resolve to continue to work for
a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, and
(m) Recognising that a solution to the Iranian issue would
contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to
realising the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of
mass destruction, including their means of delivery,
1. Underlines that outstanding questions can best be
resolved and confidence built in the exclusively peaceful
nature of Iran's programme by Iran responding positively to
the calls for confidence building measures which the Board
has made on Iran, and in this context deems it necessary for
Iran to:
re-establish full and sustained suspension of all
enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including
research and development, to be verified by the Agency;
reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated
by heavy water;
ratify promptly and implement in full the Additional
Protocol;
pending ratification, continue to act in accordance with
the provisions of the Additional Protocol which Iran signed
on 18 December 2003;
implement transparency measures, as requested by the
Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend
beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement
and Additional Protocol, and include such access to
individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use
equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and
development as the Agency may request in support of its
ongoing investigations;
2. Requests the Director General to report to the Security
Council of the United Nations that these steps are required
of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council
all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to
this issue;
3. Expresses serious concern that the Agency is not yet in
a position to clarify some important issues relating to
Iran's nuclear programme, including the fact that Iran has in
its possession a document on the production of uranium metal
hemispheres, since, as reported by the Secretariat, this
process is related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon
components; and, noting that the decision to put this
document under Agency seal is a positive step, requests Iran
to maintain this document under Agency seal and to provide a
full copy to the Agency;
4. Deeplv regrets that, despite repeated calls from the
Board for the maintaining of the suspension of all enrichment
related and reprocessing activities which the Board has
declared essential to addressing outstanding issues, Iran
resumed uranium conversion activities at its Isfahan facility
on 8 August 2005 and took steps to resume enrichment
activities on 10 January 2006;
5. Calls on Iran to understand that there is a lack of
confidence in Iran's intentions in seeking to develop a
fissile material production capability against the background
of Iran's record on safeguards as recorded in previous
Resolutions, and outstanding issues; and to reconsider its
position in relation to confidence-building measures, which
are voluntary, and non legally binding, and to adopt a
constructive approach in relation to negotiations that can
result in increased confidence;
6. Requests Iran to extend full and prompt cooperation to
the Agency, which the Director General deems indispensable
and overdue, and in particular to help the Agency clarify
possible activities which could have a military nuclear
dimension;
7. Underlines that the Agency's work on verifying Iran's
declarations is ongoing and requests the Director General to
continue with his efforts to implement the Agency's
Safeguards Agreement with Iran, to implement the Additional
Protocol to that Agreement pending its entry into force, with
a view to providing credible assurances regarding the absence
of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and to
pursue additional transparency measures required for the
Agency to be able to resolve outstanding issues and
reconstruct the history and nature of all aspects of Iran's
past nuclear activities;
8. Requests the Director General to report on the
implementation of this and previous resolutions to the next
regular session of the Board, for its consideration, and
immediately thereafter to convey, together with any
Resolution from the March Board, that report to the Security
Council; and
9. Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a brief by the
Deputy Director General For Safeguards on Iran's development of nuclear
weapons.
Developments in the Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in
the Islamic Republic of Iran and Agency Verification of Iran's
Suspension of Enrichment-Related and Reprocessing Activities
The purpose of this brief is to provide an update on the
developments that have taken place since November 2005 in
connection with the implementation of the NPT Safeguards
Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran (Iran) and on the
Agency's verification of Iran's voluntary suspension of
enrichment related and reprocessing activities. The brief
provides factual information concerning those developments;
it does not include any assessments thereof.
Iran has continued to facilitate access under its
Safeguards Agreement as requested by the Agency, and to act
as if the Additional Protocol is in force, including by
providing in a timely manner the requisite declarations and
access to locations.
[[Page 1943]]
1. Enrichment Programme
As detailed in the Director General's report of 18 November
2005, during meetings that took place in October and November
2005, the Agency requested Iran to provide additional
information on certain aspects of its enrichment programme.
Responses to some of these requests were provided during
discussions held in Tehran from 25 to 29 January 2006 between
Iranian officials and an Agency team, headed by the Deputy
Director General for Safeguards. This information is
currently being assessed.
1.A. Contamination
As part of its assessment of the correctness and
completeness of Iran's declarations concerning its enrichment
activities, the Agency is continuing to investigate the
source(s) of low enriched uranium, LEU, particles, and some
high enriched uranium (HEU) particles, which were found at
locations where Iran has declared that centrifuge components
had been manufactured, used and/or stored.
1.B. The 1987 offer
As previously reported to the Board, Iran showed the Agency
in January 2005 a copy of a hand-written one-page document
reflecting an offer said to have been made to Iran in 1987 by
a foreign intermediary concerning the possible supply of a
disassembled centrifuge (including drawings, descriptions and
specifications for the production of centrifuges); drawings,
specifications and calculations for a ``complete plant''; and
materials for 2000 centrifuge machines. The document also
made reference to: auxiliary vacuum and electric drive
equipment; a liquid nitrogen plant; a water treatment and
purification plant; a complete set of workshop equipment for
mechanical, electrical and electronic support; and uranium
re-conversion and casting capabilities.
On 25 January 2006, Iran reiterated that the one-page
document was the only remaking documentary evidence relevant
to the scope and content of the 1987 offer, attributing this
to the secret nature of the programme and the management
style of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) at
that time. Iran stated that no other written evidence exists,
such as meeting minutes, administrative documents, reports,
personal notebooks or the like, to substantiate its
statements concerning that offer.
1.C. Genesis of the mid-1990s offer
According to Iran, there were no contacts with the network
between 1987 and mid-1993. Statements made by Iran and by key
members of the network about the events leading to the mid-
1990s offer are still at variance with each other. In this
context, Iran has been asked to provide further clarification
of the timing and purpose of certain trips taken by AEOI
staff members in the mid-1990s.
P-1 centrifuge component deliveries in the mid-1990s: Iran
has been unable to supply any documentation or other
information about the meetings that led to the acquisition of
500 sets of P-1 centrifuge components in the mid-1990s. The
Agency is still awaiting clarification of the dates and
contents of these shipments.
P-2 centrifuge programme: Iran still maintains that, as a
result of the discussions held with the intermediaries in the
mid-1990s, the intermediaries only supplied drawings for P-2
centrifuge components (which contained no supporting
specifications), and that no P-2 components were delivered
along with the drawings or thereafter. Iran continues to
assert that no work was carried out on P-2 centrifuges during
the period 1995 to 2002, and that at no time during this
period did it ever discuss with the intermediaries the P-2
centrifuge design, or the possible supply of P-2 centrifuge
components. In light of information available to the Agency
indicating the possible deliveries of such components, which
information was shared with Iran, Iran was asked in November
2005 to check again whether any deliveries had been made
after 1995.
In connection with the R&D work on a modified P-2 design
said by Iran to have been carried out by a contracting
company between 2002 and July 2003, Iran has confirmed that
the contractor had made enquiries about, and purchased,
magnets suitable for the P-2 centrifuge design. The Agency is
still awaiting clarification of all of Iran's efforts to
acquire such magnets. 2.
2. Uranium Metal
Iran has shown the Agency more than 60 documents said to
have been the drawings, specifications and supporting
documentation handed over by the intermediaries, many of
which are dated from the early- to mid-1980's. Among these
was a 15-page document describing the procedures for the
reduction of UF6 to metal in small quantities, and
the casting of enriched and depleted uranium metal into
hemispheres, related to the fabrication of nuclear weapon
components. It did not, however, include dimensions or other
specifications for machined pieces for such components.
According to Iran, this document had been provided on the
initiative of the network, and not at the request of the
AEOI. Iran has declined the Agency's request to provide the
Agency with a copy of the document, but did permit the Agency
during its visit in January 2006 to examine the document
again and to place it under Agency seal.
3. Transparency Visits and Discussions
On 1 November 2005, the Agency was given access to a
military site at Parchin, with a view to providing assurances
regarding the absence of undeclared nuclear material and
activities at that site, where several environmental samples
were taken. Final assessment is still pending the results of
the analysis of those samples.
Since 2004, the Agency has been awaiting additional
information and clarifications related to efforts made by the
Physics Research Centre (PHRC), which had been established at
Lavisan-Shian, to acquire dual use materials and equipment
that could be used in uranium enrichment and conversion
activities. The Agency has also requested interviews with the
individuals involved in the acquisition of those items.
On 26 January 2006, Iran presented to the Agency
documentation the Agency had previously requested on efforts
by Iran, which it has stated were unsuccessful, to acquire a
number of specific dual use items (electric drive equipment,
power supply equipment and laser equipment, including a dye
laser). Iran stated that, although the documentation
suggested the involvement of the PHRC, the equipment had
actually been intended for a laboratory at a technical
university where the Head of the PHRC worked as a professor.
However, Iran declined to make him available to the Agency
for an interview. The DDG-SG reiterated the Agency's request
to interview the professor, explaining that it was essential
for a better understanding of the envisioned and actual use
of the equipment, which included balancing machines, mass
spectrometers, magnets and fluorine handling equipment
(equipment that appears to be relevant to uranium
enrichment).
On that same day, the Agency also presented to Iran a list
of high vacuum equipment purchased by the PHRC, and asked to
see, and to take environmental samples from, the equipment in
situ. The following day, some of the high vacuum equipment on
the Agency's list was presented at a technical university,
and environmental samples were taken from it.
On 26 January 2006, Iran provided additional clarification
about its efforts in 2000 to procure some other dual use
material (high strength aluminium, special steel, titanium
and special oils), as had been discussed in January 2005.
High strength aluminium was presented to the Agency, and
environmental samples were taken therefrom. Iran stated that
the material had been acquired for aircraft manufacturing,
but had not been used because of its specifications. Iran
agreed to provide additional information on inquiries
concerning the purchase of special steels, titanium and
special oils. Iran also presented information on Iran's
acquisition of corrosion resistant steel, valves, and
filters, which were made available to the Agency on 31
January 2006 for environmental sampling.
On 5 December 2005, the Agency reiterated its request for a
meeting to discuss information that had been made available
to the Agency about alleged undeclared studies, known as the
Green Salt Project, concerning the conversion of uranium
dioxide into UF4 (``green salt''), as well as
tests related to high explosives and the design of a missile
re-entry vehicle, all of which could have a military nuclear
dimension and which appear to have administrative
interconnections. On 16 December 2005, Iran replied that the
``issues related to baseless allegations.'' Iran agreed on 23
January 2006 to a meeting with the DDG-SG for the
clarification of the Green Salt Project, but declined to
address the other topics during that meeting. In the course
of the meeting, which took place on 27 January 2006, the
Agency presented for Iran's review a copy of a process flow
diagram related to bench scale conversion and communications
related to the project. Iran reiterated that all national
nuclear projects are conducted by the AEOI, that the
allegations were baseless and that it would provide further
clarifications later.
4. Suspension
The Agency has continued to verify and monitor all elements
of Iran's voluntary suspension of enrichment related and
reprocessing activities.
In a letter dated 3 January 2006, Iran informed the Agency
that it had decided to resume, as from 9 January 2006,
``those R&D on the peaceful nuclear energy programme which
ha[d] been suspended as part of its expanded voluntary and
non-legally binding suspension'' (GOV/INF/2006/1). On 7
January 2006, the Agency received a letter from Iran
requesting that the Agency remove seals applied at Natanz,
Farayand Technique and Pars Trash for the monitoring of
suspension of enrichment related activities (see GOV/INF/
2006/2). The seals were removed by Iran on 10 and 11 January
2006 in the presence of Agency inspectors.
Since the removal of the seals, Iran has started what it
refers to as ``small scale R&D''. As of 30 January 2006,
Agency inspectors had not seen any new installation or
assembly of centrifuges, or the feeding of UF6
material for enrichment. However, substantial renovation of
the gas handling system is underway at the Pilot Fuel
Enrichment Plant (PFEP) at Natanz, and quality control of
components and some rotor testing is
[[Page 1944]]
being conducted at Farayand Technique and Natanz. Due to the
fact that all centrifuge-related raw materials and components
are without IAEA seals, the Agency's supervision of the R&D
activities being carried out by Iran cannot be effective
except at PFEP, where containment and surveillance measures
are being applied for the enrichment process. The two
cylinders at Natanz containing UF6, from which
seals had been removed on 10 January 2006, were again placed
under Agency containment and surveillance on 29 January 2006.
The uranium conversion campaign which commenced at the
Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in Esfahan on 16 November
2005 is continuing and is expected to end in March 2006. All
UF6 produced at UCF thus far has remained under
Agency containment and surveillance.
Using satellite imagery, the Agency has continued to
monitor the ongoing civil engineering construction of the
Iran Nuclear Research Reactor (IR-40) at Arak.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back our time, may I just
say fanaticism in the field of international affairs is always
dangerous. But fanaticism armed with nuclear weapons is not just
dangerous; it is unacceptable. Iran is determined to move in the
direction of developing nuclear weapons. The civilized world cannot
stand by.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume in closing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my good friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), for his wise words. It is always a
pleasure to work with him as well as with our chairman, Henry Hyde.
Mr. Speaker the International Atomic Energy Agency in its February 4,
2006 resolution said that after nearly 3 years the agency is not yet in
a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials
or activities in Iran.
Iran needs to hear our message loud and clear. The United Nations
Security Council now has the Iran case after 20 years of Iran's covert
activities and after 3 years of mocking the international community.
Let us send a message loud and clear today. Let us pass this
resolution.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Con. Res. 341,
condemning Iran for violating its international nuclear
nonproliferation obligations. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations Security
Council must quickly consider Iran's repeated violations of
international nuclear norms, impose a comprehensive sanctions regime
and send an unequivocal message that the world rejects its nuclear
ambitions.
In addition to its refusal to cooperate with the International Atomic
Energy Agency, IAEA, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has drawn
considerable attention for his heinous calls for the United States'
greatest ally, Israel, to be ``wiped off the map'' and his bold denial
of the Holocaust. When offered a number of reasonable solutions to
avert an international standoff, the Ahmadinejad regime has unwisely
refused.
It is a positive sign that Russia and Iran are continuing discussions
on a proposal the U.S. and others have endorsed. This plan would have
Russia enrich Iran's uranium and remove it once it's spent, thereby
maintaining safeguards on the nuclear fuel. I am hopeful an agreement
will be reached, but have no qualms about this body sending a resolute
message to Iran that its breaches and failures to comply with its
nuclear nonproliferation obligations will be met with strong
resistance.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of House
Concurrent Resolution 341, which calls on the UN Security Council to
expeditiously take action in response to reports of Iran's
noncompliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
I am gravely concerned about nuclear proliferation in Iran and in any
other nation. But, this resolution is the wrong resolution at the wrong
time.
Right now, Russia is negotiating with Iran to avert their domestic
production of enriched uranium. Russia and China also supported the
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, decision to refer Iran to the
Security Council, but requested that any action against Iran be delayed
to March so these negotiations can continue.
Yet, here we are on February 16th trying to supersede those
negotiations by calling on the UN Security Council to act now. This
strikes me as a step toward more unilateralism.
In addition to my concern about interfering with ongoing
negotiations, the latest U.S. National Intelligence Council analysis
projects that Iran is a decade away from manufacturing the key
ingredient for a nuclear weapon. This expert analysis gives me further
reason to question this rush to unilateral action.
I urge my colleagues to give peaceful negotiations the opportunity to
succeed and vote against this resolution.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, some time yesterday, a Member introduced
House Concurrent Resolution 341. Earlier today, without benefit of
hearings or markup by any committee or subcommittee of the House, it
was brought to the floor and the vast majority of members voted for it.
They voted, I believe, for it for the best of reasons: to strengthen
efforts by the international community to convince Iran to meet its
obligations as a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The resolution makes a number of important and factual points about
Iran's lack of cooperation with IAEA and then sets out six statements
of Congressional policy. The first two condemn Iran's breaches of its
obligations and commend the efforts of several nations to find a
diplomatic means to return Iran to compliance. The final clause urges
the President to keep Congress informed on this issue. All well and
good.
But, for some reason, the fourth declaration goes beyond what
international treaties require and beyond anything that Congress has
carefully studied. It reads as follows:
[Congress] declares that Iran, through its many breaches
for almost 20 years of its obligations under the Safeguards
Agreement, has forfeited the right to develop any aspect of a
nuclear fuel cycle, especially with uranium conversion and
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing technology, equipment
and facilities.
Now, let's be clear on what ``nuclear fuel cycle'' means. It means
any use of nuclear technology, including the use of nuclear energy for
the provision of civilian electrical power.
I think there is some level of agreement that our problem with Iran
is not about nuclear power plants. And it is abundantly clear that Iran
intends to insist on its right to nuclear energy. If Iran's leaders
want to insist that they only seek to produce electricity, we should
work with the IAEA to make sure there are so many inspectors assigned
to Iran that they can't produce anything except electricity. A
Congressional declaration that a country cannot use nuclear power for
peaceful, minutely inspected, civilian purposes is neither practical
nor helpful.
Had there been hearings, I believe that the difficulties with this
approach would have been identified. But once again, the Republican
House leadership hasn't bothered with regular process, hasn't bothered
with hearings and witnesses or even markups and amendments. The
Republican leadership doesn't want to hear dissent, doesn't want to
hear concerns, doesn't want to hear anything but ``yes, sir!''
In addition, the convoluted language of the third declaration seems
to call upon the Russian Federation to cease its unilateral efforts to
bring Iran into compliance with its treaty obligations. Whether an
arrangement can be designed that allows Iran access to nuclear power
without creating its own enrichment facilities remains to be seen, but
the attempt should not be scorned.
So now the House is on record that the Iranian people should never be
allowed to use nuclear power and that Russia should stop talking to
Iran about solving this problem. If the resolution had not been brought
to the floor today, just one day following its introduction, these
problems might have been avoided.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
this resolution.
Iran must be condemned for following the path of nuclear
proliferation. This past Tuesday, February 14, 2006, Iran announced
that it has resumed uranium enrichment efforts, sending a signal to the
world that it is taking steps to arm itself with nuclear weapons. Iran
said it will no longer allow international inspectors to access its
nuclear facilities. Therefore we must work to ensure that Iran is
unsuccessful in the path that it has chosen.
Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous and most horrible weapons man
has ever invented. These weapons pose a threat to human kind; and an
even graver threat when in the hands of a nation that supports
terrorism. We need to work to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons in
our world.
Iran must join the community of nations and lay down the instruments
for the development of nuclear weapons. We must encourage all nations
to lay down the burden and instruments of the most destructive weaponry
known to human kind. There is enough madness on this little planet that
we do not need to add more. There is not any room in our society for
more nations to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction.
[[Page 1945]]
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this resolution. We must unite the
community of nations and use all diplomatic means to rid our world of
rogue nuclear threats.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
341, which condemns the Government of Iran for violating its
international nuclear nonproliferation obligations, and expressing
support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security
Council.
Iran is actively seeking weapons of mass destruction, which poses a
threat to the national security of the United States and to the world.
Iran has repeatedly violated its obligations to the international
community, specifically the 1973 Safeguards Agreement with the
International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA. In 2002 the world learned
that Iran was illegally continuing to develop a secret nuclear program,
which has led to years of negotiations with the international
community. Last August, however, the Iranian government resumed its
conversion of uranium. Earlier this month the IAEA voted 27 to 3 to
report Iran to the United Nations Security Council for further action.
I urge the Security Council to use all the tools at its disposal to
pressure Iran to meet its commitments to the IAEA.
The House should additionally take up and pass legislation to
strengthen the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, ILSA. The House should pass
H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act, which I have co-sponsored. The
bill would strengthen ILSA, provide assistance to pro-democracy groups
in Iran, and require that ILSA remain in effect until the President
certifies to Congress that Iran has permanently and verifiably
dismantled its weapons on mass destruction programs and has committed
to combating their proliferation.
I am pleased that the United States has continued to work closely
with the international community--including the European Union, Russia,
and China--on this urgent matter. I urge the President to keep Congress
fully and current informed on this matter, as called for in this
resolution. I urge the international community to impose economic
sanctions designed to deny Iran the ability to develop nuclear weapons.
We cannot allow a rogue nation such as Iran to obtain nuclear
weapons. Iran has actively supported terrorist groups, such as
Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Iran has funded
suicide bombers in Israel and militant organizations elsewhere. Many of
these terrorist groups are seeking weapons of mass destruction, WMD, so
that they can kill or injure thousands or even millions of people. The
Iranian President has publicly expressed his hope for ``a world without
America,'' his desire to ``wipe Israel off the map,'' and has denied
the existence of the Holocaust.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 341
condemning the Government of Iran for violating its international
nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts
to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council. As co-chairman
of the Iran Working Group, I am increasingly concerned about Iran's
movement towards the brink of a nuclear showdown. In response to the
historic International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, referral of Iran to
the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, Iran retaliated by halting
snap inspections by IAEA inspectors. There are even reports that Iran
resumed uranium-enrichment at its Natanz nuclear plant, a process that
had been suspended for two years following the disclosure of Iran's
covert program. Iranian President Ahmadinejad warned that Iran could
withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if international
pressure increased over its nuclear program.
President Ahmadinejad repeatedly states that his nation will develop
nuclear capabilities, and continually rebuffs efforts of nations such
as Russia and the EU-3 in providing a way out of a conflict. Given the
Iranian President's genocidal intentions of ``wiping Israel off the
map,'' we cannot allow Iran to advance on its path towards a nuclear
future.
The Congress must consider many options to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is why I introduced House Concurrent
Resolution 177, which calls on our allies and the U.S. to consider
quarantining gasoline sales to Iran should the Iranians reject the
international effort to end the nuclear impasse.
Despite being one of the world's top oil producing nations, Iran is
highly dependent on foreign gasoline due to severe mismanagement of its
domestic energy supply. The need is so great that the Iranian
government regularly debates rationing gasoline to manage its short
supply. An oil embargo on exports from Iran could hurt Western
economies, but a gasoline quarantine on imports to Iran would fall
heavily on Iran alone.
Now is the time for the Security Council to take strong action
against Iran. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of House
Concurrent Resolution 341.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
resolution to condemn the Iranian government for violating its
international nonproliferation obligations and to support efforts to
report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.
Last week, the 35-nation International Atomic Energy Agency's, IAEA,
Board of Governors overwhelmingly voted to report Iran to the U.N.
Security Council, an important step in the international effort to
prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.
Iran has made clear its plans to enrich uranium by building its
centrifuge program and constructing a heavy-water reactor which could
provide plutonium for nuclear weapons. Additionally, the IAEA revealed
that Iran was in possession of a document describing the procedure for
fabricating uranium metal and casting it into hemispheres, which form
the core of a nuclear weapon.
Following the vote on the resolution, Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad ordered Iran's nuclear commission to end its cooperation
with the IAEA and begin full-scale production of enriched uranium,
which can be used to build nuclear weapons.
The thought of Iran with a nuclear weapon is a frightening one, and
if this issue is not addressed promptly Iran will soon have the ability
and materials to produce such weapons. Nuclear proliferation alone is a
threat to American interests and security; nuclear proliferation to a
country with a radical Islamic leader who has supported terrorism is an
even more immediate threat.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
resolution to condemn Iran's decision to advance its nuclear program
and to urge the U.N. Security Council to address this issue at once.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 341. Iran
has obligations under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, to not
carry out a nuclear weapons program. Iran has ignored its obligations
by carrying out a covert uranium enrichment program. It is becoming
increasingly clear that this enrichment program is not merely aimed at
producing nuclear fuel for a civilian energy program. According the
IAEA, Iran has documents in their possession for casting of enriched
and depleted uranium metal into hemispheres--something which has no
legitimate civilian purpose and which appears clearly to be related to
the fabrication of nuclear weapons components. Possession of these
documents is a violation of the NPT.
I support the work of the IAEA to monitor Iran's nuclear program, to
press for Iran to agree to the Additional Protocol for enhanced
monitoring and inspection of that program. The British, the French, and
the Germans have tried for years to convince Iran to move away from
nuclear weapons capability and to agree to increased international
monitoring of its nuclear activities. Iran has rejected their efforts
and made it clear that it is not willing to accept the type of
negotiated solution proposed by the Europeans.
Right now we face a crisis that challenges the future of the
international nuclear nonproliferation regime. If the international
community cannot address the issue of Iran, then we risk the collapse
of the NPT.
I hope the U.N. Security Council can resolve this issue. Now that
this matter has been referred to the Security Council, the
international community needs to begin a dialogue about how best to
respond to Iran's action. We need to start thinking about tough and
enforceable sanctions that can send a clear signal to Tehran that
ignoring the will of the international community on this issue has
consequences.
As we call upon Iran to stop their clandestine program, however, we
must remember the United States also has obligations to the NPT. We can
not ask the world to enforce regulation on Iran while we shirk our
obligations to the NPT by opening up nuclear trade with India, a
country which has not signed the Treaty. If we seek special exemptions
from international and domestic nonproliferation law for India while
simultaneously seeking strict enforcement of such laws for Iran, an NPT
signatory, we will undermine our credibility as a leader on
nonproliferation. Iran will accuse us of hypocrisy, and other nations
may seek similar special exemptions.
For example, we know that China has long had a close relationship
with Pakistan's nuclear program. Pakistan has already asked the U.S. to
make special exemptions for them from international and domestic
nonproliferation law. China has called for that as well. Are we going
to also exempt Pakistan from the international system of controls and
safeguards established by the NPT and by U.S.
[[Page 1946]]
law? Are we going to stand by and do nothing if China goes ahead and
sends the same type of nuclear technology and materials that we are
talking about sending to India?
We also know that Russia has historically had a close relationship
with the Iranian nuclear program. They've been trying to get the
Iranians to agree to a nuclear fuel supply arrangement in return for
foregoing a domestic Iranian enrichment program. But what if Moscow
decides now to go far beyond that and afford Iran broader access to
controlled nuclear technology, citing what we're proposing to do with
India?
I think that if we want to send a strong signal to Iran that its
flouting of international nuclear nonproliferation norms is
unacceptable and will have adverse consequences, then now is not the
time to be thinking of granting selective exemptions from
nonproliferation laws and treaties for other nations, even if they are
our friends. We need to be principled leaders on the most important of
all issues facing our country. We do not want Iran, with a regime that
has made it clear that it desires the destruction of Israel, a regime
that is known to have provided material support to terrorist groups, to
obtain its own nuclear arsenal.
The time for us to act as an international community is now. There
are forces within Iran that want to move away from extremism. We need
to send a strong signal that the international community does not
accept the current Iranian government's nuclear aspirations, and that
there will be consequences, there will be sanctions, if Tehran persists
in its current course of action.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of this
resolution. Iran's resumption of nuclear activities and its non-
compliance with international commitments must be met by a united
Congress and a united international community.
For almost 3 years, the United States, the European Union, Russia,
the IAEA and other parties have been working to negotiate an end to
those parts of Iran's nuclear program that could allow it to produce
nuclear weapons. Iran has continued to mislead the international
community about its efforts. It has alternated diplomatic overtures
with clandestine activity on its nuclear program.
In June 2004, just a few months after making assurances to the
international community, Iran was criticized by the IAEA for failing to
cooperate with an inquiry of its nuclear activities. In November 2004,
Iran agreed to suspend much of its uranium enrichment in a deal with
the EU. However, in August 2005, Iran resumed its uranium conversion at
its Isfahan plant and in January 2006, broke IAEA seals at its Natanz
facility. It has since resumed enriching uranium at that facility.
Experts indicate that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in as
little as 3 to 5 years. According to a report issued by the IAEA to
member governments on January 31, 2006, Iran has a clandestine effort,
dubbed Green Salt, which has been working on uranium processing, high
explosives and a missile warhead design. The report clearly
demonstrates a nexus between Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear fuel
cycle and Tehran's military, thus undercutting the Iranian government's
repeated denials that it seeks to develop nuclear weapons.
Iran's growing nuclear capability is compounded by a series of recent
statements by Iran's president, in which he declared that a fellow
member of the United Nations must be wiped off the map. These remarks
demonstrate a disregard for human life and undermine the central
principle of the United Nations. The world community cannot stand by
while an outlaw regime announces its desire to annihilate millions of
people and attempts to develop the nuclear weapons to do so. The
community of nations has properly condemned these threats; now we must
ensure that Iran will never develop the capability to act on them.
I am hopeful that all members of the United Nations Security Council
will take a strong stand for international peace and security when this
issue is considered by the Security Council in March. I can think of no
greater priority for the Council and believe that concerted action by
the Council's Permanent Members represents the best opportunity to
defuse this crisis.
As a gesture of appreciation from the Congress, I, along with Mr.
Kirk of Illinois and Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, am circulating a letter
to the other Permanent Members of the Security Council. The letter
thanks them for their support in reporting Iran to the Security Council
and urges them to establish consequences to continued non-compliance. I
encourage my colleagues to sign the letter.
I am hopeful that with a united Congress and a united international
community, we can prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons which
could destabilize the entire region and which could be used to carry
out Iran's professed desire to wipe millions of its neighbors off the
map.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago, we learned that Iran was
operating a secret program to enrich uranium and carry out other
sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities.
Iran's failure to report these activities to the International Atomic
Energy Agency was a blatant violation of its obligations under the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
The more we learn about Iran's program, the more obvious it's become
that Iran's true intention is not peaceful power generation, but the
development of a nuclear arsenal that could threaten the United States,
our allies in the Middle East, and even Europe.
Any seeds of doubt on this issue have been dispelled once and for all
by Iran's rejection of a sensible proposal put forward by Great
Britain, France and Germany, and more recently, its move to resume
uranium enrichment.
The election of Iranian President Ahmadinejad has made the urgency of
preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that much greater.
With his comments about the Holocaust being a ``myth,'' endorsement
for ``wiping Israel off the map,'' and enthusiastic support of
Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations, this vile anti-
Semite has made his true intentions crystal clear.
The IAEA's decision to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council is a
long-overdue step in the right direction.
But tough words must be backed by tough action. We must continue to
push the other members of the Security Council--especially China and
Russia--to meet their international obligations.
Congress should also pass H.R. 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act.
This important legislation will close a loophole in the Iran-Libya
Sanctions Act that has allowed successive administrations to avoid
penalizing foreign firms that continue to invest in Iran's oil and gas
sector.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 341. This
resolution is closely modeled on a resolution, Senate Concurrent
Resolution 78, introduced in the Senate by the majority leader, Senator
Frist, csponsored by Senator Reid, the minority leader, Senators Lugar
and Biden, and a bipartisan group totaling 32 Senators, and adopted
unanimously on January 27. Our colleague, Representative Ros-Lehtinen
of Florida, has worked with me and other members of the House Committee
on International Relations, including our distinguished ranking
Democrat, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, on this
resolution. She has updated the text of the Senate resolution in the
light of recent events and in the light of the understanding that we in
the House have about Iran's actions and intentions.
This House may be divided on precisely how to respond to every aspect
of the Iranian challenge, but we are certainly united, as our vote will
show, in our support for the current efforts to bring the weight of the
Security Council of the United Nations to bear against Iran's
continuing violations of its formal and informal obligations concerning
its nuclear activities.
These efforts are not only American efforts, but ones which involve
many responsible members of the international community. The
administration deserves credit for coaxing some of the reluctant states
to this point: the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, has indeed
reported to the Security Council on the Iranian nuclear program.
Although the IAEA may make additional reports during the next month,
the die is cast: the Security Council is in a position to take action,
and it should do so. It should respond to what is clearly a threat to
international peace and security--and making such responses in a
collective way is precisely the purpose it is meant to serve.
The administration deserves credit for having brought along the IAEA
Board of Governors and, in particular, all of the permanent members of
the Security Council, to this stage in the process. The signal to Iran
could not have been more stark.
Critical to arriving at this point was the support extended by the
Bush administration for the so-called ``ED-3'' process, in which
Britain, France, and Germany conducted negotiations with Iran--
negotiations that ultimately failed to contain Iran's efforts, to be
sure, but which succeeded in keeping the international community moving
forward in unison.
At this point, we need to continue to keep the pressure on, but let
us keep the pressure on the recalcitrant party--the Iranians--and not
begin internecine warfare among the Western powers. It is only with the
cooperation of other States that we can truly pressure Iran.
[[Page 1947]]
As we consider other legislation in the next months--and the
consideration of this resolution does not, in my mind, prejudice the
ability of the House to consider other legislation--we should bear in
mind that we need allies in this struggle. Sticking our finger in the
eye of other states which are, in general terms, ``on our side'' will
do nothing to bring Iran to heel.
Another reason to work with our friends is that if the Security
Council does not achieve consensus on how to deal with Iran, we will
need to work with them to arrive at a ``Plan B,'' as an alternative.
That plan should consist, in all likelihood, of a series of
comprehensive economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Those sanctions should be designed to serve several purposes. First,
they should make it clear to the Iranian people that their leaders'
course of action needs to change. Second, they should serve to inflict
some pain on the Iranian leadership in an effort to coerce those
leaders to behave in a responsible way. Finally, they should reduce the
resources available to the Iranian state to continue their nuclear
weapons program.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution; it
indicates quite clearly that we are behind the administration's
approach. I hope that we will continue to support it in the days ahead.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support of the
resolution condemning Iran for violating its nonproliferation
obligations and expressing support for efforts to report them to the
United Nations Security Council.
Early last month, the Iranian regime announced that it planned to
restart its nuclear research program. This was in clear violation of a
2004 agreement that had been reached with Britain, France and Germany
to suspend uranium enrichment operations.
Iran claims that the program is aimed at generating electricity, but
I think the United States and the world know better. In fact, the
International Atomic Energy Agency has already voted to report Iran to
the U.N. Security Council.
The president of the Iranian regime, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also
caused concern in the United States and Europe with his confrontational
statements denying the Holocaust happened and stating his desire to
annihilate Israel.
The United States fully expects the Security Council to add its
weight to the IAEA's calls for Iran to return to the 2004 agreement,
suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activity, cooperate fully with
the IAEA and return to negotiations with Great Britain, France and
Germany.
Only then will the Iranian regime restore any confidence that it is
in fact, not seeking nuclear weapons under the guise of an
``electricity program.''
Mr. Speaker, with their continued defiance it's imperative that the
United Nations act quickly. We must send a clear message to the Iranian
regime that he world will not permit them to obtain nuclear weapons.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time for
debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, February 15, 2006,
the concurrent resolution is considered read and the previous question
is ordered on the concurrent resolution and on the preamble.
The question is on the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 404,
nays 4, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 12]
YEAS--404
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Higgins
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Sodrel
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--4
Kucinich
McDermott
Paul
Stark
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4
Abercrombie
Capuano
Kaptur
Lee
NOT VOTING--20
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Campbell (CA)
Carson
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Evans
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hunter
McKinney
Miller, Gary
Osborne
Rangel
Simpson
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Westmoreland
Woolsey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington) (during the
vote). Members are advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1131
Mr. MOORE of Kansas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Ms. LEE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``present.''
[[Page 1948]]
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today on H. Con. Res.
341 because I was traveling on official business to a Middle East
regional security conference in Athens, Greece, and then on to Egypt
and Israel for meetings with top government officials. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to
record my vote for rollcall vote 12. Had I been present I would have
voted ''yea.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Speaker, I was prepared today to vote for this
resolution but a late language change has made that impossible.
The phrase ``and take action'' was added to paragraph three which now
reads: ``calls on all members of the United Nations Security Council .
. . to expeditiously consider and take action . . . to respond to and
deal with situations bearing on the maintenance of international peace
and security'' (emphasis added). Because of that change, I cannot
support this resolution. However, since I do believe that Iran poses a
serious threat to the world and demands the attention of the world, I
could not vote against the proposal. Therefore, I voted ``present.''
I strongly agree that Iran poses a real security threat to the world
and I encourage continued vigilance. However, I have real concerns that
the wording of this resolution might be interpreted by the Bush
administration as all that is necessary to take military action.
Although the day may come when I do support such action, today is not
that day. I do not trust the Bush administration to come back to
Congress if they wish to pursue military action. My lack of trust is,
unfortunately, based on past actions. I voted to support military
action against Afghanistan but the President is insisting today that
Congress in so voting also granted him the legal authority to intercept
telephone calls and other forms of communication without a warrant. I
completely reject that assertion and I am concerned with future
interpretations of H. Con. Res. 341. I regret that I cannot trust the
President of the United States to use military force prudently and when
all nonviolent means have been exhausted. I regret that I cannot
support this resolution.
____________________
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--PRIVILEGED RESOLUTION REGARDING CULTURE OF
CORRUPTION SURROUNDING BUDGET RECONCILIATION
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise in regard to a
question of the privileges of the House, and I offer a privileged
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 687
Whereas the Republican Leadership has engaged in a
continuing pattern of withholding accurate information vital
for Members of the House of Representatives to have before
voting on legislation, and has inserted numerous
controversial provisions into completed conference reports in
the dead of night without notifying Democratic Members of the
House, the press, or the public;
Whereas on February 1, 2006 the Republican Leadership
permitted a vote on House Resolution 653 to concur in a
Senate amendment to the conference agreement on Budget
Reconciliation, despite the inclusion of inaccurate numbers
in provisions that cost the Medicare program an additional $2
billion dollars;
Whereas although the Senate Enrolling Clerk had mistakenly
changed critical numbers which had a major financial
significance for Medicare, and had notified the House of
those errors two weeks prior to the vote on February 1, the
Republican Leadership deliberately chose to ignore that
notification and instead allowed the House to vote on an
incorrect version of this legislation;
Whereas the conference agreement on Budget Reconciliation
passed the House by the narrowest of margins, 216-214, with
every Democrat voting in opposition, and knowledge of this
mistake may have influenced the outcome of this vote, which
is why the Republican Leadership chose not to pursue the
proper course in correcting this legislation;
Whereas as a result of the concealment of these errors in
the enrollment of the bill, the law signed by the President
of the United States on February 8, 2006 is not the same as
the text cleared by the House on February 1, 2006;
Whereas the effect of these actions raises serious
constitutional questions and jeopardizes the legal status of
this legislation and The Washington Post has reported: ``Now
there are questions about the legality of signing a bill the
House technically did not pass'' (The Washington Post,
February 9, 2006);
Whereas Republican incompetence led to numerous errors in
this legislation, and two additional errors in the Senate
amendment that was agreed to by House Resolution 653 were
found by the Congressional Budget Office in a report dated
January 27, 2006, five days BEFORE the House voted on the
final conference report: ``The (conference report on Budget
Reconciliation) contains two apparent errors in legislative
language: one in section 8006 regarding direct loans to
parents of postsecondary students, and one in section 10002
regarding bankruptcy fees.'' (CBO Report on S. 1932, January
27, 2006);
Whereas in this ongoing pattern of abuse of power, the
Republican Leadership on December 17, 2005 deliberately
misled Members of the House by inserting into a completed
conference report without debate or notification a provision
granting liability protection for drug companies from cases
involving consumers injured by avian flu vaccine; (HR 2863,
the Defense Appropriations Conference Report);
Whereas the Republican Leadership inserted this liability
vaccine provision at midnight, AFTER conferees signed what
they understood to be the final document seven hours earlier,
thereby breaking their word and assurances that ``Avian Flu
shall be funded at the House level, and will not include
either indemnity or compensation provisions.'' (House
Appropriations Committee Summary, December 17, 2005, 4:40
PM);
Whereas during passage of the Prescription Drug bill in
2003, the Republican Leadership and the committees of
jurisdiction ignored the warnings from knowledgeable experts
that the true cost of the legislation was potentially
hundreds of billions of dollars higher than the official
estimate, and intentionally misled Members of the House by
withholding information for the sole purpose of winning
passage of this extremely controversial bill by a single vote
in the middle of the night; and
Whereas the Republican Leadership's culture of corruption
and its repeated efforts to thwart the normal legislative
process by cutting corners, inserting hand-written provisions
into completed conference reports in the dead of night, and
rushing through legislation with major errors, forces Members
to vote on controversial legislation without thorough time
for review and must be denounced: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct shall begin an immediate investigation into the abuse
of power surrounding the inaccuracies in the process and
enrollment of the Budget Reconciliation legislation cleared
for the President on February 1, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution qualifies.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Boehner
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219,
noes 187, answered ``present'' 6, not voting 20, as follows:
[Roll No. 13]
AYES--219
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
[[Page 1949]]
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--187
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wu
Wynn
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--6
Doyle
Green, Gene
Jones (OH)
Mollohan
Roybal-Allard
Stupak
NOT VOTING--20
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Campbell (CA)
Carson
Evans
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hunter
Kingston
Melancon
Miller, Gary
Osborne
Price (GA)
Simpson
Thomas
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Whitfield
Woolsey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1155
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Ms. CARSON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and unable to
record my vote for rollcall vote 13. Had I been present I would have
voted ``no.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12, and
``no'' on rollcall No. 13.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is to my good
friend, John Boehner, congratulations on his election as majority
leader. It is a great honor to be selected by your colleagues in the
House, of course, but of your own party to be one of its leaders.
John Boehner has, of course, been a leader in his party for many
years now, chairman of a major committee, sponsor of one of the
hallmark pieces of legislation the Bush administration points to as a
great success. He worked in a bipartisan fashion on that bill.
I look forward to working with him. I know our side of the aisle
looks forward to working with him. I want to congratulate him on his
election.
Mr. Leader, let me ask you about a couple of things, and I will
mention the PATRIOT Act. I know you are not sure what that status is.
There are a couple of pieces of legislation, three pieces of
legislation, that we do anticipate in the relatively near future. I
wonder if you might comment on them.
I know we are not meeting next week and will not be back until the
28th of February. The tax reconciliation conference report, I talked to
Mr. Rangel about that this morning. His understanding is the conference
is ongoing. Might you have any idea of when the tax reconciliation
conference report, assuming it is approved, might come to the floor?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. BOEHNER. I want to thank my colleague for yielding, and I thank
you for your kind words of success. It is an honor to have been chosen
as the new majority leader. Some of you can recall some words that I
said earlier. When I won, I felt like the dog who caught the car. I
have my teeth on the bumper. Maybe they are just around the bumper
today.
I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. The House will have
a district work period next week. But when we come back and in the
weeks following, up to the Easter recess, I would expect that the House
will deal with the concurrent resolution on the budget. I believe that
the House and Senate will receive today a supplemental spending request
from the White House for the ongoing efforts in Iraq.
We expect the supplemental will include money for the ongoing efforts
in Iraq and the war on terror. We also believe that the request will
include money for the ongoing efforts in Katrina and Rita, in the
cleanup efforts in the gulf area. Sometime over the next month or so, 6
weeks, we expect that we will be taking that up.
We also believe that when we get back, maybe in the first week that
we are back, a possible motion to go to conference on the pension bill.
The tax reconciliation conference is under way. It is hard to predict
when they will come to an agreement, but I would be surprised if it
were the week that we came back.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you for that information. Mr. Leader, in terms of
the budget itself, the budget resolution for 2007, when is your
expectation that that might be on the floor? We understand that it
might be marked up in committee the first week in March. Would it be
your expectation that it would be on the floor the second week in
March?
I yield to my friend.
Mr. BOEHNER. That is a bit unclear as of yet. It would be nice if we
could do it that second week in March, but I think it is a little too
early to predict exactly when it will be on the floor.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that. You mentioned the
supplemental appropriation. We understand it may be coming down today.
Has it
[[Page 1950]]
come down? It is supposed to arrive today. Do you have any information
as to how quickly we would attempt to consider and move the
supplemental appropriation bill?
{time} 1200
Mr. BOEHNER. Clearly, sometime in the coming weeks, but I think the
Appropriations Committee will have their hands full looking at the
request, going through all of the items in the request. I think we
would like to have it through the House before the Easter recess, but,
again, they have got an awful lot of work to do in the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the leader for those comments.
I would say, Mr. Leader, not as a question but as an observation, as
you know, there has been a great deal of concern on both sides of the
aisle with reference to the PATRIOT Act, the provisions in the PATRIOT
Act and to the extension of the PATRIOT Act. Obviously, the majority of
the PATRIOT Act is in permanent law, but there are some portions that
needed to be reauthorized.
I do not ask you a question because I know that this is still up in
the air, but we are hopeful that as soon as the majority may have a
better view of the scheduling of the PATRIOT Act, the sooner you could
inform us of that would be better.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentleman knows, the Senate has taken up the
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. When the Senate completes their
work it will come here, and I think those of us in the House never want
to predict the speed at which the Senate may or may not move this bill.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. I will tell the majority
leader that I will not ask you the question trying to predict the
actions of the other House in the future. I thank him for his comments,
and again congratulate the leader on his election.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR AN ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE TWO HOUSES
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution
(H. Con. Res. 345) and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the concurrent resolution, as follows:
H. Con. Res. 345
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, February 16, 2006, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday,
February 28, 2006, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate recesses or
adjourns on any day from Friday, February 17, 2006, through
Tuesday, February 21, 2006, on a motion offered pursuant to
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his
designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on
Monday, February 27, 2006, or such other time on that day as
may be specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of
the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
The concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2006
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House
adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 20,
2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate
transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 345, in
which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO DECLARE A RECESS ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1,
2006, FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING IN JOINT MEETING THE HONORABLE
SILVIO BERLUSCONI, PRIME MINISTER OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it may be in
order at any time on Wednesday, March 1, 2006, for the Speaker to
declare a recess, subject to the call of the Chair, for the purpose of
receiving in joint meeting the Honorable Silvio Berlusconi, Prime
Minister of the Republic of Italy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2006
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business
in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on
Wednesday, March 1, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY, HON. FRANK R. WOLF, AND HON. TOM
DAVIS TO ACT AS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTIONS THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
Washington, DC,
February 16, 2006.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Mac Thornberry, the
Honorable Frank R. Wolf, and the Honorable Tom Davis to act
as Speaker pro tempore to sign enrolled bills and joint
resolutions through February 28, 2006.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the appointment is
approved.
There was no objection.
____________________
NEW ORLEANS' TULANE HOSPITAL REOPENS
(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, my committee, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held a field
hearing down in the City of New Orleans during the January break. For
me, it was my second trip to that storm-ravaged area; and, once again,
you just cannot help but be overwhelmed by the size and the scope of
the destruction that has happened down on our gulf coast area.
But Mr. Speaker, although we were there primarily to study the health
care issues going on, and there were some significant problems down
there, we saw the facility at LSU, Charity Hospital, one of the
venerable old institutions in this country's history for training of
medical doctors, completely in tatters. But there was not all bad news.
There was some good news. Right across the street at Tulane University
Medical Center, HCA, the Hospital Corporation of America, had that
facility almost up and ready to go.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that yesterday they held the
ribbon-cutting for New Orleans Tulane Hospital as it reopened. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, according to a news report, more than 100 nurses and
doctors, in lab coats and scrubs, performed the wave in celebration,
prompting Mayor Ray Nagin to ask them what was in their
[[Page 1951]]
coffee. ``I don't know what you're taking at Tulane, but I want some of
that,'' he said.
Well, Mr. Mayor, it is old-fashioned American ingenuity and
entrepreneurship. It works every time it is tried. I hope we will see
more of that down in New Orleans.
____________________
ADMINISTRATION MISSING IN ACTION
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week, like so many
Members, I attended the funeral celebration of Coretta Scott King. Her
words: Struggle is a never-ending process. Freedom is never really won.
You earn it and win it in every generation.
And, of course, President Carter was profound when he talked about
the face of racism; and that face is the face of the Katrina victims.
As we take a look at the devastation, man-made devastation that this
administration, the Bush administration have, as the report says, it is
no question they did not do a good job in the past. But we are not
talking about the past. We are talking about the present. We are
talking about 6 months later, here and now, and the Bush administration
is missing in action.
But the sad thing is that the leadership in this House, the
leadership in the other body is also missing in action. We have failed
the people of the United States in the People's House.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, and under a previous order of the House, the following
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.
____________________
OUR NEW 51ST STATE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there was a very subtle illegal guestworker
plan stuck in the budget the administration just submitted to Congress.
That budget calls for the United States to allow over one million new
illegal immigrants to infiltrate our borders during 2007.
As a matter of fact, last year's budget is allowing one million
illegal aliens to enter this year as well. That is how many immigrants
enter our country illegally each year under our current enforcement
plans.
We know it will happen because it happens every year under current
enforcement policy; and we are going right ahead with the same old
plan, knowing in advance that it will be a near total failure.
We continue talking about how we are adding 1,500 new border agents
in 2007. That won't be in the field until 2009, letting another two
million illegal aliens to walk across our border.
We talk about how we are adding technology and fencing, but that
won't be ready until 2010, allowing another million illegals in our
country.
Right now, with our current budget and reform plans, we are, by
default, agreeing to allow an additional four million illegal aliens
into our country. That is equivalent to the population of South
Carolina or Oregon.
Think about that. We are being asked to add a 51st state populated
entirely by low-income illegal aliens.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot find an excuse for this. We know right now how
to bring this flood of illegal immigration to a virtual halt, and I
think within the next 2 weeks. We need somewhere between 36 and 48,000
troops immediately deployed to the southern border.
Now, the Minuteman Project in April showed that with between 18 and
24 additional enforcement personnel per mile, we can effectively secure
our border for the first time. And it was not just the Minuteman
Project that revealed these statistics. The U.S. Border Patrol
conducted similar demonstration projects in 1993. Operation Blockade in
El Paso and Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego produced the identical
same results.
We have a good idea on how much a deployment like this would cost.
$2.5 billion a year. But, you know what? That is less than 4 percent of
the minimum $70 billion a year we are currently spending covering the
health care, education and the different costs for illegal immigrants.
We already know how long it would take to get these troops on line
and end this nightmare. One week. That is how long it took NORTHCOM to
place 70,000 National Guard and regular Army troops on the Gulf Coast
in response to Katrina, and we are still railing about how that took
too long. One week.
If the burden of the National Guard is too heavy, we can ask our
governors to loan the Nation's 15,000 State defense forces to help. We
can call up the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the U.S. Air Force Civil Air
Patrol.
We have laws in place, thanks to changes we made in the 108th
Congress. Title 32, Section 9, U.S. Code now allows our governors to
call out their National Guard for homeland security missions such as
this at 100 percent Federal expense.
{time} 1215
Governor Janet Napolitano of Arizona has supposedly made such a call
on the Department of Defense. Her State legislature voted earlier this
week to force her to follow up on that request.
Mr. Speaker, we need every Member of the House to urge their Governor
to deploy all necessary forces to combat this invasion. We need the
President to order the Department of Defense to fund this mission at
100 percent, and we need new legislation forcing the issue if action is
not forthcoming. We can solve this problem if only Congress has the
will.
____________________
THE VICTIMS OF HURRICANE KATRINA
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as I said in my 1-minute
and I want to repeat, because so many Members and people from all over
the country went to the great celebration of the life of Coretta Scott
King, her words: ``Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never
really won. You earn it and you win it in every generation.''
And clearly we have a failure in this generation. If you would take a
look, as President Carter said, at the faces of the Katrina victims:
the faces of the poor, old, black and white, poor, infrastructure not
in place. Thousands of people died because of the inefficient
government. The report that was released, ``A Failure of Initiative,''
was released by the House Select Committee on Katrina, which criticized
the poor preparation for the response to Hurricane Katrina. We all know
that the slow response to Hurricane Katrina led to mass destruction in
the gulf region, particularly in New Orleans. The loss of lives, the
loss of homes. But those were just a few problems which were revealed.
But the sad fact is that those conditions exist today. Six months later
those conditions still exist. The question I ask now is whether the
Bush administration is prepared today for a disaster of any proportion,
man made or natural disaster.
There is no question that the Bush administration failed in its
response to Hurricane Katrina. The sad thing is, and I want to repeat,
that it continues to fail the victims of the storm today. I am calling
on the people's House. The Congressional Black Caucus leadership has
put together a comprehensive bill, H.R. 4197, a bill that would lead to
the recovery of the gulf coast region for the scope of Hurricane
Katrina's massive devastation, some of the points made in the
committee's report and one that we made today in our press conference.
This devastation stands today, 6 months later. The region of New
Orleans looks like a hurricane disaster,
[[Page 1952]]
bombed-out area. It sends a serious indictment that we can spend $6
billion a month in Iraq, and yet we cannot solve the problems right
here at home.
Where is the leadership in this House? Where is the leadership in the
other body? And where is the leadership in the Bush administration? And
I am starting with the top, the President, George W. Bush.
And I thank God that when we had our disasters in Florida that we had
another administration that we worked with, the Clinton administration.
I did not deal with the FEMA that was inept. Because we have had fires
in Florida, we have had tornadoes in Florida, we have had hurricane
after hurricane in Florida; but we dealt with a different
administration, an administration that was willing to come to the
community, that one piece of paper, if it was not filled out, we were
able to get services. And how do you get that piece of paper? Well, we
controlled that piece of paper.
God help us. God help America. And will the people in the people's
House speak up for the people in the gulf region.
(1) The failure of a complete evacuation of New Orleans;
(2) Levees protecting New Orleans were not built for the most severe
hurricanes, leading to a breach in the system;
(3) The collapse of local law enforcement and lack of effective
public communications led to civil unrest and further delayed relief.
These are just a few of the problems which reveal that the government
was not adequately prepared for a disaster of this proportion. The
question that I ask now is whether the government is prepared today for
a disaster of any proportion, man-made or natural.
There is no question the Bush administration failed in its response
to Hurricane Katrina. The sad thing is that it continues to fail the
victims of the storm still today.
Along with my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, we are
urging the Bush administration to support our hurricane relief bill,
H.R. 4197, a bill that if passed into law, would be a great first step
towards the recovery and restoration of the gulf coast region.
General Message Points for CBC Press Conference
The House Select Committee Report on Katrina, ``A Failure
of Initiative,'' is a scathing indictment of the incompetence
of the actions of the Bush Administration and the federal
government.
Unfortunately, almost six months after Hurricane Katrina
devastated the Gulf Coast region, the incompetence of the
Bush Administration continues everyday to the detriment of
the 1.5 million people who were displaced.
Natural disasters will continue to occur and we are not
prepared to handle them. Man-made disasters may happen
unexpectedly, and we clearly are not prepared to handle them
either.
The Congressional Black Caucus has been active
legislatively and we have been in regular contact with the
people of the Gulf Coast region. We are in the planning
stages of scheduling another visit to the region and holding
a hearing in Washington around our legislation and related
topics. We will also be holding the people in decision-making
positions, like the President, Secretary Chertoff, the FEMA
director, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and
the Congressional leadership in the House and Senate
accountable for their actions.
____
Washington, DC.--With respect to the House Select Committee
Report on Hurricane Katrina, Congresswoman Corrine Brown made
the following statement:
I would like to begin with a quote from Coretta Scott King:
``Struggle is a never ending process. Freedom is never really
won. You earn it and win it in every generation.''
My colleagues and I in the Congressional Black Caucus, the
Hispanic Caucus, and the Asian Caucus, were utterly
disappointed upon reading the report, ``A Failure of
Initiative,'' which was released by the House Select
Committee on Katrina, and criticizes the poor preparation and
response to the hurricane.
We all know that the slow response to Hurricane Katrina led
to the massive destruction of the Gulf Coast region,
particularly New Orleans. The numerous warnings, inadequate
planning and apathy in preparing the region for the scope of
Hurricane Katrina's massive devastation are some of the
points made in the Committee's report.
Unfortunately, the government's botched response has ruined
the lives of millions of Americans, who are now forced to go
without the most basic human needs. In the report, The Select
Committee identified failures at all levels of government
which led to the destruction of the region.
____________________
SIMPLIFIED USA TAX
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
claim the time of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to focus
on an issue that is critical to the survival of America's manufacturing
base and the stabilization of American growth and job creation.
While Washington continues to explore initiatives to restrain
outsourc-
ing and level the playing field for U.S. employers in the international
trading system, it is imperative that we maximize the Federal
Government's most potent economic tool, tax policy, to promote growth.
In order for U.S. employers and businesses to remain competitive in
the 21st century's global market, Congress must create a Tax Code that
serves as a source of support to American companies rather than as a
hindrance.
I recently introduced legislation, the Simplified USA Tax, or SUSAT,
to help untangle the web of red tape that individual and corporate
taxpayers have to navigate every year. My proposal includes a new and
better way of taxing businesses that will allow them to compete and win
in global markets in a way that exports American-made products, not
American jobs. I have studied this issue and I believe that, if enacted
in America, this innovative approach to business taxation will set the
worldwide standard and create an opportunity for the United States to
thrive.
In fact, many of the provisions included in my bill were recommended
by the President's advisory panel on Federal Tax Reform as part of
their Growth and Investment Initiative.
Under my proposal all businesses, incorporated or not, are taxed
alike at an 8 percent rate on the first $150,000 of profit and at 12
percent on all amounts above that small-business level. Additionally,
all businesses will be allowed a credit of 7.65 percent payroll tax
that they pay under the current law. One of the most pro-growth
elements in SUSAT is that all costs for plant and equipment inventory
in the U.S. will be deductible in the year of purchase.
There is broad-based support for expensing in Washington. Recent data
show that orders for capital goods were on a steady decline from early
2000. However, when Congress passed ``bonus depreciation,'' an
initiative that I worked on with my colleague, Mr. Weller from
Illinois, as part of the 2002 and 2003 tax bills, the trend was
immediately reversed and orders for goods steadily rose.
Every economic principle and every piece of data tells us that
immediate expensing must be a major component of any tax reform
package. It has the highest bang for the buck, about $9 of growth for
every $1 of tax cut. It has bipartisan appeal, and it directly
translates into greater competitiveness and better paying jobs.
Another key component of SUSAT which will make American businesses
more competitive is border adjustability. SUSAT would end the perverse
practice, unique among our trading partners, of taxing our own exports.
The absence of some type of border tax adjustments for exports of
American-made goods places our businesses, particularly manufacturers,
at a major disadvantage.
Any entrepreneur will tell you that whether a product is taxed at the
corporate level or through a consumption tax paid at the register, the
burden will fall largely on businesses, which includes the employees
and shareholders. So when our trading partners rebate the taxes paid to
their businesses and we do not, it necessarily means that we are at a
disadvantage.
Under SUSAT, all export sales income is exempt and imports are taxed
at a 12 percent rate. In turn, all companies that produce abroad and
sell back into U.S. markets will be required to bear the same tax
burden as companies
[[Page 1953]]
that produce and sell from here in the United States. This policy will
finally take away the bias in favor of imports built into our current
tax structure, which, in my view, has contributed to our record trade
deficit, which continues to increase at a breath-taking rate.
Mr. Speaker, we noticed that on Monday the WTO rejected an appeal of
an early ruling which found transition rules repealing the export
subsidy known as FSC/ETI. This decision requires us to come back and
look again at fundamental reform. Not only are our products at a
disadvantage in the global marketplace; the EU now has a legal right to
impose sanctions on American products, giving them an even greater
competitive disadvantage. Monday's decision makes tax reform even more
timely and even more essential.
The other underlying absurdity in our Tax Code is that we currently
condition territoriality on foreign subsidiaries reinvesting profits in
foreign countries instead of repatriating the profits for investment in
the United States. I authored a provision with Senator Ensign that made
it into the tax law that effectively allowed the repatriation of over
$300 billion in foreign profits that have come back into the United
States and have been reinvested into our homeland.
Anyone who has any doubts that U.S. companies have an incentive to
keep money abroad has just to look at those figures. Until we change
our current structure, the foreign companies will continue to reap the
economic benefits of our tax laws' backwards incentives.
The time has come for us to move forward on fundamental tax reform,
and I challenge my colleagues in the House and on the Ways and Means
Committee to move forward on this issue to engage the Treasury. At a
time when we need to make sure we are doing everything to make our
economy competitive, now is the time to move forward on tax reform.
____________________
MEDICARE PART D IMPLEMENTATION, MEDICAID REIMBURSEMENT, AND COMMUNITY
PHARMACISTS
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special
Order at this time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from South Dakota?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a problem of
potentially catastrophic proportions. It is not a matter of foreign
policy or national security, and it is not natural disasters like this
past summer's hurricanes or the ongoing drought in States like my home
State of South Dakota.
No. This is a man-made disaster. This debacle is of government
creation and, in particular, legislative irresponsibility. This is a
crisis that we, as elected representatives, have an obligation and a
duty to address. I rise to discuss the crisis facing our community
pharmacists, particularly those who serve rural communities.
As I mentioned on Tuesday of this week, of all the health care
professionals struggling with the implementation of the new Medicare
drug benefit, pharmacists appear to be the most negatively affected.
This past weekend I spent several hours meeting with health
professionals from South Dakota communities, small and large, to
discuss their ongoing efforts to implement the new Medicare
prescription drug benefit.
These meetings proved incredibly beneficial to me and to my staff,
and I have scheduled more of them in the near future. I encourage my
colleagues to take the time to sit down with those administering the
program in their districts. It is important that you hear from them
first hand. But because of the urgency of this issue, I feel compelled
to share with you now some thoughts on the crisis facing rural and
community pharmacists.
Here is what is happening: PHARMACIES large and small receive no or
inadequate compensation for the time they spend filling prescriptions.
This is particularly troubling for those serving ``dual-eligible''
beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid; and
those in assisted living facilities who take large numbers of pre-
packaged medication. Much of the responsibility of ensuring the drug
benefit's implementation has been assumed by the pharmacist. To the
extent that it is working at all, we have them to thank. In many ways
for many of the pharmacists I spoke with, much of the damage has
already been done.
On the horizon, however, are significant cuts to the Medicaid program
that will be achieved primarily by changing the way we reimburse
pharmacies for prescription drugs. That is right. The choices we made
during the budget reconciliation process once again targeted our
Nation's pharmacists, without asking for corresponding sacrifices from
the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which is
outrageous.
{time} 1230
It is truly shameful. And the implications will be significant. After
absorbing significant losses during the rollout of the Medicare drug
program, pharmacists will soon be hit by changes to the Medicaid
program, and many simply will not survive. This one-two punch is not
only bad policy, it is inexcusable.
Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt even praised
pharmacists last week for their ``heroic'' efforts in shouldering the
burden for implementing Medicare Part D. Their reward for their
selfless and heroic behavior? Drastic pharmacy reimbursement cuts in
the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on our
communities, disproportionately impacting the poorest and sickest
Americans and that will no doubt put hundreds if not thousands of small
businesses out of business.
I encourage my colleagues to talk to their pharmacists, learn more
about this situation, and work with me in a bipartisan manner to ensure
that we are not sacrificing the health of our Nation and the good-will
of our community pharmacists by taking the path of least resistance and
caving to large and powerful interests.
____________________
JOB STATISTICS NOT ACCURATELY TRACKING JOB GROWTH
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Under a previous order of the
House, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, last night I stood here in the well to talk
about our out-of-date job surveys that we have, the payroll versus the
household surveys. I discussed the changing nature of job creation in
the 21st century economy.
We have evolved into a technologically advanced, upwardly mobile,
highly flexible workforce. The types of jobs, the way jobs are created
and our methods for finding new work have all changed dramatically in
the 6\1/2\ decades since our job surveys were developed; and yet, Mr.
Speaker, our surveys remain fundamentally unchanged over that period of
time. The result has been job statistics that are increasingly
incapable of accurately tracking job growth in a dynamic economy.
This afternoon I would like to talk about another economic indicator
that is unable to fully portray the true state of our modern economy,
that being the gross domestic product.
Growth in GDP is our broadest measure of economic strength; and, as
such, it is perhaps the most commonly cited and heavily relied upon
statistic. And yet, like our job surveys, our methods for calculating
GDP were developed in the industrial age and have remained unchanged
while our economy has been transformed dramatically, as we all know.
The need for assessing and tracking GDP was borne out of the Great
Depression. As our Nation faced the worst economic crisis in its
history, policymakers found that they lacked the tools to assess
whether our economy was getting better or getting worse, so the
Department of Commerce began
[[Page 1954]]
the first accounting of national income and output. In an industrial
economy, this meant tallying such tangibles as machines, tractors and
buildings.
Purchasing new factory equipment or building a new facility was
counted as long-term investment, while spending on research or training
was not. For example, AT&T's investment in Bell Labs where the
transistor radio was invented didn't show up at all in the GDP numbers.
Even at the time, the economists who developed the methodology
recognized the limitations. But an economy based on heavy industrial
manufacturing could be adequately analyzed, by and large, on the basis
of tangible, easily identified and easily quantified investments.
However, as we all know, Mr. Speaker, today's economy is drastically
different from the economy that we faced following the Great
Depression. Our knowledge-based economy is based on ideas rather than
things. Investing in research and development, developing brand equity
and exporting best practices are driving successful businesses in our
innovation economy. Yet they are absent from our most important measure
of economic vitality, and by missing these intangible but fundamentally
important factors, our GDP numbers are misleading.
For example, Mr. Speaker, since 2000, the 10 largest U.S. companies
that report research and development spending have increased capital
spending by only 2 percent. That means that the types of investments
that are captured in the GDP calculation, new buildings and more
equipment, have been meager over the last half decade. Based on this
number, we would be led to believe that some of the country's greatest
engines of growth are stagnating and failing to make long-term
investments.
But, Mr. Speaker, these same 10 companies have actually increased
R&D, research and development spending, by a whooping 42 percent over
that period of time. They are investing rigorously in tomorrow's
innovations, better products, better services, better ways of doing
things. Our economy's creative thinkers are propelling our economy
forward and ensuring growth in the future. Yet our old economy
calculations miss this good economic news entirely.
To give another example, look at how the value of Apple's iPod is
incorporated into GDP. While superior design, quality and marketing,
all developed in my State of California, have led to a global
powerhouse brand, the actual product, the iPod, is assembled in China.
So when the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis
calculates our GDP, it does not count the $800 million, nearly a
billion dollars, that Apple spent in research and development and brand
development last year. It merely counts the number of units shipped
here from China and sold in the United States. As Business Week put it
in an article 2 weeks ago, this sort of accounting reduces Apple, one
of the world's greatest innovators, to nothing but a reseller of
imported goods.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that quantifying intangibles like
technical innovation and marketing savvy presents some formidable
challenges; and adopting hasty changes that make our GDP numbers too
confusing or complicated would obviously be no improvement to the
status quo. It is essential that we begin to look at ways to make our
economic statistics more meaningful by bringing them into the 21st
century. We need to do that by looking at these major modifications.
____________________
KEEPING MERCURY OUT OF VACCINATIONS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, over the past couple of weeks in
the newspapers and on television and on the radios across this country
people have been warned not to eat too much tuna and other seafood
because of the mercury content in the fish. They said that women who
are pregnant and women and men who are eating a lot of these seafood
products could have neurological problems created because they are
eating so much seafood with mercury in them.
I think that it is good that they are telling the American people
that. But at the same time that that is going on, our health agencies
are allowing mercury to be put into almost every vaccine an adult gets
and many of the vaccines that children get.
Since the late 1920s and early 1930s, there has been a product called
Thimerosal put into many of the vaccines, in fact, most of the vaccines
that people get today. Thimerosal is 50 percent ethyl mercury, and
mercury is toxic to the neurological system of the human being. Yet we
have talked about this for 4, 5, 6 years now, and we cannot get the
mercury out of the vaccines. It is being used as a preservative.
The interesting thing about it is that it has never been tested. You
might say it was tested back in 1929, because they said they tested it
on 27 people that had meningitis. All of them died from meningitis, but
none of them died from the mercury they were being injected with. But
they died anyhow from the meningitis. There wasn't enough time to find
out about the neurological problems that might ensue because they were
having mercury injected into their bodies.
Our children today, before they go to the first grade, get between 25
and 30 shots. Most of those shots used to contain mercury. Now there
are only about three or four that contain mercury. Nevertheless, it has
caused severe neurological problems in children.
We have gone from where 1 in 10,000 children were found to be
autistic to one in 166. It is an absolute epidemic. We have also seen a
tremendous increase in people that have Alzheimer's and other
neurological diseases. Yet we continue to allow our health agencies to
allow the pharmaceutical industry to put mercury into the vaccines
going into every single human being into this country, and in
particular our military personnel overseas.
Now we are hearing about the bird flu, Mr. Speaker, and we are going
to spend billions of dollars preparing this country for a possible bird
flu epidemic. That means they are going to create vaccines, and those
vaccines, in all probability, will have mercury in them, which means
that every single person that is vaccinated with the bird flu vaccine
will probably be getting Thimerosal in them, which is 50 percent ethyl
mercury.
It does cause severe neurological problems when it is given over a
long period of time. Your brain accumulates this mercury. It doesn't
chelate out of the body in a very efficient way. So if you get 10
shots, that mercury stays and keeps building up, and it gets worse and
worse as time goes by. The health agencies know this is a problem, and
yet we continue to allow mercury to be put into these vaccines.
So today, since the people of this country are being warned about not
eating too much fish that contains mercury like tuna and so forth, I
think it is high time that the health agencies of this country get the
mercury out of all vaccines that are being injected into children and
adults in this country because of the danger to their neurological
system. It is extremely important.
It can be done. This Thimerosal is supposedly a preservative. If we
go to single shot vials, which don't cost much more than the multi-shot
vials being used, you can take the mercury out of them because you
don't need that preservative in there, you don't need that kind of
purifying agent, if you will, in that vaccine.
It is extremely important, Mr. Speaker, that we get mercury out of
all vaccines. Right now, with the warnings being given to people not to
eat too much fish with mercury in them, it is high time our health
agencies get mercury out of all vaccines.
____________________
RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT UNITED ARAB EMIRATES' TAKING OVER U.S. PORTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the House's
attention
[[Page 1955]]
a transaction that is being contemplated on five of our major ports,
five important ports of entry in the United States. New Orleans, Miami,
Newark, Philadelphia and New York are all being considered as an asset
to be transferred to the United Arab Emirates soon after review of the
transactional details.
I am concerned about this transaction for several reasons. First and
foremost, it has occurred under what is called Council for Foreign
Investments, as it is known, chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury,
Mr. Snow, and multiple agencies of the United States Government to
review transactions launched by foreign entities to purchase assets
here in the United States.
Why am I concerned about the United Arab Emirate's ownership and
potential management of our ports of entry, these five strategic ports?
For many reasons.
Just yesterday, it was reported that the United Arab Emirates was in
negotiations urging a more robust trade relationship with Iran. Just
yesterday, they were making a decision to move forward with a more
robust trading platform with Iran.
I am sure most of our colleagues realize that in recent days we have
gone to enormous lengths to convince our allies and our friends around
the world to put pressure on Iran in order to reduce the likelihood of
their using nuclear weapons or building nuclear capabilities. So at a
time when we are trying to get our international partners to put
pressure on Iran, the United Arab Emirates is doing the exact opposite
by encouraging and engaging in trade debate with Iran.
The United Arab Emirates has worked with us since 9/11 on helping us
fight the War on Terror, but it has always been well known and
documented that a number of the terrorist activity planning and
financing was taking place in these very countries that would now have
control of our ports.
In this country, if we were asked to turn over our airport security
to another foreign national, people would be rightfully outraged. But
in this particular transaction, we cannot seem to get any information
as to what are the requirements of security, what are the requirements
for people and personnel who would be employed there, what are the kind
of safeguards of inspection of cargo.
I have long stated my concern on port security. I feel we have failed
to adequately secure cargo coming into this country. Now I am told in
my inquiry to Secretary Snow that they couldn't really answer any of my
questions yesterday in the committee because it was a more secretive or
at least private transaction that could not be commented on.
As a Member of Congress, it bothers me that we have a transaction
being considered and contemplated where we have no information provided
to Members of Congress.
{time} 1245
Tomorrow, President Bush travels to my home State of Florida, and he
will visit the port of Tampa, not a port being considered for sale, but
a port nonetheless, a very important port of commerce in the State of
Florida.
I hope the President as he flies to Florida will contemplate the
utilization of the law known as Exxon-Florio, which allows the
President to intercede and stop a transfer of assets if it is reflected
to be of some national security concern.
We have recently seen, because of the outpouring of opposition to the
Chinese Government's acquisition of a United States domestic oil
producer, we have seen that deal unravel because of domestic pressure
on not allowing the Chinese Government to take ownership of a domestic
refinery operation.
Now, I hope the same outrage is expressed by our constituents in
trying to figure out what is involved in this transaction. How can we
bring to fruition, at least we hope, a termination of these
engagements, and continue the operation of the ports as they currently
are conducted.
Again, they are the largest seaports in the United States on the
eastern seaboard, including New Orleans, so the potential threat to our
country is not imagined, but is real. We have heightened security, as I
mentioned, at the airports. We are trying to heighten security at the
seaports, but I believe we will be impeded if we do not look at this
transaction.
It is not a foreign entity; it is a foreign government that seeks to
have controlling interest in these six ports on the eastern seaboard.
We again inquired of Secretary Snow yesterday. We inquired yesterday of
Ambassador Portman. I hope some answers are forthcoming as to how they
strategically thought through this transaction
But it is my fervent hope that as we continue to debate and discuss
this issue that the President again will use the authority granted to
him by the Congress and intercede and not allow the transaction to take
place.
____________________
THE NEED FOR STRAIGHT TALK ON NATIONAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, as I talk to my constituents, Democrats,
Republicans and Independents alike, there is an increasing concern that
the Bush administration is not talking straight to the American people
on important issues of national security.
We know that during the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the intelligence
community was put under pressure to come up with a certain view of the
facts. And where we put ideology over facts, instead of having the
facts shape our policy, it was the other way around.
We have now learned recently from a former CIA analyst, Paul Pillar,
that not only did we play with the facts with respect to whether or not
there were weapons of mass destruction and whether or not there were
links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but we also ignored many of
the facts brought to us by some of the intelligence community with
respect to the difficulties we would confront in Iraq in the case of a
military invasion there.
And what happened, and he has laid this out very clearly, is the
administration cherry-picked the information. They always took the rosy
view of the facts as they presented us with their support of their case
and tended to ignore those facts that did not support their case.
Now, whether you were for or against taking military action in Iraq,
we should all be able to agree as Americans that it is important that
we listen to those people who have experience, who have the
professional know-how, people in our intelligence community who have
spent years looking into issues around the world and in this case,
issues with respect to the Middle East.
So I think it should concern all Americans that the administration
decided to ignore warnings from nonpartisan individuals who brought
information to their attention. And it is not just the failure to take
heed of that information. Now we are seeing the consequences in terms
of the manpower in different intelligence agencies.
U.S. News and World Report has a story about how we are losing many
of the most experienced people in the CIA as a result of the fact that
they feel pressure to take a political position or that they are forced
out of their positions. We are losing many of our most experienced
people in the ranks of our intelligence community, and that certainly
is not good for our national security.
We would have thought that after 9/11 we would have heeded some
lessons, and in fact we formed a bipartisan 9/11 Commission that came
out with a number of recommendations. One of their recommendations was
to do more about the so-called ``lose nukes,'' nuclear weapons in the
former Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, if you look at what has been done to date, it is very
little. We are not doing what we should with respect to the Nunn-Lugar
program; and that is why if you look at the most recent report by the
9/11 Commission, they have given this administration and this Congress
Ds and Fs, failing grades, in a whole range of categories,
[[Page 1956]]
making it clear that we have not learned our lessons and that we are
not more prepared.
In fact, we know we are not prepared because all we have to do is
look at the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and the recent
reports that have come out in the last couple of days showing the total
failure of initiative by the Federal Government.
You know, a lot of people talk a good game about being prepared to
deal with national security threats; but the fact of the matter is when
you take the lid off and look underneath as to what is actually being
done, the news is not good: more people leaving our intelligence
agencies, the fact that we are continuing to get failing grades from
the 9/11 Commission.
And just the other day in the Government Reform Committee, we had a
hearing with a number of whistleblowers, all from national security
agencies. These are people who have uncovered abuses within national
security agencies, from the FBI to the NSA.
And instead of welcoming these individuals who have come forward to
present the administration and the public with some truths, the
testimony of these individuals, all under oath, sworn under oath, is
that they are actually being punished for having come forward to try
and tell the truth.
Now, again, I do not care what party affiliation you may have; it is
not in the security interests of this country for us to punish people
who come forward and tell the truth and reveal abuses that are going on
within different national security agencies. That undermines our
national security. That undermines our credibility as a government.
So I would just suggest that as we listen to a lot of the rhetoric
from the administration, we remember that, unfortunately, this is the
gang that cannot shoot straight with the American people. And in the
last couple of days we have learned that that is not just figuratively
true, it is also, unfortunately, actually true.
____________________
BALLOTS NOT BULLETS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks this
afternoon by congratulating first of all the people of Haiti, a small,
very poor country that is our neighbor, but a country whose people
still believe in the power of democracy. They still believe in the
power of the vote. And so despite all odds, despite all intimidation,
the people of Haiti overwhelmingly showed up at the polls and they
voted. And not only did they show up at the polls and vote; they
demanded that their vote be counted.
Now, we understand that there were about 85,000 ballots that had
nothing on them. They were probably ready to have something put on
them. But the people of Haiti demanded that the vote that was actually
voted and the results of that actual vote count be the results of the
election.
And I am also down here this afternoon to congratulate not only the
people of Haiti, who prevailed, but to congratulate Rene Preval, who
was their candidate of choice.
Now, the people of Haiti have to be congratulated because they have
gone to the polls over and over and over and over again. They have gone
to the polls. A few years ago, when I had just come to Congress, they
went to the polls, before I got to Congress, they went to the polls and
they elected a former priest, a man of the cloth, a man of the
community, of the neighborhood, a man of the poor to represent them.
And hired thugs who were on the CIA payroll, whose leader enjoys the
solace and solitude of America's neighborhoods, he should not even be
here, helped to oust President Aristide.
And so the hopes and aspirations of the people of Haiti, who were
finally able to throw off the yoke of American-imposed and -supported
dictatorship, saw their hopes and their dreams vanish once again.
But thank goodness there was an administration in Washington, DC and
there was a change in the face of the Democratic Caucus and so Members
of the Congressional Black Caucus would not stand to allow this outrage
to continue. And so working in concert with the Clinton administration,
the members of the Congressional Black Caucus worked day in and day out
and successfully saw the return of Jean Bertrand Aristide to power.
But that was not enough. Because, as soon as Clinton was out of
office, and the George W. Bush administration was in office, something
else happened, after the people of Haiti voted to renew President
Aristide's mandate. And what happened happened 2 years ago.
The people of Haiti, in free, fair and transparent elections, elected
Jean Bertrand Aristide to another term in office. U.S. Armed Forces
showed up at his house and took him and his family away, put them on a
plane, destination unknown. Kind of like what happened with the Katrina
survivors.
So once again, the people of Haiti saw that when they went to the
polls, participated in the process, put their full faith and confidence
in the power of the ballot box, ballot box, not bullets, that bullets
from some place else could come and dash their dreams. So now former
President Aristide lives in South Africa.
I have to acknowledge the tremendous role that was played by my
sister Congresswoman, Ms. Waters. Here she is. Now I am all
discombobulated because my sister is here.
{time} 1300
I will let her tell her story.
Maxine, can I invite you to please tell the story of how you saved a
little piece of America's honor by making sure that Jean Bertram
Aristide was at least safely delivered to his final destination.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to my sister.
Ms. WATERS. I thank you very much. Congresswoman, I am very pleased
that you have taken time to come to this floor to talk about what has
just happened in Haiti.
As you know, Haiti for too long has been dropped off of the corporate
media's agenda. And whenever they have written stories, for the most
part it has been distorted information which helped to lead to the
unrest and the destabilization of Haiti. But you are absolutely
correct. There was a coup d'etat that removed President Aristide from
office. They did drop him off in the Central Republic of Africa.
I got together with Randal Robinson and a few other people, and we
chartered a plane, and we traveled to the Central Republic of Africa,
and we negotiated with President Bokassa I think it is, who was holding
him there and was afraid to release him because they had some kind of
agreement with the French and also because the United States had
brought him there. But we were able to convince them after many hours
up in that country that they should let him go.
As a matter of fact, they did not want us to leave. They had said we
could not leave the night we came in. We basically said to them we had
to leave and we had to leave with him and that if I was not back in
Washington by the next day or so, then they would consider that he had
kidnapped me also and that he was holding Aristide prisoner. And they
did not want that reputation. They were negotiating at the World Bank
at the time, and they did not know what it all meant, but we finally
got him out of there.
We took him to Jamaica where they kept him for 6 weeks. P.J.
Patterson, the president there, gave him refuge until President Mbeki
could be reelected in South Africa. After his reelection, he gave him
asylum in South Africa, and that is where he is now, and now he is
working with the university. But the fact of the matter is he is alive
and he is well.
I hope that he gets some joy in understanding that the Lavalas Party
did win, even though there was an attempt maybe to deny them the win.
The people rose up. The people went into Port-au-Prince, and the people
went to the Montana Hotel, and they were basically nonviolent, but they
went in
[[Page 1957]]
numbers. And they had no choice but to work something out.
I think Congresswoman McKinney is telling you about the ballots and
we will be talking about that a little more. I yield back and thank you
very much, Congresswoman.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I would
like to suspend my special order. The gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Waters) has requested a 5-minute special order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). The gentlewoman may yield to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on her time.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I have an hour, so I will yield to the
gentlewoman.
congratulating rene preval, president-elect of haiti
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. I appreciate your
generosity.
Mr. Speaker, I really came to the floor today to congratulate Rene
Preval, the President-elect of Haiti. Rene Preval was just declared the
winner in Haiti's presidential elections this morning with 51.15
percent of the vote. President-elect Preval has said that his first
priority as president will be to provide relief to the two-thirds of
Haiti's population that is living in extreme poverty. His plans include
universal public school education and at least a free meal a day for
all of the poor children.
A little bit about him. He was first elected President of Haiti in
1995 as a member of the Lavalas Party, the party that represented the
poor majority. He succeeded President Aristide and served until
President Aristide's reelection in 2000. President Aristide, of course,
as we have just talked about, was forced to leave Haiti 2 years ago in
a coup d'etat that was planned and implemented and orchestrated by the
United States, France and Canada.
This election that took place on Tuesday, February 7 was very
interesting. At first, the early results showed an overwhelming victory
for Rene Preval. Many polling stations posted their results the day
after the election, and Preval won between 60 and 90 percent of the
vote in all of these polling places. But then something happened. By
Thursday, the election officials, the one heading the CEP, reported
that, well, no, at that time by Thursday they reported that he had 61.5
percent of the votes counted thus far.
Then Haiti's anti-Aristide elites who opposed him, Rene Preval, they
were opposing him because they believed that he was influenced by
President Aristide and he would carry out President Aristide's
policies, policies that benefit Haiti's poor. These elites, of course,
are the same people who helped to organize the coup d'etat in 2004 and
the same people who have been responsible for oppressing the people of
Haiti for decades in order to continue to operate the sweatshops and to
profit from cheap labor and keeping the living standards low.
Well, the elites reacted to the news of Preval's decisive victory and
we believe that there really was something in play, an attempt to steal
the election. And there was evidence of election fraud. It was
abundant. Just yesterday hundreds and possibly thousands of burned
ballots marked for Preval were found in a garbage dump.
The counting rules used by Haiti's Provisional Electoral Council
seemed to be rules that were designed to deny Preval a victory. About
125,000 ballots, or 7.5 percent of the votes cast, were declared
invalid because of alleged irregularities. And another 4 percent of the
votes were allegedly blank, but nevertheless they included them in the
vote count, thereby pushing Preval's percentage below 50 percent.
When they announced that he was allotted 47 percent, I mean, not only
did I, I simply could not believe my ears, the people of Haiti, the
Lavalas Party, people normally referred to as shemeres, they said, oh,
no. Not only do we want our President. These are people who were denied
polling places in Cite Soleil and Bellair and other poor places.
Ms. McKINNEY. I would like to point out that there were certain
Members of Congress who actually traveled with Condoleezza Rice and
they came back and said that Condoleezza Rice had promised that there
would be some ballot access in Cite Soleil; isn't that correct?
Ms. WATERS. I am told that they were given assurances that there
would be an election and there would be polling places in all of the
provinces and that the rumors that we were hearing about the CEP not
having the polling places in Cite Soleil and Bellair would not happen.
So when they said it I was suspicious, and I thought that perhaps she
was saying that to try to appease them at the time.
But we know that the Secretary of State has not paid any attention to
Haiti. This is not on her radar, and I did not expect that there would
be any follow-through to ensure that the people would have access to
the ballot.
As a matter of fact, they did have the polling places. But people got
up in the wee hours of the morning, and they walked for hours, and they
stood in line and they demanded that the polling place be open. When
they got there, the polling places were supposed to be open. They were
not. They demanded they open them. They stayed in line, and they voted
in record numbers. They voted in record numbers. And that is why, when
the announcement came that somehow his majority had fell below 50
percent, we were all upset, and I fired off a press release that was
not too nice at all.
The Haitian people have suffered tremendously for decades. Haiti has
been ruled by brutal dictators such as Papa Doc and Baby Doc Duvalier.
They really were doing the bidding of the elites there. They kept their
feet on the necks of the people so that the elites could profit from
the cheap labor and from slave labor. These dictators controlled a
brutal army that protected the interests of the wealthy elite and
foreign visitors while oppressing poor people.
Haitians worked in sweatshops for foreign investors, receiving just
pennies a day. Those who protested the exploitation and demanded better
living conditions were arrested or killed by the army. The U.S.
Government trained the army and supported the elite. After all of this
suffering it would have been outrageous for the U.S. government to
allow of the anti-Aristide elites to deny the Haitian people who have
withstood so much pain, poverty and disenfranchisement and who
persevered on election day, walked for miles, and waited for hours, the
right to be governed by the president of their choice.
Well, the people have spoken, and I think it is clear, and this
interim government that was put in, Mr. Latour from Boca Raton and the
others, they should pack up their bags and go home. They should get out
of the way and allow this new President to do everything in his power
to really exercise democracy in Haiti. They stole it and they took it
from President Aristide.
He was a priest who came from Cite Soleil, who was of the liberation
theology, who preached for the least of these and who fought for the
poor and fought for them, became a voice for them, speaking to them in
Creole, in ways that had never been done before because the elite spoke
in French to keep the poor people from even knowing what they were
talking about. They never had a responsive government. Now they have
got to give Preval a chance.
My message today is, Mr. Andy Apid of the Group of 184 that helped to
implement the coup d'etat, Mr. Apid, get out of the way of Mr. Preval
and allow him to preside.
To the Group of 184, to the elites who have profited so mightily on
the backs of these poor people, they have to get out of the way.
To Mr. Wolfowitz over at the World Bank, you need to meet with Mr.
Preval right away.
The International Monetary Fund, the funding agencies, USAID, let us
get the resources in there to put in a water system so that people can
have clean water. Let us support a health care system. Let us deal with
the poor. Let us
[[Page 1958]]
make sure that they have an opportunity to live and to grow and to have
a decent quality of life.
I am optimistic.
And for all of those who have denied the people the right to just
have a decent quality of life, I am not personally, and I think you,
Congresswoman, we are going to say, okay, let bygones be bygones. If
you do not try to oust this president, if you do not try to kill him,
if you do not try to jail him, we are willing to work with you. We are
willing to work in every way that we can to involve our country and our
government in a way that it should have been involved before, for the
people, on behalf of our neighbors in this very poor country.
So my message today to all of those who have undermined Haiti for so
long, who have profited on the backs of the people for so long, give
Haiti a chance, give this President a chance. We look forward to
working with everybody, but we are certainly going to work with Mr.
Preval. We are going to be there with him. We are going to back him up.
We are going to stand with him. Now is an opportunity for a new day in
Haiti.
Mr. Speaker, I would yield back the balance of my time, and I thank
you so much, Congresswoman, for sharing this moment with me.
Ms. McKINNEY. I am absolutely blown away by the things that
Congresswoman Maxine Waters just said. She reminded us that the French
and the Americans and the Canadians, which I did not realize that the
Canadians were involved in this, they all got together to oust a duly
elected president.
But now let me just tell you that from 2000 in Florida this President
was not duly elected. I will say that because the election was stolen,
and we all know that the election was stolen. And it is interesting
that you would use invalid ballots, blank ballots. This is the same
mechanism that was used to disenfranchise black people in this country
in 2000 in the presidential election. And so now, of course, they
surface again in Haiti, invalid ballots, blank ballots. But the people
of Haiti took to the streets.
{time} 1315
They demanded a fair vote count, and they got a fair vote count, and
they got a President.
I want to thank my sister congresswoman for joining me on the House
floor but also for those strong and powerful words. Because she is
absolutely right, that it is our responsibility now that the people's
voices have been heard and so now we have to respect that. We need to
respect that.
I want to shift gears for just a moment, and I do not think this
poster should present a surprise to anyone as to what I am going to
talk about now, and that is Hurricane Katrina. I want to remind people
of these images that went all over the world. The black person who is
trying to go through the water for food is looting. That is what
Associated Press writes. That is what Associated Press wrote, the black
person was looting. Agence France-Press saw these white people, and
they were finding bread and soda. Blacks loot; whites find. There is
nothing more stark.
This is the beginning of the Hurricane Katrina story, and this is the
way Hurricane Katrina was portrayed to the American people and
throughout the world. We need to question all of the press images from
not just Associated Press but every newspaper and on television.
What were our administration leaders doing as New Orleans was filling
with water? The President was on vacation in Texas at the ranch. The
Vice President was on vacation in Wyoming. He was fly fishing. The
Secretary of State was visiting New York City and even in the midst of
what was happening in New Orleans, she got booed, so the press reports
tell us, because she took in a play, and then after she took in a play
she went shopping for Ferragamo shoes and bought $7,000 worth,
reportedly, of Ferragamo shoes, and then, after that, she decided to
play a little tennis. Donald Rumsfeld took in a Padres' game in San
Diego, and Michael Chertoff, who is the Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security, who is charged with taking care of the United States
in a time of great trial and stress and catastrophe, stayed at home.
So, as a result, the select committee that was formed by this
Congress to investigate the government's preparations for and actions
during Hurricane Katrina issued a report yesterday. The name of the
report, ``A Failure of Initiative.'' It is a huge report.
The bottom line is that Secretary Chertoff needs to resign. It is
amazing to me to see the Secretary on television through the powers of
C-SPAN doing an intellectual dance, trying to defend the indefensible.
What happened to the people of the gulf States region and what is
happening to them today is indefensible. And if thousands of families
are being kicked out of their temporary homes, their temporary housing
which was the hotel rooms, that is the responsibility at the end of the
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security who said, okay, we
will let FEMA go ahead with that call. Of course, the President bears
responsibility, too, and he has accepted responsibility, but I have not
yet heard Secretary Chertoff accept responsibility.
Another sad fact about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath is that in
the metropolitan Atlanta area we have about 60- to 70,000 Katrina
survivors. They want to go back home, many of them, but there is so
much uncertainty because, as the congresswoman from Florida said
earlier, there is still uncertainty as to how the Hurricane Katrina
survivors are going to be treated.
I have introduced legislation that will force the EPA to look at
tests and make public the environmental circumstances under which
people will be returning, in particular to New Orleans. It is a shame
that we would have to have legislation in order to get the EPA to do
its job, but, right now, structures are being tested for habitability
on their structural soundness but not on their environmental soundness,
and we have that toxic sludge that is everywhere.
So I would ask that this Congress look at the omnibus piece of
legislation that was dropped in and signed by all of the members of the
Congressional Black Caucus which addresses all aspects of the problem
faced by those Katrina survivors.
In addition, I find it curious that the panel that produced this,
what some people are calling, scathing report was boycotted by the
Democrats. Well, it was boycotted by the Democratic leadership. I chose
to participate in it because there is one thing about participating in
Congress. We are elected, we come here, we write, and we speak, and
everything that we write and speak for the Congressional Record will
survive as long as there is a Congressional Record and academicians and
scholars, lawyers can search the Congressional Record to understand the
environment within which certain actions were taken, certain
legislation was passed. Attorneys and judges all rely on the
Congressional Record, as well as scholars and academicians and
historians and archivists. So the power of the Congressional Record is
one that must not be thrown away.
I participated in the hearing and my remarks are included in the
panel's report, but the leadership was suggesting that, instead, we
needed an independent commission, like the 9/11 Commission. I do not
have a problem with an independent commission, but to use the 9/11
Commission as a paragon of an example of how you ferret out the truth
and find out what actually happened in a tragic event I think is not
appropriately stated. Because yesterday in the Armed Services Committee
we had three people who appeared before the Armed Services Committee in
an Able Danger hearing. Able Danger is the data mining program that has
been in the newspaper a lot because of the persistence of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), one of our colleagues. These experts
from the military and from intelligence said that if they had been
allowed to do their job, their work product could
[[Page 1959]]
quite possibly have prevented September 11. It provided the American
intelligence community with the tools necessary to understand what was
happening to our country in real time, but the program was shut down,
and when efforts were made to brief the 9/11 Commission on what this
Able Danger work product had demonstrated and had shown, their work was
denigrated. Their work product was denigrated, and they were not given
an opportunity to present their findings to the Commission as directly.
It has been said in public statements that their work was
historically insignificant. Yet we have three people in open session
yesterday say to us that if they had been allowed to do their job, to
do their work, that quite possibly September 11 could have been
prevented. And instead of grasping on to this information, the staff of
the 9/11 Commission said that these people were not credible and that
the results that they touted were historically insignificant and,
therefore, this program was ignored.
Now I do not know why it was ignored, but the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) has had a lot to say about Able Danger and
what it meant to our country and why it was shut down. I would
encourage people to pay attention to Able Danger and the hearings that
the House Armed Services Committee is having.
Also, there was one other thing very sad that came out of the hearing
that we had yesterday, and that is poor whistle-blower treatment. In
fact, whistle-blower mistreatment and all kinds of allegations were
made against average, ordinary Americans who had extraordinary jobs
that put them in a position to know something, and because they saw
something was wrong and they tried to inform the higher ups that
something was wrong, they were personally mistreated at the workplace
and away from the workplace, even comments made about their personal
and private lives.
{time} 1330
What that says to us is that we have got to do a better job in this
place of allowing the truth to come out. I remember when I was in
Congress during my previous tenure, and at that time we were working
very hard on U.S. foreign policy in Africa. We wanted the truth to come
out about the real events surrounding the Rwandan genocide. It seemed
that everybody who was associated with not telling the truth, or making
sure that we didn't get access to the truth, got a promotion.
I have become fond of saying, it seems that it is only in Washington,
DC where you can be incompetent and get a promotion. Anywhere else in
America, if you are incompetent, you lose your job, but not so here in
this country.
As we contemplate the enormity of what the Able Danger panelists told
us in open testimony yesterday, as we contemplate as a country the
enormity of this revelation, let us also weigh it against what is
happening now. What is happening now is that the war drums are beating
once again.
I have a constituent who is over the age of 40, and he has been told
he has got to report for duty to go to Iraq. Over 40. The drumbeats for
war are sounding, not just against Iraq now, but also against Iran and
Syria.
In the face of these beating drums, the backdrop is that this
administration is being investigated. This administration being
investigated has two ongoing investigations. The Department of Justice
just opened another one today, which makes this the third
investigation, the third investigation on wiretapping. This
administration is being investigated and has drawn indictments and a
guilty plea. The Vice President's former chief of staff, Lewis Libby,
has been indicted, and Lawrence Franklin, who is being investigated by
Paul McNulty, has been sentenced for 12 years for passing classified
material over to another country.
This administration is being investigated on how we got into the
first war, and now they want us to go to a second war, to open another
front on this war. It is about time that we say no more war. No more
war, Mr. Bush.
I also want to, as I remember the gentleman in my district who is
over 40 years of age who has been told that he has got to report for
duty in Iraq, remember Kevin Benderman, whose wife frantically
contacted my office asking for help for her husband. Kevin Benderman
went to Iraq one time. He was asked to do things that he thought as a
human being went against his conscience.
We know that collateral damage is not just a number: 100,000;
200,000. It is people. It is little boys and little girls. It is women.
Kevin Benderman said, I am not going to kill innocent people. Don't ask
me to do that. I have done it once. Once is too much.
He decided that he would apply for conscientious objector status.
Well, Kevin Benderman is in the brig because he did not want to kill
innocent little girls and little boys and women and men in Iraq. He is
in the brig.
Last weekend, there was an action to free Kevin Benderman. It's a
shame.
I didn't expect to take all of my time, but I was pleased that my
sister from California chose to come down and say a few words of
congratulations to the people of Haiti and to the new President-elect,
Rene Preval.
I was clicking around on the computer, and I came across a very
interesting article written by Thom Hartmann, and it can be found on
Common Dreams at commondreams.org. The title of it is ``Rumsfeld and
Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook.''
Basically what they say in this article, which I am going to submit
for the Record, is that when they were in office before, this dynamic
duo decided to cook up an idea of Soviet military dominance to frighten
the American people and justify huge defense contracts, or the huge
defense budget, which then would result in defense contracts.
Let me just read. They said that the Soviets had a new secret weapon
of mass destruction. They succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear
in the United States, and making themselves and their defense
contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the world.
Trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been
wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and
Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet weapons of mass
destruction and the Soviet supersub technology.
But the Cold War was good for business and good for the political
power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz to Cheney, who have
all become rich, in part, because of the arms industry.
I am going to place this into the Record, because it appears that
America has been through this before.
[From the Common Dreams News Center, Feb. 13, 2006]
Rumsfeld and Cheney Revive Their 70s Terror Playbook
(by Thom Hartmann)
Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney are at it again.
Last week, Rumsfeld told the press we should be preparing
for ``the Long War,'' saying of the war this administration
has stirred up with its attack on Iraq that, ``Just as the
Cold War lasted a long time, this war is something that is
not going to go away.''
The last time Rumsfeld talked like this was in the 1970s,
in response to the danger of peace presented by Richard
Nixon.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon returned from the Soviet
Union with a treaty worked out by Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, the beginning of a process Kissinger called
``detente.'' On June 1, 1972, Nixon gave a speech in which he
said: ``Last Friday, in Moscow, we witnessed the beginning of
the end of that era which began in 1945. With this step, we
have enhanced the security of both nations. We have begun to
reduce the level of fear, by reducing the causes of fear--for
our two peoples, and for all peoples in the world.''
But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's
Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff
(Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans
might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could
Americans be manipulated? And how could billions of dollars
taken as taxes from average working people be transferred to
the companies that Rumsfeld and Cheney--and their cronies--
would soon work for and/or run?
Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort--first
secretly and then openly--to undermine Nixon's treaty for
peace and to rebuild the state of fear.
They did it by claiming that the Soviets had a new secret
weapon of mass destruction
[[Page 1960]]
that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't
know about, that nobody knew about but them. It was a nuclear
submarine technology that was undetectable by current
American technology. And, they said, because of this and
related-undetect-
able-technology weapons, the US must redirect billions of
dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the
money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one
day work or have businesses relationships with.
The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a
``complete fiction'' and pointing out that the Soviet Union
was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed
their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two
if simply left alone.
As Dr. Anne Cahn, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from
1977 to 1980, told the BBC's Adam Curtis for his documentary
``The Power of Nightmares'': ``They couldn't say that the
Soviets had acoustic means of picking up American submarines,
because they couldn't find it. So they said, well maybe they
have a non-acoustic means of making our submarine fleet
vulnerable. But there was no evidence that they had a non-
acoustic system. They're saying, `we can't find evidence that
they're doing it the way that everyone thinks they're doing
it, so they must be doing it a different way. We don't know
what that different way is, but they must be doing it.'
``INTERVIEWER (off-camera): Even though there was no
evidence.
``CAHN: Even though there was no evidence.
``INTERVIEWER: So they're saying there, that the fact that
the weapon doesn't exist . . .
``CAHN: Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist It just means
that we haven't found it.''
But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there
was something nefarious going on, something we should be very
afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to
appoint a commission including their old friend Paul
Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good.
Wolfowitz's group, known as ``Team B,'' came to the
conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying
new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed
submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend
on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current
technology. It could--within a matter of months--be off the
coast of New York City with a nuclear warhead.
Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of this
powerful new Soviet WMD was unproven--they said the lack of
proof proved the ``undetectable'' sub existed--they
nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic
escalations in military spending to selected defense
contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan
administration.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz helped re-organized a group--The
Committee on the Present Danger--to promote their world-
view. The Committee produced documentaries, publications, and
provided guests for national talk shows and news reports.
They worked hard to whip up fear and encourage increases in
defense spending, particularly for sophisticated weapons
systems offered by the defense contractors for whom many of
these same men would later become lobbyists.
And they succeeded in recreating an atmosphere of fear in
the United States, and making themselves and their defense
contractor friends richer than most of the kingdoms of the
world.
Trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that
they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right.
Rumsfeld * * * and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s
about Soviet WMDs and the Soviet super-sub technology.
Not only do we now know that the Soviets didn't have any
new and impressive WMDs, but we also now know that the
Soviets were, in fact, decaying from within, ripe for
collapse any time, regardless of what the US did--just as the
CIA (and anybody who visited Soviet states--as I had--during
that time could easily predict). The Soviet economic and
political system wasn't working, and their military was
disintegrating.
But the Cold War was good for business, and good for the
political power of its advocates, from Rumsfeld to Wolfowitz
to Cheney who have all become rich in part because of the
arms industry.
Today, making Americans terrified with their so-called
``War On Terror'' is the same strategy, run for many of the
same reasons, by the same people. And by hyping it--and then
invading Iraq to bring it into fruition--we may well be
bringing into reality forces that previously existed only on
the margins and with very little power to harm us.
Most recently we've learned from former CIA National
Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and South Asia Paul
Pillar that, just like in the 1970s, the CIA disagreed in
2002 with Rumsfeld and Cheney about an WMD threat--this time
posed by Iraq--even as Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz were
telling America how afraid we should be of an eminent
``mushroom cloud.''
We've seen this movie before. The last time, it cost our
nation hundreds of billions of dollars, vastly enriched the
cronies of these men, and ultimately helped bring Ronald
Reagan to power. This time they've added on top of their
crony enrichment program the burden of over 2200 dead
American servicemen and women, tens of thousands wounded, as
many as a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, and a level of
worldwide instability not seen since the run-up to World War
Two.
When Hillary Clinton recently noted that the only political
card Republicans are any longer capable of playing is the
card of fear, she was spot-on right. They're now even running
radio and TV commercials designed to terrorize our children
(``Do you have a plan for a terrorist attack?''), the modern
reincarnation of ``Duck and Cover.''
Now that former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has
confessed that many of the terror alerts that continually
popped up during the 2004 election campaign were, as USA
Today noted on 10 May 2005, based on ``flimsy evidence'' or
were done over his objection at the insistence of
``administration officials,'' it's increasingly clear that
the Bush administration itself is the source of much of the
``be afraid!'' terror inflicted on US citizens over the past
5 years.
It's time for patriotic Americans of all political
affiliations, and for our media, to join with Senator
Clinton, former CIA official Paul Pillar, and the many others
who are pointing this out, and refuse to allow the Bush
administration to inflict terror on Americans--and the
world--for political gain.
As Franklin D. Roosevelt said in his first inaugural
address in 1932, when Americans were terrorized by the
Republican Great Depression, the echoes of World War One, and
the rise of Communism in Russia: This is preeminently the
time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly.
Nor need we shrink from honestly facing conditions in our
country today. This great Nation will endure as it has
endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let
me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear
is fear itself--nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror
which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into
advance.
Indeed, the best hope for the growth of democracy around
the world and the survival of individual liberty in the
United States is for us to turn away from Rumsfeld's and
Cheney's politics of terror and fear, and once again embrace
the great vision of this nation, held by her great statesmen
and women from 1776 to today. Indeed, they are still among
us, as we saw most recently when a brave few senators stood
up to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito.
In this election year, we must redouble our efforts to
swell their ranks, to involve ourselves in local and national
political groups, and to return America to her destiny as the
world's beacon of courage, liberty, and light.
Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway.) The gentlewoman will suspend.
The gentlewoman is reminded to refrain from personalities toward the
Vice President.
Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is not suggesting
that I cannot say the name of the Vice President. I am reading an
article. Is the gentleman suggesting?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend. The
gentlewoman may state the name of the Vice President or make policy
references, but she should refrain from engaging in personalities with
regard to the Vice President, even by quoting the words of another.
Ms. McKINNEY. I did not make a personal reference, so I will move on
with my time. I would commend this article to this Congress: ``Rumsfeld
and Cheney Revive Their 70's Terror Playbook,'' and everything I have
said is quoted right here in this article. Now, I think the last thing
this Congress wants to do is try to snuff out the right of people to
speak.
The next thing I would like to draw to your attention is an excerpt
from a book. The name of the book is ``War is a Racket.'' It is written
by Major General Smedley Butler, and this is how it goes:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest,
easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one
international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are
reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best
described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the
majority of the people. Only a small inside group knows what it is
about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense
of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.
In the world war, because this was written at the time of World War
I, a
[[Page 1961]]
mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new
millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the
world war. That many admitted to their huge blood gains in their income
tax returns.
How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns, no one
knows. How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many
of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry
in a rat-infested dugout? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened
nights ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of
them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were
wounded or killed in battle?
Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up by a few.
Munitions makers, bankers, ship builders, manufacturers, meat packers,
speculators, they would fare well. Yes, they are getting ready for
another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends. But what does
it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers,
their sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit
their children? What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom
war means huge profits? Yes, what does it profit the Nation?
But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill. If you don't
believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad,
or visit any of the veterans hospitals in the United States where there
are thousands of the living dead. The very able chief surgeon told me
that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those
who stayed at home. Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the
fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks.
{time} 1345
There they were remolded. They were made over. They were made to
about face, to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put
shoulder to shoulder and through mass psychology they were entirely
changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think
nothing at all of killing or of being killed.
Then, suddenly, we discharge them and told them to make another about
face. This time they had to do their own readjustment, without mass
psychology, without officers aid and advice and without nationwide
propaganda. We did not need them anymore, so we scattered them about
without any speeches or parades.
Too many of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed mentally
because they could not make the final about face alone. In the
government hospitals, these boys are in a barracks with steel bars and
wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These
already have been mentally destroyed. These boys do not even look like
human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces. Physically, they are in
good shape. Mentally, they are gone. There are thousands and thousands
of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. Another
step is necessary in this fight to smash the war racket.
To summarize, three steps must be taken to smash the war racket. One,
we must take the profit out of war. Two, we must permit the youth of
the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be
war. And three, we must limit our military forces to defense purposes.
He says home defense purposes. This is an excerpt from Smedley Butler's
War is a Racket.
Now, juxtapose what this man of war said to the drumbeats of war that
we hear in our media now, that are emanating from high places within
this administration, people who have not borne the rifle, who have not
been in war. In fact, when America called them because America needed
them, they were full of deferments. And yet they want to put a young
man like Kevin Benderman who does not want to kill children and women
and innocent people in Iraq anymore in the brig, and they would tell
our country that we need to prepare for a long war. We do not prepare
for a long war. Certainly not George Bush's war. And if Tom Hartman is
right in his assessment, we do not need to prepare for Dick Cheney's
war either.
We have had some discussion in this body about war, and one of my
colleagues from Pennsylvania did what Major General Smedley Butler said
we ought to do. He visited the young men and women who have been asked
to fight this war, who are on the front lines of Donald Rumsfeld's long
war. There he was compelled to make a change, a change in his
conviction, that perhaps this is not the right war for America; and he
came back to this Congress and he said so. I am talking about my
colleague from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha.
We need to really think about where we are as a country. We need to
think about who we are as a country, as Americans. What does it mean to
be an American?
Look at the people of Haiti who have nothing but their hopes and
aspirations in democracy. And despite dictatorship and coup d'etat and
dictatorship and coup d'etat again, they went to the polls and they
demanded that their votes be counted.
We, too, have, in this country, the opportunity to express ourselves
at the ballot box. The way I stand here is the way all 535 Members of
Congress stand here, because people choose to participate or people
choose not to.
In my case, I was put out of Congress because I spoke up about
September 11. And the people of the Fourth Congressional District of
Georgia said, we are not going to stand for that, and they sent me
back, showing the power of the vote, as the people of Haiti have
demonstrated to the world the power of the vote. I would hope all
Americans would value the power of the vote and exercise it.
____________________
OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy that the
leadership has extended me in hosting this hour. We are going to talk
about a number of things this hour, but I think it is important for the
folks at home to know what this hour is. This is called the leadership
hour, and what that means is that the leadership of the Republican
party allows individuals to come to the floor for this hour. The
leadership of the Democrat party allows individuals to come to the
floor and speak about topics that are of interest to Congress and of
interest to the American people, of interest to the world.
And what you have just heard is an interesting presentation that,
apparently, the leadership of the Democrat party endorses. I am not
certain what, how one would describe it or how one would categorize it,
but it was more fiction than truth. I would love to hear the other
side, the leadership of the other side stand up and say what they
disagree with about what has just been presented.
You know, when I go home and I talk to constituents, one of the
things that they say over and over and over again is that they just
cannot understand the tone that is going on in Washington. What is
going on? Why are people so angry? And I do not understand it, frankly.
We are all elected here to come solve problems, and that is the
challenge that we have been given. But the tone that we get so often is
this culture of cynicism. It is a culture of pessimism. It is a culture
of negativity. To make statements about our members of the executive
branch and leaders who are elected in ways that just have no foundation
does a disservice to everybody.
So I am a member of the freshman class, and as a member of the
freshman class we get together once a week. And one of the things that
we talked about toward the end of last year was we need to try to raise
the level of the rhetoric here. We need to try to put a more positive
message out because of the tone that we so often hear in Washington.
So we have developed what we call the Official Truth Squad. This is a
[[Page 1962]]
group of individuals who are willing to come to the floor and talk
about messages, talk about things that are of interest to the American
people in a positive light and also to bring truth to the debate.
Because, as you oftentimes hear, those who have been watching, we are
given great latitude in what we can say and, in fact, it does not have
to be the truth. Many people put issues out here and things are not
countered, so people begin to believe them. You know, they say that in
Washington, if somebody says something three times, that makes it true.
Well, it just is not so, Mr. Speaker, as those around the Nation know.
So what we would like to do is to talk about things in a truthful way
to try to make certain that we counter much of the negativity that has
been presented. You know, Senator Moynihan had a wonderful, wonderful
quote that he had. It was, you know, everybody's entitled to their
opinion, but they are not entitled to their facts. And I think that is
so true.
So this afternoon, what we, the Official Truth Squad, are going to be
talking about is national security. It kind of dovetails with the
discussion that we have just heard.
I am pleased to be joined by many of my colleagues in the freshman
class and others, and I would like to introduce first to talk about
national security, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt. Congresswoman Schmidt is
from Ohio. She comes with great expertise, representation at the State
level, and has a passion for not just America, a positive passion for
America, but a passion for national security and national defense.
So, Congresswoman Schmidt, I would like to yield to you and have you
bring us some words about national security.
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Price, I rise today to speak
on the importance that we as a Nation do all that we can to prevent
another terrorist attack on our homeland.
Like many of my colleagues, I will never forget the attacks of
September 11. My daughter lived in New York City at the time. I
remember that morning all too well because I did not know where she
was. I did not know how close she was to the proximity of the attacks.
For hours and hours, literally, almost 2 days, I could not get through
to her, worrying about her safety and her well-being, worrying about
how she was. My husband and I were so blessed and so grateful that she
was just scared, but certainly safe.
But, you know, thousands of other people were not lucky like us.
Thousands of others lost their loved ones in that attack. We must do
everything in our power to prevent another attack from happening.
I rise today to congratulate the hard-working men and women of our
intelligence agencies and the first responders on preventing another
attempt like 9/11. I, like most Americans, wake up each morning safe,
proceed with my day without even worrying about the threat of an attack
because I know, from law enforcement to our national security
apparatus, thousands of highly trained professionals are diligently
watching and working. Men and women using the latest technologies and a
lot of muscle are hard at work around the clock making sure that those
that want to hurt us are kept at bay.
I hope everyone understands that the desire of the terrorist
organizations to launch a deadly attack has not gone away. It has not
subsided. They are out there. They want to attack us.
What has changed is our ability to thwart the attacks. That ability
has dramatically increased. The latest in database technology, coupled
with surveillance technologies, is proving to be a powerful force in
identifying potential attackers. We owe a great deal of gratitude to
these men and women on the front lines of our defense here at home as
well as abroad.
Just this week the media reported that some 200,000 people across the
globe are on our watchlist, persons that we have reason to believe wish
us harm, wish us death, wish our Nation destruction.
{time} 1400
But most importantly, 200,000 persons we have already identified as
potential threats. When we wake up each morning and turn on our
television sets and there is no news of an attack, we do not even think
that there might have been one. That in itself is a tribute to the hard
work of our national security team. We go about our lives without fear
of an attack each day because of the job they are doing. We must give
them every tool needed to complete their mission. Their mission is not
only important; it is a matter of life and death.
Much has been said about the National Security Agency's surveillance
program in the media. Much of it is nonsense and distortion. Mr.
Speaker, I asked my constituents in a survey what they think of the
National Security Agency's surveillance program. Over 2,000 people have
responded to date. Almost 80 percent support the program, eighty
percent is a huge supermajority of folks representing all kinds of
ideologies and political affiliations. Eighty percent. The media just
does not always get it, Mr. Speaker, but the American people do.
The American people first and foremost want to be safe in their homes
and go about their lives without the fear of another attack. They
exhibit far more common sense than the media ever gives them credit
for. One of our colleagues from the great State of Texas has a great
saying that Texas could use a whole lot less of Washington and
Washington could use a whole lot more of Texas. Unfortunately, someday,
I believe, and I really hope and pray in the very far distant future,
we may well be attacked again. That attack may well be much larger in
scope than we ever could believe, much larger than 9/11. On that day I
hope and I pray we can say honestly and wholeheartedly we did
everything we could to prevent it.
It is our job, Mr. Speaker. It is our job as Members of Congress to
make sure that Americans are safe, safe and free, safe and free from
the terrorist attack of yesterday and tomorrow. We have to continue to
do that. To do nothing less is not just irresponsible; it is un-
American.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio
for her leadership on this issue.
And what a moving story that was about the communication that you had
with your daughter, and it brings back the memory of September 11 to
all of us and where we were and what we were doing that day.
As Members of Congress, as you know, we have some opportunities to
get some information about our intelligence and about what things are
happening in the world that we are not often able to share, and I am
moved by the stories like that that I hear; but I also, when I go home,
tell folks that the fact that we have not been attacked again is not a
mistake. It is not a mistake. We have thousands, millions of men and
women who are just working night and day to make certain that we are
safe as a Nation, and I am proud of that fact. I am proud of that fact.
Joining us now is Congressman Ted Poe. Congressman Poe is a judge
from Texas, a leader in his area, his community and his State and
certainly in our Nation, and an individual who has such an incredible
fund of knowledge as it relates to national security and specifically
border security. I know that in Georgia we have got major challenges. I
know that in Texas there are major challenges.
So I yield to Congressman Poe to discuss some things about national
security and border security.
Mr. POE. Thank you, Dr. Price. I appreciate this opportunity to share
this time with you and discuss the things that are important to our
country.
As you know, my background has always been one that enforced the law,
law enforcement, down in Texas. I prosecuted, and then I tried cases as
a judge for 22 years, and now I am here. So I probably see things from
maybe a different background and perspective than many other people.
And I always like to relate what is going on today to history. As our
good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt), just said about
September 11, we are working on 3\1/2\ years since that event occurred,
and it is still fresh in the minds of many Americans.
[[Page 1963]]
On that day I was driving my Jeep to the courthouse, and I am
listening to the country western station here on the radio that a plane
had hit the World Trade Center. And then a few minutes later, a second
plane hits the World Trade Center. People on the highway that morning,
some of them were pulling over to listen to the national broadcasting
of what was occurring, that attack on America. Then the third plane
crashes in Pennsylvania because some good people on that plane, some
real American heroes, took control of that situation and saved some
building, either this building or the White House, from being hit that
morning. And then that fourth plane that hit the Pentagon.
And later that day, I, like many other people, was watching
television, and I noticed that when those planes hit the World Trade
Center that there were thousands of Americans, thousands of people from
all over the world, when those planes hit the World Trade Center, they
were running as hard as they could to get away from that terror, that
terror in the skies. I am not faulting them for that, but that is what
took place.
But there was another group of people, not very many, but a group of
individuals who, when those planes hit the World Trade Center, they
were running as hard as they could to get to that terror. They were
volunteers; emergency medical technicians; firefighters; and cops,
police officers. And while it is very important that we continue to
remember the people who died that day, we also need to remember the
people that lived because those first responders did the first duty of
government, which is to protect the public; and we will never know how
many lives they saved. Many of them gave their own lives that day,
because it is the duty of our country to protect America, to protect us
against criminals that live among us and to protect us against those
criminals that live in other lands that want to do us harm. And we
cannot say enough about those first responders that are still working
throughout our country protecting us at home.
Because of those events, one thing led to another and we took the war
on terror to the enemy. And now we have the greatest military ever
assembled on Earth in Iraq and Afghanistan and other parts of the world
fighting and winning the war on terror.
I was privileged, as many Members, to go to Iraq. I got to go there a
year ago on election day, one of two Members that were there on
election day, January 30, when Iraq had their first free elections in
the history of their country. But I was also there to see our military,
and I think it is very important that if Members of Congress are going
to send our young men and women into combat, we ought to be there on
the ground to see firsthand what the situation is like. That is why I
went. That is why I am going back. And it is interesting to me, Dr.
Price, how there are some who criticize what is taking place in Iraq
and Afghanistan but yet refuse to go there to see what it is like. I
have invited those people to go with me. Some of them are down the
hallway. We call that the U.S. Senate. To go with me, I will plan the
trip and all they have got to do is show up. But if we are going to
send people into combat, we need to see what it is like so we can make
better judgment calls on this end. But our troops, the morale is
tremendous.
It is interesting how we see a lot in the media about the war on
terror, but very seldom do we ever see an interview of some soldier,
sailor, marine, somebody in the Air Force, a personal story about their
reflections on what they are doing in the war on terror.
Some people ask, why are we fighting the war on terror over there?
Well, there is more to it than that. We are also fighting the war by
establishing a democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan because democracies
are the enemy of terrorists. They do not want democracies. They want
chaos. They want dictatorships. They want a safe haven where they can
strike throughout the world. So that is why the war is there in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It is because those two countries are going to be
democracies, just like Japan and Germany were democracies at the end of
World War II. And the cynics and the skeptics, oh, they lived back then
too, said it is not going to happen, that the Japanese cannot have a
democracy and certainly not the Germans. Now look at them. Democracies,
world powers today.
So democracy, of course, takes time. It took us 7 years to free
ourselves from the British. The British did not get the point. They
came back in 1812, burned this building down, and we had to fight them
again. And the Iraqi people are doing a tremendous job of securing
their own nation.
I had a general tell me when I was in Iraq, and he said this in a
kind way but he was serious, about the Americans being there and the
Iraqi security forces. He said, If the Americans stay much longer, we
are going to start charging them rent for being here. And what he was
saying was another version of what the plan is. The plan is relatively
simple: secure the stability of the country, train the Iraqi security
forces, and let them take care of their own country. And that is what
is going on. And we see now on a daily basis the casualties of the
Iraqi security forces. Those people are giving up their own lives for
their own democracy, fighting the war on terror.
So we are winning that war. The national security, public safety, is
an obligation of this country, at home, overseas, and to fight that war
wherever it occurs.
Just one other thing I would like to mention. I do not want to take
up too much of your time, Doc, but there is a third area where we have
to have national security. It is not just locally with our first
responders, our police officers, and our small towns and big cities. It
is not just overseas where we have the war on terror going and our
military doing a good job working with the CIA and the FBI. But then we
have the national security issue of the dignity and sovereignty of this
country, and I am talking about border security.
I live down in southeast Texas. The southern Texas border, some have
said, is a war zone because it is an area of national concern for three
reasons: we have the narcoterrorists coming across the border. Those
are drug dealers that are armed better than our own sheriffs, bringing
in that cancer to sell throughout the United States. That is a national
concern. It is also a national security problem.
The second thing is we have those next terrorists that come into the
United States. They are probably not going to fly over to Reagan
National Airport, get off the airplane, look around and see what damage
they can do. They are probably not going to do that. But they are
probably going to come across our Texas border, our southern border,
and do some harm to us. We know that that is the plan of many of those
terrorists because our borders are open.
And, of course, we have the third problem of just purely folks coming
here illegally. It is not that people are coming here that is the
problem. It is the way they are coming here. If we are going to have
the rule of law, the government has the responsibility to support and
make sure the rule of law is enforced.
One example of how our national security maybe needs to be revved up
a little more on our southern border, let me speak specifically about
our narcoterrorists. I have been down to the southern Texas border with
our sheriffs, and we had 16 of the Texas border sheriffs up here last
week. I do not know if you saw them or not. It would be hard to miss 16
Texas sheriffs walking down Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. They are big.
Mr. POE. They were impressive fellows. And let me tell you something,
Doc. They look like Texas sheriffs. You have that image. They all look
like that. But they are concerned about border security as well, and it
is more than just the terrorists that are coming over. It is the
narcoterrorists that are coming in. But one of them not too long ago
took this photograph.
{time} 1415
His deputies took this photograph. This is a photograph in the Rio
Grande
[[Page 1964]]
River taken from the Texas side looking over to the Mexican side. In
this, you have a raft. You see there are six or seven individuals who
are all dressed in black camo outfits, armed with AK-47s. You will see
one of them right here, an AK-47. On their backs they have backpacks
which were later determined to be cocaine, bringing it to the United
States.
And who are these people? It turns out that probably these
individuals are Guatemalan mercenaries hired by the drug cartels to
bring drugs into the United States. It is an epidemic, it is a border
war, and it is a violent war.
So I would just hope that we in Congress can make sure that we
enforce the rule of law, enforce the first obligation of government,
which is to protect the public. Public safety is our number one
concern.
Let me just conclude by saying that we should make sure that people
throughout the world know that this country believes in freedom and
liberty because of all of the benefits of it, whether you are here in
the United States or some other country, like Iraq or Afghanistan.
President Kennedy said it probably better than anybody when he made
the comment that let every nation know that, whether it wishes us well
or ill, that we will pay any price, we will bear any burden, we will
meet any hardship, we will support any friend, and we will oppose any
foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. He couldn't have
said it better.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Congressman Poe, I thank you ever so much for
your leadership in this area. Your knowledge is just so very, very
helpful to all of us, not just in Congress but literally across the
Nation. As you were relating your story about where you were on 9/11,
we all have those stories, and I get chills listening to you and what
you were describing. I remember that day just as clearly as everybody
else.
It is just phenomenal when you think about again the fact that we
have so many wonderful men and women working right now to make certain
that that doesn't happen again and for bringing clarity to what is
happening in Iraq, the positive news that is coming from Iraq.
As the Official Truth Squad, we have got some truths I would like to
just share with the American people and with our colleagues, because
you oftentimes don't hear of all of the good things that are happening
over there. We are making incredible, incredible progress, regardless
of what you think about how we got there or the like of it, incredible
progress. I know this is tough to read, but I will go through a few
points.
In August of 2004, about a year-and-a-half ago, there were only a
handful of Iraqi army battalions in the battle, in the fight. Today,
there are 100 Iraqi Ministry of Defense combat battalions in the fight,
in the battle.
In July, 2004, there were no operational army division or brigade
headquarters. Today, there are eight brigade headquarters and 37
battalions that have assumed battle space.
In July, 2004, again about a year and a half ago, there were no
operational special police commandos, public order, mechanized police
or emergency response units under the Ministry of the Interior in Iraq.
Today, there are 28 such battalions in the fight.
November, 2004, just a little over a year ago, there were there
115,000 trained and equipped Iraqi security forces. How many today?
227,000 trained and equipped security forces. There are more if you
count all of the local police officers.
The experience and ability of the Iraqi forces has increased
remarkably. This is General Peter Pace who said just a week ago in
December the Iraqi armed forces had more independent operations than
did the coalition forces. Did you hear that, Mr. Speaker? The Iraqi
forces were providing more independent operations than the coalition
forces. That didn't make any headline. You didn't hear that on the news
or read that in your newspaper. That is progress for freedom, it is
progress for liberty, and it is progress for, frankly, I believe the
stability of that region certainly and ultimately the world.
We are sharing some thoughts, Mr. Speaker, about national security,
and the operation Official Truth Squad is pleased to have Congresswoman
Marsha Blackburn join us again. Congresswoman Blackburn is just an
incredible leader from Tennessee. She has I know a great interest in
the area and great expertise in what it means to provide national
security, homeland security and to fight for liberty and freedom.
Congresswoman Blackburn, thank you so much for joining us today.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much. I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for his exceptional work on the Truth Squad and his commitment to this,
to being certain that we get the message out.
You know, I, like you, believe in the American dream and believe in
the goodness of this great country and search each and every day for
ways that we can all work together to be certain that we preserve
freedom and hope and liberty for future generations. I think that is a
worthy goal.
We had talked about national security one night on this floor.
Yesterday, we talked about economic security. Today, we are back on the
national security focus. I like what you are saying, because you are
addressing the military efforts that are taking place so that we are
fighting terrorists over there and we are not having to fight them over
here.
As Judge Poe was saying, we have got different fronts in this war,
with our first responders and the work they do on our home streets,
with our border agents and the work they are doing along the border,
and then also with our military operations. I think it is something
that we want to keep our focus on as we address this situation in the
Middle East and being certain we are addressing taking this fight to
the heart of where terrorism has had its breeding ground and addressing
it right there on their own soil.
A couple of points, too, I think that we need address as we talk
about homeland security and we talk about national security and the war
on terror. Things that we want to remember is our President and the
leadership, our military leadership, has told us from day one, this is
going to be a very long war. It is not going to be easy. But this is
going to be a long war, and we need to remember that and use that to
keep it in perspective.
We feel like we take two steps forward and one step back so very,
very often, and it is going to be a long time. But preserving freedom
and the fight for freedom, that is a worthy, worthy goal.
I think another thing we need to keep in mind is that when all of
this started in 2003, our President and our military leadership said,
basically, it is a seven-step process and told us at that point we
would go in, secure the country, they would appoint an interim
government, they would appoint a constitution writing committee, they
would go through the process of writing that constitution, ratifying
that constitution, then they would hold their national elections and
install their national government, and then the seventh and final point
will be to dissolve the coalition.
Right now, the Iraqi people are in the process of installing that
government; and following that government standing up on its feet, then
we will begin to dissolve the coalition.
Another thing we have to keep in mind, I love your points, Mr. Price,
about what is taking place there and the progress that is being made.
One of the things that I have enjoyed talking with my constituents
about is how dealing with Iraq has to be an orderly process, and a part
of that orderly process is being certain that we do some things in
conjunction with other things. We want to be certain we raise up the
military at the same time we are raising up the government so that one
can support the other.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to make certain that people
are hearing what you are saying. Because so oftentimes we hear there is
no plan, the President doesn't have a plan, we don't have a plan. But
what you have said so clearly is that when the President talked about
this in the spring of
[[Page 1965]]
2003, 3 years ago, that he outlined a seven-step process. As far as I
can tell, we are on the sixth step of that. So the plan is there.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. That is correct, and I thank the gentleman for those
comments. That is correct. Going through an orderly process. And now as
that government is standing up, and that is the sixth step, and as we
move forward, we look at being certain that the military operations and
your government operations, and you need that infrastructure. We know
in our own Nation it has worked well to have divisions in our
government with your executive and legislative and judicial branches.
So as we stand the military up and the government with those different
branches standing up, we also have an eye on education and what is
being done to help lift the people.
We forget many times that many of these individuals did not have
access to an education. When I first went into Iraq in October of 2003,
one of the things that stunned me and one of the facts that I was
really quite amazed to learn was that the country's population was
about 65 percent female and, out of that, about 70 percent of that
female population was considered to be illiterate. That is so
troublesome to know, with the education process for women, the
education process for children, the fact that young girls are able to
go to school, and putting in place the schools, I think it is 2,800
schools that our U.S. military has helped to rehabilitate and get the
doors open. And, of course, USAID has supplied notebooks and backpacks
and the things that are necessary to begin to put that quality of life
in place.
So it is the ability to go in and assist with those processes and the
functions of the military, the government and the community, the
quality of life that will enable Iraq to stand up and to stand on their
own two feet and to enjoy, enjoy successes, and that is what General
Pace was speaking of, with their forces actually conducting more
operations than the coalition forces. I think that is really quite
remarkable.
You think of how far they have come in 3\1/2\ years. To us, many
times, yes, we live in a world where we expect instant everything. We
watch a 30-minute TV show or a one-hour TV show, and we want the
problem solved within that period of time.
Freedom is a little bit harder. It doesn't move quite that quickly.
Three-and-a-half years, look how far they have come in their steps to
freedom and their steps to readiness.
I will close with saying my last trip into Iraq over New Year's this
year and spending time with some of our troops and then spending time
with three women who are each one running a different woman's
organization in Iraq was a very touching time. One of the things they
repeatedly do is to express thanks to our coalition forces and then to
place a reminder with us, don't leave us now. Do not leave us now. Be
certain that we are standing on our own two feet before you leave us.
I thank the gentleman again. The freshman class is doing a wonderful
job with the Truth Squad. It is always a pleasure to come and stand
here in this wonderful hall before this great body and join you in
talking about the good work that is being done and the focus of this
Republican Conference to address the security of this great Nation.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for coming and being
such an integral part of the discussion and the leadership in this
House of Representatives. Again, I think it is incredibly important
that we appreciate that those that say that there is no plan, hasn't
ever been a plan, that that is just not truthful.
Again, we are the Official Truth Squad, and the truth of the matter
is that there has been a plan, and that plan was outlined very
eloquently by the gentlelady from Tennessee, a seven-step process. The
final step is to have coalition forces leave, and we are on the sixth
of seven steps. So we are moving incredibly well and orderly, moving
through a process that is bringing about freedom and liberty to people
who, frankly, may never have even hoped that it could occur.
The gentlelady was so appropriate in defining those different areas
of the Nation that we are addressing, not just the military but
standing up the government, education, educating individuals who in
their wildest dreams could never have dreamed of the opportunity to
have the kind of education that they are able to receive now because of
their freedom.
As a physician, I know that the health care services that are being
provided there in Iraq now are of a higher quality than before and
accessible to all, which certainly was not the case before.
So truth, truth is so incredibly important when you talk about public
policy. If we don't deal in truth when we talk about these issues that
come before our Nation, then it is difficult to reach the right
conclusion. It is difficult to reach the right solution. So that is why
we are so enthusiastic about the need and the importance of truth.
{time} 1430
I have been searching for a number of quotes on truth. This is one
that I am very fond of. George Washington, in a letter to Edmund
Randolph in 1795 said that there is but one straight course, one
appropriate course, one straight course, and that is to seek truth and
pursue it steadily.
Seeking truth and pursuing it steadily. And I think that is what is
so imperative, because so often you hear from the folks who want to
blame America first, all of the things where they have stretched,
stretched is being generous, the truth; and so it is appropriate that
we come here day after day, literally, and put forward to the American
people the appropriate information that is necessary for individuals to
have the truth.
And the other quote that I have shared with folks before is the one
from Senator Moynihan, that is, that everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, but not their own facts. And so with that, I would like to
talk about another aspect of truth. And one of the things, as I
mentioned before, we have some great latitude in this Chamber to talk
about things and to say things that may not necessarily be so.
Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, in one of the speeches that was
given from the well on the other side, a Member of the other side said,
we are talking on this side of the aisle, that is, the Democratic, the
minority side, Mr. Speaker, that we embrace and we appreciate our
troops and veterans. That is a wonderful thing.
But meanwhile, this is the statement on the floor, meanwhile in the
President's budget it talks about cuts in veterans affairs, cuts in
veterans affairs. I know this is a little hard to read over here, but,
in fact, the truth of the matter, in particular $34.3 billion for
medical care a $3.5 billion, 11.3 percent increase over the 2006
enacted level, and an increase of 69 percent since President Bush took
office.
So what you see here is the allegation, and here is the truth. There
are a couple of other ways to show that, to demonstrate that with
certainty, and it is even more vivid. This chart, this graph, shows the
Department of Defense military discretionary budget in billions of
dollars from 2000 to projected 2007. That asterisk there is because we
have not adopted the 2007 budget yet, will not do so until later this
year.
But the President's proposal is listed. What you see here are the
levels of expenditures, Federal expenditures for the Department of
Defense. Now remember the allegation is that there are cuts in the
military: 2000, $287 billion; 2001, $303 billion; 2002, $328 billion.
You notice that we are going in a direction that looks like it is
increasing. Only in Washington can a cut be an increase. Only in
Washington can a cut be an increase: 2003, $365; 2004, $376; 2005, $400
billion; and last year, $411 billion.
Now I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but where I come from those
are not cuts, those are increases, and appropriate increases,
appropriate increases to our defense establishment and to the veterans
who are serving so well.
What about medical care? You hear about veterans medical care. All
the
[[Page 1966]]
time the allegation was, as was in that quote just yesterday, that
veterans medical care is being cut. Well, here is the before and after.
1995: what happened in 1995 was that the Republicans took control of
the House of Representatives, and you see before then the gradual
increases, mostly fixed to inflation, sometimes not even at inflation.
And then the entire budgetary allotment for medical care, veterans
medical care, is in the yellow bars there from 1995 to 2005. And what
you see is an increase from $16.2 billion to $29.9 billion.
Mr. Speaker, that does not look like a cut to me. That does not look
like a cut to America. That does not look like a cut to veterans. They
know the truth. And it is so important. You cannot reach the right
conclusions, you cannot reach the right solutions if you are not
talking truthfully. So we are pleased to come to the floor and talk
about what is true.
What about discretionary spending on veterans, not just medical care,
but discretionary spending on veterans? This is the same kind of graph:
before 1995 and since 1995. Again, remember the allegation is that this
money, discretionary spending for veterans, is being cut.
Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I mean, my eyes may deceive me sometimes,
but I cannot for the life of me figure out how moving from $17.6
billion in 1995 to $30.7 billion in 2005 could ever be described as a
decrease or a cut.
This is a commitment by the Republican leadership and the Republican
House to make certain that we appropriately, appropriately, provide
resources for veterans, our military individuals who serve us so
incredibly well.
But, again, truth. The truth is that the resources have been
increased every single year, that there has been no cut. And so I am
pleased to have the opportunity to be able to come and share that kind
of truthful information with the American people.
I am honored to be joined right now by another colleague, another
gentleman from Texas, another judge from Texas, Congressman Gohmert,
who has a wealth of experience in his State and is a true leader in the
area of national security knowledge and intelligence.
So we appreciate Congressman Gohmert you coming and joining us today.
Please, I look forward to your remarks.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that from my good friend from
Georgia. And it is an honor to not only be on the floor here, but to
serve with the kind right honorable gentleman from Georgia, a physician
to the body before he got here and now a physician to the heart of
America since he is here. So that is an honor.
But, you know, you were talking about, and to observe the House rules
we do not call people by their first names here, so, Dr. Price, you
were talking about truth. And one of the great disappointments over the
last few decades has been the United Nations. It should be an integral
part of our national security.
Yet it has failed miserably. It has taken the wrong side so often,
and yet we had an administration and a President who wanted someone as
an ambassador to the U.N. who would be truthful, call things like they
were.
And as we saw in the Senate, when it came time to confirm Mr. Bolton,
they threw on the brakes. Oh, my gosh, this guy can be rude. He will
actually tell people what he thinks. We do not want someone going to
the U.N. representing the United States that tells them what he thinks.
Goodness, that might offend them. They need some offending.
We needed Mr. Bolton in there. Son of a gun, that is his history. He
tells people what he thinks. He got to the U.N. and he has been doing
that, but without any thanks to the Democrats in the Senate that
blocked it at every turn.
But as we look today, a matter of national security is what is
happening with Iran. Iran wants to have nuclear weapons. They have said
that Israel has no right to exist. They want to nuke it out of
existence. This is a dangerous country. And so what have we done? Well,
we are sending that to the U.N. to let them see what they can do.
Well, we are better off with Mr. Bolton there helping us and
representing our interests. But the trouble is, that is one person in a
myriad of people who are just overwhelmed with self-interest. And I
really rise in frustration to the toothless tiger that we call the
United Nations. You know, it was born out of the best of intentions. It
was born out of the greatest and noblest aspirations, that we would
bring peace to a war-torn world and justice to the oppressed.
Yet what has happened is living proof that there is no such thing as
institutional evolution. What has evolved has not been a higher, better
entity in the United Nations. The U.N. has devolved into a mire of
self-aggrandizement and self-absorption. They provided wealth to family
members in the U.N., wealth to their own cronies, along with some of
the most evil oppression in history.
The U.N. sometimes barks, but never has any bite. It reminds me of a
school teacher I had once years ago who often defended the bullies in
our class and would lash out at anybody that tried to defend themselves
against the bully. She would not help the oppressed; she took up for
the bullies. That is what has started happening with the U.N.
They do not want to help address the issue of bullies; they want to
turn their heads, continue to help family members and cronies. But
anyway, the U.N. has been a willing accomplice to some of the world's
worst, most oppressive people; and sometimes it has been one of the
biggest obstacles to people's liberty, freedom, and self-respect.
We all know, or we should know, that referring Iran to the U.N. is
problematic because of the lies and the intentional distortions. Iran
has said that they want to destroy another nation, and yet the U.N. has
shown they have no stomach for doing what is required. They pass
resolution after resolution. But when it comes to putting teeth in
anything, they just do not do it. They will try to justify what they
are doing.
I mean, I guess asking the U.N. to protect us would be tantamount to
saying let us send in Scott Ritter to protect us from an oncoming
train. I mean, he will notice the train's existence, try to justify why
it is about to run over him and everybody on the track, but he will do
no good. The U.N., that is the kind of actions they take. They try to
justify things' existence, lash out at those being bullied, but not do
what needs to be done.
The U.N.'s word means nothing, and its corruption and deceit are an
embarrassment, and it is no longer an advocate or a defender of truth
and justice. In fact, they are often the impediment to those very
things. It is high time we confronted them with that.
And I would submit, Dr. Price, that sending an item to the U.N. for
action is a bit like sending raw food to a kitchen that is filled with
corruption, confusion, and selfishness. You are lucky if they act in
that kitchen before the food spoils. And even if they do act before the
food spoils, odds are they are going to consume it, and you will never
seen it again.
That is kind of what it is like when you send something to the U.N.
They are either going to let it spoil, let it go rotten, or they are
going to use it to their own self-fulfillment. What a sad nightmare
this once great dream has become in the United Nations. I hope and pray
that they will assist us with this international problem in Iran,
because it involves our own national security. Some want to turn their
heads and say, just like they did with Hitler, well, if we just let him
have a little bit of what he wants, then he will leave us alone.
But that kind of ambition and that kind of desire for world conquest
does not ever go away. It continues to proceed on, and in some cases
unimpeded where you meet pacifists, Dr. Price, I saw back a couple of
years ago a bunch of signs being held by protesters about the war in
Iraq. And they actually said this: war never brought about peace. That
is it. War never brought about peace.
I thought, my goodness, these people never studied history. War never
brought peace? That is the only time there has been any kind of
sustained peace where people had liberty during
[[Page 1967]]
that peace is when there has been a war and the good guys won.
So it is unfortunate that we have uneducated people who do not know
history, refuse to learn from history. But I appreciate so much your
efforts at bringing truth. And as you and I have talked about, and you
have said, sunlight is one of the best disinfectants there is.
So bringing truth out, I know at times we struggle as we listen to
things that were not true. It is like there is a culture of deceit in
this body, and the people need to know the truth.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman
Gohmert for his kind words and for his truth. Sometimes truth is a
bitter pill to swallow.
{time} 1445
Mr. GOHMERT. But you prescribe that, do you not?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. But the area of support that the United States
has received for freedom and for liberty around the world from the
United Nations is often time lacking. And that is a bitter pill to
swallow, but it does not mean that you do not keep working. It does not
mean that you do not keep trying. But I think it is important, the
perspective you bring, to maybe hopefully wake up some Americans who
need to hear the information and appreciate that the U.N. needs to be
moving in a bit of a different direction.
I thank you so much for your participation.
Mr. GOHMERT. If the gentleman would yield for one more moment, you
come from a background as a physician of healing people. I come from a
background of being a judge and chief justice and wanting to see
justice. And it is amazing how we can work together and America allows
that kind of freedom. So thank you for your efforts at bringing about
what they used to say, as Superman started, truth, justice and the
American way.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank Congressman Gohmert so much for your
comments and for your participation.
What we are doing is the Official Truth Squad. The Official Truth
Squad is primarily a group of freshmen Congressmen and women frustrated
by the tone in Washington, frustrated by the animosity and doing our
doggonedest to raise the level of discussion, raise the level of the
rhetoric, be a little more positive, and put out the word that, yes,
there are individuals in Congress who love this Nation, who believe
that it is the finest Nation on the face of the Earth and are proud of
the work that we are doing and trying to correct the record sometimes,
bringing truth to light.
To that end, I think it is important that we sometimes highlight
statements by people who may have a certain forum or a certain podium
that simply is untrue, because it is important that somebody stand up
and say, no, that is not the case; and I refer now to comments that
were made just this past Sunday by former Vice President Al Gore.
He was visiting Saudi Arabia and he was talking to an audience there,
and oftentimes when he talks sometimes there is a bit of hyperbole, but
this is not hyperbole. These are flat-out lies. This is just not the
truth. What he said was that the U.S. government has committed
``terrible abuses'' against Arabs after the September 11, 2001,
attacks. He went on to say that the United States ``indiscriminately
rounded up'' and held in ``unforgivable conditions.''
Now, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the evidence for that? I ask
you, where is the evidence for that? That is as unconscionable and
irresponsible a comment as I have ever heard uttered.
I ask the Democratic leadership, are you supportive of these
comments? Is that what you believe? The silence from the other side
really is, again, a disservice to the debate. It does a disservice to
the Nation, frankly.
So I call on my colleagues to stand up and be counted on this. If you
got the evidence, then let us show it. But to make those kind of
comments, especially overseas, there used to be some protocol or some
common courtesy that former members of the executive branch, especially
when traveling overseas, would not criticize a sitting President or the
United States. Well, those common courtesies are long since gone.
Again, that is kind of what the Official Truth Squad is all about,
raise the level of the rhetoric and hopefully be able to bring some
truth to light.
I have a few minutes left, and I wanted to talk about the National
Security Agency and the domestic terrorism surveillance. When I talk
with constituents back home in Georgia and I ask them and I ask big
groups, tell me if you were running the country and you knew that there
were certain cell phones or certain telephones of communication devices
that were owned or utilized by terrorists, international terrorists,
and you knew that, and you knew when one of those individuals was going
to make a call into the United States, would you want to know who they
were talking to? Would you want to know what number they were calling?
I have not gotten a single person yet to tell me that they would not
want to know that. Not one.
The American people know the truth about this program, this domestic
terrorist surveillance program. They know that what this government is
doing is protecting them. It is protecting them. So much so that when
the discussion initially occurred about this program, the Members on
the other side, many Members of the other side stood up and just
shouted it down, just said awful things about the individuals
performing it, awful things about its being in place.
Then they heard from their constituents. Most districts, it is 65,
75, 80 percent of folks at home who believe this type of program is
appropriate. We are not talking about listening to American calls. We
are talking about, appropriately so, to calls from known terrorists,
outside the United States into the United States. I would suggest to
the House, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the American people that if
we were not doing that, if we were not doing that, we would be
irresponsible.
Well, the Members on the other side of the aisle certainly got that
information at home. Because this past Sunday on Meet the Press Mr.
Russert had the sitting ranking member of the House of Representatives
on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Harman, and former
Senator Daschle, who was the minority leader in the Senate when this
program began, and asked them some very specific questions.
One of the questions he asked was, Senator Daschle, were you briefed?
He was talking about this program. Senator Daschle's response, it goes
into long details, but, yes, we were briefed. We were briefed.
As the President said, if he wanted to break the law, why did he come
to Congress and tell him what he was doing? So the truth is that this
is an appropriate program. The truth is Congress knew about it in the
appropriate ways.
Representative Harman was asked, do you support the program? And she
says, I still support the program. This is the thing they are arguing
so much about and complaining so much about.
Senator Daschle, should the President stop this program? Senator
Daschle replies, no, absolutely not.
Mr. Russert asked Representative Harman, do you think the program
should be stopped? Representative Harman, no, I think the program
should go on.
So, Mr. Speaker, truth is an important thing to talk about when we
are discussing about matters of public policy.
As Congressman Gohmert and others have mentioned, I am a physician. I
am an orthopedic surgeon. I practiced for nearly 20 years in the
Atlanta area, and I know if you do not listen to the right results of
tests, if you do not investigate, if you do not get the right
information, if you do not get the truth, you cannot make the right
diagnosis. And the same is true in public policy. If you are not
talking about things in a truthful manner, if you are not putting out
information that is accurate, then there is no way that you can reach
the right solution.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the leadership that the Speaker is
providing. I am proud of the leadership the Republican leadership is
providing about the
[[Page 1968]]
area and the issue of national security. Because this is not a
Republican issue, it is not a Democrat issue, it is an American issue,
and it may be the most important thing that we have to do as Members of
the House of Representatives.
So my hope and prayer truly is that all Members of the House and the
Senate will work together in this most solemn, solemn of challenges and
tasks that we have and ensure the protection of our Nation.
____________________
RESIGNATION AS MEMBER OF COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania) laid before
the House the following resignation as a member of the Committee on
Science:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, February 15, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Effective today, February 15th, I resign
my seat on the Committee on Science pending my appointment to
the Committee on International Relations.
Sincerely,
Russ Carnahan,
Member of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the resignation is
accepted.
There was no objection.
____________________
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for
60 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity once
again to come to the floor of the House of Representatives as the 30-
Something Working Group. Myself along with Kendrick Meek, Mr. Meek from
Florida, and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz from Florida, we have been
coming here now, Mr. Speaker, for a couple of years talking about the
condition of the United States, our fiscal situation, Mr. Speaker, our
investment situation or lack of investment in the United States of
America, and also what we believe is the Democratic Caucus and Leader
Pelosi and Steny Hoyer and the issues that we are trying to put
forward.
It has been a very interesting week here for the Democratic Caucus,
Mr. Speaker. We had a wonderful guest, George Lucas, the famous writer,
director, producer of the great Star Wars movies; and he was here to
talk about the innovation agenda that the Democratic party is beginning
to put forward. And we have, Mr. Speaker, an innovation agenda to keep
America competitive in the 21st century.
As we look at what has been happening here in the United States, this
kind of breaks down into two or three separate categories. One, if we
want to be a strong country, we have got to start here at home; and we
got to start making the investments here in the United States. Research
and development, education, health care, alternative energy
technologies must start here; and we must begin to grow our economy
here, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be of any good to anyone else
here in the world.
Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle on the Republican side
have failed miserably in their attempt to try to balance the budget
here in the United States of America. We have, as citizens of this
country, regardless of what political party you belong to, we have as a
country an $8.2 trillion national debt, $8.2 trillion dollars. Each
citizen in this country owes $27,000 to our national debt. If a baby is
born today, that baby owes $27,000 to the United States government to
help us pay our debt. If you are a senior citizen, you owe $27,000 to
the United States Government. And if we keep going down the path that
we have been on, and here it is, $8.2 trillion as of Valentine's Day,
2006, and your share of the national debt is $27,500.
Mr. Speaker, we have a real situation in the United States of
America. So not only do we owe this, not only does each person owe
that, what do we do? So if we are running a $400 billion annual deficit
or $300 billion, what do we do to fund business in the United States of
America? We have got to go out and borrow the money. And this President
in the first 4 years of his term borrowed more money from foreign
interests than every single administration prior to his in the last 224
years. This President borrowed $1.05 trillion from foreign interests in
4 years, more than every other president before him.
Is that making America stronger, Mr. Speaker? I do not think it is. I
think it weakens our country. And here it is. This President in a
Republican House and a Republican Senate has borrowed $1.05 trillion
from 2001 to 2005. And all of these Presidents did not borrow as much
from foreign interests as this one has.
And that puts us, Mr. Speaker, that puts us at a position of weakness
because guess who we are borrowing the money from to pay the bills. We
borrow some from U.S. interests, but this is a chart that outlines who
else we are borrowing this money from. $682 billion we have borrowed
from Japan; $249 billion we have borrowed from China; $67.8 billion
from OPEC.
{time} 1500
Are you kidding me? We are borrowing money from OPEC to help fund and
plug the hole in our annual deficits here? Meanwhile, they are making
money hand over fist. This is a very dangerous situation that we are
in, Mr. Speaker, because here is the end result. Here is where the
rubber meets the road.
As we all take out loans to pay for our homes or our cars or our
kids' education, unfortunately you cannot just borrow the money at zero
percent interest. You have got to pay interest on the money you borrow.
So the interest on $8.2 trillion is a lot of money. So what does that
mean for our annual payments that we have to make just on the interest?
This chart is the 2007 budget in billions of dollars. This big red
bar that gets up to $230 billion is what we are going to pay in the
2007 budget projected on interest on the debt, just the interest. We
are not paying it down. We are just paying the interest on it, and this
nice lavender bar that barely gets up over $50 billion is what we are
going to spend on education and then homeland security and then
veterans.
The irresponsible policies of this administration put our fiscal
house in disorder because we are spending so much money on just paying
the interest on the money we owe the Chinese and the Japanese and the
OPEC countries. That is a great deal for those countries, great deal
for them, but what about us?
A stronger America starts here at home. So until we fix this problem,
there is no issue we can go on addressing because it straps our hands
behind our back, Mr. Speaker, because we want to make investments in
education, research and development, Pell grants to lower the cost of
college tuition, put research money into figuring out an alternative
energy source so we are not dependent on some of these OPEC countries.
But check this out: this is the interest on the debt that I just
showed. This is what we could spend every day in this country if we did
not have to pay all this interest on the debt. We could invest $1
million a day into every congressional district.
I represent a district in northeast Ohio, Youngstown, Ohio; Akron,
Ohio; Niles, Ohio; Warren, Ohio; Portage County. Kent State University
is in my district. This is an older area in the northeast of the great
State of Ohio, the great Buckeye State. $365 million I could have to go
back to this area and invest in the schools, Head Start, all kinds of
other different things just from my district; and every other Member in
here, Mr. Speaker, would get $365 million, a tremendous difference.
Give it to the Chinese banks, the Chinese Government; give it to the
Japanese banks, the Japanese Government; give it to OPEC or give it to
the kids who are trying to go to school in Youngstown, Ohio, of which
80 percent live in poverty that go to Youngstown
[[Page 1969]]
city schools. I know what I would like to choose.
Some other things here. We could provide health care to 79,925 more
veterans if we would not have to pay the interest on the debt like in
the late 1990s when we made the very difficult decision here, and I am
glad the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is joining us for this
point.
A very difficult decision in 1993 when President Clinton got into
office. We were running budget deficit after budget deficit every year,
and our Democratic House and a Democratic Senate, with a Democratic
President, balanced the budget in 1993 without one Republican vote. I
am not saying some Republicans would not vote for it now, but at that
time, when the heat was on, without one Republican vote, and it led to
balanced budgets, surpluses as far as the eye could see, investments
into education, Hope scholarship, the whole nine yards and the greatest
economic expansion in the history of this country.
More important, the private sector, because interest rates were low,
the private sector was able to go out and create over 20 million new
jobs. We cannot create jobs here in government. That is not our duty.
That is not our responsibility. This is the chart, Reagan, Reagan,
Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bush, all in the red; and Clinton in the late
1990s, after the 1993 budget was implemented, we started having
surpluses in the late 1990s, projected out as far as the eye could see
because of fiscal discipline.
That is what our job is here, balance the budget, keep interest rates
low, invest in the education and research, like this country has always
done, and the private sector will join and take over.
Some other things. If we did not have to pay the interest on the
debt, we could enroll 60,000 kids into Head Start. You want to talk
about being compassionate, you want to talk about if you practice the
Christian faith, being a Christian, I think somewhere that means making
sure we can invest into those poor districts, those poor children, and
I am so glad that Mr. Meek is joining us because we started out here,
and that ``we'' being me, talking about the impact of the budget
deficit and the fiscal situation that we are in right now and the
damage that it is causing to the American economy and the lack of
investment because we are paying the interest on the debt to many of
these countries overseas.
So thank you very much for joining us. I know you were busy in a
Homeland Security Committee hearing, and I appreciate you coming up to
support the 30-somethings.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, anytime we get the opportunity to
share with the Members of this House and the American people what the
truth is all about, and sometimes the truth hurts, as we share with
America and also the majority our positive message for change and
putting this country on the right track, because we know that working
together with the American people that we are going to put this country
on the right track.
I mentioned once before, just as late as last night, on some of the
last hours of our Innovation Agenda that we have, the Innovation Agenda
that we would like to carry out, Mr. Speaker, but the bottom line is
the difference between the Republican message on innovation and
investment in our young people and our message is the fact that the
Republican majority has everything at their fingertips to bring about
true innovation here in the United States. They have control of the
House of Representatives, have control of the U.S. Senate, have control
of the executive branch. We are stopping the Republican majority from
moving forward. We have made some very strong statements, and I
encourage the Members to go to housedemocrats.gov, and you can download
our agenda for innovation.
The real issue is that we want to create an educated, skilled
workforce for the future; and the bottom line is that we want to make
sure that we can move forward in the math and sciences and engineering.
We cannot get there by just saying it, Mr. Speaker. We have to put the
investment in.
But guess what, guess what, the President's budget does not speak to
what he said here in the Chamber during the State of the Union, that he
is committed to innovation. If you are committed to innovation, you do
not cut off the very lifeblood that young people need to be able to
pursue an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree. You do not say
that we are going to slash student assistance. We are no longer going
to assist you in a way of being able to achieve the American Dream in
educating yourself.
I think it is also important that we have made a commitment on this
side of the aisle to guarantee access to broadband in every home.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. In 5 years.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. In 5 years. We do not want some neighborhoods to
have access to broadband and other neighborhoods, they do not have
access. If we are going to move together as a people and society,
people in rural America, folks in urban America, individuals that are
living from paycheck to paycheck, we have got to level the playing
field.
This thing of two Americas is not going to get us past other
countries in this world that are competing against us. U.S. companies,
what I want you to do before we leave this hour, if you would, just
read off the comments of the CEOs again. You know, someone might have
heard it once before, but they need to hear it again.
American technology companies are saying, please, please come
together in a bipartisan way, please move in the direction of
innovation so we can be competitive; but we cannot complain, Mr.
Speaker, when they have to go overseas and hire individuals from other
countries to fill jobs that can be provided to Americans right here. So
that is the difference between us and the majority.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let me share a statistic that is Americans' ranking
with broadband penetration as of January of 2005. Korea has almost a 25
percent penetration; China, 20 percent; Iceland, 15 percent; the U.S.,
11 percent. This is one area where we are falling behind in a big way.
Another area that you touched upon, this is the number of engineers,
people with engineering degrees this year: China, 600,000; India,
350,000; U.S., 70,000. We cannot compete in a brutal, brutal global
economy if we are not making the kinds of investments that are going to
increase this number. Now, I understand that the Chinese and India,
they have more people than we do, all the more reason that we need
every single citizen in our country on the field with the opportunity
to play and to help make investments in the United States and create
wealth in the United States.
That is what this Innovation Agenda does, broadband penetration, next
5 years in every household as Mr. Meek said, increasing the number of
engineers and scientists by 100,000 in the next 4 years. That is in the
Democratic Innovation Agenda, and let me just share with who assisted
the Leader Pelosi and the Democratic Caucus with putting this together.
John Chambers, president and CEO of Cisco Systems, Incorporated, said
that, ``The Innovation Agenda focuses on the right issues for building
our Nation's competitiveness, from investing in basic R&D, expanding
science and math education and broadband infrastructure, to creating a
globally competitive business environment . . . I look forward to
working with both sides . . . to implement these laudable goals.''
That is not Tim Ryan; that is not Kendrick Meek; that is not Nancy
Pelosi. That is the CEO of Cisco saying get our act together and make
the proper investments that need to be made.
Also, the Federal Government affairs person at Microsoft says that
``we ask Congress to give these issues serious consideration and
support.'' And he says, ``At Microsoft, we are committed to changing
the world through innovative technology and, in order to fulfill that
commitment, we need a pool of well-educated, skilled workers.''
This is not just one party. These are CEOs, probably even
Republicans; and if you go to our Web site, we have all of the quotes
from a lot of people, from the American Corn Growers Association,
TechNet.
[[Page 1970]]
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We need the corn growers, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We need corn, I love corn; but these are folks that
are not just aligned with us philosophically. This is a very pragmatic
approach to how to keep America competitive, and I think our plan is
much better than the plan or lack of plan that the other side has. They
have been in charge of this House since 1994 and have not been able to
make strides in this area, and the numbers bear that out. These are
facts. This is not something that we have made up.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The reality of the situation is the fact that
the Republican side will come to this floor, if not within minutes, in
another couple of hours or when we come back off of the break that we
are taking for a week to go back to our districts and work and what
have you, they will come and say, oh, we have an innovation agenda.
They will come and say, we want to cut the budget, we want to cut the
deficit in half, and we believe in the things that the President
believes in, we believe in veterans affairs, we believe that veterans
should have health care, we believe that American families should have
health care. They will say all of these great things; but guess what,
the evidence does not reflect the action that they have taken.
The President comes here and says that he believes in innovation, he
believes in investing in America's future, and in so many words, he
believes in the good old American spirit of saying that we will be
first, that we will leap forward, that we will lead the world in the
areas of education and in sciences and engineering, all of those
things.
{time} 1515
All of those things, but his budget doesn't reflect that, Mr. Ryan.
One may say, well, why do you have to identify the negative part of
this argument? I have to identify it, Mr. Ryan, because it is the
reality of the legislative process, because the President sets the tone
on what the budget will look like.
You have our Republican majority here, and we have these partisan
votes all the time. They vote in the spirit of the President's budget.
Now, one says trust us with the money, Mr. Ryan. Every time we come to
the floor, I have to identify what is going on as it relates to trust
us with the money.
Here is our friend, Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Snow. He is a good
guy. He is a good guy.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Good guy.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. But I want to make sure we understand that he
has a responsibility to make sure that this government doesn't run out
of money. He is paying attention to what is going on, Mr. Speaker. By
him paying attention, all he can do is react to the bad policies that
come out of this Chamber, right here. He didn't do it by himself. He
doesn't have the checkbook to write checks that he is not authorized to
write.
He is almost what you might call, Mr. Ryan, the accountant for the
United States of America, the individual that makes sure we get a
warning when we are heading down the wrong track. Here is a letter to
Senator McConnell by Secretary Snow, dated the 29th of last year. This
is almost on New Year's Eve, Members. This is like on New Year's Eve.
This is during the high holy time. This is during the time that folks
are with family and all and the Congress is out of session.
But the last act of the Secretary, probably in 2005, was to write
this letter, to write this letter so that hopefully maybe one day
someone will pick it up and say, oh, wow.
In this letter he is saying that we project that the debt limit,
which is currently at $8.1 trillion, will be reached by mid-February,
2006, which is now, ladies and gentlemen.
At that time, unless the debt limit is raised, or the Department of
Treasury authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to
continue financing government operations. It is not that we are not
going to be able to keep the snack room open over at the Department of
the Treasury. We will not be able, Mr. Speaker, to continue government
operations.
What is government operations? Government operations is making sure
that we have enough dollars to be able to fulfill what the American
people want us to fulfill, make sure that we have adequate education
dollars, and make sure that we can run the government and that we have
agencies that are performing services for the people, make sure that
the troops have what they need that are in harm's way right now, all of
these very, very important things, to make sure that the veteran
hospitals are open, to make sure that children with free and reduced
lunch are able to get what they need. They are saying unless the debt
ceiling is raised, we will not be able to do any of that.
Now, Mr. Snow, I can tell you, who is appointed by the President of
these United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, is not a member
of the Democratic Caucus. As a matter of fact, he can be an
independent, because he is just an accountant for the United States of
America, Mr. Speaker. The bottom line is, it is not his fault, but he
wrote that letter 2 days before the end of 2005. While the rest of us
are thinking about New Year's resolutions, he is back here in reality,
because the Congress left here trying to pass a budget.
He knows that he is going to have to write another letter. There are
five other letters that have been written like this by this Republican
majority because of their actions. Now, this is letter number six, Mr.
Ryan?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think so.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is letter number six, letter number seven,
letter number eight is coming. The reason we have to do it is because
we have to pay on the debt, and it is irresponsible policy by saying
that we want to make tax cuts permanent for billionaires.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ryan, we cannot carry out an innovation agenda, we
can't carry out a true health care agenda. The President comes here and
says, hey, let's talk about health care. Okay, let's talk about health
care. No, it is not really a discussion. I just want to expand a
program that only those that have disposable income to put on the side
for a rainy day for when they get sick, but the folks that are living
from paycheck to paycheck, I want to tell you something, many of those
individuals are making good money. Many of those individuals are trying
to pay for college loans and tuition, many of them are trying to do
that. Many of them have sick family members. They don't have $1,000 or
$2,000 to put to one side for the rainy day fund for when they get
sick. That is not a health care policy. That is a health care policy
for a couple of folks that can afford to do it.
I think it is important that we engage, Mr. Ryan, as we do, we come
to this floor in this 30-something Working Group, we engage the
majority, not in the political sense, but in the sense of saying that
the American people deserve better. In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, I
think it is important that we identify, not only to the Members but to
the American people, the only way we will be able to get on track to be
able to deal with the issue of health care, to deal with the issue of
innovation, to be able to make sure that we do away with the culture of
corruption and cronyism and incompetence and do away with the
corruption tax that the American people are paying because of the
incompetence and the cronyism and the corruption that is going on right
now in Washington D.C.
This is not my report. This is you pick up the paper, you turn on the
television. It is going on, Mr. Ryan. We talked about the K Street
Project. Folks are saying, well, that is not news. We know it exists.
We have Members on the majority side boasting about the K Street
Project: Yes, we created it. What's the problem?
Now, after a certain lobbyist here in this town gets indicted, does
he go to trial? No. Was there a jury pool call? No. He said, guess
what, I am guilty, and I am willing to help.
Then all of a sudden, 3 days later, oh, well, the K Street Project,
we are doing away with that, as though it was right in the first place.
I use that example, Mr. Ryan, so that the Members and the
[[Page 1971]]
American people understand that what we are talking about now is not
fiction; it is fact.
I said that last night, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to say it every
time we come to the floor. We are not promoting fiction. We are
promoting facts. That is where we are right now. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We talked about raising the debt limit. If you go
back and review what happened during the Clinton administration, two
times President Clinton had to raise the debt ceiling. Twice. Those
were early on. They passed the balanced budget in 1993 without one
Republican vote. Democratic House, Democratic Senate, Democratic White
House, balanced the budget, helped the private sector create and
provided the environment for the private sector to create over 20
million new jobs.
We need to provide that environment again for the private sector to
go out and do its work. We are not going to create the jobs here. We
cannot create any jobs. It is not our job to create jobs.
Our job is to create an environment in which people can go out and
seize the opportunity that we helped create. So Clinton did it twice.
This President has done it five times already, and he has only been in
office 5 years. President Clinton was in office 8 years.
Democrats know how to balance budgets and make proper investments. If
you look at the execution of government, from this President, this
Republican House, the Republican Senate. Katrina, a disaster, the way
FEMA reacted, an absolute disaster. The way the American people in that
region were treated and are still being treated, and the money that is
being wasted, because there are 11,000 trailers sitting in Hope,
Arkansas, that cost $300 million that are now sinking in the mud that
no one is living in.
I mean, give me a break. You look at the war in Iraq. We just find
out in the last few days, $9 billion. Nobody knows where it is. Where
is it? I don't know. Somebody find it. We don't know where it is. What
would you do with it? I don't have it. I gave it to him. What did you
do with it? He got it. It is like watching a Three Stooges episode. $9
billion of public money wasted.
Halliburton, overcharging for food and all kinds of other stuff.
Halliburton has already been fined $2 million for wasting the
taxpayers' money. Fraud. Come on. All we are saying here is there is a
way to execute government, and we know how to do it. You could know
better than anybody else, Mr. Meek, living in south Florida, with how
FEMA operates and how they don't always follow the proper procedure. We
can compare that to FEMA as it was executed under President Clinton.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. As you know, I am the ranking member on the
Management, Integration and Oversight Subcommittee in Homeland
Security.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know that.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will tell you the reason why I was a little
delayed here, Mr. Ryan, is we had two individuals, one from General
Services and another from the Department of Homeland Security. We are
about to move into what we call this American Shield Initiative, which
is along our borders using technology to protect America from illegal
immigration.
We set out with an initial program, Mr. Speaker, similar to the one
that is about to start now. In that program, there was a quarter of a
billion dollars wasted because of incompetence. A quarter of a billion
dollars. Now, let me tell you, a quarter of a billion dollars, Mr.
Ryan, it is not even in some sort of program that was at some
university and someone was to work on some sort of research project and
it went south. This is protecting the borders of the United States of
America, a quarter of a billion dollars. The four individuals that were
involved, Mr. Speaker, only received a demotion. A demotion.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, I used to be a State trooper. If you
have a trooper that damaged equipment, let us just say $1 million, they
are gone, period, dot. It is not anything to where you say, oh, well,
Tom, I know it was rough and all, and you made a mistake. Guess what,
it's just a quarter of a billion dollars, just the taxpayers' money.
Don't worry about it. Forget about it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They will get over it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. They will get over it.
Mr. Ryan, we have to disabuse ourselves of that kind of attitude here
in Washington D.C.
Let me tell you something. My constituents who can either be
Republican, Democratic, Independent, or Green Party, would be highly
disappointed, highly disappointed if we were in charge and this were
going on. But we are not in charge. We are asking to be in charge of
this Chamber.
What is happening right now, Mr. Speaker, and what is being printed
in the press right now, Mr. Speaker, and what is being said in the
Halls of Congress right now, Mr. Speaker, is unprecedented in the
history of this Congress.
When we speak into the Congressional Record, Mr. Ryan, here on this
30-something, I sleep well. I sleep well because I know that,
hopefully, historians will look at this time and say, you know
something, the minority side was saying that we could do better, and
that we can do better, and that we will do better. We have the history
on our side to the majority side. On the Democratic side, we have the
history of balancing the budget. Do you? No.
We have the history of investing in education and making sure that
children have what they need to learn and teachers have what they need
to teach.
On your side? No. We have the history of putting together things as
it relates to a bipartisan agenda on innovation and education, Leave No
Child Behind, working with the Republican side, passing that piece of
legislation, being there at the bill signing. Then when it came down to
funding that bipartisan piece of legislation, it was the Democrats
standing there all alone while on the Republican side we had desert
tumbleweeds flying through saying, well, you know, we just don't have
the money to do that. Meanwhile, on the other side, we have got to give
this tax break to the top bracket of Americans who are millionaires. As
a matter of fact, not only do we want to give it to them, we want to
make it permanent.
Mr. Ryan, we start talking about the commitment to making sure that
we carry on our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, I think
it is very clear that we are prepared, and that we are ready. The
President came here talking about innovation. He must have been walking
down the hall and picked up a copy of the Democratic plan and said, oh,
maybe we need to talk about this.
We have CEOs who are Independents and Republicans and are Democrats,
who are now talking that they are supporting a Democratic initiative.
No, what they are supporting is an American initiative that we are
committed to.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. An initiative endorsed by the CEO of Cisco Systems;
the managing director of government affairs at Microsoft; and a laundry
list, American Corn Growers; CEO of AEA; I mean, come on, Information
Technology Industry Council, vice president. This is not a Democratic-
supported agenda. This was the Democrat's ideas, but this is supported
by Democrats and Republicans because it is the right thing to do for
the country.
{time} 1530
Increase the research and development tax credit. Double the funding
to the National Science Foundation. These are things that, these are
smart business decisions. We are in the business of government. If you
were in a business, you would not run yourself into debt and run annual
deficits as far as the eye can see. You would not stop funding
education or pull back or not make that kind of investment. You would
not cut funding to research and development. That is your lifeline,
that is how you keep yourself competitive, and that is all we want to
do and try to give every kid an opportunity to get up in there.
[[Page 1972]]
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you showed this chart a little
earlier, but you cannot show it enough.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not think you can.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to make sure, Mr. Ryan, that the
American people understand what is happening in the present. We do not
even have to go as far back as what happened 4 or 5 years ago or what
happened 2 years ago. We just have to talk about what is happening
right now.
Once again, this President could not do it by himself, Mr. Speaker,
needed the partisan vote in this Chamber on the Republican side to
accomplish $1.05 trillion in borrowing from foreign nations. Knocking
on the door of China, saying can you help us, because we are fiscally
irresponsible.
That is what the debt ceiling letter comes from, Mr. Speaker. We did
not write this letter. Democrats did not set this letter into motion.
It was the Republican policies in this Republican House that set this
policy into motion raising the debt ceiling, not paying as we go. This
is not the responsibility of the minority on the Democratic side. It is
the majority.
I want to make sure, because we need to break this thing down in 1,
2, 3, A, B, C, so that no one can go back home and tell their
constituents, well, you know, you have got a point there, but I did not
quite catch that, and I did not know that we have borrowed $1.05
trillion more than 42 Presidents before this President, 42 other
administrators before this President, $1.05 trillion that other
Presidents and administrations and Congresses have borrowed from
foreign nations in 224 years.
Folks say, well, you all act like you are alarmed by this. We are
alarmed, Mr. Speaker. The American people should be alarmed,
Republicans and Democrats. It is almost like saying, Mr. Speaker, if
you had your daughter or son that you gave a credit card to and they
went out and they just charged that credit card up, as a matter of
fact, they charged it to the point that it is at the limit. Let us say
they had a $2,500 limit on it. What the Republican Congress is doing
now, Mr. Speaker, is that they are going, even though they are maxed
out, they are calling the credit card company that happens to be China,
that happens to be Saudi Arabia, that happens to be other countries of
interest, as it relates to the defense of this country, saying we have
maxed out right now. We need your help to pay our bills.
And then at the same time, Mr. Speaker, as I continue to go to C
here, through the ABCs, they are saying this on one side, but, on the
other side, they are saying, hey, make the tax cuts permanent. Make
them permanent for the most well-financed Americans, for the top tier
of the individuals that are making 2 and $3 million a year. On this
side of the debate, Mr. Speaker, they are saying it is okay to give not
only royalties but other benefits and tax breaks to the oil industry
while they are making record profits. They are saying that it is okay.
But then here in the middle are the American people; and the American
people are having to suck it up, Mr. Ryan. The American people who want
to educate themselves, parents who want to see their children educated.
If you have a prepaid college program, you better revisit that program,
because it will not assist your child or your son or your daughter in
paying for their college because we will just yank the carpet out from
under young people. And the Republican majority did.
We voted against it. The Democrats voted against it. So if we are
going to have a paradigm shift, and I am hoping that we put the
pressure on the Republican majority, that we are here to play. We mean
business. We are very serious about having the opportunity to give this
country what it deserves, and that means representation, representation
for them and not the special interests.
Mr. Speaker, I speak all of the time about I do not have a picture of
the special interests in my office, saying I really dislike the special
interests. I really dislike individuals that are paid lobbyists. I
really dislike them. No, no. It is not them. It is the individuals that
allow the raw needs of those special interests to make it into
statutory language. It is those individuals that appropriate in those
areas where it gets into the appropriations act and into the budget
just the way they wrote it, without saying, you know, I know you have a
concern, I know you have an issue and you have needs, but we have to
make sure that the American people are represented in this budget. We
have to make sure that the American people are represented in this
bill. We have to make sure that the future of this country as it
relates to innovation plays a major role in what we do here, and that
is where we are lacking, Mr. Speaker.
So, you know, Mr. Ryan, as we go on, and many Members will return
back to their districts and speak to individuals that live there. We
challenge those Americans to challenge your Member of Congress. It is
almost too late for us to wait until Election Day for you to speak the
way you want to speak. But you have the opportunity. I tell you, give
the Republican majority the benefit of the doubt that they are going to
take a paradigm shift. But I am going to let you know right now, the
evidence does not speak to a paradigm shift or a change in thinking or
their ways.
So I say, Mr. Ryan, that, yes, we do have a couple of friends over
here on this side of the aisle that believe what we believe. And it
will be those individuals, those very few, Mr. Speaker, that will join
in with a Democratic leadership if the American people see fit to have
it so that will allow us to move in a bipartisan way. And it will not
be like it is now, and it will not be business as usual, and it will
not be, well, I don't care if you do not like it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We cannot afford business as usual.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We cannot afford business as usual.
So Mr. Ryan, I think it is important as we are in, you know, the
closing minutes of our time here of sharing with, I know it is, you
know, 15, 20 minutes it is closing for us because we like to share the
information.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Fourth quarter.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are in the fourth quarter right now. We like
to share the information, and we like to give it to folks the way it
is. There is no icing on this, Mr. Speaker. Because there is no icing
when a child is denied an opportunity to enroll in a free lunch.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No gravy.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. There is no icing on the cake when it comes down
to a family that is trying to figure out how they are going to pay a
copayment or they need to keep running down to the drugstore to get
children's Motrin or Tylenol. There is no icing on the reality of
individuals having to wait at an HMO or at a clinic, that they are on a
waiting list to be seen by a doctor. There is no icing on the reality
of the American experience right now.
So I think it is important for children, if it is from, you know,
from a double-wide to the west side, wherever they may live, who do not
have the opportunity to broadband access so that they can be just as
advanced as the next community or as the next family. That is what we
are talking about. It is not a liberal agenda. It is a sound agenda to
put this country back on the right track, and it is serious business,
and anyone that feels that it is not serious business, we challenge
them to say otherwise.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I agree with you 100 percent, Mr. Meek; and I
appreciate your passion. The $9 billion, you talked about some of the
irresponsible domestic fiscal problems, challenges that we have here in
the United States. They are unbelievable, the magnitude that they are
at right now and the magnitude that our friends on the other side let
it get so far out of hand. But not only here at home do they have
problems governing and balancing budgets and trying to put our fiscal
house in order here. $9 billion lost in Iraq. Okay?
Third party validator. This is not Tim Ryan from Ohio. This is not
Kendrick Meek from Florida. This is not Nancy Pelosi saying this. This
is the Inspector General that said nearly $9 billion of money spent on
Iraq reconstruction
[[Page 1973]]
is unaccounted for because of inefficiencies and bad management,
according to a watchdog report published Sunday. And the IG says the
same thing. Unable to account for the funds. $8.8 billion was reported
to have been spent on salaries, operating and capital expenditures and
reconstruction projects between October of 2003 and 2004. The CPA,
Coalition Provisional Authorities, have left auditors with no guarantee
the money was properly used. Severe inefficiencies and poor management.
What is going on over there? Haliburton is inflating their numbers to
increase their profits at the expense of the United States taxpayer.
Back home with Katrina, we have----
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, it is okay. I am talking about, Mr.
Ryan, for the majority. It is okay. No, it is fine.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No, I understand what you are saying.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Oh, people make mistakes of wide application,
you know.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And you may like this one because this totally
reaffirms what you just said. It affirms it, but then it even reaffirms
it. At the House Budget Committee hearing this morning, the committee
hearing was on discretionary spending.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Just this morning, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just this morning, today, Thursday. One of the
things OMB and the White House are emphasizing this year is this great
new agency rating system that they have put together with ratings from
effective to ineffective. Okay? And they looked at FEMA and the
administration's self-performance, so this is the fox watching the hen
house here. Mitigation programs were rated moderately effective.
Disaster recovery, adequate. Disaster response, adequate.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Is that like a C, Mr. Ryan? Is that like a C
minus?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not know what it is.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is not a B or an A, am I correct?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If anybody in America that watched what was going
on during Katrina thinks that FEMA's response was adequate, then we
have a total communication problem here, and we maybe need to come up
with a couple new words, because the performance there was not
adequate. Brownie's performance was not adequate. The Secretary of
Homeland Security's performance was not adequate. Appointing an
attorney to an equestrian society is not adequate. That is inadequate,
and this country deserves better.
Government, you cannot, and this is the problem, what I really
disagree with our friends on the other side. I do not believe that
government is the answer. We cannot create jobs, and I do not believe
that. The private sector creates jobs. We create a good environment.
Our friends on the other side for the past 12 to 20 years have just
been saying government is the problem. Well, you know what? Government
was the problem there because you do not have any respect for what is
going on. Who else is going to come in in a disaster, other than FEMA?
That is our responsibility. Who else is going to help with broadband
access all over the country? The government.
Now, we do not want the government in everything; and I, quite
frankly, think the government is too involved in too much right now.
But there are targeted areas where the government can be effective. One
of those is emergency response, and we are getting inadequate
performance from this administration.
Another one is when you go to war. Who is going to go to war? Two
private businesses? McDonalds against Burger King in the great grudge
match? No. Countries go to war. Governments go to war. And $9 billion
just unaccounted for, inadequate, ineffective, inefficient, waste of
the taxpayers' money and, quite frankly, a disgrace, Mr. Meek. And this
is why I think that we need some wholesale changes.
One final point before I yield to my friend.
Part of the problem is, we have a one-party government here.
Republicans control the House, Republicans control the Senate,
Republicans control the White House. Somebody should be getting kicked
around if you cannot find $9 billion that was supposed to be spent on a
war in Iraq and it is not and no one can find it. Where are the
oversight hearings from our friends on the other side? We are in the
minority. We do not have subpoena power.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, there were hundreds of hearings for
far less under the Clinton administration. Hundreds.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You know what? If this was a sexual escapade there
would be hearings all over the place. But this is about $9 billion in
taxpayers' dollars that is gone, and no hearings. No one is getting
there.
In fact, here comes the report. I don't even know what I just did
with it. Here comes the report, the article about the $9 billion. Paul
Bremer says and the Pentagon disputes the Inspector General's report.
Not, we better find out what happened because we do not want it to
happen again and we are the guardians of the public tax dollars. We
have got to make sure what happened never happens again.
{time} 1545
That is not what we get from this outfit. We get: It was not us. It
wasn't me. I don't know. What did you say? I cannot hear you. And these
guys say, Inspector General, watchdog groups, $9 billion unaccounted
for. The Pentagon says, We disagree.
Well, then, where is it? Show it to us.
We are not wiretapping you.
How do I know? How do I know? Because you told them? You are the same
group that told me that the war was only going to cost the American
taxpayer $50 billion and now we are up to $400 billion, and you said we
would be greeted as liberators, and that never happened. And you said
we would use the oil for reconstruction. That never happened, Mr.
Speaker. Why should we believe anything that is coming out of this
administration or the Republican Congress right now? It cannot be
trusted.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, here is the bottom line: history
does not speak straight talk to the American people about what is
happening here under the Capitol dome. But I feel obligated to report
it. I think it is important that in the last budget reconciliation bill
that we had that passed this floor and the Senate that the Republican
leadership did know 5 days before it came to the House for a vote, in
the final conference report, that it was an inaccurate report and it
was an identical bill between the House and the Senate.
It is so interesting that one of the issues, one of the areas where
the language was wrong was regarding direct loan payments to parents of
post-secondary students in one section. One of the other sections dealt
with bankruptcy fees. We did not know it. The majority knew it and the
White House knew it and they still signed it. And it is
unconstitutional, but they are saying that that is okay.
I think, also, it is important to identify, Mr. Ryan, when we start
talking about individuals being able to receive good information, I
asked the Members, I challenged the Members to go on
democraticleader.house.gov, pull up the statement that was put out on
February 15, which was just yesterday, on Wednesday, talking about the
partisan committee, Mr. Speaker, that was put together to look into
Katrina, and basically you know what they are saying? No
recommendations for changes or corrections, but they are saying what
did we get out of the Department of Homeland Security? We did not get
the answers that we deserve. What did we learn from the process that we
are not prepared to take on a natural disaster?
All right. Let us talk about natural disaster versus terrorist
attacks. A natural disaster is something that we see is coming in many
cases, outside of an earthquake or what have you, but in many cases we
see it coming, nine times out of ten, whether it be a great rain,
flood, what have you. What happens, as I am speaking here on the floor
hypothetically, God forbid, if a terrorist attack takes place? How do
we respond to it? We are not prepared, and we have to be prepared.
[[Page 1974]]
Mr. Ryan, I want to thank you for coming down and starting this hour.
I look forward to working with you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and others
on the 30-something Working Group as we try to improve this government.
But I will tell you right now and I will share it with the Members
and the American people that we must have a paradigm shift in this
Chamber if you want the accountability that you deserve.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, as we wind down here, just to sum this all up, I think
we have addressed an issue tonight. We found a theme, Mr. Meek, about
incompetence. And it is not personal. Democrats at one point many, many
years ago maybe did not do right by the American people, who knows. But
I am saying this is not personal. But there is a real trend going on
here with Katrina, with the war, and this administration and the
Republican House and the Republican Senate's inability to execute the
responsibilities of government.
We are running huge annual budget deficits to the tune of $400
billion next year. They are going to raise the debt limit for the fifth
or sixth time in the Bush administration to over $8.2 trillion. The
fiscal house is a mess. We are borrowing money from China, Japan, and
OPEC countries. Inability and an incompetence when it comes to
governing in the United States of America.
And then we talk about corruption, and there is personal corruption
and then there is stuff that affects the people, Mr. Meek, and what is
happening here is with the Medicare prescription drug plan, for
example.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Corruption tax.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is a corruption tax that is being levied on
the American people because you pay for the end result. The American
people pay, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day. When a Medicare
negotiator, the head of the Medicare program, is negotiating the
Medicare prescription drug program that costs $700 billion and at the
same time is negotiating his lobbying job that he is going to go to
when he is done working for the Federal Government and the Medicare
prescription drug plan is a mess. When the oil industry gets $12
billion in corporate welfare and they have the highest profits they
have ever had, setting records, and who pays at the end of the day? The
American consumer. And we cannot get enough money to people who are
trying to get heating oil and lower gas costs.
So from the budget to the execution of Katrina and the war, failing
to balance the budget, borrowing money from China and Japan, giving
away corporate welfare to the oil industry and the health care industry
at the cost to the American taxpayers, two of the most profitable
industries in the world, and at the same time when members of this
administration are not only negotiating that bill but are negotiating
personal contracts for themselves, there is something wrong here and we
need to fix it.
And the Democrats have a plan because if it were not for their
behavior, we would be able to implement our Innovation Agenda that
would go on and create millions of jobs in this country. We would
incentivize research and development with our R&D tax credit that we
have in here. We would be able to double the funding for the National
Science Foundation for more research and development that the private
sector could come in and benefit from. We could do all these things,
but we need to ask the American people politely but forcefully we want
a chance to govern this country because we have the ideas and
commitment to make this happen.
Mr. Speaker, other Members of this House can get a hold of our
information and our charts that we have used today at
www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.
Mr. Meek, do you have any closing remarks?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. No. Mr. Ryan, I just want to make sure that the
Members know that they can get all the charts and information that we
shared today off of that Web site starting tomorrow, sir. Thank you.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wonderful.
____________________
IRAQ
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sodrel). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, this Member appreciates the privilege
to address you, Mr. Speaker, and to stand on the floor of the people's
House, the United States House of Representatives, and convey some
thoughts that I think need to be shared with you, Mr. Speaker, and
hopefully picked up by the American people.
As I listen to the presentation and delivery that continually comes
here on this floor night after night, Mr. Speaker, and as I analyze the
tone and the attitude and the lament that flows continually from the
other side of the aisle, I hear this constant strain, this constant
strain of, and this is a quote, ``It would be different if we were in
charge, but we are not in charge,'' meaning the minority party.
But I am going to say this, that the members of the minority party
have the same individual responsibilities as the members of the
majority party. Each one of us is \1/435\th of this task that we have
here, \1/435\th of the total voice of the American people, designed by
our Founding Fathers, written into our Constitution, drafted in such a
way that we do redistricting in America and we do so every 10 years. We
draw new lines. We make sure that each of us represents pretty close to
the same number of people, approximately 600,000 people. And the voice
when you hear me speak, Mr. Speaker, is the voice, hopefully, of the
600,000 people in western Iowa that I have the honor to represent. And
I would like to think that when the voice of any of us steps down here
and speaks, it is the voice of the collective opinions of their
constituents within the districts of all the Members of this House of
Representatives.
If one listened to this debate here on the floor night after night
after night, one could easily, an uninformed person, come to the
conclusion that if you are a member of the Democrat Party, if you are a
member of the minority party, you are really powerless to do anything
about this.
Take, for example, the case in point, the alleged $9 billion that is
wasted in construction in Iraq. And I would point out, Mr. Speaker,
that I came to the floor the night before last, and I spent perhaps 55
minutes outlining the effort in the Middle East, the effort in Iraq,
and particularly the construction projects that have been initiated
there. I led a CODEL over to the Middle East and particularly into Iraq
for the very purpose to identify, follow through, observe the projects
that had been initiated, those that had been constructed, to go in and
probe and ask questions and get a sense of where those dollars, that
$18.5 billion that was part of an overall appropriations bill, where
they went, how they were spent, under what conditions, and what are the
projects that have been initiated and the projects that have been
completed.
I did not bring the poster over here tonight that has that chart on
it, Mr. Speaker, but I do bring it in my memory. And as I discussed
this with the United States Army, who had a responsibility for
somewhere in the neighborhood of $13 billion in those projects, they
have initiated over 3,300 projects with those dollars. They have
completed over 2,200 projects with those dollars, and there remains
another 1,100 projects that are either in the process of construction
right now, soon to be completed, or they will soon be initiated, and
the last projects will be completed some time after the first of next
year. They will be the last pieces of that fallen place.
And I heard the statement on the floor the night before last that all
of that money was wasted. All of it. So if it is not even going to be
qualified that one single dollar out of $18.5 billion went to something
good, I wonder how much value one would put on the rest of the
statements that are made by that side of the aisle and by that
``informative'' team, and I put that in quotes, Mr. Speaker.
[[Page 1975]]
So I watched as they were nearing completion on the mother of all
generators up by Kirkuk, a project that has 750,000 pounds of generator
and turbine to drive that generator mounted there and is up and
generating electricity for the people in that area.
We have heard the complaint that Iraq's oil production is not up to
where it was at the beginning of the war, that there is less
electricity available and less electricity production than there was
before the war. Or before the liberation, I prefer to say, Mr. Speaker.
And I can categorically inform you that that is simply not true. The
oil royalties before liberation in March of 2003 that came into the
Iraqi Government were $5 billion a year. The royalties for the oil that
was exported and collected, royalties for the last year were $26
billion.
Now, one cannot conclude that oil production is down with five times
the royalties being paid to the Iraqi people to help fund their overall
budget. And, yes, we have put money in that and resources in that. We
have put minimal dollars into oil development and production, and we
have done so because we have said the United States is not in this for
the oil.
We are in this for freedom for the Iraqi people. We are in this to
erase the habitat that breeds terror, and there has been extraordinary
success that has been accomplished there. But to own the oil or to
invest United States taxpayer dollars into that oil infrastructure and
then turn around and turn it back over to the Iraqis was never part of
our plan. We did suggest that oil revenue in Iraq would go to pay for
the reconstruction in Iraq. And after we had been there for 6 or 7
months, it was apparent that that kind of revenue just was not going to
flow, that the infrastructure in Iraq was so dilapidated, that it had
not been reconstructed, had not been modernized in at least 35 years.
So think, for example, of massive oil fields that have significant
quantities of oil, oil so rich that it seeps to the top of the ground
up by Kirkuk, but yet not drill a well. Or not drill wells in
significant numbers. I should qualify that statement. To not build
pipelines, to not build refineries, to not build a system to extract
that oil, refine the oil, and distribute the oil to the rest of the
world so that you can continue to increase your production while world
consumption is going up, those are things that did not happen under
Saddam Hussein's regime.
So the production that was there 35 years ago simply diminished
gradually in increments as Saddam took those resources for his own uses
and starved the Iraqi people. But the production of oil is up. The
production and generation of electricity is up, Mr. Speaker. An average
day of electricity before the liberation, and I will pick a month,
early March, 2003, would produce over 2,000 megawatts of electricity.
{time} 1600
Today, it is over 5,000 on peak days, and it falls off maybe 1,000 on
your average days. But it is still significantly more production.
Now, the statement will be made on the other side of the aisle, if
they are paying attention and if they are astute, they will say, but
Baghdad has less electricity than they had before liberation.
Mr. Speaker, that also is true. And the reason for that is because
Saddam focused his electrical resources into Baghdad. Baghdad had 10 to
12 hours of electricity every day under Saddam Hussein's regime. The
rest of the country got very little at any time, an hour or two a day.
Now it has been shifted so the distribution of that electricity roughly
doubled the generation of electricity by setting up new generation
plants, setting up new transmission systems and new distribution
systems. And one of the things that is a constraint there now is not
being able to wield that power anywhere in Iraq where it is needed, not
having a central terminal where switches can be thrown and you can send
electricity to Mosul or Kirkuk or Tikrit or into Baghdad, into sections
and zones that need it. That is also going to be rectified within the
next half a year or so so that the need for electricity can be targeted
to the regions of Iraq where it is going to be the most valuable.
And the predictability that has been established there, it used to be
unpredictable under Saddam for the outlying cities, more predictable in
Baghdad because he took care of Baghdad. Today, it is predictable in
most areas of Iraq. But the areas of Iraq outside of Baghdad have gone
from one to two hours of electricity a day to 10, 11 and 12 hours of
electricity a day, at predictable times, so people that are running a
business or doing a little manufacturing or maybe there is someone
doing their laundry, they can plan their lives around having a stream
of electricity.
We don't know what that is like, to have to think about managing our
lives so that when the electricity is on we turn on the washing
machine, plug in the iron, turn on the air conditioner and go start the
pump to pump water for our livestock or even our irrigation. We don't
think about that. But that has been a fact of life in that part of the
Middle East from the beginning of electricity.
So all of the country of Iraq is far better off in access to
electricity and consistent supply, substantially better off, four to
five times better off, with the exception of Baghdad.
Baghdad is about one-fourth of the population of all of Iraq, excuse
me, I should say one-fifth of the population of all of Iraq, and their
daily electrical supply is down from what it was. It is no longer 10 to
12 hours a day, it is 2 to 4 hours a day. And that needs to be ramped
up, Mr. Speaker, and it will be. As soon as they are able to wield this
power in a more efficient fashion and get a couple more generating
systems up on line, then Baghdad will be moved up into the level with
the rest of the country and provide some stability for that city as
well.
But it is important that Baghdad be brought into the level of
electrical supply as the rest of the country. As Baghdad goes, so goes
Iraq. With that kind of a population of about 5 million people, it is
the core of the country. It a large metropolitan area, of course, Mr.
Speaker.
But they made significant progress. Some of that money went to great
good. Some of that money went to security. When you are going in to lay
a sewer plant because there are children playing in raw sewerage in the
streets of Sadr City and you have insurgents shooting at your
construction workers, some of that money needed to go for security, and
some of it did.
But if there is some money missing over there, and Paul Bremer says
it is not, and if the Inspector General says it is, then I go back to
the King law of physics, and that is everything has to be somewhere.
So if it is alleged that $9 billion are missing, Mr. Speaker, then my
challenge to the people that make that allegation would be, where is
it? Did it disappear into thin air? Whose hands did it go into? Was
there graft and corruption? If so, what? Be a little more definitive.
Don't throw out just some wild allegations that here is some money that
is missing and it is somebody else's responsibility to address this.
We all have the same responsibility, 1/435th of the responsibility,
all of us responsible to the people of the United States of America.
And to stand here and admonish night after night after night that if
they were just in the majority somehow they would do their job, but
they are in the minority so they don't have to do their job, that their
job is to criticize people in the majority, well, that is a bitter pill
to swallow for those of us who get out of bed here, go to work, work
late and do the research, and our staff goes to work in our district
and here on the Hill, and we have a network with people around this
city, around this country and in our districts and in our States and,
in fact, around the world.
I have watched my colleagues over here on this side of the aisle age
in the few years I have been here. I can look at them today and see
lines that weren't there 3 and 4 years ago. I see hair that is
absolutely gray that had a trace of it 3 and 4 years ago. They are
working hard for the people of this
[[Page 1976]]
country. And things happen around the world, and anything you can find
to criticize can't be laid at the feet, not everything, of the people
on this side of the aisle that work hard for the people of the United
States of America.
In fact, I don't agree with all the decisions that are made by the
majority of this Congress, and who in the world would? If you agreed
with the decisions that were made by the majority of the United States
Congress and you served in this place, or you are someone who hopefully
aspires to come serve in this body someday, if you agree with the
majority opinion, that means you are not thinking for yourself.
Of course, we are critical among ourselves. We are critical among
ourselves as a Republican majority. We are critical on the other side
of the minority's opinion. But in the end we have to stand on our own
integrity, use our own intelligence, use our own research and be
objective, open up our eyes and ears, read, listen, hear, think,
analyze and resolve to do the right thing for the American people in a
bipartisan fashion that brings us toward a conclusion and towards a
successful conclusion. And that success is not defined as if the
Democrats were just in the majority in the House and in the Senate and
had the White House the world would be a different place. Yes, I am
convinced it would be a very different place, Mr. Speaker. But that is
not how you define success.
You have to lay out a plan and vision for the American people. You
need to stick to that plan. It has to have vision. It has to have
foresight. It has to have a short-term, midterm and long-term vision.
It has to be something that the American people can subscribe to and
believe in, something they can work for and work towards. In fact, Mr.
Speaker, it needs to be something that the American people can
sacrifice for so that they know that the delayed gratification can one
day turn this country into a better country, tomorrow, next week, next
month, next year, next decade, next generation, next century, and on
and on into the future of this great Nation, the United States of
America.
So I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is not that ``it would be
different if we were in charge.'' No, it won't be different. You will
still hear complaints. What makes things different is if you lay out a
vision.
So, in the brief time that is here on the floor of this Congress, Mr.
Speaker, I don't propose to be able to lay out a complete and total
vision for America. I would touch a few subject matters that were
raised here and then move on to the subject I came down here to talk
about.
One is the issue of foreign debt. I would agree, we are borrowing
money from foreign countries in order to provide for the funding to run
this government, and that is because we have deficit spending.
I am one that stands here and says I am for a balanced budget. I am
for a balanced budget without taxing the people of America any more
than we are today. In fact, the Bush tax cuts that were passed in 2002
and in 2003 were tax cuts that don't affect the bottom line of our
deficit in a measurable fashion. But what they did do was stimulate the
economy.
I would back us all up to the day, Mr. Speaker, that we had a
recognizable, identifiable dot.com bubble. We saw great growth in this
economy. It was speculative growth in the economy for the most part.
People said, well, we are in the information age. We have gone
through the stone age, we have gone into the industrial age, and now we
have transformed ourselves into the information age, and the
information age is an era by which the ability to store and transfer
knowledge in and of itself apparently had a lot of value.
Because whenever we would come up with a microchip that could store
and transfer information more effectively and more software programs
and more creativity that had to do with all of the intel industrial out
there, the investors of the world looked at this and said, my gracious,
I can't wait to jump on that, I can't wait to buy some shares of this
intel company, because it is going to grow, and I am going to double
and triple and quadruple my money, and I will be a rich person someday
because we are in the information age. Surely, this company can store
and transfer information faster and better than ever before. That has
to have value.
So that created this dot.com bubble, because we forgot something. We
forgot that the marketability of everything that we have has to come
back down to something that has substance, that is sustainable, and
that is this, and it has always been the case in the economy, you have
to produce a good or a service that has a marketable value.
Now, what does information have for a marketable value? Well,
companies will want to be able to purchase information and the ability
to store and transfer and sort that information because it makes them
more efficient in their decisionmaking process and in the delivery
process of their products or service.
So if I am in manufacturing, I will have sales and I will have
inventory coming in and I will be manufacturing things and my inventory
will be going out. We will have our marketing and distribution. All of
those things happen to be working.
Now ways that I can use the dot.com industry on that, this
information age, is that if I can sort my inventory better, if I can
order more efficiently and precisely, if I can get better bargains
because I am doing an Internet negotiation auction as opposed to a
purchasing agent sitting there on an old black dial telephone, yes,
information has value then.
If it allows me to store just-in-time inventory so I can bring the
trucks of my raw materials in just in time, so I cut down on my own
inventory, that capital investment, turn it into a product and turn it
out the door more efficiently, and if it helps my sales people get out
there and market that product, and if I can get that product made with
computerized equipment so that it is done with better precision and
more cost-effectiveness and better quality and get that on the truck
and get it delivered to the customer in just-in-time delivery time,
reliable, all of that information has value.
So we paid for those things because information had value. But we
created our ability to store and transfer information way beyond our
ability to utilize it within our economy. In fact, we created it to the
point where information itself had a recreational value, and that
recreational value became in some components of the Internet.
So here is the day today where a vast majority of the households in
America have Internet access, including mine, wireless. I was one of
the first ones wireless, one of the first ones with high-speed Internet
in my office. Actually I was the first one in the telephone service
company where my construction office is and my campaign office. That
office was the very first customer for high-speed Internet services for
that telephone company.
Out in the country where Marilyn and I live, it is another telephone
service company, we were the very first customer there to have DSL
high-speed Internet services in our house, because we also ran the
business out of the house and we needed access to high speed. So I love
technology. It has value.
But, in the end, when you pay for all of this information and this
technology and even when you market it to people for recreational
purposes, that means their disposable income, people say I have an
extra 25 or 40 or 50 dollars a month that I want to put into this
Internet. Even though I can get along without it, I really like the
convenience of being able to send out the e-mails to my friends and be
able to find the answer to any question I want to ask just simply by
going up on the Internet, do a search, and here it is.
So we marketed that as well off of the information age. But we
produced the ability to store and transfer information way beyond our
ability to market it. That was the dot.com bubble. You knew I would
come back to that, Mr. Speaker. That was the dot.com bubble.
So this bubble in our economy was the speculative bubble that was
created
[[Page 1977]]
because there was investment made in the information age that went
beyond the amount of information that could be sustained by the
economy. And, like any bubble, bubbles will burst, and that bubble did
burst, and it burst about the same time, just before we had a
transition from President, from President Clinton to President George
W. Bush.
The bursting of the dot.com bubble, Mr. Speaker, and we forget that
so often, and as we saw our economy take the downturn and plummet and
try to adjust for the bursting of the dot.com bubble, we also saw two
planes go into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, right dead center
into the financial center of America and the world. At the same time, a
plane went into the ground in Pennsylvania and into the Pentagon.
We were all of a sudden from a nation that was scrambling to recover
from a dot.com bubble, we were thrust into a worldwide war on terror,
with our financial centers crashed down around us and left just a
smoking hole in the ground at the Twin Towers. Our economy went down
with that. It already was headed down, and as it ran down the hill, it
was pushed off the cliff by September 11.
So what did we do here in this Congress? A number of things to react.
And the decisions that were made were astonishing in their efficiency.
I look back on that era and I commend the people in this Chamber and
across in the United States Senate and the President, Mr. Speaker,
because two big decisions were made and made fairly quickly.
One I will just briefly reference, the PATRIOT Act, the need to be
able to protect us from an intelligence perspective from those who
would wish to do us harm and protect the privacy rights of the American
people at the same time.
I have sat through 12 hearings of the PATRIOT Act. We need to
reauthorize that, Mr. Speaker. That piece of legislation is far better
in its quality, and we have improved it some, more than anyone had a
right to expect, considering the pressure that this Congress was under
at the time to make those changes.
But the PATRIOT Act has sustained itself, and to this date, not a
single critic, not in the United States House of Representatives, not
in the government function, not in a hearing, even under specific
requests of the witnesses that were there in the hearings, not a single
critic has been able to name an individual who has had their privacy
rights and constitutional rights usurped by the PATRIOT Act. Only
hypotheticals, Mr. Speaker, and as we know, hypotheticals don't get you
very far in this world.
{time} 1615
So that was one thing, one action that was taken by this Congress
that was an amazingly efficient action, and we are to this day 4 years
beyond, and we have not suffered another attack on American property or
people on this soil since that period of time.
So the PATRIOT Act was extraordinarily effective. The Bush tax cuts
came right behind that, because we knew that with the bursting of the
dot-com bubble, and the attacks of September 11 and the crashing down
into a smoking hole with 3,000 American lives along with it, was our
financial future.
Now, if we had listened to the naysayers on this side of the aisle at
that period of time, we would have said, gee, we got to have a balanced
budget here, so let us raise taxes. That is how we will get ourselves
out of the smoking hole of the Twin Towers. We would have raised taxes
so we had enough money to do what? Arm this huge police force to go out
and serve warrants and try to identify these al Qaeda people that wish
us ill and go around the world and work with Interpol, and maybe we can
bring them to justice in handcuffs.
Some of them said we are not really at war here, and some of them
said, well, no, you need to understand them. Some of them said that one
man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Those words were
spoken here, Mr. Speaker. And I think they were completely and utterly
wrong.
I think the people who have pledged to do us ill mean it. I think
they have proven it. And I think it is up to us not just to protect and
defend ourselves in this country, but carry the battle to them; and we
need to do that with a strong economy.
The Bush tax cuts provided that. And in spite of the criticism, in
spite of the things that have been laid out in opposition that say that
the deficit is because of the tax cuts, can you go back and calculate
the loss of revenue because of the tax cuts and will you see there has
been an increase in revenue that came from the growth in our economy.
The number is over 14 percent over anticipated revenue over the last
year, Mr. Speaker, and the deficit that was projected is significantly
reduced, and that is because we have had tax cuts that stimulate
business.
So I do not think I would want to have people in charge that do not
believe in free enterprise or people that believe that you could tax
your way into prosperity. These are the kinds of people that if you
give them the goose that lays the golden egg, they wouldn't think you
could feed the goose, but they do think you can cut the goose apart and
take the eggs and then go on and live in happy prosperity with that
basket of golden eggs the rest of your life.
That is the attitude that comes. At some point it goes backwards on
you. We have to have a revenue stream. We need a low broad tax scale so
that we can stimulate this economy.
With regard to the foreign debt, if we can balance this budget, we
can eliminate the increase in foreign debt. If we can produce a
surplus, we can pay down the national debt, which reduces the foreign
debt. But we have debt to American domestic indebtedness, as well as
foreign debt. Both of those concern me. The foreign debt concerns me
more than the American domestic debt.
We also have, Mr. Speaker, a negative balance of trade. That number
should come out fairly quickly, within the next 30 days. As I recall,
it was about this time last year when the 2004 balance of trade number
came to us, $617.7 billion negative.
That meant that we purchased $617.7 billion more from foreign
countries than we sold, than we exported to them. And some say, yeah,
and it was all purchasing oil that was part of that, that was most of
that deficit. But, Mr. Speaker, it was a significant portion. I do not
deny that. It was over $200 billion that we spent in purchasing oil
from foreign countries that added to this $617 billion in red ink trade
deficit.
And I submit that we can fix that a number of ways. One of them is
drill in ANWR, get that oil coming down here. That will be at least a
million barrels a day. That will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
We are bringing in liquefied natural gas that has got to be
compressed in the Middle East and brought over here on a compressed
tanker and brought into a terminal and converted back to gas again and
delivered up here into the United States.
We sit on enough natural gas under the non-national parks, Federal
lands in America, to heat every home in this country for the next 150
years. And we can drill natural gas wells, but we cannot get the
distribution systems laid, we cannot get the roads built, because the
environmentals are in the way.
They seem to think that we should not develop our natural resources,
that this Earth is for every species except homosapiens, Mr. Speaker;
and I submit that we are here to have dominion, to manage all of the
species. But these resources are here for us.
We got that message clearly from God in Genesis, and I stand by that
need for us to develop our natural resources. So we should drill on
Federal lands for natural gas and oil. We should do it in an
environmentally friendly fashion.
We should build a distribution system so we can heat our homes in
America and run our factories and produce our fertilizer. Being from
the Corn Belt, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that corn uses more nitrogen
to produce it than any other crop. All crops use nitrogen. Corn just
uses more than any other. And the production of nitrogen fertilizer
uses natural gas.
[[Page 1978]]
It is essential in the production of nitrogen fertilizer. In fact,
the very cost of the fertilizer, the composition of that cost, out of
every dollar of nitrogen fertilizer, 90 cents out of that dollar is the
very cost of natural gas.
So if we can cut the cost of natural gas in half, we would nearly cut
the cost of nitrogen fertilizer in half. But instead, we have watched
fertilizer go from $2 up to $15 in America because we are not drilling
on our federally owned lands. We cannot get access to get the gas out,
if we can get in there to drill.
We are not drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf because there are
environmentalist extremists in the way. These are people that argue,
well, if you drill a natural gas well on the Outer Continental Shelf,
it will pollute our beaches. So I simply say, please submit to me a
single case in all of history when a natural gas well polluted
anything.
If you have a natural gas leak, what happens to it, especially
offshore in the ocean? The gas bubbles up to the top of the ocean and
dissipates. It does that whether you drill wells or whether you do not,
because a significant amount of that natural gas just percolates up out
of the ocean floor anyway.
So it would not be measurable if we had a natural gas leak, but the
gas does not pollute anything; it just dissipates into the air. So
before it all does that, we should go get that gas, tap into that gas,
pipe it in here to the United States, and put it into these States that
can use it for fertilizer.
And so those things, those things alone would go a long way, Mr.
Speaker, towards reducing our dependency on foreign oil. Reducing our
dependency on foreign oil helps our balance of trade. But these are
components of the fix, Mr. Speaker, and I would say there is one more
step we need to take, and then I will go back to how we repair this
balance of trade and how we eliminate the foreign debt, how we
eliminate the domestic debt of this country and get us on sound fiscal
foundation.
One more component, before I go to that solution, Mr. Speaker, and
that component is to produce a balanced budget. Produce a balanced
budget so we do not have deficit spending, so we do not have to borrow.
If we produce that balanced budget without raising taxes so that we
diminish the production in this country, then we can have this robust
economy that we have today.
And this robust economy that we have is an economy that has grown at
a rate of more than 3 percent increase on its gross domestic product
each quarter for the last 10 quarters at a minimum. It has reduced the
unemployment rate to under 5 percent over that period of time. By
anybody's measure, that is the longest, most healthy economic growth
period since the early part of the Reagan years. So more than a
generation has passed since we have seen this kind of growth.
And I would point out that during the Reagan years we had high
inflation, the early part of the Reagan years. Before we got it under
control, we had high inflation, we had high interest rates. So that
kind of economic growth and that kind of lower unemployment ratings,
there was not as good an environment as it is today, because we have
got gradual growth, we have got controlled growth, we have got not too
hot in our economy, we have got not too cold in our economy, Mr.
Speaker, we have got just right.
It is cruising along here at a more than 3 percent growth, less than
5 percent unemployment. It is not as good as it can be. Unemployment
can be better than this. By historical standards, it is a high
standard. So I would say let us balance the budget without raising
taxes. Let us get our spending down. Let us tighten our belts, Mr.
Speaker; let us get our house in order.
If you were running a company or running a business or taking care of
your family budget, and you realized that on the portion of your budget
that had discretion on the parts that you were going to spend, now we
all have fixed costs, we have to make our house payment or rent, we
have to keep the lights on, we have to keep the heat up some, maybe we
have some other fixed costs there, we have to buy some groceries, and
this cost of living, you can make a minimal budget on the amount that
is a fixed cost.
That is the equivalent to the entitlements in this Federal budget,
those things that are fixed today that are very difficult to change,
those items in our budget such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security,
and even to a lesser degree interest. They are all fixed costs. They
are growing, entitlement costs. We have to have national defense,
certainly, in this time. So if you would reduce those things down to
eliminating the nondiscretionary spending, which is Medicare, Medicaid,
Social Security, and you eliminate the Department of Defense, and by
the way I would reduce Homeland Security's funding, they have raised
that budget out of sight without the accountability that I would like
to see.
But if we go to non-defense discretionary spending, those things that
we do have control over, those things that if it were your family
budget, your going-out-to-dinner money, your vacation money, your
recreational-tickets-to-the-ball-game money, going-off-to-golf money,
those kind of things that you would naturally tap into if your budget
got tight, the discretionary spending portion.
If you looked at your budget and said, well, I have got it in mind
for $2,500 this year that I am going to spend to make my life a little
richer, but I am spending too much, and one of the ways I can balance
my budget is simply take that hundred percent of your $2,500 for your
recreational discretionary spending, reduce it down by 5 percent, down
to 95 percent.
Now who would not do that if they were running a family budget, or if
you are running a company, Mr. Speaker? Would you not do that? Would
you not look at those items that you could control and simply say, I am
not going to take this procedure of spending the red, I am going to
tighten my belt? I am going to do without for a little while so I can
get my budget back under control.
Well, what I have described is all we really need to do in this
Congress, Mr. Speaker. We need only address the other spending, the
non-defense discretionary spending portion, and we need to reduce it by
5 percent.
Now I do not think this is the best way to balance the budget; but it
is a way, an understandable way to balance the budget. Reduce that by 5
percent and we have balanced this budget, and in fact it balances the
budget under current increases of the entitlement spending on out
another 15 to 18 years, which becomes almost as far as we can to
predict any economy, in fact beyond our ability to predict the economy.
So we can balance this budget. We do not have the will to balance the
budget, so we borrow money because the people on this side of the aisle
cannot get along without their programs. They are afraid somebody will
throw them out of office if they say tighten your belt.
There are some people on this side of the aisle who feel the same
way. They band together. It only takes about 10 or 12 people on this
side of the aisle to see to it. Everybody on this side of the aisle
will vote against the budget, I guarantee it.
There will be a budget come to the floor of this Congress within a
month, and that budget will be debated on this floor. It will be one
that is crafted to be as responsible as it can be. When it is done, I
will make the prediction that not one Democrat votes for a responsible
budget that comes here on this floor, not one, because it is a
political vote and it is not an economic vote.
And so the belt is tightened over here. We try to send the right
message. And then the criticism flows out of the other side. You cut my
program. You squeezed this out. You starved children. You froze old
folks. That is an old line. You hear it over and over again, Mr.
Speaker.
I have not noticed that it works with the thinking people that have
watched history flow. But we should balance this budget. I testified
before the Budget Committee the day before yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and
I requested that they produce a balanced budget. Whether they can
produce the votes to pass it or
[[Page 1979]]
not, I do not think they can get the votes to pass it, they need to put
a target up on the wall so the American people know what it would take
to balance the budget.
And I will be supportive of that in seeking to produce and develop a
balanced budget. I cannot hide behind the Budget Committee and say,
well, my friend, Mr. Nussle, did not produce a balanced budget. He is
doing the best he can. He has got to get 218 votes, and it has been
astonishing his ability to do so. He can take a 2.4 or $2.7 trillion
budget and spin it around his head and calculate it all out, break it
apart in pieces and put it back together.
He can go out and get the votes that he needs to get that done. I am
impressed with the work that he has done. But I still challenged them
to produce a balanced budget so that we know what we have to do and
that will help inspire the American people to come forward and say, let
me tighten my belt. I am willing to tighten my belt if my neighbor
tightens his. Cut my program here, if you like, just do not cut me out
of proportion to the person over here. I will take my fair share of the
load as long as you do not put the unfair share on me and give that
other person a pass.
But we cannot get there in this debate, because the demagoguery gets
so heavy. And in fact last year we had reconciliation in the Ag
Committee. We needed to reduce the spending over 5 years by about $3.7
billion. We needed to find a way to do that. That is $3.7 billion out
of an annual expenditure of about 34 billion, by the way. So multiply
that by five and you are up there in this 165 or $170 billion range to
find $3.7 billion in savings there.
In the food stamp program alone there has been identified, even
today, by Secretary Johanns' announcement a 5.88 percent error rate in
handing out food stamps.
{time} 1630
Now that error rate, I suppose it could be by that percentage that we
missed that many people that should have had food stamps, but I do not
think so, Mr. Speaker. I cannot imagine that there would be an error on
that side that we did not reach out and help enough people. In fact, we
are out there marketing those services to people in a fashion that I
think we are going to find them instead of them finding us.
I would submit that nearly all of that 5.88 percent of error rating
in the food stamp program is all on giving food stamps to people who
did not qualify, and this does not constrain some of the
qualifications. We could tighten those qualifications down, too.
For example, when people come into this country legally, we say you
have to be here for 5 years before you can access benefits, welfare
benefits from our Federal Government. We could raise that up by a
couple of years without too much pressure, raise the standards. But
5.88 percent of inaccuracy translates into over $2 billion a year in
waste. And that $2 billion a year over 5 years is easy math. $10
billion dollars could be saved there.
But, you know, even though the numbers were bigger last year, I could
not get one soul on that side of the aisle to support one dollar in
cuts when we had the waste lying right in front of us, Mr. Speaker.
And, in fact, there has been more waste there than they have even
alleged took place in Iraq. But that does not disturb them because the
waste is going into the households of some of their constituents and
they have to answer to them. It is not the matter of the waste that
concerns them. It is the opportunity to be critical.
So I actually came to this floor, Mr. Speaker, to talk about a
different subject matter, but, as I listened, it changed the subject
for me. So now I promised that I would come with a solution on how to
repair this deficit in foreign trade and how to fix the foreign debt.
I would lay out real clearly, there is a policy out here, there is a
bill, H.R. 25, the FAIR Tax. The FAIR Tax is a piece of legislation
that takes the tax off of production in America and puts it on
consumption. It is a consumption tax. It is a national sales tax, and
it truly is an aptly named bill, the FAIR Tax.
Now, the way we fix this foreign trade deficit with a fair tax is
simply this, that whenever anyone goes to buy something off a shelf, a
product, and pays retail price for that product, imputed into that cost
is the Federal tax composition. For example, if you are a corporation
and you are producing a widget, you are going to need to calculate into
that your corporate income tax, any other Federal excise taxes that are
part of that that you would have to incorporate in your share of the
wage withholding in the employees. There are a number of other taxes
into that. You build that tax all into the price.
Corporations do not pay taxes. Private companies, sole
proprietorships, partnerships, LLCs, they do not pay taxes. Mr.
Speaker, that may be a shock to a lot of the American people, but I
will explain this. That is that, no, corporations do not pay taxes
because they have to add those taxes into the price of the products
that they produce, the goods and the services, and pass that along to
the consumer. If they did not do that, they would go broke. How could a
corporation have any capital to work with if they were going to pay
that tax and not incorporate it into the price of what they sold? So
they pass that price along, and it is built into the pricing mechanism
of everything that they sell.
When that product reaches the retail level, it has in it when you
take it off the shelf, a person, and that $1-widget you lift off the
shelf has 22 cents of imputed Federal tax built into that, 22 cents. So
if we could pull the Federal tax out of those goods and services, the
goods would go down by 22 cents, so your $1 widget becomes an 88-cent
widget.
But if it is a service and you take the tax out of that service, it
is higher yet. Now your 1 dollar's worth of service that you pay your
plumber, say your $100 plumber bill becomes a $75 plumber bill because
25 percent of that is imputed price, is built in there to pay the
taxes, passed along to, no big surprise, Mr. Speaker, people.
People pay taxes. Corporations do not pay taxes. Businesses do not
pay taxes. They collect them. And the reason they do is because
government has found out that they are more efficient in collecting
taxes than government can be. So we put that on the burden of the
businesses to collect the taxes. They impute it into the prices of the
goods and services they are producing. They tack it onto that price,
and you, the consumer, go up to the shelf, pull that widget off of
there for $1, and it is really 78 cents.
Mr. Speaker, let me correct the earlier statement. I am doing my math
on the run here. It is a 78 cent widget as opposed to $1 on the shelf
because you get to take 22 cents out of that price.
Now, another truism, Ronald Reagan said, what you tax you get less
of. And we know that. If you have to pay taxes, it is a disincentive.
So if you were going to produce a product and we were going to tax you
for it, you would look at that equation and say, why should I do that?
I have to pay too much taxes on this.
How about if you are going to work an extra 10 hours a week and it
comes in at time and a half and it puts you in another tax bracket and
we come along and say, but Uncle Sam will get 50 cents out of every
dollar that you earn. Now your $30 an hour that you can make on
overtime becomes $15 an hour. Are you going to work or are you going to
say, hey, boss, I would like a little time to go fishing, maybe a
little golf and spend some time with the kids. I do not really need
this overtime because I do not get to keep it. No, the tax is a
disincentive to produce.
So when Reagan said, what you tax you get less of, Mr. Speaker, that
is the equation that is there. And yet the Federal Government in its
wisdom, I will say lack of wisdom, has the first lien on all
productivity in America, every bit of productivity in America. Whether
it is a good or whether it is a service, when Americans step up to the
time clock and punch their time card in at eight o'clock on Monday
morning, thunk, Uncle Sam holds his hand out like that and he gets the
first of everyone's productivity. And Uncle Sam
[[Page 1980]]
holds his hand there until you paid your taxes for that day. Then he
puts it in his pocket and then you can go to work for the State and
that gets put in the other pocket, your State, Uncle Sam, and the other
various taxes that come along with this. And then at some point late in
the afternoon you are working for you.
Or you can compute it the other way, and you can take a look at Tax
Freedom Day. I do not know the exact date. It changes a little bit year
to year. How many days do we work before we are working for ourselves?
Tax freedom day falls in April or May. I am not sure of the precise
date.
Uncle Sam has the first lien on your labor, he has the first lien on
the earnings from your checkbook or passbook savings account, and he
has the first lien on the delayed earnings of your 401(k) and also any
mutual funds you have invested, all of the interest dividend earnings,
the capital gains. You buy a piece of property and you turn around and
sell that property, the margin will be taxed, and Uncle Sam will be
there with his hand out. That productivity that comes from labor or
capital is the productivity that Uncle Sam taxes. He taxes it all.
What I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, is that we step in here and we
recognize that and we take the tax off of all productivity in America.
Eliminate the IRS, the Internal Revenue Service, eliminate the IRS
Code, wipe that thing out all the way back to the early 1900s, 92, 93
or 94 years ago that that began, Mr. Speaker, and pass the elimination
of the repeal of the 16th amendment so that we no longer have a
constitutional authority to put an income tax on our people.
That sounds really interesting and exciting and thrilling, and it is,
but we have to find a way to replace the revenue, and that is the
hardest question. I have asked a lot of different questions myself on
how to do that, but as I worked this policy out 25 or 27 or 28 years
ago, Mr. Speaker, I came to the conclusion then that the only way we
could fund the loss of revenue for eliminating the IRS would be to
produce a consumption tax, a sales tax, like 45 States have today.
The system is there. It is there to collect the sales off all of that
revenue. It is a very simple equation to say to the States, keep the
system you have in place, change the rates so we can fund the Federal
Government. We will pay you one-tenth of 1 percent commission for
collecting the Federal tax through your State Department of Revenue.
You send the check out here to the U.S. Treasury, and we will put that
into the general fund here.
It is an easy tax to collect. And the other five States that have to
generate a sales tax collection system, it has been done in 45 States.
It has to be a lot easier than having these 100,000 plus IRS agents
running all over here into our kitchens and our offices, prying into
our business, making Monday morning quarterback judgmental decisions on
the decisions of family and business that we have made and tried to do
things in an honorable and ethical fashion and still be dinged for
interest and penalty. When you cannot get two IRS agents themselves to
agree on this convoluted tax policy that is so confusing that I can
find no one on this planet, even the people on this side of the aisle
would not argue that if we had a chance to do this over that we would
construct anything that looks like what we have with the IRS Code
today. It is a disaster.
The cost of collection is beyond the comprehension of people who have
not drilled into this and put the pieces together and tried to add it
up. But I will give you the total on when you compile the costs of
collecting from the IRS.
Now there is some literature that is out there, and some of this has
come from Harvard University's Department of Economics, some of it is
coming from other economists, but it kind of works out this way, Mr.
Speaker. By the time we pay the IRS and fund their infrastructure and
build their buildings and maintain them, pay their travel and the
overall expenses of the entire agency, that 100,000 plus that are out
there every day, I am sure with a smile on their face, trying to
increase the tax revenue, and I give them credit for being good
servants, but I think they can do a little better in the private
sector. They are smart people.
By the time we fund the IRS and by the time we pay for our tax
preparers, our H&R Block people, if you will, Mr. Speaker, as a
euphemism. By the time we pay ourselves say $10 an hour to sit up half
the night on April 14, then you add to that the disincentives we talked
about on why people will not work that extra 15 hours of overtime
because the tax liabilities are too great.
When you open up the economy, when you accept the increase in
productivity that we will have if people are not punished in producing
and investing and saving, that adds up to a number that in 1991 was
over $700 billion and today it is over $1 trillion.
Think in terms of this. This economy, think of it as a huge cruise
ship out there sailing across the ocean in smooth sailing and this is
chugging along at maybe 10 knots. Because it is not going any faster
than that, Mr. Speaker, because we are dragging this anchor. This
anchor we are dragging is the IRS, the cost of compliance, the
decisions that are made to not invest, the disincentives for producing
because of the tax liability. You add that up to that trillion dollars
a year and think of that sitting in a treasury chest hooked to our
anchor chain, and we are chugging along in this economy at about 10
knots.
Now, we passed a FAIR tax, H.R. 25. We get to cut that anchor chain,
that trillion dollars we are dragging across the bottom. It floats to
the top. We throw it on board our cruise ship, and we get to invest
that in our economy. Right away the 10 knots turns to 20 knots, and we
are going along in 10 years in a doubled economy, at least doubled
economy from the freedom that comes from taking that anchor that we are
dragging and turning it into something that is productivity. It is
really that simple to take that economic incentive of the trillion
dollars and roll that back into our economy.
There is another perhaps $11 trillion in stranded capital that is
stranded overseas that cannot be repatriated into the United States
because of the tax disincentive that is there; and that money would
come back to the United States, too. The United States of America would
become the destination nation of choice for that capital that is
stranded out there in foreign countries. It is really naturally
American capital, $11 trillion. A trillion dollars a year that we are
dragging around in our treasure chest anchor across the bottom of the
ocean, the doubling of our economy that comes.
I would point out also, Mr. Speaker, that to get a handle on the
magnitude of a trillion dollars injected into our economy every year
that today is an anchor that turns into an asset, think in terms of, if
you will, Mr. Speaker, 1992 Bill Clinton was elected President. He was
elected President in part because he alleged and there were some
statistics that supported his argument, I do not agree with it totally
but there were, that our economy was in a downturn.
So when he took office and was sworn in on the other side of the
Capitol building, Mr. Speaker, one of the first things he did was to
ask for a $30 billion economic incentive plan. So he went to the
Congress and said, we need to borrow $30 billion, 30 with a B, and we
need to put it into make work projects, much like Americorps is today,
and once we put this $30 billion into the hands of these young people
that will go out and go to work in our communities to make the world a
better place here, that money will be spent. It will stimulate our
economy. It will get us out of this economic doldrums that it was bad
enough that it removed George Bush, Sr., from office.
That was some of the psychology of the voters of the American people
at the time. President Clinton came to Congress and asked for $30
billion. Congress debated and deliberated and they negotiated, and they
reduced the $30 billion, Mr. Speaker, down to finally $17 billion. It
would have been borrowed money. But, finally, they all looked at the
$17 billion dollars and said, it is not worth the trouble.
[[Page 1981]]
{time} 1645
We are not going to go ahead and borrow $17 billion, put it into
make-work programs, try to get it into the hands of the people so the
money could be spent to stimulate the economy, because it was not worth
the trouble; but if it was even arguable that it was at $17 billion and
if it was a matter of consensus that it would have been at $30 billion
borrowed money, annual spending $30 billion, think, Mr. Speaker, what
$1 trillion of wasted money, $1 trillion of maintenance costs and
overhead costs that go because of the IRS for tax collection.
Think what that $1 trillion turned into the asset side of the ledger,
into the productive sector of the economy could mean. That $1 trillion
would stimulate this economy massively; and inject in behind that $11
trillion that sits overseas, and you can see, I think, with ease, Mr.
Speaker, what would happen to the economy in this country.
We would double this economy in 10 years. We see the soundness of our
dollar come back. We quit punishing people for savings and investment.
Why are you putting money in your savings account with after-tax
dollars? How can you get ahead doing that? Or when you make an
investment and it is trapped here in a real estate investment, a
capital investment, and you see an opportunity to make some money and
roll it into something else and meanwhile give an opportunity to a
young person to start a business or establish a residence and you sell
that property, why do we punish you for that? Why do we give you
incentive to hang on to that property until your inheritance right?
Because you are afraid of being taxed?
This frees up the capital in America that would not be a punishment
for transferring that capital into other hands, that theoretically in
every case will do something more productive than it is today.
Otherwise they could not afford to bid on the value of that property.
That is the theory.
So the things that we need to do in this economy that are good, Mr.
Speaker, are the things such as we need to incent savings and the fair
tax incents savings. We need to incent investment, and of course,
savings is investment. We need to tell people to put your dollars into
mutual funds and a company investment and capital investments and we
will not punish you for that. We will let you make all the money you
can make, and if you want to sell these shares and invest them over
here, then do so.
You can make the very best decision that you like, and we are not
going to be in here with Uncle Sam's hand in the way, grabbing
something out of every single transaction, not having a first lien on
all productivity in America, but incenting earnings, savings and
investment, research and development, Mr. Speaker, capital investment,
higher education. That is where this money is going to go. The future
of this capital would go into those three things, Mr. Speaker.
So I would point out that there is a divide in the House of
Representatives. There is a divide in our philosophy. There is a divide
that I believe is rooted in this philosophy that of all of us here on
this planet, if you could somehow shake us up, erase our institutional
memories, start us as unbiased people again, and scatter us all over
the globe, without having a network that is going to tell us how to
think or indoctrinate us, some of the people would see their glass as
half full, and they would begin filling that glass up in an industrious
fashion, in a faithful Christian fashion many of them, and filling
their glass up because that is the thing to do, go out and earn, save,
invest, buy, sell, trade, make, gain.
When we do that, everybody prospers. Pull everyone up the ladder next
to us and strive for a better future for ourselves and for the
succeeding generation, for our babies that we have in our arms and for
our children that are growing up and for our grandchildren. That is
what this does for the next generations that are here and across this
country, Mr. Speaker.
Half of the people, well, probably not half, a portion of the people
see the glass as half full, and they would seek to fill it up, and they
seek to help others fill their glass.
There is another percentage of the people, the ones that are on the
floor with their lamentations night after night after night that say,
but my glass is half empty; and you know, I have sat in here for a
lifetime and that person over there that was filling their glass did
not put a single thing in my glass the whole time. Never mind they did
not lift a finger themselves to do a thing, but they see it as a glass
half empty. They see it as the economy is a zero sum game. They see it
as a pie that is never going to be bigger, that only can be sliced up
and however you distribute that pie, it will always be unfair in their
mind's eye.
But we see this as a Nation of opportunity, individual rights and a
Nation of opportunity, and we challenge people to be the best you can
be, be as productive as you can be, and we struggle to put policies in
place and encourage people to be as productive as they can be.
That is why I support H.R. 25, the fair tax, because it encourages
everyone to do as good as they can, to produce as much as they can. It
punishes no one for productivity. It takes the tax off of productivity,
puts it on consumption, and thereby incents earnings, savings,
investment, higher ed, research and development, capital investment.
All of those things improve the productivity of the American worker,
and those things increase the overall revenue and income of Americans.
We really have a choice. We can accept the standard of living of the
rest of the world. We can watch them catch up with us. We are on this
treadmill. We are on the front of the treadmill, and as they catch up
with us, we can begin to accept their standard of living or we can go
faster and we can go faster with technology, with education, with
capital investment.
Those are the things that we need to do, Mr. Speaker; and so I would
point out that before I came over here on the floor I did not know if I
would use it, but I used some of this technology that I spoke of
earlier and tapped in and did a little search for ``the 10 `Cannots' of
Abe Lincoln,'' and Abe Lincoln had this figured out and laid it out in
10 Cannots, and many things he has gotten credit for that he did not
do. I have no idea if he actually did this or not, but I am going to
give him credit because I think a lot of the man. I would point these
points out, and I would like to drill them into the brains of everybody
that votes for the future of America on this floor and across this
country Mr. Speaker.
Abe Lincoln said 10 points. You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. The fair tax encourages thrift and savings. You
cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift, Abe Lincoln's
statement. So we want to encourage thrift.
He said you cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your
income. You heard me say, Mr. Speaker, balanced budget. We want to come
with a balanced budget, and we want to put a tax policy in place that
encourages more productivity so that we can spread this tax out among
more people and have a lower rate and more individual productivity. The
sum total of the strength of a nation's economy is the total
productivity of its people.
Item number three, you cannot establish security on borrowed money.
Brings us all to a pause, Mr. Speaker, because we are paying for
Department of Defense spending on borrowed money. It is necessary that
we have Department of Defense spending, but that is something that
causes me to want to back up, take a look and determine that we can pay
our way, pay as we go. That means tighten the belt; we are at war.
Item number four, you cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
A little bit different verbiage in those days than there is today. In
other words, you cannot help the poor by tearing down the weak. And I
think he actually says that.
Item number five, you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the
strong. Use your strength, build on those, help others, ask them, come
on up the ladder with me; but do not pull
[[Page 1982]]
someone down that has climbed up a few rungs. I keep hearing it over
and over again, let us pull those people down; the oil companies made
too much money. Why did they? Because the environmentalists would not
let us drill for more and the price went up. They invested at least in
the energy future of America. They will quit doing that if we punish
them. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
Another solid point that needs to be hammered home.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. It is important
that we have people that have a level of prosperity. They build new
houses. They move out of those houses and build a bigger and newer
house. They sell that house to someone that can afford it and on and on
and on until they get down a level of ways where you and I can afford.
So you cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
Class hatred is incited every single night on the floor of the House of
Representatives, Mr. Speaker. It does not help the brotherhood of man.
It drives a wedge between the brotherhood of man.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's
initiative and independence. One of the ways that that is done is to
create independence, and I spoke about individual initiative and
individual responsibility and individual rights, and I pray that we can
protect and defend those rights for all Americans, rich or poor, weak
or strong, whatever color, whatever sex they might be. We need to
guarantee their individual rights and protect them and give them that
opportunity.
The tenth one, you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what
they could and should do for themselves. I remember that statement of
Lincoln's.
So all of these principles of Abraham Lincoln's, the 10 Cannots, have
been violated on the floor over here night after night after night. If
we could get back to those principles, Mr. Speaker, if we could get to
this point where we understood that individual rights, individual
responsibility, if we all could begin to climb that ladder, if we could
see our glass as half full and begin to fill out, and as we did that,
reached out and help our fellow man, if we could take the tax off all
productivity in America, we could prepare this future for the young
people, for the children, for those that are here tonight, Mr. Speaker,
and with that, I thank you for your indulgence.
____________________
RECALL DESIGNEE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Conaway) laid before the House the
following communication from the Speaker of the House of Represent-
atives:
House of Representatives,
Office of the Speaker,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2006.
Hon. Karen Haas,
Clerk of the House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Clerk: Pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution
1, and also for purposes of such concurrent resolutions of
the current Congress as may contemplate my designation of
Members to act in similar circumstances, I hereby designate
Representative Boehner to act jointly with the Majority
Leader of the Senate or his designee, in the event of my
death or inability, to notify the Members of the House and
the Senate, respectively, of any reassembly under any such
concurrent resolution. In the event of the death or inability
of that designee, the alternate Members of the House listed
in a letter placed with the Clerk are designated, in turn,
for the same purposes.
Sincerely,
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair announces that on February 16,
2006, the Speaker delivered to the Clerk a letter listing Members in
the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under clause
8(b)(3) of rule I.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Simpson (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
illness.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Ms. Corrine Brown of
Florida) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. DeLauro, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Herseth, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Wynn, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Van Hollen, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Waters, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Gohmert) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Foley, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the
Senate of the following title:
S. 1989. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston,
Rhode Island, shall be known and designated as the ``Holly A.
Charette Post Office''.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of
today, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Accordingly, pursuant to the previous order
of the House of today, the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on
Monday, February 20, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message from
the Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution
345, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that
concurrent resolution.
Thereupon (at 4 o'clock and 57 minutes p.m.), pursuant to the
previous order of the House of today, the House adjourned until 2 p.m.
on Monday, February 20, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message
from the Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent
Resolution 345, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant
to that concurrent resolution.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6240. A letter from the Executive Director, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule--Technical and Clarifying Amendments to Rules for
Exempt Markets, Derivatives Transaction Execution Facilities
and Designated Contract Markets, and Procedural Changes for
Derivatives Clearing Organization Registration Applications
(RIN: 3038-AC23) received February 3, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6241. A letter from the Executive Director, Commodity
Futures Trading Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule--Foreign Futures and Options Transactions--
February 3, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
6242. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Black Stem Rust; Movement
Restrictions and Addition of Rust-Resistent Varieties [Docket
No. 04-003-2] received February 6, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6243. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's
[[Page 1983]]
final rule--Add Argentina to the List of Regions Considered
Free of Exotic Newcastle Disease [Docket No. 04-083-3]
received February 3, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
6244. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Administration's final rule--Tuberculosis in Cattle and
Bison; State and Zone Designations; Minnesota [Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0004] received February 3, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6245. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Brucellosis in Cattle; State and
Area Classifications; ID [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0001]
received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Agriculture.
6246. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
APHIS, Department of Agriculture, transmitting the
Department's final rule--Treatments for Fruits and Vegtables
[Docket No. 03-077-2] received January 30, 2006, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6247. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Walnuts Grown in California;
Increased Assessment Rate [Docket No. FV05-984-2 FR] received
January 7, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
6248. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Marketing Order Regulating the
Handling of Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Revision
of the Salable Quantity and Allotment Percentage for Class 3
(Native) Spearment Oil for the 2005-2006 Marketing Year
[Docket No. FV05-985-IFR A] received January 17, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6249. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Milk in the Upper Midwest
Marketing Area; Order Amending the Order [Docket No. AO-361-
A39; DA-04-03-A] received January 17, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6250. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and
Washington; Establishment of Final Free and Restricted
Percentages for the 2005-2006 Marketing Year [Docket No.
FV06-982-1 IFR] received January 17, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6251. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Tart Cherries Grown in the
States of Michigan, et al.; Final Free and Restricted
Percentages for the 2005-2006 Crop Year for Tart Cherries
[Docket No. FV05-930-1 FR] received January 17, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6252. A letter from the Administrator, Agricultural
Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting
the Department's final rule--Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines,
and Tangelos Grown in Florida; Increased Assessment Rate
[Docket No. FV06-905-1 IFR] received February 8, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6253. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Food Additives Permitted for
Direct Addition to Food for Human Consumption; Synthetic
Fatty Alcohols [Docket No. 1994F-0153] (formerly Docket No.
94F-0153) received January 4, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
6254. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Food Labeling: Health
Claims; Soluble Dietary Fiber From Certain Foods and Coronary
Heart Disease [Docket No. 2004P-0512] received January 9,
2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6255. A letter from the Director, Regulations Policy and
Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, transmitting
the Administration's final rule--Food Labeling; Ingredient
Labeling of Dietary Supplements That Contain Botanicals;
Withdrawal [Docket No. 2003N-0346] received January 9, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
6256. A letter from the Director, Defense Research and
Engineering, Department of Defense, transmitting Notification
of intent to obligate funds for an additional project for
inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2006 Foreign Comparative Testing
(FCT) Program, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2350a(g); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
6257. A letter from the Secretary of the Air Force,
Department of Defense, transmitting notification that the
Program Acquisition Unit Cost for the Global Hawk System
Program exceeds the Acquisition Program Baseline values by
more than 15 percent, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2433; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
6258. A letter from the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's certification that the
survivability and lethality of the LHA(R) Flight O Amphibious
Assault Ship would be unreasonably expensive and
impracticable, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2366(c)(1); to the
Committee on Armed Services.
6259. A letter from the Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's certification that the
survivability testing of the lead DD(X) Destroyer would be
unreasonably expensive, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2366(c)(1); to
the Committee on Armed Services.
6260. A letter from the Comptroller, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's quarterly report as of December
31, 2005, entitled, ``Acceptance of contributions for defense
programs, projects and activities; Defense Cooperation
Account''; to the Committee on Armed Services.
6261. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department
of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-
7905] received January 4, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6262. A letter from the General Counsel, FEMA, Department
of Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final
rule--Suspension of Community Eligibility [Docket No. FEMA-
7897] received February 7, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6263. A letter from the Counsel for Legislation and
Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting the Department's final rule--Prohibition on Use
of Community Development Block Grant Assistance for Job-
Pirating Activities [Docket No. FR-4556-I-02; HUD-2005-0076]
(RIN: 2506-AC04) received January 9, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6264. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--
Electronic Fund Transfers [Regulation E; Docket Nos. R-1210
and R-1234] received January 11, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6265. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve Board, transmitting the Board's final rule--
Electronic Fund Transfers [Regulation E; Docket No. R-1247]
received January 11, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
6266. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Fidelity Bond and Insurance Coverage for Federal Credit
Union--received January 17, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6267. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Post-Employment Restrictions for Certain NCUA
Examiners--received January 11, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6268. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Requirements for Insurance (RIN: 3133-AD14) received
January 11, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Financial Services.
6269. A letter from the General Counsel, National Credit
Union Administration, transmitting the Administration's final
rule--Audit Requirement for Credit Union Service
Organizations--January 17, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
6270. A letter from the Secretary, Department of the
Treasury, transmitting a six month periodic report on the
national emergency with respect to Liberia that was declared
in Executive Order 13348 of July 22, 2004, pursuant to 50
U.S.C. 1641(c) 50 U.S.C. 1703(c); to the Committee on
International Relations.
6271. A letter from the Deputy Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to Section 62(a) of
the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), notification concerning
the Department of the Army's proposed lease of defense
articles to the Government of Singapore (Transmittal No. 01-
06); to the Committee on International Relations.
6272. A letter from the Director, Defense Security
Cooperation Agency, transmitting pursuant to Section 62(a) of
the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), notification concerning
the Department of the Air Force's proposed lease of defense
articles to the Government of Italy (Transmittal No. 05-06);
to the Committee on International Relations.
6273. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for
International Security Policy, Department of Defense,
transmitting the Department's FY 2007 Cooperative Threat
Reduction Annual Report; to the Committee on International
Relations.
[[Page 1984]]
6274. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting Memorandum of
Justification regarding the determination under Title II of
the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs
Appropriations Act, 2002, pursuant to Public Law 107-115; to
the Committee on International Relations.
6275. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
final rule--Intercountry Adoption--Preservation of Convention
Records (RIN: 1400-AB69) received January 31, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on International
Relations.
6276. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting pursuant to
section 36(c) and (d) of the Arms Export Control Act,
certification of a proposed manufacturing license agreement
for the export of defense articles and services to the
Government of Russia (Transmittal No. DDTC 003-06); to the
Committee on International Relations.
6277. A letter from the Chairman, U.S.-China Commission,
transmitting the record of the Commission's September 15,
2005 hearing on ``China's Military Modernization and the
Cross-Strait Balance''; to the Committee on International
Relations.
6278. A letter from the Chairman, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, transmitting in accordance with Section 641 5(a)
of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY
2004, Pub. L. 108-199, the Board's report on competitive
sourcing efforts for FY 2004; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
6279. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting purusant to Section 647(b) of
Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2004,
Pub. L. 108-199, a report on the Department's competitive
sourcing efforts for FY 2005; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
6280. A letter from the Secretary, Mississippi River
Commission, Department of the Army, Department of Defense,
transmitting a copy of the annual report in compliance with
the Government in the Sunshine Act covering the calendar year
2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to the Committee on
Government Reform.
6281. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting in accordance with Section 647(b) of Division F
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L. 108-
199, the Department's report on competitive sourcing efforts
for FY 2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
6282. A letter from the Acting Deputy Chief Financial
Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
transmitting in accordance with Section 647(b) of Division F
of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L. 108-
199, the Department's report on competitive sourcing efforts
for FY 2005; to the Committee on Government Reform.
6283. A letter from the Assistant Administrator,
Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting in accordance
with Section 645 of Division F of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L. 108-199, the Agency's
report on competitive sourcing efforts for FY 2004; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
6284. A letter from the Director of Administration,
National Labor Relations Board, transmitting purusant to
Section 647(b) of Division F of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L. 108-199, a report on the
Department's competitive sourcing efforts for FY 2005; to the
Committee on Government Reform.
6285. A letter from the Director, U.S. Trade and
Development Agency, transmitting in accordance with Section
645 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY 2004, Pub. L.
108-199, and Section 641 of Division H of Pub. L. 108-447,
the Agency's report on competitive sourcing efforts for FY
20054; to the Committee on Government Reform.
6286. A letter from the Director, U.S. Trade and
Development Agency, transmitting in accordance with Section
647(b) of Division F of the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
FY 2004, Pub. L. 108-199, the Agency's report on competitive
sourcing efforts for FY 2005; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
6287. A letter from the Director, U.S. Trade and
Development Agency, transmitting the Agency's Annual Report
for FY 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. (Insp. Gen. Act)
section 5(b); to the Committee on Government Reform.
6288. A letter from the Board of Governors, United States
Postal Service, transmitting a copy of the annual report in
compliance with the Government in the Sunshine Act during the
calendar year 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(j); to the
Committee on Government Reform.
6289. A letter from the Public Printer, Government Printing
Office, transmitting the Office's Annual Report for Fiscal
Year 2005; to the Committee on House Administration.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. 3505. A
bill to provide regulatory relief and improve productivity
for insured depository institutions, and for other purposes;
with an amendment (Rept. 109-356, Pt. 2). Referred to the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.
Mr. BARTON of Texas: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R.
2355. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
provide for cooperative governing of individual health
insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce; with an
amendment (Rept. 109-378). Referred to the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mrs. MALONEY (for herself and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite
of Florida):
H.R. 4767. A bill to require the Food and Drug
Administration to conduct consumer testing to determine the
appropriateness of the current labeling requirements for
indoor tanning devices and determine whether such
requirements provide sufficient information to consumers
regarding the risks that the use of such devices pose for the
development of irreversible damage to the skin, including
skin cancer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. HART (for herself, Mr. English of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Sherwood, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Dent, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Holden, Mr. Murphy, Mr.
Platts, and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania):
H.R. 4768. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 777 Corporation Street in
Beaver, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert Linn Memorial Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. NORWOOD (for himself and Mr. Strickland):
H.R. 4769. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act, the Controlled Substances Import and Export
Act, and the Public Health Service Act to impose requirements
respecting Internet pharmacies, to require manufacturers to
implement chain-of-custody procedures, to restrict an
exemption respecting the importation of controlled substances
for personal use, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. PRYCE of Ohio (for herself and Mr. Lewis of
Georgia):
H.R. 4770. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury
to mint coins in commemoration of the semicentennial of the
enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; to the Committee
on Financial Services.
By Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Emanuel, Mrs.
Miller of Michigan, Mr. Case, Mr. Ehlers, Ms.
Slaughter, Mr. Miller of Florida, Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota, Mr. Kline, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Evans, Mrs.
Johnson of Connecticut, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Grijalva,
Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, and Ms. Bean):
H.R. 4771. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic
Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 to require
application to all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks,
including vessels that are not carrying ballast water, the
requirement to carry out exchange of ballast water or
alternative ballast water management methods prior to entry
into any port within the Great Lakes, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gallegly,
Mr. Flake, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Feeney,
and Mr. Pombo):
H.R. 4772. A bill to simplify and expedite access to the
Federal courts for injured parties whose rights and
privileges under the United States Constitution have been
deprived by final actions of Federal agencies or other
government officials or entities acting under color of State
law, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. EMANUEL:
H.R. 4773. A bill to direct the Secretary of Education to
make grants to States and local educational agencies to
establish teacher mentoring programs; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. UPTON (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Holden, Mr.
Gillmor, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan, Mr. Leach, Mr.
Bass, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Coble,
Mr. Gilchrest, and Mr. Kildee):
H.R. 4774. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require
that, after the year 2012, all gasoline sold to consumers in
the United States for motor vehicles contain not less than 10
percent renewable fuel and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 4775. A bill to extend all of the authorizations of
appropriations and direct spending programs of the Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 until after
implementing legislation for the Doha Development Round of
World Trade Organization negotiations is enacted into law,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.
[[Page 1985]]
By Mr. SODREL (for himself, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr.
Buyer, Mr. Hostettler, Mr. Souder, Mr. Pence, Mr.
McHenry, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. King of
Iowa, Mr. Goode, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Feeney,
Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Issa, Mr. Jindal, Mr.
Kuhl of New York, Mr. Akin, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Shadegg,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Poe, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Hensarling, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Gohmert, Mr.
Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Fortenberry, Mrs.
Schmidt, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, and Mr.
Paul):
H.R. 4776. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code,
with respect to the jurisdiction of Federal courts over
certain cases and controversies involving the content of
speech occurring during sessions of State legislative bodies,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. Boucher, Mr. Wolf,
Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Pence, Mr. Shadegg, Mr.
Aderholt, Mr. Akin, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Bachus, Mr.
Baker, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. Bass, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Booz-
man, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Buyer, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Chabot, Mr. Coble, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr.
Culberson, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tom
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. DeFazio,
Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mrs. Drake, Mr.
Duncan, Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Everett, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Fortuno, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Gallegly,
Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Gohmert,
Mr. Goode, Mr. Gutknecht, Ms. Hart, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Hefley, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr.
Hostettler, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Istook,
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jindal, Mrs. Johnson of Connecticut,
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Keller, Mrs. Kelly,
Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr.
Kingston, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Linder, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Daniel E.
Lungren of California, Mr. McCrery, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Miller of Florida, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Neugebauer,
Mr. Norwood, Mr. Nussle, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Poe, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Ramstad, Mr.
Regula, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Rogers of
Alabama, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Schwarz of
Michigan, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Simmons, Mr.
Smith of Texas, Mr. Sodrel, Mr. Souder, Mr. Sullivan,
Mr. Terry, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Tiahrt, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr.
Westmoreland, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Brady of
Texas, Mr. DeLay, and Mr. LaHood):
H.R. 4777. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
expand and modernize the prohibition against interstate
gambling, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ABERCROMBIE:
H.R. 4778. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a survey and monitoring of off-shore sites in the
vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands where chemical munitions
were disposed of by the Armed Forces, to support research
regarding the public and environmental health impacts of
chemical munitions disposal in the ocean, and to require the
preparation of a report on remediation plans for such
disposal sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BURGESS (for himself and Mr. Gene Green of
Texas):
H.R. 4779. A bill to award a Congressional Gold Medal to
Byron Nelson in recognition of his significant contributions,
to the game of golf as a player, a teacher, and a
commentator; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Lantos,
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Payne, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Ryan of
Ohio):
H.R. 4780. A bill to promote freedom of expression on the
Internet, to protect United States businesses from coercion
to participate in repression by authoritarian foreign
governments, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
International Relations, and in addition to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mrs. CAPITO (for herself and Mr. Gillmor):
H.R. 4781. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Labor to
make grants for the establishment of information technology
centers in rural areas; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. George Miller of
California, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Farr, Ms.
Pelosi, Ms. Eshoo, Mrs. Davis of California, Ms.
Solis, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Harman, Ms. Millender-
McDonald, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Stark, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Berman, Mr.
Sherman, Mr. Lantos, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Honda, Ms.
Matsui, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Filner,
Mr. Schiff, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mrs.
Tauscher, Ms. Watson, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Ms. Waters,
Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Baca):
H.R. 4782. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas
leasing off the coast of the State of California, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. DAVIS of Florida (for himself, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Boyd, and Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida):
H.R. 4783. A bill to prohibit offshore drilling on the
outer Continental Shelf off the State of Florida, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 4784. A bill to direct the Secretary of Interior to
convey certain Bureau of Land Management Land to the City of
Eugene, Oregon; to the Committee on Resources.
By Ms. DeLAURO:
H.R. 4785. A bill to make available funds included in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 program for fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. DENT (for himself, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Fattah, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Ms. Hart,
Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Weldon
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Shuster, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Murtha, Ms.
Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Pitts, Mr.
Holden, Mr. Murphy, and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 4786. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 535 Wood Street in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, as the ``H. Gordon Payrow Post
Office Building''; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. DOOLITTLE:
H.R. 4787. A bill to amend the Lobbying Disclosure Act of
1995 to require reporting of Federal funds received by
clients of lobbyists; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA (for himself, Mr. Pallone, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Case, Ms. Bordallo, and Mr.
Fortuno):
H.R. 4788. A bill to reauthorize the Coral Reef
Conservation Act of 2000, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. HASTINGS of Washington:
H.R. 4789. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to convey certain public land located wholly or partially
within the boundaries of the Wells Hydroelectric Project of
Public Utility District No. 1 of Douglas County, Washington,
to the utility district; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself, Mr. Chocola, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, and Mrs. Musgrave):
H.R. 4790. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to expand expensing for small business; to the Committee
on Ways and Means.
By Ms. HERSETH (for herself, Mr. Case, Mr. Evans, Ms.
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Serrano,
Mr. Filner, Mr. Strickland, Ms. Carson, Mr. Kucinich,
Mr. Wexler, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota,
Ms. Matsui, Mr. Al Green of Texas, and Mr. Farr):
H.R. 4791. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
increase the amount of assistance available to disabled
veterans for specially adapted housing and to provide for
annual increases in such amount; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. LARSEN of Washington (for himself and Mr.
McDermott):
H.R. 4792. A bill to fix the Medicare Part D prescription
drug program by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to negotiate fair prices for prescription drugs on
behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, to further reduce drug
costs to consumers by allowing the importation of
prescription drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, to provide seniors with adequate time to consider their
options under Medicare part D by extending the 2006 Medicare
prescription drug enrollment period through December 31,
2006, without penalty, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committees on Ways and Means, and the Judiciary, for a period
to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case
for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
[[Page 1986]]
By Mr. LaTOURETTE (for himself and Mr. Meehan):
H.R. 4793. A bill to make available funds included in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 program for fiscal year 2006, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. Emanuel, and Mr.
Levin):
H.R. 4794. A bill to repeal a provision enacted to end
Federal matching of State spending of child support incentive
payments; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD:
H.R. 4795. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to require accrediting agencies and associations to comply
with due process throughout the accreditation process, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce.
By Mr. MORAN of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, and Mrs. Emerson):
H.R. 4796. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social
Security Act to improve implementation of the Medicare
prescription drug benefit; to the Committee on Ways and
Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. PAUL:
H.R. 4797. A bill to protect America's citizen soldiers; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. POMBO:
H.R. 4798. A bill to facilitate remediation of perchlorate
contamination in water sources in the State of California,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SHAYS (for himself and Mr. Meehan):
H.R. 4799. A bill to establish the Office of Public
Integrity as an independent office within the legislative
branch of the Government, to reduce the duties of the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of the House of
Representatives and the Select Committee on Ethics of the
Senate, and for other purposes; to the Committee on House
Administration, and in addition to the Committees on Rules,
and the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined
by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such
provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee
concerned.
By Ms. SOLIS (for herself, Mr. Pallone, Mrs. Capps, Mr.
Towns, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Waxman, Mr.
Dingell, Mr. Allen, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Ms.
DeGette):
H.R. 4800. A bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act
to implement the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants, the Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants to
the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and
the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent
Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in
International Trade; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 4801. A bill to extend the deadlines for distributing
certain funds secured by the Michigan Indian Land Claims
Settlement Act and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 4802. A bill to reaffirm and clarify the Federal
relationship of the Burt Lake Band as a distinct federally
recognized Indian Tribe, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Resources.
By Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. Herger, and Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren of California):
H.R. 4803. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to
provide for an additional place of holding court in the
eastern district of California, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. TIBERI (for himself and Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts):
H.R. 4804. A bill to modernize the manufactured housing
loan insurance program under title I of the National Housing
Act; to the Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. BOEHNER:
H. Con. Res. 345. Concurrent resolution providing for an
adjournment or recess of the two Houses; considered and
agreed to.
By Mr. RAMSTAD (for himself and Mr. Jefferson):
H. Con. Res. 346. Concurrent resolution expressing the
sense of Congress relating to a free trade agreement between
the United States and Taiwan; to the Committee on Ways and
Means.
By Mr. SIMMONS (for himself and Mr. Neal of
Massachusetts):
H. Con. Res. 347. Concurrent resolution honoring the
National Association of State Veterans Homes and the 119
State veterans homes providing long-term care to veterans
that are represented by that association for their
contributions to the health care of veterans and the health-
care system of the Nation; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Mr. McGovern, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, and Ms. Matsui):
H. Res. 686. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
to restore transparency, accountability, and oversight, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules, and in
addition to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. PELOSI:
H. Res. 687. A resolution raising a question of the
privileges of the House; which was laid on the table.
By Mr. BAIRD:
H. Res. 688. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to require that legislation and conference
reports be available on the Internet for 72 hours before
consideration by the House, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Rules.
By Mr. SMITH of Texas (for himself, Mr. Doggett, and
Mr. McCaul of Texas):
H. Res. 689. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
with respect to the 10th anniversary of the beginning of the
National Domestic Violence Hotline; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. Barrett of
South Carolina, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Culberson, Mr.
Flake, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr.
Gohmert, Mr. Goode, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hostettler,
Mr. Issa, Mr. Jindal, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. McHenry,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Poe,
Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shadegg, and
Mr. Sodrel):
H. Res. 690. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to curtail the growth of Government
programs; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. ENGEL (for himself, Mr. Evans, Mrs. Maloney, Mr.
McGovern, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
Lynch, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms.
Schakow-
sky, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Holt):
H. Res. 691. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of Anti-Slavery Day; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA (for himself and Mr. Flake):
H. Res. 692. A resolution commending the people of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and
sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing
program in the Marshall Islands, solemnly acknowledging the
first detonation of a hydrogen bomb by the United States on
March 1, 1954, on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands,
and remembering that 60 years ago the United States began its
nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands; to the
Committee on International Relations.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr.
Owens, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs. Christensen, and Mr.
Kildee):
H. Res. 693. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives with respect to childhood stroke; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. MICHAUD:
H. Res. 694. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that, following a year of record setting
profits, major petroleum products companies should
incorporate the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
into their corporate citizenship and responsibility programs;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. SOLIS (for herself, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Maloney,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Lee, Mr. Nadler, Ms.
Millender-McDonald, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms.
Waters, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Evans, Ms. DeLauro, Ms.
Baldwin, Mr. Farr, Ms. Pelosi, Ms. Slaughter, Mr.
McDermott, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, and Ms. Scha-
kowsky):
H. Res. 695. A resolution honoring the life and
accomplishments of Betty Friedan; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Wamp):
H. Res. 696. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that there should be established a
National Physical Education and Sports Week and a National
Physical Education and Sports Month; to the Committee on
Government Reform.
[[Page 1987]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 147: Mr. Dent and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 376: Mr. Boyd and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 390: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 500: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Hunter.
H.R. 515: Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Pascrell, and Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 517: Mr. Gibbons.
H.R. 552: Mrs. Schmidt.
H.R. 561: Mr. Schwarz of Michigan.
H.R. 591: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 676: Mr. Al Green of Texas.
H.R. 752: Mr. Pastor, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Ms.
Kaptur.
H.R. 916: Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 952: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 963: Mr. Saxton.
H.R. 994: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Chocola, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Towns,
Mr. Berman, and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1053: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 1200: Mr. Gutierrez.
H.R. 1259: Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire and Mr. Hostettler.
H.R. 1282: Mr. Berman.
H.R. 1306: Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 1310: Mr. Udall of Colorado and Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 1323: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 1375: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 1426: Mr. Gordon and Mr. Nadler.
H.R. 1471: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1506: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 1595: Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 1632: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 1655: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 1704: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 1806: Mr. Dingell and Mr. Kildee.
H.R. 2014: Mr. LaTourette and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 2101: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 2122: Ms. Hooley and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 2390: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 2410: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 2684: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 2872: Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Blu-
menauer.
H.R. 2943: Mr. Poe and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 3096: Mr. Stupak, Mr. Clay, and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3099: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Case, Mr. Capuano,
Mr. Abercrombie, and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 3127: Mrs. McCarthy.
H.R. 3142: Mr. Schiff, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, and Mr.
Kucinich.
H.R. 3145: Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr.
Chandler.
H.R. 3159: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Platts, Mr. Filner, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. McIntyre, Ms.
Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Smith of Texas,
and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 3312: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr. McDermott, Mr.
Boswell, Mr. Boucher, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Payne,
and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 3334: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 3352: Mr. Brown of Ohio, Ms. Hooley, Ms. Watson, Mrs.
McCarthy, Mr. Rothman, and Mr. Boehlert.
H.R. 3381: Mr. Pascrell.
H.R. 3476: Mr. Doyle and Mr. Israel.
H.R. 3478: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr. Latham, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 3509: Ms. Foxx.
H.R. 3559: Mr. Pastor, Ms. Baldwin, and Mr. Thompson of
Mississippi.
H.R. 3628: Mr. Edwards, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. McCotter, Mr.
Doggett, and Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 3630: Mr. Bachus.
H.R. 3644: Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 3875: Mr. Marchant, Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, and Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 3962: Mr. Taylor of Mississippi and Mr. Snyder.
H.R. 4005: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 4042: Mr. Beauprez.
H.R. 4059: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 4188: Mr. Lantos and Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4197: Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Case.
H.R. 4200: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota.
H.R. 4229: Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Tierney,
and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 4231: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 4239: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 4242: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 4315: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 4460: Mr. Payne and Mr. Ruppers-
berger.
H.R. 4479: Mr. Kildee, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, and Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin.
H.R. 4526: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 4533: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 4537: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 4542: Mr. Gerlach and Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 4547: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 4548: Mr. Nussle.
H.R. 4551: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas and Mr. Kuhl of New
York.
H.R. 4573: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky and Mr. Graves.
H.R. 4622: Mr. Ruppersberger.
H.R. 4641: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4657: Mr. Bishop of New York and Mr. Davis of
Tennessee.
H.R. 4679: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4681: Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 4685: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 4699: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Flake, and Mr. Ford.
H.R. 4705: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 4706: Mr. Owens.
H.R. 4708: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 4709: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Case, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Berman,
Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Kucinich.
H.R. 4715: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 4729: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Boswell.
H.R. 4730: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 4740: Mr. Schwarz of Michigan and Mr. Kline.
H.R. 4746: Mr. Bishop of Georgia and Mr. English of
Pennsylvania.
H.R. 4748: Mr. Baker.
H.R. 4749: Mr. McDermott, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Kucinich, Mr. Hinchey, and Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota.
H.R. 4755: Mr. Lewis of Kentucky, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. Nadler,
and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 4761: Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr.
Fortuno, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Pickering,
Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Jefferson, and Mr. McCrery.
H.J. Res. 71: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.J. Res. 78: Mr. Platts.
H. Con. Res. 179: Mr. Jefferson.
H. Con. Res. 277: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia and Mr. King of
New York.
H. Con. Res. 299: Mr. Gordon.
H. Con. Res. 323: Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Payne.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Ms.
Watson, and Mr. Wexler.
H. Res. 81: Mr. Nussle.
H. Res. 158: Mr. Meehan and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H. Res. 295: Mr. Thompson of Mississippi and Mr. Conyers.
H. Res. 323: Mr. Rahall.
H. Res. 521: Mr. Cardin, Mr. Filner, Mr. McIntyre, Ms.
Kaptur, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H. Res. 578: Ms. Bean and Mr. Shays.
H. Res. 589: Mr. Pearce.
H. Res. 600: Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Owens, and Mr.
Gutierrez.
H. Res. 608: Mr. Pearce.
H. Res. 635: Mr. Olver and Mr. Tierney.
H. Res. 641: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Davis
of Illinois, Mr. Meeks of New York, and Mr. Watt.
H. Res. 643: Mr. Baca, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Mr.
Abercrombie.
H. Res. 675: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, and Mr.
Berman.
____________________
DISCHARGE PETITIONS--ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
The following Members added their names to the following discharge
petitions:
Petition 6 by Mr. ABERCROMBIE on House Resolution 543:
Sherrod Brown and Thomas H. Allen.
Petition 10 by Ms. HERSETH on House Resolution 585: Jerrold
Nadler.
[[Page 1988]]
SENATE--Thursday, February 16, 2006
The Senate met at 9:36 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Mitch McConnell, a Senator from the State of Kentucky.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O Lord, our God, the heavens declare Your glory and the firmament
shows Your handiwork. Give us today the faith and willingness to follow
You with faithfulness. Thank You for revealing Yourself to us and the
wonders of Your creation. Reveal to us creative ways to contribute to
Your purposes.
Sustain our Senators in their work. Remind them that true prayer is
more than words; it is acting in Your name. Lead them to a commitment
to continue Your liberating thrust in our world. Use them to unshackle
captives and to lift heavy burdens.
Help us all to follow the narrow path of service. We pray in Your
loving Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Mitch McConnell led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, February 16, 2006.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mitch McConnell, a Senator from the State of Kentucky, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. McCONNELL thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING MAJORITY LEADER
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the distinguished acting
majority leader.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning we will have a period of
morning business for up to 30 minutes and then resume consideration of
the motion to proceed to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorizing
Amendments Act.
As a reminder, at 10:30 this morning we will have a cloture vote on
the motion to proceed to that bill. As under the previous order, if
cloture is invoked, we will proceed immediately to the bill itself. We
still have a number of items to complete before next week's recess. The
leader will have more to announce on the schedule later in the day.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be a
period for the transaction of morning business for up to 30 minutes,
with the first half of the time under the control of the Democratic
leader or his designee, and the second half of the time under the
control of the majority leader or his designee.
The Senator from Georgia is recognized.
____________________
USA PATRIOT ACT
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, within the hour, we will cast our votes
on whether to proceed on the debate on the extension of the PATRIOT
Act, which I intend to vote for, both to proceed and then finally for
that act.
I rise this morning to reflect on my strong support for the PATRIOT
Act and also express some of my frustration with those who have
questioned its use with regard to our civil liberties.
I was born in the United States of America in 1944. I am 61 years
old. The inalienable rights endowed by our Creator that our forefathers
built this Government on, of life and liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, have been the cornerstones of my life. They are the
foundation of all our civil liberties. They allowed me to pursue a
business career, a marriage, the raising of a family, the educating of
children, and allowed me to proceed to the highest office I could have
possibly ever imagined: a Member of the Senate. Because of God's
blessings and the blessings of this country, last week I was blessed
with two grandchildren, born 61 years after I was but into a country
that still is founded on the cornerstones of the great civil liberties
of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
But Sarah Katherine and Riley Dianne, my two granddaughters, were
born into a totally different world--the same country but a different
world. Today, terror is our enemy, and it uses the civil liberties that
we cherish to attempt to do us harm; in fact, to destroy us. In fact,
the freedom of access to communication, to employment, to travel, even
to our borders, are the tools and the weapons of those who would do our
civil liberties harm and in fact take them away. Because of this, do we
give up our civil liberties? Absolutely not. But because of this, we
must watch, listen, and pursue our enemies with the technologies of the
21st century. The PATRIOT Act does not threaten our civil liberties. It
is our insurance policy to preserve them.
We obviously must be diligent with anything we give Government, in
terms of a tool or a power to communicate or to watch or to surveil.
But do we turn our back on everything we cherish and that has made us
great out of fear we might lose it when, in fact, it is our obligation
to protect it? We are in the ultimate war between good and evil. Our
enemy today, terror, is unlike any enemy we have ever had. All our
previous enemies wanted what we had--our resources, our wealth, our
ingenuity, our entrepreneurship, our natural resources, our money, our
wealth. Terror doesn't want that. Terror doesn't want what we have.
Terror doesn't want us to have what we have. They don't want me to be
able to speak freely in this body and speak my mind, or my constituents
in Georgia to do the same, even if what they say is diametrically
opposed to me. They don't want me to freely carry a weapon and defend
myself. They don't want a free press that can publish and write its
opinion. They don't want any of the inalienable rights and the
guarantees and the civil liberties that we have because
[[Page 1989]]
they know it stands against the tyranny and the control and the
suppression that their radical views have brought to a part of the
world.
This place you and I call home and the rest of the world calls
America is a very special place. You don't find anybody trying to break
out of the United States of America. They are all trying to break in.
And they are for a very special reason. The civil liberties and the
guarantees of our Constitution and the institutions that protect our
country--the reasons that you and I stand here today.
While I respect the dissent of any man or woman in this Chamber about
the PATRIOT Act, I regret that we have delayed our ratification of the
single tool that turned us around post-9/11, in terms of our ability to
protect our shores and our people.
I remind this Chamber and everyone who can listen and hear what I am
saying that when the 9/11 Commission reviewed all that went wrong prior
to
9/11, it recognized that what went right post-9/11 was the passage of
the PATRIOT Act. It acknowledged, without our ability to connect the
dots, we could not protect the country.
Once again, I cherish our civil liberties. I see the PATRIOT Act not
as a threat to them but an insurance policy to protect them. As we go
to a vote in less than an hour, I encourage every Member of the Senate
to vote to proceed and then debate, as we will, the issues and the
concerns. But in the end, we should leave this Chamber, today or
tomorrow, sending a message to those who would do us harm and sending a
message to those whom we stand here today to preserve and protect, that
we will not let any encumbrance stop our pursuit of those who would
destroy or injure us, our children or our grandchildren.
At the end, at the age of 61 and with the opportunity to serve in the
Senate, the rest of my life will be about those grandchildren. Riley
Dianne Isakson and Sarah Katherine Isakson are less than a month old.
They have a bright future. The PATRIOT Act is going to ensure that the
very civil liberties that will allow them to pursue happiness to its
maximum extent will still exist because America did not turn its back
or fear our ability to compete in a 21st century of terror with the
type of 21st century laws we need to surveil, to protect, and to defend
those who would hurt or those who would harm this great country, the
United States of America.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
ENERGY
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to address some troubling information
about natural gas, energy, and the prices of energy as well as its
availability. This information came from a hearing held in the Air
subcommittee of the EPW Committee last week, and I think it is of
sufficient importance to all Members and all States in the Nation that
I rise to speak to my colleagues about it.
We all know that American families and workers are suffering from
high energy costs. They will suffer even more if we do not balance our
environmental concerns with their energy needs. That is why the hearing
held last week in the Air subcommittee is all the more important. If we
fail to heed the warning our families and workers are sending us about
high energy costs and their lost jobs, their lost incomes, their lost
standards of living, then we risk doing even more harm.
The people I am talking about include manufacturing workers who used
to make chemicals, plastic products, automobile parts or fertilizer.
Many of them are now out of work because their employer moved to a
foreign country with cheaper natural gas prices.
The pain, obviously, doesn't stop with workers. Families suffer from
lost wages. Most of those who are lucky enough to get a new job will be
working for lower wages. Does that mean that those wages have to move
even lower? Do they have to live with a broken-down car even longer?
In addition, seniors on fixed incomes are particularly vulnerable to
high natural gas prices. Across the Midwest, indeed across the country,
many depend on natural gas to heat their homes in the winter and cool
their homes in the summer. What do we tell them: Wear a coat inside
during the winter and turn on a fan during the summer? We all know of
the tragedies that hit our seniors in summer heat waves. What do we
tell their families?
Some have said we should tell our workers and their families that we
are going to hurt them even more in order to fight climate change. We
will pass proposals to cap carbon emissions which, by the way, will
raise energy prices even more. For some, I guess today's energy prices
are not high enough. Some are willing to drive power and heating bills
even higher in their fight against global warming. Some do not care
that there are no technologies currently available to capture and store
carbon dioxide. But they are working on finding those. We are not there
yet.
Some are willing to stop using cheap and abundant fuels, such as
coal, and force ourselves to use only the expensive and very limited
supply of natural gas. Every year, recently, we have had an opportunity
to vote on the McCain-Lieberman proposal. Every year we hear about how
it will deliver a $100 billion hit or more to the economy. Thankfully,
every year the Senate kills this job killer.
Last year, as part of the Energy bill debate, we passed a sense of
the Senate stating support for climate change strategies that did not
hurt the economy. I think we can all agree with that. It sounds simple,
but as we consider the ``McCain-Lieberman lite'' proposals, we have to
look at whether a second generation of proposals will actually spare
our families and workers from more pain.
Since we still do not have the technologies to capture and store
carbon, they will present other dubious arguments. Some will pin their
hopes on projections that future natural gas prices will fall from
triple historic levels, where they are now, to only double historic
levels, where they were a few years ago. This will somehow make carbon
caps affordable.
Not only do I doubt that natural gas prices will return to historic
lows, States represented by Members advocating these proposals are
actively trying to block actions necessary to increase natural gas
supply and get prices down. Government natural gas projections, which
we found very dubious, include a prediction that natural gas prices
will fall in the coming decades. However, that prediction depends upon
liquefied natural gas imports rising by 600 percent by 2030, a sixfold
increase in LNG imports. I find such hopes mind-boggling. How could we
increase LNG imports by 600 percent at the same time we have coastal
States from Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and
Delaware opposing or blocking LNG terminals?
By the way, these Northeastern States blocking natural gas imports
through their States are the very ones proposing we punish Midwestern
States using coal by forcing them to switch to natural gas to make
electricity--the natural gas that they will not allow us to get through
LNG.
Others who claim carbon caps will be affordable, pin their hopes on
rosy economic analyses that say we can buy our way out of the problem.
They propose, instead of cutting carbon emissions, powerplants will be
able to purchase, hopefully, cheap credits from others who, hopefully,
cut their own carbon emissions elsewhere.
They are running models from MIT, Stanford, and Harvard that say the
price of buying carbon cuts in other countries will be cheaper than
forcing U.S. powerplants to reduce their own carbon emissions. I can't
dispute these are smart people, but I wonder if they are reading the
newspaper. Their models show a ton of carbon cuts costing
[[Page 1990]]
just over $1 a ton. At that price, they say it would be affordable.
Unfortunately, last week the price to purchase a ton of carbon
reductions was $31. You do not have to be from Harvard to do that math.
That is 31 times more expensive. Do we believe that the cost of carbon
credits will drop by 97 percent after we impose our own cap, when you
see the increasing demand for energy from India and China? That I do
not believe is likely.
Europe's system to cap carbon is certainly in a shambles. European
countries are failing miserably to meet their Kyoto carbon-cut
requirements. Thirteen of the fifteen original EU signatories are on
track to miss their 2010 emissions targets--by as much as 33 percent in
Spain and 25 percent in Denmark. Talks to discuss further cuts beyond
that, when Kyoto expires, have only produced agreement to talk further.
It sounds similar to the Senate these days. We can talk well, but doing
things is difficult.
If Europe is, for all practical purposes, ignoring their Kyoto carbon
commitments and there is no agreement to continue with carbon caps
after Kyoto, how can we expect the creation of enough credits? In the
alternative, if Europeans suddenly decide to rush and meet their
commitments by buying up massive amounts of credits to meet their
shortfalls, how will there be enough credits for a U.S. demand bigger
than all of Europe combined?
While these questions are complicated, their consequences are simple.
A mistake on our part could add significantly to the misery of our
manufacturing workers. A mistake on our part will add to the hardships
families face paying their heating and power bills. And one more
thought: Iran and Saudi Arabia are furiously busy expanding their
petrochemical industry, based upon their vast supplies of natural gas.
I ask unanimous consent an article on that subject be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BOND. This means that not only more cheap foreign chemicals, but
it means potentially more closed U.S. plants. We must also ask whether
we want to add to our oil addiction a new chemical dependency on Iraq,
Iran, and the Middle East.
Before we make any hasty decisions, I believe we must have answers to
these questions, and we must answer these questions as we begin to
debate further carbon cap proposals.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Exhibit 1
[From MEHRNEWS.com, Jan. 2, 2006]
Iran Striving to Rank First in Ethylene Production
Iran plans to be number one in producing ethylene in the
world--reaching 12 million tons output within the next 10
years--by allocating 17.5 billion dollars in investment for
development of petrochemical projects in the Fourth Five-Year
Development Plan (2005-2010).
The figure stood around 12.5 billion dollars for the first
to third development plans (1990-2005) in total.
Out of the 25 projects under implementation, the National
Petrochemical Company (NPC) have completed 17 and would
finish the rest soon, said Hassan Sadat, manager of plans in
the NPC.
NPC plans to have an output of 25.6 million tons capacity
by March 2010 jumping up from 7.3 million tons in 1999, he
added.
The investment in the sector is forecast to increase by 40
percent in the fourth plan.
Sadat said that the output of polymers would reach 10
million tons within the next 10 years. The production of
chemical fertilizers, methanol, and aromatic materials would
increase to 8 million tons each. NPC has estimated that the
country earns some 20 billion dollars from export of
petrochemicals only by the date.
At present, nearly 52,000 employees work in petrochemical
sector that enjoys modern technologies such as ABS, PET--PAT,
engineering polymers, isocyanides, DME, and acetic acid.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the remaining time in morning
business on our side.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006--MOTION
TO PROCEED
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 2271, which the
clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 2271, a bill
to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can
challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who
receive national security letters are not required to
disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not
wire or electronic communication service providers unless
they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:30
is equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.
The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, the upcoming cloture vote on the
motion to proceed to S. 2271, introduced by my friend Senator Sununu,
is the first opportunity for my colleagues to go on record on whether
they will accept the White House deal on PATRIOT Act reauthorization.
Back in December, 46 Senators voted against cloture on the conference
report. I think it's clear by now that the deal makes only minor
changes to that conference report. The Senator from Pennsylvania,
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and primary proponent of the
conference report in this body, was quoted yesterday as saying that the
changes that the White House agreed to were ``cosmetic.'' And then he
said, according to the AP, ``But sometimes cosmetics will make a beauty
out of a beast and provide enough cover for senators to change their
vote.''
The Senator from Alabama said on the floor yesterday: ``They're not
large changes, but it made the Senators happy and they feel comfortable
voting for the bill today.'' I agree with both of my adversaries on
this bill that the changes were minor and cosmetic. I explained that at
length yesterday, and no one else other than Senator Sununu came down
to the floor to defend the deal.
Some of my colleagues have been arguing, however, that we should go
along with this deal because the conference report, as amended by the
Sununu bill, improves the PATRIOT Act that we passed 4\1/2\ years ago.
It's hard for me to understand how Senators who blocked the
conference report in December can now say that it's such a great deal.
It's not a great deal--the conference report is just as flawed as it
was 2 months ago. No amount of cosmetics is going to make this beast
look any prettier. That said, let me walk through some of the
provisions of the conference report that are being touted as
improvements to the original PATRIOT Act.
First, there's the issue that was the linchpin of the bill the Senate
passed without objection in July of last year, that of course is the
standard for obtaining business records under Section 215. Section 215
gives the Government extremely broad powers to secretly obtain people's
business records. The Senate bill would have required that the
Government prove to a judge that the records it sought had some link to
suspected terrorists or spies or their activities. The conference
report does not include this requirement. Now, the conference report
does contain some improvements to section 215, at least around the
edges. It contains minimization requirements, meaning that
[[Page 1991]]
the executive branch has to set rules for whether and how to retain and
share information about U.S. citizens and permanent residents obtained
from the records. And it requires clearance from a senior FBI official
before the Goverment can seek to obtain particularly sensitive records
like library, gun and medical records. But the core issue with section
215 is the standard for obtaining these records in the first place.
Neither the minimization procedures nor the high level signoff
changes the fact that the Government can still obtain sensitive
business records of innocent, law-abiding Americans. The standard in
the conference report--``relevance''--will still allow Government
fishing expeditions. That is unacceptable. And the Sununu bill does not
change that.
Next, let me turn to judicial review of these section 215 orders.
After all, if we are going to give the Government such intrusive
powers, we should at least let people go to a judge to challenge the
order. The conference report does provide for this judicial review. But
it would require that the judicial review be conducted in secret, and
that Government submissions not be shared with the challenger under any
circumstances, without regard for whether there are national security
concerns in any particular case. This would make it very difficult for
a challenger to get meaningful judicial review that comports with due
process.
And the Sununu bill does not address this problem.
What we have are very intrusive powers, very limited judicial
review--and then, on top of it, anyone who gets a section 215 order
can't even talk about it. That's right--they come complete with an
automatic, indefinite gag order. The new ``deal'' supposedly allows
judicial review of these gag orders, but that's just more cosmetics. As
I explained yesterday, the deal that was struck does not permit
meaningful judicial review of these gag orders. No judicial review is
available for the first year after the 215 order has been issued. Even
when the right to judicial review does finally kick in, the challenger
has to prove that the Government acted in bad faith. We all know that
is a virtually impossible standard to meet.
The last point on section 215 is that the conference report, as
amended by Sununu bill, now explicitly permits recipients of these
orders to consult with attorneys, and without having to inform the FBI
that they have done so. It does the same thing with respect to national
security letters. This is an important clarification, but keep in mind
that the Justice Department had already argued in litigation that the
provision in the NSL statute actually did permit recipients to consult
with lawyers. So this isn't much of a victory at all. Making sure that
recipients don't have to tell the FBI if they consult a lawyer is an
improvement, but it is a minor one.
Next let's turn to national security letters or NSLs. These are the
letters that the FBI can issue to obtain certain types of business
records, with no prior court approval at all.
The conference report does provide for judicial review of NSLs, but
it also gives the Government the explicit right to enforce NSLs and
hold people in contempt for failing to comply, which was not previously
laid out in the statute. In stark contrast to the Senate bill, the
conference report also would require that the judicial review be
conducted in secret and that Government submissions not be shared with
a challenger under any circumstances without regard to whether there
are national security concerns in any particular case. So just like the
section 215 judicial review provision, this will make it very difficult
for challengers to be successful. Again, the Sununu bill does not
address this problem.
Of course, NSLs come with gag orders, too. The conference report
addresses judicial review of these gag orders, but it has the same flaw
as the Sununu bill with regard to judicial review of the section 215
gag rule. In order to prevail, you have to prove that the Government
acted in bad faith, which, again, would prove to be virtually
impossible. The Sununu bill does not modify these provisions at all.
Let me make one last point on NSLs. The Sununu bill contains a
provision which states that libraries cannot receive an NSL for
Internet records unless the libraries provide ``electronic
communication services'' as defined by statute. But that statute
already applies only to entities that satisfy this definition, so this
provision is essentially just restating existing law. It is no
improvement at all. Those cosmetics wear pretty thin when you look
closely at this deal.
Let's turn to sneak-and-peek search warrants. As I laid out in detail
yesterday, the conference report takes a significant step back from the
Senate bill by presumptively allowing the Government to wait an entire
month to either notify someone that agents secretly searched their home
or to get approval from a judge to delay the notice even longer. The
Senate said it should be 1 week. I have yet to hear any argument at
all, even in direct debate from the Senator from Alabama, much less a
persuasive argument, why that amount of time is insufficient for the
Government.
The core fourth amendment protections are at stake. This is not like
flipping a coin: Let's make it 7 days; no, make it 30 days. This
involves people coming into somebody's house without their knowledge
and how long that should be allowed without telling them you were in
their house. Once again, the Sununu bill does nothing to address this
issue.
Let me talk briefly about roving intelligence wiretaps under section
206 of the PATRIOT Act. We have not discussed this issue much, in part
because the conference report does partially address the concerns
raised about this provision. But the conference report language is
still not as good as the Senate bill was on this issue. Unlike the
Senate bill, the conference report does not require that a roving
wiretap include sufficient information to describe the specific person
to be wiretapped with particularity. The Sununu bill does not address
this problem.
Supporters of the conference report say it contains new 4-year
sunsets for three provisions: section 206, section 215, and the so-
called lone wolf expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
that passed as a part of the intelligence reform bill in 2004. We
agree, I am sure, that sunsets are not enough. This reauthorization
process is our opportunity to fix the problems of the PATRIOT Act. Just
sunsetting bad law again is hardly a real improvement. Of course,
neither the conference report nor the Sununu bill contains a sunset for
the highly controversial national security letter authorities which
were expanded by the PATRIOT Act, even though many of us said back in
December that was a very important change we wanted to see made.
I have the same response to those who point to the valuable new
reporting provisions in the conference report: We must make substantive
changes to the law, not just improve oversight.
I have laid out at length the many substantive reasons to oppose the
deal. But there is an additional reason to oppose cloture on the motion
to proceed; that is, it appears the majority leader is planning to
prevent Senators from offering and getting votes on amendments to this
bill.
I was on the Senate floor for 9 hours yesterday. I was not asking for
much, just a guarantee that once we moved to proceed to the bill I
could offer and get votes on a handful of amendments relavant to the
bill. There was a time--in fact, I was here--when Senators did not have
to camp out on the floor to plead for the opportunity to offer
amendments. In fact, offering debate and voting on amendments is what
the Senate is supposed to be all about. That is how we craft
legislation. But my offer was rejected.
It appears as if the other side may try to ram this deal through
without a real amending process. I hope that even colleagues who may
support the deal will oppose such a sham process. It makes no sense to
agree to go forward without a guarantee that we will be allowed to
actually try to improve the bill. It is a discourtesy to all Senators,
[[Page 1992]]
not just me, to try to ram through controversial legislation without
the chance to improve it.
In sum, I oppose the sham legislative process the Senate is facing,
and I oppose the flawed deal we are being asked to ratify.
Notwithstanding the improvements achieved in the conference report, we
still have not adequately addressed some of the most significant
problems of the PATRIOT Act. I must oppose proceeding to this bill
which will allow this deal to go forward. I cannot understand how
anyone who opposed the conference report back in December can justify
supporting it now. The conference report was a beast 2 months ago, and
it has not gotten any better looking since then.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on cloture. I reserve the remainder
of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Chair lays
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will
state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 2271: to clarify that individuals who receive
FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that
individuals who receive National Security Letters are not
required to disclose the name of their attorney, that
libraries are not wire or electronic communication service
providers unless they provide specific services, and for
other purposes.
Bill Frist, James Inhofe, Richard Burr, Christopher Bond,
Chuck Hagel, Saxby Chambliss, John E. Sununu, Wayne
Allard, Johnny Isakson, John Cornyn, Jim DeMint, Craig
Thomas, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Lindsey Graham, Norm
Coleman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, shall be brought to a close? The
yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 96, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 22 Leg.]
YEAS--96
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Clinton
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dayton
DeMint
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--3
Byrd
Feingold
Jeffords
NOT VOTING--1
Vitter
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 96, the nays are 3.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
____________________
USA PATRIOT ACT ADDITIONAL REAUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
proceed to S. 2271 was agreed to, and the clerk will state the bill by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2271) to clarify that individuals who receive
FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that
individuals who receive national security letters are not
required to disclose the name of their attorney, that
libraries are not wire or electronic communication service
providers unless they provide specific services, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Amendment No. 2895
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for
its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 2895.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following: This Act shall
become effective 1 day after enactment.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Amendment No. 2896 to Amendment No. 2895
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Frist) proposes an
amendment numbered 2896 to Amendment No. 2895.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the first word and insert: Act shall
become effective immediately upon enactment.
Cloture Motion
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion on the bill to the
desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 2271: to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can
challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who
receive National Security Letters are not required to
disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not
wire or electronic communication service providers unless
they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
Bill Frist, Arlen Specter, Thad Cochran, Richard Burr,
Mel Martinez, Jim Bunning, Jon Kyl, Craig Thomas, Mike
Crapo, David Vitter, Bob Bennett, Norm Coleman, Michael
B. Enzi, Lindsey Graham, Jeff Sessions, Saxby
Chambliss, John Cornyn, John Thune.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the actions just taken, coupled with the
agreement we came to last night, set out a sequence I will review later
today. We will have final passage once we get back from the recess. I
am very disappointed in the fact that on a bill I know will pass
overwhelmingly, by 90 to 10 or 95 to 5, it has been required of us from
the other side of the aisle to be here all day yesterday, today,
tomorrow, through the recess, Monday when we get back, Tuesday when we
get back, and final passage on Wednesday morning, when we know what the
outcome will be. It bothers me in two regards. First of all, it is a
very important piece of legislation. It breaks
[[Page 1993]]
down and further defines that rough relationship between our law
enforcement community and our intelligence community. It is an
important tool for the safety and security of the American people and
the protection of civil liberties. The bill has been improved and will
be overwhelmingly supported.
Secondly, I am disappointed because it means that we effectively have
to put off other important business before this body with this
postponement and this delay, issues that are important, that are
immediate, that need to be addressed. The issue of lobbying reform is
underway, and we need to address that on the floor sometime in the near
future, such as the issues of LIHEAP and heating, flood insurance, a
whole range of bills.
It also plays into what has been this pattern of postponement and
delay and obstruction. If you look back at what we finished yesterday,
the asbestos bill, we were forced to file cloture on the motion to
proceed, which delays, in essence, for 3 days, consideration of that
bill. We had debate for a day, with the other side encouraging not to
take amendments on that day, allowing 2 days for amendments, but, in
effect, spending 2 weeks on a bill on which we could have been moving
much quicker.
Another example--I mentioned it last night in closing--is the
pensions bill, a bill that passed this body on November 16, 2005, last
year, 3 months ago. We asked the Democrats to appoint conferees on
December 15 of last year. We renewed that request on February 1. We
have been prepared. We have our conferees ready to go. We know what the
ratio is, but we still have not been able to send that important bill
to conference. In that regard, I wanted to formally, again, make
another request, but we absolutely must begin that conference.
Unanimous-Consent Request--H. R. 2830
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of Calendar No. 357, H.R. 2830, that all after
the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1783, as passed by
the Senate, be inserted thereof, that the bill, as amended, be read a
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table,
the Senate insist upon its amendment and request a conference with the
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees at a ratio of 7
to 5.
Mr. REID. Mr President, reserving the right to object, first of all,
on the PATRIOT Act, it is very unusual to bring a bill to the floor and
allow no amendments.
I understand the history of this legislation. We had a cloture vote,
and cloture was not invoked. It was a bipartisan vote that has now been
resolved and that Senator Sununu has worked hard to bring it to the
Senate. I think the majority of the Senate clearly favors this
legislation, but Senator Feingold wants to offer amendments. Senator
Leahy wants to offer an amendment.
First of all, we could agree to the motions that are now pending
before the Senate on the PATRIOT Act. The so-called filling the tree
was used to block Senator Feingold. We could adopt those amendments
just like that because they are only date changes and mean very little.
They mean nothing, frankly.
We could move every bill quickly here if we had no amendments. The
distinguished majority leader is saying we are taking time with these
amendments. That is what we do. Senator Feingold has agreed
reluctantly, but he agreed, and I appreciate that very much. And
Senator Leahy also agreed that there would be two amendments offered,
one dealing with section 215, the other would deal with the so-called
gag order. These two amendments would take an extremely limited amount
of time to debate. We could vote on them today and finish this
legislation. The majority leader has decided not to do that. He filled
the tree, and that is his right. We understand that. But I think it is
a mistake. I think it sets a bad tone for what we are trying to
accomplish.
In regard to the matter before the Senate now, the unanimous consent
request, which I will respond to, deals with an important piece of
legislation. I acknowledge that, and we need to complete it. It will
affect millions of working Americans. The bill has strong bipartisan
support. It passed out of here by a vote of 97 to 2. As I reminded the
distinguished majority leader off microphone, we in the minority worked
very hard to get the bill passed. We eliminated amendments that people
wanted to offer. It was a bipartisan effort by virtue of the extremely
good vote we had.
We are eager to get to work on producing a conference report that
will both strengthen the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and
provide certainty to employers who sponsor other types of pensions. The
virtual unanimity with which the bill passed the Senate does not mean,
however, that there aren't issues that need to be resolved with the
House.
We have 13 titles, and it involves many issues, including changing
the myriad of rules that guide employers' pension funding requirements,
establishes the proper interest rate for employer funding purposes, and
for calculating lump-sum distributions paid to departing employees.
There are a couple of other provisions, such as it increases premiums
of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, protects older workers who
are hurt by changes, the so-called cash balance pension plans, and
finally, one of the issues is establishing rules to help employees with
401(k) plans get unbiased investment advice. It expands 401(k) plans to
make it easier for employees to be automatically enrolled in these
plans so they get better savings for their retirements and changes the
rules to protect spousal benefits.
Some of these issues are very technical in nature, and there are very
few Senators who understand them because they have worked on them. For
example, on our side, Senator Harkin is an expert, and all of those
people on the Labor Committee acknowledge his expertise in one field.
Senator Mikulski, the ranking member of the subcommittee, is an expert
in other areas.
So the point I am making is that the majority has said you will have
a conference committee with seven Republicans and five Democrats. I am
saying we need eight Republicans and six Democrats. It would allow me
to offer somebody who I think is vitally important in allowing a better
product to come back from the conference, at least the ability to
debate it better.
We are not holding up this pension conference. We are not holding it
up. I say the argument is just as easily made that it is being held up
by the majority because they refuse to allow us to have 6 members to
conference, 6 out of 100, on something that will affect hundreds of
millions of Americans. I don't think that is asking too much.
So we are willing to go to conference in 5 seconds, 5 minutes. I have
my conferees ready to go. We need six. It may sound easy putting these
conference committees together, but it is not. I see on the floor the
former majority leader and the former minority leader of the Senate,
and Senator Frist, the present majority leader, is here. They know how
difficult these conference committees are. But I have a unique problem
on this bill, and I need another Democratic member. So I object, unless
the ratio is eight Republicans and six Democrats.
This is not arm wrestling. This doesn't have to show who is the
toughest, that we are all going to hang in there, and we are not going
to allow this to happen. We are in the minority. We understand that.
But we have certain rights also. I don't think it is asking too much to
increase the size of this conference. One more Democrat is all we are
asking for. In exchange for that, of course, you get another
Republican.
So I hope the ratio--the majority will have two extra Republicans on
the conference--is something to which the distinguished majority leader
will agree.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object, if I can make a
parliamentary inquiry: First of all, did Senator Reid ask for a
different UC?
Mr. REID. Yes, I did, Mr. President. I ask that the request of the
distinguished majority leader be amended to
[[Page 1994]]
allow an eight-to-six conference, eight Republicans, six Democrats.
Mr. LOTT. Reserving the right to object to that, Mr. President, I
hesitate to tread into these waters because I know how difficult it is
to be in the position that these two leaders are in. They have to make
tough choices. They have to take into consideration what happens once
you get into conference. You have to look at personalities. But
frankly, I think seven and five is too big. That is, to me, a pretty
large number of Senators to be going to conference. I understand that
Senator Reid has other Senators who would like to be conferees, and I
am sure Senator Frist has other Senators who would like to be
conferees. In fact, most Senators would like to be a conferee on
everything, particularly coming out of their committee. That is what
this is all about. I wanted to be a conferee on the tax reconciliation
bill. I worked on it for a year, but I am not. The leader made the
choice to go with two others, and I am off. I am not happy about that,
and I have explained it to him. It is called leadership. It is called
tough choices.
By the way, this has been hanging around since December 10. I believe
that is when our leadership first said: Let's go to conference. I
remind my colleagues and our leaders, this is a bipartisan bill. This
is a bill that passed the Senate overwhelmingly. This is a bill that
passed the House overwhelmingly. But it is a complex area. We need time
to work out the difficulties and disagreements on pensions and how it
affects aviation. None of it is going to be easy. I would think some
Senators might want to take second thoughts about whether to be on this
conference because it will be difficult.
But we have a time problem. If we don't appoint these conferees this
week in the Senate and the House, we won't be able to begin when we
come back, and then another week will be frittered away. When you look
at the calendar, we will have something like maybe 25 days to reach an
agreement because there is a drop-dead date on this.
First of all, at least two airlines are hanging in the balance of
bankruptcy. They could very easily dump their pensions on the PBGC and
say we are out of here. They are trying not to do that. They are trying
to do the responsible thing for themselves, the taxpayers, and
everybody.
Secondly, the reason why April 15 is a very serious date is because
that is when the next quarterly payment is due. Within 2 weeks,
companies are going to have to make a decision: Do I comply or not? Do
I dump my pension on PBGC or do I go into bankruptcy?
We have a time problem. So I know it is not easy, but we need to get
this done. I know the leaders have been talking back and forth trying
to reach an agreeable number to deal with all this, but I say to my
friends, it is time to make a decision, and we all have to understand
we don't all get to be conferees. I understand that. I don't like it,
but I understand it.
So I object to a larger number for a lot of reasons, and I urge the
two leaders to come to a quick agreement. Let's get this done in the
next 24 hours. Let's show for the first time this year that we can deal
with something, as hard as it may be, in a bipartisan way. So I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard to modifying the unanimous
consent request. Is there objection to the basic request?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I say to my
friend, the junior Senator from Mississippi, this is the first request
we have had for a conference. The majority and minority staffs have
worked on this. They have made significant headway, and I appreciate
the work they have done. The House has not appointed their conferees,
and they are certainly not going to today or tomorrow. So I think what
we need to do is understand the importance of this and understand that
we are ready to go to conference. We are ready to go to conference. It
is a question of how many conferees we have.
I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle would agree
that it is important to go to conference and that we move forward as
quickly as we can, allowing people from the Finance Committee--this
isn't one committee. One reason it is complicated is that there are
issues dealing with finance and the HELP Committee. So I object to the
distinguished majority leader's request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority leader.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, the issue is an important one because of
the time constraints that were outlined by my colleague from
Mississippi. This is something we have to work through. It is pretty
simple, pretty straightforward, as my colleague from Mississippi said.
We just went through appointing the conferees for the tax
reconciliation bill. I had on the floor here a few minutes ago three
different people who passionately wanted to be conferees--who worked on
it, who deserve to be, yet they are not. Part of leadership is
basically saying no. Seven to five is a reasonable number that many
people think is too large. Seven to five is what it will be. I am
hopeful that over the next few hours we can come to some resolution and
appoint conferees. The House is ready to go to conference. We are
ready. We asked to go to conference on December 15 of last year, yet we
are not to conference.
This is a specific problem. Both the Democratic leader and I have
talked about this for days, that we both have challenges, but it is
something that is pretty straightforward. The bill has been passed, it
is ready to go to conference, is addressing a major problem facing
people across America, and we need to address it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment which is at the
desk, amendment No. 2892.
Mr. REID. Will the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. I should have done this. I have people sending me notes.
Are we having anymore votes today?
Mr. FRIST. Let's decide within the next hour. With the schedule, I
know there is still going to be an effort to offer amendments and the
like. Why don't we get together and have some sort of announcement
shortly to our colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending
amendment be set aside so I may offer an amendment at the desk, No.
2892.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FRIST. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we can obviously see what is going on
here when the majority leader offered those two amendments earlier. He
was filling the amendment tree. That means he is trying--in fact, he is
going to do everything he can, and he will succeed, if he wishes--to
refuse to allow Senators to improve this bill. Those amendments are
nothing more than meaningless amendments, the amendments he has
offered, that have to do with the effective date of the bill. They are
nothing other than an attempt to prevent me or any other Senator from
trying to amend this legislation.
Not only was this a take-it-or-leave-it deal from the White House,
but now the majority leader and perhaps other Senators are apparently
afraid of what happens if the Senate actually does its work on this
issue and has open votes on the merits of these issues.
I want everyone to know that is the game that is being played here,
on a bill that has major implications for the rights and freedom of the
American people. Obviously, when the majority leader talks about how
urgent it is that this be passed, he is conveniently ignoring the fact
that this current law is in effect until March 10, and there is no risk
whatsoever that the bill would not be renewed.
I am going to speak for a few minutes about the various amendments I
have filed and that the majority leader is preventing me from offering.
[[Page 1995]]
Amendment No. 2892
Amendment No. 2892 is the amendment that would implement the standard
for obtaining section 215 orders that was in the Senate bill the
Judiciary Committee approved by a vote of 18 to 0 and that was agreed
to in the Senate without objection. I hope my colleagues remember that.
When the majority leader fills the tree, he is not preventing some type
of esoteric amendments nobody has ever seen or heard of. Every member
of the Judiciary Committee already voted for that very provision and no
Senator in the entire Senate, including the majority leader, objected
to that being in the Senate bill. So this is not some kind of a last-
minute deal. This is something the majority leader himself never
objected to. It is a reasonable amendment that every Senator in one way
or another has basically supported.
Of all the concerns that have been raised about the PATRIOT Act since
it was passed in 2001, this is the one that has received the most
public attention, and rightly so. This is the one that is often
referred to as the ``library provision.'' A reauthorization bill that
doesn't fix this provision, in my view, has no credibility.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain secret
court orders in domestic intelligence investigations to get all kinds
of business records about people, including not just library records,
but also medical records and various other types of business records.
The PATRIOT Act allowed the Government to obtain these records as long
as they were ``sought for'' a terrorism investigation. That is a very
low standard. It didn't require that the records concern someone who
was suspected of being a terrorist or spy, or even suspected of being
connected to a terrorist or spy. It didn't require any demonstration of
how the records would be useful in the investigation. Under section
215, if the Government simply said it wanted records for a terrorism
investigation, the secret FISA court was required to issue the order--
period. To make matters worse, recipients of these orders are also
subject to an automatic gag order. They cannot tell anyone that they
have been asked for records.
Because of the breadth of this power, section 215 became the focal
point of a lot of Americans' concerns about the PATRIOT Act. These
voices came from the left and the right, from big cities and small
towns all across the country. So far, more than 400 State and local
government bodies have passed resolutions calling for revisions to the
PATRIOT Act. And nearly every one mentions section 215.
The Government should not have the kind of broad, intrusive powers
that section 215 provides--not this Government, not any government. The
American people shouldn't have to live with a poorly drafted provision
that clearly allows for the records of innocent Americans to be
searched, and just hope that Government uses it with restraint. A
Government of laws doesn't require its citizens to rely on the good
will and good faith of those who have these powers--especially when
adequate safeguards can be written into the laws without compromising
their usefulness as a law enforcement tool. Not one of the amendments I
am offering would threaten the ability of law enforcement to do what is
needs to do to investigate and prevent terrorism.
After lengthy and difficult negotiations, the Judiciary Committee
came up with language that achieved that goal. It would require the
Government to convince a judge that a person has some connection to
terrorism or espionage before obtaining their sensitive records. And
when I say some connection, that's what I mean. The Senate bill's
standard is the following: No. 1, that the records pertain to a
terrorist or spy; No. 2, that the records pertain to an individual in
contact with or known to a suspected terrorist or spy; or No. 3, that
the records are relevant--just relevant--to the activities of a
suspected terrorist or spy. That's the three-prong test in the Senate
bill and I think it is more than adequate to give law enforcement the
power it needs to conduct investigations, while also protecting the
rights of innocent Americans. It would not limit the types of records
that the Government could obtain, and it does not go as far to protect
law-abiding Americans as I might prefer, but it would make sure the
Government cannot go on fishing expeditions into the records of
innocent people.
The conference report did away with this delicate compromise. It does
not contain the critical modification to the standard for section 215
orders. The Senate bill permits the Government to obtain business
records only if it can satisfy one or more prongs of the three-prong
test. This is a broad standard with a lot of flexibility. But it
retains the core protection that the Government cannot go after someone
who has no connection whatsoever to a terrorist or spy or their
activities.
The conference report replaces the three-prong test with a simple
relevance standard. It then provides a presumption of relevance if the
government meets one of the three-prongs. It is silly to argue that
this is adequate protection against a fishing expedition. The only
actual requirement in the conference report is that the Government show
that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence
investigation. Relevance is a very broad standard that could arguably
justify the collection of all kinds of information about law-abiding
Americans. The three-prongs now are just examples of how the Government
can satisfy the relevance standard. That is not simply a loophole or an
exception that swallows the rule. The exception is the rule, rendering
basically meaningless the three-prong test that we worked so hard to
create in the Senate version of the bill.
This issue was perhaps the most significant reason that I and others
objected to the conference report. So how was this issue addressed by
the White House deal to get the support of some Senators? It wasn't.
Not one change was made on the standard for obtaining section 215
orders. That is a grave disappointment. The White House refused to make
any changes at all. Not only would it not accept the Senate version of
section 215, which, no member of this body objected to back in July--
including the majority leader--it wouldn't make any change in the
conference report on this issue at all.
So today I offer an amendment to bring back the Senate standard on
section 215. It simply replaces the standard in the conference report
with the standard from the Senate bill. I urge my colleagues to support
this change, which we all consented to 6 months ago, and which was one
of the core issues that many of us stood up for in December when we
voted against cloture on the conference report.
I know that some will say they must oppose this amendment because it
would disrupt a delicate agreement that has been achieved with the
White House. I disagree. There is no reason we can't reauthorize the
PATRIOT Act and fix section 215--in fact, there is every reason we
should do so. This body has expressed its strongly held views on this
issue before, and it should do so again. If this issue went to a vote
in the House I'm confident we would have strong support because the
House has already indicated a willingness to modify section 215 to
protect the privacy of innocent Americans. That is the first amendment
I wanted to offer. Let me next turn to amendment No. 2893.
Amendment No. 2893
The second one is amendment No. 2893. This amendment would ensure
that recipients of business records orders under section 215 of the
PATRIOT Act and recipients of national security letters can get
meaningful judicial review of the gag orders that they are subject to.
Recipients of both section 215 orders and national security letters
are subject to automatic, indefinite gag orders. This means both that a
recipient cannot tell anyone what the section 215 order or NSL says,
and that the recipient can never even acknowledge that he or she
received a section 215 order or NSL. Now I understand there may very
well be a need to protect the confidentiality of these business records
orders and NSLs in many cases, particularly with regard to the identity
of the people whose records they seek. But I do
[[Page 1996]]
not understand why even the fact of their existence must be a secret,
forever, in every case. Even classified information can undergo
declassification procedures and ultimately become public, when
appropriate.
So I think that meaningful judicial review of these gag orders is
critically important. In fact, these automatic, permanent gag rules
very likely violate the first amendment. In litigation challenging the
gag rule in one of the national security letter statutes, two courts
have found first amendment violations because there is no
individualized evaluation of the need for secrecy.
So what does the reauthorization package do about this serious
problem? Under the conference report, as modified by the Sununu bill,
recipients would theoretically have the ability to challenge these gag
orders in court, but the standard for getting the gag orders overturned
would be virtually impossible to meet. It is not the meaningful
judicial review that the sponsors of the SAFE Act and so many others
have been calling for.
Let me start with the NSL provision of the conference report. In
order to prevail in challenging the NSL gag order, the recipient would
have to prove that any certification by the Government that disclosure
would harm national security or impair diplomatic relations was made in
bad faith.
There would be what many have called a ``conclusive presumption'' the
gag order stands--unless the recipient can prove that the Government
acted in bad faith. We all know that is not meaningful judicial review.
That is just the illusion of judicial review.
Does the White House deal address this problem? It does not. In fact,
it applies that same very troubling standard of review to judicial
review of section 215 gag orders.
The conference report that was rejected back in December did not
authorize judicial review of the gag order that comes with a section
215 order at all. That was a serious deficiency. But the White House
deal does not solve it. Far from it. Under the deal, there is judicial
review of section 215 gag orders, but subject to two limitations that
are very problematic. First, judicial review can only take place after
at least a year has passed. And second, it can only be successful if
the recipient of the section 215 order proves that the Government has
acted in bad faith, just as I have described with the NSL provision.
My amendment would eliminate the ``bad faith'' showing currently
required for overturning both section 215 and NSL gag orders. And it
would no longer require recipients of section 215 orders to wait a year
before they can challenge the accompanying gag orders.
That is not everything I would want to address with regard to this
issue. I am also concerned that the judicial review provisions allow
the Government to present its evidence and arguments to the court in
secret. But this amendment which I would like to offer is a good solid
start. At a time when the Government is asserting extraordinary powers
and seeking to exercise them without any oversight by the courts,
judicial review of Government assertions that secrecy is necessary more
essential than ever.
We cannot face the American people and claim that overreaching by the
government under the PATRIOT Act cannot happen because the courts have
the power to stop it--and then turn around and prevent the courts from
doing their job. The illusion of judicial review is almost worse that
no judicial review at all. In America, we cannot sanction kangaroo
courts where the deck is stacked against one party before the case is
even filed. Obviously, I hope that my colleagues will support this very
reasonable amendment, if we are given a chance to vote on it. I think
many would find it quite pervasive and particularly some of the people
who were part of the White House negotiations.
amendment to add nsl sunset
The third amendment I would like to offer, No. 2891, would add to
the conference report one additional 4-year sunset provision. It would
sunset the national security letter authorities that were expanded by
the PATRIOT Act. It would be simply add that sunset to the already
existing 4-year sunsets that are in the conference report with respect
to section 206, section 215, and the lone wolf provision.
National Security Letters, or NSLs, are finally starting to get the
attention they deserve. This authority was expanded by sections 358 and
505 of the PATRIOT Act. The issue of NSLs has flown under the radar for
years, even though many of us have been trying to bring more public
attention to it. I am gratified that we are finally talking about NSLs,
in large part due to a lengthy Washington Post story published last
year about these authorities.
What are NSLs, and why are they such a concern? Let me spend a little
time on this because it really is important.
National security letters are issued by the FBI to businesses to
obtain certain types of records. So they are similar to section 215
orders, but with one very critical difference. The Government does not
need to get any court approval whatsoever to issue them. It doesn't
have to go to the FISA court and make even the most minimal showing. It
simply issues the order signed by the special agent in charge of a
field office or an FBI headquarters official.
NSLs can only be used to obtain certain categories of business
records, While section 215 orders can be used to obtain ``any tangible
thing.'' But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad.
NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber
and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage;
credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been
expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like
jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.
Just as with section 215, the PATRIOT Act expanded the NSL
authorities to allow the Government to use them to obtain records of
people who are not suspected of being, or even of being connected to,
terrorists or spies. The Government need only certify that the
documents are either sought for or relevant to an authorized
intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that could be used
to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. And just as
with section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent
gag rule.
The conference report does nothing to fix the standard for issuing an
NSL. It leaves in place the breathtakingly broad relevance standard.
And the White House deal doesn't do anything about this either.
It is true that the Senate bill does not contain a sunset on the NSL
provision. But the Senate bill was passed before the Post brought so
much attention to this issue by reporting about the use of NSLs and the
difficulties that the gag rule poses for businesses that feel they are
being unfairly burdened by them. At the very least, I would think that
a sunset of the NSL authorities is justified to ensure that Congress
has the opportunity to take a close look at such a broad power. And let
me emphasize, the sunset in this amendment would only apply to the
expansions of NSL authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act, not to pre-
existing authorities.
I suspect that the NSL power is something that the administration is
zealously guarding because it is one area where there is almost no
judicial involvement or oversight. It is the last refuge for those who
want virtually unlimited Government power in intelligence
investigations. And that is why the Congress should be very concerned,
and very insistent on including a sunset of these expanded authorities.
A sunset is a reasonable step here. It helps Congress conduct oversight
of these authorities, and requires us to revisit them in 4 years.
Ideally we could go ahead and actually fix the NSL statutes now, but
sunsetting the expanded powers would at least be a step in the right
direction.
Adding this sunset does not change the law in any way. I cannot
imagine that adopting this amendment would blow up the White House
deal. This is a reasonable amendment, and again I
[[Page 1997]]
want my colleagues to have a chance to vote on it.
sneak and peek amendment
The fourth amendment that I have, No. 2894, concerns so-called
``sneak and peek'' searches, whereby the Government can secretly search
people's houses. The Senate bill included compromise language that was
acceptable to me and the other proponents of the SAFE Act. The
conference report departs from that compromise in one very significant
respect, and the White House deal doesn't address this at all. My
amendment would restore the key component of the Senate compromise by
requiring that subjects of sneak and peek searches be notified of the
search within 7 days, unless a judge grants an extension of that time
because there is a good reason to still keep the search secret. It
makes no other change to the conference report other than changing 30
days to 7 days.
Let me take a little time to put this issue in context and explain
why the difference between 30 days and 7 days is necessary to protect
an important constitutional right.
One of the most fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights is the
fourth amendment's guarantee that all citizens have the right to ``be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects'' against
``unreasonable searches and seizures.'' The idea that the Government
cannot enter our homes improperly is a bedrock principle for Americans,
and rightly so. The fourth amendment has a rich history and includes in
its ambit some very important requirements for searches. One is the
requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The
Constitution specifically requires that a warrant for a search be
issued only where there is probable cause and that the warrant
specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
Why does the Constitution require that particular description? Well,
for one thing, that description becomes a limit on what can be searched
or seized. If the magistrate approves a warrant to search someone's
home and the police show up at the person's business, that search is
not valid. If the warrant authorizes a search at a particular address,
and the police take it next door, they have no right to enter that
house. But here is the key. There is no opportunity to point out that
the warrant is inadequate unless that warrant is handed to someone at
the premises. If there is no one present to receive the warrant, and
the search must be carried out immediately, most warrants require that
they be left behind at the premises that were searched. Notice of the
search is part of the standard fourth amendment protection. It's what
gives effect to the Constitution's requirement of a warrant and a
particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or
items to be seized.
Over the years, the courts have faced claims by the Government that
the circumstances of a particular investigation require a search
without notifying the target prior to carrying out the search. In some
cases, giving notice would compromise the success of the search by
causing the suspect to flee or destroy evidence. The two leading court
decisions on so-called surreptitious entry, or what have come to be
known as ``sneak and peek'' searches, came to very similar conclusions.
They held that notice of criminal search warrants could be delayed, but
not omitted entirely. Both the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Villegas and
the Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Freitas held that a sneak and peek warrant
must provide that notice of the search will be given within 7 days,
unless extended by the court. Listen to what the Freitas court said
about such searches:
We take this position because surreptitious searches and
seizures of intangibles strike at the very heart of the
interests protected by the Fourth Amendment. The mere thought
of strangers walking through and visually examining the
center of our privacy interest, our home, arouses our passion
for freedom as does nothing else. That passion, the true
source of the Fourth Amendment, demands that surreptitious
entries be closely circumscribed.
So when defenders of the PATRIOT Act say that sneak and peek searches
were commonly approved by courts prior to the PATRIOT Act, they are
partially correct. Some courts permitted secret searches in very
limited circumstances, but they also recognized the need for prompt
notice after the search unless a reason to continue to delay notice was
demonstrated. And they specifically said that notice had to occur
within 7 days.
Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act didn't get this balance right. It
allowed notice to be delayed for any ``reasonable'' length of time.
What is ``reasonable''? Information provided by the administration
about the use of this provision since 2001 indicates that delays of
months at a time are now becoming commonplace. Those are hardly the
kind of delays that the courts had been allowing prior to the PATRIOT
Act.
I know that the conference report requirement of notice within 30
days was a compromise between the Senate and House provisions. And so,
the Senator from Pennsylvania and others will strongly oppose this
amendment, if I ever get to offer it. But let me point out that the
House passed the Otter amendment to completely eliminate the sneak and
peek provision by a wide bipartisan margin. I hardly think the House
will balk at this reasonable amendment that allows these sneak and peek
reviews but says that after 7 days you have to go back and get an
application for more time, or you have to give notice to the persons
whose house is intruded upon.
More importantly, here is the crucial question that no one has been
able to answer so far. Listen carefully to the arguments made by the
opponents of the amendment and see if they answer it this time, if we
ever get a chance to debate it. What possible rationale is there for
not requiring the Government to go back to a court within 7 days after
a sneak and peek search and demonstrate a need for continued secrecy?
What is the problem here? Why insist that the Government get 30 days of
secrecy, instead of 7 days, without getting an extension from the
court? Could it be that they think that the courts usually won't agree
that continued secrecy is needed after the search is conducted, so they
won't get the 90-day extension? If they have to go back to a court at
some point, why not go back after 7 days rather than 30? From the point
of view of the Government, I don't see the big deal.
It amazes me to hear Senators on the floor saying 7 days, 30 days.
What is the difference? This is about big government coming into your
home without your knowledge and saying it doesn't matter that you are
not given notice in 7 days as opposed to 30 days. I tell you that it
matters to people in my State, and it would matter to me. Government
shouldn't be in your house without notice except for very narrowly
identified circumstances that are consistent with the court decisions
that allowed the sneak-and-peek provisions in the first place. There is
a big difference between 1 week and 1 month when it comes to something
like the Government secretly coming into your home.
Suppose, for example, that the Government actually searched the wrong
house. As I mentioned, that is one of the reasons that notice is a
fourth amendment requirement. The innocent owner of the place that had
been searched might suspect that someone had broken in his house, and
he might be living in fear that someone has a key or some other way to
enter his house. The owner might wonder: When is the intruder going to
return? Do the locks have to be changed?
I implore my colleagues to look at this issue from the point of view
of an innocent person in their own home somewhere in their own home
State. Why would we make that person wait a month to get an explanation
rather than a week? Presumably, if the search revealed nothing, and
especially if the Government realized the mistake and does not intend
to apply for an extension, it will be no hardship other than a little
embarrassment for notice to be given within 7 days.
If, on the other hand, the search was successful and revealed illegal
activity and notifying the subject would compromise an ongoing
investigation, the Government should have no trouble at all getting a
90-day extension of the
[[Page 1998]]
search warrant. All they have to do is walk into the court and tell the
judge: Judge, we found something, and we are now keeping the place
under surveillance because there is ongoing criminal activity taking
place there, so give us more time before we serve the search warrant.
That is all you have to say. What is so hard about that? We all know
the judges will give them that. It is perfectly reasonable.
The Senate bill is already a compromise on this very controversial
provision. There is no good reason not to adopt the Senate's position.
I have pointed this out repeatedly and no one has ever come to the
Senate and come up with any explanation of why the Government cannot
come back to the court within 7 days of executing the search. The
Senate provision was what the courts required prior to the PATRIOT Act.
It worked fine then. It can work now.
Let me make one final point about sneak-and-peek warrants. Do not be
fooled for a minute that this power has anything to do with just
investigating terrorism or espionage. It does not. Section 213 is a
criminal provision that applies in any kind of criminal investigation.
In fact, most sneak-and-peek warrants are issued for drug
investigations. So why do I say they are not needed in terrorism
investigations? Because FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, can also apply to these investigations. FISA search warrants are
always executed in secret and never require notice--not in 7 days, not
in 30 days, not in 180 days, not ever. So if you do not want to give
notice of a search in a terrorism investigation, you can get a FISA
warrant. So any argument that adopting this amendment will interfere
with sensitive terrorism investigations is false. It is false, plain
and simple.
I look forward to hearing the response of the opponents on this
issue. I am beginning to lose faith I will ever hear from them. But I
also urge my colleagues to listen carefully: Will anyone come forward
and argue convincingly that 7 days, which the entire Senate approved in
July, is too short of a period of time? If not, we should adopt this
amendment.
I have had the opportunity the last few minutes to describe the four
remaining amendments I have filed. I have tried to explain them
clearly. These are provisions that are either consistent with or the
same as provisions that we approved in the Senate last year by
unanimous vote in the Judiciary Committee and in a unanimous consent
agreement in the Senate, which not one single Senator, including the
majority leader, objected to. Or they were central to the concerns
raised by so many Senators late last year. So these are obviously not
extreme ideas. They are very reasonable ideas.
The idea that right after the motion to proceed was approved the
majority leader would come and ``fill up the tree,'' which means
preventing me from offering these amendments on the Senate floor, is a
disservice to the Senate and it is a disservice to the American people.
The American people are concerned about this legislation. Whether
Members of this Senate want to admit it, there is a lot of concern
about this legislation. The goal should be to make sure that the law
enforcement in our country has the tools it needs to fight those who
are involved in terrorism or spying. But the goal should also be to
reassure the American people that we are not somehow trying to take
away the rights and freedoms and privacy of perfectly innocent
Americans. I would think all of us would want that to be the way this
legislation is perceived.
The act of preventing reasonable amendments, under a limited
timeframe, on provisions that have already been approved by the Senate
or that so many Senators have raised concerns about, is a guarantee of
causing anxiety and concern on the part of the American people that
something is wrong, that somehow the power grab by this administration
is out of control.
I implore my colleagues to join me in imploring the majority leader
to allow us to offer these reasonable amendments. That is not only the
right thing to do, it is our responsibility, as Members of this Senate.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor this
afternoon to speak for a few minutes about a specific provision, a
significant provision in the PATRIOT Act, the Combat Meth Act. This is
the most comprehensive antimethamphetamine legislation ever to be
introduced, much less passed, in the Senate. I am hopeful that it will
be passed in the Senate, of course, in this legislation and be sent to
the President's desk for his signature and then for implementation.
Methamphetamine is the worst drug threat that I have confronted in my
20 years in public life. When I say that, I hope it has some impression
on people. But when career law enforcement officers stand up in various
forums and say that, I hope people are afraid because this drug should
make us afraid. It is almost the ``perfect storm'' of drugs. It is
almost immediately addictive.
Most people who try methamphetamine get addicted the first time they
try it. There is no such thing as casual or recreational use of this
drug. It is very damaging to the person who uses it. It changes the
structure of the brain. It turns people who use it into more
aggressive-type individuals. Other drugs, as bad as they are, tend to
make people more passive. Methamphetamine makes them paranoid. I was
speaking with another Senator about this bill a few minutes ago over
the telephone, and he mentioned to me that in his State one woman who
had been a meth user told him that when she was high on meth, she
thought her 3-year-old was trying to kill her. This is not uncommon.
There is almost no known medical cure for it.
Our substance abuse counselors do a heroic job and people have gotten
off of methamphetamine, but I do want to state that we don't have a
methadone for methamphetamine. On top of all of these things, as bad as
they are by themselves, this is a drug which, to this point, has not
only been consumed and sold in our neighborhoods, as other drugs are,
it has been primarily, in many States, made in our own neighborhoods in
local labs.
The process for making methamphetamine is highly dangerous and toxic.
So in addition to all of the problems that go with addiction to deadly
drugs, we have, on top of that, a whole set of other problems that you
don't have with other drugs that are caused by the fact that
methamphetamine is actually made in our neighborhoods. Since the
process for making it is toxic, homes in which methamphetamine is made,
or in cars--because sometimes they make it in vans--they become toxic
waste dumps, huge environmental waste problems for local officials to
clean up. The fact that the drug is made in home labs creates a whole
new set of problems for kids. It is bad enough for a kid if they are
growing up in a home where drugs are being used, but if methamphetamine
is being cooked, the children become contaminated with toxins.
When they pull kids out of those environments, they have to
decontaminate them. It can cause permanent health problems. I had a St.
Louis County firefighting officer tell me that half of the vehicle
fires they were fighting were methamphetamine related. Those are
chemical fires. It has strained local budgets to the breaking point
because our counties, in addition to all of the other law enforcement
activity, have had to try to knock down, in some cases, hundreds of
labs in rural counties. In many cases, there are more rural counties
where they have 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 deputies trying to patrol the whole
county. It is the ``perfect storm'' of drugs.
The only silver lining in the cloud is the fact that in order to make
methamphetamine, you must have pseudo-
[[Page 1999]]
ephedrine. There are lots of ways to make it, but you need
pseudoephedrine for making it. For local cooks, the only way to get
pseudoephedrine is through cold medicines, antihistamines. This opened
up the possibility for stopping the local labs that take advantage of
this.
Before going any further--I only have a few minutes--I have to stop
and congratulate and pay tribute to Senator Feinstein. This bill that
we are going to pass--I hope and believe--within the next week or 2,
stands on the shoulders of the work that she has put in since the mid-
1990s, when she recognized the danger of pseudoephedrine. She and I are
the chief cosponsors of the measure in the Senate. She has been a
pleasure to work with, and her knowledge and expertise were important
in getting the bill this far. I think she can accurately regard this
bill as a personal triumph.
What does the legislation do? It is a comprehensive approach. There
are a number of things in it. It will put pseudoephedrine behind the
counters in pharmacies and stores. Legitimate consumers will still be
able to get it, but if you are buying medicines containing
pseudoephedrine without a prescription, you are going to have to show
an ID and sign a log book, and you won't be able to buy more than 3.6
grams of cold medicine at a time, and 9 grams in one month, which is
far more than the average use of any adult for cold medicine anyway.
The States that have experimented and have had measures such as this--
and Oklahoma is a leader, and Iowa has been a leader, and they deserve
credit. My home State of Missouri also has a law. The States that have
passed laws such as this have experienced anywhere from a 70- to an 80-
percent reduction in local labs.
Senator Feinstein and I and all the cosponsors of the bill are
hopeful that we will get the same results nationally, and we will
protect our people, moreover, from people crossing State lines to buy
the pseudoephedrine in jurisdictions that don't have this legislation.
We had a case in Missouri recently when a couple of meth cooks left
Franklin County, MO, in eastern Missouri, drove across Illinois into
Indiana and bought over 100 packages of cold medicine in Indiana, which
is about 140 to 150 grams of pseudoephedrine; they were in the process
of driving it back to Franklin County to support the local lab
structure there, when they were caught by the Indiana troopers. We are
grateful for those troopers.
That is what is going to go on until we have a national standard.
This bill provides a national standard that will be effective 30 days
after Presidential signature, and we can expect a 70- to 80-percent
reduction in local labs around the country as a result of this.
There are a number of other provisions in the Combat Meth Act that
are important, which will provide critical resources to local law
enforcement to do the cleanup. When you cook meth in a home, it becomes
a toxic waste dump, costing thousands of dollars to clean up. Thousands
of our deputies and sheriffs and police officers have had to become
trained in environmental cleanup because of this drug. We are going to
provide additional resources to help them. It will enhance enforcement
of meth trafficking by requiring additional reporting and certification
from countries that export large amounts of pseudoephedrine. It is
going to help local social services help the kids who are tragically
trapped in this environment. There is money for drug-endangered
children rapid response teams. We can help localities with that. We
provide extra tools to prosecute meth cooks and traffickers.
It is a comprehensive measure, but it is by no means all that we need
to do. This is a significant first step, and Senator Feinstein and I
believe it will at least substantially eliminate these labs, which then
will eliminate a whole set of enormous problems above and beyond the
problems caused by addiction to methamphetamine.
We are continuing to work with the State Department, the DEA, and
other agencies to try to interdict shipments of methamphetamine or
pseudoephedrine from abroad. We need to work with relevant committees
to come up with a new kind of methamphetamine technical assistance
center in Washington, which can help develop better protocols and
assistance to help those people who are on meth and want to get off of
it. I think it is an important part of the drug war to say to people:
Look, if you are addicted to a drug and you want help, we want to help
you. If what you want to do is cook this drug or make it and sell it to
our kids, we are going to stop you.
That is a piece that we need to work on, and I think we will work on
it. We have had assurances from the relevant Committee chairs and
ranking members that we can do that. We need to pass this bill now. I
am grateful--and I know Senator Feinstein is as well--to the leaders in
both parties for their bipartisan leadership and to the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Specter and Senator Leahy, for allowing us to put
this bill on the PATRIOT Act. We are grateful, also, to the Senate for
its unanimous support of this bill over the last few months.
Mr. President, we can do important things. We can do good things for
people, and we can do them the right way. That is how I look at the
Combat Meth Act. It is going to make a difference immediately in
neighborhoods and communities around the country, and it has been done
on a thoroughly bipartisan basis from the beginning, when Senator
Feinstein and I cosponsored it.
So I am pleased to be here to speak on behalf of the bill as a whole
and also on behalf of this specific provision. I hope we can move
expeditiously to final passage so that this important legislation can
be signed by the President and can become law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Talent). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise to speak about S. 2271, Senator
Sununu's bill to amend the PATRIOT Act. I commend Senator John Sununu
of New Hampshire for his extraordinary efforts on this bill.
For over 2 years he has been part of a bipartisan coalition, which I
have been happy to join him in, working to reform the PATRIOT Act. We
support the PATRIOT Act. We want it to include checks and balances to
protect the constitutional rights of Americans. In other words, we want
to improve the PATRIOT Act, not abandon it.
We came together across party lines for this effort because our
national security and constitutional rights are important to every
American. The PATRIOT Act should not be a political football.
When we launched this effort 2 years ago, the administration said
changing even one word in the PATRIOT Act was unacceptable. I have said
that when it comes to writing laws, with the exception of the Ten
Commandments which were handed down on stone tablets, there are no
perfect laws; we should always try to improve them.
Now, with Senator Sununu's bill and the PATRIOT Act conference
report, we will reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with significant reforms,
reforms we proposed as long as 2 years ago.
Let me say up front this outcome is far from perfect. There is still
a lot of work to be done.
But the administration was willing to let the PATRIOT Act expire
rather than accept some of the reforms we proposed. We will not let
that happen. The PATRIOT Act will not expire on our watch.
We are going to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with new checks and
balances that will help protect innocent Americans, but we will not
stop our fight for additional necessary reforms.
Let me take a few minutes to review the history of the PATRIOT Act.
During a time of national crisis, shortly after September 11, the
President came to us, asking Congress for new tools and new authority
to fight terrorism. While the ruins of the World Trade Center were
still smoldering, Congress responded on a bipartisan basis, with
[[Page 2000]]
dispatch, to give this administration what they wanted to be able to
fight terrorism. We passed the PATRIOT Act with overwhelming bipartisan
support.
We understood it was a unique moment in history. We had to act
quickly. Even then we were concerned that perhaps the PATRIOT Act went
too far. So we included sunsets so we could review this law after four
years and reflect on whether we had made the right decision.
There is now a widespread, bipartisan consensus that the PATRIOT Act
went too far in several specific areas. The vast majority of the
provisions of the PATRIOT Act are not controversial. But in a few
specific areas, there is broad agreement that the PATRIOT Act does not
include adequate checks and balances to protect the civil liberties of
innocent Americans.
As a result, Senator Larry Craig and I introduced the Security and
Freedom Enhancement Act, also known as the SAFE Act, to address these
specific areas of concern. We were joined by our colleagues Senators
Sununu, Feingold, Murkowski, and Salazar.
We crossed a broad and wide political divide to come together. This
is really the gathering of political odd fellows, but we all shared the
same goal: protecting constitutional freedoms while still protecting
the security of America.
The administration threatened to veto the SAFE Act if it ever came
before them. They claimed that it would ``eliminate'' some PATRIOT Act
powers. In fact, the SAFE Act would not repeal a single provision of
the PATRIOT Act. It would retain the expanded powers created by the
PATRIOT Act but place important limits on these powers.
The bill attracted an enormous amount of support from across the
political spectrum, from the most conservative to the most liberal
groups in Washington. I have never seen another bill like our SAFE Act
that attracted that kind of support.
It also was supported by the American Library Association because it
would prevent the Government from snooping through the library records
of innocent Americans.
I thank America's librarians for their efforts and tell them that it
paid off. They were not taking a hysterical position, as some in the
administration branded it. They were taking the right position--
standing up for the freedoms we hold dear in this country.
The conference report, as amended by the Sununu bill, includes a
number of checks and balances that are based on provisions of the SAFE
Act.
Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI is now permitted to obtain a John Doe
roving wiretap, a sweeping authority never before authorized by
Congress. A John Doe roving wiretap does not specify the person or
phone to be wiretapped. In other words, the FBI can obtain a wiretap
without telling a court whom they want to wiretap or where they want to
wiretap.
Like the SAFE Act, the PATRIOT Act conference report would continue
to allow roving wiretaps, but it places a reasonable limit on these so-
called John Doe roving wiretaps. In order to obtain a John Doe roving
wiretap, the Government would now be required to describe the specific
target of the wiretap to the judge who issues the wiretap order. This
will help protect innocent Americans.
Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can search your home without telling
you until some later date. These sneak-and-peek searches are not
limited to terrorism cases.
Like the SAFE Act, the conference report would require the Government
to notify a person who is subjected to a sneak-and-peek search within a
specific period of time, 30 days, rather than the undefined delay
currently permitted by the PATRIOT Act. The court could allow
additional delays of notice under compelling circumstances.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is often called the library records
provision. This section has been the focus of much of our efforts.
Under section 215, the FBI can obtain your library, medical,
financial, or gun records simply by claiming they are seeking the
records for a terrorism investigation. If the FBI makes this claim, the
court must issue an order. It has no ability to even question the FBI
about why they want to look into your sensitive personal information.
This type of court approval is nothing more than a rubberstamp.
Defenders of this section often compare to it a subpoena by a grand
jury in a criminal case, but it couldn't be more different. A person
who receives a grand jury subpoena can challenge it in court. A person
who receives a section 215 order cannot go to a judge to challenge the
order, even if he believes his rights have been violated.
Courts have held that it is unconstitutional to deny someone the
right to go to court to challenge an order like this.
Also, unlike a person who receives a grand jury subpoena, the
recipient of a section 215 gag order is subject to an automatic
permanent gag order.
And a person who receives a Section 215 order has no right to go to a
judge to challenge the gag order. Courts have held that gag orders that
cannot be challenged in court violate the first amendment.
Like the SAFE Act, the PATRIOT Act conference report, as amended by
Senator Sununu's bill, will place some reasonable checks on section
215.
In order to obtain a section 215 order, the Government will now have
to convince a judge that they have reasonable grounds to believe the
information they seek is relevant to a terrorism investigation. The
court will have the ability to question the FBI before issuing a
section 215 order.
This is an improvement, but I'm still concerned that the Government
is not required to show a connection to a suspected terrorist in order
to obtain section 215 order. I will speak more about this later.
The FBI will also be required to follow so-called minimization
procedures. These procedures should help to protect innocent Americans
by limiting the retention and dissemination of information obtained
with section 215 orders.
The recipient of section 215 order will now have the ability to
consult with an attorney.
Judicial oversight will also be enhanced. The recipient of a section
215 order will now have the right to challenge the order in court on
the same grounds as he could challenge a grand jury subpoena.
And, if Senator Sununu's bill passes, the recipient of a section 215
order will also have the right to challenge the gag order in court.
The PATRIOT Act expanded the Government's authority to use national
security letters which are also known as NSLs.
An NSL is a type of administrative subpoena. It is a document signed
by an FBI agent that requires businesses to disclose the sensitive
personal records of their customers.
An NSL does not require the approval of a judge or a grand jury. A
business that receives an NSL is subject to an automatic, permanent gag
order.
As with section 215 orders, a person cannot go to a judge to
challenge an NSL or the NSL's gag order, and he can't consult with an
attorney.
Like the SAFE Act, the PATRIOT Act conference report, as amended by
Senator Sununu's bill, will place some reasonable checks on NSLs.
Most important, the Sununu bill clarifies that the government cannot
issue a national security letter to a library that is functioning in
its traditional role, which includes providing computer terminals with
basic Internet access.
As with section 215 orders, the recipient of an NSL will now have the
right to consult with an attorney, and the right to challenge the NSL
or the NSL's gag order in court.
Like the SAFE Act, the conference report will also require public
reporting on the use of PATRIOT Act authorities, including the number
section 215 orders and NSLs issued by the Government.
Finally, the conference report includes a sunset on three provisions
of the law, including section 215, so Congress will again have an
opportunity to review the PATRIOT Act at the end of 2009.
[[Page 2001]]
As I said earlier, the conference report is not perfect. That's the
nature of a compromise.
I am especially concerned about the need for additional checks on
section 215 and national security letters.
The conference report would allow the Government to use section 215
orders or NSLs to obtain sensitive personal information without showing
some connection to a suspected terrorist. I fear that this could lead
to Government fishing expeditions that target innocent Americans.
In this country, you have the right to be left alone by the
Government unless you have done something to warrant scrutiny.
When the FBI is conducting a terrorism investigation they shouldn't
be able to snoop through your library, medical, or gun records unless
you have some connection to a suspected terrorist.
I am also very concerned about unnecessary limits on judicial review
of section 215 national security letter gag orders. The conference
report requires the court to accept the Government's claim that a gag
order should not be lifted, unless the court determines the Government
is acting in bad faith. This will make it difficult to get meaningful
judicial review of a gag order.
As I said earlier, our bipartisan coalition is going to keep working
for additional reforms to the PATRIOT Act.
In fact, Senator Craig, Senator Sununu and I plan to introduce an
updated version of the SAFE Act to address the problems that still
exist with the PATRIOT Act.
Our great country was founded by people who fled a government that
repressed their freedom in the name of security. The Founders wanted to
ensure that the United States Government would respect its citizens'
liberties, even during times of war. That's why there is no wartime
exception in the Constitution.
The 9/11 Commission said it best: The choice between security and
liberty is a false one. Our bipartisan coalition believes the PATRIOT
Act can be revised to better protect civil liberties. We believe it is
possible for Republicans and Democrats to come together to protect our
fundamental constitutional rights and give the Government the powers it
needs to fight terrorism. We believe we can be safe and free.
That's why we're going to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act with new checks
and balances. And that's why we'll keep fighting for additional reforms
to the PATRIOT Act.
Senators Craig, Sununu, and others have joined me in improving the
PATRIOT Act as originally written. There are still serious problems
with the PATRIOT Act, but I think this conference report, as amended by
Senator Sununu's bill, is a positive step forward. That is why I am
supporting it.
I promise, as they say, eternal vigilance, watching this
administration and every administration to make certain they don't go
too far. If they overstep, if they step into areas of privacy and
constitutional rights, I will speak out and do my best to change the
PATRIOT Act and make it a better law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The Senator from Iowa.
Report on Fda Approval Process for Vns
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address my fellow Senators, in
cooperation with my friend, Senator Baucus from Montana, on an issue
that our respective staffs have been working on together for a long
time. As chairman of the Finance Committee and as ranking member, we
are releasing today a report. We come to the floor with our duties in
mind to our constituents, to Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, and
to all Americans, to speak of urgent matters that should concern all of
us.
For more than 2 years, I have followed, with increasing concern, the
performance of the Food and Drug Administration. It seems as though
every week, if not every day, some new danger or risk is brought to
light about an FDA-approved drug or device. As chairman and ranking
member of the committee, Senator Baucus and I have a responsibility to
American taxpayers to ensure that Medicare and Medicaid programs pay
for medical products that have been appropriately approved in
accordance with all laws and regulations. Whether a product is safe,
whether a product is effective is not only a major public safety
concern; it also has important financial concerns.
We understand there is a human element to the Food and Drug
Administration's approval process. As a society, we recognize the
anguish of families who must rely on the development of innovative,
experimental, new medical products and treatments that may or may not
save the life of a loved one. Our Nation is lucky to have a private
marketplace that is incredibly resourceful and prolific in the field of
medicine. An integral role of the Food and Drug Administration is to
get these potentially lifesaving products to the market without undue
delay. We also have a Government-regulated system where patients have
the option to receive potentially lifesaving but unproven products by
participating voluntarily in clinical trials. In the end, however, our
Nation's well-founded medical system, despite its weaknesses, must
always rest on sound science.
The report we are releasing today focuses on the FDA's approval
process for medical devices. It is indisputable that all medical
devices carry risks, but Food and Drug Administration approval is still
considered the gold standard for safety and effectiveness. However, our
committee staff report raises legitimate questions about the FDA's
decision to approve a specific medical device. Last February, a number
of concerns were raised to our committee about an implantable device
called the vagus nerve stimulator or VNS, as I will refer to it. This
product, VNS, is manufactured by a company called Cyberonics. Senator
Baucus and I asked our committee staff to review the concerns that were
given to us and report their findings. This report has three major
findings which I will summarize briefly.
First, the Food and Drug Administration approved VNS for treatment-
resistant depression, a new indication for this surgically implanted
device. That was based upon a senior manager overruling more than 20
Food and Drug Administration scientists, medical, and safety officers,
as well as managers, who reviewed the data on VNS. The high-level
official approved the device despite a resolute conclusion by many at
the FDA that the device did not demonstrate a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness.
Second, the Food and Drug Administration has not made public the
level of internal dissent involved in this device approval, despite the
fact that the FDA has publicized differences of scientific opinion
within the agency when it has announced other controversial regulatory
decisions.
Third, the Food and Drug Administration has not ensured that the
public has all the accurate, science-based information on the safety
and effectiveness of the VNS for treatment-resistant depression. So
health care providers, relying on the FDA's information about this
device, may not be able to convey complete risk information to each
patient.
In the end, this senior Food and Drug Administration official not
only overruled more than 20 Food and Drug Administration employees, but
he stated to our committee staff that the public would not be made
aware of the scientific dissent over whether the device is reasonably
safe and effective. Until today, this official's detailed conclusions
remain confidential and unavailable to the public. We are releasing
these confidential conclusions in the appendix to the report. Some of
his own conclusions raise serious questions in our minds. For example,
I quote from his override memorandum:
I think it needs to be stated clearly and unambiguously
that [certain VNS data] failed to reach, or even come close
to reaching, statistical significance with respect to its
primary endpoint. I think that one has to conclude that,
based on [that] data, either the device has no effect, or, if
it does have an effect, that in order to measure that effect
a longer period of follow-up is required.
The events and circumstances surrounding the Food and Drug
Administration's review and approval of VNS
[[Page 2002]]
for treatment-resistant depression, which you will find detailed in
this report we are releasing, raises critical questions about the Food
and Drug Administration's so-called ``authoritative'' approval process.
I am greatly concerned that the Food and Drug Administration standard
for approval may not have been met here. If that is the case, it raises
further difficult questions, including whether Medicare and Medicaid
dollars should be used to pay for this device now.
Accordingly, we are forwarding the report to Secretary Leavitt,
Administrator McClellan, and Acting Commissioner von Eschenbach for
their consideration and comment. These are difficult matters that
deserve their full attention.
Before I close, I commend the commitment and dedication of the more
than 20 FDA scientists who tried to do the right thing in this case, as
they probably do in every case, and not stray from evidence-based
science. I applaud their effort on behalf of the American people.
I ask unanimous consent that the executive summary of the report be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
I. Executive Summary
The United States Senate Committee on Finance (Committee)
has exclusive jurisdiction over the Medicare and Medicaid
programs. Accordingly, the Committee has a responsibility to
the more than 80 million Americans who receive health care
coverage under Medicare and Medicaid to oversee the proper
administration of these programs, including the payment for
medical devices regulated by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). Given the rising health care costs in this country,
and more importantly, in the interest of public health and
safety, Medicare and Medicaid dollars should be spent on
drugs and devices that have been appropriately deemed safe
and effective for use by the FDA, in accordance with all laws
and regulations.
In February 2005, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) and
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee, initiated an inquiry into the FDA's handling of
Cyberonics, Inc.'s (Cyberonics) pre-market approval
application to add a new indication--treatment-resistant
depression (TRD)-to Cyberonics's Vagus Nerve Stimulation
(VNS) Therapy System, an implanted pulse generator. The
Chairman and Ranking Member initiated the inquiry in response
to concerns that were raised regarding Cyberonics's VNS
Therapy System for TRD. On July 15, 2005, the FDA approved
the device for TRD.
The investigative staff of the Committee reviewed documents
and information obtained and received from the FDA and
Cyberonics and found the following:
As the federal agency charged by Congress with ensuring
that devices are safe and effective, the FDA approved the VNS
Therapy System for TRD based upon a senior official
overruling the comprehensive scientific evaluation of more
than 20 FDA scientists, medical officers, and management
staff who reviewed Cyberonic's application over the course of
about 15 months. The official approved the device despite the
conclusion of the FDA reviewers that the data provided by
Cyberonics in support of its application for a new indication
did not demonstrate a reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness sufficient for approval of the device for TRD.
The FDA's formal conclusions on safety and effectiveness do
not disclose to doctors, patients or the general public the
scientific dissent within the FDA regarding the effectiveness
of the VNS Therapy System for TRD. The FDA has publicized
differences of scientific opinion within the agency when it
has announced other controversial regulatory decisions.
Throughout the review of Cyberonics's application, the team
of FDA scientists, medical officers, and management staff
involved recommended that the device not be approved for TRD.
However, at every stage of the review, the team was
instructed by the FDA official, who ultimately made the
decision to approve the device, to proceed with the next
stage of pre-market review.
The FDA has not ensured that the public has all of the
accurate, science-based information regarding the VNS Therapy
System for TRD it needs. Health care providers relying on the
FDA's public information on the safety and effectiveness of
this device may not be able to convey complete risk
information to their patients, because not all of the
relevant findings and conclusions regarding the VNS Therapy
System have been made available publicly.
The FDA has an important mission:
The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by
assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and
veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our
nation's food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit
radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the
public health by helping to speed innovations that make
medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more
affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-
based information they need to use medicines and foods to
improve their health.
As part of that mission, the FDA weighs the risks and
benefits of a product, in this case a medical device, to
determine if the product is reasonably safe and effective for
use.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the FDA's approval
process for the VNS Therapy System for TRD raise legitimate
questions about the FDA's decision to approve that device for
the treatment of TRD. While all implantable medical devices
carry risks, it is questionable whether or not the VNS
Therapy System for TRD met the agency's standard for safety
and effectiveness. The FDA's approval process requires a
comprehensive scientific evaluation of the product's benefits
and risks, including scientifically sound data supporting an
application for approval. Otherwise health care providers and
insurers as well as patients may question the integrity and
reliability of the FDA's assessment of the safety and
effectiveness of an approved product. In the case of VNS
Therapy for TRD, the FDA reviewers concluded that the data
limitations in Cyberonics's application could only be
addressed by conducting a new study prior to approval.
However, in the present case, instead of relying on the
comprehensive scientific evaluation of its scientists and
medical officers, it appears that the FDA lowered its
threshold for evidence of effectiveness. Contrary to the
recommendations of the FDA reviewers, the FDA approved the
VNS Therapy System for TRD and allowed Cyberonics to test its
device post-approval.
In addition, given the significant scientific dissent
within the FDA regarding the approval of the VNS Therapy
System for TRD, the FDA's lack of transparency with respect
to its review of the device is particularly troubling. The
FDA has limited the kind and quality of information publicly
available to patients and their doctors and deprived them of
information that may be relevant to their own risk-benefit
analysis. Patients and their doctors should have access to
all relevant findings and conclusions from the comprehensive
scientific evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the
VNS Therapy System for TRD to enable them to make fully
informed health care decisions.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor for my colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I join the chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Grassley, in commending our Finance Committee staff
on the report that we release today. This report deals with an
important public safety matter. The Food and Drug Administration
approval process has long been considered the gold standard in this
country. We rely on the FDA to review drugs and to review medical
devices. We rely on the FDA to tell us, by providing a seal of
approval, that drugs and devices are safe and that they are effective.
While all drugs and devices carry some risk, some are more risky than
others. But if the FDA determines a drug or device is safe to bring to
the market, Americans generally feel we can use the treatment without
undue concern. We Americans rely on the FDA to ensure that
manufacturers provide sufficient warnings of their products' risks so
that health care providers and patients can make informed health care
decisions.
The FDA has a complex approval process. A review team, including
scientists, doctors, and specialists, surveys all the data and makes a
recommendation regarding whether to approve a drug or device. The
review team then forwards its recommendation to management for review.
This process can be lengthy and intense.
Last year, concerns were brought to the Finance Committee regarding
how the review process had unfolded in the case of a device known as
the VNS Therapy system. Cyberonics makes the VNS system and was seeking
approval of the device for use in patients with treatment-resistant
depression. Chairman Grassley and I asked our committee staffs to look
into what had gone on.
The Finance Committee has the responsibility for the Medicare and
Medicaid Programs and the millions of Americans who receive health
care, including the use of safe and proper medical devices. Medicare
and Medicaid only pay for drugs and devices which
[[Page 2003]]
FDA has approved. So approval affects patients' budgets and the Federal
budget, as well.
In the case of the VNS Therapy system, the FDA review team was
comprised of more than a dozen FDA staff, including doctors,
scientists, safety officers, and statisticians. This review team
unanimously recommended against FDA approval. The team argued that the
data were insufficient to justify approval and that additional
premarket testing was in order. Three levels of management concurred
with the team's recommendation. The uppermost manager--the Director of
the Center for Devices--disagreed. With the stroke of a pen, he
overruled the analysis and conclusions of his staff, and he approved
the device. Now the FDA seal of approval has been attached to that VNS
Therapy system by one person, over the objections of several technical
experts who studied the device.
Without this report from the Finance Committee, the public would not
know that the team of scientists and doctors who reviewed this device
did not believe it should be approved. Without this report, there would
be no way for providers and patients to make fully informed health care
decisions because they would not be aware of all of the risks.
In short, we present this report out of a concern for public safety.
We believe that doctors and patients considering this device should
know that it was approved over the objection of a team of seasoned
scientists. It is important for the public to know what the FDA
scientists and doctors thought about the risk to which patients would
be exposed. The FDA has not made public any information regarding the
level of scientific dissent. So I am glad we have this report.
I am greatly concerned about this unusual turn of events at the FDA.
I hope this is not a sign of things to come. I hope that FDA approval
can remain the gold standard, and I hope Medicare and Medicaid can
continue to pay for FDA-approved products knowing they are safe.
I thank Chairman Grassley for his work. He has worked diligently, as
he always does, particularly when wrongs should be exposed. I
appreciate it when we can work together to improve the efficacy and
safety of American health care.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Baucus and Mr. Durbin pertaining to the
introduction of S. 2303 are located in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, at this moment, I wish to address the bill
pending before the Senate, and that is S. 2271.
I commend Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire, who is here in the
Chamber. Were it not for his hard work, we would not be here today. For
weeks, while many of us were doing other things back home, Senator
Sununu was working assiduously with the White House to find a way to
address some very vexing and challenging issues when it came to
modifying the PATRIOT Act. He has done an excellent job. I commend him
and tell him that I have enjoyed working with him over the last 2
years, where we have crossed party lines and tried to find ways to keep
the PATRIOT Act as a tool to make America safe but also at the same
time to protect our basic liberties.
Every step of the way, as we considered changes to the PATRIOT Act,
we have been supported by our Nation's librarians. These are wonderful
men and women--professionals--who are dedicated to the libraries across
America, which are such rich resources. I thank the librarians of
America, especially for their heroic efforts to amend the PATRIOT Act
in a responsible way and, equally as important, to defend our
Constitution.
I understand that section 5 of Senator Sununu's bill, S. 2271, will
help protect the privacy of Americans' library records. I ask the
indulgence of the Chair that I might enter into a colloquy with Senator
Sununu relative to section 5. I would like to ask Senator Sununu,
through the Chair, if he could explain to me what section 5 will
accomplish.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I am pleased to be on the floor today and
pleased to be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel on PATRIOT
reauthorization, thanks to the work of Senator Durbin and others. We
have legislation before us that will make the adjustments to the
PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report mentioned by the Senator
from Illinois. He specifically mentioned section 5 of our legislation.
As he began to describe, section 5 is intended to clarify current law
regarding the applicability of National Security Letters to libraries.
A National Security Letter is a type of administrative subpoena, a
powerful tool available to law enforcement officials, to get access to
documents. It is a document signed by an FBI agent that requires a
business to provide certain kinds of personal records on their
customers to the Government. These subpoenas are not approved by a
judge before being issued.
What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language that
states that libraries operating in their traditional functions: lending
books, providing access to digital books or periodicals in digital
format, and providing basic access to the Internet would not be subject
to a national security letter. There is no National Security Letter
statute existing in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to
obtain library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from
Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing National
Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it could be used to
allow the Government to treat libraries as they do communication
service providers such as a telephone company or a traditional Internet
service provider from whom consumers would go out and get their access
to the Internet and send and receive e-mail.
Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library providing basic
Internet access would not be subject to a national security letter,
simply by virtue of making that access available to the public.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. It is my
understanding that most public libraries, as he explained, offer
Internet access to the public. Because of this, they are concerned that
the Government might consider them to be communications service
providers similar to the traditional providers, such as AT&T, Verizon,
and AOL.
So if I understand it correctly, your bill clarifies that libraries,
simply because they provide basic Internet access, are not
communications service providers under the law and are not subject to
national security letters as a result. I ask the Senator from New
Hampshire, through the Chair, is that a correct conclusion?
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I absolutely believe that the conclusion
of the Senator from Illinois is correct. A library providing basic
Internet access would not be subject to a National Security Letter as a
result of that particular service and other services that are very much
in keeping with the traditional role of libraries.
Some have noted or may note that basic Internet access gives library
patrons the ability to send and receive e-mail by, for example,
accessing an Internet-based e-mail service. But in that case, it is the
Web site operator who is providing the communication service--the
Internet communication service provider itself--and not the library,
which is simply making available a computer with access to the
Internet.
So I certainly share the concerns of the Senator from Illinois and
others who have worked very long and hard on this and other provisions.
I think it does add clarity to the law as he described, in addition to
providing other improvements to the PATRIOT Act as they relate to civil
liberty protections. All along, this has been about providing law
enforcement with the tools that they need in their terrorism
investigations while, at the same time, balancing those powers with the
need to protect civil liberties. I think, in the legislation before us,
we have added
[[Page 2004]]
clarity to the law in giving access to the courts to object to section
215 gag orders and, of course, striking a very punitive provision
dealing with counsel and not forcing the recipient of a National
Security Letter to disclose the name of their attorney to the FBI.
All of these are improvements to the underlying legislation, and I
recognize that we had a overwhelming, bipartisan vote today to move
forward on this package. I anticipate that we will have similar
bipartisan votes in the days ahead to conclude work on this legislation
and get a much improved PATRIOT Act signed into law.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire, as well, because
that clarification is important. So if a library offers basic Internet
access, and within that access a patron can, for example, send and
receive e-mail by accessing an Internet-based e-mail service such as
Hotmail, for example, that does not mean the library is a
communications service provider and, therefore, it does not mean that a
library could be subject to these national security letters of
investigation.
By way of comparison, a gas station that has a pay phone isn't a
telephone company. So a library that has Internet access, where a
person can find an Internet e-mail service, is not a communications
service provider; therefore, it would not fall under the purview of the
NSL provision in 18 U.S.C. 2709. It is a critically important
distinction. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for making that
clear and for all of his good work on this bill.
Libraries are fundamental to America. They symbolize our access to
education. They are available to everyone, regardless of social or
economic status.
When we first introduced the SAFE Act, I went to the Chicago Public
Library to make the announcement. The library was established in 1873,
and for over 130 years it has given the people of the City of Chicago
the ability to read and learn and communicate. Here is what the mission
statement says at that public library:
We welcome and support all people and their enjoyment of
reading and pursuit of lifelong learning. We believe in the
freedom to read, to learn, and to discover.
We have to ensure, in the Senate and in Congress, in the bills that
we pass, including the PATRIOT Act, that this freedom to read, learn,
and discover is preserved for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Unfunded Mandates
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, the National Governors Association
meeting will be held in Washington during the week we return from
recess. That brings back some fond memories for me because I remember
the 8 years I served as Governor. Each time we came here, and the
highlight of it every year, was a dinner in the White House with the
Chief Executive of the United States and the chief executive of each of
our States.
While the Governors are in town, or as they are coming to town, I
want to take the opportunity to wave the lantern of federalism on a few
issues under discussion here in the Senate that will affect strong
State and local governments. I know the Presiding Officer cares deeply
about the same issues because his service as mayor made him aware of
those issues, just as I was as Governor.
During the year after I came to the Senate, when we were debating the
Internet tax issue, someone said in exasperation that I had appeared
not to have gotten over being a Governor. I hope that can be said on
the day I leave here, because most of our politics here in the Senate
is about how we resolve conflicts of principles. One of the most
important principles upon which our country is founded is the principle
of federalism, the idea that we are a big, diverse, complex country and
that we need strong States and strong cities and strong counties and
strong communities to absorb all of our differences. We are not a
small, homogeneous nation and our federalism is absolutely key to our
success as a country.
I have not gotten over being Governor. It causes me especially to
remember how the Republican majority came to power in 1994, a majority
of which I am proud to be a part. There was a Contract with America. I
wasn't part of the Congress at that time, but I remember it very well.
I remember one of the most important aspects of the Contract With
America was: no more unfunded Federal mandates. I remember also that a
large number of Republicans, along with Leader Gingrich, stood on the
Capitol steps and said: If we break our promise, throw us out.
Since I wish to make sure our majority doesn't get thrown out, I want
to remind all of us, including many who serve in the Senate, who voted
in 1995 to stop unfunded Federal mandates, this still is an important
part of our responsibilities here. I have three examples of that in our
discussions.
The Senate recently reaffirmed its commitment to the idea of avoiding
unfunded Federal mandates. I suppose I should stop for a moment and
explain what I mean by ``unfunded Federal mandate.'' That is a
Washington phrase we throw around. Here is the way I understand it.
Nothing used to make me madder as Governor--and I daresay it might also
be true of the Presiding Officer, who was a mayor--than for some
Senator or Congressman to come up with a big idea in Washington, pass
it into law, hold a press conference and take credit for it, and send
the bill to me to pay at the State capitol. Then the next thing you
know, that same politician would be back somewhere in Tennessee making
a big speech about local control. That is an unfunded Federal mandate--
when the big idea is here and the law is passed here and then the bill
is sent down to the county commissioner or to the mayor or to the
legislature or to the Governor and it is said: It was our idea but you
pay for it.
Ten years ago when Bob Dole was the majority leader, the first thing
the new Republican Congress did--it was called S. 1 at that time--was
to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. It created a new point of
order that could be raised against legislation imposing unfunded
Federal mandates on State and local governments. Everyone felt pretty
good about that because they said this new law will create a so-called
penalty flag that can be thrown when some Federal official came up with
a good idea, passed it into law, and sent the bill back to us in the
States. However, until recently that penalty flag has never been
thrown, not in the first 10 years of its existence. However, last year,
in our Budget Act, that point of order was given some more teeth. In
the budget resolution under which we operate today, an unfunded mandate
point of order raised in the Senate requires 60 votes in order to be
waived instead of the simple majority required under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act.
In October of last year, 2005, this 60-vote point of order was raised
for the first time in the Senate against two amendments to an
appropriations bill that would have raised the minimum wage. That would
have been an unfunded Federal mandate. This new provision was put into
the Budget Act by Senator Gregg, who had been the Governor of New
Hampshire. It had my support as well as that of a number of other
Senators. So I would like to call to the attention of my colleagues,
and the Governors as they are coming to town, three issues that are
currently under discussion here that raise the specter of unfunded
Federal mandates.
No. 1 is the taxation of Internet access issue. State and local
governments and members of the telecommunications industry, I believe,
need to come up with a solution to that question before the current
moratorium expires in 2007.
No. 2, the Federal Government needs to fully fund the implementation
of the so-called REAL ID Act, which we passed last year and which has
to do with border security.
[[Page 2005]]
No. 3, the Federal Communications Commission needs to exempt colleges
and universities from expensive new requirements that will require
colleges to modify their computer networks to facilitate surveillance,
which will have the effect of adding about $450 to every tuition bill
across this country.
Let's take those one by one. First is the Internet access tax
moratorium. My colleagues will remember that after we had a spirited
debate that went on for about a year and a half, President Bush signed
into law the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. There was a lot of
discussion, a lot of compromise, a lot of negotiation. What we were
arguing about was, on one hand we wanted to increase the availability
of high-speed Internet access to all Americans--that is a national
goal--but at the same time we didn't want to do harm to State and local
governments by taking away from them, as a part of our act, billions of
dollars upon which they relied for paying for schools, paying for
colleges, paying for other local services.
The bill we came out with at the end of 2004 was a good compromise
for several reasons. First, it was temporary, not permanent. It called
for a 4-year extension of the Internet access tax moratorium that was
already in place, so this one will expire in a year and a half.
Second, our agreement allowed States already collecting taxes on
Internet access to continue to do so. That was a part of the ``do no
harm'' theory that many of us championed.
Finally, it made clear that State and local governments could
continue to collect taxes on telephone services even if telephone calls
are made over the Internet, which they increasingly are.
In January of this year, the General Accounting Office released a
report interpreting the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. The GAO
interpreted the moratorium in a more limited way than what I, and I am
sure many of the other Senators, intended when we were drafting the
bill.
While the interpretation may suit me fine because it goes in the
direction I was arguing, the GAO interpretation may demonstrate very
clearly how important it is to deal with this complex issue in some
other way. That is why it needs to be resolved by representatives of
industry and by mayors and Governors working together to suggest to us
a path for the future. I understand the National Governors Association
has convened meetings with representatives of the telecommunications
industry and State and local governments. I hope all the parties will
take those negotiations seriously, reinvigorate those efforts, and
present us with a workable compromise we can then consider and enact.
Let me suggest again the principles that I believe should guide this
discussion. No. 1, separate the issue of taxation and legislation. Both
are very complex issues that can have serious implications for industry
and State and local governments and consumers, but they are not the
same effects. The goal should be simplicity. Regulations surely ought
to be streamlined to allow new technology to flourish. Voice over
Internet protocol or, in plain English, making telephone calls over the
Internet, is very different than plain old telephone service, and our
regulatory structure needs to recognize that and be welcoming to this
change. The goal in taxing the industry should also be simplicity and
certainty. For example, a company that operates in almost 11,000 State
and local jurisdictions, all of whom might tax telecommunications,
might have to file more than 55,000 tax returns a year. No one wants to
see that happen and that is far too big a burden for a large company,
much less a small startup company. But in searching for a solution, we
do not want to do harm to State and local governments.
The Senator from California, the Senator from Delaware, the Senator
from Ohio--many Senators pointed out that State and local governments
rely heavily today on telecommunications taxes as a part of their tax
base.
In our State of Tennessee, our Governor said it is a matter of $300
million or $400 million in State revenues. That would be as much money
as we would raise from instituting an income tax. It is a lot of money.
So we should not take an action in Washington, even for a good purpose,
that has the effect of undercutting State and local decisionmaking. My
point very simply is, deregulate voice over Internet protocol? Yes. We
absolutely should do it. But we must find a way to do it that doesn't
force States and local governments to provide subsidies to the
telephone companies. If the Federal Government wants to provide a
subsidy to the telephone companies, the Federal Government ought to pay
for it and not create an unfunded Federal mandate.
The second example of the possibility of an unfunded Federal mandate
came with the passage of the REAL ID legislation. We are about to enter
into a debate about immigration. We hear about it all the time. It is a
serious problem. We have 10 million to 15 million people living in our
country who are illegally here. That is not right for a country that
honors the rule of law, and we have to fix it. One way some have
suggested to fix it was the so-called REAL ID law. But the effect of
that was basically to turn driver's license examiners in Tennessee and
every other State into CIA agents by making State driver's licenses
national ID cards, and then forcing the States to pay for it.
I don't want to talk today about whether it is a good idea or a bad
idea to turn State driver's license employees into CIA agents, or
whether we should have a national ID card. The fact is the law says
that is what they are going to do and that is what we are going to
have. What I want to talk about today is how do we pay for that.
REAL ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislators,
will cost States $500 million over 5 years to implement. That is $100
million a year. This is not technically an unfunded mandate because the
law actually gives States a choice, but here is the choice: In
Minnesota or Tennessee or any other State, either upgrade your driver's
licenses according to the Federal rules, or your residents will not
have the ability to collect their Social Security check or board an
airplane. So that is not much of a choice.
All across the country, because of the REAL ID law, this is a new
responsibility for States and it is going to cost a half billion
dollars. Yet in fiscal year 2006, only $38 million was appropriated for
States to cover the cost of REAL ID. In fiscal year 2007, the
President's budget contains no funding for REAL ID, even though $33.1
billion is to be spent on homeland security.
I intend to work this year to see that REAL ID does not become an
unfunded mandate. If the Federal Government wants to create a national
ID card and they want to force the States to do it, then the Federal
Government ought to pay for it.
My final example: the Federal Communications Commission needs to make
sure that compliance with the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act, called CALEA, does not become an unfunded Federal
mandate on colleges and universities.
This CALEA law is a law that communications systems have to be
engineered in such a way as to make it easy for Federal agents to
subject phone calls to surveillance. In August of last year, the
Federal Communications Commission, recognizing that more and more
telephone calls are being made over the Internet, extended the
requirements of this law to colleges and university computer networks.
Implementing this order, according to technology experts, could cost
$5 billion to $6 billion, a figure that translates into a $450 increase
in annual tuition at most American universities.
The pages here who are listening to this are already looking forward
to tuition increases when they go to college that are high enough, and
they don't need another $450 on top of it.
Over the last several years, tuition college costs have increased
faster than inflation. Public school tuition jumped 10 percent in 1
year--in 2004. Even though Federal funding for colleges and university
has gone up, State funding has been fairly flat. So we have seen a big
increase in tuition, and this is another $450.
[[Page 2006]]
Given these concerns, even though the FCC might have a laudable
objective in making it easier to overhear or keep track of phone calls
in computer networks on college campuses, if the Federal Government
wants to order that, the Federal Government ought to pay for it.
I have written to the FCC urging it to exempt colleges and
universities from the requirement of August 2005 in order to allow time
for the development of an alternative to this $450 tuition increase.
I ask unanimous consent that my letter to the FCC on this issue be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2006.
Hon. Kevin Martin,
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Martin: I am writing to urge the Commission
to exempt private telecommunications networks operated by
colleges, universities, and research institutions from
coverage under the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA). Requiring these networks to come
into compliance with the provisions of CALEA, according to
the American Council on Education (ACE), could cost billions
of dollars for new equipment alone. These compliance costs
would constitute an enormous unfunded federal mandate and
would more than likely be passed on to students in the form
of increased college tuition.
According to the statute, private communications networks
are not subject to CALEA. The Commission's order states that
higher education networks ``appear to be private networks for
the purposes of CALEA.'' However, other language in the order
suggests that to the extent that these networks are connected
to the Internet they are subject to CALEA. In considering how
to resolve this apparent conflict, the Commission should take
into account the enormous costs to higher education that
would result if these private networks are not exempted.
According to technology experts employed by higher education
institutions, compliance costs could amount to billions of
dollars for new switches and routers. Additional costs would
be incurred for installation and the hiring and training of
staff to oversee the operation of the new equipment. Cash-
strapped schools--particularly state-funded, public schools--
would be faced with the choice of bearing these additional
costs or, according to ACE, increasing annual tuition by an
average of $450. Coming on the heels of ten years of college
costs increasing faster than inflation, such a tuition
increase would make it even more difficult for students to
take advantage of higher education in the United States.
At this time, no evidence has been presented that the
current practice with regard to wiretaps within college and
university networks has proven problematic. In 2003, only 12
of 1,442 state and federal wiretap orders involved computer
communications. According to the Association of
Communications Technology Professionals in Higher Education,
few, if any, of those wiretaps involved college and
university networks.
With the explosive growth of voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services in recent years, the number of wiretaps
involving computer communications is likely to increase.
However, before sending a multi-billion dollar bill to U.S.
college students, I would urge the Commission to consider an
exemption for these private networks. Such an exemption could
give colleges and universities more time to work with the FCC
to come up with a cost effective way to support law
enforcement efforts with regard to computer communications. I
appreciate your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Lamar Alexander.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, these are some of the big ideas in
Washington, all of which may be laudable. The idea of freeing high-
speed Internet from overregulation and subsidizing it, the idea of
national ID cards administered when you get your driver's license so
that we can do a better job of protecting our borders, and the idea of
reengineering computer systems on college campuses so that it will be
easier for us to fight the war against terrorists--all three may be
wonderful ideas, but all three amount to unfunded Federal mandates, if
they are done the wrong way.
I began my remarks by reminding all my colleagues--and especially our
colleagues on this side of the aisle, those in the majority--that the
Republican Party came to a majority in 1994 on a platform of no more
unfunded mandates. Republican leaders said: If we break our promise,
throw us out. I don't want us thrown out any more than I want any more
unfunded Federal mandates.
So my purpose today, as the Governors begin to come to town, is to
wave the lantern of federalism a little bit and raise a red flag to
remind my colleagues that there is now a 60-vote point of order for any
unfunded Federal mandates going through here and that I and others will
be watching carefully to make sure that we keep our promise.
This is a body in which we debate principles, and one of the most
important principles that we assert is the principle of federalism. It
does not always trump every other principle that comes up, but my
feeling is it has been too far down. I want to raise it up higher, and
I intend to use that 60-vote point of order to assert the principle of
federalism when unfunded Federal mandates appear on this floor.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak for a moment, first of all,
about the process we are going through and then about the substance of
a couple of amendments that our colleague from Wisconsin would have
liked to have introduced and have a vote on it with respect to the
PATRIOT Act.
Our constituents might be wondering why we are on the floor of the
Senate on this Thursday afternoon discussing the PATRIOT Act. After
all, haven't we passed it? Of course, the answer is, in a sense, we
have passed it now several times. But there are colleagues on the other
side of the aisle who have decided that rather than let the will of the
Senate be carried out with adoption of the PATRIOT Act so this bill can
be sent to the President so he can then sign it, thus reauthorizing the
act for another 4 years and giving the tools to fight terrorism to our
intelligence and law enforcement officials that, rather, they are going
to make us comply with all of the procedural technicalities which they
can throw in our way which accomplishes absolutely nothing but requires
us to take several more days to finish the process.
What can be gained from this? Nothing at all except that we waste
more time thus making it more likely that we will not have time to do
other business of the Senate, especially as it gets toward adjournment
later on in the year.
What we are seeing is taking something very important for the
protection of the American people--the PATRIOT Act--and using it for
what I believe are improper purposes and simply delay action in the
Senate so that we will have less time to act on other items.
There is no basis for delaying the PATRIOT Act. The votes are there
to go to the conference and have the House of Representatives approve
it, again, as it already has, so it can be sent to the President. There
are no amendments that are going to be brought up. We are going to have
a final vote on Tuesday--and that is it. But rather than being able to
accomplish that result today, we are having to waste all of this time.
What kind of a message does this send to our allies who are, first of
all, a little skittish about some of the news leaks about our
surveillance programs in which they participate, to some extent. We get
good information from our intelligence service, and I suspect they are
worried about the lack of control over our intelligence process. They
are not sure, I suspect, what to make of this debate about the PATRIOT
Act. They thought we had it resolved so they could work with it on the
basis of the laws they understood. They are not sure.
I often wonder what Osama bin Laden is thinking. I suspect he is not
getting live coverage, but he is probably getting reports somehow or
other, and he must be shaking his head: I thought I was pretty clear, I
am really
[[Page 2007]]
making threats against these guys, and they are playing around. They
are not taking my threats seriously.
I, for one, am taking his threats very seriously--and so does the
Director of the CIA and so does Ambassador Negroponte.
Our intelligence officials and the people we have asked to do this
job for us take this threat dead serious. They have asked the Congress
to give them the tools they need to fight this terrorist threat. Part
of the tool is this PATRIOT Act, which has now been revised and
reformed and amended and gone over again, and, finally, there are now
three more changes to it--and it is done.
We have the ability now to simply pass it on to the President so he
can sign it, and for 4 more years everybody knows exactly what we have
to work with here.
Remember the 9/11 Commission following the tragedy of September 11,
when we asked this commission to analyze what we could have done better
and what went wrong, part of what they said was wrong was that there
was confusion in our law enforcement intelligence community about what
they could and should do.
In fact, legal interpretations differed so much they felt there was a
wall that separated the intelligence agencies and the law enforcement
agencies from even talking to each other.
One of the things the PATRIOT Act does is makes clear that there is
no such wall; that at least our law enforcement and intelligence folks
can talk to each other about these terrorists.
It is most distressing that we can't simply get this bill passed on
to the President so that everybody knows we have it reauthorized again
for another 4 years.
As I said, if there were any rationale behind this, other than simply
delaying so that we can't do other business, you might have something
to bite your teeth into and debate on the floor. But in truth, this
thing, when it passes, is going to be overwhelming. I doubt that we
will have a handful of votes against it. In fact, we may have less than
a handful, which would be 5 votes against this when we vote on it. But
I thought at least it would be interesting to see what some of the
objectives posed by some of the most vociferous critics of the PATRIOT
Act are, what those criticisms are, to examine them so we can see
exactly what the complaints are about, about what the President has
called an essential tool in the war on terrorism.
When you look at the suggested amend-
ments--again, amendments which we are not going to be voting on because
we have already been through that process three times and that has
thankfully come to an end--I wanted to examine a couple of amendments
our colleague from Wisconsin would have offered to illustrate it is not
something we should be wasting our time on. One of them has to do with
something that has been in existence for 40 years, called national
security letters. It is essentially a subpoena for records that is just
like a grand jury subpoena.
The county attorney or the district attorney goes to the grand jury
and says: I think we need the following documents in order to see
whether we can make our case. They write up this piece of paper, it is
delivered, say, to a hotel, and it asks for the business records: We
want to know everyone who checked in and out of the hotel for the last
3 days because we think maybe this person we are after may have checked
into this hotel--that would verify his presence on the night of the
murder, or whatever the case--so the hotel gives them the records.
There is no expectation of privacy in the records. When the hotel
clerk says: Here, sign in--and he turns it over, you can see exactly
everyone else who has signed into the hotel. There is nothing private
about it.
These national security letters have been used for many different
government agencies. If you are investigated for Medicare fraud, for
example, your doctor might get one of these security letters asking for
information.
Back when the security letters were authorized, we did not have
terrorism. Now we have terrorism in a big way in the last decade or
dozen years. Law enforcement authorities say: You know that process we
have of getting business records through the security letters is a good
process, and we ought to apply that to terrorism, too. Why not? If we
can investigate drug dealers or bank fraud criminals or people like
that with this kind of a subpoena for records, why shouldn't we be able
to do it for terrorists? That is a much bigger deal.
Now for the first time our colleagues are saying maybe we should have
a court process to review this. That process exists in a totally
different context. If we want a much more formal procedure, there is
something called a Section 215 warrant. That is court supervised. This
is the sort of light version. If it is contested, of course, you have
to go to court. Most of the time the records are easily given because
they are not private records.
For the first time in the context of terrorism our colleagues are
saying this is an invasion of privacy and we need a court to review
this. My point is, it must be very confusing to law enforcement to have
Congress debating something like this when there is no rationale for
changing the law of 40 years that has been applied in everyday context
throughout the country, and all of a sudden where we would want the
most streamlined procedure, where we would care most about the cops,
where we need speed because we do not know whether an attack is
imminent, for example, in the situation that is much more serious, now
we are saying we need to throw some roadblocks in the way of the law
enforcement tool. It does not make sense.
I thought I would take two of the amendments--we are not going to be
debating the amendments, but this is the kind of thing raised as an
objection to the PATRIOT Act--the kind of amendments that would be
offered. It shows how unnecessary this approach is.
Let me note one other thing. There have been a lot of unnecessary
amendments attached to the PATRIOT Act. It is getting to the point
where I wonder whether we can really do the job, our law enforcement
community can really do the job that our constituents want it to do.
For example, by my count, the final bill that we will send to the
President requires 12 different reports or audits of our Nation's
antiterror investigators. Obviously, oversight is important. Reports to
the Congress are important. But it seems to me this is overkill. Our
intelligence agencies should be devoting their resources primarily to
investigating suspected terrorists, not to investigating each other.
All of these reports simply add to the burden they already have.
And we wonder sometimes after the fact, when a September 11
commission reports that they were too burdened to do their job, how
that could possibly be. Congress sometimes can be part of the problem
as well as part of the solution.
All of the changes have been negotiated and renegotiated, as I said.
At some point, we need to complete the bill. There are other amendments
I would like to add, but I had my chance and this is not the time to be
reopening the process for yet another round of amendments. It seems to
me we ought to be moving on.
I will mention this one amendment. It is actually an amendment
numbered 2893 that would have been offered by the Senator from
Wisconsin. This amendment would strip away the protections for
classified information about suspected terrorists and terrorist
organizations in the manner I discussed a moment ago. The amendment not
only risks revealing our level of knowledge of our data collection
methods to those who would do us harm, but it also threatens to
undermine our relations with allies who supply us with a lot of
information in this war or terror. They do not do that so it can be
given out to the public. The purpose of classification is to see that
the information remains secret. But this particular amendment would
allow classified information to be compromised during the challenge to
a nondisclosure
[[Page 2008]]
order for national security letters or a FISA business records order.
FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It serves no
substantial interest but, as I said, can be very damaging to our
national security.
Let me put this in perspective. A section 215 order--which I
discussed before, which is a FISA order and is always accompanied by a
nondisclosure requirement--already is judicially reviewed, as I said.
There has to be a court action on it before it can be issued. And under
the amendment that was offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, a
third party recipient of a section 215 order also would be able to have
the courts review the section 215 order after its issue, which is a
second round of review. We have added that in. To my mind this is
redundant and unnecessary, but that has been added. That is one of
those compromises to enable us to get to this point.
Let me put this issue in perspective. A section 215 order, which
provides that second round of review, is much different than a national
security letter which, as I said earlier, has been around since the
1970s. They have always been accompanied by a nondisclosure
requirement. In other words, when the third party is served with this
subpoena that says: Would you please give us these records, you are not
supposed to tell the person that a law enforcement entity is seeking
the records. Obviously, you do not want to tip them off that you are
investigating them. There is a nondisclosure requirement. You cannot
tell the person that the Government has come asking for the records.
That requirement has always been automatic, and there has never been
any provision for any judicial review of that nondisclosure
requirement.
The national security letters, like virtually all other subpoenas,
are also not judicially reviewed before they are issued. The conference
report, for the first time in the history of these national security
letters, authorizes judicial review of the need for the nondisclosure
of the subpoenas. That was another compromise that was added. You not
only have it in the formal section 215 requirement but also in the less
formal security letter process. It allows the recipient to challenge
the nondisclosure requirement, and it ensures the automatic nature of
the nondisclosure requirement.
Now the FBI will have to evaluate each national security letter. The
nondisclosure of the NSL and the nondisclosure requirement can only
apply if the FBI certifies that the public disclosure of the service of
the NSL will harm national security. In other words, before it is
issued, the FBI has got to have a certification that the recipient of
the letter may not disclose it because to do so would be to harm
national security. That certification is based upon a very solemn
judgment exercised by the Attorney General.
Critics condemn this provision as giving only the illusion of
judicial review. When they say that, it bears mention that what they
are condemning is language that is being added to a statute that never
provided any kind of judicial review before that. For over a quarter of
a century there has been none whatsoever, and yet there is a complaint
this judicial review is not good enough. The sponsor of the amendment
argues that the standard employed for the review of the security letter
and the section 215 nondisclosure requirement is too high and can never
be met.
It is high, but it is very high for a reason. If a challenge is made,
the FBI needs to reevaluate whether there is a continued need for the
disclosure. But if the FBI certifies that disclosure of the NSL would
harm national security, that reclassification is conclusive. Now, when
you say ``conclusive,'' that is a very high standard.
In this respect, the proponents of the amendment are correct; that is
a high standard. But it is the only way the determination can work.
Think about it for a moment. Only the FBI, the people who are
investigating the matter, not individual district judges, are in a
position to determine when the disclosure of classified information
would harm national security. Obviously, that is not something that a
Federal district judge has any expertise on. You have to have,
literally, a trial to determine whether that proposition were true in
each particular case.
The reason nondisclosure might be necessary should be obvious. If a
suspected terrorist or his associates, for example, are funneling money
through a particular bank in a city, and if that bank were to make
public the fact that it had received a security letter requesting
records in a terrorism investigation, that disclosure would easily tip
off the terrorists and their associates that they are under
investigation. You do not want to do that.
It is also important that the FBI make the final determination
whether the disclosure would harm national security. And only the
agents in charge of these counterterrorism investigations will be able
to evaluate how the disclosure of a particular piece of information
could potentially, for example, reveal sources and methods of
intelligence and who, therefore, might be tipped off as a result of the
disclosure.
We are all aware of this current controversy regarding the briefing
of select members of the Intelligence Committee over a particular
surveillance activity involving international communications with
members of al-Qaida or people suspected of being with al-Qaida. The
reason not every member of the Intelligence Committee is briefed is
because of what we would call ``sources'' in this case. Methods of
surveillance are so secret, so classified, that it has been determined
that even some members of the Intelligence Committee should not be
fully briefed on exactly how this methodology works.
So you can imagine when the FBI has sources of intelligence to
protect or certain methods of intelligence gathering to protect, the
last thing you want is for a judge to decide that those should simply
be made public.
That is why this conclusive presumption is in the law, why it is so
important, and why we cannot have this section amended to open that to
public disclosure of that sensitive information. Yet this amendment
numbered 2893 would allow every one of the 800 Federal district judges
in the country, in fact, to be their own director of national
intelligence and decide for themselves whether exposing classified
information would inappropriately reveal the sources and methods I
discussed, whether that might tip off terrorists to what we already
know about them, and whether it would harm relations with our allies
who, perhaps, have provided us with the information. Obviously, that
cannot be allowed. We cannot expect our allies in the war on terror to
cooperate with us if we treat this sensitive information that they
provide to us with anything other than the most careful consideration.
And we cannot expect our agents to be successful in detecting terrorist
plots if every step of the way, every time they gather information
through either a security letter or the more formal section 215
process, they can be sued and forced to divulge classified information
about whom and where they are looking and what methods they are using.
This amendment would do serious harm to U.S. national security. And
to what end? What powerful privacy interest or civil rights interest
dictates a third party asked to produce business records in its
possession must be allowed to disclose the existence of the
investigation or must be given access to other classified information
in order to plead that matter before the judge?
When the FBI is investigating organized crime in the United States
and grand juries compel testimony or require the production of records,
we do not let those witnesses or the parties holding the records
publicize the fact that they had been subpoenaed or publicize that
there was an ongoing investigation. We recognize that secrecy is
important in an organized crime investigation and it outweighs any
interest that third parties might have in talking about the
investigation.
Why wouldn't we recognize the same realities in a terrorism
investigation, an area where the safety and security of the American
people are much higher? That is the kind of amendment that would be
offered. Thankfully, as I said,
[[Page 2009]]
we decided to go forward with the process and not have any more
amendments and have the vote next week which will enable us to send
this bill to the President.
My point in discussing this is to demonstrate there is no reason to
have further debate or amendments, and we could have gotten done this
afternoon and known we had reauthorized the act for another 4 years.
The only other amendment I want to discuss is amendment No. 2892,
blocking these section 215 orders even where relevance is shown. This
amendment is highly problematic because it would bar antiterrorism
investigators from obtaining some third party business records even
where they can persuade a court that those records are relevant to a
legitimate antiterrorism investigation. We all know the term
``relevance.'' It is a term that every court uses. It is the term for
these kinds of orders that are used in every other situation in the
country. Yet the author of the amendment argues that relevance is too
low a standard for allowing investigators to subpoena records.
Consider the context. The relevance standard is exactly the standard
employed for the issuance of discovery orders in civil litigation,
grand jury subpoenas in a criminal investigation, and for each and
every one of the 335 different administrative subpoenas currently
authorized by the United States Code. These national security letters
have existed since the 1970s, and they have always employed a relevance
standard.
Why now that we are faced with a terrorism threat, and we decide this
same investigative tool should be available to investigate terrorists
would we impose a higher standard to get the information? If anything,
you would be talking about applying a lower standard because of the
importance of the threat and the fact that sometimes speed is of the
essence.
As the Department of Justice Office of Legal Policy recently noted in
a published report--I want to quote this--``Congress has granted some
form of administrative subpoena authority to most Federal agencies,
with many agencies holding several such authorities.'' The Justice
Department ``identified approximately 335 existing administrative
subpoena authorities held by various executive-branch entities under
current law.''
As I said, 215 orders already are harder to get than regular
subpoenas, even though the subject matter would suggest that perhaps
they ought to be easier to get. In the case of these section 215
orders, the law requires that the FBI first seek a determination of
relevance from a judge, which makes it harder to get a 215 order than
it is to get any other grand jury subpoena or virtually any other kind
of administrative subpoena because none of them require preapproval
from a judge. Even a grand jury subpoena is not approved or reviewed by
a judge or the grand jury before it is issued. It is issued directly by
the prosecutor.
It is interesting; there was a recent online article in National
Review Online by Ramesh Ponnuru, a very good writer and student of this
issue, who made the following comments. This is a quotation. He noted
that critics say:
that investigators shouldn't be able to get business records
merely by convincing a judge that the records are
``relevant'' to an ongoing terrorism investigation. Yet that
relevance standard, from Section 215 of the law, is the exact
same standard employed for discovery orders in civil
litigation, for grand-jury subpoenas in criminal
investigation, and for each of the 335 different
administrative subpoenas currently authorized by the U.S.
Code. Getting a 215 order is harder than getting a grand-jury
subpoena or almost any kind of administrative subpoena, since
judges don't have to review the latter [before they are
issued].
Again, this is the current law. So even without an amendment, which
would make it even more difficult, the law we are talking about with
regard to terrorism investigations makes it more difficult in a
terrorism investigation to get a subpoena than in any other situation.
Yet the proponents of this amendment would make it even more difficult
than that.
Now, let's imagine what this means. Here is a scenario:
Let's imagine that intelligence agents have discovered that
suspected Al Qaida agent Mohammed Atta is in the United
States and that he has hired another individual to work for
him. Under the Patriot Act legislation being considered now,
it will be easier for the federal government to subpoena
records in order to make sure that Atta is paying that
individual the minimum wage than it will be to obtain records
to find out if Atta is using him to engage in international
terrorism.
That is not right. I was going to say something else. I will just say
that is not right. This is the existing law. This is before we would
make it even more difficult with the amendment I discussed a minute
ago.
So without making further arguments on this point, I think you can
see that we have girded this PATRIOT Act with levels of civil rights
protection and privacy rights protection that we do not have in any
other part of the code, even though the need for speed and the need for
agility to get after these terrorists is, I would argue, a much more
important matter than investigating Medicare fraud or bank fraud or
money laundering of whatever it might be.
We have not imposed all of those civil rights or privacy protections
in those sections of the code, but here we are going to add them and
make it even more difficult for the FBI and other law enforcement and
our intelligence agencies to do the job we want them to do. Then, of
course, if something happens, we will haul them before Congress and
say: Why couldn't you get your job done? And when they say: Well, the
statute was a little tough for us to comply with, we will say: That
will be no excuse.
So we need to be very careful what we do in considering further
amendments to the law.
Mr. President, let me conclude by saying that the other amendments
that would have been offered are in the same vein, making it
unnecessarily difficult for our intelligence agents and our law
enforcement officers to do the job we have asked them to do.
When my colleagues and I have had before us on the floor of the
Senate amendments to add armor to humvees or to have better bulletproof
vests or to have other kinds of equipment or tools for them to carry
out the missions we ask them to perform when we send them into harm's
way, we do not hesitate long to give our military everything they need
because we want them to succeed in their mission. We do not want them
to be left vulnerable in any way. Why? Because we want to be protected
and we want them to be protected.
Yet when it comes to giving our intelligence agencies the tools to
fight terrorism, we shirk back and say: Well, we are going to do it,
but first we are going to add several layers of additional requirements
to make it more difficult for you to do your job.
In the law and in this fight against terrorism, we are generally not
fighting with airplanes and ships and the like. This is a different
kind of war. This is a war against a very secretive enemy all over the
globe. There is really only one way to get to this enemy, and that is
with good intelligence to find out who they are, where they are, and
what they are up to.
So the equipment we are giving to them, the tools for them to fight
terror are these provisions of the PATRIOT Act and FISA and the other
activities that have been discussed. This is what enables them to
perform their missions. We cannot load these tools up with so many
restrictions and legal loopholes that it is impossible for them to do
their job. If we expect them to be able to protect us, we have to write
these laws in clear, understandable, fair, and effective ways,
certainly protecting our civil rights. But I think I have demonstrated
we have done that.
If you do not need all these protections if you are investigating
bank fraud, then I would say, as the lawyers say: A fortiori. They are
less necessary in an investigation of terrorism, where speed may be
required, where secrecy is absolutely critical, and therefore where the
kind of protections that have been offered are very problematic to
these folks doing their job.
So the bottom line is this: We have a good act, the PATRIOT Act. It
is going
[[Page 2010]]
to be reauthorized for another 4 years. We have already added numerous
protections of civil liberties to it. It is, therefore, quite
appropriate that the time for amendments has come to an end, that we
not have any more of these amendments brought before us--I think I have
demonstrated the harm those amendments would do--that we get on to the
job of getting this legislation reauthorized so we can say to our
constituencies we were able to provide the tools to fight terrorism
that will protect them and their families.
That is our charge. There is only so much we as legislators can do,
but this is something we can do, and we need to get about doing it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
(The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 2305
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I am sorry we are now facing another
filibuster and delay of efforts to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. We have
taken 3 days this week to deal with legislation Senator Sununu
introduced to assuage concerns he and others had about the bill.
Senator Sununu's proposed bill guaranteed that at least four more
Members of the Senate were on board to completely support a cloture
vote on and final passage of the Conference Report. It certainly
brought on board all the Republicans who expressed concern over the
bill. But we are still going through the process of grinding down
certain provisions to get an up-or-down vote on reauthorizing the
PATRIOT Act. That is all we are asking for, an up-or-down vote, to
determine whether we want to extend the provisions of the PATRIOT Act.
That is being held up. We have many other things that are important for
us to do for our country, but we have been forced to spend an
extraordinary amount of time on this.
If you look around, you will see that people are not engaging the
issue. The complaints--Senator Kyl talked about some of them--are
insubstantial. They are not the kind of serious concerns people have
portrayed them to be. The act itself provides quite a number of
provisions that simply allow investigators to use the same tactics to
investigate terrorists, people who want to kill us, that they use to
investigate wage-and-hour disputes, to investigate your taxes, to
investigate drug dealers and pharmacists and drug dispensers and
doctors. It is important that investigators continue to have these
tools at their disposal.
It is unfortunate we have had this obstruction. We have seen a
pattern of it, frankly. The more time we spend on delaying these kinds
of provisions, means that at the end of the year there will be a
jammed-up calendar. We will have appropriations bills that have to
pass, and other bills that need to pass. All the days we had at the
beginning of the year have now been frittered away on rearguing things
that we have argued and settled before.
I don't mind debate. Senator Feingold has come down and spent a
number of hours expressing his concerns. I respect him. He is a most
articulate opponent of the act. He has certainly studied the act. We
don't agree, but I respect that. But we went through all this in
December for days on the floor of the Senate, debating these same
issues. With Senator Sununu's compromise and suggestions for
improvement that have been accepted, the basis for many of those
complaints have gone away. Now we are taking another big, long time to
reargue settled issues. I believe the majority leader, Senator Frist,
is justified in his frustration that something that has been debated
completely and fully and that now has a clear majority of Senators
prepared to support it is being held up, delaying all the processes of
the Senate.
Let's talk about the merits of the bill and how the law deals with
certain issues for which we have heard objections. One of the biggest
items and perhaps the biggest issue that Senator Feingold and opponents
have raised has been the delayed search warrants. The bill that came
out of the Senate was passed by unanimous consent. We moved the PATRIOT
Act reauthorization out of the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote.
We moved it out of the Senate by a unanimous vote. The House passed a
bill by an overwhelming majority. The House and the Senate bills went
to conference, and they discussed it. We made concessions on each side.
Senator Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a man who
certainly has been respectful to civil liberties, has stated that he
believes about 80 percent of the compromise that was reached favored
the Senate version, not the House version. The House conceded on more
issues than the Senate. They gave more than the Senate did. The bill
that came out of conference was very close to the Senate bill. Then we
hit the Senate floor, after having a unanimous vote, and now we have a
filibuster. It is, indeed, frustrating.
Let me talk about the delayed search warrants. What the PATRIOT Act
does is to codify, to make a part of the law of the country, provisions
for delayed notice search warrants. Delayed notice search warrants are
not, as some have said in the Senate, an unusual procedure. Delayed
notice search warrants have been in use for decades, long before we
passed the PATRIOT Act. This act did not create any new authority or
close any gap because there was no gap to close. The PATRIOT Act simply
created a nationally uniform process and standard for obtaining a
delayed notice search warrant.
Some have said: The court said 7 days is what you ought to delay
notice. That is the maximum time you should delay notice. That is not
quite accurate. The Ninth Circuit, the most liberal circuit in the
United States, the most reversed circuit in the United States by the
Supreme Court, has held in one case that delayed notice search warrants
that explicitly provided for notice within a reasonable period of time
by the judge issuing the warrant pass constitutional muster under the
fourth amendment. They said a delayed notice search warrant does pass
constitutional muster. Then they went on to ask, though, what is a
reasonable period of time? They defined it as 7 days, absent a strong
showing of necessity. That is what the Ninth Circuit said, the most
liberal circuit in America. But other courts, such as the Fourth
Circuit, have upheld much longer initial delays as constitutional. For
example, the Fourth Circuit has determined that a 45 day period for
delayed notice is constitutional. The Fourth Circuit did not even
suggest that 45 days was the upper limit. They simply concluded it was
reasonable in those circumstances. The truth is, there is no standard
set under current law by the courts that would mandate a specific
period of time for a delayed notice.
When the House of Representatives passed its version of PATRIOT Act
reauthorization, it called for 180 day delayed notification period. The
vote in the House was 257 to 171, a bipartisan vote of Republicans and
Democrats, to approve overwhelmingly a delay of 180 days. The bill we
sent to conference had a 7 day delayed notification provision in it.
When the conference reported the bill, it tilted much closer to the
Senate bill. It came out with 30 days, less than the 45 that the Fourth
Circuit had approved, more than the Ninth Circuit had said. And it was
a perfectly logical process we went through.
About the importance of delayed search warrants in terrorist
investigations, I can't express how strongly I believe that this has
the potential to be the most significant provision in our legislation,
the PATRIOT Act. Time and time again, Federal investigators, working
with State and local investigators, determine that groups are involved
in terrorist activities. They don't know all the people who are
involved. They don't know the full extent, but they have probable cause
to establish that they are violating or planning to attack the United
States or are participating in a conspiracy to kill people to further
their terrorist goals. So what do you do then?
Under the PATRIOT Act--not the National Security Act or what we have
[[Page 2011]]
talked about, the national security intercepts you have heard so much
about in the paper; those are international and involve the President's
inherent authority--under the traditional law of America, what do you
do if you have probable cause to believe these groups are meeting, that
there is some sort of sleeper cell in existence, you have proof, not
just suspicion, proof to the level of probable cause that they are
participating in this scheme?
One of the most potentially beneficial things would be to get a
search warrant for that house. But if you do it under normal
conditions, when you have to conduct a search warrant if the defendant
is not there, you provide him notice that you have conducted a search
warrant. When you come to the door and before you go in, if no one is
there, you have to leave a return on the door showing that you searched
the place and any items you seized and who to contact. That is what you
normally do in a search warrant.
Police officers do that every day. But first they go to a judge and
they swear under oath that they have probable cause, and not only say
they have it, they spell it out. And judges, on appeal, can review it.
If the judge who approved the search warrant was in error, they can
reverse it or the evidence can be excluded from trial. So you go to a
judge. We are not in any way changing that great principle that a U.S.
Federal judge or a State judge would have to approve a search warrant.
You are not changing in any way the principle that they have to have
probable cause under oath that evidence exists at the scene of the
place searched which would be relevant to an investigation. All of that
is the same as it has always been.
But the one critical thing--and this has been legitimated by courts
and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court--is that you can, in certain
cases, ask that the notice which you would normally give to the owner
of the residence or the person who has custody and control of that
location be delayed.
Now, this can be absolutely critical in a case of national security.
It is so important. Please, I want you to understand that. You may be
able to go in that area and find names, phone numbers, records, or bank
deposits that would identify a whole group of other people, and you are
not ready to arrest them that moment because you don't know where they
are located. You need to check this out and follow up on it. If you
arrest that bad guy and give notice to the people right there, the
whole world will know it, and they will spread the word and they will
scatter. That is exactly what will happen. So that is why, in certain
instances, law enforcement officers have sought, and courts have
approved without the PATRIOT Act, delayed notice search warrants.
So then when do you notify the person? All the PATRIOT Act says is
that the police officers can delay notification for 30 days. At the end
of that 30 days, if they don't come back to the court and show a legal
basis to continue to delay to notify the defendant, they have to notify
the defendant on the 30th day. That is all this Conference Report says.
That is reasonable. It is not an abuse of the power of the Congress. It
is not in any way contradictory to the great traditions of law
enforcement in America. It has nothing to do with the President's
Executive powers to fight a war. This is under the criminal law aspect
of American justice.
I asked for delayed notices on rare occasions when I was a Federal
prosecutor. I am telling you, whether investigating a big drug gang or
a Mafia group, these are the kinds of things which can make all the
difference in the world. And it is even more important in terrorist
investigations because these people will scatter and because it is a
matter of life and death. That is all I am saying. There is nothing
unusual or strange about it.
The Department of Justice wrote a letter which said that a delayed
notice warrant differs from an ordinary search warrant only in that the
judge authorizes the officer executing the warrant to wait for a
limited period before notifying the subject of the search because
immediate notice would have an adverse result, as defined by statute,
that could undermine the investigation. So this is all this is about. I
think few people would dispute it. Yet we have a filibuster because
some Senators apparently believe that 30 days destroys the
Constitution. They believe that it violates the Constitution to ask the
police officer to wait 30 days before they notify the defendant.
The House of Representatives, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of
257 to 174, voted to allow the officers to delay 180 days. So now we
have been here 3 days debating this issue this week. This is the No. 1
complaint they have about the bill. I don't know what it is that got us
to this point.
The conference report before us today eliminates the possibility of
an open-ended delayed notice. It requires notice within 30 days unless
the court grants an extension. Current law allows for simply a
reasonable delay, which is whatever the judge may decide in a given
case. Well, they say, why do you need 30 days? Well, the Fourth Circuit
found that 45 days is good enough. I will give this example which the
Department of Justice gave: Operation Candy Box. A delayed notice was
permitted in a multijurisdictional investigation targeting a Canadian-
based ecstasy and marijuana-trafficking organization. The delay allowed
for a successful, uninterrupted, month-long investigation that resulted
in the arrest of over 130 people. Without delayed notice, agents would
have been forced to reveal the existence of the investigation
prematurely.
As a Federal prosecutor myself, I want to tell you, one of the
biggest decisions in any investigation of any organized criminal group
or terrorist group is the decision of when to conduct the takedown.
When do you arrest them? Do you run out as soon as you know there is a
group and you have evidence on one of them--do you run out and grab
that one? How stupid can you be? If you grab one, the rest will know it
and know you are going to come after them; they are going to scatter or
they will destroy evidence. They will run and hide, and they may create
a sleeper cell in a different city and continue their plans to kill
Americans or to sell dope or whatever it is they are doing illegally.
So you have to plan the takedown.
When you are dealing with cases involving life and death, you have to
be very careful about it. Don't think the agents don't work with
prosecutors and staff people and plan out these takedowns to the most
minute detail. When do you do it? Do you catch six low-level flunkies
and let the big guys get away? No. Someone might say the big guy is
coming into town the next day, so we will have a team there and we will
have probable cause to arrest him. Then you get a search warrant. When
do you execute the warrant? You want to execute it at a time of your
choosing so you can wrap up as many of the members of the organization
as possible at one time. That is what it is all about.
Sometimes you need to know more about this organization. You don't
know all the people who are involved. That is where a delayed notice
warrant can allow you to obtain information about other people who are
involved and do further investigations and find out, maybe, that two or
three dangerous criminals should also be arrested at or about the same
time. They will provide you the probable cause to arrest them because
you cannot arrest people without probable cause in America. You have to
have evidence. You cannot just arrest somebody on suspicion.
So where do you get the evidence? Some people in this Senate forget
that police officers are not magicians; they have to gather evidence.
How do you get it? One way you find out the evidence is to conduct a
lawful search on a warrant approved by a Federal judge or a State
judge. If it is a Federal crime, it would be a Federal judge. Then you
may execute a delayed notice warrant, and you may find more evidence of
other people that can be corroborated and you can build up probable
cause. And instead of having probable cause to arrest just 2
defendants, you may have probable cause to arrest
[[Page 2012]]
8 of them, and maybe you take down the whole sleeper cell. Maybe there
are 8 in this town and 4 more in Boston and some more in San Diego or
in Washington, DC. You can arrest all three or four cells at the same
time. Would that not be the ideal thing?
I am telling you that this is what law enforcement officers attempt
to do every day. They do it according to the laws that we require.
In 2002, the issuance of a delayed notice search warrant helped break
a massive multistate methamphetamine ring. The delayed notice allowed
investigators to locate illegal drugs, which provided further leads,
eventually resulting in the seizure of mass quantities of drugs and the
identification of those involved in the criminal organization. More
than 100 people were charged with drug-trafficking offenses, and a
number of them have been convicted.
In another case, a delayed warrant was issued to search an envelope
which was sent to the target of an investigation. An envelope had been
sent to the person, and they got a warrant to search the envelope. The
search confirmed that the target was operating an illegal money
exchange and was funneling money to the Middle East, including to an
associate of an Islamic jihad operative. Delayed notice allowed the
investigators to conduct a search without compromising an ongoing
wiretap they had been carrying on based on probable cause, and with the
approval of a U.S. District judge. But they didn't just conduct a
wiretap; they were conducting this wiretap and they needed to find out
if money or drugs were moving so they could seize that or allow the
package to continue and then arrest the person who received it.
That is what we are talking about here. That is why there is nothing
extreme in any way about the delayed notice search warrant law.
Well, what about the national security letters? You have heard a lot
about that issue. The complaint is that Senators have said this will
allow you to obtain information from people not connected to terrorists
or spies. The national security letters, which existed long before the
PATRIOT Act, can only be in a certain specific and limited number of
circumstances.
Now, I will talk about those in a moment, but they are listed in 5
statutes, so it is not an open-ended provision. It only deals with
national security issues. The procedures set forth in this act which
allow those letters to issue are in no way extreme. They in no way
threaten the great liberties all of us share but indeed are essential
tools in this age of national security threats to our country, and they
can be critical, critical, critical facts for investigators to enable
them to identify those cells which may be in this country trying to
attack and kill American citizens, as we saw on September 11.
I want to emphasize that national security letters existed long
before the PATRIOT Act and can be used in only very limited
circumstances for national security issues. In fact, it is a
particularly valuable tool that is utilized frequently by
investigators. The New York Times said there have been a lot of
national security letters issued since 9/11. Well, we are doing a lot
more investigation. Every FBI office in America is pursuing every lead
that pops up, unlike what we were doing before 9/11, and are verifying
and checking out and determining the kinds of things that are necessary
to find out, such as if someone may be connected to a terrorist
organization and may be planning an attack on the United States. Isn't
that what we demanded after 9/11? But the numbers that have been
published are clearly exaggerated. They are not accurate, and they have
been criticized by the officials who are involved. I add that
parenthetically.
The PATRIOT Act originally made very few changes to the national
security letter procedure. It merely made relevance the standard for
obtaining a national security letter and allowed special agents in
charge to issue them. The special agent in charge would be the special
agent in charge of the FBI office in New York City, for example, or in
Boston or in Birmingham, AL, and those special agents in charge
supervise everyone in the office. They are considered to be high-
ranking FBI officials responsible for the law enforcement issues
relating to their agency in that district. So this was what we
originally passed.
However, now under this conference report, the national security
letters are to be used only for investigations involving terrorism and
espionage, and they must pertain to ``an authorized investigation''
involving ``national security.''
These are national security investigations. National security letters
cannot be used to obtain unlimited categories of material. They can
only be used to obtain very limited categories of material in the
possession of third parties, not the defendant. The great protections
against the searching of your home have not been undermined. What we
are talking about here are records that are under the dominion and
control of a third party. You can say they are your bank records, but
they are the bank's records. You can say they are your telephone
company records, but they are the telephone company's records.
The law has always made a big distinction between the kind of proof
you have to have for someone to come in and search your desk, to search
your automobile, to search your home, than the kinds of procedures they
have to go through to get the record at the local motel that might have
your name on it. It is not your record, it is the motel's record. You
have a diminished expectation of privacy. The courts have consistently
held this view ever since the issue has been discussed. It is a
fundamental part of daily law enforcement in America.
So they can be used only to obtain these kinds of records, not
records you have under your control that would require a search warrant
approved by a judge on probable cause, as I discussed earlier, as you
would in a delayed search warrant case. It is a big deal. I am telling
you, in a case such as this, I bet you search warrants would be 30
pages of affidavits to justify what they are searching for. But these
are simply subpoenas, basically, for these records.
These records, as I said, belong to companies, and the individuals to
whom they refer have a reduced privacy interest in them. These national
security letters cannot be used to obtain ``content information'' that
involve any communications you may have made or the words of those
communications with the phone company, but simply what the billing
record said and the phone numbers you called. But you can't get,
through a national security letter, the words of your phone call or
intercept or record your phone call in any way, or your e-mails. The
content of your e-mails can't be obtained with a national security
letter. The national security letter is simply a request by a national
security investigator for records.
If the recipient such as the bank, for example, objects, the FBI
cannot compel production without going to court. The conference report
specifically allows the recipient, however, of a national security
letter to move to quash or dismiss or modify the national security
letter and to challenge the nondisclosure order that accompanies the
national security letter, and to talk to their attorneys about it if
they choose, and other people who may be necessary to comply with the
national security letter.
Some people say the nondisclosure requirement can keep you from
speaking with your attorney. This legislation specifically allows you
to talk to your attorney or anybody else who is related to it before
you decide to utilize a motion to quash.
Let me share this with you. Imagine, now, you are an investigator, an
FBI agent, and you have serious cause to believe that an individual may
be connected to a terrorist organization. You want to find out if they
have been calling Kabul, Baghdad or Islamabad. It is critically
important, at a preliminary stage in an investigation such as this--
critically important, I emphasize--that the people being investigated
not know that they are being investigated, that the investigators are
on to them. That
[[Page 2013]]
is why we placed in the law the limitation that the person or entity
subpoenaed should not go and tell the people that the Feds are out
there asking for your bank records or your telephone records. How can
you conduct an investigation? From these records is the way the police
officers and FBI agents get the probable cause to conduct a search
warrant.
How do you get probable cause to conduct a search warrant? You take
lesser steps to obtain information that is available to you, and it
builds up until you get enough to have probable cause to go a judge to
get a search warrant to search the home and you may even want to delay
notice to the people at the home until you can be sure that everybody
in this organization is known to you and they can all be arrested
before they can get away. So that is what this is all about. It is
perfectly logical and part of our law enforcement heritage.
In the conference report that is before us, it also provides an
express right to judicial review for all types of national security
letters, allowing courts to modify or quash the order if compliance
would be unreasonable, oppressive or otherwise unlawful. It also
changed the certification requirement. It requires a higher level of
certification before you can ask for nondisclosure in the issuance of a
national security letter. The nondisclosure requirement is not
automatic. Local FBI cannot ask it. The local special agent in charge
can't ask for it. Now it has to be invoked by one of the top officials
of the DOJ in Washington, an official who must certify that disclosure
would ``endanger the national security of the United States.''
I want to say that is too high a standard. We are going to fail to
execute requests for mere documents in control of banks and telephone
companies and motels and records of that kind because a DOJ official in
Washington is going to be nervous about whether he has enough proof to
certify that this matter would endanger the security of the United
States. That is too high a standard. But it is in this bill because the
civil libertarians wanted to put it in here.
Any county district attorney in America this very day can issue a
subpoena to a bank or to a telephone company to get your phone records
or the records from your doctor. This is not unusual that investigators
can obtain documents in the possession of third parties. Please hear
me. I know Senator Kyl made the comment that it is easier for an
investigator to obtain your business records relating to whether you
have paid withholding tax than it is for an investigator, under this
case, to get records of whether you are connected to a terrorist
organization.
I would add a few other examples. A Federal drug officer, a DEA
agent, can walk into any pharmacy in America today and examine the
pharmacy records that exist to see if somebody has submitted false
documents, is overpurchasing drugs or the pharmacist is failing to keep
records. He can examine all the records that are there. He doesn't have
to have a warrant or a national security letter.
The IRS agents investigating whether you paid your taxes can subpoena
your bank records by an administrative subpoena that does not require a
grand jury approval or approval of any prosecutor. He can do it as an
part of an administrative subpoena because they are not your records.
But if he goes into your house and tries to take your personal
documents, that is not so because he has to have a search warrant. A
provision requiring this high level of certification is important
protection for sure, and the standard imposed on the top FBI official I
believe is too high. I believe one day we are going to regret it.
An express right to challenge the nondisclosure requirement is
included in the conference report. An express right to disclose the
receipt of a subpoena to a attorney is protected. There is the
requirement that the Department of Justice Inspector General must audit
certain past and future uses of national security letters and provide a
public report on the aggregate number of national security letters
issued concerning U.S. persons. But IRS agents out there in every
community in America are issuing subpoenas for your records by the
thousands every week. They don't have to maintain these records.
Senator Feingold and others, I am sure, would be pleased to note that
the House passed a 1-year misdemeanor for knowing and willful
disclosure of a national security letter with no intent to obstruct the
investigation, which the Senate dropped in conference. The House of
Representatives' bill said if you violate the requirement that you not
disclose, and run out and tell the people whose records have been
subpoenaed, you would be subject to a misdemeanor. But, oh, no, they
objected to that. So now, apparently, there is no penalty if someone
violates the act and tells the terrorists that you are investigating
them. That ought to make people happy. We ought to feel a lot better
that our liberties are being protected.
Under the conference report, recipients of a national security letter
can challenge the nondisclosure requirement after 2 years, a time
period where the national security interests involved will be
dissipated. The Sununu bill on the floor today, that was designed to
complement the conference report and to alleviate some concerns a few
Senators had, allows nondisclosure to be challenged after 1 year and
each and every year thereafter. Some opponents of the report wish to
see sunsets placed on National Security Letters. National security
letters have never been subject to sunset. They are currently governed
by six permanent statutes in the code already. No abuses of national
security letters have surfaced, and a New York Times article that
suggests these large numbers have been issued contains many
inaccuracies and that is not accurate.
I want to emphasize that. Nondisclosure is absolutely critical in
national security cases. Frankly, in reality, bankers and medical
doctors and others who may have records subpoenaed or requested by the
national security letter, for the most part, do not desire to tell the
person if the FBI agent asks them not to. But they go to their lawyers,
and we have gotten so lawyerly today, the lawyer may tell them: Well, I
think you have an obligation to tell this bad guy that the FBI came by
and picked up his records. If you don't tell him, maybe he can sue you.
So this is a protection for the bank, for the phone company, for the
doctor who gets these records subpoenaed because then he can rightly
tell anybody who complains after the fact: I would have told you, but
the Federal Government told me not to.
Section 215, the FISA Court business record production orders, is
another matter of importance. Section 215 orders for the production of
business records allows the FBI to go to the FISA Court and seek these
orders. You have to go to court now and seek a judicial order of the
FISA Court for ``the production of tangible things, including books,
records, papers, documents and other items'' for an investigation to
obtain foreign intelligence information. It doesn't allow the FBI to go
out and do it on their own. They have to go to court and present
evidence that would justify production--basically, a form of subpoena
authority. Section 215 orders must be preapproved by a judge and cannot
be used to investigate ordinary crimes or even domestic terrorism, only
foreign terrorism.
Orders for the production of business records under the USA PATRIOT
Act, section 215, are not and cannot be used for so-called fishing
expeditions. The fishing expedition complaint is wrong--wrong--wrong--
for three reasons. First, section 215 orders are court orders that must
be authorized by Federal judges prior to issuance. Judicial review will
cull out fishing expedition requests. Second, section 215 orders are
available only for authorized national security investigations, not
your run-of-the-mill investigation, a category that certainly does not
include fishing expeditions. And the conference report clarifies that
the orders cannot be used for threat assessments. Third, rigorous
guidelines issued by the Attorney General govern when the FBI may use a
section 215 order.
[[Page 2014]]
There has also been uproar over the three-part relevance test. The
Senate bill included an unworkable and burdensome three-part relevance
test. You recall--relevance plus. I opposed it. It was not good. I
steadfastly believe that it was the kind of confusion that blocks
legitimate action under this law and would undermine the ability for
the investigators to do what we intended to authorize them to do. The
test would have compromised the ability of the Government to get
section 215 orders. The language of the three-prong test was ambiguous
and would inevitably have resulted in major complications in terrorist
investigations.
As we saw by the attacks on 9/11, seemingly small or technical
barriers can make a critical difference to the success of a terrorism
investigation. That is exactly what the three-prong test would have
done.
Senator Kyl, who spoke earlier this afternoon, Senator Roberts, who
is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, and I sent a letter to
Chairman Specter, expressing our strong concerns with the three-prong
test and asking him not to include it in the conference report. He did
as we suggested. The conference report retains the three-part test only
as a way to prove relevance. The conference report lists the three
prongs of the Senate test as ways the materials sought are presumed to
be relevant.
No. 1, the records pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a
foreign power; No. 2, the records are relevant to the activities of a
suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject of such
authorized investigation; or, No. 3, the records pertain to an
individual in contact with or known to a suspected agent of a foreign
power.
As Senator Patrick Leahy explained in 2001, the ranking Democrat on
our committee:
The FBI has made a clear case that a relevance standard is
appropriate for counterintelligence and counterterrorism
investigations as well as for criminal investigations.
Let me just say this. Your county attorney in every county in America
can issue a subpoena for your bank records, your telephone records, on
the basis of relevance to an ongoing investigation.
That is how subpoenas are issued. It has always been a relevance
standard. I don't see anything unusual about this at all. We provided
additional protection for relevance.
The conference report also requires the application for a 215 order
to include a statement of fact which shows ``reasonable grounds to
believe that the records are relevant to an authorized national
security investigation.'' The original PATRIOT Act simply required a
showing that the records ``were sought'' for an authorized
investigation. This is a Senate provision which was included in the
conference report which certainly made it more difficult to obtain
these national security letters, and I assume it made colleagues who
have been objecting happy to see this higher burden of proof placed on
the investigators. Frankly, I believe that was unnecessary.
Both the conference report and bill we are currently debating--
Senator Sununu's PATRIOT Act Amendments bill--imposed new civil rights
safeguards on the use of section 215 orders contained in the PATRIOT
Act as it currently exists. So by blocking the PATRIOT Act which
presently exists from being reauthorized by the Conference Report,
civil rights are being diminished since the report provides enhanced
protection.
The conference report clarifies and makes clear that a recipient of a
215 order has an explicit right to disclose or seek an order through an
attorney and to challenge the order in court. Senator Sununu's bill
which we are debating today and which I am certain will pass goes a bit
further. I do not know that it is critical, but I am willing to accept
things that are not perfect by my standards because I know we need to
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, and this is a condition of reauthorizing
it. Senator Sununu's bill lays out the process by which a person
receiving a section 215 production order may challenge the legality of
that order. They can file a petition with the FISA Court, and that
petition is ``immediately'' assigned to a judge who, in 72 hours after
the assignment, ``shall conduct an initial review of the petition.''
The conference report also retains a 4-year sunset on section 215. In
other words, this provision will expire in 4 years unless reauthorized.
I don't know why that is necessary, but people apparently believed it
was, and so we put it in there.
The conferees added a requirement that the Justice Department
institute ``minimization procedures'' limiting the retention and
dissemination of information obtained through a section 215 order for
certain particularly sensitive material. The FBI request for these
orders must be approved by one of three top officials at the FBI: the
Director, the Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director. One
of those three top officials in the FBI has to sign off on it if it
includes library records, medical records that would identify a person,
library patron lists, book sales records, firearms sales records, tax
return records, or educational records. This is a Senate provision that
was accepted by the conference.
The IRS agents can walk in any time and get your tax records, for
heaven's sake, but we can't get a terrorist's tax records without going
through the FISA Court. A DEA agent can go into a pharmacy and examine
every record in there to find out how many drugs you may have bought or
anybody else may have bought. The IRS can subpoena your bank records by
administrative subpoena without even the approval of a Federal
prosecutor. This is not any erosion of American liberties, is the only
point I am making.
Again, this does not allow them to go into your house, into the desk
you own at your office, and search your personal belongings. It does
not allow any Federal agent to open the trunk of your automobile, to go
in your automobile, open your glove compartment, and seize anything you
may have that is in your personal custody and control. You still have
to have a search warrant approved by a judge on probable cause. This
involves materials held by third parties.
Documents which can be obtained in this fashion are limited to the
types of tangible things which could be obtained under grand jury
subpoena or other Federal court orders, and the FBI must craft
procedures to minimize retention and dissemination of materials
gathered under this provision. OK. We will try to destroy them in so
many months to minimize the danger that somebody will have a file on
you. I am telling you, if you like those shows on television, the real-
life cold-case files, you see where the records held for 10, 15 years
turn out to be the key documents in convicting some murderer 15 years
down the road. I really do not like this idea that a properly obtained
document or record kept as part of a confidential investigative file
has to be destroyed prematurely. But that is what we have here so
people's liberties won't be undermined.
Under the conference report, the Department of Justice must conduct
two audits of the FBI's use of 215 orders, enhanced congressional and
public reporting is required, and the inspector general is required to
conduct an audit of all section 215 requests since the passage of the
PATRIOT Act. The ironic thing is if those who support a filibuster
succeed in preventing a vote on the bill, these additional civil
liberties safeguards won't become law.
The language about the libraries included in Senator Sununu's bill is
also a concern of mine. Opponents of section 215 have tried to create
the impression that the FBI is using section 215 to visit libraries
nationwide to check the reading records of ordinary Americans. How
often have you heard that?
Rebecca Mitchell, director of the Alabama Public Library Service, has
a different point of view. She wrote me a letter on August 15 and said:
I want to personally thank you for your strong leadership
to stand on the PATRIOT Act. Our libraries should not be used
as a tool for terrorism. I know you have received negative
comments from the American Library Association on your stand,
but this is not the opinion of most librarians in our State.
Please continue to fight to keep our Nation free.
[[Page 2015]]
The point I tried to make was that there is no special protection for
a library record which would bar a Federal terrorist investigator from
obtaining those records. Your local county attorney can subpoena them
the same as any Federal investigator to try to stop a terrorist.
Neither section 215 nor any other provision of the PATRIOT Act
specifically mentions libraries or is directed at libraries.
Nevertheless, as Director Mitchell points out, it is important that
library records remain obtainable as one of the kinds of ``tangible
records'' a section 215 order can reach. Intelligence or investigators
may have good and legitimate reasons for extending to library/bookstore
records.
I would just point out that I prosecuted a number of cases. I
prosecuted one guy--they made a television show about it--and we got
his records and got a search warrant and seized items he had. He had a
book called ``Death Dealers Manual.'' He had a book called ``Deadly
Poisons.'' That was relevant evidence to help convict him of a crime.
So we are not going to allow a prosecutor access to this information.
A guy may say: I don't know anything about medicine; I have never
studied it. If the prosecutor goes down and checks with the library and
subpoenas the records and sees that he bought three books on medicine,
that may be relevant evidence to an important case. So to say that
somehow library records can't be subpoenaed as part of an investigation
goes beyond the pale, frankly. But because the Library Association had
a fit and they complained, we have put in special protections for
libraries, virtually like the spousal privilege or the priest-penitent.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I do remain frustrated--not
at the good intentions of my colleagues. They are well intentioned. Our
colleagues really want to improve liberty in America. But the truth is,
they have gotten off base. We have let outside groups with agendas
confuse people about this legislation--confuse them as to whether
historic civil liberties are being undermined when they are not--and as
a result, we have had more difficulty passing this bill than we should
have.
I see the Senator from Texas is presiding. I appreciate his patience
in listening to me. As a former attorney general of Texas and a former
member of the Supreme Court of Texas, he is a thorough scholar in these
issues. I am proud to say that though he wouldn't agree with everything
I have said, but in general he agrees with my view that this act is
sound. He has been a steadfast advocate for it and understands the
necessity of it and that it does not undermine any of the classical
liberties we as Americans take for granted.
I yield the floor.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, 4 years ago, following one of the most
devastating attacks in our Nation's history, Congress passed the USA
PATRIOT Act to give our Nation's law enforcement the tools they needed
to track down terrorists who plot and lurk within our own borders and
all over the world--terrorists who, right now, are looking to exploit
weaknesses in our laws and our security to carry out even deadlier
attacks than we saw on September 11th.
We all agreed that we needed legislation to make it harder for
suspected terrorists to go undetected in this country. Americans
everywhere wanted that.
But soon after the PATRIOT Act passed, a few years before I ever
arrived in the Senate, I began hearing concerns from people of every
background and political leaning that this law didn't just provide law
enforcement the powers it needed to keep us safe, but powers it didn't
need to invade our privacy without cause or suspicion.
Now, at times this issue has tended to degenerate into an ``either-
or'' type of debate. Either we protect our people from terror or we
protect our most cherished principles. But that is a false choice. It
asks too little of us and assumes too little about America.
Fortunately, last year, the Senate recognized that this was a false
choice. We put patriotism before partisanship and engaged in a real,
open, and substantive debate about how to fix the PATRIOT Act. And
Republicans and Democrats came together to propose sensible
improvements to the Act. Unfortunately, the House was resistant to
these changes, and that's why we're voting on the compromise before us.
Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version
of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored.
I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House
originally proposed.
This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by
strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools
that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:
We strengthened judicial review of both national security letters,
the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders,
which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal
records.
We established hard-time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits
on roving wiretaps.
We protected most libraries from being subject to national security
letters.
We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an
attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.
And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany
Section 215 searches.
The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see
stronger judicial review of national security letters and shorter time
limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things.
Senator Feingold has proposed several sensible amendments--that I
support--to address these issues. Unfortunately, the Majority Leader is
preventing Senator Feingold from offering these amendments through
procedural tactics. That is regrettable because it flies in the face of
the bipartisan cooperation that allowed the Senate to pass unanimously
its version of the Patriot Act--a version that balanced security and
civil liberty, partisanship and patriotism.
The Majority Leader's tactics are even more troubling because we will
need to work on a bipartisan basis to address national security
challenges in the weeks and months to come. In particular, members on
both sides of the aisle will need to take a careful look at President
Bush's use of warrantless wiretaps and determine the right balance
between protecting our security and safeguarding our civil liberties.
This is a complex issue. But only by working together and avoiding
election-year politicking will we be able to give our government the
necessary tools to wage the war on terror without sacrificing the rule
of law.
So, I will be supporting the PATRIOT Act compromise. But I urge my
colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties
protections in the PATRIOT Act after it is reauthorized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today the Senate will take up the
conference report on the USA-PATRIOT Reauthorization and Improvement
Act, as modified by an agreement reached last week.
I am the original Democratic cosponsor of the unanimously passed
Senate bill, as well as a cosponsor of the Combating Methamphetamine
Epidemic Act and the Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports
Act, both of which are incorporated into the conference report.
I will vote in favor of cloture on this bill, and will vote in favor
of the bill when and if it comes to a vote.
At the end of last year, after careful consideration, I voted against
cloture on the conference report. I took this step because of two basic
concerns, both of which have been substantially diminished by the
agreement which is before us today. These changes, and the fact that a
consensus agreement has been reached, are the reason I am changing my
position.
My first concern was with some of the provisions of the conference
report. Specifically, the conference report did not provide adequate
judicial review of
[[Page 2016]]
so-called gag orders associated with the issuance of national security
letters, and required those who wanted to contest these orders before a
court to disclose information about their legal counsel to the FBI.
This was unnecessary and inappropriate, and it has been changed.
The revised conference report clarifies that a gag order will be
reviewed by a Federal court and ensures that this review will include
an inquiry into whether the Government is acting in bad faith. The
compromise also eliminates the onerous requirement of prior
notification to the FBI about legal counsel.
On the other hand, the revised conference report does not go as far
as I would have preferred. It does not adopt the original Senate
language with respect to the standard to be applied for granting a
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant for physical items,
including business records. This issue, usually referred to by its
PATRIOT Act section number, 215, remains very controversial, and I
believe the language could permit inappropriate fishing expeditions if
not carefully monitored. However, the agreed-upon language does make
clear that libraries performing traditional functions are largely
exempt from the more intrusive aspects of the law.
Importantly, the conference report retains and extends sunset
provisions on the most controversial provisions, including section 215.
This is critical, as these sunset provisions, which expire in 2009, are
an important element of the continued vigorous oversight necessary to
ensure this law is carried out in an appropriate manner.
The second concern I had was that it appeared that efforts to forge a
compromise bill had fallen apart, with acrimony and rancor marking the
progress of negotiations. This was, in my view, tragic.
I have long been a supporter of the USA-PATRIOT Act. I believe it is
a critical tool in defending the Nation against terrorism. But I
believe that it is a tool that is most effective when it is accepted as
a bipartisan, nonpolitical, effort. Simply put, if there is one area
where partisan debate and petty politics have no place, it is in the
area of national defense against terrorism.
So I believed strongly that a compromise bill supported by Members of
both parties was essential. I recognize that achieving consensus means,
almost by definition, that nobody will be completely happy with the
outcome. As I noted, there are changes I would have made to this law,
and I am sure most of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, would
like other changes. But compromise and consensus require concessions
and flexibility. That is why I will vote today against cloture, and why
I plan to vote for the bill itself.
I explained my views in a letter I sent to the Attorney General in
December. In that letter I explained, and I quote:
It was clear to me that Senate and House negotiators had
come very close to reaching agreement on the Conference
Report. I believe this was critical, because only through
such a consensus approach can we ensure that the Patriot Act
does not continue to be polluted with partisan rancor. This
law is extremely important to the safety of America, and its
effectiveness depends in large part on ordinary Americans
believing it is a product not of partisan politics, but of
reasoned debate and compromise. Because I believed consensus
was so close at hand, and so important, I voted to provide
Congress additional time to resolve the last points of
disagreement.
Thus I was disheartened to hear that the Administration has
determined not to encourage further discussion on improving
and refining the Conference Report--rather, to stand fast,
and urge Senators to change their votes. I hope that this is
not the case.. . .
With that hope, I ask that you direct your staff to work
with both Republicans and Democrats to address the few
remaining issues. I am confident that good-faith discussion,
honest debate, and careful drafting can reduce, perhaps even
eliminate, some of the points of disagreement. . . .
It is critical that the Congress and the Administration
demonstrate our ability to work towards consensus and
agreement. I hope you will work with me to that end.
The USA-PATRIOT Act has come to be terribly misunderstood. Some think
it is related to Guantanamo Bay and the detention of prisoners. Others
are convinced that it authorizes torture or the secret arrest of
Americans. It does none of these things.
At the same time, some have irresponsibly sought to characterize
anyone who seeks to improve, or criticize, the law as somehow ``playing
into the hands of the terrorists.'' They have implied that the USA-
PATRIOT Act would expire in its entirety, and that we would be left
with no defenses against terrorist attacks. This, too, is untrue.
When I spoke on this floor in December, advocating working together,
I said, ``Congress has a long, and honorable, tradition of putting
aside party politics when it comes to national security . . . it is
critical that this approach be carried forward to the end, and that
Congress reauthorize the USA-PATRIOT Act in a way that Americans can be
confident is not the product of politics.''
I am pleased that we followed that tradition and that we put aside
our differences and reached agreement. The fact that the White House
and the Attorney General backed down from their intransigence and were
willing to discuss and compromise is also a welcome change, and
hopefully a sign of a more open approach to these issues in the future.
I expect this bill will pass into law. I believe it will make America
safer. It is the responsibility of the Congress to ``provide for the
Common Defense,'' and I believe we live up to that duty in this bill.
But our job will not end here. We must immediately turn to our
oversight responsibilities. For instance, I understand that Senator
Specter will be continuing his inquiry into the NSA Surveillance
Program, and tomorrow the Senate Intelligence Committee will hopefully
agree to take up their oversight responsibilities with respect to this
program. The Judiciary Committee will also soon be holding a hearing
designed to look at the FBI's progress in accepting its newly expanded
intelligence missions and assess whether these efforts have been
successful and whether they conform with the rule of law.
I look forward to expanding on the spirit of compromise that this
bill represents.
I ask unanimous consent the letter to the Attorney General dated
January 9, 2006, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, January 9, 2006.
Hon. Alberto Gonzales,
Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Attorney General, Last month the Senate decided to
continue debate on the USA-Patriot Act Reauthorization and
Improvement Act conference report, and extended the sixteen
provisions of the USA-Patriot Act until February 3, 2006.
Although I am the original Democratic co-sponsor of the
unanimously passed Senate bill, I voted to continue debate. I
explained my reasons at length on the floor, but in summary
they are simple.
It was clear to me that Senate and House negotiators had
come very close to reaching agreement on the Conference
Report. I believe this was critical, because only through
such a consensus approach can we ensure that the Patriot Act
does not continue to be polluted with partisan rancor. This
law is extremely important to the safety of America, and its
effectiveness depends in large part on ordinary Americans
believing it is a product not of partisan politics, but of
reasoned debate and compromise. Because I believed consensus
was so close at hand, and so important, I voted to provide
Congress additional time to resolve the last points of
disagreement.
Thus I was disheartened to hear that the Administration has
determined not to encourage further discussion on improving
and refining the Conference Report--rather, to stand fast,
and urge Senators to change their votes. I hope that this is
not the case.
With that hope, I ask that you direct your staff to work
with both Republicans and Democrats to address the few
remaining issues. I am confident that good-faith discussion,
honest debate, and careful drafting can reduce, perhaps even
eliminate, some of the points of disagreement.
As I understand it, the key remaining points involve: (1)
the standard to be applied by courts in determining whether
to issue a so-called ``gag order'' in the context of National
Security Letters; (2) the time limitations applicable to
delayed-notice search warrants; and (3) the legal standard
applicable to orders to permit seizure of physical
[[Page 2017]]
items pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(Section 215).
Although I am not an appointed conferee, I have asked my
staff to work with representatives from the Department of
Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I ask
you to facilitate that work.
It is critical that the Congress and the Administration
demonstrate our ability to work towards consensus and
agreement. I hope you will work with me to that end.
Yours truly,
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the Senate considers legislation to
reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, I am concerned that these efforts fall far
short in protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.
Last December, a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, was
rightly concerned about the PATRIOT Act conference report's failure to
safeguard civil liberties, and the Senate rightly rejected that
conference report.
Now we have a bill that purports to address those earlier concerns
but in fact fails to do so.
It is unfortunate that valiant efforts by Senators on both sides of
the aisle have not produced more meaningful changes to the PATRIOT Act.
Now we are faced with an alternative that is weak and unacceptable.
This bill does not make the essential adjustments needed to protect the
rights of the American people.
While this bill makes some changes, such as clarifying that
recipients of national security letters do not have to disclose to the
FBI whether they consult an attorney, most of the so-called
improvements are anemic. Worse still, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act,
which casts the net of surveillance so wide as to ensnare virtually any
law-abiding citizen's business or medical records, has remained
untouched and unimproved.
This bill pays lip service to judicial review of gag orders placed on
recipients of section 215 business records and the national security
letters. However, the bill goes on to set a nearly insurmountable
barrier to Americans who wish to challenge the gag order or the seizure
of their records. The bill requires that the recipient prove that the
Government acted in bad faith in obtaining the information. An
individual may not challenge a gag order for a year, infringing on that
individual's right to seek redress in their own defense.
Under the current ``improvement'', the Government may conduct ``sneak
and peek'' searches, without notifying individuals for 30 days. This is
more than a three-fold increase in the time period for notification
that the Senate bill allowed.
Safety, the American people are told, involves a trade. They are told
they must surrender their liberty in order to preserve their safety.
This Orwellian compact is an insult to the constitutional liberties
guaranteed to American citizens.
Let me be clear. No one in this Chamber discounts the responsibility
of government to keep the American people safe in their homes. Keeping
the homeland safe obviously must be of the utmost concern for the
Nation and this Congress. But such efforts cannot come at the expense
of civil liberties. Freedom and safety are not mutually exclusive.
All Americans know the threat that al-Qaida poses to our country.
Osama bin Laden and his ilk must be prevented from executing another
terrorist attack on our country. But there are many ways to fight al-
Qaida.
One of the ways is to protect those same freedoms that the Taliban
took away from the people of Afghanistan living under their tyrannical
rule. When Americans are free to speak our minds, when we are free from
the intrusions of Big Brother, when we are free to exercise--rather
than sacrifice--our most prized protections, that is a blow against
those who seek to denigrate our country and our Constitution.
If there is any question about the seriousness with which we as a
body hold our Nation's security, let us recall last July, when 100
hundred Senators stood together--something virtually unheard of in the
current divisive and partisan climate. On July 29, 2005, the Senate
came together to protect the Constitution and the basic rights it
affords our citizens. Senators from every State of the Union, from
every political persuasion, agreed to a version of the PATRIOT Act that
would reauthorize the provisions that were set to expire and which
provided the Government with the tools to aggressively pursue the war
on terror, while protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens. We
demonstrated that as a bipartisan body, we could stand strong against
the enemy while preserving the privacy of our citizens. Sadly, the
strength and zeal with which we once came together have languished, and
the hopes of meaningful improvement of the PATRIOT Act have been
abandoned.
We must continue to make national security our top priority, as it
always has been, but we can do that without sacrificing sacred
liberties. I cannot support this watered-down version of an improved
PATRIOT Act. The safeguards in this bill are regrettably thin, and we
must not claim that such shabby protections of the constitutional
rights of our people are the best that we can do.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Democratic leader.
____________________
PENSION CONFERENCE
Mr. REID. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
I hope we have the opportunity as soon as we get back to move forward
on the pension conference. I hope we can do it even tonight. I don't
want to see this pension bill, which is a matter that has been moved to
this point on our legislative calendar on a very bipartisan basis,
turned into a partisan issue. There has been too much work on a
bipartisan basis to advance this bill, and it is very important to the
American business community and to American workers. Billions and
billions of dollars are at stake.
In fact, once the majority got serious about pension reform,
consideration of this bill in the Senate has been a model of bipartisan
cooperation. It would not have passed late last year without the
Senate's Democratic caucus pushing for its consideration and working
with Republicans to create a process by which a bipartisan consensus
could be forged and acted upon by the Senate in a reasonable amount of
time.
I agree that there have been unnecessary delays with regard to this
legislation, and I regret that the full Senate could not act on this
legislation until late last year. Consideration in the House and Senate
was delayed last year for two reasons.
First of all, the administration pension proposal was narrowly
focused on improving the solvency problems at the PBGC and failed to
strike the necessary balance between improving pension funding and
continuing the attractiveness of defined benefit pension plans to
employers. It would have hastened the demise of defined pension plans,
which today cover about one in five workers and provide workers greater
retirement security because they provide a guaranteed stream of
retirement income. The administration proposal generated little support
among Republicans, but they weren't willing to buck the White House on
policy grounds and instead deferred action on this legislation. That
was unfortunate, but that is the way it is.
Consideration of the bill was also delayed by the decision of the
House Republican leadership to hold pension reform hostage in order to
advance their failed Social Security privatization plan. The House
Republican leadership, as late as June of last year, was still delaying
even committee consideration of the pension bill and wanted to couple
pension reform with the proposal to privatize Social Security. It
wasn't fair to hold this important bill hostage in order to advance the
politically unpopular Social Security privatization plan. The political
message to all those who cared about fixing the pension system was: Get
behind our privatization plan for Social Security or you won't get your
pension bill.
For example, the San Francisco Chronicle reported on April 30 of last
year that ``House Republican leaders vowed Friday to push through
Congress
[[Page 2018]]
an overhaul not just of Social Security but `retirement security,'
grabbing the baton President Bush handed them at his prime.'' In fact,
Mr. President, not only prime time but at a news conference he held
promising to run with it.
The prime is past.
The savvy legislative tactician who thrives on complex
issues, Thomas outlined a much broader legislative front than
President Bush has proposed. Thomas suggested changes to
private savings and pensions outside of Social Security as
well as to the 70-year-old program, saying he would deliver a
``retirement package for aging Americans.''
Chairman Thomas suggested this wide ranging proposal could
splinter the Democrats.
The Boston Globe reported months later in June:
Republicans in Congress want to turn aging baby boomer
fears of pension defaults heightened by the well-publicized
failure of the United Airlines plan to their advantage with
plans to link broad-based pension overhaul with elements of
President Bush's plan for personal Social Security accounts,
a move GOP leaders hope will break a logjam on Capitol Hill.
The strategy reflects a realization by GOP leaders that
their Democratic colleagues and even some Republicans are
steadfastly opposed to private accounts funded by a portion
of Social Security payroll tax.
Republican leaders hope to build on momentum generated by
the pension defaults and the shaky state of the federal
agency that insures pensions to make a case that retirement
security needs an across-the-board makeover and the type of
personal security accounts Bush has talked about should be
part of the solution.
Consequently, pension legislation languished in the Senate until the
end of July. The inability of Senate Republicans on the Committee on
Finance to produce a majority in favor of Social Security
privatization, pressure by Senate Democrats to move ahead separately on
pension reform, and high profile bankruptcies in the airline industry
created enough pressure to break this logjam in the Senate.
Again, it was on a bipartisan basis. There was no filibuster, no
obstruction, just inaction by the majority.
Despite these delays, Senators Grassley, Enzi, Boxer, and Kennedy,
the chairman and ranking members of the Committees on Finance and HELP,
worked through the committee and on the floor to draft and pass a
bipartisan pension bill. The Committee on Finance reported its bill at
the end of July. The HELP Committee reported its bill at the beginning
of December. Committees agreed on a bipartisan basis to a compromise
bill that merged the two approaches at the end of September.
The actual legislative work on this was relatively short, certainly,
for something as complex as this. The bill passed the full Senate on
November 16. At that time, I commended Members on both sides for the
diligent work in hammering out a consensus bill, and again questioned
why the Senate waited until November to address this important issue.
In fact, I worked with the distinguished majority leader in making sure
there were not a lot of extraneous amendments, and we could move
forward.
There is no reason the Senate cannot move forward on this. We need to
agree on a reasonable number of conferees. This is a bill, a very
complex bill. What I am asking is there be three people from our HELP
Committee who are Democrats, and four from the Committee on Finance, a
total of seven. This is a very important bill. The reason we are not
going to conference is the majority is not willing to give the
Democrats another member--that is, they refuse to go with the ratio
which the Republicans get, the best of that deal; they get two extra
Senators. Now they say we have to do it with--I assume they want me to
do two from HELP and three from the Committee on Finance. That is
unfair.
I need, the country needs, a pension reform bill. That can only be
done by going to conference. I plead with the majority, let's work this
out. There is no reason we should not have a ratio of 8 to 6 that
allows me to have three people from the HELP Committee who are experts
in this field. They will move quickly. They are willing to work
unending hours to resolve this matter.
A report in this morning's Congressional Quarterly suggests that
outside interests are pushing for a very small conference, the smaller
the better, in order to prevent some Senators who have positions on
this most important issue, Senators who have worked on it for many
years, from participating in the conference. That is too bad.
This legislation has reached this point and we are here today because
of strong bipartisan support for moving forward. It has not been a
partisan process thus far and I hope it will not become a partisan
process. I expect the conference to be conducted in a bipartisan
manner, no matter who gets appointed on what side. I am afraid the
Republican majority has decided they want to create a political issue
instead of trying to find a way around the impasse. The way around it
is easy, 7 to 5 or 8 to 6. I hope we can continue working in a
bipartisan way in order to get this bill to conference and enacted into
law. It is an important piece of legislation.
It does not seem to me to be asking too much that the HELP Committee,
which is so vitally important to the moving of this legislation, have
three Democrats on the HELP Committee.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, are we in morning business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 12 minutes in order to introduce a bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Ms. Collins pertaining to the introduction of S. 2311
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Katrina Emergency Assistance
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to express my
appreciation to my friend from Maine, Ms. Collins, for the passage of
the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2005. This important
legislation passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Wednesday,
February 16, after several months of negotiations. I commend her
efforts and the efforts of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs to take the initiative to address the recovery
issues still facing the gulf coast.
Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have both visited Mississippi
and Louisiana and have seen the devastation and the progress that has
been made and the work still left to be done.
Hurricane Katrina was certainly one of the deadliest and costliest
natural disasters in United States history.
On Monday, August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall in
Louisiana as a category 4 hurricane, with winds up to 145 mph, then
turned eastward towards Mississippi, making landfall at 9 a.m., with
winds of 125 mph and with a storm surge over 20 feet high. At its peak,
the storm stretched 125 miles across the gulf coast
Almost 6 months later, the Congress and numerous Federal departments
and agencies are still working to help those affected by the hurricane.
The Katrina Emergency Assistance Act will help people in a variety of
important ways.
This legislation provides an additional 13 weeks of Federal Disaster
Unemployment Assistance for those who lost their jobs as a result of
Hurricane Katrina, extending the duration of benefits from 26 weeks to
39 weeks.
Thousands of residents of the gulf coast lost their jobs as a result
of Hurricane Katrina. It is important to continue to provide this
assistance while businesses, both large and small, reopen and expand.
The Katrina Emergency Assistance Act authorizes the Federal
Government to reimburse local communities
[[Page 2019]]
and community organizations for purchasing and distributing essential
supplies during a disaster situation. Mayors, supervisors, local
emergency managers, first responders, and others in the disaster area
should be free to purchase necessities such as food, ice, clothing,
toiletries, generators, and other essential items.
These individuals are often the first to respond to a disaster, and
they should be assured that their city, county, or organization will be
reimbursed for these essential services.
This legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to
establish new guidelines for inspectors determining the eligibility of
individuals for Federal disaster assistance. This provision will help
ensure the timely delivery of assistance, while prohibiting conflicts
of interest.
This legislation also expresses the sense of the Congress that the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement should refrain from
initiating removal proceedings against international students due to
their inability to complete education requirements as a result of a
national disaster.
Numerous students from around the world are studying in this country
at any given time. These students should not be punished as a result of
disaster that interferes with their legitimate educational plans.
Senators Collins and Lieberman and the members of the Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee have worked hard to provide
assistance and respond to Hurricane Katrina.
The committee is close to completing its exhaustive investigation of
the response of the entire Federal Government will soon begin the
process of drafting legislation to improve future Federal response
efforts.
I look forward to working with them to address the concerns of
Mississippians and to improve the process of response and recovery.
I urge my colleagues in the House of Representatives to give every
consideration to this important legislation. The Katrina Emergency
Assistance Act is the result of months of drafting and negotiating by
Senators Collins and Lieberman and has the full backing of the United
States Senate.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Pension Reform
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, a few moments ago the minority leader was
on the floor following up on a discussion that we had had earlier
today. I would like to take a moment to respond to his request
regarding the pension reform bill conference committee.
It looks as though we will have to continue to discuss this over the
next 24 hours because we have not made very much progress on a bill
that is critically important to the safety and security of the American
people. It is being postponed for no good reason. That is what it boils
down to.
These feeble attempts to explain why we keep putting the bill off are
unacceptable at this point. We have to go back to the time line because
the facts do speak for themselves.
The Senate passed the pension reform bill on November 16 of last
year. So that is--November, December, January, February--almost 3
months ago exactly, or close to it. It was passed by a vote of 97 to 2.
Almost all of our colleagues in here, 97 to 2, voted for this bill. The
House passed its bill about a month later, on December 15. They passed
it overwhelmingly, 294 to 132. Shortly after the House passed the bill,
we proposed going to conference with a ratio of 7 to 5. That was back
in December. It took the other side of the aisle until yesterday to
respond.
It looks as if it is, again, a pattern of delay and obstruction. They
have had over 2 months to broach this concern and resolve the dispute
within their caucus as to who would serve on this conference. Our side
had to make tough choices, as we talked about this morning. My
colleague from Mississippi and another colleague who wasn't on the
floor spoke to me thereafter and said: Why wasn't I on that tax
reconciliation bill conference?
Yesterday, we appointed conferees--two from our side of the aisle and
one from their side of the aisle, a total of three. To make these
decisions, it takes leadership and calls for leadership just to say
this is going to be the number, and let's proceed ahead, and with both
the Republican and Democratic caucuses we have to make tough choices
and tell our colleagues that not everybody can serve on every
conference committee.
It may be that there is a legitimate dispute on the other side of the
aisle about who should get to serve. But, again, I question this
pattern of obstruction and delay and postponement. This may well be
another instance of election year delays to slow down the legislative
process and try to attempt to keep us from governing in a responsible
way.
If there is a legitimate disagreement about who they should get to
serve on their side of the aisle, I have a proposal that might resolve
that matter. We can talk about it tomorrow. I would propose appointing
six Democratic conferees, which would address their problem, and nine
Republican conferees. This should more than accommodate the request of
the Democratic leader, while allowing us to maintain equal
representation of the two committees, the HELP Committee and the
Finance Committee, which have jurisdiction of this bill.
In the meantime, as we discuss and debate this issue, the clock is
ticking. We need to appoint conferees right away because, as was
explained earlier on the floor today, the first quarter of the fiscal
year ends on March 31. Within 2 weeks of that happening, companies have
to make contributions to their pension plans. If we don't go ahead and
pass comprehensive pension plan reform before then, those contributions
may result in bankrupting those companies.
So I close with simply saying that time is of the essence. We cannot
delay. We need to act now to once and for all get this done, to get to
conference so that we can resolve the issues on this particular bill.
Mr. President, in direct response to a number of issues that have
been raised on the bill on the floor right now, the PATRIOT Act, I have
a few comments to make. Once again we have a slow-walking of the
policymaking process on the floor. We are slow-walking the PATRIOT Act,
a bill that we absolutely know will make this country safer and more
secure--an improved bill.
Tuesday night, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to S. 2271,
which is a stalling tactic or a filibustering tactic. On the USA
PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, which is
the formal name of this important bill, we had to file cloture because
otherwise this bill will continue to be filibustered and postponed
indefinitely. Today, we invoked cloture. I think the vote was 96 to 3;
I believe that is correct. That shows there is overwhelming support for
this bill. I think that reflects what should be the reality, and that
is that this bill is going to pass with overwhelming majority support.
Yet we have, in essence, wasted yesterday and today, tomorrow, Monday,
and Tuesday, until we are allowed to vote on this bill Wednesday
morning following the break.
Once again, the other side seems to be throwing up roadblock after
roadblock, demanding unnecessary procedural steps to slow down, to
hinder reauthorization of what law enforcement has described as its No.
1 terrorist-fighting tool, the PATRIOT Act.
If the delays in any way would change the outcome or alter the
outcome, I could understand it, but that is simply not the case. The
outcome of this bill is not in any doubt. The PATRIOT Act will pass
with overwhelming bipartisan support. It is just being delayed for
delay's sake and, to me, that is simply unacceptable. The American
people, unfortunately, pay a price for all of this in two ways.
First of all, the improved PATRIOT Act, which strengthens that
ability to
[[Page 2020]]
remove those burdens between the law enforcement and intelligence act,
is one dimension.
Second is, all the pressing issues of securing America's freedom,
America's health, improving education, promoting progrowth policy to
increase and promote the prosperity of America, all of that gets pushed
off to the future.
The original PATRIOT Act passed with overwhelming, near unanimous
support in its original version. We know it has been instrumental in
the successful tracking and arrest of key terrorist figures.
Just last week, we learned how, in 2002, a terror plan to hijack a
commercial airliner and fly it into the Los Angeles Library Tower was
thwarted. Authorities discovered that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the
mastermind of 9/11, had recruited a suicide hijacking cell to bring
down the 73-story skyscraper--the tallest building on the West Coast.
Authorities were able to hunt down and capture Khalid Sheik Mohammed,
along with his accomplice, Hambali, the leader in al-Qaida, in
Southeast Asia, the leader of the terrorist cell, and three of its
terrorist members.
It was a tremendous victory in the war on terror, and it saved
countless innocent lives. But it also reminded us that our enemies are
ruthless. It reminded us that they are determined to kill scores of
Americans, hundreds of Americans, right here on American soil. They are
determined to exploit any weakness or slip through any potential
loophole.
We cannot let our guard down. We must never, ever let our guard down.
We have to stay on the offensive. On
9/11, the enemy was able to allude law enforcement, in part, because
our agencies weren't able to share key intelligence information. That
is why, within 6 weeks of the attacks on America, Congress passed the
USA PATRIOT Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. It was near
unanimous. The vote was 98 Senators voting in favor.
The PATRIOT Act went to work immediately, tearing down the
information wall between agencies, and it allowed the intelligence
community and law enforcement to work more closely in pursuit of
terrorists and their activities. Since then, it has been highly
effective in tracking down terrorists and making America safer. Because
of the PATRIOT Act, the United States has charged over 400 suspected
terrorists. More than half of them have already been convicted. Law
enforcement has broken up terrorist cells all across the country, from
New York to California, Virginia, down to Florida.
In San Diego, officials were able to use the PATRIOT Act to
investigate and prosecute several suspects in an al-Qaida drug-for-
weapons plot. The investigation led to several guilty pleas. The
PATRIOT Act also allowed prosecutors and investigators to crack the
Virginia jihad case involving 11 men who had trained for jihad in
Northern Virginia in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. We need to continue
to provide these tools to track and foil terrorist plots before harm
can be done to innocent Americans.
The PATRIOT Act has been debated thoroughly. It has been negotiated.
It has been drafted, and it has been redrafted again. It is time to
bring this process to a close. The bill before us is the result of
sincere, good-faith efforts and builds on the work that was
accomplished last year to renew the PATRIOT Act. It strengthens our
civil liberties protections as well as the core antiterrorist
safeguards that have been so critical in fighting the war on terror.
In 2006, the USA PATRIOT Act, as written, once passed, will help us
to combat terrorist financing and money laundering, protect our mass
transportation systems and railways from attacks such as the one on the
London subway last summer, and to secure our seaports. It will help us
fight methamphetamine drug abuse, America's No. 1 drug problem today,
by restricting access to the ingredients used to make that poisonous
drug, metham-
phetamines.
So the question before us now is pretty straightforward. It is
simple. Why delay all of these provisions any longer? Why wait to move
forward to make America safer? Why wait to give law enforcement the
same tools they already use against white-collar criminals and drug
offenders? It doesn't make sense to postpone, to delay, to wait.
Those who are delaying the bill claim they are taking a stand for
stronger civil liberty protections. Yet they admit that the renewal of
the PATRIOT Act is a vast improvement over current law. Again, why wait
to enact the dozens of civil liberties protections in this bill that
they have supported for so long. We have a duty and responsibility to
protect our fellow Americans. Indeed, it is our highest duty as
Senators.
I urge my colleagues to move forward to renew the PATRIOT Act. The
time to act is now. It is the only, the best, and the right thing to
do.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to
10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HEART FOR WOMEN ACT
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments to speak
very briefly about heart disease. Many people might not know but
February is American Heart Month, and heart disease, as we certainly
know, is the Nation's leading cause of death.
Many women believe heart disease is a man's disease. Unfortunately,
there are many women in this country who do not view this as a serious
health threat. Yet every year since 1984, cardiovascular disease has
claimed the lives of more women than men. In fact, cardiovascular
disease death rates have declined in men since 1979, which is great
news, but the death rate for women during that same period has actually
increased. The numbers are disturbing.
Cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more than 480,000 women
per year. That is nearly a death a minute among females and nearly 12
times as many lives as claimed by breast cancer. One in four females
has some form of cardiovascular disease. Again, these are statistics
many of us would find alarming, certainly, but also find that it is new
information, something we didn't know.
I am pleased to join with my colleague from Michigan, Senator
Stabenow, to introduce important legislation we have entitled the HEART
For Women Act, or Heart Disease Education, Analysis, and Research, and
Treatment For Women Act. This important bill improves the prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease and stroke in women.
In Alaska, we have some very troubling statistics as they relate to
heart disease. In Alaska, cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause
of death, totaling nearly 800 deaths per year. Women in Alaska have
higher death rates from stroke than do women nationally. Mortality
amongst Native Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas it is
appearing to decline among Caucasian women in the lower 48. So these
statistics, again, should cause us concern.
Despite being the No. 1 killer, many women and their health care
providers do not know the biggest health care threat to women is heart
disease. In fact, a recent survey found that 45 percent of women still
do not know heart disease is the No. 1 killer of women.
Perhaps even more troubling is the lack of awareness amongst our
health care providers. According to the American Heart Association
figures, less than one in five physicians recognize more women suffer
from heart disease
[[Page 2021]]
than men. Only 8 percent of primary care physicians--and even more
astounding--only 17 percent of cardiologists recognize that more women
die of heart disease than men. Additionally, studies show women are
less likely to receive aggressive treatment because heart disease often
manifests itself differently in women than in men.
This is why this HEART Act is so important. Our bill takes a three-
pronged approach to reducing heart disease death rates for women
through education, research, and screening.
First, the bill would authorize the Department of Health and Human
Services to educate health care professionals and older women about the
unique aspects of care and prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of
women with heart disease and stroke.
Second, the bill would require disclosure of gender-specific health
information that is already being reported to the Federal Government.
We already have many agencies that are collecting the information based
on gender, but they don't disseminate or analyze the gender
differences. This bill would release that information so it could be
studied and important health trends in women could be detected.
Lastly, the bill would authorize the expansion of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's WISEWOMAN program. WISEWOMAN is the
acronym for the Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation For Women
Across the Nation program. The WISEWOMAN program provides free heart
disease and stroke screening to low-income, uninsured women. But the
program currently is limited to 14 States. In the State of Alaska, we
are fortunate to have two WISEWOMAN program sites, and these programs
screen for high blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose in Native
Alaskan women, and they have been providing invaluable counseling on
diet and exercise. One program in Alaska has successfully screened
1,437 Native Alaskan women and has provided them with culturally
appropriate intervention programs that have truly produced lifesaving
results.
Heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases cost
Americans more than any other disease--an estimated $403 billion in
2006, including more than $250 billion in direct medical costs. We as a
Nation can control these costs. Prevention through early detection is
the most cost-effective way to combat the disease.
A few days ago we celebrated Valentine's Day, and we saw images of
hearts then and we are still seeing them around now. We shouldn't
forget that the heart is more than a symbol--it is a vital organ that
can't be taken for granted. Coronary disease can be treated
effectively, and sometimes even prevented. It does not have to be the
No. 1 cause of death in women, and that is why I encourage my
colleagues to support the HEART for Women Act.
____________________
COMMONSENSE GUN SAFETY LAWS SAVE LIVES
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, an analysis by the Violence Policy Center,
VPC, of the most recent data available from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, CDC, revealed that the national per capita
death rate from guns was 10.36 people per 100,000 in 2003. In addition,
10 States had per capita gun death rates of more than 15 gun deaths per
100,000 people. Not coincidentally, the States with the highest per
capita gun death rates also have some of the most lax gun safety laws
in the country. This is further evidence that commonsense gun safety
laws do save lives.
Each year the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence produces a ``Gun
Violence Report Card'' in which it assigns individual States a grade on
their gun safety laws of A through F. In its analysis, the Brady
campaign evaluates State gun safety laws on factors such as: whether it
is illegal for a child to possess a gun without supervision; whether it
is illegal to sell a gun to a child; whether gun owners are held
responsible for leaving loaded guns easily accessible to children;
whether guns are required to have child-safety locks, loaded-chamber
indicators and other childproof designs; whether cities and counties
have authority to enact local gun safety laws; whether background
checks are required at gun shows and between private parties; and,
whether it is legal to carry concealed handguns in public.
When the analysis of the CDC gun death data for 2003 is compared with
the Brady campaign's report card for the same year, we find that the
States with the lowest rates of gun deaths also received the highest
grades from the Brady campaign. In fact, four of the five States with
the lowest gun death rates received an ``A-,'' the highest grade
awarded by the Brady campaign that year, and the fifth received a
``B-.'' These five States had an average rate of 3.81 gun deaths per
100,000 people, less than half of the national average. Conversely,
four of the five States with the highest rates of gun deaths received
an ``F,'' while the fifth received a ``D-.'' These five States had an
average rate of 17.9 gun deaths per 100,000 people.
According to the Brady campaign, none of the top 15 States with the
highest rates of gun deaths have laws requiring background checks on
guns purchased at gun shows or from private sellers. Under current
Federal law, when an individual buys a firearm from a licensed dealer,
there are requirements for a background check to ensure that the
purchaser is not prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing a
firearm. However, this is not the case for all gun purchases. For
example, when an individual wants to buy a firearm from a private
citizen who is not a licensed gun dealer, there is no Federal
requirement that the seller ensure that the purchaser is not in a
prohibited category. This creates a loophole in the Federal law,
providing prohibited purchasers, including convicted criminals, with
potential easy access to dangerous firearms. Fortunately, some States,
including the five with the lowest rates of gun deaths, have enacted
laws to help close this loophole.
Congress should work to enact national gun safety standards,
including mandatory background checks on all gun sales, to help reduce
the high rate of gun deaths across the country. The States who have
already enacted commonsense gun safety legislation have shown that
their laws make a difference and we should follow their lead.
____________________
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Thomas Jefferson called religious
freedom the ``first freedom.'' As founder and leader over the last 3
years of the Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom, I wanted
to take this opportunity to pay tribute to this pivotal liberty. Last
month, President Bush also recognized this important freedom by
declaring ``Religious Freedom Day,'' observed on January 16.
Americans are among the most religious peoples on Earth and are of
many faith traditions. Nearly 80 percent of Americans state they pray
regularly. Within a few blocks of this Capitol, there are churches,
meeting houses, synagogues, mosques, temples, and house of worship of
every variety.
The free exercise of religion is a hallmark of our Nation. It is the
reason many of our ancestors came here. It is the reason we are able to
live peacefully together as a religiously diverse people. Cherished by
the American people as the most precious of those rights given by God,
religious freedom has been given the pride of place in our
Constitution, in the first clause of the first amendment of the Bill of
Rights.
Freedom of thought, conscience, and religious belief, as Jefferson
and the American Founders recognized, is the prerequisite for the
exercise of other basic human rights. Freedom of speech, press, and
assembly depend on a free conscience. No basic freedom can be secure
where religious freedom is denied.
But these rights do not just belong to Americans. They are universal;
they belong to every person in this world. No one, from the worst
dictator to the most powerful government, can take away the right for a
person to believe as he or she wishes. However, the expression of this
belief is too often repressed through the imposition of persecution and
death.
[[Page 2022]]
Since the Nazi Holocaust against the Jewish people, the principle of
religious freedom has gained recognition in foreign policy. The right
to religious freedom found worldwide acceptance in the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, to which many nations have agreed.
``Everyone,'' the declaration asserts, ``has the right to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion.'' As the declaration makes explicit,
``this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and
freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice,
worship and observance.''
The declaration's article 18 thus provides for the acceptance of
religious pluralism; the freedom to convert to another faith; the right
to express unorthodox beliefs in one's individual capacity; the right,
not only to worship in private or behind the walls of a building but to
express one's faith in society. These are powerful concepts that
challenge many societies, including at times our own.
For example, I have introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a
bill which would restore a balanced approach to religious freedom in
the workplace. It would clarify current law, which requires employers
to accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, unless doing
so would cause significant difficulty or financial hardship for the
employer. While most employers recognize the value of respecting
religion in the workplace, sometimes employees are forced to choose
between dedication to the principles of their faith and losing their
job because their employers refuse to reasonably accommodate certain
needs. It is supported by a broad spectrum of groups, liberal and
conservative, who share this Nation's commitment to the freedom of
conscience.
The International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which I supported,
institutionalized religious freedom as a guiding doctrine in America's
foreign relations. The act established within the State Department an
office, headed by an Ambassador-at-Large, to monitor and report
annually on the status of religious freedom in every country; and it
created the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom as an
independent Government agency to study and propose new policies to
advance religious freedom abroad.
Because of this legislation, regular reports are being issued by the
State Department on the status of religious freedom in every country.
Citizens now have access to information not easily available
previously. The U.S. Government is now designating countries as being
of particular concern solely because of their records on religious
freedom. While more actions can be taken, our Government is making this
freedom a priority.
The founder of Pennsylvania, William Penn, and many others fled to
this land seeking religious freedom. Centuries later, the United States
remains a beacon for the religiously repressed around the world. Our
Congressional Working Group on Religious Freedom includes persons from
diverse countries and faith backgrounds who have found religious
freedom in America and who now dedicate their lives to speaking out for
the persecuted around the world.
A regular participant in our Working Group is Ali Alyami. Dr. Alyami
is a Muslim from Saudi Arabia, but he is not a follower of Wahhabism,
the extremist, state-sanctioned brand of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and so
he faces marginalization and repression in his homeland.
Another is Bob Fu, an evangelical Christian leader who was arrested
in his native China for praying in an unauthorized house-church before
finding refuge in the United States and moving to Philadelphia.
Eden Naby, an Assyrian Christian, spoke at our ``Christmas under
Siege'' meeting last month about the accelerating attrition rate of
religious minorities fleeing ethnic cleansing and extremism in Iraq,
Seung-Woo Kahng attested to the cruelties suffered by an underground
church-leader in North Korea.
Michael Muenir, a Copt originally from Egypt, reported to our group
about the failure of Egyptian justice when Copts are murdered by
Islamic fanatics, discrimination against the Copts in the upper
echelons of government and military, and the obstacles to getting
government permission to build or even repair churches in Egypt.
Bat Ye'or, a Jewish author originally from Egypt, spoke of the rising
tide of anti-Semitism throughout Europe.
These and many more like them are grateful to have the freedom in the
United States to speak out about the need for religious freedom in many
countries throughout the world.
When we look at the overall state of religious freedom in the world,
state-sponsored religious persecution of the harshest severity--
torture, imprisonment, and even death--occurs today under three types
of regimes: the remnant communist regimes; repressive Islamist states;
and nationalist authoritarian states. Many of the countries represented
in these categories are those that have been officially designated by
the U.S. State Department as ``countries of particular concern,'' or
``CPCs,'' for their ``egregious, systematic, and continuing''
violations of religious freedom.
The first type of regime is that of the remnant communist states,
such as China, North Korea, and Vietnam. For example:
North Korea systematically crushes public expressions of religion and
puts in harsh concentration camps those accused of being religious,
along with up to three generations of their family members.
China seeks to control all religion and punishes religious leaders
who worship without authorization with fines, ``reeducation'' camp, and
other forms of incarceration. It also harshly treats Falun Gong
practitioners, who have reported to us about torture and murder at the
hands of authorities.
Vietnam beats and tortures its Hmong and tribal Christians until they
recant their faith.
A second main type of regime fostering state-sponsored persecution is
that of repressive Islamic states. For example:
In recent years, the Sudanese Government prosecuted a genocidal war
in its south in which over 2 million Christians and followers of
traditional African religions were killed and thousands enslaved for
resisting the forcible imposition of Islamic law. Khartoum is now
employing the genocidal tactics honed in the religious conflict with
the south in a race-based conflict in its western Darfur region.
Iran's fanatical regime has tortured and killed many thousands of its
own nationals for religious reasons. One Iranian political dissident, a
Muslim professor named Hashem Aghajari, aptly protested at his July
2004 blasphemy trial that he was being punished for ``the sin of
thinking.''
Saudi Arabia continues to indoctrinate its students in an ideology of
religious hatred and exports such propaganda to other Muslims
communities throughout the world, including here in the United States;
Saudi researchers themselves found that the state's curriculum
``misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their
own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate
the `other.'''
The third type of regime where religious persecution is prevalent is
that of nationalist authoritarian states, such as Burma and Eritrea.
For example:
In Burma, the government subjects all publications, including
religious publications, to control and censorship. The government
generally prohibits outdoor meetings of more than five persons,
including religious meetings.
In Eritrea there are reports that police have tortured those detained
for their religious beliefs, including using bondage, heat exposure,
and beatings. Also, some detainees were required to sign statements
repudiating their faith or agreeing not to practice it as a condition
for release.
Lastly, we have unfortunately seen a global trend of growing anti-
Semitism which has also been brought before our working group. It has
been seen in Iran where the President has notoriously denied the
Holocaust and threatened
[[Page 2023]]
the existence of Israel, in the streets of Russia, in the capitals of
Europe, and even on the campuses of American universities. The
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an abominable anti-Semitic forgery of
a Russian czar, is resurfacing at Iranian government-sponsored book
fairs, on Egyptian-controlled television broadcasts and in Saudi-
published textbooks. This precise work was used by Hitler to
indoctrinate Nazi youths. We must take this threat seriously.
Natan Sharansky, himself once a Soviet religious prisoner, a ``Jewish
refusenik,'' states that a test of a free society is whether ``people
have a right to express their views without fear of arrest,
imprisonment, or physical harm.'' None of the CPCs cited above are free
societies. It is no coincidence that regimes that pose the gravest
threats to our national security--Iran and North Korea today--are also
ones that tyrannically crush freedom of belief. The protection and
promotion of religious freedom is as fundamental to our national
interest, as it is to our ideals.
When we promote religious freedom for these countries and others,
when we as members of the Senate speak publicly on religious freedom,
when we raise the issue on our trips abroad and in our meetings with
foreign officials, when we make sure that members of the administration
and embassy officials around the world raise these values regularly
with foreign governments, when we speak on behalf of persecuted
dissidents, and when we act consistently in our own country, we will
not only be working to ensure every person can worship as they see fit.
We will also be ensuring a safer, peaceful, more secure world where the
rights of all--the freedoms of all--are respected and celebrated.
____________________
RENT RELIEF TO FEDERAL JUDICIARY
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss S. 2292, a bill to
provide rent relief to the Federa1 judiciary. Our Federal judges and
court administrators have expressed serious concerns about the rental
charges assessed by the General Services Administration, GSA, in
courthouses and other space occupied by the courts around the country.
If enacted, this legislation would require the administrator of general
services to charge the judicial branch no more rent than that which
represents the actual costs of operating and maintaining its
facilities. Specifically, it prohibits the General Services
Administration from including amounts for capital costs, real estate
taxes, except for those taxes actually paid by the administrator of
general services to lessors, or administrative fees in rental charges.
The current budgetary problems caused by the judiciary's rental
payments must be addressed. In fiscal terms, since 1986, the Federal
Courts' rental payments to GSA have increased from $133 million to $912
million. The percentage of the judiciary's operating budget devoted to
rent payments has escalated sharply from 15.7 percent in 1986 to about
22 percent in 2004. During this same time, the share of the Federal
budget provided to the judiciary has dwindled as Congress has sought to
tackle our Nation's increasing budget deficit. Even as overall
resources available to the judiciary dwindle, analysts project that
rental payments will reach approximately $1.2 billion by 2009, which
will be an estimated 25 percent of the judiciary's annual operating
budget.
I believe that the courts are doing everything they possibly can to
contain their costs without adversely affecting the administration of
justice. The Federal judiciary has imposed a 24-month moratorium on the
construction of any new courthouses and has stopped planning for many
projects. If rent relief is not granted to the judiciary, more
personnel cuts will be required in the near future, including the loss
of another 4,000 jobs over the next 4 years.
In my view, this constitutes a near crisis in the Federal judiciary.
Space and appropriate personnel play a significant role in our judicial
system. The ready availability of appropriate courtrooms, jury
deliberation and assembly rooms, and workspace for support staff all
facilitate the administration of justice. Appropriate space for drug
testing and monitoring of persons under supervision by Federal
probation officers is of the utmost importance. It is critical that the
courts have all the tools they need to carry out their mission.
Providing this relief to the judiciary will allow them to improve the
administration of justice for all Americans.
Additionally, serious building-related security problems in existing
courthouses are also a key consideration. Courthouses should have
secure passage for detainees to be transported, separating public
passageways from these individuals. Unfortunately, this is not the case
in many courthouses, including several courthouses in my home state of
Texas. As an example, I recently wrote to Attorney General Gonzales to
urge him to ensure that funding is granted to fix security concerns
identified at the Midland Federal Courthouse as soon as possible.
Affording the judiciary rent relief so they can devote more money to
courthouse security is a good first step.
Finally, I think it is important to point out that this bill
addresses the unequal treatment generally afforded the lower Federal
courts. Many of the buildings used by other agencies and branches of
the Federal Government are exempt from rent. For example, the
Department of Defense pays no rent to GSA on the Pentagon or on
military bases. The Treasury Department, which once housed GSA, pays no
rent on the main Treasury building or on its Mints. The Supreme Court--
unlike the lower Federal courts--pays no rent. Likewise, the Federal
Reserve Board, the FDIC, and many other quasi-federal agencies do not
pay rent to GSA. There is no rent paid on Federal prisons, embassies,
NIH facilities, nuclear facilities, VA hospitals, EPA labs, or national
parks and national forest facilities. Congress does not pay rent on the
Capitol Building we're deliberating in today. Nor does Congress pay
rent on the Senate or House office buildings or surrounding structures.
Congress is charged rent by GSA only for a small amount of space for
congressional State and district offices. The Federal judiciary--
specifically, the lower Federal courts--lack that same advantage. This
bill takes a step towards granting the judiciary equal treatment.
It is important that all who enter our Nation's courts are ensured
fair and equitable treatment. This bill is a critical component in
achieving this goal. I will work with Senator Specter and the other co-
sponsors to get this bill moving through the judiciary committee as
soon as possible.
____________________
PROVIDING RELIEF FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY FROM EXCESSIVE RENT CHARGES
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday Chairman Specter introduced a
bill I cosponsored to provide relief for the Federal judiciary from
excessive rent charges assessed by the General Services Administration,
GSA, for the use of courthouses and other spaces occupied by the courts
across the Nation. Since 1986, the Federal courts' rental payments to
GSA have increased dramatically, with the percentage of the judiciary's
operating budget devoted to rent payments escalating from 15.7 percent
in 1986 to approximately 22 percent in 2004. If no changes are made,
this percentage is expected to continue to rise sharply. This
legislation brings these rent charges under control by capping the rent
charges at GSA's actual costs of operating and maintaining
accommodations provided to the judicial branch, by specifying that
certain capital costs, taxes, and administrative fees shall not be
included in GSA's rent charges, and by establishing a means for
repayment over time for the future costs of repair and alteration
projects performed by GSA.
As the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have been
concerned about the adverse effect of these rent payments on the
administration of justice. On May 13, 2005, a bipartisan group of 11
members of the Judiciary Committee, including Chairman Specter and
myself, sent a letter to GSA asking it to exercise its authority to
[[Page 2024]]
exempt the judicial branch from all rental payments except those
required to operate and maintain Federal court buildings and related
costs. GSA's response has not been adequate. As set forth in that
letter, the excessive rent paid by the judiciary will exacerbate severe
personnel shortages by forcing more cuts and could also have impacts on
courthouse security. The rent relief provided in this bill will help
ensure that the judiciary continues to have the tools it needs to carry
out its unique and vital function.
____________________
KATRINA ON THE GROUND
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina tore
through the gulf coast States leaving in its wake death and destruction
that none of us will soon forget. In the immediate aftermath, graphic
images of people struggling to escape the flooding in New Orleans and
digging through the rubble of their homes in Mississippi and Alabama
filled our television sets and newspapers. People were outraged at the
Government's response. They volunteered their time to aid in rescues.
They donated their money to help the victims. But many soon moved on.
The problems faced by the residents of the gulf coast, however, have
not gone away. Rebuilding is underway, but it will take years. We
cannot forget the work that still needs to be done or the people who
are still struggling.
That is why I am so impressed with a new volunteer initiative called
Katrina on the Ground. Katrina on the Ground, or KOTG, will bring
together students from across the country to help rebuild the
hurricane-ravaged cities of Mobile, AL, Biloxi, MS, and New Orleans,
LA, during their spring break vacations. Each student will provide at
least one week of assistance in the region after receiving a day of
training in Selma, AL. This is a stunning commitment of time and energy
given that many students spend their spring breaks at the beach or on
vacation.
Choosing the 21st Century Youth Leadership camp in Selma, AL, as a
training site was not a coincidence. Selma, as we all know, is where
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. led his last great march in 1965--the march
that led to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. KOTG's founders hope to
build on the spirit of the civil rights movement, invigorating a new
generation of leaders to effect change. As Kevin Powell, one of the
founders points out, ``There has been nothing like this since the
student-led anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s or . . . the student
sit-ins and freedom rides of the 1960s.'' A student army, 500 to 700
strong, sends a powerful message to residents of the gulf coast and the
rest of the Nation that we care and we have not forgotten.
I commend these students, KOTG's partner organizations, and its
founders KOTG for their creativity, their compassion, and their
commitment to public service. KOTG gives us hope for the future and
demonstrates that the leaders of tomorrow are already here, ready, and
willing to face the toughest challenges of our time.
____________________
COMMITTEE TESTIMONY OF LYNETTE MUND
Mr. DORGAN. Earlier this month, Lynette Mund, a teacher and coach
from West Fargo, ND, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee
about the importance of women's athletics.
Lynette is a great athlete in her own right. She was a three-time
national champion in basketball. Her home State of North Dakota has
always been proud of her and is lucky to have her contributions at West
Fargo High School.
Her excellent statement laid out the struggles of providing the
opportunity for young women to participate in sports. I ask unanimous
consent that her statement be printed in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Testimony of Lynette Mund--Promoting Women in Sports, February 1, 2006
Good morning, Chairman Stevens, Senator Inouye and Members
of the Committee. On behalf of the state of North Dakota, I
would like to thank the Commerce Committee for hearing my
testimony.
My name is Lynette Mund and I am a teacher and head girls
basketball coach at West Fargo High School in West Fargo,
North Dakota. I am here today to testify to the importance of
women's athletics and the struggles of providing athletic
opportunities to young girls in rural communities. I will
also discuss what I am doing to encourage more young girls to
participate in sports in North Dakota.
Girls and women being involved in athletics has been a long
discussed issue. Many questions have been asked, such as
``Can girls' bodies handle it?'' ``Are girls mentally tough
enough?'' ``Does it really make a difference in a girl's
life?'' I am here as evidence that the answers to the
previous questions are all ``Yes''. The fact that I am in
Washington, DC, testifying in front of the U.S. Senate
Commerce Committee shows what a difference sports can make in
a girl's life. Twenty years ago, I was a 12-year-old girl who
was milking cows on my parent's dairy farm in rural North
Dakota, and now I am here in our nation's capital with some
of the most influential people in our country listening to
what I have to say. I have always loved sports, but I had no
idea where they would take me and the confidence they would
give me.
At age 13, I was a skinny 8th grader who was stepping out
on the basketball court to start my first varsity game, and
by age 23, I was a 3-time NCAA Division II National Champion
and a college graduate from North Dakota State University who
had the confidence to leave North Dakota and move to the
``big city'' of St. Louis, MO. However, while I was in St.
Louis, I always had a desire to move back to North Dakota and
give back part of what I had been given. That opportunity
presented itself when I was offered the head girls basketball
coaching position at West Fargo High School. Being back in
North Dakota not only afforded me the chance to work with
female athletes in West Fargo, but I was also able to
continue working with young girls back near my hometown of
Milnor, ND, which has a population of 700 people.
As I stated earlier, I grew up on a dairy farm. I was a
relatively naive young lady without much self-confidence. I
had always dreamed of going to college, but I knew it would
not be affordable without a college scholarship. I remember
standing out in the milk barn and hearing on the radio that a
local basketball star, Pat Smykowski, had gotten a college
scholarship to play basketball, and right then and there I
knew that was what I wanted to do. Thankfully, due to the
efforts of many great women before me, the chance to
participate in college athletics was available; something my
mother and many women from her generation never had an
opportunity to do. My mom used to talk about wanting to play
sports but not having the chance to compete. I sometimes sit
and wonder how different my life would be without athletics.
I wonder if I would have had the money to attend college, if
I would have had the confidence to move away from my home
state, and if I would have had the nerve to fly to
Washington, DC, all by myself and speak in front of U.S.
Senators. However, all of these things happened because I
participated in athletics. As a result, I want to inform and
inspire other young girls from rural North Dakota.
One of the biggest challenges in rural North Dakota is that
there are very few opportunities for athletes to improve
their skills. That is why over the last 12 years, I have
offered over 40 basketball camps in North Dakota and
Minnesota. I am proud to have given over 800 young women the
opportunity to participate in their first basketball camp.
For many of these young girls, my camps are the only exposure
they will have to an athletic camp for the whole year. Over
the years, I have had the chance to see some of my former
campers continue their careers in high school athletics, some
of which I have actually had to coach against! However, it
was always worth it to see how far these young ladies have
come and the confidence they now carry. At the time they
attended camp, you should have seen their eyes when I told
them they could have the chance to play in high school or
college someday. Some of these girls did not even realize
this was an option for them. By exposing these young girls to
athletics at an early age, it allows them to see that sports
is an option. This is relevant to the future of women's
athletics because equal access to sports in college only
works if girls have the opportunity to get involved in
athletics at an early age.
Getting these young ladies involved is even more evident
when I look at athletic participation numbers for girls in
North Dakota. According to figures from the 2004-2005 North
Dakota High School Activities Association, females made up 49
percent of the student population in North Dakota. However,
only 40 percent of the student-athletes were females. It is
one of my goals to bring this number closer to 49 percent.
This is important to me because I have first hand knowledge
of how athletics can have a positive effect on a young woman.
I have been very fortunate to coach camps along with a high
school basketball team.
[[Page 2025]]
This year, I have 3 seniors at West Fargo who will be
receiving athletic scholarships and playing college
basketball next fall. I have had the chance to watch these
young ladies grow and mature since their freshman year. They
exude a confidence that was not there 3 years ago. They know
they have the ability to do whatever they want in life and
the self-assurance they will be successful.
By providing my basketball camps and coaching high school
basketball, I hope that other young girls from my home state
realize that there are many opportunities to participate in
athletics, and even a young girl from a town of less than
1000 people can be a National Champion, a college graduate,
and a successful, confident professional.
Thank you very much for your time.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
IN MEMORY OF FEMINIST PIONEER BETTY FRIEDAN
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the life
of one of the late 20th century's most influential feminists, Betty
Friedan. Friedan died on February 4, 2006, at her home in Washington,
DC, at the age of 85.
At her Smith College 15-year reunion, she famously prepared a survey
of her classmates, the results of which eventually became her landmark
book, ``The Feminine Mystique.'' With this book, published in 1963,
Friedan helped ignite the second wave of the feminist movement, and the
book is now regarded as one of the most influential American books of
the 20th century.
Friedan was the cofounder of three groundbreaking women's
organizations which have greatly improved women's economic, personal,
and political lives. In 1966, Friedan cofounded the National
Organization for Women, NOW, and served as its first president until
1970. She also helped found what is now NARAL Pro-Choice America and
the National Women's Political Caucus.
Friedan fought tirelessly for equal pay, safe and legal abortion,
maternity leave, childcare for working parents, and an end to sex
discrimination.
Friedan's survivors include her sons, Daniel Friedan and Jonathan
Friedan; daughter Emily Friedan; nine grandchildren; a sister, Amy
Adams; and a brother, Harry Goldstein. Her former husband Carl Friedan
died in December 2005.
Like other strong, outspoken women, Betty Friedan was widely and
loudly criticized in the 1960s and 1970s for being too strong, vocal,
and unrealistic. Betty Friedan endured that criticism to make her mark
in the world.
Women have made tremendous strides since ``The Feminist Mystique''
was first published. We have a stronger voice in our communities and in
our workplaces. I am proud to serve as 1 of 14 women in the Senate, and
we now have 68 women in the House of Representatives. We have made
progress, but much more needs to be done.
As we remember the life and accomplishments of Betty Friedan, let us
rededicate ourselves to achieving full equality for women in
America.
____________________
HONORING ROY PALMER VARNER
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I wish to remember the life
of Roy Palmer Varner of Marietta, GA. Like many of his generation, Roy
Varner bore witness to some of the most important moments and changes
in our Nation's history. But Roy Varner wasn't merely a passing
observer of the events of the 20th Century, he was an active and
influential participant in them.
A native son of Georgia, Roy Varner possessed a deep sense of duty
and service, which was tested on December 7, 1941. Without hesitation,
he joined the effort to defend freedom by enlisting in the Army and
soon found himself in the 101st Airborne Division. On June 6, 1944, Mr.
Varner joined thousands of his brothers in parachuting ahead of the
Allied invasion at Normandy. A few months later, the effort to liberate
Europe turned toward Holland, and when his name was called again, Mr.
Varner did not hesitate to reenter the fray as a part of Operation
Market Garden. For men like Roy Varner, there was no question of the
righteousness of their task. They knew it would be a difficult journey,
and that not all of them would live to see it through. But they were
loyal, patriotic men of faith who understood the weight of their
responsibility and never questioned their belief that their mission
would be successful. And that, is why we call them the Greatest
Generation.
After the war, Mr. Varner returned to his home in Cobb County, GA,
and married Mary Munro, who would stand loyally by his side for the
next 56 years. In the early 1950s, Mr. Varner began what would become a
long and successful career as a commercial real estate developer.
Although his work took him all over the Southeast, the mark that he
left on the early development of Cobb County was his most lasting. As a
real estate businessman in Atlanta for over 30 years, I knew him
personally and saw the product of his vision and hard work take shape
in the projects he developed. Mr. Varner's influence on the community
was also evident in his work as the chairman of the industrial
committee for the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce and his service as a
member of the Marietta Rotary Club.
As a businessman, Roy Varner personified the values of honesty and
hard work, but he was also a man of intellect and faith, and, above
all, a family man. The son of a minister, Mr. Varner embarked on his
life with a certain zeal that only comes with a belief in God, and he
actively served his church community as a lay leader and fundraiser. A
firm believer in the value of education, Mr. Varner attended Woodrow
Wilson Law School after being honorably discharged from the Army and
remained a scholar of history, art, literature, and world events for
the rest of his life. He lived by his ideals and passed his principles
on to his four children and ten grandchildren, who have continued his
work and his legacy and who are the living embodiment of the values and
beliefs that shaped his life and influenced the lives of so many
others.
On February 8, 2006, Mary Varner lost her husband and the world lost
a truly great man. He deeply influenced his family and community, left
an indelible mark on the landscape of Cobb County and, as a member of
the Greatest Generation, helped influence the course of history. He
fought for our country and he helped to build our Nation. But, as is
often the case with men like Roy Varner, his contributions cannot
easily be measured. He will be remembered by many different people for
many different reasons, but Roy Varner should be remembered by this
body as nothing less than an American hero.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
______
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
At 1:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
has signed the following enrolled bill:
S. 1989. An act to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 57 Rolfe Square in Cranston,
Rhode Island, as the ``Holly A. Charette Post Office''.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Stevens).
____
At 2:20 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
agreed to the following concurrent resolution, without amendment:
S. Con. Res. 79. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense
of Congress that no United States assistance should be
provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any
representative political party holding a majority of
parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority
maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 300. Concurrent resolution paying tribute to
Shirley Horn in recognition of her many achievements and
contributions to the world of jazz and American culture.
H. Con. Res. 341. Concurrent resolution condemning the
Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear
nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for
efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security
Council.
[[Page 2026]]
H. Con. Res. 345. Concurrent resolution providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following concurrent resolutions were read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 300. A resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit deplorably infringed on
parental rights in Fields v. Palmdale School District. A bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for
Gulf tax credit bonds and advance refundings of certain tax-
exempt bonds, and to provide a Federal guarantee of certain
State bonds. A concurrent resolution paying tribute to
Shirley Horn in recognition of her many achievements and
contributions to the world of jazz and American culture; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
H. Con. Res. 341. Concurrent resolution condemning the
Government of Iran for violating its international nuclear
nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for
efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security
Council; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
____________________
MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME
The following bill was read the first time:
S. 2320. A bill to make available funds included in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other
purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. WARNER for the Committee on Armed Services.
*Preston M. Geren, of Texas, to be Under Secretary of the
Army.
*James I. Finley, of Minnesota, to be Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
*Thomas P. D'Agostino, of Maryland, to be Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Ronald F. Sams to be
Lieutenant General.
Air Force nominations beginning with Brigadier General
David L. Frostman and ending with Colonel Paul M. Van Sickle,
which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in
the Congressional Record on December 13, 2005.
Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Glenn F. Spears to be
Major General.
Air Force nomination of Brig. Gen. Dennis G. Lucas to be
Major General.
Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives to be Judge
Advocate General of the United States Air Force.
Air Force nomination of Col. Steven J. Lepper to be
BrigadierGeneral.
Army nominations beginning with Col. Malinda E. Dunn and
ending with Col. Clyde J. Tate III, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on July 19, 2005.
Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Richard G. Maxon to be Major
General.
Army nominations beginning with Brigadier General Michael
D. Barbero and ending with Brigadier General Curtis M.
Scaparrotti, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on December 13,
2005.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz to be Lieutenant
General.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. David P. Valcourt to be
Lieutenant General.
Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno to be
Lieutenant General.
Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to be
Lieutenant General.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Colonel Ronald L.
Bailey and ending with Colonel Robert S. Walsh, which
nominationswere received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on February 6, 2006.
Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Robert T. Conway, Jr. to be
ViceAdmiral.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of
Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Air Force nominations beginning with James C. Ault and
endingwith Maryanne C. Yip, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
October 17, 2005.
Air Force nomination of Barbara A. Hilgenberg to be
Colonel.
Air Force nomination of Evelyn S. Gemperle to be Colonel.
Air Force nominations beginning with John W. Ayres, Jr. and
ending with Alan E. Johnson, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with David Harrision
Burdette and ending with Dominic O. Ubamadu, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Karen Marie Bachmann
and ending with Mary V. Lussier, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Raymond L. Hagan, Jr.
and ending with William H. Willis, Sr., which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Russell G. Boester and
ending with Richard T. Shelton, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Diana Atwell and
ending with Anne C. Sproul, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Gerald Q. Brown and
ending with Lisa L. Turner, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Mark J. Batcho and
ending with David J. Zemkosky, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Tarek C. Abboushi and
ending with John J. Ziegler III, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 27, 2006.
Air Force nomination of Jeffrey J. Love to be Lieutenant
Colonel.
Air Force nomination of Fritzjose E. Chandler to be Major.
Air Force nomination of Jose F. Eduardo to be Major.
Air Force nominations beginning with Darwin L. Alberto and
ending with Amy S. Woosley, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Air Force nomination of Julie K. Stanley to be Colonel.
Air Force nominations beginning with John Julian Aldridge
III and ending with Susan L. Siegmund, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Isidro Acosta Cardeno
and ending with Larry A. Woods, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Evelyn L. Byars and
ending with Sheralyn A. Wright, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Ronald A. Abbott and
ending with Jose Villalobos, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Dale R. Agner and
ending with David A. Williams, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Mark Robert Ackermann
and ending with Sheila Zuehlke, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Javier A. Abreu and
ending with Kyle S. Wendfeldt, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Eric J. Ashman and
ending with Kenneth C. Y. Yu, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 31, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Bruce S. Abe and
ending with Ann E. Zionic, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Air Force nominations beginning with Steven J. Acevedo and
ending with Steven R. Zieber, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Roberto C. Andujar and
ending with Kenneth A. Young, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
December 13, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Craig J. Agena and ending
with John S. Wright, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on December
13, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with Daniel G. Aaron and ending
with Marilyn D. Wills, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on December
13, 2005.
[[Page 2027]]
Army nominations beginning with William G. Adamson and
ending with x2451v, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on December
13, 2005.
Army nomination of Michael J. Osburn to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Margarett E. Barnes and
ending with David E. Upchurch, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on December 20, 2005.
Army nominations beginning with John W. Alexander, Jr. and
ending with Donald L. Wilson, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Susan K. Arnold and ending
with Everett F. Ytes, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January
27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with James A. Amyx, Jr. and
ending with Scott Willens, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
January 27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with John E. Adrian and ending
with David A. Young, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January
27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Timothy S. Adams and ending
with Pj Zamora, which nominations were received by the Senate
and appeared in the Congressional Record on January 27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Jude M. Abadie and ending
with John D. Yeaw, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January
27, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Lisa R. Leonard and ending
with Bret A. Slater, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on January
31, 2006.
Army nominations beginning with Mitchell S. Ackerson and
ending with Glenn R. Woodson, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Army nomination of Andrew H. N. Kim to be Colonel.
Army nominations beginning with Rendell G. Chilton and
ending with David J. Osinski, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 6, 2006.
Marine Corps nomination of Brian R. Lewis to be Major.
Marine Corps nomination of William A. Kelly, Jr. to be
Chief Warrant Officer W4.
Marine Corps nomination of Phillip R. Wahle to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nomination of James A. Croffie to be
Lieutenant Colonel.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with James H. Adams III
and ending with Richard D. Zyla, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with David T. Clark and
ending with Nieves G. Villasenor, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on January 31, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Ralph P. Harris III
and ending with Charles L. Thrift, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Stephen J. Dubois
and ending with John D. Paulin, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Jay A. Rogers and
ending with Stanley M. Weeks, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Sean P. Hoster and
ending with Timothy D. Wheeler, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Neil G. Anderson
and ending with Edward M. Moen, Jr., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Carl Bailey, Jr.
and ending with James A. Jones, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Gregory M. Goodrich
and ending with Mark W. Wascom, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Jack G. Abate and
ending with James Kolb, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Peter G. Bailiff
and ending with Timothy D. Sechrest, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Israel Garcia and
ending with James I. Saylor, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Ben A. Cacioppo,
Jr. and ending with Walter D. Romine, Jr., which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Peter M. Barack,
Jr. and ending with John D. Somich, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Marine Corps nominations beginning with Benjamin J. Abbott
and ending with Ruth A. Zolock, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record on February 1, 2006.
Navy nominations beginning with Christopher P. Bobb and
ending with Vincent J. Wood, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on
December 21, 2005.
By Mr. SHELBY for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
*Randall S. Kroszner, of New Jersey, to be a Member of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the
unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 1994.
*Kevin M. Warsh, of New York, to be a Member of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired
term of fourteen years from February 1, 2004.
*Edward P. Lazear, of California, to be a Member of the
Council of Economic Advisers.
By Mr. SPECTER for the Committee on the Judiciary.
Timothy C. Batten, Sr., of Georgia, to be United States
District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia.
Thomas E. Johnston, of West Virginia, to be United States
District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia.
Aida M. Delgado-Colon, of Puerto Rico, to be United States
District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico.
Leo Maury Gordon, of New Jersey, to be a Judge of the
United States Court of International Trade.
Carol E. Dinkins, of Texas, to be Chairman of the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Alan Charles Raul, of the District of Columbia, to be Vice
Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Paul J. McNulty, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney
General.
Stephen C. King, of New York, to be a Member of the Foreign
Claims Settlement Commission of the United States for the
term expiring September 30, 2008.
Reginald I. Lloyd, of South Carolina, to be United States
Attorney for the District of South Carolina for the term of
four years.
*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
(Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the
recommendation that they be confirmed.)
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
The following bills and joint resolutions were introduced, read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2293. A bill to authorize a military construction
project for the construction of an advanced training skills
facility at Brooke Army Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2294. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing
off the coast of the State of California, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2295. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a survey and monitoring of off-shore sites in the
vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands where chemical munitions
were disposed of by the Army Forces, to support research
regarding the public and environmental health impacts of
chemical munitions disposal in the ocean, and to require the
preparation of a report on remediation plans for such
disposal sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, and
Mr. Leahy):
S. 2296. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to
extend the study of a prior Commission to investigate and
determine facts and circumstances surrounding the relocation,
internment, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin
Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 through
February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the United
States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2297. A bill to clarify the applicability of deadlines
relating to construction of hydroelectric projects to certain
hydroelectric
[[Page 2028]]
projects located or proposed to be located on the Upper
Hudson River in the State of New York; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2298. A bill to facilitate remediation of perchlorate
contamination in water sources in the State of California,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2299. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to restore Federal aid
for the repair, restoration, and replacement of private
nonprofit educational facilities that are damaged or
destroyed by a major disaster; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Lott):
S. 2300. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act with respect to market exclusivity for certain
drugs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. Clinton):
S. 2301. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
synthetic quartz or synthetic fused silica; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. LOTT:
S. 2302. A bill to establish the Federal Emergency
Management Agency as an independent agency, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2303. A bill to ensure that the one half of the National
Guard forces of each State are available to such State at all
times, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lott, and
Mr. Menendez):
S. 2304. A bill to recognize the right of the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico to call a constitutional convention through
which the people of Puerto Rico would exercise their right to
self-determination, and to establish a mechanism for
congressional consideration of such decision; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Inouye, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and
Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2305. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to repeal the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or
nationality as a condition for receipt of medical assistance
under the Medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dorgan, and
Mr. Bond):
S. 2306. A bill to amend the National Organ Transplant Act
to clarify that kidney paired donation and kidney list
donation do not involve the transfer of a human organ for
valuable consideration; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 2307. A bill to enhance fair and open competition in the
production and sale of agricultural commodities; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 2308. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health
Act of 1977 to improve mine safety, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2309. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to modify the definition of agri-biodiesel; to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 2310. A bill to repeal the requirement for 12
operational aircraft carriers within the Navy; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 2311. A bill to establish a demonstration project to
develop a national network of economically sustainable
transportation providers and qualified transportation
providers, to provide transportation services to older
individuals, and individuals who are blind, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2312. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to change the numerical identifier used to
identify Medicare beneficiaries under the Medicare program;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2313. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to permit medicare beneficiaries enrolled in prescription
drug plans and MA-PD plans that change their formalities or
increase drug prices to enroll in other plans; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Kerry,
and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 2314. A bill to suspend the application of any provision
of Federal law under which persons are relieved from the
requirement to pay royalties for production of oil or natural
gas from Federal lands in periods of high oil and natural gas
prices, to require the Secretary to seek to renegotiate
existing oil and natural gas leases to similarly limit
suspension of royalty obligations under such leases, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2315. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
establish a federally-supported education and awareness
campaign for the prevention of methamphetamine use; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2316. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act to permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling
on the Outer Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North
Atlantic planning areas; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms.
Stabenow):
S. 2317. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to require
the United States Trade Representative to identify trade
enforcement priorities and to take action with respect to
priority foreign country trade practices, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2318. A bill to provide driver safety grants to States
with graduated driver licensing laws that meet certain
minimum requirements; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2319. A bill to provide for the recovery from Hurricane
Katrina, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Coleman, and Ms.
Collins):
S. 2320. A bill to make available funds included in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Specter):
S. Res. 373. A resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate that the Senate should continue to support the
National Domestic Violence Hotline, a critical national
resource that saves lives each day, and commemorate its 10th
anniversary; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. Res. 374. A resolution to authorize testimony, document
production, and legal representation in United States of
America v. David Hossein Safavian; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Reid):
S. Res. 375. A resolution to authorize testimony and legal
representation in State of New Hampshire v. William Thomas,
Keta C. Jones, John Francis Bopp, Michael S. Franklin, David
Van Strein, Guy Chichester, Jamilla El-Shafei, and Ann
Isenberg; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. REID:
S. Res. 376. A resolution to authorize representation by
the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Keyter v. McCain, et
al; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. FRIST:
S. Res. 377. A resolution honoring the life of Dr. Norman
Shumway and expressing the condolences of the Senate on his
passing; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Collins, Ms.
Snowe, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Brownback,
Mrs. Dole, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Specter):
S. Res. 378. A resolution designating February 25, 2006, as
``National MPS Awareness Day''; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
Mr. Burr, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. Allen):
S. Res. 379. A resolution recognizing the creation of the
NASCAR-Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Consortium; considered and agreed to.
By Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Graham, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Lincoln, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeMint, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Reid, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Allard, Mr. Talent, Mr.
Allen, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Bunning, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Obama, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Frist):
S. Res. 380. A resolution celebrating Black History Month;
considered and agreed to.
[[Page 2029]]
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Ms. Landrieu,
Mr. Akaka, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kerry, and Mrs. Clinton):
S. Res. 381. A resolution designating March 1, 2006, as
National Sibling Connection Day; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ISAKSON:
S. Con. Res. 81. A concurrent resolution recognizing and
honoring the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Sigma
Alpha Epsilon Fraternity; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 267
At the request of Mr. Craig, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. 267, a bill to
reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000, and for other purposes.
S. 333
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 333, a bill to hold the
current regime in Iran accountable for its threatening behavior and to
support a transition to democracy in Iran.
S. 382
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 382, a bill to amend
title 18, United States Code, to strengthen prohibitions against animal
fighting, and for other purposes.
S. 707
At the request of Mr. Alexander, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 707, a bill to reduce
preterm labor and delivery and the risk of pregnancy-related deaths and
complications due to pregnancy, and to reduce infant mortality caused
by prematurity.
S. 912
At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 912, a bill to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the
jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States.
S. 1035
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the names of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Jeffords) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) were added as
cosponsors of S. 1035, a bill to authorize the presentation of
commemorative medals on behalf of Congress to Native Americans who
served as Code Talkers during foreign conflicts in which the United
States was involved during the 20th century in recognition of the
service of those Native Americans to the United States.
S. 1289
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein)
and the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) were added as cosponsors
of S. 1289, a bill to provide for research and education with respect
to uterine fibroids, and for other purposes.
S. 1687
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1687, a bill to
amend the Public Health Service Act to provide waivers relating to
grants for preventive health measures with respect to breast and
cervical cancers.
S. 1791
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms.
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1791, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for qualified timber
gains.
S. 1934
At the request of Mr. Hagel, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1934, a bill to reauthorize the grant program of the Department of
Justice for reentry of offenders into the community, to establish a
task force on Federal programs and activities relating to the reentry
of offenders into the community, and for other purposes.
S. 1998
At the request of Mr. Conrad, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1998, a bill
to amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections relating
to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military
decorations and awards, and for other purposes.
S. 2126
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2126, a bill to
limit the exposure of children to violent video games.
S. 2157
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller) were added as cosponsors of S. 2157, a bill to amend title
10, United States Code, to provide for the Purple Heart to be awarded
to prisoners of war who die in captivity under circumstances not
otherwise establishing eligibility for the Purple Heart.
S. 2178
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. Bingaman) and the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2178, a bill to make the stealing and selling
of telephone records a criminal offense.
S. 2182
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2182, a bill to
terminate the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and for other purposes.
S. 2287
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2287, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase and permanently extend the
expensing of certain depreciable business assets for small businesses.
S. 2290
At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Allen) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2290, a bill to provide for
affordable natural gas by rebalancing domestic supply and demand and to
promote the production of natural gas from domestic resources.
S. 2291
At the request of Mr. Kennedy, the names of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2291, a bill to provide for the establishment of a
biodefense injury compensation program and to provide indemnification
for producers of countermeasures.
S. RES. 371
At the request of Mr. Thomas, the name of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 371, a
resolution designating July 22, 2006, as ``National Day of the American
Cowboy''.
S. RES. 372
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Dayton) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 372, a resolution
expressing the sense of the Senate that oil and gas companies should
not be provided outer Continental Shelf royalty relief when energy
prices are at historic highs.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Frist, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2293. A bill to authorize a military construction project for the
construction of an advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army
Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President I am reminded daily of the sacrifice of the
men and women of this country who serve or have loved ones who serve in
our armed forces. As a Tennessean I often think of the courage and
honor displayed by members of the 101st Airborne out of Fort Campbell
and the many Guardsmen and Reservists from my State who have served in
both Iraq and Afghanistan. These soldiers, many of whom call Tennessee
home, make great sacrifices for our Nation. I am
[[Page 2030]]
saddened to think about those who have been wounded in recent military
operations and in some cases are so severely injured that they require
extensive medical care, along with years of treatment and
rehabilitation. Their future quality of life and ability to provide for
their families depends on the treatment and rehabilitation they receive
from the country they have served.
As a physician I marvel at the great work of my colleagues in the
Armed Services Medical Commands who treat the most severely injured
military personnel. The use of improvised explosive devices in Iraq has
resulted in many injuries including amputations, head trauma, and in
some cases partial and full paralysis. We must meet the care and
rehabilitation needs of the soldiers who have sacrificed so much for
our country.
With this in mind I have joined with Senator Lieberman to sponsor a
bill to authorize the construction of a world-class state-of-the-art
advanced training skills facility at Brooke Army Medical Center. This
center will not only serve military personnel disabled in operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, but will also provide care to those severely
injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their
duties, both combat and non-combat related.
This center will provide necessary space and facilities for the
rehabilitation needs of the patients and their caregivers. It will be
constructed on a site sufficient in size to meet the needs of the
center's patients and caregivers and will include top of the line
indoor and outdoor facilities, a child care center, and other needed
support facilities. I am proud of the service of our military personnel
both past and present, and this new facility will go a long way in
helping to meet their needs both now and into the future.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 2294. A bill to permanently prohibit oil and gas leasing off the
coast of the State of California, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, with my friend and colleague from
California, Dianne Feinstein, I introduce the ``California Ocean and
Coastal Protection Act.'' This bill will permanently protect
California's coast from the dangers of new offshore drilling.
In California, there is strong and enduring public support for the
protection of our oceans and coastlines. Many years ago, my State
decided that the potential benefits that might be derived from future
offshore oil and gas development were not worth the risk of destroying
our priceless coastal treasures. Regular chronic leakage associated
with normal oil and gas operations, as well as catastrophic spills such
as the horrific Santa Barbara rig blowout in 1969, irreparably
contaminate our ocean, beaches, and wetlands.
The beauty of California's coast is so important that California
passed legislation permanently prohibiting oil and gas exploration in
State waters in 1994. This protection is limited, however, to
California's territorial waters--only three nautical miles out from
shore.
The Federal waters off the coast of California, which extend beyond
State waters to 200 nautical miles out, are increasingly at risk of
drilling. Despite years of bipartisan support for the moratoria on new
offshore drilling in Federal waters, recent efforts are threatening our
coasts. Some recent proposals would immediately lift the moratoria and
allow for drilling within 20 miles off our coasts. Last year's energy
bill included provisions to conduct an inventory of oil and gas
resources on the outer Continental Shelf (OCS). This inventory would be
performed with seismic guns that could have devastating impacts on
marine life.
Because of these threats, I am introducing legislation to provide
permanent protection for California's coast from future drilling. It
would also prohibit the harmful inventory of OCS resources from being
conducted off California's coast.
The people of California agree that we must do everything we can to
protect our coasts. This bill will finally provide the permanent
protection against future drilling that Californians have demanded for
a generation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
California Ocean and Coastal Protection Act, introduced by Senator
Boxer and myself, to permanently protect California's coast from oil
and gas drilling.
We simply cannot gamble away California's majestic coastline. An oil
spill would scar our coastline, costing billions and destroying
ecosystems. We cannot allow this to happen. The time has come to
permanently protect this treasure.
California is virtually unified in its opposition to lifting the
moratoria on drilling the Outer Continental Shelf.
Governor Schwarzenegger has publicly opposed offshore oil drilling
and has called for the Federal Government to buy back the remaining 36
undeveloped Federal offshore oil and gas leases on the Outer
Continental Shelf off the coast of central California.
The Governor has said that he ``oppose(s) any efforts to weaken the
federal moratorium for oil and gas leasing off the coast of California
and I support efforts to make the moratoria and the Presidential
deferrals for California permanent.'' Letter to Congressman Pombo, 11/
3/05.
That is what the bill we are introducing today would do--permanently
protect California's coast from oil and gas drilling.
California's Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, the secretary of
California Environmental Protection Agency, Alan Lloyd, and the
Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, have also been on record opposing
any effort to lift the congressional moratorium on offshore oil and gas
leasing activities.
Secretary Chrisman, who is also the chairman of the California Ocean
Protection Council, has in fact stated ``Any pending federal
legislation regarding Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas leasing
must retain all protections from the Congressional leasing moratorium
and should seek to make these protections permanent.'' Letter to
Congressman Pombo, 9/27/05.
Californians are all too familiar with the consequences of offshore
drilling. An oil spill in 1969 off the coast of Santa Barbara killed
thousands of birds, dolphins, seals, and other animals. We know this
could happen again.
A healthy coast is vital to California's economy and our quality of
life. Ocean-dependent industry is estimated to contribute $17 billion
to California each year.
Californians have spoken loud and clear that they do not want
drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf. This bill will provide the
coast of California with the permanent protection needed.
______
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 2295. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to conduct a
survey and monitoring of off-shore sites in the vicinity of the
Hawaiian Islands where chemical munitions were disposed of by the Army
Forces, to support research regarding the public and environmental
health impacts of chemical munitions disposal in the ocean, and to
require the preparation of a report on remediation plans for such
disposal sites; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation aimed
to address the disposal of chemical weapons by the military from World
War II until 1970. A report titled, Off-Shore Disposal of Chemical
Agents and Weapons Conducted by the United States, lists possible sites
and types of munitions that may be found in Hawaii.
The Department of Defense has made tremendous strides in protecting
the health and welfare of our citizens. However, it still is working on
being better stewards of our environment. I am pleased the Army has
taken preliminary steps to investigate these munition disposal sites in
and around Hawaii. Given the health and safety threats that these
munitions may pose, I am introducing legislation to ensure the Army
will obtain a full accounting of the munitions found and the state of
their condition. Furthermore, it requires the Army to monitor these
areas for any health, safety, and environmental risks that these
weapons may
[[Page 2031]]
pose. Lastly, and more important, the Army will provide a report on
remediation plans for these areas.
Sadly the issue of disposing hazardous ordnance and waste is not new
to the State of Hawaii. Our citizens are keenly aware of the dangers
that hazardous waste poses to the health and safety of the public and
the environment. In fact, Departments of Defense installations are
responsible for generating half of all hazardous waste in Hawaii. For
these reasons, it is important for Congress to send the right message,
specifically in this case, and ensure that the Army completes its
survey, monitors the sites, and provides a plan for remediation. I urge
my colleagues to join me in passing this important legislation to
ensure that, if the Department of Defense is responsible for disposing
of hazardous materials, wherever it may be, then it should be held
accountable for monitoring and providing a plan for remediation.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Leahy):
S. 2296. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese Descent Act. I am introducing this bill today in commemoration
of February 19, 1942, the day that President Roosevelt signed a
document that authorized the internment of about 120,000 persons of
Japanese ancestry. Each year, on the anniversary of this date, the
internment is remembered both for the pain it caused, and the civics
lessons that can be learned. I am certain that these lessons will
propel this great Nation forward toward more equal justice for all.
The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes in the west coast
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm
across international borders, into a populous that did not pose an
immediate threat to our nation, in order to use them, devoid of
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with
Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the help
of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese
descent from streets, homes, and workplaces, and brought approximately
2,300 undocumented persons to camp sites in the U.S., where they were
held under armed watch, then used for prisoner exchange. Those used in
an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never
set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.
Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, many Japanese Latin
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America, but
some remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin
refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.
When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin
Americans, it seemed unfathomable, but indeed, it happened. It is a
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps
in our country.
The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans.
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate,
intern, and deport Japanese persons living in Latin America. Because
this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to
fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include
in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin
Americans subject to the program of relocation, internment, and
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would
give finality to, and complete the account of federal actions to detain
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2296
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese
Descent Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in
December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
(1) During World War II, the United States--
(A) expanded its internment program and national security
investigations to conduct the program and investigations in
Latin America; and
(B) financed relocation to the United States, and
internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of
Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin
Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held
by Axis countries.
(2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held
in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps
operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from
1941 through 1948.
(3) Those men, women, and children either--
(A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment
by local police, and sent to the United States for
internment; or
(B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily
entered internment camps to remain with their arrested
husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
(4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans
of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the
individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department
of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American
countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior
to departure.
(5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American
internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and
treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal
aliens in United States custody who were subject to
deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United
States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese
descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United
States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin
America, detained in internment camps in the United States,
and in some cases, deported to Axis countries to enable the
United States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to
Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the
[[Page 2032]]
Secretary of War to prescribe military areas). Although the
United States program of interning Latin Americans of
Japanese descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive
Order 9066, an examination of that extraordinary program is
necessary to establish a complete account of Federal actions
to detain and intern civilians of enemy or foreign
nationality, particularly of Japanese descent. Although
historical documents relating to the program exist in distant
archives, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment
of Civilians did not research those documents.
(8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a
group not covered by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50
U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.), which formally apologized and
provided compensation payments to former Japanese Americans
interned pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a
fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission
on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to
investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding
the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941
through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any,
based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and
new discoveries.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--There is established the Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese descent (referred to in this Act as the
``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, who shall be appointed not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, of whom--
(1) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
(2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the House of Representatives and the
minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
(3) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro
tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the
Senate.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
(d) Meetings.--
(1) First meeting.--The President shall call the first
meeting of the Commission not later than the later of--
(A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation
making appropriations to carry out this Act.
(2) Subsequent meetings.--Except as provided in paragraph
(1), the Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(e) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall
elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its
members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve for
the life of the Commission.
SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians
Act--
(A) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances
surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and
deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese
descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the
impact of those actions by the United States; and
(B) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to
review directives of the United States armed forces and the
Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in
internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries; and
(2) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on
preliminary findings by the original Commission and new
discoveries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
first meeting of the Commission pursuant to section 3(d)(1),
the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress,
which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation
conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations
described in subsection (a)(2).
SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.
(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the
Commission or such subcommittee or member considers
advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes,
and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or
member considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall
bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and
shall be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring such person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court
may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--Section 1821 of title 28,
United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or
subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission. The
per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid
from funds available to pay the expenses of the Commission.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Commission considers necessary to perform
its duties. Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the Commission.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.
(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may
be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to classification of positions
and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay
for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V
of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
(1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General
Services to procure necessary financial and administrative
services;
(2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and
property; and
(3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local
agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the
conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports,
and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.
SEC. 7. TERMINATION.
The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report to Congress under
section 4(b).
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act for
fiscal year 2007.
[[Page 2033]]
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 2298. A bill to facilitate remediation of perchlorate
contamination in water sources in the State of California, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I'm pleased to introduce this bill
today to help California drinking water providers address the growing
problem of perchlorate contamination.
The California Perchlorate Contamination Remediation Act authorizes
funds for perchlorate remediation of contaminated water sources.
The bill provides: $50 million in grants for cleanup and remediation
of perchlorate in water sources, including groundwater wells; and $8
million for research and development of new, cheaper, and more
efficient perchlorate cleanup technologies.
The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the Environmental
Protection Agency should promulgate a national drinking water standard
for perchlorate as soon as practicable.
The Defense Department and NASA use perchlorate in rocket fuel,
missiles, and at least 300 types of munitions.
The Defense Department has used perchlorate since the 1950s.
Perchlorate has a short shelf-life, and must be periodically replaced
in the country's rocket and missile inventories.
Perchlorate readily permeates through soil and can spread quickly
from its source. Over the last half century, improper disposal has
allowed perchlorate to seep into surface and groundwater supplies.
Perchlorate contamination of drinking and irrigation water is a
serious threat to public health.
Perchlorate interferes with the uptake of iodide into the thyroid
gland. Since iodide helps regulate thyroid hormone production,
perchlorate disrupts normal thyroid function. In adults, the thyroid
helps regulate metabolism.
Infants and children are especially susceptible to the effects of
perchlorate because the thyroid plays a critical role in proper
development. Even unborn babies can be affected by perchlorate.
Insufficient thyroid hormone production can severely retard a child's
physical and mental development.
Perchlorate first appeared in drinking water wells in Rancho Cordova,
CA in 1964. In 1985, the Environmental Protection Agency discovered
perchlorate in several wells in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern
California.
By 1997, it was detected in 4 counties in California and in the
Colorado River, and by 1999 perchlorate was discovered in the water
supplies of 12 States.
According to the California Department of Health Services at least
350 water sources in California, operated by 84 different local water
agencies, now have perchlorate contamination.
But perchlorate is not just a California problem. A study by
Government Accountability Office found perchlorate in the water
supplies of 35 States.
The scope and magnitude of the perchlorate problem is still being
defined and we are only beginning to discover the extent to which
perchlorate has penetrated the food supply.
Recent sampling by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
found perchlorate in people living in States without contaminated
drinking water. This suggests people all over the country are exposed
to at least trace levels of perchlorate.
In November 2004, the Food and Drug Administration released the
results of its recent evaluation of perchlorate in the Nation's food.
The FDA detected perchlorate in 90 percent of the lettuce samples taken
from 5 different States, including California.
The FDA also found perchlorate in 101 out of 104 milk samples taken
from retail stores around the country. Samples labeled as organic also
contained perchlorate.
Last February, a study by researchers from Texas Tech University
found perchlorate in all 36 samples of breast milk they tested. The
milk was collected from women in 18 States, including California.
With such widespread contamination in my State and across the
country, I have serious concerns about the health and well-being of the
most vulnerable among the population--infants, toddlers, pregnant
women, and those with compromised immune systems.
Let me speak for a moment about the challenges our water agencies are
facing. As the population grows, so do the demands on our water supply.
During times of drought, these demands are particularly challenging.
States and communities rely upon their local water supplies, but are
increasingly finding that these supplies are contaminated with
perchlorate and other pollutants.
When Federal agencies fail to protect adjacent water supplies from
perchlorate contamination, the problem falls to local and regional
water agencies to fix.
These agencies already face staggering challenges both in delivering
drinking water and managing wastewater services. Compounding these
challenges with cleanup responsibilities for Defense Department
activities is unfair, unreasonable, and unacceptable.
Perchlorate contamination in California is primarily the result of
releases from 12 defense sites and several government contractor sites.
I applaud those contractors that have taken an active role in the
cleanup of perchlorate. Unfortunately, clean up has only begun at a
handful of contaminated sites.
In many cities and counties around California, wells are being taken
out of service because of perchlorate contamination. Sometimes cities
and water agencies are forced to bring in water from other sources,
often at a much higher price. Other times, they must install costly
perchlorate removal equipment.
This bill will provide much needed funds to water agencies for
perchlorate remediation projects.
Now that perchlorate has been detected in the water sources of 35
States, it has become a national problem requiring a national solution.
I've approached several of my colleagues with a proposal that would
address perchlorate contamination on a national level. My hope is that
those representing States facing this problem will work with me on this
issue.
Today there is no Federal drinking water standard for perchlorate. In
the absence of a Federal standard, States have acted independently to
establish health-related guidance or regulatory limits for perchlorate
in drinking water.
The result is that each State has adopted a different preliminary
guideline for perchlorate.
Let me give you a few examples: California established a Public
Health Goal of 6 parts per billion; Texas has a Drinking Water Action
Level of 4 part per billion; Nevada has a Public Notice Standard of 18
parts per billion; New York has a Drinking Water Planning Level of 5
parts per billion; Arizona has a Health-Based Guideline of 14 parts per
billion; and Massachusetts has an interim public health goal of 1 part
per billion.
Each of these States has adopted a different kind of regulatory
guideline for perchlorate sending a confusing message to the public
about what level is safe. It also frustrates the water agencies that
strive to provide safe drinking water to consumers.
Clearly, it is time for the Federal Government to establish a
national standard for perchlorate.
This bill would assist California water providers in their efforts to
remove perchlorate from contaminated drinking water sources by
providing $50 million dollars for 50 percent federally matched grants.
To address the challenge of removing perchlorate from all of our
water supplies, we must invest in costeffective and timely remediation
solutions. To underwrite this effort, $8 million will be authorized for
grants for research and development of new, cheaper, more efficient
perchlorate cleanup technologies.
It is time for the EPA to fulfill its obligation to protect public
health. This bill expresses the sense of Congress that the EPA should
promulgate
[[Page 2034]]
a national drinking water standard for perchlorate under the timeline
of the Safe Drinking Water Act as soon as practicable.
Perchlorate contamination has placed an enormous financial burden on
the water agencies who strive to provide high quality, safe drinking
water to the citizens of California. Cleaning up contaminated water
sources is equivalent to creating new water, a growing need in my state
and throughout the West.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2298
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``California Perchlorate
Contamination Remediation Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) because finite water sources in the United States are
stretched by regional drought conditions and increasing
demand for water supplies, there is increased need for safe
and dependable supplies of fresh water for drinking and
agricultural purposes;
(2) perchlorate, a naturally occurring and manmade compound
with commercial and national defense applications, is used
primarily in military munitions and rocket fuels, and also in
fireworks, road flares, blasting agents, and automobile
airbags;
(3) perchlorate has been detected in fresh water sources
intended for drinking water and agricultural use in 35 States
and the District of Columbia;
(4)(A) perchlorate has been detected in the food supply of
the United States; and
(B) many fruits and vegetables, including lettuce, wheat,
tomato, cucumber, and cantaloupe, contain at least trace
levels of perchlorate, as do wine, whiskey, soy milk, dairy
milk, and human breast milk; and
(5) if ingested in sufficient concentration and for
adequate duration, perchlorate may interfere with thyroid
metabolism, the effects of which may impair normal
development of the brain in fetuses, newborns, and children.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide grants for remediation of perchlorate
contamination of water sources and supplies (including
wellheads) in the State;
(2) to provide grants for research and development of
perchlorate remediation technologies; and
(3) to express the sense of Congress that the Administrator
should establish a national drinking water standard for
perchlorate.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) California water authority.--The term ``California
water authority'' means a public water district, public water
utility, public water planning agency, municipality, or
Indian tribe that is--
(A) located in a region identified under section
4(b)(3)(B); and
(B) in operation as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the California
Perchlorate Cleanup Fund established by section 4(a)(1).
(4) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
SEC. 4. CALIFORNIA PERCHLORATE REMEDIATION GRANTS.
(a) Perchlorate Cleanup Fund.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``California
Perchlorate Cleanup Fund'', consisting of--
(A) any amount appropriated to the Fund under section 7;
and
(B) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the
Fund under paragraph (3).
(2) Expenditures from fund.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), on receipt of
a request by the Administrator, the Secretary of the Treasury
shall transfer to the Administrator such amounts as the
Administrator determines to be necessary to provide grants
under subsections (b) and (c).
(B) Administrative expenses.--An amount not to exceed 0.4
percent of the amounts in the Fund may be used to pay the
administrative expenses necessary to carry out this
subsection.
(3) Investment of amounts.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(B) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
(C) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of
investments under subparagraph (A), obligations may be
acquired--
(i) on original issue at the issue price; or
(ii) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market
price.
(D) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the
Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the
market price.
(E) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds
from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the
Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund.
(b) Cleanup Grants.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3), the
Administrator shall provide grants to California water
authorities, the total amount of which shall not exceed
$50,000,000, to pay the Federal share of the cost of
activities relating to cleanup of water sources and supplies
(including wellheads) in the State that are contaminated by
perchlorate.
(2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of an
activity described in paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50
percent.
(3) Eligibility; priority.--
(A) Eligibility.--A California water authority that the
Administrator determines to be responsible for perchlorate
contamination shall not be eligible to receive a grant under
this subsection.
(B) Priority.--
(i) Activities.--In providing grants under this subsection,
the Administrator shall give priority to an activity for the
remediation of--
(I) drinking water contaminated with perchlorate;
(II) a water source with a high concentration of
perchlorate; or
(III) a water source that serves a large population that is
directly affected by perchlorate contamination.
(ii) Locations.--In providing grants under this subsection,
the Administrator shall give priority to an activity
described in clause (i) that is carried out in 1 or more of
the following regions in the State:
(I) The Santa Clara Valley.
(II) Regions within the natural watershed of the Santa Ana
River, including areas in Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties.
(III) The San Gabriel Valley.
(IV) Sacramento County.
(V) Any other region that has a damaged water source as a
result of perchlorate contamination, as determined by the
Administrator.
(c) Research and Development Grants.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide grants,
the total amount of which shall not exceed $8,000,000, to
qualified non-Federal entities (as determined by the
Administrator) for use in carrying out research and
development of perchlorate remediation technologies.
(2) Maximum amount of grant.--The amount of a grant
provided under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $1,000,000.
SEC. 5. EFFECT OF ACT.
Nothing in this Act affects any authority or program of a
Federal or State agency in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 6. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Administrator should
establish a national drinking water standard for perchlorate
that reflects all routes of exposure to perchlorate as soon
as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act $58,000,000, to remain available until expended.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 2299. A bill to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to restore Federal aid for the repair,
restoration, and replacement of private nonprofit educational
facilities that are damaged or destroyed by a major disaster; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise provide a bit of background
regarding legislation that I am introducing today. The bill that I am
sending to the desk would provide independent colleges and universities
with direct, immediate aid through the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, FEMA. Additionally, the bill would assist the recovery of non-
profit education institutions from the extensive damage they sustain
during natural disasters.
During crises, the critical role that small colleges and universities
play in our communities is often overlooked or underestimated. In
Louisiana, many of our colleges and universities are not only important
in educating our students, but also in bolstering our economy.
[[Page 2035]]
In my home State, this legislation would benefit Delgado Community
College, Dillard University, Loyola University New Orleans, Nunez
Community College, Our Lady of Holy Cross College, Southern University
at New Orleans, Sowela Technical Community College, Tulane University
of Louisiana, University of New Orleans, McNeese State University and
Xavier University of Louisiana.
Under current law, ``education'' has been omitted from the list of
``critical services'' for which facility repair assistance can be
awarded directly and immediately. Until 2000, when Congress changed the
law, education was always eligible for direct FEMA assistance for
facility damages. This legislation simply restores education to its
rightful position as a recognized critical service.
This is the only place in Federal law governing disaster assistance
that makes this distinction between non-profit and public colleges and
universities. This equity must be restored. This legislation is not a
demand for the start of a new program, but the restoration of these
institutions long-held position under Federal law.
Recent media reports in the New York Times and USA Today have
featured stories depicting the massive backlog of applications for aid
options for those institutions not eligible for immediate, direct FEMA
assistance. When disasters strike these institutions, which often
already have limited resources, they incur an extensive range of costs
for which they cannot secure any immediate Federal reimbursement or
resources. These institutions cannot afford to lose a semester and
neither can their students. They should be able to go directly to FEMA
immediately, just as others do.
Congressman Kendrick Meek introduced a companion bill, H.R. 4517, in
December and I look forward to working with him on this legislation.
Our colleges and universities are something we cannot afford to ignore
and they are vital to rebuilding the State of Louisiana. I hope that my
colleagues will come together in support of this important legislation
to support our colleges and universities in this time of need.
______
Ms. STABENOW (for herself and Mr. Lott):
S. 2300. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
with respect to market exclusivity for certain drugs, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Lower
PRICED Drugs Act. I want to thank Senator Trent Lott for joining me on
this important legislation, and for his leadership in increasing the
availability of affordable generic drugs.
I am very pleased that our legislation is supported by AARP, General
Motors Corporation, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Retired Americans, Families
USA, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Pharmaceutical Care
Management Association, PCMA, the National Association of Chain Drug
Stores, and the Coalition for a Competitive Pharmaceutical
Marketplace--an organization including large national employers and
insurers.
We know that greater availability of generic drugs translates into
dramatic savings for consumers, manufacturers, businesses, and
taxpayers. Of the 25 top selling drugs in 2004, the only one that did
not increase in price was a drug available both in generic and over-
the-counter form. And, according to the National Association of Chain
Drug Stores, while the average retail price for a brand drug in 2004
was $96.01 the average retail price for a generic was $28.74, a savings
of nearly 70 percent.
It's a very well known principle of economics: competition lowers
prices.
But we don't need to rely on economic theory; we only have to look at
what is happening with drug prices. Of the top five brand name drugs,
by retail sales, the average price for 1 month's use of the cheapest
among them is just over $76, and the 3rd most popular drug--zocor--is
more than $140 per month. That's $1,680 per year for an important drug
to lower cholesterol levels. The average price of the most popular five
drugs--none of which faces generic competition--is over $114.
There is nothing to hold down the prices of these drugs, and in fact,
even though many of them have been on the market for years and years,
their prices continue to increase. I first checked the prices of these
drugs last November, and then again on Monday of this week. The prices
this week are higher, by several dollars in many cases, than they were
last year.
However, consider the prices consumers pay for drugs for which there
are generic equivalents. The most frequently dispensed generic drugs
are hydrocodone, lisinopril, atenolol, amoxicillin and
hydrocholorothiazide. Not only are these important drugs, used to treat
pain, high blood pressure, and bacterial infections, considerably more
affordable than their brand name equivalents, the average generic price
is $9.34, representing a savings of more than 60 percent from the
average brand price of $24.74, but the presence of competition has
another important effect: The average price of these brand name drugs
is a lot lower than the average price of brand drugs that don't face
competition.
While the generic provisions in the Medicare Modernization Act, MMA,
made important progress, there still isn't timely competition in the
pharmaceutical market.
New loopholes have been found to keep generics off the market, and
keep prices higher than they need to be. In fact, in 2004, a year after
AMA passed, brand name prescription drug prices rose by 7.1 percent,
the biggest single-year price hike in 5 years.
Our bill would close several loopholes that prevent and delay
generics from coming to market. It will increase access to affordable
generic drugs and save consumers, businesses and Federal health
programs billions of dollars annually.
The Lower PRICED Drugs Act would prevent abuse of the current
pediatric exclusivity provision. It would ensure that pediatric
exclusivity is used as intended, to generate information about the use
of drugs in children, and prevent brand drug companies from keeping
more affordable generic alternatives of drugs not suitable for
children, or never studied in children, off the market.
For example, Pravigard PAC contains two widely used medications:
pravastatin, used to lower cholesterol, and aspirin. Despite the fact
that aspirin isn't safe in children, the manufacturer received a six-
month pediatric extension. What sense does that make?
The manufacturer of Pravigard PAC even includes the following warning
in the patient information they put out:
Who should not (manufacturer's emphasis) take PRAVIGARD
PAC?
Do not take PRAVIGARD PAC if you: Are 18 years of age or
younger. Children younger than 18 years should not use any
product with aspirin in it.
Pediatric marketing extensions should not be given for products not
suitable for children, like those containing aspirin.
Using pediatric marketing protections to extend brand name monopolies
should be reserved for studies that help us learn more about drugs for
kids, not to keep lower-cost generic alternatives of drugs for adults
off the market.
Our bill would also remove an arbitrary roadblock to the entry of
generic versions of certain antibiotics, close a loophole that allows
drug companies to use the current complex rules for challenging drug
patents as a delaying tactic against the introduction of generics and
prevent abuses of the citizen petition process.
I look forward to working with Senator Lott to create more
competition, more choices, and more savings for American consumers of
prescription drugs, and I urge colleagues to join us in this effort.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the bill and the letters
of support we have received at this time printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the material was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2300
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Lower Prices Reduced with
Increased Competition
[[Page 2036]]
and Efficient Development of Drugs Act'' or the ``Lower
PRICED Drugs Act''.
SEC. 2. GENERIC DRUG USE CERTIFICATION.
(a) In General.--Section 505(j)(2)(A) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(2)(A)) is amended--
(1) in clause (vii), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(2) in clause (viii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and'';
(3) by inserting after clause (viii) the following:
``(ix) if with respect to a listed drug product referred to
in clause (i) that contains an antibiotic drug and the
antibiotic drug was the subject of any application for
marketing received by the Secretary under section 507 (as in
effect before the date of enactment of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997) before November 20,
1997, the approved labeling includes a method of use which,
in the opinion of the applicant, is claimed by any patent, a
statement that--
``(I) identifies the relevant patent and the approved use
covered by the patent; and
``(II) the applicant is not seeking approval of such use
under this subsection.''; and
(4) in the last sentence, by striking ``clauses (i) through
(viii)'' and inserting ``clauses (i) through (ix)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any abbreviated new drug application under
section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)) that is submitted on, before, or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. PREVENTING ABUSE OF THE THIRTY-MONTH STAY-OF-
EFFECTIVENESS PERIOD.
(a) In General.--Section 505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) is
amended--
(1) in the second sentence by striking ``may order'' and
inserting ``shall order''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``In determining
whether to shorten the thirty-month period under this clause,
the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances,
including whether the plaintiff sought to extend the
discovery schedule, delayed producing discovery, or otherwise
acted in a dilatory manner, and the public interest.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any stay of effectiveness period under section
505(j)(5)(B)(iii) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iii)) pending or filed on or after
the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. ENSURING PROPER USE OF PEDIATRIC EXCLUSIVITY.
(a) Drug Product.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by striking
``drug'' each place it appears and inserting ``drug
product''.
(b) Market Exclusivity for New Drugs.--Section 505A(b) of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a(b))
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically
meaningful'';
(B) striking ``and'' after ``(which shall include a
timeframe for completing such studies),''; and
(C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies
the Secretary approves labeling for the new drug product that
provides specific, therapeutically meaningful information
about the use of the drug product in pediatric patients''
after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by--
(i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period'';
and
(ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at
the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection
(j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
(B) in clause (ii), by--
(i) striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any period'';
and
(ii) inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product at
the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection
(j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(ii) in clause (ii) by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent''
and inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''.
(c) Market Exclusivity for Already-Marketed Drugs.--Section
505A(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 355a(c)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by--
(A) striking ``health'' and inserting ``therapeutically
meaningful'';
(B) striking ``and'' after ``the studies are completed
within any such timeframe,''; and
(C) inserting ``, and based on the results of such studies
the Secretary approves labeling for the approved drug product
that provides specific, therapeutically meaningful
information about the use of the drug product in pediatric
patients'' after ``in accordance with subsection (d)(3)'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i)--
(i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any
period''; and
(ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product
at the time of initial approval'' after ``in subsection
(j)(5)(F)(ii) of such section''; and
(B) in clause (ii)--
(i) by striking ``the period'' and inserting ``any
period''; and
(ii) by inserting ``that is applicable to the drug product
at the time of initial approval'' after ``of subsection
(j)(5)(F) of such section''; and
(3) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking ``a listed patent'' and
inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``a listed patent''
and by inserting ``a patent that was either listed when the
pediatric study was submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration or listed as a result of the approval by the
Food and Drug Administration of new pediatric labeling that
is claimed by the patent, and''.
(d) Three-Month Exclusivity.--Section 505A of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by--
(1) by striking ``six months'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three months'';
(2) by striking ``six-month'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three-month'';
(3) by striking ``6-month'' each place it appears and
inserting ``three-month'';
(4) in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
half years, fifty-four months, and eight years,
respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months,
fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months,
respectively''; and
(5) in subsection (c)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``four and one-
half years, fifty-four months, and eight years,
respectively'' and inserting ``four years and three months,
fifty-one months, and seven years and nine months,
respectively''.
(e) Definition.--Section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355a) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(o) Drug Product.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the term
`drug product' has the same meaning given such term in
section 314.3(b) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (or
any successor regulation).
``(2) Separate drug products.--For purposes of this
section, each dosage form of a drug product shall constitute
a different drug product.''.
____
Generic Pharmaceutical
Association,
Arlington, VA, February 15, 2006.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Stabenow and Lott: On behalf of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association, I would like to commend you on
your efforts to making life-saving medicines more affordable
and accessible. Your commitment to improving access to
generic drugs will ensure that more patients receive and
utilize the prescription drug treatments they need.
Additionally, generic drugs are an essential cost containment
tool for public health programs such as Medicaid and
Medicare, and your efforts will allow for these programs to
cover more treatments and help more beneficiaries.
As you know, despite continued efforts to close unintended
loopholes that delay generic competition, unnecessary
barriers to market entry remain. These loopholes delay the
timely introduction of affordable medicines, forcing
consumers, insurers, and the government to pay brand prices
for years to come. Your proposed legislation, the Lower
Priced Drugs Act, includes important provisions to facilitate
greater access to generic
[[Page 2037]]
antibiotics, combat against frivolous patent abuse by brand
companies, provide greater accountability into the citizen
petition process, and bring meaningful reform to the
pediatric exclusivity period.
The Generic Pharmaceutical Association supports the Lower
Priced Drugs Act, and the industry applauds your efforts to
control the rising costs of prescription drugs. We strongly
encourage consideration and passage of this legislation to
bring meaningful reform to the system and increase the
quality and affordability of healthcare for all Americans.
Sincerely,
Kathleen Jaeger,
President & CEO.
____
AARP,
February 15, 2006.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Stabenow: AARP is pleased to endorse the
``Lower Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and
Efficient Development of Drugs Act,'' which we believe will
help bring lower priced generic drugs to the marketplace.
Prescription drug therapies have become more prevalent in
modern medicine. However, the cost of these therapies has
skyrocketed in recent years. Brand name prescription drugs
continue to rise at more than double the rate of inflation.
Consumers, governments, and health care payers cannot
continue to shoulder these costs. More must be done to make
drug therapies more affordable.
Brand name prescription drug manufacturers are rewarded for
their innovation and research in the form of patent
exclusivity. Unfortunately oftentimes some brand name
manufacturers seek to artificially extend the life of their
patents by utilizing legal loopholes or engaging in
unnecessary litigation. AARP believes the legislation
sponsored by you and Senator Lott takes a necessary step
towards closing some of these loopholes.
Generic drugs cost far less than their brand name
equivalents. Your proposal would close an FDA loophole by
allowing a generic drug manufacturer to bring certain
antibiotics to market, thereby providing the ability to take
advantage of these lower-priced drugs. In addition, your
legislation seeks to prevent brand name manufacturers from
abusing the current 30-month stay-of-effectiveness period by
engaging in unnecessary litigation as a means to artificially
extend the life of their patents. Equally important is the
requirement that in order to be granted a patent extension
under the pediatric exclusivity rules, a brand name
manufacturer must engage in meaningful research into
pediatric use. Finally, your legislation would prevent the
filing of citizen petitions solely as a means to halt the
approval of generic drugs.
This bill makes some important strides in helping to make
lower cost drugs available and we look forward to working
with you and your colleagues to advance this initiative. If
there are any further questions, please do not hesitate to
call me, or have your staff call Anna Schwamlein of our
Federal Affairs staff at (202) 434-3770.
Sincerely,
David P. Sloane,
Sr. Managing Director,
Government Relations and Advocacy.
____
CCPM,
February 15, 2006.
Hon. Trent Lott,
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the Coalition
for a Competitive Pharmaceutical Market CCPM, we commend you
for your commitment to increase timely access to affordable
generic medications for all Americans. We greatly appreciate
your work and applaud you for the introduction of The Lower
Prices Reduced with Increased Competition and Efficient
Development of Drugs Act The Lower Priced Drugs Act.
CCPM is an organization of employers, insurers, generic
drug manufacturers, pharmacy benefit managers and others
committed to improving consumer access to safe, affordable
pharmaceuticals. CCPM members strongly support public
policies that help manage soaring prescription drug costs,
which have increased by double-digit rates annually and are
unsustainable. Continuing to obtain and provide prescription
drug coverage is a tremendous challenge, with the
skyrocketing costs pressuring reductions in benefits and
undermining the ability of CCPM members to compete in the
global marketplace. The Lower Priced Drug Act will help CCPM
members in this effort.
We have made significant strides working with congress to
close some of the loopholes that keep generic drugs off the
market even after brand drug patents have expired. However,
other abuses and misuses of the Hatch-Waxman law still exist
and need to be fixed. The Lower Priced Drugs Act addresses
several remaining obstacles to generic drugs while ensuring
patient safety. The American people will benefit from this
legislation's efforts to 1) reform the application of
pediatric exclusivity to apply only to those products for
which pediatric exclusivity was intended; 2) provide an
avenue for approval of additional generic antibiotics; 3)
reduce efforts to delay generic entry for other
pharmaceutical products when patents are challenged in court,
and; 4) reform the citizen petition process at the FDA.
Generic drugs are equally safe and effective as brand drugs
and save consumers, employers, and Federal and State
Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, billions
of dollars. CCPM supports your legislation, and we thank you
for continuing the fight to find market driven solutions to
the rising costs of prescription drugs. We look forward to
working with you to ensure that the Lower Priced Drugs Act is
carefully considered and becomes law.
Sincerely,
Annette Guarisco,
Chair, Coalition for a Competitive
Pharmaceutical Market (CCPM).
____
General Motors Corporation,
Washington, DC. February 15, 2006.
The Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate,
Hon. Deborah Stabenow,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Lott and Stabenow: On behalf of the General
Motors Corporation, I am writing in support of the ``Lower
Prices with Increased Competition and Efficient Development
of Drugs Act,'' the Lower Priced Drugs Act of 2006. GM
believes that the leadership role that you are playing makes
an important contribution toward sound policies that will
help bring more affordable generic drugs to the market and
save consumers billions of dollars.
GM supports ``The Lower Priced Drugs Act'' as it would
increase access to safe, effective and affordable drugs for
our 1.1 million beneficiaries and all other Americans. We
commend you for your leadership and bipartisan efforts to
improve our health care system. We look forward to working
with you to pass this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Ken W. Cole,
Vice President.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS:
S. 2303. A bill to ensure that the one half of the National Guard
forces of each State are available to such State at all times, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise to support one of our Nation's most
important domestic policy issues--national security. I understand that
some would expect me to say competitiveness or health care or farms or
the environment or education, but what is happening with national
security today greatly concerns me.
In the future, I will continue to address different aspects of this
issue of national security. I will address the war on terror and future
threats to our Nation. But today I will focus on the primary point of
failure in keeping the United States safe: how we are meeting our
responsibility to the troops.
The support of our troops is at the core of every national security
issue we face. I urge Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle
to join me in providing our troops with the tools they need to succeed.
We are so fortunate to have such a vast number of Americans who are
committed to fighting for our country, to laying their lives on the
line every day to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The first thing we
must do for our warfighters is to keep them safe.
I want to know why, after 4 years of fighting the war on terror, our
soldiers do not have the very best that they need to get the job done.
Last week, President Bush presented his fiscal year 2007 budget to
the Congress. Even though the defense budget accounts for most of the
discretionary budget, we still have service members without the
equipment they need.
Last month, a Pentagon study revealed that dozens of American lives,
soldiers' lives, would not have been lost in Iraq if soldiers had the
proper side body armor. To make matters worse, the military is already
operating with an equipment shortage. When troops deploy overseas,
often most of their equipment is left behind, left in the theater and
not replaced at armories and air wings. This leaves us vulnerable at
home and dangerously affects national security. How will we be
protected if our soldiers are not?
The administration proposes to spend $439 billion on national
security this year. That is 45 percent more Pentagon funding than when
President Bush took office 5 years ago.
[[Page 2038]]
There is a war supplemental on the way--more money. Let me make it
clear that I do not oppose the defense budget. I respect that it is the
job of the Secretary of Defense to assess the needs of the military in
the coming year. I commend him. For example, I commend him on
increasing the funding for special operations. But despite this vast
budget, our troops are still taking a hit.
The funding for high-tech weapons systems doubled in current dollars
from $42 billion in 1996 to $84 billion in 2007. In order to pay for
these big-ticket items, the 2007 budget reins in personnel costs.
The military pay raise is only 2.2 percent. Previous years, it has
been between 3 and 4 percent. During the Clinton administration, we saw
military pay raises as high as 4.8 percent. It is unacceptable to me
that the President proposes an increase in pay for our military that is
less than the current rate of inflation, which is 3.4 percent. Our
military personnel are losing ground with this so-called increase, and
this at a time when we are asking so much of them--a time when we are
at war. Troops have had multiple and lengthy deployments.
Haven't we all heard the stories of 18-year-olds swiftly driving
humvees down the roads of Iraq, praying that they will avoid roadside
bombs and shoulder-fired missiles? Some of these young men and women
joined the military after 9/11 seeking retribution; others joined
intent on finding a way to college. They are all patriots who should be
honored.
I am concerned that we are in a fight right now between force
structure and weapons systems. Our troops are caught in the crossfire.
If they lose, we lose--at a time when we desperately need boots on the
ground, particularly here at home.
We are well aware that our National Guard has risen to the challenges
of the war on terror in an unprecedented way. Our national security,
however, is compromised on the homefront. Our States do not have the
ability to respond with sufficient combat structure to domestic
security missions, natural emergencies, and disasters.
Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird noted last week:
When you call out Guard and Reserve units, you call out
America.
Our Active-Duty Forces have fought bravely on our behalf, and the
Guard has fought with them.
Montana is just one of the States with an infantry battalion that is
facing major changes due to the Army's proposal to reduce 34 combat
brigades to 28. We have based much of our State's military strategy on
the capabilities and equipment our infantry battalion provides.
The combat brigades provide a balance of combat force structure to
the combat service support units already in the State. This balance is
essential to ensure that we have the full spectrum of capabilities
within Montana for homeland defense and national security.
I am introducing a bill today which will ensure that each adjutant
general will have the resources of 50 percent of their National Guard
troops available to them at all times in the State. Deployments
overseas will not be allowed to exceed that number. This bill
recognizes the national security contribution of the Air National Guard
and the Army National Guard, in particular the brigade combat teams and
their subordinate units. This will help the country to achieve a
standard level of emergency preparedness.
When those troops come home, Active and Reserve, they must come home
to jobs and veterans' benefits. That is the only right thing to do. In
its 2007 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
administration calls for a 6-percent increase in total veterans
spending to $36 billion. Much of this increase, however, depends on the
adoption of new health care fees. For example, the budget proposes a
$250 enrollment fee and an increase in prescription drug copayments to
$15, from $8, for higher income, less disabled veterans. If these new
fees are adopted, they would dissuade 200,000 veterans from even
enrolling in the VA health care system. The veterans themselves are
paying for the increase to the veterans budget. That is what is
happening.
I frequently hear that questioning issues of national security
undermines the missions of our troops and that some Members of Congress
just criticize and do not have a plan. Well, here is the plan: It is
imperative that we provide everything possible for our troops in order
to keep the United States safe. We have a responsibility to speak up on
their behalf because I firmly believe that when we neglect our troops--
including our National Guard men and women--we are gambling with the
national security of our Nation.
We have the best soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors in the world.
I have tremendous respect for all of them, and I am committed to
helping them succeed. We are engaged in a war now, and we must give our
troops the tools to win overseas while simultaneously protecting our
homefront.
I urge my colleagues to pay close attention to this bill I am
introducing. I hope that at the appropriate time, we can get it
enacted, basically get some more balance to our force structure, and
also make sure our National Guard and Army and Air Guard have the
support they need, not only for themselves but to keep our country safe
and secure.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend my colleague for raising this
important issue which affects every State in the Union. Of our National
Guard in Illinois, 80 percent have been deployed overseas, and more
this year. At this point, they have come home to empty parking lots
where they used to have vehicles and equipment which they trained on
and would use at times of national emergency.
We cannot allow this Guard to become a hollow Army. It must be a
viable force. I look forward to reviewing the bill the Senator
introduced to see if I can join him in this effort to strengthen our
Guard nationwide.
______
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lott, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 2304. A bill to recognize the right of the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico to call a constitutional convention through which the people of
Puerto Rico would exercise their right to self-determination, and to
establish a mechanism for congressional consideration of such decision;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Burr and
other colleagues in supporting the Puerto Rico self-determination act.
Puerto Rico and its four million residents have enjoyed a positive
relationship with the United States since the island's commonwealth
status was established over 50 years ago. But it's important for all of
us to protect the right of the Puerto Rican people to self-
determination, and this legislation will do so.
Our bill calls for a constitutional assembly in Puerto Rico composed
of delegates elected by the Puerto Rican people. The delegates will
determine the appropriate options for inclusion in a referendum to
enable the Puerto Rican people to decide the future status of the
island.
Congress will have the final say on the referendum, but the process
should start with the people of Puerto Rico and not in Washington. A
constitutional assembly will best serve their interest by letting us
know their wishes.
The people of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens, and many of them have
served our Nation with great courage and sacrifice in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At the very least we owe them a fair and democratic
process in determining their future.
The recommendations in the report released in December by the White
House task force on the status of Puerto Rico do not adequately address
this basic issue, since the options suggested in the report do not give
Puerto Ricans the fair choice they deserve.
The possibility of change in the current status has stirred intense
debate
[[Page 2039]]
in recent years, and this bill is intended to allow a fair solution
that respects the views of all sides in the debate. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation as the most effective way to
resolve this issue and give the people of Puerto Rico the respect they
deserve.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 2305. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
repeal the amendments made by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
requiring documentation evidencing citizenship or nationally as a
condition for receipt of medical assistance under the Medicaid program;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to repeal a
provision in the Deficit Reduction Act that will require people
applying or reapplying for Medicaid to verify their citizenship with a
U.S. passport or birth certificate. I thank my cosponsors of this
legislation, Senators Obama, Bingaman, Inouye, Lautenberg, Jeffords,
Kerry, and Lieber
man for their support.
This provision must be repealed before it goes into effect July 1,
2006. We have arrived at this conclusion because it will create
barriers to health care, and from information we have gathered from
agencies, it is unnecessary and will be an administrative burden to
implement. These are reasons for this legislation. The Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities estimates that more than 51 million individuals
in this country would be burdened by having to produce additional
documentation. In 16 States--Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia,
Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington--more
than a million Medicaid beneficiaries will be required to submit the
additional documents to receive or stay on Medicaid. In Hawaii, an
estimated 392,000 people who are enrolled in Medicaid will be required
to produce the additional documentation.
The requirements will disproportionately impact low-income, racial
and ethnic minorities, indigenous people, and individuals born in rural
areas without access to hospitals. Due to discriminatory hospital
admission policies, a significant number of African-Americans were
prevented from being born in hospitals. One in five African Americans
born during 1939-1940 do not have birth certificates.
We need to ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries are not discriminated
against and do not lose access to care, simply because they do not have
a passport or birth certificate. Data from a survey commissioned by the
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is helpful in trying to
determine the impact of the legislation. One in 12 U.S.-born adults,
who earn incomes less than $25,000, report they do not have a U.S.
passport or birth certificate in their possession. Also, more than 10
percent of U.S.-born parents, who have incomes below $25,000, do not
have a birth certificate or passport for at least one of their
children. An estimated 3.2 to 4.6 million U.S. born citizens may have
their Medicaid coverage threatened simply because they do not have a
passport or birth certificate readily available.
Some groups are at a greater risk for losing their Medicaid coverage.
Nine percent of African-American adults reported they did not have the
needed documents. Seven percent of people over age 65 also report that
they do not have birth certificates. Many others will also have
difficulty in securing these documents, such as Native Americans born
in home settings, Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless
individuals.
It is difficult enough to get access to health care, let alone
acquire a birth certificate or a passport before seeking treatment.
Some beneficiaries may not be able to afford the financial cost or time
investment associated with obtaining a birth certificate or passport.
The Hawaii Department of Health charges $10 for duplicate birth
certificates. The costs vary by State and can be as much as $23 to get
a birth certificate or $87 to $97 for a passport. Taking the time and
obtaining the necessary transportation to acquire the birth certificate
or a passport, particularly in rural areas where public transportation
may not exist, creates a hardship for Medicaid beneficiaries. Failure
to produce the documents quickly may result in a loss of Medicaid
eligibility.
Further compounding the hardship is the failure to provide an
exemption for individuals suffering from mental or physical
disabilities from the new requirements. I am really afraid that those
suffering from diseases such as Alzheimer's may lose their Medicaid
coverage because they may not have or be able to easily obtain a
passport or birth certificate.
It is likely these documentation requirements will prevent
beneficiaries who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid to enroll in the
program. This will result in more uninsured Americans, an increased
burden on our healthcare providers, and the delay of treatment for
needed health care.
The hardships that will be imposed are unnecessary due to existing
requirements that check immigration status. A 2005 study by the Health
and Human Services Office of the Inspector General concluded there is
no substantial evidence indicating that illegal immigrants claiming to
be U.S. citizens are successfully enrolling in Medicaid.
Twenty-eight of 47 Medicaid directors, surveyed by the Health and
Human Services Inspector General, indicated that requiring documentary
evidence of citizenship would delay eligibility determination. Twenty-
five believe that providing additional evidence would result in
increased eligibility personnel costs. State Medicaid Agencies would
likely have to hire additional personnel to handle the increased
workload with significant, additional administrative and financial
costs. Twenty-one believe that it would be burdensome or expensive for
applicants to obtain a birth certificate or other documentation.
In my home State, the Hawaii Primary Care Association estimates the
administrative costs for our Department of Human Services will result
in an increased cost of $640,000. Mr. John McComas, the Chief Executive
Officer, of AlohaCare, stated, ``We anticipate that there will be
significant administrative costs added to our already overburdened
Medicaid programs. These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and
place an undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire
Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.''
I am frequently frustrated by the inability of the Congress to enact
measures to improve health care for Americans. A misconceived provision
to mandate these additional documentation requirements will cause real
people real pain, and create public health and administrative
difficulties. The provision in the Deficit Reduction Act will force
every current and future Medicaid beneficiary to produce a passport or
birth certificate. I look forward to my colleagues working with me to
repeal this provision. I am hopeful that as my friends in the Senate go
home during recess, they talk with their constituents at health
centers, State Medicaid offices, and social service organizations, and
hear how important it is to them for this legislation to be enacted to
protect access to Medicaid.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill
be printed in the Record, as well as letters of support and concern
from AlohaCare, the Association of Asian Pacific Community Health
Organizations, Maternal and Child Health Access, the Hawaii Primary
Care Association, and Siren.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 2305
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCING
CITIZENSHIP OR NATIONALITY AS A CONDITION FOR
RECEIPT OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE UNDER THE
MEDICAID PROGRAM.
(a) Repeal.--Subsections (i)(22) and (x) of section 1903 of
the Social Security Act (42
[[Page 2040]]
U.S.C. 1396b), as added by section 6036 of the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, are each repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1903 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b) is amended--
(A) in subsection (i)--
(i) in paragraph (20), by adding ``or'' after the semicolon
at the end; and
(ii) in paragraph (21), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a period;
(B) by redesignating subsection (y), as added by section
6043(b) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection
(x); and
(C) by redesignating subsection (z), as added by section
6081(a) of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, as subsection
(y).
(2) Subsection (c) of section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction
Act of 2005 is repealed.
(c) Effective Date.--The repeals and amendments made by
this section shall take effect as if included in the
enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.
____
Maternal and Child Health Access,
Los Angeles, CA, February 16, 2006.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: I am pleased to write a letter of
support for your bill to amend title XIX of the Social
Security Act to repeal the amendments made by the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005 requiring documentation of citizenship
or nationality as a condition for receipt of medical
assistance under the Medicaid program.
Maternal and Child Health Access has provided assistance to
thousands of families seeking medical coverage since the
early 1990s. In addition to the families we serve, we educate
and train other social service agencies and clinics about
health coverage programs and thus have the opportunity to
hear their experiences in assisting low-income people to
apply for Medicaid. In California, we are ecstatic that
nearly 90% of the children eligible have been enrolled in
Medicaid or our S-CHIP program, Healthy Families. We have
celebrated the fact that with few exceptions, the process of
obtaining health care coverage for low-income families
presents fewer barriers than in prior years. The requirement
that Medicaid applicants provide birth certificates would be
an unfortunate reversal of that trend.
Even now, even with no requirement for such documentation,
Eligibility Workers mistakenly demand birth certificates as
part of the Medicaid application process. We see that the
need to provide such documentation causes untoward delays in
obtaining health care. For example, my office recently
assisted the family of a two-year-old child who had never had
Medi-Cal due to the Los Angeles County Eligibility Worker's
erroneous demand for a birth certificate from the client's
home state, which had been impossible to obtain. The child's
health care visits were delayed and inferior to what a two-
year-old should have had.
In California, birth certificates cost $17 and require a
notarized application, or sworn statement under penalty of
perjury. In addition to the added expense of notarizing, an
additional $25-$50 depending on the ability of often-
unscrupulous notaries to charge, making people swear under
penalty of perjury is intimidating and will discourage people
from applying. It takes four to six months to obtain birth
certificates for newborns and if obtained in person, require
travel to a different office than for duplicate copies that
might be needed for adults or other children who need them. I
see no flexibility in the amendments as passed to allow for
families with no disposable income to obtain the birth
certificates timely.
There is absolutely no need for a drastic measure of this
sort. A comprehensive study conducted last year by the Health
and Human Services Inspector General, ``Self-Declaration of
U.S. Citizenship Requirements for Medicaid,'' July 2005,
failed to find any substantial evidence that illegal
immigrants are fraudulently getting Medicaid coverage by
claiming they are citizens. Notably, the Inspector General
did not recommend requiring that documentation of citizenship
be required. State officials interviewed by the Inspector
General's office also noted that such a requirement would add
significant administrative costs and burdens. Half of the
state officials interviewed said they would have to hire more
eligibility personnel to handle the increased workload.
Requiring a birth certificate will cause delays in
obtaining needed medical coverage and care and unnecessary
costs for applicants, states and counties. If we truly care
about ensuring that children, pregnant women, disabled
people, seniors and others in need obtain the health care
that may enable them to continue to be productive citizens or
ensure their readiness for school, we should not be putting
unnecessary costly barriers in their way.
I thank you on behalf of the low income people my agency
serves daily.
Sincerely,
Lynn Kersey,
MA, MPH, Executive Director.
____
Hawai`i Primary Care Association,
Honolulu, HI, January 25, 2006.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
Re Proposed birth certificate or passport requirement for
Medicaid application.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Hawai`i Primary Care Association
would like to register our strong opposition to recently
proposed federal legislation that would require a birth
certificate or passport for each Medicaid applicant, and to
ask for your assistance to avert this mandate. We object to
this change because it is completely unnecessary to prevent
application fraud but would be a considerable barrier to
legitimate applicants and add to the cost incurred by public
and private agencies to complete and process applications.
Unnecessary barrier. In the ample experience of community
health centers in Hawai`i and the Primary Care Association's
Hawai`i Covering Kids Project, immigrants, fearful of
jeopardizing their immigration status, are hesitant to apply
for programs for which they are clearly eligible.
Undocumented immigrants are even less likely to call
attention to themselves, for obvious reasons. The Hawai`i
State Department of Human Services, which monitors and checks
into self-declared eligibility status, has found no evidence
of fraud in this area.
The following are some of the ways this proposed
requirement would deter legitimate applicants: Some people do
not have birth certificates because they were born at home or
in areas with no official registries (e.g., on plantations).
People who are mentally ill or homeless may be unable to
produce original or duplicate birth certificates. In the
event of a hurricane or other disaster, many people will be
unable to find documents, and public agencies may be in
disarray so that they can't provide duplicates. In an
emergency medical situation, an uninsured person may not be
able to find a birth certificate. The Hawai`i Department of
Health (DOH) charges $10 for duplicate birth certificates.
Procuring one for each family member that is applying or
renewing not only takes the applicant away from work or other
activities to stand in line at DOH, but also can be
prohibitively expensive. The application and enrollment
procedure will take longer and result in delays in coverage
that might cause serious health problems and put the health
care provider and individual at financial risk.
Processing costs. If this regulation is implemented it will
result in more administrative costs for DHS and for agencies
that assist applicants. All current Medicaid customers must
also be asked to submit a birth certificate or passport. This
requires paper, envelopes, and mailing costs. When documents
arrive at a Medicaid office, they must be matched to a
record, noted in the electronic case file, and stored in the
customer's case file. If the customer does not produce the
required document, the case will be closed. However, this
person is otherwise eligible for benefits, therefore when
she/he locates a birth certificate a new application will not
only be submitted, but also the Medicaid office must review
it and open a new case. Hawai`i's Medicaid offices receive
approximately 66,000 applications annually. New applications
without birth certificates or passports attached will be sent
ten-day pending notices. This requires paper, envelopes, and
mailing costs. If the document is not received in the time
allotted, the application will be denied. If mailing notices
and updating or closing each current Medicaid file takes at
least 10 minutes of public workers' time, the current Med-
QUEST enrollment of over 200,000 customers will take 33,333
hours and cost $640,000.
Assumptions: 15 minutes to send notices and update or close
files. 2,080 is the number of work hours per year. Salary
plus operating costs per worker is $40,000 per year.
Cost: 16 eligibility workers will work full-time for a year
at a cost of $640,000.
In summary, we believe there is no good reason to implement
the proposed regulations and ample reasons to maintain the
current procedure that allows self-declaration. We ask for
your help in this matter to make sure Medicaid continues to
serve the most vulnerable members of our communities.
Sincerely,
Beth Giesting,
Executive Director.
____
Dear Senator Akaka: I have just been informed about your
bill to repeal the citizenship documentation requirements
contained in the reconciliation bill. On behalf of the
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network (SIREN), I
write to express our support for Senator Akaka's bill.
SIREN is a leading organization in Silicon Valley dedicated
to providing immigrant rights advocacy, community education
and naturalization assistance to Santa Clara County's diverse
immigrant communities. We believe that a requirement to check
citizenship status for Medicaid recipients will be costly and
an additional barrier to accessing this much needed program.
In addition, it is unnecessary and continues the stereotype
that immigrants are in this country to access social
services, which we know to be false. Immigrants come to this
country to create a better life for themselves and their
families. They contribute to the social and economic fabric
of our country every day.
Thank you for your efforts to protect immigrants and to
save our country from a needless expense.
Warmly,
Larisa Casillas.
[[Page 2041]]
____
Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations,
Oakland CA, February 10, 2006.
Hon. Daniel Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: The Association of Asian Pacific
Community Health Organizations, AAPCHO, a national non-profit
association of community health centers, is writing to
support your efforts to repeal an amendment requiring
individuals to provide evidence of citizenship when applying
for Medicaid benefits.
We believe that these amendments, which are introduced in
the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, will not only raise the
ranks of the uninsured, but more importantly, that they will
leaves scores of our most vulnerable citizens without
critically needed health care services.
As you well know, there are currently over 45 million
people without health insurance, many of whom are Asian
American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Requiring
Medicaid beneficiaries to provide a birth certificate or
passport to prove their citizenship could lead to millions of
low-income Americans either losing Medicaid coverage and
becoming uninsured, or being delayed coverage for necessary
medical care. At AAPCHO's member community health centers
across the country, this regulation would instantly put the
lives and health of a significant number of low-income
adults, children, elderly, and disabled individuals at risk.
We thank you for continuing your fight to provide health
care for our most vulnerable populations, and we appreciate
your introduction of this important bill.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey B. Caballero, MPH,
Executive Director.
____
AlohaCare,
Honolulu, HI, February 6, 2006.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Akaka: We applaud your concerns about the
proposed changes in Medicaid. We wish to lend our support to
the Amendment that you are proposing that will remove one of
the most draconian aspects of the proposal in Section 6037 of
the Budget Reconciliation Bill that will require that
everyone who is applying for Medicaid, whether current or
new, to provide proof of their citizenship.
The primary forms of documentation acceptable would be
either a passport or a birth certificate presented in
conjunction with proof of identity such as a drivers'
license. For people who are naturalized citizens
naturalization papers would be accepted. This essentially
means that native-born citizens would have to produce birth
certificates or passports.
The new requirements, which a recent study by the Inspector
General of the Department of Health and Human Services shows
to be unnecessary, would almost certainly create significant
enrollment barriers to millions of low-income citizens who
would otherwise meet all Medicaid eligibility requirements.
Because of Hawaii's demographics we believe that we would be
heavily impacted.
On July 1, 2006 these new requirements will apply to all
applications or redeterminations of Medicaid eligibility that
occurred after that date, without exceptions, even for people
who are extremely old or have severe physical or mental
impairments, such as Alzheimer's disease.
A major concern is that many people on Medicaid do not
travel or have not had a need for a passport. Others no
longer live near where they were born or have long since lost
their birth certificate. Many of the elderly in Hawaii were
born outside of hospitals or places where birth certificates
were not commonly issued.
We anticipate that there will be significant administrative
costs added to our already overburdened Medicaid programs.
These provisions are absolutely unnecessary and will place an
undue burden on the Medicaid beneficiary, to our entire
Medicaid program, and ultimately to our entire state.
Please don't hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
assistance to you in your efforts to protect the Medicaid
beneficiaries in Hawaii.
Sincerely yours,
John McComas,
Chief Executive Officer, AlohaCare.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as our Nation faces staggering healthcare
costs, rising rates of chronic conditions, and a growing wage gap
between the haves and the have-nots, we must acknowledge the vital
importance of this Nation's safety net--the Medicaid program. The
Medicaid program is the provider of healthcare for more than 50 million
Americans--young and old, black and white, and the disabled.
As many of us would argue, and as stated by the President in this
year's State of the Union Address, the government has a responsibility
to help provide healthcare for the poor and the elderly. I ask you to
question whether we meet that responsibility with section 6036 of the
Deficit Reduction Act that requires citizenship documentation for
individuals seeking Medicaid. In order for our country to have healthy
children, a healthy workforce and healthy communities, we must not
deter Americans from seeking medical care, and yet this provision would
do just that.
Much of the public scrutiny on Medicaid spending has focused on the
costs of providing care to undocumented immigrant populations. Some
believe that requirements for documentation of citizenship will curtail
alleged abuse of the Medicaid program by illegal immigrants. Yet, a
study conducted by the HHS Inspector General failed to find any
substantial evidence that illegal immigrants are fraudulently getting
Medicaid coverage by claiming they are citizens, and he did not
recommend any new requirements for documentation of citizenship.
If the requirement to document citizenship will not affect illegal
immigrants, who are in fact not using the Medicaid program, than we
must ask ourselves who will be affected by this requirement?
Let's think about the senior with Alzheimer's disease and the
difficulty she experiences in remembering the name of her daughter, let
alone where she placed her birth certificate. Let us think about the
families who survived Hurricane Katrina, who lost their homes with all
their possessions, including their passports. Let us think about the
children being raised by cash-strapped grandparents and other
relatives, who will incur additional costs for obtaining required
documents.
About one out of every twelve U.S.-born adults, or 1.7 million
Americans, who have incomes below $25,000 report that they do not have
a U.S. passport or birth certificate in their possession. In addition,
studies have shown that there are up to 2.9 million Medicaid-eligible
children without such documentation.
These figures are even higher for other populations. While 5.7
percent of all adults at all income levels report they lack birth
certificates or passports, this percentage rises to 7 percent for
senior citizens age 65 or older, and 9 percent each for African
American adults, adults without a high school diploma and adults living
in rural areas. Notably, these figures do not include many other groups
who would also experience difficulty in securing these documents, such
as Native Americans born in home settings, nursing-home residents,
Hurricane Katrina survivors, and homeless individuals. The
documentation requirements in section 6036 would apply to all current
beneficiaries and future applicants, allowing for no exceptions, even
for those with serious mental or physical disabilities such as
Alzheimer's disease or those who lack documents due to homelessness or
a disaster such as Hurricane Katrina.
The costs to individuals applying for Medicaid coverage is matched by
the overwhelming administrative costs associated with the documentation
requirements. If birth certificates or passports are required for
Medicaid enrollment, approximately 50 percent of state officials have
reported that they would have to hire additional personnel to handle
the increased workload with significant, additional administrative and
financial costs. The National Association for Public Health Statistics
and Information Systems predicts a 50 percent increase in the volume of
birth certificate requests if requirements for birth certificates or
passports for Medicaid applications are imposed, resulting in
significant delays in processing all birth certificate applications.
State resources are already stretched too thin, and we should not
impose additional and unnecessary burdens.
At a time when this administration is touting health care tax breaks,
which will benefit those who need the least help, it is critical that
members of Congress remember the worst off and the most vulnerable
members of our society. Medicaid is their lifeline to a healthy and
productive future, and we should not obstruct access to this program.
Senator Akaka, Senator Bingaman and I have introduced this bill to
eliminate requirements for citizenship documentation from Medicaid, and
I urge
[[Page 2042]]
all of my colleagues to support us in passing this critical act.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Bond):
S. 2306. A bill to amend the National Organ Transplant Act to clarify
that kidney paired donation and kidney list donation do not involve the
transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be joined by Senators
DeWine, Dorgan and Bond in introducing legislation that will save lives
by increasing the number of kidneys available for transplantation. Our
bill addresses relatively new procedures that did not exist when the
National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA--was passed more than two decades
ago. No Federal dollars will be needed to implement it. More
importantly, it will make it possible for thousands of people who wish
to donate a kidney to a spouse, family member or friend, but find that
they are medically incompatible, still to become living kidney donors.
Kidney paired donations involve two living donors and two
recipients--the intended recipient of each donor is incompatible with
the intended donor but compatible with the other donor in the
arrangement. For example, person A wants to donate her kidney to her
husband, person B, but cannot because of a biological incompatibility.
Likewise, person C wants to donate to his wife, person D, and cannot
because of a biological incompatibility. However, testing reveals that
A and D are biologically compatible, and C and B are biologically
compatible. Therefore, a paired kidney donation can be made whereby A
donates to D and C donates to B. Every paired donation transplant
avoids burdening the kidney waiting list and increases access to organs
for all kidney transplant candidates.
Kidney list donations involve three individuals: a living donor; the
recipient of the living donor's kidney, who is allocated the organ
through the waiting list; and the donor's intended recipient who
receives an allocation priority on the kidney waiting list. In this
circumstance, a person intends to donate a kidney to a recipient but is
found to be medically incompatible, and there are no other donor-
recipient pairs available for a simultaneous paired donation. The
person donates his or her kidney, and the kidney is allocated to a
medically suitable patient on the national Organ Procurement and
Transplantation Network--OPTN--waiting list according to OPTN organ
allocation policy. The donor's originally intended recipient then
receives allocation priority through the national system to receive a
deceased donor kidney, thus fulfilling the donor's original intent to
donate to a particular person. It is estimated that clearing the way
for these procedures will not only save lives, it would save Medicare
tens of millions of dollars each year in avoided costs for renal
dialyses of these patients. By permitting living paired donations, this
bill will also have the effect of increasing the number of kidneys
available to patients already on the kidney waiting list.
The legislation we are introducing removes an unintended impediment
to kidney donations by clarifying ambiguous language in Section 301 of
the National Organ Transplant Act--NOTA. That section has been
interpreted by a number of transplant centers to prohibit such
donations. In Section 301 of NOTA, Congress prohibited the buying and
selling of organs. Subsection (a), titled ``Prohibition of organ
purchases,'' says: ``It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly
acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable
consideration. . . .'' The legislation we are introducing does not
remove or alter any current provision of NOTA, but simply adds a line
to Section 301 which states that paired donations do not violate it.
When we originally enacted NOTA we expressly exempted several other
actions from the valuable consideration provision, such as expressly
permitting reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs for living
donors, and for reimbursement of their lost wages. We did not know to
include paired kidney donation events with these exceptions because
they were not being performed then.
Congress surely never intended that the living donation arrangements
that permit either a kidney paired donation or a kidney list donation
be impeded by NOTA. Our bill simply makes that clear. A number of
transplant professionals involved in these and other innovative living
kidney donation arrangements have proceeded in the reasonable belief
that these arrangements do not violate Section 301 of NOTA, and they
are being performed in many states already. This legislation is
necessary because some have questioned whether these paired donation
situations might somehow involve valuable consideration in that the
mutual promises to donate could be considered a thing of value being
given in exchange for an organ. We do not believe that this is the
case. Certainly, Congress never intended to impede paired donation when
it outlawed buying and selling of organs.
There is no known opposition to this legislation. It is supported by
numerous medical organizations, including the United Network for Organ
Sharing, the American Society of Transplant Surgeons, the American
Society of Transplantation, the National Kidney Foundation and the
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology.
It is important that we make the intent of Congress explicit so that
transplant centers which have hesitated to implement paired donation
programs can feel free to do so; and in order that the Organ
Procurement and Transplant Network, which is operated by UNOS under
contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, may
implement a national registry of pairs who need to find other
compatible pairs so that their loved ones can get the transplant they
so desperately need.
The experts in the field of organ donation and transplantation
estimate that our legislation will result in well over 2,000 additional
transplants annually and that Medicare would save millions in kidney
dialysis costs. By its own estimate, Medicare spends more than $55,000
annually for each dialysis patient, which equates to more than $3.6
billion per year. Savings to Medicare due to removal of an additional
2,000 patients from the dialysis program through living kidney donation
would exceed $110 million. Since the median waiting time for each
patient is four years, removal of each patient translates into a total
Medicare savings of $220,000.
It is our hope that the Senate will promptly act on this necessary
legislation.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues,
Senators Levin, Dorgan, and Bond, to introduce the Living Kidney Organ
Donation Clarification Act.
This important legislation would clarify Section 301 of the National
Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). Section 301 makes it a felony ``for any
person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human
organ for valuable consideration for use in organ transplantation.''
This provision simply makes it illegal to buy and sell human organs.
The bill that Senator Levin and I are introducing would clarify that
paired donations do not violate Section 301.
When NOTA was first enacted, the only living organ donations took
place between a single biologically compatible living donor and
recipient. In the past decade, a new type of living donation procedure
has developed. It's called the paired organ donation. The best way to
describe a paired donation is through an example: Patient A is on the
waiting list for a kidney transplant. Various family and friends have
offered to donate a kidney to Patient A, but none of the potential
donors are compatible. However, one of Patient A's potential donors is
compatible with Patient B, who is also on the waiting list for a
kidney. Patient B has a potential donor who is compatible with Patient
A. Patient A and B could exchange donors and both get transplants.
With the development of paired donations, concerns have arisen that
the
[[Page 2043]]
mutual promises to donate organs could be considered ``valuable
consideration'' under Section 301 of NOTA. It is important to note that
while paired donations were not conceived at the time NOTA was written
over 20 years ago, they are in keeping with all of NOTA's provisions
and protections and should be permitted. Paired donors may not receive
a monetary payment, except for reimbursement for expenses. I don't
think that Congress would have intended to prohibit the practice of
paired donations with the enactment of NOTA.
The benefits of paired donations are tremendous. Successful kidney
transplants eliminate the need for dialysis for the recipient, as well
as decrease costs to Medicare. And, the practice of paired donations
has the potential to increase the number of living donor transplants
dramatically, as there are a large number of potential living donors
who are biologically incompatible with their intended recipients.
My own State of Ohio has the first state-sponsored program that
arranges paired kidney donations. There have been at least four paired
kidney donations in Ohio during the last two years arranged through the
Paired Donation Kidney Consortium. With over 62,000 men, women, and
children waiting for a kidney donation, we cannot afford to turn our
back on the paired donation procedure.
That is why it is critically important that Section 301 of NOTA be
clarified to permit these donations. Clarification of the intent of
Congress would encourage transplant centers throughout the country to
implement their own paired donation programs. It also would enable the
Organ Procurement and Transplant Network to create a national list of
pairs of incompatible donors so that as many recipients can be matched
up as possible.
I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this bill.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Levin,
DeWine and Bond to introduce the Kidney Transplant Clarification Act of
2006. This legislation will help save lives by increasing the number of
kidney donations made by living donors.
There are currently 90,608 people in the United States who are on the
national organ transplant waiting list. More than two-thirds of those
on the waiting list suffer from end stage renal disease and are in need
of a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, the number of people on the
waiting list continues to grow far faster than the number of organ
donors. In North Dakota alone, there are currently 91 patients who are
waiting for a kidney transplant.
The good news is that patients with end stage renal disease who
require a kidney transplant no longer need to wait for a kidney from a
deceased donor or from a blood relative. Advances in medical science
now make it possible for friends and spouses to donate a kidney to a
patient in need. Of the 16,004 kidney transplants in 2004, 6,647 were
from living donors.
The bad news is outdated Federal laws inappropriately stand in the
way of widely adopting several innovative approaches that would
increase the number of kidney donations from the living.
One of these strategies is called a paired kidney donation. Here is
how it works: Joe wants to donate a kidney to his wife Kathleen but
can't because of incompatibility. Likewise, Suzy wants to donate a
kidney to her husband Scott but can't because of incompatibility. A
paired donation helps match up these couples so Joe can donate a kidney
to Scott and Suzy can donate a kidney to Kathleen.
The other approach is called a kidney list donation. Here is how it
works: Rebecca wants to donate a kidney to her husband Grant but can't
because of incompatibility. In this case, she decides to donate a
kidney to someone who is already on the national waiting list. Once the
donation is made, Grant is added to the waiting list but is given
allocation priority for a kidney that becomes available in the future.
The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will clarify that paired and
list kidney donations are allowed under the National Organ Transplant
Act, removing a barrier that has prevented more kidney donations from
living donors from occurring.
The National Organ Transplant Act, which was enacted in 1984,
prohibits any person to acquire, receive or donate any human organ for
anything of value. The purpose of this law is to prohibit the buying
and selling of human organs. I agree with this law. The last thing that
we want to do is sanction organ trafficking. Yet, when this law was
enacted, paired and list kidney donations did not exist. It is
important that we clarify that these innovative strategies to increase
the number of kidney donations from living donors are allowed under
current law.
The Kidney Transplant Clarification Act will not only save lives, it
will save the federal government and taxpayers money. Patients with end
stage renal disease require dialysis, which is covered by Medicare.
According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Medicare
spends about $55,000 per patient per year for dialysis. On average,
patients with end stage renal disease wait 4 years before receiving a
kidney transplant. This means that every kidney donation made from a
living donor has the potential to reduce the number of people on the
waiting list and save the government as much as $220,000.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. Thomas):
S. 2307. A bill to enhance fair and open competition in the
production and sale of agricultural commodities; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I, along with Mr. Enzi and Mr.
Thomas are introducing the ``Competitive and Fair Agricultural Markets
Act of 2006.'' This legislation seeks to even the playing field for
agricultural producers by strengthening and clarifying the Packers and
Stockyards Act of 1921 and the Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967
and requiring better enforcement of both laws by USDA.
A quick lesson in agricultural history makes clear that producers are
no stranger to a marketplace often tilted against them. Roughly 100
years ago, rapid consolidation and collusive practices by meatpacking
and railroad and other companies prompted Congress to eventually pass
several new laws designed to ensure a competitive and fair marketplace
for agricultural producers. Because earlier legislation was seen as
lacking to protect livestock and poultry producers. Congress passed the
Packers and Stockyards Act in 1921 to prohibit packers and processors
from engaging in unfair, unjustly discriminatory, or deceptive
practices.
Consolidation is happening in all sectors of agriculture and having a
negative effect on producers and consumers across the Nation.
Consolidation in itself is not a violation of the Packers and
Stockyards Act, but when some entities become larger and more powerful
that makes enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act absolutely
critical for independent livestock and poultry producers. The
statistics speak for themselves. Today, only four firms control 84
percent of the procurement of cattle and 64 percent of the procurement
of hogs. Economists have stated that when four firms control over 40
percent of the industry, marketplace competitiveness begins to decline.
Taken together with fewer buyers of livestock, highly integrated firms
can exert tremendous power over the industry.
The dramatic changes in the marketplace are alarming, and I have
expressed my concerns to USDA on several occasions--but they showed
hardly any concern and even less action. The Grain Inspection, Packers
and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) at USDA has the responsibility to
enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act. For years, I have had doubts
whether GIPSA was effectively enforcing this important law. Concerned
by the lack of action by GIPSA, I asked USDA's Inspector General to
investigate this matter. Recently, the Inspector General issued a
report on GIPSA that confirmed these concerns. The report described
widespread inaction, agency management actively blocking employees from
conducting investigations
[[Page 2044]]
into anti-competitive behavior and a scheme to cover up the lack of
enforcement by inflating the reported number of investigations
conducted.
The Inspector General's troubling findings reveal gross mismanagement
by GIPSA. This failure is not just at GIPSA but includes high-level
officials at USDA who did nothing to identify and correct problems
within GIPSA. Today, the legislation I introduce will reorganize the
structure in how USDA enforces the Packers and Stockyards Act. This
legislation will create an office of special counsel for competition
matters at USDA. This office will oversee more effective enforcement of
the Packers and Stockyards Act and other laws and focus attention on
competition issues at USDA by removing unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy. The new special counsel on competition would be appointed
by the President with advice and consent from the U.S. Senate. Some
would argue that this reorganization is not needed, especially given
that USDA has agreed to make the necessary changes recommended by the
recent Inspector General's report. However, what is important to
remember here is that USDA has a long history of agreeing to making
changes and then never following through with them. The Inspector
General made recommendations to improve competition investigations in
1997 and the Government Accountability Office made similar
recommendations again in 2000. It is 2006, yet those recommendations
were never implemented and GIPSA is in complete disarray. In addition,
no one above the level of deputy administrator at GIPSA seemed to have
any idea that any problems were going on, despite the fact I was
sending letters to the Secretary of Agriculture pointing out that USDA
was failing to enforce the law. A change is needed.
In addition to the creation of a special counsel, this legislation
also makes many important clarifications to the Packers and Stockyards
Act so that producers need not prove an impact on competition in the
market in order to prevail in cases involving unfair or deceptive
practices. Court rulings have created many hoops for producers to go
through in order to succeed in cases where they were treated unfairly.
For example, the United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that a poultry grower operation failed to prove how its case involving
an unfair termination of its contract adversely affected competition.
The court indicated that the grower had to prove that their unfair
treatment affected competition in the relevant market. That is very
difficult to prove and was never the intent of the Packers and
Stockyards Act.
This legislation also makes modifications to the Packers and
Stockyards Act so that poultry growers have the same enforcement
protections by USDA as livestock. Currently, it is unlawful for a
livestock packer or live poultry dealer to engage in any unfair,
unjustly discriminatory or deceptive practice, but USDA does not have
the authority to enforce and correct such problems because the
enforcement section of the law is absent of any reference to poultry.
This important statutory change is long overdue. In addition, to better
reflect the integrated nature of the poultry industry, this legislation
also ensures that protections under the law extend to all poultry
growers, such as breeder hen and pullet operations, not just those who
raise broilers.
The Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967 was passed by Congress to
ensure that producers are allowed to join together as an association to
strengthen their position in the marketplace without being
discriminated against by handlers. Unfortunately, this Act was passed
with a clause that essentially abolishes the actual intent of the law.
The Act states that ``nothing in this Act shall prevent handlers and
producers from selecting their customers'' and it also states that it
does not ``require a handler to deal with an association of
producers.'' This clause in effect allows handlers to think of any
reason possible under the sun not to do business with certain
producers, as long as the stated reason is not because they belong to
an association. Currently, the Agricultural Fair Practices Act focuses
on the right of producers to join together without discrimination for
having done so.
I propose to expand the Agricultural Fair Practices Act to provide
new needed protections for agricultural contracts. As I have mentioned
earlier, consolidation in all sectors of agriculture is reducing the
number of buyers of commodities and for the very few who are left, many
require contracts to conduct business. Some producers have little or no
choice but to contract with a firm with questionable practices or face
leaving the industry they have known for their whole lives.
This amendment to the Agricultural Fair Practices Act requires that
contracts be spelled out in clear language what is required by the
producer. This legislation prohibits confidentiality clauses by giving
producers the ability to share it with family members or a lawyer to
help them make an informed decision on whether or not to sign it. It
prevents companies from prematurely terminating contracts without
notice when producers have made large capital investments as a
condition of signing the contract. And it only allows mandatory
arbitration after a dispute arises and both parties agree to it in
writing. Producers should not be forced to sign contracts with
arbitration clauses thereby preventing them from seeking legal remedy
in the courts.
History is repeating itself--in fact consolidation in the industry is
even worse today. Producers deserve to have a fair and evenhanded
market in which to conduct business. They should not be at the mercy of
unfair and heavily consolidated markets that spurred Congress to enact
legislative reforms, such as the Packers and Stockyards Act, years ago.
This legislation won't be able to turn back the clock, but it will
strengthen laws and enforcement of them so that markets operate more
fairly.
______
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Inouye, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Santorum):
S. 2308. A bill to amend the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of
1977 to improve mine safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation to
overhaul the Mine Safety and Health Act to make this Nation's mines the
safest in the world. The recent events at the Sago mine in
Tallmansville and the Alma Mine in Mellville, WV, and the death of a
miner of Pikeville, KY, demonstrates that improvements need to be made
in all areas of mine safety. The West Virginia disasters remind us of
the one at the Pennsylvania Quecreek mine where on July 24, 2002, a
mining machine broke through an abandoned section of the mine,
unleashing 60 million gallons of groundwater and trapping 9 miners.
Some 78 hours after the accident, all 9 miners were pulled safely from
the mine. Unfortunately, the 12 men at the Sago mine were not as lucky.
A recent article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette stated: ``The rest of
the world will move on. In the weeks and months to come, there will be
other disasters, other wars, other political scandals. But for the
families of the 12 men who died inside the mine in Tallmansville, WV,
for the one who survived, for their relatives and friends, for the
investigators searching for the cause of the mine explosion, for the
people of these coal-rich hills 100 miles south of Pittsburgh, Sago
will be a daily litany. Some questions about the January 2 accident may
never be answered.''
Mining is a dangerous business. There have already been 4 coal mine
accidents since the January 2, 2006, Sago disaster. One on January 10,
when a miner was killed in Kentucky after a mine roof cave-in, another
on January 19, when 2 miners became trapped at the Alma mine in
Melville, West Virginia, and two more accidents on February 1, 2006,
where a miner was killed at an underground mine when a wall support
popped loose, and a second fatality when a bulldozer struck a gas line
at a surface mine sparking a fire and killing the operator. Last year,
the safest year on record, there were 22 fatalities in underground coal
mines, in
[[Page 2045]]
20 separate accidents with 4 men killed in my home State of
Pennsylvania; 3 in West Virginia; 8 in Kentucky and 7 in other States.
The Sago mine had 208 citations, orders and safeguards issued against
it in 2005, with nearly half of these violations cited as ``significant
and substantial''. Eighteen of the violations were cited as
``withdrawal orders'', which shut down activity in specific areas of
the mine until problems were corrected.
While the budget for mine safety and health has increased by 42
percent over the past 10 years, these increases barely keep pace with
inflationary costs. This has forced the agency to reduce staffing by
183 positions over that same time period. In FY 2006, the final
appropriation was $2.8 million below the budget request and $1.4
million below the FY 2005 appropriation due to the 1 percent across-
the-board reduction that was required to stay within the budget
resolution ceiling.
I chaired a hearing on January 23, 2006, that included testimony from
Federal mining officials and mine safety experts from labor, business,
and academia, which resulted in many of the proposals in my
legislation.
Specifically, the legislation that I am introducing today amends the
Mine Safety and Health Act by requiring: 1. MSHA to release the
internal review and accident investigation reports to the House and
Senate authorizing and appropriating committees, within 30 days of
completing their investigation of a mine disaster. 2. MSHA to publish
formal rules for conducting accident investigations and hearing
procedures. 3. That fines for a flagrant violation be increased from
$60,000 to $500,000; defining that violation as a reckless or repeated
failure to make reasonable efforts to eliminate a known violation of a
standard that substantially and proximately caused, or reasonably could
have been expected to cause death or serious bodily injury; and
prohibiting the reduction of penalties by an administrative law judge
for any violation termed as ``flagrant or habitual''. 4. That no fine
less than $10,000 can be assessed for a safety violation that could
cause serious illness or injury, and no less than $20,000 can be
assessed to a habitual violator for a violation that could
significantly and substantially contribute to a safety or health
hazard. 5. MSHA inspectors to follow-up on all violations no later than
24 hours. 6. MSHA to ensure that the ventilation and roof control plans
are reviewed on a quarterly basis. 7. That mining companies be subject
to a fine of no less than $100,000 if MSHA officials are not informed
of a disaster within 15 minutes of an accident. The MSHA Director may
waive the penalty if it is found that failure to give notice was caused
by circumstances outside the control of the mine operator. 8. That mine
representatives not be present during accident investigation interviews
with miners. 9. MSHA to train all mine personnel in the proper usage of
wireless devices and do refresher training courses during each calendar
year. 10. That rescue teams do training exercises twice a year and
conduct emergency rescue drills at operating mines--on a surprise,
unannounced basis. 11. That communications between rescue teams be
strictly confined between the command center and the team members. 12.
MSHA to have a central communications Emergency Call Center--which
includes manned telephone operation with all calls answered by a live
operator, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This provision will apply
to all types of mining operations. To assist in implementing and
operating the Emergency Call Center, MSHA shall--on a quarterly basis--
provide the Center with a mine emergency contact list. 13. That
wireless Emergency Tracking Devices be made available to each miner by
the operator which will enable rescuers to locate miners in case of an
accident. 14. That wireless text messaging or other wireless
communications devices be made by the operator and shall be worn by
underground personnel to enable rescuers or mine operators to
communicate with underground personnel. 15. MSHA to place secondary
telephone lines in a separate entry in order to increase the likelihood
that communications could be maintained between miners and those on the
surface in the event of an emergency. 16. That strategically placed
oxygen stations be provided to miners with four days of oxygen--in the
section of the mine where miners are working. 17. That fines will be
increased from $5,500 to $55,000 for operators who fail to correct a
violation. 18. That an operator who knowingly exposes workers to
situations likely to cause death or serious bodily injury or willfully
violates a mandatory health or safety standard will have fines
increased from $25,000 to $250,000. 19. That if any person gives
advance notice of the mine inspection the fine will be increased from
not more than $1,000 to not more than $20,000. 20. That if any person
makes a false statement regarding complying with the MSHA Act the fine
will be increased from $10,000 to $100,000.
All metal, non-metal and coal mines as defined in section 3 of the
Act, shall be subject to a user fee of $100.00 for each penalty
assessed, to be collected by MSHA and deposited into its account to
augment funding above fiscal year 2006 enacted appropriations, for the
following activities: reimburse operators for the costs of training,
research and development, rescue teams, safe rooms, and other miner
safety supplies and equipment, and supplement MSHA funding of technical
support, educational policy and development, and program evaluation and
information activities.
These amendments that I have proposed to the Mine Safety and Health
Act will improve the conditions in this Nation's mines. The provisions
set forth in this legislation will provide increased protections for
miners; put in place new equipment and technology to locate miners
working underground; increase their oxygen supplies and speed up rescue
operations so that the tragedy of the last few months will be not be
repeated. I ask that you join me in cosponsoring this legislation.
______
By Mr. HARKIN:
S. 2309. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the definition of agri-biodiesel; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bill of modest
scope but of great importance. The legislation would modify the
existing Federal biodiesel tax credit in two ways--to make clear that
only biodiesel produced from feedstocks listed, such as soy oil, are
eligible and also to ensure the credit is available only for fuel of
the highest quality.
Biodiesel is a home-grown renewable fuel that helps wean our country
off of its oil addiction, creates economic growth and jobs in rural
areas while enhancing our environment and public health.
In my State of Iowa, which leads the Nation in biodiesel production,
there are three plants in operation and several more coming on-line.
Each plant bolsters farm income, provides good jobs to surrounding
communities and additional tax revenues to municipalities.
The biodiesel tax credit was enacted into law just a few years ago.
It was extended through 2008 in the energy bill. I have been a leading
proponent of the tax credit since day one. However, the tax credit has
recently subsidized biodiesel production from outside the U.S. While I
am certainly not averse to trade, and generally believe that it is a
good thing for renewable energy to supplant fossil fuels wherever it
comes from, the practice does not enhance domestic energy security, a
goal which the President endorsed in his recent State of the Union
address.
It would be terribly unfortunate if the Federal Government, which has
sought to bolster our domestic energy security and environmental
quality through the development of renewable fuels, suddenly found
itself unintentionally undermining that goal. Congress intended the
biodiesel tax credit to go to support production from a finite set of
feedstocks. We are now off-track given how the Internal Revenue Service
has been interpreting the law. The agency has improperly determined
that biodiesel produced from a variety of feedstocks, even those not
listed in statute, are eligible for the credit.
[[Page 2046]]
So I have put together a bill, as I said, that is modest in scope.
The bill fixes the tax credit language by making biodiesel made from
any source not listed in the statute ineligible for the tax credit.
In addition, I have added a performance standard to help ensure that
only high-quality biodiesel may receive tax benefits. There have been
reports of late that some biodiesel doesn't perform as well as it
should in certain situations, and this provision should help address
that problem. The performance standard set forth in the bill specifies
that only fuel listed with a cloud point of 45 degrees or less is
eligible for the credit. Cloud point measures the point at which a fuel
such as biodiesel will cloud or gel due to cold temperatures. My
understanding is that cloud point is generally recognized as the best
quality indicator for satisfactory performance.
The bill as crafted should not interfere in any way with our
international trade obligations under the World Trade Organization
(WTO) rules since it does not differentiate between oilseeds of U.S.
and foreign origin. This view is shared by several trade experts
consulted by my staff.
I stand ready to work with my colleagues on the Senate Finance
Committee, which has direct jurisdiction over this issue, to move this
legislation forward.
In sum, I think this legislation is necessary to promote domestic
energy security, ensure appropriate performance, and do so in a way
that is compliant with our international trading obligations.
______
By Mr. WARNER:
S. 2310. A bill to repeal the requirement for 12 operational aircraft
carriers within the Navy; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an important
piece of legislation related to our Navy and National Security.
The Department of Defense has submitted its report to the Congress on
the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005 and, as we are all well aware,
in the 4 years since the previous Quadrennial Defense Review.
The global war on terror has dramatically broadened the demands on
our naval combat forces. In response, the Navy has implemented
fundamental changes to fleet maintenance and deployment practices that
have increased total force availability, and it has fielded advances in
ship systems, aircraft, and precision weapons that have provided
appreciably greater combat power than 4 years ago.
These commendable efforts reflect the superb skills, resolve, and
dedication of the men and women of our Armed Forces, as they adapt to
the added dimension of international terror while providing for the
security of our Nation.
However, we must consider that the Navy is at its smallest size in
decades, and the threat of emerging naval powers superimposed upon the
Navy's broader mission of maintaining global maritime security,
requires that we modernize and expand our Navy.
The longer view dictated by naval force structure planning requires
that we invest today to ensure maritime dominance 15 years and further
in the future; investment to modernize our aircraft carrier force with
21st century capabilities, to increase our expeditionary capability, to
maintain our undersea superiority, and to develop the ability to
penetrate the littorals with the same command we possess today in the
open seas.
The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review impresses these critical
requirements against the backdrop of the national defense strategy and
concludes that the Navy must build a larger fleet. The Navy, in its
evaluation of the future threat, has determined that a force level of
313 ships, 32 ships greater than today's operational fleet, is required
to maintain decisive maritime superiority.
These findings are in whole agreement with previous concerns raised
by Congress as the rate of shipbuilding declined over the past 15
years. Now we must finance this critical modernization, and in doing so
we must strike an affordable balance between existing and future force
structure.
The centerpiece of the Navy's force structure is the carrier strike
group, and the evaluation of current and future aircraft carrier
capabilities by the Quadrennial Defense Review has concluded that 11
carrier strike groups provide the decisively superior combat capability
required by the national defense strategy. Carefully considering this
conclusion, we must weigh the risk of reducing the naval force from 12
to 11 aircraft carriers against the risk of failing to modernize the
naval force.
Maintaining 12 aircraft carriers would require extending the service
life and continuing to operate the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67). The
compelling reality is that today the 38-year-old USS John F. Kennedy
(CV-67) is not deployable without a significant investment of
resources. Recognizing the great complexity and risks inherent to naval
aviation, there are real concerns regarding the ability to maintain the
Kennedy in an operationally safe condition for our sailors at sea. In
the final assessment, the costs to extend the service life and to make
the necessary investments to deploy this aging aircraft carrier in the
future prove prohibitive when measured against the critical need to
invest in modernizing the carrier force, the submarine force, and the
surface combatant force.
We in the Congress have an obligation to ensure that our brave men
and women in uniform are armed with the right capability when and where
called upon to perform their mission in defense of freedom around the
world. Previously, we have questioned the steady decline in naval force
structure, raising concerns with regard to long term impacts on
operations, force readiness, and the viability of the industrial base
that we rely upon to build our Nation's Navy. Accordingly, I am
encouraged by and strongly endorse the Navy's vision for a larger,
modernized fleet, sized and shaped to remain the world's dominant
seapower through the 21st century.
However, to achieve this expansion while managing limited resources,
it is necessary to retire the aging conventional carriers that have
served this country for so long. To this end, Mr. President, I offer
this legislation which would amend section 5062 of Title 10, United
States Code to eliminate the requirement for the naval combat forces of
the Navy to include not less than 12 operational aircraft carriers.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 2311. A bill to establish a demonstration project to develop a
national network of economically sustainable transportation providers
and qualified transportation providers, to provide transportation
services to older individuals, and individuals who are blind, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, in recent years, we have become
increasingly aware of the great challenges facing our Nation as our
population ages. While much discussion revolves around health care,
social security, and pension systems, there is another daunting
challenge that is rarely addressed in a comprehensive way.
I am referring to the challenge of senior transportation.
We Americans love our automobiles. From the time most of us were old
enough to drive, we have been behind the wheel. Cars mean freedom--not
in some grand philosophical sense--but in the real and practical sense
that matters to us in our everyday lives. Having a car, and being able
to drive it, means the freedom to go where we want, when we want.
But as we age, we will find it harder and harder to use the freedom
given to us by automobiles. Because as we age, our abilities decline,
and driving becomes less and less simple. And then the day comes when
we wonder whether we should keep driving at all, and if we don't, how
we will get about our daily lives.
That day has already come for millions of our senior citizens.
All around the Nation, older Americans are struggling to stay active
and independent while their ability to drive themselves declines. A few
live in communities with well-developed public
[[Page 2047]]
transportation services geared to our senior citizens, but most do not.
Many seniors drive as long as they can, perhaps longer than they think
they should, simply because they feel they have no alternative.
That is why I am today introducing the Older Americans Sustainable
Mobility Act of 2006. Despite its rather awkward name, this legislation
has a great purpose. It would create a 5-year demonstration project,
overseen by the Administration on Aging, to establish a national,
nonprofit senior transportation network to help provide some
transportation alternatives to our aging population. The goal of this
network is to build upon creative, successful models that are already
showing how the transportation needs of older Americans can be met in a
manner that is economically sustainable.
This last point is important. Senior transportation is a complex and
expensive logistical problem. We cannot expect to address this problem
by creating a brand new, expansive, Federal Government program that
requires the commitment of vast sums year after year in order to
succeed. We can't afford that, and that really isn't what older
Americans want.
What older Americans want is what most of us have and take for
granted--the freedom and mobility that our automobiles provide.
My legislation would build upon models that have demonstrated how
senior citizens can stay active and mobile even after they stop
driving. One such model is ITNAmerica, which has been operating in my
home State of Maine since the mid-1990s and has since branched out to
communities across the Nation. ITNAmerica uses private automobiles to
provide rides to senior citizens whenever they want, almost like a taxi
service. Riders open an account which is automatically charged when the
service is used. Riders can get credits for rides through volunteer
services, through donations--and this is what I think is most
intriguing--by donating their private car to the program after they
have decided that they should no longer drive.
Kathy Freund, the founder of ITNAmerica, sees this as a way of taking
something people see as a liability, and turning it into an asset.
Through Kathy's extraordinary vision and hard work, ITNAmerica has
developed a model that works because it allows older Americans to make
the transition away from driving themselves without asking them to
sacrifice their independence, or to learn at an older age how to
navigate public transportation systems that may simply be inappropriate
for their needs, or widely unavailable in many parts of the country.
They can still be mobile, they can still go where they want and when
they want, and they can go by car.
Senior citizens will often keep their vehicles long after they have
stopped driving. I am sure you have seen these vehicles in your State
as I have in mine. You will see them sitting in driveways--unattended
and poorly maintained, sometimes not driven for many months at a time.
In this form, these cars are ``wasting'' assets. But ITNAmerica has
found that the value of these cars can be unlocked by allowing seniors
to exchange them for rides. That is why my bill calls for the creation
of a once-in-a-lifetime tax benefit for seniors who exchange their cars
for rides, valued at the amount of the ride-credit they are provided.
One of my senior citizen constituents, June Snow from Falmouth, ME,
has been using the system that I described--the ITNAmerica system--
since 1995, when her eyesight began to fail. At first, she used the
program only to get into the city, Portland, and only after dark, when
she found it more difficult to drive. But more recently she has traded
her car for rides, and now she depends on the system to go everywhere
she needs to go. She finds that the program allows her to get around
town, to run errands, and do the things she has to do and wants to do
without worrying about whether she will be able to get safely from one
place to another. She told me: It's not like riding a bus, where you
have to work with their schedules, and they won't stop and help you
with your groceries. They won't make you get your feet wet walking
through the snow to the bus stop.
But what she loves most is the personal attention she gets from the
drivers, most of whom are volunteers. ``They help you to the door, and
they even carry your bundles and put them in the trunk,'' she says.
My bill also creates a limited-time matching grant program to help
communities establish sustainable transportation alternatives for
seniors as part of a national network. Programs that wish to compete
for these matching grants must be able to show that they can become
self-sustaining after 5 years, and that they can operate after that
period without reliance on public funds. So what I am proposing, is
that we just provide some seed money as a catalyst, to get these
programs going, with the full expectation--indeed the requirement--that
they become self-sustaining without any public funds after the initial
period. My bill also provides smaller grants to help transportation
providers acquire the technology they need to connect to this network,
and grants to encourage efforts to get the baby boomers more involved
in supporting transportation alternatives in their communities. The
total cost of these grant programs would be only $25 million over the
full 5 year period. Then the program sunsets, and these wonderful
transportation programs that would be created all over the country
would be sustainable on their own without public funding.
The challenge of providing transportation alternatives to our
Nation's senior citizens is literally growing by the day. The bill I am
offering is one step toward a reasonable, practical, solution to this
important challenge. I think all of us know of neighbors and family
members who reach their senior years and really shouldn't be driving
anymore but are very reluctant to give up those car keys because there
are simply no workable alternatives for them. This bill would provide
those alternatives, and I urge my colleagues to support the
legislation.
______
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 2312. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to change the numerical identifier used to identify Medicare
beneficiaries under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2312
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
TO CHANGE THE NUMERICAL IDENTIFIER USED TO
IDENTIFY MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES UNDER THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish and implement procedures to change
the numerical identifier used to identify individuals
entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of such title so
that such an individual's social security account number is
not displayed on the identification card issued to the
individual under the Medicare program under such title or on
any explanation of Medicare benefits mailed to the
individual.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Dayton):
S. 2313. A bill to amend title XVII of the Social Security Act to
permit medicare beneficiaries enrolled in prescription drug plans and
MA-PD plans that change their formalities or increase drug prices to
enroll in other plans; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page 2048]]
S. 2313
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare Drug Honest Pricing
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PERMITTING MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES ENROLLED IN
PRESCRIPTION DRUG PLANS AND MA-PD PLANS THAT
CHANGE THEIR FORMULARIES OR INCREASE DRUG
PRICES TO ENROLL IN OTHER PLANS.
(a) Special Enrollment Period.--
(1) In general.--Section 1860D-1(b)(3) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(3)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraphs:
``(F) Enrollment under plans that change their
formularies.--In the case of a part D eligible individual who
is enrolled in a prescription drug plan that uses a
formulary, if the plan removes a covered part D drug from its
formulary or changes the preferred or tiered cost-sharing
status of such a drug and the individual is adversely
affected by such change, there shall be a 60-day special
enrollment period for the individual beginning on the date on
which the individual receives a notice of such removal or
change.
``(G) Enrollment under plans that increase negotiated
prices.--In the case of a part D eligible individual who is
enrolled in a prescription drug plan in which the negotiated
price used for payment for any covered part D drug increases
by 10 percent or more from the negotiated price used for
payment for the drug as of January 1 of the year (as
disclosed to the Secretary pursuant to section 1860D-
2(d)(4)(A)).''.
(2) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--Section
1860D-2(d) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
102(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following new
paragraph:
``(4) Informing beneficiaries of negotiated prices.--
``(A) Requiring plans to disclose negotiated prices to the
secretary.--Not later than November 8 of each year (beginning
with 2006), each sponsor of a prescription drug plan shall
disclose to the Secretary (in a manner specified by the
Secretary) the negotiated price used for payment for each
covered part D drug covered under the plan that will apply
under the plan on January 1 of the subsequent year.
``(B) Secretary to make negotiated prices available on the
cms website.--Not later than November 15 of each year
(beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall make information
disclosed under subparagraph (A) available to the public
through the Internet website of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services.
``(C) Requiring plans to inform beneficiaries of january 1
negotiated price.--Not later than January 10 of each year
(beginning with 2007), each sponsor of a prescription drug
plan shall appropriately inform (as determined by the
Secretary) part D eligible individuals enrolled in the plan
for the year of the negotiated price used for payment for
each covered part D drug that is covered under the plan that
was disclosed to the Secretary under subparagraph (A).''.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall promulgate regulations to carry out the
amendments made by this section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2007.
______
By Mr. BURNS:
S. 2315. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a
federally-supported education and awareness campaign for the prevention
of methamphetamine use; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor,
and Pensions.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
curb meth use in the United States. We have often been told that an
ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but this adage is
particularly true with methamphetamine addiction. But the problems
associated with meth do not end with a one-time high-they are only just
beginning. All too often, we hear horror stories about the change in
the brain's chemical composition that results from meth use. There's no
guarantee that a meth user's brain will be the same after they use meth
just once.
The impact of meth, both emotionally and physically, is significant.
The individuals that use meth are also not the only ones harmed by this
devastating drug--meth problems manifest themselves in family
relationships, place strain on treatment facilities and public health
needs, and the community. at large must bear the costs associated with
meth, such as drug-endangered children and the remediation of meth
labs. The most efficient use of Federal dollars should be directed
toward prevention--and that is why I have introduced legislation today.
With consideration of the PATRIOT Act and the inclusion of the Combat
Meth Act provisions which I fully support, I strongly believe that an
emphasis on prevention is essential, and the discussion today is a
topical one. We must change the attitude of the consumer. So long as
there is a demand for meth, there will always be willing sellers.
My legislation would allow communities to apply for assistance for
any campaign which would have a demonstrated reduction of meth use. A
100 percent match is required of all applicants to ensure that the
community organization or local government applying for funds has a
stake in the outcome. However, my legislation also recognizes the
difficulty this matching requirement may have on rural areas, or Indian
reservations, which typically have a high level of meth use, but lack
the necessary resources. For these applicants, the match will be cut in
half.
I hope my colleagues will join me in helping to prevent this public
health crisis called meth from becoming any worse. I have seen the
Senate's Anti-Meth Caucus start with six members when I created it last
year, and membership now stands at over 30 members. In the Senate, we
realize the serious nature and scope of the problem facing our States--
now it's time to act.
______
By Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself and Mr. Lautenberg):
S. 2316. A bill to amend the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to
permanently prohibit the conduct of offshore drilling on the Outer
Continental Shelf in the Mid-Atlantic and North Atlantic planning
areas; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from New
Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, to introduce legislation designed to
protect our State's coastline from the threat of encroaching oil and
gas development. The Clean Ocean and Safe Tourism Anti-Drilling Act, or
COAST Anti-Drilling Act, bans oil and gas drilling off the New Jersey
shore, and in the entire Atlantic seaboard from Maine to North
Carolina.
This bill is necessary because of last week's publication of the
Minerals Management Service's, MMS, draft 5-year plan for the Outer
Continental Shelf, which proposes to open the waters off the coast of
Virginia to oil and gas leasing in 2011. In some places, this means
drilling less than 75 miles off the coast of New Jersey. While the MMS
may believe you can assign a part of the ocean as belonging to a
certain state, oil spills will not respect those boundaries. Seventy-
five miles is more than close enough for a spill to affect the New
Jersey shore, potentially devastating our beaches and the state's
critical tourist economy.
According to the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission,
tourism is a $22 billion dollar industry in the State, responsible for
more than 430,000 jobs, over 10 percent of the total jobs in the State.
To risk all of that, and the coastal economies of every State along the
Atlantic coast, for what is estimated to be a fairly small potential
reserve of oil and gas is simply not worth it.
The MMS recently released new estimates for recoverable oil and gas
in the outer continental shelf, and the entire Atlantic seaboard adds
up to less than 6 percent of the nation's estimated OCS gas reserves,
and less than 3 percent of the oil reserves--barely a 6-month supply.
And that's from Maine to Florida, so the area off any individual State
will be a small fraction of that.
This is not an issue of trying to lower the price of natural gas, or
making the United States more energy independent. This is about
protecting New Jersey's environment and economy. This is about
protecting the coastline where New Jersey families live, work, and
play. I look forward to working with my colleagues from neighboring
States, and from States around the country, to ensure that our beaches
are protected for generations to come.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 2327. A bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to require the United
States Trade Representative to identify trade
[[Page 2049]]
enforcement priorities and to take action with respect to priority
foreign country trade practices, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I--along with Senator Hatch and
Senator Stabenow--introduce the Trade Competitiveness Act of 2006, a
bill that will provide the administration with additional tools,
resources, and accountability to enforce international trade
agreements.
This bill is the first in a comprehensive package of legislation that
I will introduce during the next few weeks to bolster American
competitiveness.
The United States is still a world leader in almost every way
imaginable. But we need a bold agenda to maintain America's economic
leadership and preserve high-wage American jobs here at home.
I just got back from China and India, and that trip only underscored
the challenges we face in the global economy. To rise to this
challenge, my bills will address trade and all other keystones of
America's competitiveness--education, energy, health, savings,
research, and tax policy.
But today, we start with international trade. Trade and investment in
international markets is a challenge that I have asked U.S. companies
to embrace.
I want American companies to get aggressive about getting their
products and their people into foreign markets to bolster the U.S.
presence around the world and bring jobs and dollars back home.
But when American companies embrace these new market opportunities,
they need to know that the American government will back them up. They
need to know that we will do all that we can to make sure our trading
partners play by the rules.
That is why trade enforcement is critical. And this bill will step up
trade enforcement in five ways.
Number one: Under my legislation, every year, the USTR will be
required to identify the biggest trade barriers hurting the U.S.
economically. The USTR will have to get Congress's input. And the USTR
will be required to act, through the WTO or in some other way, to break
those barriers down.
Number two: My bill will create a ``Chief Trade Enforcement Officer''
at the USTR. This person will be confirmed by the Senate. His or her
entire job will be to investigate enforcement concerns and recommend
action to the USTR. This person will also answer to Congress when it
has concerns about enforcement.
Number three: This new Trade Enforcement Officer is going to have
some backup. My bill will create a ``Trade Enforcement Working Group''
in the Executive Branch. It will be chaired by the USTR, and include
representatives of the Departments of Commerce, State, Agriculture, and
Treasury. They will help the Chief Trade Enforcement Officer get the
job done.
Number four: This new Trade Enforcement Officer will need resources
to get the job done. My bill provides $5 million additional to the USTR
for enforcement. Right now, the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget
effectively cuts enforcement funds.
Number five: This bill will send a strong message to the
International Monetary Fund. It will urge our Administration to tell
the IMF to get aggressive with countries that manipulate their own
currency to obtain a trade advantage. It will also urge the IMF to
undertake reforms so it becomes more transparent and more
representative of the emerging economies in Asia.
Senator Hatch wanted to make sure that the Federal Government does
not lose sight of Federal and State sovereignty when negotiating,
implementing, and enforcing trade agreements. That's an important issue
to consider, and I'm glad it's in this bill.
The bottom line is that improving enforcement of our trade agreements
will allow American companies to play hard and win big in the global
marketplace. A level playing field is the foundation of American
competitiveness on trade. This bill will help to provide it.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 2318. A bill to provide driver safety grants to States with
graduated driver licensing laws that meet certain minimum requirements;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise with my colleague from Virginia,
Senator Warner, to introduce the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform
Protection, STANDUP, Act of 2006--an important piece of legislation
that seeks to protect and ensure the lives of the 20 million teenage
drivers in our country.
We all know that the teenage years represent an important formative
stage in a person's life, They are a bridge between childhood and
adulthood--the transitional and often challenging period during which a
person will first gain an inner awareness of his or her identity. The
teenage years encompass a time for discovery, a time for growth, and a
time for gaining independence--all of which ultimately help boys and
girls transition successfully into young men and women.
As we also know, the teenage years also encompass a time for risk-
taking, A groundbreaking study published last year by the National
Institutes of Health concluded that the frontal lobe region of the
brain which inhibits risky behavior is not fully formed until the age
of 25. In my view, this important report requires that we approach
teenagers' behavior with a new sensitivity. It also requires that we
have as a Nation an obligation to steer teenagers towards positive
risk-taking that fosters further growth and development and away from
negative risk-taking that has an adverse effect on their well-being and
the well-being of others.
Unfortunately, we see all too often this negative risk-taking in
teenagers when they are behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. We see all
too often how this risk-taking needlessly endangers the life of a
teenage driver, his or her passengers, and other drivers on the road.
And we see all too often the tragic results of this risk-taking when
irresponsible and reckless behavior behind the wheel of a motor vehicle
causes severe harm and death.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for Americans
between 15 and 20 years of age. Between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 young
Americans between the ages of 15 and 20 died in motor vehicle crashes--
an average of 122 teenage deaths a week. Teenage drivers have a
fatality rate that is four times higher than the average fatality rate
for drivers between 25 and 70 years of age. Teenage drivers who are 16
years of age have a motor vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times
the crash rate for drivers between the ages of 30 and 60.
A recent analysis by the American Automobile Association's Foundation
for Traffic Safety concluded that teenage drivers comprise slightly
more than one-third of all fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which
they are involved, whereas nearly two-thirds of all fatalities in those
crashes are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
Finally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety concludes that
the chance of a crash by a driver either 16 or 17 years of age is
doubled if there are two peers in the motor vehicle and quadrupled with
three or more peers in the vehicle.
Crashes involving teenage injuries or fatalities are often high-
profile tragedies in the area where they occur. However, when taken
together, these individual tragedies speak to a national problem
clearly illustrated by the staggering statistics I just mentioned. It
is a problem that adversely affects teenage drivers, their passengers,
and literally everyone else who operates or rides in a motor vehicle.
Clearly, more work must be done to design and implement innovative
methods that educate our young drivers on the awesome responsibilities
that are associated with operating a motor vehicle safely.
One such method involves implementing and enforcing a graduated
driver's license system, or a GDL system. Under a typical GDL system, a
teenage driver passes through several sequential learning stages before
earning the full privileges associated with
[[Page 2050]]
an unrestricted driver's license. Each learning stage is designed to
teach a teenage driver fundamental lessons on driver operations,
responsibilities, and safety. Each stage also imposes certain
restrictions, such as curfews on nighttime driving and limitations on
passengers, that further ensure the safety of the teenage driver, his
or her passengers, and other motorists.
First implemented over ten years ago, three-stage GDL systems now
exist in 38 States. Furthermore, every State in the country has adopted
at least one driving restriction for new teenage drivers. Several
studies have concluded that GDL systems and other license restriction
measures have been linked to an overall reduction on the number of
teenage driver crashes and fatalities. In 1997, in the first full year
that its GDL system was in effect, Florida experienced a 9 percent
reduction in fatal and injurious motor vehicle crashes among teenage
drivers between 15 and 18 years of age. After GDL systems were
implemented in Michigan and North Carolina in 1997, the number of motor
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased in
each State by 25 percent and 27 percent, respectively. And in
California, the numbers of teenage passenger deaths and injuries in
crashes involving teenage drivers 16 years of age decreased by 40
percent between 1998 and 2000, the first three years that California's
GDL system was in effect. The number of ``at- fault'' crashes involving
teenage drivers decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
These statistics are promising and clearly show that many States are
taking an important first step towards addressing this enormous problem
concerning teenage driver safety. However, there is currently no
uniformity between States with regards to GDL system requirements and
other novice driver license restrictions. Some States have very strong
initiatives in place that promote safe teenage driving while others
have very weak initiatives in place. Given how many teenagers are
killed or injured in motor vehicle crashes each year, and given how
many other motorists and passengers are killed or injured in motor
vehicle crashes involving teenage drivers each year, Senator Warner and
I believe that the time has come for an initiative that sets a national
minimum safety standard for teen driving laws while giving each State
the flexibility to set additional standards that meet the more specific
needs of its teenage driver population. The bill that Senator Warner
and I are introducing today--the STANDUP Act--is such an initiative.
There are four principal components of this legislation which I would
like to briefly discuss.
First, The STANDUP Act mandates that all States implement a national
minimum safety standard for teenage drivers that contains four core
requirements recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board.
These requirements include implementing a three-stage GDL system,
implementing at least some prohibition on nighttime driving, placing a
restriction on the number of passengers without adult supervision, and
implementing a restriction on the use of electronic communications
devices, such as cell phones, during non-emergency situations.
Second, the STANDUP Act directs the Secretary of Transportation to
issue voluntary guidelines beyond the three core requirements that
encourage States to adopt additional standards that improve the safety
of teenage driving. These additional standards may include requiring
that the learner's permit and intermediate stages be six months each,
requiring at least 30 hours of behind- the-wheel driving for a novice
driver in the learner's permit stage in the company of a licensed
driver who is over 21 years of age, requiring a novice driver in the
learner's permit stage to be accompanied and supervised by a licensed
driver 21 years of age or older at all times when the novice driver is
operating a motor vehicle, and requiring that the granting of an
unrestricted driver's license be delayed automatically to any novice
driver in the learner's permit or intermediate stages who commits a
motor vehicle offense, such as driving while intoxicated,
misrepresenting his or her true age, reckless driving, speeding, or
driving without a fastened seatbelt.
Third, the STANDUP Act provides incentive grants to States that come
into compliance within three fiscal years. Calculated on a State's
annual share of the Highway Trust Fund, these incentive grants could be
used for activities such as training law enforcement and relevant State
agency personnel in the GDL law or publishing relevant educational
materials on the GDL law.
Finally, the STANDUP Act calls for sanctions to be imposed on States
that do not come into compliance after three fiscal years. The bill
withholds 1.5 percent of a State's Federal highway share after the
first fiscal year of non-compliance, three percent after the second
fiscal year, and six percent after the third fiscal year. The bill does
allow a State to reclaim any withheld funds if that State comes into
compliance within two fiscal years after the first fiscal year of non-
compliance.
There are those who will say that the STANDUP Act infringes on
States' rights. I respectfully disagree. I believe that it is in the
national interest to work to protect and ensure the lives and safety of
the millions of teenage drivers, their passengers, and other motorists
in our country. I also believe that the number of motor vehicle deaths
and injuries associated with teenage drivers each year compels us to
address this important national issue today and not tomorrow.
The teenage driving provisions within the STANDUP Act are both well-
known and popular with the American public. A Harris Poll conducted in
2001 found that 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to
50 hours of practice driving within an adult, 92 percent of Americans
support a six-month learner's permit stage, 74 percent of Americans
support limiting the number of teen passengers in a motor vehicle with
a teen driver, and 74 percent of Americans also support supervised or
restricted driving during high-risk periods such as nighttime. Clearly,
these numbers show that teen driving safety is an issue that transcends
party politics and is strongly embraced by a solid majority of
Americans. Therefore, I ask my colleagues today to join Senator Warner
and myself in protecting the lives of our teenagers and in supporting
this important legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that text of this legislation be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2318
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Teen and Novice Driver
Uniform Protection Act of 2006'' or the ``STANDUP Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has
reported that--
(A) motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death of
Americans between 15 and 20 years of age;
(B) between 1995 and 2004, 63,851 Americans between 15 and
20 years of age died in motor vehicle crashes, an average of
122 teenage deaths per week;
(C) teenage drivers between 16 and 20 years of age have a
fatality rate that is 4 times the rate for drivers between 25
and 70 years of age; and
(D) teenage drivers who are 16 years of age have a motor
vehicle crash rate that is almost ten times the crash rate
for drivers aged between 30 and 60 years of age.
(2) According to the American Automobile Association,
teenage drivers comprise slightly more than \1/3\ of all
fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in which they are
involved and nearly \2/3\ of all fatalities in those crashes
are other drivers, passengers, and pedestrians.
(3) According to the Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, the chance of a crash by a 16- or 17-year-old driver
is doubled if there are 2 peers in the vehicle and quadrupled
with 3 or more peers in the vehicle.
(4) According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the cognitive distraction caused by hands-
free and hand-held cell phones is significant enough to
degrade a driver's performance, particularly teenage drivers
between 15 and 20 years of age.
(5) Although only 20 percent of driving by teenage drivers
occurs at night, more than 50
[[Page 2051]]
percent of the motor vehicle crash fatalities involving
teenage drivers occur at night.
(6) In 1997, the first full year of its graduated driver
licensing system, Florida experienced a 9 percent reduction
in fatal and injurious crashes among teenage drivers between
the ages of 15 and 18, compared with 1995, according to the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
(7) The Journal of the American Medical Association reports
that crashes involving 16-year-old drivers decreased between
1995 and 1999 by 25 percent in Michigan and 27 percent in
North Carolina. Comprehensive graduated driver licensing
systems were implemented in 1997 in these States.
(8) In California, according to the Automobile Club of
Southern California, teenage passenger deaths and injuries
resulting from crashes involving 16-year-old drivers declined
by 40 percent from 1998 to 2000, the first 3 years of
California's graduated driver licensing program. The number
of at-fault collisions involving 16-year-old drivers
decreased by 24 percent during the same period.
(9) The National Transportation Safety Board reports that
39 States and the District of Columbia have implemented 3-
stage graduated driver licensing systems. Many States have
not yet implemented these and other basic safety features of
graduated driver licensing laws to protect the lives of
teenage and novice drivers.
(10) A 2001 Harris Poll indicates that--
(A) 95 percent of Americans support a requirement of 30 to
50 hours of practice driving with an adult;
(B) 92 percent of Americans support a 6-month learner's
permit period; and
(C) 74 percent of Americans support limiting the number of
teenage passengers in a car with a teenage driver and
supervised driving during high-risk driving periods, such as
night.
SEC. 3. STATE GRADUATED DRIVER LICENSING LAWS.
(a) Minimum Requirements.--A State is in compliance with
this section if the State has a graduated driver licensing
law that includes, for novice drivers under the age of 21--
(1) a 3-stage licensing process, including a learner's
permit stage and an intermediate stage before granting an
unrestricted driver's license;
(2) a prohibition on nighttime driving during the
intermediate stage;
(3) a prohibition, during the learner's permit intermediate
stages, from operating a motor vehicle with more than 1 non-
familial passenger under the age of 21 if there is no
licensed driver 21 years of age or older present in the motor
vehicle;
(4) a prohibition during the learner's permit and
intermediate stages, from using a cellular telephone or any
communications device in non-emergency situations; and
(5) any other requirement that the Secretary of
Transportation (referred to in this Act as the ``Secretary'')
may require, including--
(A) a learner's permit stage of at least 6 months;
(B) an intermediate stage of at least 6 months;
(C) for novice drivers in the learner's permit stage--
(i) a requirement of at least 30 hours of behind-the-wheel
training with a licensed driver who is over 21 years of age;
and
(ii) a requirement that any such driver be accompanied and
supervised by a licensed driver 21 years of age or older at
all times when such driver is operating a motor vehicle; and
(D) a requirement that the grant of full licensure be
automatically delayed, in addition to any other penalties
imposed by State law for any individual who, while holding a
provisional license, convicted of an offense, such as driving
while intoxicated, misrepresentation of their true age,
reckless driving, unbelted driving, speeding, or other
violations, as determined by the Secretary.
(b) Rulemaking.--After public notice and comment rulemaking
the Secretary shall issue regulations necessary to implement
this section.
SEC. 4. INCENTIVE GRANTS.
(a) In General.--For each of the first 3 fiscal years
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall award a grant to any State in compliance with
section 3(a) on or before the first day of that fiscal year
that submits an application under subsection (b).
(b) Application.--Any State desiring a grant under this
section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including a certification by the
governor of the State that the State is in compliance with
section 3(a).
(c) Grants.--For each fiscal year described in subsection
(a), amounts appropriated to carry out this section shall be
apportioned to each State in compliance with section 3(a) in
an amount determined by multiplying--
(1) the amount appropriated to carry out this section for
such fiscal year; by
(2) the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned to each
such State for such fiscal year under section 402 of title
23, United States Code, bears to the total amount of funds
apportioned to all such States for such fiscal year under
such section 402.
(d) Use of Funds.--Amounts received under a grant under
this section shall be used for--
(1) enforcement and providing training regarding the State
graduated driver licensing law to law enforcement personnel
and other relevant State agency personnel;
(2) publishing relevant educational materials that pertain
directly or indirectly to the State graduated driver
licensing law; and
(3) other administrative activities that the Secretary
considers relevant to the State graduated driver licensing
law.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than
the Mass Transit Account) $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2007 through 2009 to carry out this section.
SEC. 5. WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE.
(a) In General.--
(1) Fiscal year 2010.--The Secretary shall withhold 1.5
percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to
any State for fiscal year 2010 under each of the paragraphs
(1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United
States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section
3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2009.
(2) Fiscal year 2011.--The Secretary shall withhold 3
percent of the amount otherwise required to be apportioned to
any State for fiscal year 2011 under each of the paragraphs
(1), (3), and (4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United
States Code, if that State is not in compliance with section
3(a) of this Act on October 1, 2010.
(3) Fiscal year 2012 and thereafter.--The Secretary shall
withhold 6 percent of the amount otherwise required to be
apportioned to any State for each fiscal year beginning with
fiscal year 2012 under each of the paragraphs (1), (3), and
(4) of section 104(b) of title 23, United States Code, if
that State is not in compliance with section 3(a) of this Act
on the first day of such fiscal year.
(b) Period of Availability of Withheld Funds.--
(1) Funds withheld on or before september 30, 2011.--Any
amount withheld from any State under subsection (a) on or
before September 30, 2011, shall remain available for
distribution to the State under subsection (c) until the end
of the third fiscal year following the fiscal year for which
such amount is appropriated.
(2) Funds withheld after september 30, 2011.--Any amount
withheld under subsection (a)(2) from any State after
September 30, 2011, may not be distributed to the State.
(c) Apportionment of Withheld Funds After Compliance.--
(1) In general.--If, before the last day of the period for
which funds withheld under subsection (a) are to remain
available to a State under subsection (b), the State comes
into compliance with section 3(a), the Secretary shall, on
the first day on which the State comes into compliance,
distribute to the State any amounts withheld under subsection
(a) that remains available for apportionment to the State.
(2) Period of availability of subsequently apportioned
funds.--Any amount distributed under paragraph (1) shall
remain available for expenditure by the State until the end
of the third fiscal year for which the funds are so
apportioned. Any amount not expended by the State by the end
of such period shall revert back to the Treasury of the
United States.
(3) Effect of non-compliance.--If a State is not in
compliance with section 3(a) at the end of the period for
which any amount withheld under subsection (a) remains
available for distribution to the State under subsection (b),
such amount shall revert back to the Treasury of the United
States.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 373--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
SENATE SHOULD CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
HOTLINE, A CRITICAL NATIONAL RESOURCE THAT SAVES LIVES EACH DAY, AND
COMMEMORATE ITS 10TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Specter) submitted the following resolution;
which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 373
Whereas 2006 marks the 10th year that the Hotline has been
answering calls and saving lives;
Whereas, 10 years ago this month, the Hotline answered its
first call;
Whereas the Hotline is a project of the Texas Council on
Family Violence headquartered in Austin, Texas, and provides
crisis intervention, information, and referral to victims of
domestic violence, their friends, and their families;
Whereas the Hotline operates 24 hours a day and 365 days a
year;
[[Page 2052]]
Whereas the Hotline provides its users with anonymous
assistance in more than 140 different languages, and a
telecommunications device for the deaf, deaf-blind, and hard
of hearing;
Whereas the Hotline was created by Congress in the Violence
Against Women Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322; 108 Stat.
1902);
Whereas Congress continues its commitment to families of
the United States by strengthening and renewing this
important legislation in 2000 and most recently in December,
2005;
Whereas, since taking its first call in 1996, the Hotline
has answered over 1,500,000 calls;
Whereas, since its inception, the Hotline has become a
vital link to safety for victims of domestic violence and
their families;
Whereas today, Hotline advocates answer as many as 600
calls per day and an average of 16,500 calls per month from
women, men, and children from across the United States;
Whereas, as public awareness grows about domestic violence,
the Hotline has seen a significant increase in call volume,
with calls to the Hotline increasing by 200 percent over the
last 10 years;
Whereas, because no victim should ever get a busy signal,
the Hotline recently unveiled cutting edge technology that
will allow more victims to connect to life saving services;
and
Whereas the 10th anniversary of the Hotline marks a true
partnership between the Federal Government and private
businesses as each has come together in a collaborative
effort to save lives: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate should--
(1) continue to support the National Domestic Violence
Hotline; and
(2) commemorate the 10th anniversary of this critical
national resource that saves lives each day.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues Senators
Cornyn, Hutchison, Hatch, Specter, Leahy and Kennedy to submit a
Resolution commemorating the 10th anniversary of a critical American
resource--the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Operating 24 hours a
day, 365 days every year, in more than 140 different languages, with a
TTY line available for the deaf, the Hotline offers confidential and
anonymous help for victims of domestic violence, their families and
friends.
Located in Austin, TX, the National Domestic Violence Hotline was
created in the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. As I began to draft
that Act over 15 years ago, I held many Congressional hearings and
listened to hours of testimony from experts about how to craft an
effective, coordinated community response to battering. One of the
realities that was raised over and over in those hearings was how very
difficult it was, and still is, for a battered woman to admit the
abuse. It was, and still is, very difficult for a battered woman to
report the abuse to the police or local prosecutor. In the Violence
Against Women Act we created a safe haven--a place to talk about the
abuse that offered lots of solutions and total anonymity, the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
On February 21, 1996, the Hotline answered its first call, and since
then has received over 1.5 million calls. Today, Hotline advocates
answer as many as 600 calls per day and an average of 16,500 calls per
month from women, men and children across the nation. These are real
lives that have been dramatically changed by their first call to the
National Domestic Violence Hotline. Over 60 percent of the Hotline
callers report that this is their very first attempt to deal with the
abuse--they hadn't told a friend yet, or reported it to the police.
Each day Hotline advocates listen and respond to heart-wrenching
pleas for help and information, and each day they offer their callers
hope and help. I am pleased that the Senate can recognize their hard
work with today's Senate Resolution commemorating its 10th anniversary.
It is but a small token of this body's gratitude for the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 374--TO AUTHORIZE TESTIMONY, DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AND
LEGAL REPRESENTATION IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DAVID HOSSEIN
SAFAVIAN
Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 374
Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. David
Hossein Safavian, Crim. No. 05-370, pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, testimony
and documents have been requested from Bryan D. Parker, an
employee on the staff of the Committee on Indian Affairs;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to
represent employees of the Senate with respect to any
subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their
official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate may promote the
administration of justice, the Senate will take such action
as will promote the ends of justice consistently with the
privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that Bryan D. Parker, and any other employee of
the Committee on Indian Affairs from whom testimony or the
production of documents may be required, are authorized to
testify and produce documents in the case of United States of
America v. David Hossein Safavian, except concerning matters
for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Bryan D. Parker, and any other Members, officers, or
employees of the Senate, in connection with the testimony and
document production authorized in section one of this
resolution.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 375--TO AUTHORIZE TESTIMONY AND LEGAL REPRESENTATION
IN STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. WILLIAM THOMAS, KETA C. JONES, JOHN
FRANCIS BOPP, MICHAEL S. FRANKLIN, DAVID VAN STREIN, GUY CHICHESTER,
JAMILLA EL-SHAFEI, AND ANN ISENBERG
Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. Reid) submitted the following
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 375
Whereas, in the cases of State of New Hampshire v. William
Thomas (C-05-49153-AR), Keta C. Jones (C-05-49153-A-AR), John
Francis Bopp (C-05-49153-B-AR), Michael S. Franklin (C-05-
49153-C-AR), David Van Strein (C-05-49153-D-AR), Guy
Chichester (C-05-49153-E-AR), Jamilla El-Shafei (C-05-49153-
F-AR), and Ann Isenberg (C-05-49153-G-AR), pending in Concord
District Court, New Hampshire, testimony has been requested
from Carol Carpenter, an employee in the office of Senator
Judd Gregg;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to
represent an employee of the Senate with respect to any
subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their
official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate may promote the
administration of justice, the Senate will take such action
as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the
privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that Carol Carpenter and other employees of
Senator Gregg's office from whom testimony may be required
are authorized to testify in the cases of State of New
Hampshire v. William Thomas, Keta C. Jones, John Francis
Bopp, Michael S. Franklin, David Van Strein, Guy Chichester,
Jamilla El-Shafei, and Ann Isenberg, except concerning
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Carol Carpenter and other employees of Senator Gregg's office
in connection with the testimony authorized in section one of
this resolution.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 376--TO AUTHORIZE REPRESENTATION BY THE SENATE LEGAL
COUNSEL IN THE CASE OF KEYTER v. McCAIN, ET AL.
Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:
S. Res. 376
Whereas, pursuant to Senate Resolution 213, 109th Congress,
the Senate Legal Counsel is currently representing Senators
John McCain and Jon Kyl in the case of Keyter v. McCain, et
al., filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Civ. No. 05-1923-PHX-DGC;
[[Page 2053]]
Whereas, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
Senators Bill Frist, Joseph I. Lieberman, Mitch McConnell,
Rick Santorum, and Ted Stevens as additional defendants in
the action;
Whereas the District Court dismissed the action for lack of
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted;
Whereas the plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of the
action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend
Members of the Senate in civil actions relating to their
official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to
represent Senators Bill Frist, Joseph I. Lieberman, Mitch
McConnell, Rick Santorum, and Ted Stevens in the case of
Keyter v. McCain, et al.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 377--HONORING THE LIFE OF DR. NORMAN SHUMWAY AND
EXPRESSING THE CONDOLENCES OF THE SENATE ON HIS PASSING
Mr. FRIST submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 377
Whereas Norman Shumway was an inspirational leader and
medical pioneer;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway performed the first successful
heart transplant in the United States, and was considered the
father of heart transplantation in America;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway's seminal work with Dr Richard
Lower at Stanford Medical Center set in motion the longest
and most successful clinical cardiac transplant program in
the world,;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway co-edited a definitive book on
thoracic organ transplantation along with his daughter who is
also a cardiac surgeon;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway continued to research the
medical complexities of heart transplants when many were
abandoning the procedure because of poor outcomes due to
rejection;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway trained hundreds of surgeons who
have gone on to lead academic and clinical cardiac surgical
programs around the world;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway served our country in the United
States Army from 1943 to 1946, and in the United States Air
Force from 1951 to 1953;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway earned his medical degree from
Vanderbilt University in 1949, and his doctorate from the
University of Minnesota in 1956;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway was awarded with numerous
honorary degrees by his peers, including the American Medical
Association's Scientific Achievement Award and the Lifetime
Achievement Award of the International Society for Heart and
Lung Transplantation;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway is survived by his son, Michael,
and three daughters, Amy, Lisa and Sara, and his former wife,
Mary Lou; and
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway has left a legacy of life around
the world thanks to his tireless work of understanding and
perfecting heart transplantation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) mourns the loss of Dr. Norman Shumway;
(2) recognizes his contribution to medical science and
discovery;
(3) expresses its sympathies to the family of Dr. Norman
Shumway; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of Dr. Norman
Shumway.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 378--DESIGNATING FEBRUARY 25, 2006, ``NATIONAL MPS
AWARENESS DAY''
Mr. GRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kohl, Mrs.
Murray, Ms. Collins, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Brownback, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Specter) submitted the
following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 378
Whereas Mucopolysaccharidosis (referred to in this preamble
as ``MPS'') is a genetically determined lysosomal storage
disorder that renders the human body incapable of producing
certain enzymes needed to breakdown complex carbohydrates;
Whereas complex carbohydrates are then stored in almost
every cell in the body and progressively cause damage to
those cells;
Whereas the cell damage adversely affects the human body by
damaging the heart, respiratory system, bones, internal
organs, and central nervous system;
Whereas the cellular damage caused by MPS often results in
mental retardation, short stature, corneal damage, joint
stiffness, loss of mobility, speech and hearing impairment,
heart disease, hyperactivity, chronic respiratory problems,
and, most importantly, a drastically shortened life span;
Whereas the nature of the disorder is usually not apparent
at birth;
Whereas without treatment, the life expectancy of an
individual afflicted with MPS begins to decrease at a very
early stage in the life of the individual;
Whereas recent research developments have resulted in the
creation of limited treatments for some MPS disorders;
Whereas promising advancements in the pursuit of treatments
for additional MPS disorders are underway;
Whereas, despite the creation of newly developed remedies,
the blood brain barrier continues to be a significant
impediment to effectively treating the brain, thereby
preventing the treatment of many of the symptoms of MPS;
Whereas treatments for MPS will be greatly enhanced with
continued public funding;
Whereas the quality of life for individuals afflicted with
MPS, and the treatments available to them, will be enhanced
through the development of early detection techniques and
early intervention;
Whereas treatments and research advancements for MPS are
limited by a lack of awareness about MPS disorders;
Whereas the lack of awareness about MPS disorders extends
to those within the medical community;
Whereas the damage that is caused by MPS makes it a model
for many other degenerative genetic disorders;
Whereas the development of effective therapies and a
potential cure for MPS disorders can be accomplished by
increased awareness, research, data collection, and
information distribution;
Whereas the Senate is an institution than can raise public
awareness about MPS; and
Whereas the Senate is also an institution that can assist
in encouraging and facilitating increased public and private
sector research for early diagnosis and treatments of MPS
disorders: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates February 25, 2006, as ``National MPS
Awareness Day''; and
(2) supports the goals and ideals of ``National MPS
Awareness Day''.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 379--RECOGNIZING THE CREATION OF THE NASCAR-
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CONSORTIUM
Mr. SANTORUM (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Burr, Mrs.
Dole, and Mr. Allen) submitted the following resolution; which was
considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 379
Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, while
there are 1,300,000 automotive technicians currently
employed, industry figures confirm that an additional 50,000
technicians are needed to fill open positions each year;
Whereas the National Automotive Dealers Association reports
that 57 percent of the operating profit of automotive dealers
is generated by the parts and service departments of
automotive dealers;
Whereas the findings of the National Automotive Dealers
Association reveal that dealers consider it difficult to
locate qualified technicians;
Whereas 42 percent of all dealer technicians have been
engaged in that line of work for less than 1 year;
Whereas the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing,
Inc. (referred to in this preamble as ``NASCAR''), the NASCAR
Universal Technical Institute, and a collaboration of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (referred to in
this preamble as ``HBCUs'') have agreed to create a
consortium to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students in key
racing and other related automotive business activities,
including automotive engineering and technology, automotive
safety, sports marketing, and other automotive industry
areas;
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium is establishing a
formal plan to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students within
NASCAR in key racing and other related automotive business
activities through the NASCAR Universal Training Institute
and the NASCAR Diversity Internship Program;
Whereas NASCAR has agreed to enhance their identification
of employment opportunities, including internships, full time
jobs, entry level management positions, part-time jobs for
college students, and post-graduate job placement for
students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at
partner HBCUs;
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium has developed a program
to increase the awareness, access, and participation of
African American students in the NASCAR Universal Training
Institute and NASCAR Diversity Internship Program for the
racing and other related automotive industries; and
[[Page 2054]]
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium will seek opportunities
to establish and enhance the funding of targeted job
development activities by partner HBCUs, and generate support
for the HBCUs in their efforts to enhance curriculum
development in sports marketing, finance, human resource
management, and other automotive industry areas: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the National Association for Stock Car Auto
Racing, Inc. (referred to in this resolution as ``NASCAR''),
the NASCAR Universal Technical Institute, and a collaboration
of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (referred to
in this resolution as ``HBCUs''), for their creation of a
consortium to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students in key
racing and other related automotive business activities;
(2) commends HBCUs, including Alabama A&M University,
Alabama State University, Bethune Cookman College, Howard
University, North Carolina A&T University, Talladega College,
and Winston-Salem State University, for their efforts to
increase the number of quality job opportunities available to
African American students in key racing and other related
automotive business activities; and
(3) encourages the Departments of Education and Labor and
other appropriate agencies of the Federal Government to
provide suitable assistance and support to ensure the success
of that effort.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 380--CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. ALEXANDER (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Coburn,
Mr. Cochran, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Graham, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Landrieu, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Lincoln,
Mr. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mrs. Dole, Mr. Reid, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Talent, Mr. Allen, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Stabenow,
Mr. Bunning, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Obama, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kohl,
and Mr. Frist) submitted the following resolution; which was considered
and agreed to:
S. Res. 380
Whereas the first African Americans were brought forcibly
to the shores of America as early as the 17th century;
Whereas African Americans were enslaved in the United
States and subsequently faced the injustices of lynch mobs,
segregation, and denial of basic, fundamental rights;
Whereas in spite of these injustices, African Americans
have made significant contributions to the economic,
educational, political, artistic, literary, scientific, and
technological advancements of the United States;
Whereas in the face of these injustices, United States
citizens of all races distinguished themselves in their
commitment to the ideals on which the United States was
founded, and fought for the rights of African Americans;
Whereas the greatness of the United States is reflected in
the contributions of African Americans in all walks of life
throughout the history of the United States, including
through--
(1) the writings of Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin,
Ralph Ellison, and Alex Haley;
(2) the music of Mahalia Jackson, Billie Holiday, and Duke
Ellington;
(3) the resolve of athletes such as Jackie Robinson, Jesse
Owens, and Muhammed Ali;
(4) the vision of leaders such as Frederick Douglass,
Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
(5) the bravery of those who stood on the front lines in
the battle against oppression, such as Sojourner Truth and
Rosa Parks;
Whereas the United States of America was conceived, as
stated in the Declaration of Independence, as a new country
dedicated to the proposition that ``all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the Pursuit of Happiness'';
Whereas United States citizens of all races demonstrate
their commitment to that proposition through actions such as
those of--
(1) Allan Pinkerton, Thomas Garrett, and the Rev. John
Rankin, who served as conductors in the Underground Railroad;
(2) Harriet Beecher Stowe, who shined a light on the
injustices of slavery;
(3) President Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation
Proclamation, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, who introduced the
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(4) President Lyndon B. Johnson, Chief Justice Earl Warren,
Senator Mike Mansfield, and Senator Hubert Humphrey, who
fought to end segregation and the denial of civil rights to
African Americans; and
(5) Americans of all races who marched side-by-side with
African Americans during the civil rights movement;
Whereas, since its founding, the United States has been an
imperfect work in making progress towards those noble goals;
Whereas the history of the United States is the story of a
people regularly affirming high ideals, striving to reach
them but often failing, and then struggling to come to terms
with the disappointment of that failure before recommitting
themselves to trying again;
Whereas, from the beginning of our Nation, the most
conspicuous and persistent failure of United States citizens
to reach those noble goals has been the enslavement of
African Americans and the resulting racism;
Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the
ultimate expression of racism in the United States following
Reconstruction;
Whereas the Federal Government failed to put an end to
slavery until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865,
repeatedly failed to enact a Federal anti-lynching law, and
still struggles to deal with the evils of racism; and
Whereas the fact that 61 percent of African American 4th
graders read at a below basic level and only 16 percent of
native born African Americans have earned a Bachelor's
degree, 50 percent of all new HIV cases are reported in
African Americans, and the leading cause of death for African
American males ages 15 to 34 is homicide, demonstrates that
the United States continues to struggle to reach the high
ideal of equal opportunity for all citizens of the United
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) acknowledges the tragedies of slavery, lynching, and
segregation, and condemns them as an infringement on human
liberty and equal opportunity so that they will stand forever
as a reminder of what can happen when the citizens of the
United States fail to live up to their noble goals;
(2) honors those United States citizens who--
(A) risked their lives during the time of slavery,
lynching, and segregation in the Underground Railroad and in
other efforts to assist fugitive slaves and other African
Americans who might have been targets and victims of lynch
mobs; and
(B) those who have stood beside African Americans in the
fight for equal opportunity that continues to this day;
(3) reaffirms its commitment to the founding principles of
the United States of America that ``all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the Pursuit of Happiness'';
(4) commits itself to addressing those situations in which
the African American community struggles with disparities in
education, health care, and other areas where the Federal
Government can help improve conditions for all citizens of
the United States; and
(5) calls on the citizens of the United States to observe
Black History Month with appropriate programs, ceremonies,
and activities.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 381--DESIGNATING MARCH 1, 2006, AS NATIONAL SIBLING
CONNECTION DAY
Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Akaka, Mr.
Johnson, Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Clinton) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 381
Whereas sibling relationships are among the longest lasting
and most significant relationships in life;
Whereas brothers and sisters share history, memories, and
traditions that bind them together as family;
Whereas it is estimated that over 65 percent of children in
foster care have siblings, and are often separated when they
are placed in the foster care system, adopted, or confronted
with different kinship placements;
Whereas children in foster care have a greater risk of
emotional disturbance, difficulties in school, and problems
with relationships than their peers;
Whereas the separation of siblings as children causes
additional grief and loss;
Whereas organizations and private volunteers advocate for
the preservation of sibling relationships in foster care
settings and provide siblings in foster care with the
opportunity to reunite;
Whereas Camp to Belong, a nonprofit organization founded in
1995 by Lynn Price, heightens public awareness of the need to
preserve sibling relationships in foster care settings and
gives siblings in foster care the opportunity to reunite; and
Whereas Camp to Belong has reunited over 2,000 separated
siblings across the United States, the United States Virgin
Islands, and Canada: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates March 1, 2006, as ``Siblings Connection
Day'';
[[Page 2055]]
(2) encourages the people of the United States to celebrate
sibling relationships on this day; and
(3) supports efforts to respect and preserve those sibling
relationships that are at risk of being disrupted due to the
placement of children into the foster care system.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 81--RECOGNIZING AND HONORING THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF
THE FOUNDING OF THE SIGMA ALPHA EPSILON FRATERNITY
Mr. ISAKSON submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Con. Res. 81
Whereas the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity was founded on
March 9, 1856, by 8 young men at the University of Alabama in
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, in order to establish a band of
brothers;
Whereas the founders of the fraternity believed in
promoting the intellectual, moral, and spiritual welfare of
their members;
Whereas the mission of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity
is to promote the highest standards of friendship,
scholarship, and service for its members;
Whereas the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity adheres to its
creed known as ``The True Gentleman'' and lives up to its
ideals and aspirations for conduct with fellow man;
Whereas, for 150 years, the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity
has played an integral role in the positive development of
the character and education of more than 280,000 men;
Whereas the brothers of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, being from
different backgrounds, ethnic groups, and temperaments, have
shared countless friendships and a common belief in the
founding ideals of the fraternity;
Whereas tens of thousands of Sigma Alpha Epsilon men have
served our nation's military and hundreds have given the
ultimate sacrifice for our freedom;
Whereas alumni from Sigma Alpha Epsilon serve as leaders in
their respective fields, including government, business,
entertainment, science, and higher education;
Whereas the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity has 190,000
living alumni from as many as 290 chapters at colleges and
universities in 49 states and Canada, making it the largest
social fraternity in the world; and
Whereas Sigma Alpha Epsilon continues to enrich the lives
of its members who, in turn, give back to their families,
communities, and other service groups: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring), That Congress--
(1) recognizes and honors the 150th anniversary of the
founding of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity;
(2) commends its founding fathers and all Sigma Alpha
Epsilon brothers, past and present, for their bond of
friendship, common ideals and beliefs, and service to
community; and
(3) expresses its best wishes to this most respected and
cherished of national fraternities for continued success and
growth.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2891. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 2271, to clarify that individuals who receive FISA
orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that
individuals who receive national security letters are not
required to disclose the name of their attorney, that
libraries are not wire or electronic communication service
providers unless they provide specific services, and for
other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2892. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 2271, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2893. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 2271, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2894. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 2271, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 2895. Mr. FRIST proposed an amendment to the bill S.
2271, supra.
SA 2896. Mr. FRIST proposed an amendment to amendment SA
2895 proposed by Mr. Frist to the bill S. 2271, supra.
SA 2897. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2271, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2891. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2271, to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge
nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national
security letters are not required to disclose the name of their
attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication
service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 11, after line 11, add the following:
SEC. 6. NATIONAL SECURITY LETTER SUNSET.
Section 102(b) of the applicable Act is amended to read as
follows:
``(b) Sections 206, 215, and 505 Sunset.--
``(1) In general.--Effective December 31, 2009, the
following provisions are amended so that they read as they
read on October 25, 2001:
``(A) Sections 105(c)(2), 501, and 502 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(c)(2),
1861, 1862).
``(B) Section 2709 of title 18, United States Code.
``(C) Sections 636 and 637 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(15 U.S.C. 1681u. 1681v).
``(D) Section 1114(a)(5) of the Right to Financial Privacy
Act (12 U.S.C. 3414(a)(5)).
``(2) Exception.--With respect to any particular foreign
intelligence investigation that began before the date on
which the provisions referred to in paragraph (1) cease to
have effect, or with respect to any particular offense or
potential offense that began or occurred before the date on
which such provisions cease to have effect, such provisions
shall continue in effect.''.
______
SA 2892. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2271, to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge
nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national
security letters are not required to disclose the name of their
attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication
service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 11, after line 11, add the following:
SEC. 6. FACTUAL BASIS FOR REQUESTED ORDER.
Section 501(b)(2)(A) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861(b)(2)(A)), as
amended by the applicable Act, is amended to read as follows:
``(A) a statement of facts showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the records or other
things sought--
``(i) are relevant to an authorized investigation conducted
in accordance with subsection (a)(2) to obtain foreign
intelligence information not concerning a United States
person or to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities; and
``(ii) either--
``(I) pertain to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign
power;
``(II) are relevant to the activities of a suspected agent
of a foreign power who is the subject of such authorized
investigation; or
``(III) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known
to, a suspected agent of a foreign power; and''.
______
SA 2893. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2271, to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge
nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national
security letters are not required to disclose the name of their
attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication
service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 2, strike line 9 and all that follows through page
6, line 2 and insert the following:
SEC. 3. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF FISA ORDERS AND NATIONAL SECURITY
LETTERS.
(a) FISA.--Section 501(f) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861), as amended by the
applicable Act, is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and (2)
and inserting the following:
``(1)(A) A person receiving an order to produce any
tangible thing under this section may challenge the legality
of that order, including any prohibition on disclosure, by
filing a petition with the pool established by section
103(e)(1).
``(B) The presiding judge shall immediately assign a
petition submitted under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the judges
serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1).
``(C)(i) Not later than 72 hours after the assignment of a
petition under subparagraph (B), the assigned judge shall
conduct an initial review of the petition.
``(ii) If the assigned judge determines under clause (i)
that--
``(I) the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge shall
immediately deny the petition and affirm the order; and
[[Page 2056]]
``(II) the petition is not frivolous, the assigned judge
shall promptly consider the petition in accordance with the
procedures established pursuant to section 103(e)(2).
``(D) The assigned judge may modify or set aside the order
only if the judge finds that the order does not meet the
requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the
judge does not modify or set aside the order, the judge shall
immediately affirm the order and order the recipient to
comply therewith. The assigned judge shall promptly provide a
written statement for the record of the reasons for any
determination under this paragraph.
``(2) A petition for review of a decision to affirm,
modify, or set aside an order, including any prohibition on
disclosure, by the United States or any person receiving such
order shall be to the court of review established under
section 103(b), which shall have jurisdiction to consider
such petitions. The court of review shall provide for the
record a written statement of the reasons for its decision
and, on petition of the United States or any person receiving
such order for writ of certiorari, the record shall be
transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have
jurisdiction to review such decision.''.
(b) Judicial Review of National Security Letters.--Section
3511(b) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by the
applicable Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``If, at the time of the
petition,'' and all that follows through the end of the
paragraph; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``If the recertification
that disclosure may'' and all that follows through ``made in
bad faith.''.
______
SA 2894. Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Bingaman) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 2271, to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge
nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national
security letters are not required to disclose the name of their
attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication
service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
On page 11, after line 11, add the following:
SEC. 6. LIMITATION ON REASONABLE PERIOD FOR DELAY.
Section 3103a(b)(3) of title 18, United States Code, as
amended by the applicable Act, is amended by striking ``30
days'' and inserting ``7 days''.
______
SA 2895. Mr. FRIST proposed an amendment to the bill S. 2271, to
clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge
nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national
security letters are not required to disclose the name of their
attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication
service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other
purposes; as follows:
At the end of the bill add the following: This Act shall
become effective 1 day after enactment.
______
SA 2896. Mr. FRIST proposed an amendment SA 2895 proposed by Mr.
Frist to the bill S. 2271, to clarify that individuals who receive FISA
orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who
receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name
of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic
communication service providers unless they provide specific services,
and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike all after first word and insert: Act shall become
effective immediately upon enactment.
______
SA 2897. Mr. LEAHY submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 2271, to clarify that individuals who receive FISA
orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who
receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name
of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic
communication service providers unless they provide specific services,
and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:
On page 2, lines 22 through 24, strike ``Not less than 1
year after the date of the issuance of the production order,
the recipient of'' and insert ``A person receiving''.
On page 4, strike lines 12 through 19.
On page 4, line 20, strike ``(iii)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. 6. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS;
ELIMINATION OF THE ``CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION''.
Section 3511(b) of title 18, United States Code, as amended
by the applicable Act, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking the last sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the last sentence.
____________________
NOTICES OF HEARINGS/MEETINGS
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The hearing will be held on Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. in
Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The purpose of the hearing is to review the proposed Fiscal Year 2007
Department of Interior budget.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their
testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United
States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.
For further information, please contact Elizabeth Abrams (202-224-
0537) or Shannon Ewan (202-224-7555) of the Committee staff.
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Committee on
Rules and Administration will meet on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, at
9:30 a.m., to mark up an original bill to make the legislative process
more transparent.
For further information regarding this hearing, please contact Susan
Wells at the Rules and Administration Committee on 224-6352.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on February 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive
testimony on the priorities and plans for the atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy and to review the fiscal year
2007 President's budget request for atomic energy defense activities of
the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security
Administration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 16, 2006, at 10 a.m. to
conduct an oversight hearing on the semi-annual monetary policy report
of the Federal Reserve.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16 at 10 a.m. The purpose
of this hearing is to receive testimony regarding S. 2253, to require
the Secretary of the Interior to offer certain areas of the 181 areas
of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16 at 2:30 p.m. The purpose
of this hearing is to discuss the Energy Information Administration's
2006 annual energy outlook on trends and issues affecting the United
States energy market.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on finance
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to
[[Page 2057]]
meet during the session on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 10:30 a.m.,
in 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on
``Administration's Trade Agenda for 2006''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006, at 10 a.m. to hold a hearing on
Nominations.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to hold a
hearing during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006
at 10 a.m. in SD-G50.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday,
February 16, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in the Senate Dirksen Building Room
226.
Agenda
I. Nominations: Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to be U.S. District Judge for
the Northern District of Georgia; Thomas E. Johnston to be U.S.
District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia; Aida M.
Delgado-Colon to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Puerto
Rico; Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade; Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman
of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board; Paul J. McNulty to
be Deputy Attorney General; Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel; Reginald Lloyd to be
U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina; Stephen King to be a
Member of the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United
States.
II. Bills: H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 Smith--
TX; S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer, Feingold,
Durbin; S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin; Graham, DeWine;
S.__, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's Mark]; S. 489,
Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham,
Hatch.
III. Matters: S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, February 16, 2006, for a committee hearing on the
Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 Department of Veterans
Affairs budget. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell
Senate Office Building at 10:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Select Committee on Intelligence
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on February 16, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed business
meeting.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on national parks
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, February 16 at 1:30 p.m.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following
bills: S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution approving the location of the
commemorative work in the District of Columbia honoring former
President Dwight D. Eisenhower; S. 1870, a bill to clarify the
authorities for the use of certain National Park Service properties
within Golden Gate National Recreation Area and San Francisco Maritime
National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1913, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to lease a portion of the
Dorothy Buell Memorial Visitor Center for use as a visitor center for
the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, and for other purposes; S. 1970,
a bill to amend the National Trials System Act to update the
feasibility and suitability study originally prepared for the Trail of
Tears National Historic Trail and provide for the inclusion of new
trail segments, land components, and campgrounds associated with that
trail, and for other purposes; H.R. 562, a bill to authorize the
Government of Ukraine to establish a memorial on Federal land in the
District of Columbia to honor the victims of the manmade famine that
occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933; and H.R. 318, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of
designating Castle Nugent Farms located on St. Croix, Virgin Islands,
as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
National Ocean Policy Study
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the National
Ocean Policy Study be authorized to meet on Thursday, February 16,
2006, at 2:30 p.m., on the NOAA Budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXECUTIVE SESSION
______
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following
nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 491, 492, 493,
494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507,
508, 509, 510, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539,
540, 541, 542, 543, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk.
I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en
bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President
be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then
return to legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The nominations considered and confirmed en bloc are as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bernadette Mary Allen, of Maryland, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Niger.
Janice L. Jacobs, of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Senegal, and to serve
concurrently and without additional compensation as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Guinea-Bissau.
Steven Alan Browning, of Texas, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Uganda.
Patricia Newton Moller, of Arkansas, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Republic of Burundi.
Jeanine E. Jackson, of Wyoming, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to Burkina Faso.
Kristie A. Kenney, of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of the Philippines.
Robert Weisberg, of Maryland, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class
[[Page 2058]]
of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the
Republic of Congo.
Janet Ann Sanderson, of Arizona, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Republic of Haiti.
James D. McGee, of Florida, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to serve
concurrently and without additional compensation as
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the Union of Comoros.
Gary A Grappo, of Virginia, a Career Member of the Senior
Foreign Service, Class of Counselor, to be Ambassador
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of
America to the Sultanate of Oman.
Patricia A. Butenis, of Virginia, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United
States of America to the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Donald T. Bliss, of Maryland, for the rank of Ambassador
during his tenure of service as Representative of the United
States of America on the Council of the International Civil
Aviation Organization.
Claudia A. McMurray, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary
of State for Oceans and International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs.
Bradford R. Higgins, of Connecticut, to be an Assistant
Secretary of State (Resource Management).
Bradford R. Higgins, of Connecticut, to be Chief Financial
Officer, Department of State.
Jackie Wolcott Sanders, of Virginia, to be Alternate
Representative of the United States of America for Special
Political Affairs in the United Nations, with the rank of
Ambassador.
Jackie Wolcott Sanders, of Virginia, to be an Alternate
Representative of the United States of America to the
Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations during
her tenure of service as Alternate Representative of the
United States of America for Special Political Affairs in the
United Nations.
Michael W. Michalak, of Michigan, a Career Member of the
Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, for the
rank of Ambassador during his tenure of service as United
States Senior Official to the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Forum.
INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be United States
Alternate Governor of the International Monetary Fund for a
term of five years.
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOUNDATION
Terrence L. Bracy, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Board
of Trustees of the Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence
in National Environmental Policy Foundation for a term
expiring October 6, 2010.
In the air force
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Ronald F. Sams, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the Reserve
of the Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brigadier General David L. Frostman, 0000
Brigadier General James W. Graves, 0000
Brigadier General Linda S. Hemminger, 0000
Brigadier General John M. Howlett, 0000
Brigadier General Harold L. Mitchell, 0000
Brigadier General Hanferd J. Moen, Jr., 0000
Brigadier General William M. Rajczak, 0000
Brigadier General David N. Senty, 0000
Brigadier General Erika C. Steuterman, 0000
To be brigadier general
Colonel John M. Allen, 0000
Colonel Robert E. Bailey, Jr., 0000
Colonel Eric W. Crabtree, 0000
Colonel Dean J. Despinoy, 0000
Colonel Wallace W. Farris, Jr., 0000
Colonel John C. Fobian, 0000
Colonel Thomas W. Hartmann, 0000
Colonel James R. Hogue, 0000
Colonel Mark A. Kyle, 0000
Colonel Carol A. Lee, 0000
Colonel Jon R. Shasteen, 0000
Colonel Robert O. Tarter, 0000
Colonel Howard N. Thompson, 0000
Colonel Christine M. Turner, 0000
Colonel Paul M. Van Sickle, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Glenn F. Spears, 0000
The following Air National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Air Force to
the grade indicated under title 10, U.S. C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Dennis G. Lucas, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the Regular
Air Force of the United States to the position and grade
indicated under titled 10, U.S.C., section 8037:
To be judge advocate general of the United States Air Force
Maj. Gen. Jack L. Rives, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Air Force to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Steven J. Lepper, 0000
in the army
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be brigadier general
Col. Malinda E. Dunn, 0000
Col. Clyde J. Tate III, 0000
The following Army National Guard of the United States
officer for appointment in the Reserve of the Army to the
grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C., section 12203:
To be major general
Brig. Gen. Richard G. Maxon, 0000
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated under title 10, U.S.C.,
section 624:
To be major general
Brigadier General Michael D. Barbero, 0000
Brigadier General Salvatore F. Cambria, 0000
Brigadier General John M. Custer III, 0000
Brigadier General Richard P. Formica, 0000
Brigadier General David P. Fridovich, 0000
Brigadier General Kathleen M. Gainey, 0000
Brigadier General William T. Grisoli, 0000
Brigadier General Carter F. Ham, 0000
Brigadier General Jeffery W. Hammond, 0000
Brigadier General Frank G. Helmick, 0000
Brigadier General Paul S. Izzo, 0000
Brigadier General Francis H. Kearney, III,
Brigadier General Stephen R. Layfield, 0000
Brigadier General Robert P. Lennox, 0000
Brigadier General William H. McCoy, Jr., 0000
Brigadier General Timothy P. McHale, 0000
Brigadier General John W. Morgan, III, 0000
Brigadier General Michael L. Oates, 0000
Brigadier General Robert M. Radin, 0000
Brigadier General Curtis M. Scaparrotti, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the rank indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Thomas F. Metz, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. David P. Valcourt, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, 0000
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Army to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be lieutenant general
Maj. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, 0000
in the marine corps
The following named officers for appointment in the United
States Marine Corps to the grade indicated under title 10,
U.S.C., section 624:
To be brigadier general
Colonel Ronald L. Bailey, 0000
Colonel Michael M. Brogan, 0000
Colonel Jon M. Davis, 0000
Colonel Timothy C. Hanifen, 0000
Colonel James A. Kessler, 0000
Colonel James B. Laster, 0000
Colonel Angela Salinas, 0000
Colonel Peter J. Talleri, 0000
Colonel John A. Toolan, Jr, 0000
Colonel Robert S. Walsh, 0000
in the navy
The following named officer for appointment in the United
States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a
position of importance and responsibility under title 10,
U.S.C., section 601:
To be vice admiral
Rear Adm. Robert T. Conway, Jr., 0000
Nominations Placed on the Secretary's Desk
in the air force
PN995 AIR FORCE nominations (74) beginning JAMES C. AULT,
and ending MARYANNE C. YIP, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
October 17, 2005.
PN1201 AIR FORCE nomination of Barbara A. Hilgenberg, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
[[Page 2059]]
PN1202 AIR FORCE nomination of Evelyn S. Gemperle, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1203 AIR FORCE nominations (4) beginning JOHN W. AYRES
JR., and ending ALAN E. JOHNSON, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1204 AIR FORCE nominations (6) beginning DAVID HARRISION
BURDETTE, and ending DOMINIC O. UBAMADU, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1205 AIR FORCE nominations (6) beginning KAREN MARIE
BACHMANN, and ending MARY V. LUSSIER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1206 AIR FORCE nominations (6) beginning RAYMOND L. HAGAN
JR., and ending WILLIAM H. WILLIS SR., which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1207 AIR FORCE nominations (5) beginning RUSSELL G.
BOESTER, and ending RICHARD T. SHELTON, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1209 AIR FORCE nominations (12) beginning DIANA ATWELL,
and ending ANNE C. SPROUL, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1210 AIR FORCE nominations (16) beginning GERALD Q.
BROWN, and ending LISA L. TURNER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1211 AIR FORCE nominations (34) beginning MARK J. BATCHO,
and ending DAVID J. ZEMKOSKY, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1212 AIR FORCE nominations (405) beginning TAREK C.
ABBOUSHI, and ending JOHN J. ZIEGLER III, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1213 AIR FORCE nomination of Jeffrey J. Love, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1214 AIR FORCE nomination of Fritzjose E. Chandler, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1215 AIR FORCE nomination of Jose F. Eduardo, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1216 AIR FORCE nominations (64) beginning DARWIN L.
ALBERTO, and ending AMY S. WOOSLEY, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1231 AIR FORCE nomination of Julie K. Stanley, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1232 AIR FORCE nominations (10) beginning JOHN JULIAN
ALDRIDGE III, and ending SUSAN L. SIEGMUND, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1233 AIR FORCE nominations (16) beginning ISIDRO ACOSTA
CARDENO, and ending LARRY A. WOODS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1234 AIR FORCE nominations (19) beginning EVELYN L.
BYARS, and ending SHERALYN A. WRIGHT, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1235 AIR FORCE nominations (24) beginning RONALD A.
ABBOTT, and ending JOSE VILLALOBOS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1236 AIR FORCE nominations (43) beginning DALE R. AGNER,
and ending DAVID A. WILLIAMS, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 31, 2006.
PN1237 AIR FORCE nominations (213) beginning MARK ROBERT
ACKERMANN, and ending SHEILA ZUEHLKE, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1238 AIR FORCE nominations (34) beginning JAVIER A.
ABREU, and ending KYLE S. WENDFELDT, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1239 AIR FORCE nominations (139) beginning ERIC J.
ASHMAN, and ending KENNETH C. Y. YU, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1254 AIR FORCE nominations (28) beginning BRUCE S. ABE,
and ending ANN E. ZIONIC, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 1, 2006.
PN1255 AIR FORCE nominations (280) beginning STEVEN J.
ACEVEDO, and ending STEVEN R. ZIEBER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
the army
PN1106 ARMY nominations (33) beginning ROBERTO C. ANDUJAR,
and ending KENNETH A. YOUNG, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
December 13, 2005.
PN1107 ARMY nominations (69) beginning CRAIG J. AGENA, and
ending JOHN S. WRIGHT, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of December
13, 2005.
PN1108 ARMY nominations (56) beginning DANIEL G. AARON, and
ending MARILYN D. WILLS, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
December 13, 2005.
PN1109 ARMY nominations (419) beginning WILLIAM G. ADAMSON,
and ending x2451, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
December 13, 2005.
PN1148 ARMY nomination of Michael J. Osburn, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of December 20, 2005.
PN1149 ARMY nominations (2) beginning MARGARETT E. BARNES,
and ending DAVID E. UPCHURCH, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
December 20, 2005.
PN1217 ARMY nominations (13) beginning JOHN W. ALEXANDER
JR., and ending DONALD L. WILSON, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1218 ARMY nominations (35) beginning SUSAN K. ARNOLD, and
ending EVERETT F. YATES, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1219 ARMY nominations (26) beginning JAMES A. * AMYX JR.,
and ending SCOTT * WILLENS, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1220 ARMY nominations (62) beginning JOHN E. * ADRIAN,
and ending DAVID A. * YOUNG, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1221 ARMY nominations (151) beginning TIMOTHY S. * ADAMS,
and ending PJ * ZAMORA, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1222 ARMY nominations (160) beginning JUDE M. * ABADIE,
and ending JOHN D. * YEAW, which nominations were received by
the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
January 27, 2006.
PN1240 ARMY nominations (3) beginning LISA R. LEONARD, and
ending BRET A. SLATER, which nominations were received by the
Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of January
31, 2006.
PN1256 ARMY nominations (20) beginning MITCHELL S.
ACKERSON, and ending GLENN R. WOODSON, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1293 ARMY nomination of Andrew H. N. Kim, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 6, 2006.
PN1294 ARMY nominations (10) beginning RENDELL G. CHILTON,
and ending DAVID J. OSINSKI, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 6, 2006.
IN THE FOREIGN SERVICE
PN1112 FOREIGN SERVICE nominations (149) beginning Anne
Elizabeth Linnee, and ending Kathleen Anne Yu, which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record of December 13, 2005.
PN1118 FOREIGN SERVICE nominations (300) beginning Lisa M.
Anderson, and ending Gregory C Yemm, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of December 14, 2005.
in the marine corps
PN1224 MARINE CORPS nomination of Brian R. Lewis, which was
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1225 MARINE CORPS nomination of William A. Kelly Jr.,
which was received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record of January 27, 2006.
PN1245 MARINE CORPS nomination of Phillip R. Wahle, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1246 MARINE CORPS nomination of James A. Croffie, which
was received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1247-1 MARINE CORPS nominations (337) beginning JAMES H.
ADAMS III, and ending RICHARD D. ZYLA, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1248 MARINE CORPS nominations (6) beginning DAVID T.
CLARK, and ending NIEVES G. VILLASENOR, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of January 31, 2006.
PN1258 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning RALPH P.
HARRIS III, and ending CHARLES L. THRIFT, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1260 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning STEPHEN J.
DUBOIS, and ending JOHN D. PAULIN, which nominations were
[[Page 2060]]
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1261 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning JAY A.
ROGERS, and ending STANLEY M. WEEKS, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1262 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning SEAN P.
HOSTER, and ending TIMOTHY D. WHEELER, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1263 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning NEIL G.
ANDERSON, and ending EDWARD M. MOEN JR., which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1264 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning CARL BAILEY
JR., and ending JAMES A. JONES, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1265 MARINE CORPS nominations (2) beginning GREGORY M.
GOODRICH, and ending MARK W. WASCOM, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1267 MARINE CORPS nominations (3) beginning JACK G.
ABATE, and ending JAMES KOLB, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
February 1, 2006.
PN1269 MARINE CORPS nominations (4) beginning PETER G.
BAILIFF, and ending TIMOTHY D. SECHREST, which nominations
were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1270 MARINE CORPS nominations (5) beginning ISRAEL
GARCIA, and ending JAMES I. SAYLOR, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1271 MARINE CORPS nominations (5) beginning BEN A.
CACIOPPO JR., and ending WALTER D. ROMINE JR., which
nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the
Congressional Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1272 MARINE CORPS nominations (5) beginning PETER M.
BARACK JR., and ending JOHN D. SOMICH, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
PN1273-1 MARINE CORPS nominations (593) beginning BENJAMIN
J. ABBOTT, and ending RUTH A. ZOLOCK, which nominations were
received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional
Record of February 1, 2006.
in the navy
PN1157 NAVY nominations (19) beginning CHRISTOPHER P. BOBB,
and ending VINCENT J. WOOD, which nominations were received
by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record of
December 21, 2005.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now return to legislative
session.
____________________
SENATE LEGAL COUNSEL AUTHORIZATION
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the en bloc consideration of three Senate resolutions which
were submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please report the resolutions
by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 374) to authorize testimony, document
production, and legal representation in United States of
America v. David Hossein Safavian.
A resolution (S. Res. 375) to authorize testimony and legal
representation in State of New Hampshire v. William Thomas,
Keta C. Jones, John Francis Bopp, Michael S. Franklin, David
Van Strein, Guy Chichester, Jamilla El-Shafei, and Ann
Isenberg.
A resolution (S. Res. 376) to authorize representation by
the Senate Legal Counsel in the case of Keyter v. McCain, et
al.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolutions en bloc.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, S. Res. 375 concerns a request for
testimony and representation in related criminal trespass actions in
Concord District Court in the State of New Hampshire. In these actions,
eight defendants have been charged with criminally trespassing on the
premises of Senator Judd Gregg's Concord, NH, office on December 5,
2005, for refusing repeated requests to leave Senator Gregg's office at
the end of the business day in order to allow the office to close.
Trials on the charge of trespass are scheduled to commence on or about
March 1, 2006. The State has subpoenaed a member of the Senator's staff
who witnessed the defendants' conduct. The enclosed resolution would
authorize that staff member, and any other employees of Senator Gregg's
office from whom evidence may be required, to testify in connection
with these actions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President pursuant to Senate Resolution 213, 109th
Congress, the Senate authorized the Senate legal counsel to represent
Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl in a pro se civil action in which the
plaintiff complained that the Senator defendants violated their duties
under the common law and the Federal Criminal Code by failing to
investigate or prosecute the alleged commission of 1.6 million crimes.
After the Senate legal counsel moved to dismiss the action, the
plaintiff sought to amend the complaint to name 29 additional
defendants, including Senators Bill Frist, Joseph I. Lieberman, Mitch
McConnell, Rick Santorum, and Ted Stevens, as well as 14 judges and 10
executive branch officials.
In a January 13, 2006, Memorandum Opinion and Order, the district
court accepted the amended complaint for filing and dismissed it. The
court held that plaintiff's criminal claims failed on the merits and
that plaintiff's civil claims were barred under the Federal Tort Claims
Act for plaintiff's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies
under the act. The court also prohibited the plaintiff from filing in
that court any further claim arising out of the subject matter of the
case against any of the 31 defendants.
Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his case. Accordingly, this
resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent the
five additionally named Senator defendants on appeal in defending the
dismissal of the amended complaint against all of the Senator
defendants.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions
to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 374) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 374
Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. David
Hossein Safavian, Crim. No. 05-370, pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, testimony
and documents have been requested from Bryan D. Parker, an
employee on the staff of the Committee on Indian Affairs;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to
represent employees of the Senate with respect to any
subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their
official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate may promote the
administration of justice, the Senate will take such action
as will promote the ends of justice consistently with the
privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that Bryan D. Parker, and any other employee of
the Committee on Indian Affairs from whom testimony or the
production of documents may be required, are authorized to
testify and produce documents in the case of United States of
America v. David Hossein Safavian, except concerning matters
for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Bryan D. Parker, and any other Members, officers, or
employees of the Senate, in connection with the testimony and
document production authorized in section one of this
resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 375) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 375
Whereas, in the cases of State of New Hampshire v. William
Thomas (C-05-49153-AR), Keta C. Jones (C-05-49153-A-AR), John
Francis Bopp (C-05-49153-B-AR), Michael S. Franklin (C-05-
49153-C-AR), David Van Strein (C-05-49153-D-AR), Guy
Chichester (C-05-49153-E-AR), Jamilla El-Shafei (C-05-49153-
F-AR), and Ann Isenberg (C-05-49153-G-
[[Page 2061]]
AR), pending in Concord District Court, New Hampshire,
testimony has been requested from Carol Carpenter, an
employee in the office of Senator Judd Gregg;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a)
and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to
represent an employee of the Senate with respect to any
subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their
official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United
States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no
evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate
may, by the judicial or administrative process, be taken from
such control or possession but by permission of the Senate;
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or
in the possession of the Senate may promote the
administration of justice, the Senate will take such action
as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the
privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved that Carol Carpenter and other employees of
Senator Gregg's office from whom testimony may be required
are authorized to testify in the cases of State of New
Hampshire v. William Thomas, Keta C. Jones, John Francis
Bopp, Michael S. Franklin, David Van Strein, Guy Chichester,
Jamilla El-Shafei, and Ann Isenberg, except concerning
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent
Carol Carpenter and other employees of Senator Gregg's office
in connection with the testimony authorized in section one of
this resolution.
The resolution (S. Res. 376) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 376
Whereas, pursuant to Senate Resolution 213, l09th Congress,
the Senate Legal Counsel is currently representing Senators
John McCain and Jon Kyl in the case of Keyter v. McCain, et
al., filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, Civ. No. 05-l923-PHX-DGC;
Whereas, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint naming
Senators Bill Frist, Joseph I. Lieberman, Mitch McConnell,
Rick Santorum, and Ted Stevens as additional defendants in
the action;
Whereas the District Court dismissed the action for lack of
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted;
Whereas the plaintiff has appealed the dismissal of the
action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit; and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. 288b(a) and
288c(a)(1), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend
Members of the Senate in civil actions relating to their
official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to
represent Senators Bill Frist, Joseph I. Lieberman, Mitch
McConnell, Rick Santorum, and Ted Stevens in the case of
Keyter v. McCain, et al.
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF DR. NORMAN SHUMWAY
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 377, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 377) honoring the life of Dr. Norman
Shumway and expressing the condolences of the Senate on his
passing.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, S. Res. 377 is the resolution honoring the
life of Dr. Norman Shumway and expressing condolences on behalf of this
body.
I wish to pay tribute to a medical pioneer, a man who inaugurated a
new era of medicine, my mentor in surgery and friend. Sadly, Dr.
Shumway passed away late last week at the age of 83. He left behind a
legacy as an inspirational leader, a healer, a guiding spirit who made
my own professional field of heart transplants a reality. When all
those around him said it was impossible, said it was a pipe dream, said
it couldn't be done, his vision and his determination and his
unrelenting commitment and pioneer attitude has saved thousands and
thousands of lives.
I had the distinct honor of studying under the tutelage of Dr.
Shumway at Stanford University Medical Center in the early 1980s. I
witnessed his rare gifts. Those gifts included a blend of long-term
thinking, a love of medicine and healing, and a true pioneering spirit
that inspired and attracted like-minded individuals from across the
country and, indeed, around the world.
He was fond of remarking that his role as a surgeon was comparable to
that of being the world's greatest first surgical assistant in the
operating room. When you are treating a patient, when you are operating
on a patient, the surgeon stands on one side of the table and the first
assistant across the way on the other side. It is that image of Dr.
Shumway, on the other side, instructing, teaching, cultivating that
expertise in the young surgeon, that stands out most vividly in my
mind, the constant cajoling and instructing in very gentle, humble
ways, the certainty of that guiding hand which would reach over if
there was a slightly wrong move or a hesitant move that was made. I
think his comment about being the world's greatest first assistant
reflects that humility but also that comfort level and that competence
that, coupled with his pioneering spirit, has proved to be
revolutionary in the field of medicine and surgery. Now his humble, yet
visionary, work is reflected in surgical programs all over the world
because he was that first assistant, as he instructed and taught and
inspired. Those surgeons he trained are now literally populating
academic and clinical programs all over this country and indeed
throughout the world. He loved his role as healer, and he cherished the
opportunity not only to operate and to innovative but to inspire and to
plant seeds, all a part of his mode of inspirational teaching.
I have worked with a lot of cardiac surgeons, heart surgeons, in
programs around the world, including Boston, MA, over in England, out
on the west coast, down in the South at Vanderbilt and, more than
anybody I interacted with over the 20 years I have spent in medicine,
Dr. Shumway was the one, was the single one, who had the broadest, as
well as the deepest, influence because of his unparalleled commitment
to teaching in an inspirational way that encouraged others to go out
and teach and to spread the word and to spread the technique and to
spread what he indeed pioneered: heart transplantation, lung
transplantation, heart-lung transplantation.
He was a brilliant man, a pioneering spirit. Yet he was always
accessible. He was always there on rounds. He believed in the team
approach, of relying on the technician running the heart-lung machine,
relying on the nurses who, with him, made rounds each morning and each
evening to see his patients.
His teachings were filled with turns of phrases and catchy one-liners
and, in my own mind, as I stand here and recall listening to him, he
would say things such as: Never be afraid to double dribble. I think
about it a lot because what he was saying was if that first stitch you
are about ready to put in isn't perfect, put in another stitch; don't
be so bold, don't be so confident, don't be so cocky, where if you have
a question you don't make absolutely sure that something is perfect.
Never be afraid to double dribble.
Dr. Shumway looked for somebody who had the passion for healing, and
he would encourage their active pursuits. It is almost as if he had a
sixth sense, both for inspiration but also in recognizing in others an
ability or a desire to be innovative, to create, to think outside of
the box in order to benefit humanity.
He considered it part of his mission to nurture and cultivate his
trainees' ambition and their drive and their desire. It didn't matter
what your age was. It didn't matter what schools you had gone to. It
didn't matter whether you were a first-year resident, an intern, or a
fifth-year resident; if you had a good idea, if you had a creative
idea, he would nurture it and he would put an environment around you to
allow that idea to grow, to prove itself, to go down in defeat. He
would even set up a laboratory around an intern or a first-year
resident who had a creative idea that he thought just may work.
It was a very different mentality than most people in his field of
surgery in medicine. The traditional medical establishment, as I
mentioned earlier, thought heart transplantation could
[[Page 2062]]
never be done. Yet that sort of ``a little bit out of the box''
thinking, that pioneering spirit, did inspire some of the great
innovations in medicine in the 20th century: Heart transplants, which
he is known for, with the first successful heart transplant in our
country--it came at the era I was there--the combined heart-lung
transplant, where essentially you remove all of the organs from the top
of the chest down to the diaphragm, taking that heart-lung out to
transplant and repair and to have it replaced to give life to
individuals with otherwise fatal diseases; the early work with left
ventricular assist devices; the invention of the cardiac biopsy, where
the catheter is inserted through the neck and you can actually sample
pieces of the heart with a technique that takes literally about 2 or 3
minutes but allows you to determine whether a patient is rejecting that
heart or has inflammation of that heart; the immunosuppressive
protocols which made heart transplantation possible. These were all
pioneering fields he jumped into, that he created, that he explored,
and he did so with a disciplined approach, a scientific approach, an
approach characterized by perseverance over a long period of time, in
spite of a lot of people questioning and putting forth doubts as he
went forward.
In talking to a number of people who asked about this man and what
his contributions have been, it has come to my attention, as I reflect
upon it, that he has also encouraged people to go out and explore new
fields. Some of the cardiac surgeons he trained--one went into public
service for a period of time, but others went on to become lawyers, to
become heads of the great universities of the country and, indeed of
the world. Given the unique type of drive that inspired a person to
study with Dr. Shumway, it is probably not all that unexpected because
he did encourage people to figure out what their strengths were and how
they could better humanity--whether it is the scientist in the
laboratory, whether it is the clinical surgeon, whether it is the
academic surgeon, whether it is the lawyer who ultimately best
understood the delivery of health care and went off to participate in
legal aspects of health care today.
He also encouraged people to take risks, and to take risks in a very
positive way, because if people did not work outside of their comfort
zone he felt progress could never be made. But encouraging people to
take those risks, he did so with science, with a strong foundation,
with a good understanding of what limitations are, with a strong
understanding of cost and risk and benefits. But that element of risk
taking, calculated risk taking, is a legacy he has left many of us, and
many of the people who have trained with him--thinking and saying and
believing that is the only way progress in society takes place.
Dr. Shumway was a legend in his field and his presence will be sorely
missed. As I look back, I would never have had that blessing, and it is
a blessing, to be able to transplant the human heart and I would have
never transplanted a human heart if I had not had the opportunity to
study under Dr. Norman Shumway. I would have never in my life been able
to transplant the human lung, to give life to people who have an
otherwise fatal disease, if I had not trained with and studied under
Dr. Norman Shumway. I would have never put in any left ventricular
assist devices for struggling, ailing hearts when people have had
massive heart attacks. I would have never been able to do neonatal
transplants on little infants. I mention those only because without
that man and his vision, his philosophy of conceiving something and
believing in it and doing it, it would have affected my life greatly.
Indeed, in all likelihood I would not be on the floor of the Senate
today if I had not had that exposure to Dr. Norman Shumway.
Having had the honor of working with him, he was an inspirational
leader. He was the guiding light who seemed to be able to pull it all
together with his vision and with his determination and his dedication.
He has affected the lives of thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands
of people through his teaching and through his training around the
world.
He was my mentor, he was a great surgeon and a true friend, and
someone I will miss dearly.
I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the
preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 377) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 377
Whereas Norman Shumway was an inspirational leader and
medical pioneer;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway performed the first successful
heart transplant in the United States, and was considered the
father of heart transplantation in America;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway's seminal work with Dr Richard
Lower at Stanford Medical Center set in motion the longest
and most successful clinical cardiac transplant program in
the world;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway co-edited a definitive book on
thoracic organ transplantation along with his daughter who is
also a cardiac surgeon;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway continued to research the
medical complexities of heart transplants when many were
abandoning the procedure because of poor outcomes due to
rejection;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway trained hundreds of surgeons who
have gone on to lead academic and clinical cardiac surgical
programs around the world;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway served our country in the United
States Army from 1943 to 1946, and in the United States Air
Force from 1951 to 1953;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway earned his medical degree from
Vanderbilt University in 1949, and his doctorate from the
University of Minnesota in 1956;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway was awarded with numerous
honorary degrees by his peers, including the American Medical
Association's Scientific Achievement Award and the Lifetime
Achievement Award of the International Society for Heart and
Lung Transplantation;
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway is survived by his son, Michael,
and three daughters, Amy, Lisa and Sara, and his former wife,
Mary Lou; and
Whereas Dr. Norman Shumway has left a legacy of life around
the world thanks to his tireless work of understanding and
perfecting heart transplantation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) mourns the loss of Dr. Norman Shumway;
(2) recognizes his contribution to medical science and
discovery;
(3) expresses its sympathies to the family of Dr. Norman
Shumway; and
(4) directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit an
enrolled copy of this resolution to the family of Dr. Norman
Shumway.
____________________
NATIONAL MPS AWARENESS DAY
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 378, which was submitted
earlier.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 378) designating February 25, 2006,
as ``National MPS Awareness Day.''
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 378) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 378
Whereas Mucopolysaccharidosis (referred to in this preamble
as ``MPS'') is a genetically determined lysosomal storage
disorder that renders the human body incapable of producing
certain enzymes needed to breakdown complex carbohydrates;
Whereas complex carbohydrates are then stored in almost
every cell in the body and progressively cause damage to
those cells;
Whereas the cell damage adversely affects the human body by
damaging the heart, respiratory system, bones, internal
organs, and central nervous system;
Whereas the cellular damage caused by MPS often results in
mental retardation, short stature, corneal damage, joint
stiffness, loss of mobility, speech and hearing impairment,
heart disease, hyperactivity,
[[Page 2063]]
chronic respiratory problems, and, most importantly, a
drastically shortened life span;
Whereas the nature of the disorder is usually not apparent
at birth;
Whereas without treatment, the life expectancy of an
individual afflicted with MPS begins to decrease at a very
early stage in the life of the individual;
Whereas recent research developments have resulted in the
creation of limited treatments for some MPS disorders;
Whereas promising advancements in the pursuit of treatments
for additional MPS disorders are underway;
Whereas, despite the creation of newly developed remedies,
the blood brain barrier continues to be a significant
impediment to effectively treating the brain, thereby
preventing the treatment of many of the symptoms of MPS;
Whereas treatments for MPS will be greatly enhanced with
continued public funding;
Whereas the quality of life for individuals afflicted with
MPS, and the treatments available to them, will be enhanced
through the development of early detection techniques and
early intervention;
Whereas treatments and research advancements for MPS are
limited by a lack of awareness about MPS disorders;
Whereas the lack of awareness about MPS disorders extends
to those within the medical community;
Whereas the damage that is caused by MPS makes it a model
for many other degenerative genetic disorders;
Whereas the development of effective therapies and a
potential cure for MPS disorders can be accomplished by
increased awareness, research, data collection, and
information distribution;
Whereas the Senate is an institution than can raise public
awareness about MPS; and
Whereas the Senate is also an institution that can assist
in encouraging and facilitating increased public and private
sector research for early diagnosis and treatments of MPS
disorders: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates February 25, 2006, as ``National MPS
Awareness Day''; and
(2) supports the goals and ideals of ``National MPS
Awareness Day''.
____________________
NASCAR-HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CONSORTIUM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 379, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 379) recognizing the creation of the
NASCAR-Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Consortium.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to,
the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon
the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 379) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 379
Whereas the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that, while
there are 1,300,000 automotive technicians currently
employed, industry figures confirm that an additional 50,000
technicians are needed to fill open positions each year;
Whereas the National Automotive Dealers Association reports
that 57 percent of the operating profit of automotive dealers
is generated by the parts and service departments of
automotive dealers;
Whereas the findings of the National Automotive Dealers
Association reveal that dealers consider it difficult to
locate qualified technicians;
Whereas 42 percent of all dealer technicians have been
engaged in that line of work for less than 1 year;
Whereas the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing,
Inc. (referred to in this preamble as ``NASCAR''), the NASCAR
Universal Technical Institute, and a collaboration of
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (referred to in
this preamble as ``HBCUs'') have agreed to create a
consortium to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students in key
racing and other related automotive business activities,
including automotive engineering and technology, automotive
safety, sports marketing, and other automotive industry
areas;
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium is establishing a
formal plan to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students within
NASCAR in key racing and other related automotive business
activities through the NASCAR Universal Training Institute
and the NASCAR Diversity Internship Program;
Whereas NASCAR has agreed to enhance their identification
of employment opportunities, including internships, full time
jobs, entry level management positions, part-time jobs for
college students, and post-graduate job placement for
students pursuing undergraduate and graduate degrees at
partner HBCUs;
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium has developed a program
to increase the awareness, access, and participation of
African American students in the NASCAR Universal Training
Institute and NASCAR Diversity Internship Program for the
racing and other related automotive industries; and
Whereas the NASCAR-HBCUs Consortium will seek opportunities
to establish and enhance the funding of targeted job
development activities by partner HBCUs, and generate support
for the HBCUs in their efforts to enhance curriculum
development in sports marketing, finance, human resource
management, and other automotive industry areas: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the National Association for Stock Car Auto
Racing, Inc. (referred to in this resolution as ``NASCAR''),
the NASCAR Universal Technical Institute, and a collaboration
of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (referred to
in this resolution as ``HBCUs''), for their creation of a
consortium to increase the number of quality job
opportunities available to African American students in key
racing and other related automotive business activities;
(2) commends HBCUs, including Alabama A&M University,
Alabama State University, Bethune Cookman College, Howard
University, North Carolina A&T University, Talladega College,
and Winston-Salem State University, for their efforts to
increase the number of quality job opportunities available to
African American students in key racing and other related
automotive business activities; and
(3) encourages the Departments of Education and Labor and
other appropriate agencies of the Federal Government to
provide suitable assistance and support to ensure the success
of that effort.
____________________
CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY MONTH
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 380, which was submitted
earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 380) celebrating Black History Month.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 380) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 380
Whereas the first African Americans were brought forcibly
to the shores of America as early as the 17th century;
Whereas African Americans were enslaved in the United
States and subsequently faced the injustices of lynch mobs,
segregation, and denial of basic, fundamental rights;
Whereas in spite of these injustices, African Americans
have made significant contributions to the economic,
educational, political, artistic, literary, scientific, and
technological advancements of the United States;
Whereas in the face of these injustices, United States
citizens of all races distinguished themselves in their
commitment to the ideals on which the United States was
founded, and fought for the rights of African Americans;
Whereas the greatness of the United States is reflected in
the contributions of African Americans in all walks of life
throughout the history of the United States, including
through--
(1) the writings of Booker T. Washington, James Baldwin,
Ralph Ellison, and Alex Haley;
(2) the music of Mahalia Jackson, Billie Holiday, and Duke
Ellington;
(3) the resolve of athletes such as Jackie Robinson, Jesse
Owens, and Muhammed Ali;
(4) the vision of leaders such as Frederick Douglass,
Thurgood Marshall, and Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
(5) the bravery of those who stood on the front lines in
the battle against oppression, such as Sojourner Truth and
Rosa Parks;
Whereas the United States of America was conceived, as
stated in the Declaration of Independence, as a new country
dedicated to the proposition that ``all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights, that
[[Page 2064]]
among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'';
Whereas United States citizens of all races demonstrate
their commitment to that proposition through actions such as
those of--
(1) Allan Pinkerton, Thomas Garrett, and the Rev. John
Rankin, who served as conductors in the Underground Railroad;
(2) Harriet Beecher Stowe, who shined a light on the
injustices of slavery;
(3) President Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation
Proclamation, and Senator Lyman Trumbull, who introduced the
13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
(4) President Lyndon B. Johnson, Chief Justice Earl Warren,
Senator Mike Mansfield, and Senator Hubert Humphrey, who
fought to end segregation and the denial of civil rights to
African Americans; and
(5) Americans of all races who marched side-by-side with
African Americans during the civil rights movement;
Whereas, since its founding, the United States has been an
imperfect work in making progress towards those noble goals;
Whereas the history of the United States is the story of a
people regularly affirming high ideals, striving to reach
them but often failing, and then struggling to come to terms
with the disappointment of that failure before recommitting
themselves to trying again;
Whereas, from the beginning of our Nation, the most
conspicuous and persistent failure of United States citizens
to reach those noble goals has been the enslavement of
African Americans and the resulting racism;
Whereas the crime of lynching succeeded slavery as the
ultimate expression of racism in the United States following
Reconstruction;
Whereas the Federal Government failed to put an end to
slavery until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865,
repeatedly failed to enact a Federal anti-lynching law, and
still struggles to deal with the evils of racism; and
Whereas the fact that 61 percent of African American 4th
graders read at a below basic level and only 16 percent of
native born African Americans have earned a Bachelor's
degree, 50 percent of all new HIV cases are reported in
African Americans, and the leading cause of death for African
American males ages 15 to 34 is homicide, demonstrates that
the United States continues to struggle to reach the high
ideal of equal opportunity for all citizens of the United
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) acknowledges the tragedies of slavery, lynching, and
segregation, and condemns them as an infringement on human
liberty and equal opportunity so that they will stand forever
as a reminder of what can happen when the citizens of the
United States fail to live up to their noble goals;
(2) honors those United States citizens who--
(A) risked their lives during the time of slavery,
lynching, and segregation in the Underground Railroad and in
other efforts to assist fugitive slaves and other African
Americans who might have been targets and victims of lynch
mobs; and
(B) those who have stood beside African Americans in the
fight for equal opportunity that continues to this day;
(3) reaffirms its commitment to the founding principles of
the United States of America that ``all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and
the Pursuit of Happiness'';
(4) commits itself to addressing those situations in which
the African American community struggles with disparities in
education, health care, and other areas where the Federal
Government can help improve conditions for all citizens of
the United States; and
(5) calls on the citizens of the United States to observe
Black History Month with appropriate programs, ceremonies,
and activities.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, on S. Res. 380, I ask unanimous consent
that I be added as a cosponsor, if I am not currently one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 2320
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk. I
ask for its first reading.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the first
time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2320) to make available funds included in the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other
purposes.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for a second reading, and in order to
place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XXIV, I
object to my own request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The bill will be read the second time on the next legislative day.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10
a.m., Friday, February 17. I further ask that following the prayer and
the pledge, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be
reserved, and that Senator Salazar then be recognized to deliver George
Washington's Farewell Address, as under the previous order. I further
ask that following the address, the Senate stand in recess subject to
the call of the Chair, and that when the Senate reconvenes, there be a
period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for
up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today, by a vote of 96 to 3, the Senate
voted overwhelmingly to proceed to the PATRIOT Act Amendments Act. I am
disappointed that the other side of the aisle has forced us to spend
these extra days, several extra days to get on to this bill.
Under the agreement that was reached last night, I want to remind my
colleagues that a cloture vote on the bill will occur at 2:30 p.m. on
Tuesday, February 28, and then we will have a vote on final passage at
10 a.m., March 1.
Tomorrow we will be in session, but there will be no rollcall votes.
We have some outstanding legislative items to complete before the
Presidents Day recess next week, so we will be in session and working
tomorrow, Friday.
In Senate tradition tomorrow, we will also hear Washington's Farewell
Address which will be read by Senator Salazar when the Senate convenes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in
adjournment under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:28 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, February 17, 2006, at 10 a.m.
____________________
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate Thursday, February 16,
2006:
Department of State
BERNADETTE MARY ALLEN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF NIGER.
JANICE L. JACOBS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL, AND TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF
GUINEA-BISSAU.
STEVEN ALAN BROWNING, OF TEXAS, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR TO THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.
PATRICIA NEWTON MOLLER, OF ARKANSAS, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO
THE REPUBLIC OF BURUNDI.
JEANINE E. JACKSON, OF WYOMING, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO BURKINA
FASO.
KRISTIE A. KENNEY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.
ROBERT WEISBERG, OF MARYLAND, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF CONGO.
JANET ANN SANDERSON, OF ARIZONA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
REPUBLIC OF HAITI.
JAMES D. MCGEE, OF FLORIDA, TO SERVE CONCURRENTLY AND
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS AMBASSADOR TO THE UNION OF
COMOROS.
GARY A. GRAPPO, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
SULTANATE OF OMAN.
PATRICIA A. BUTENIS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AMBASSADOR TO THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BANGLADESH.
DONALD T. BLISS, OF MARYLAND, FOR THE RANK OF AMBASSADOR
DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA ON THE COUNCIL OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIL
AVIATION ORGANIZATION.
CLAUDIA A. MCMURRAY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
OF STATE FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND
SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS.
BRADFORD R. HIGGINS, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE AN ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF STATE (RESOURCE MANAGEMENT).
BRADFORD R. HIGGINS, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
JACKIE WOLCOTT SANDERS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ALTERNATE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR SPECIAL
POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE UNITED NATIONS, WITH THE RANK OF
AMBASSADOR.
JACKIE WOLCOTT SANDERS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE AN ALTERNATE
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TO THE
SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS DURING
HER TENURE OF SERVICE AS ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL AFFAIRS IN THE
UNITED NATIONS.
[[Page 2065]]
MICHAEL W. MICHALAK, OF MICHIGAN, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, FOR THE
RANK OF AMBASSADOR DURING HIS TENURE OF SERVICE AS UNITED
STATES SENIOR OFFICIAL TO THE ASIA-PACIFIC ECONOMIC
COOPERATION FORUM.
International Monetary Fund
BEN S. BERNANKE, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE UNITED STATES
ALTERNATE GOVERNOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND FOR A
TERM OF FIVE YEARS.
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence In National Environmental
Policy Foundation
TERRENCE L. BRACY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE
IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FOUNDATION FOR A TERM
EXPIRING OCTOBER 6, 2010.
THE ABOVE NOMINATIONS WERE APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE
NOMINEES' COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND
TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.
In the Air Force
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. RONALD F. SAMS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE
OF THE AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID L. FROSTMAN
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES W. GRAVES
BRIGADIER GENERAL LINDA S. HEMMINGER
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN M. HOWLETT
BRIGADIER GENERAL HAROLD L. MITCHELL
BRIGADIER GENERAL HANFERD J. MOEN, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM M. RAJCZAK
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID N. SENTY
BRIGADIER GENERAL ERIKA C. STEUTERMAN
To be brigadier general
COLONEL JOHN M. ALLEN
COLONEL ROBERT E. BAILEY, JR.
COLONEL ERIC W. CRABTREE
COLONEL DEAN J. DESPINOY
COLONEL WALLACE W. FARRIS, JR.
COLONEL JOHN C. FOBIAN
COLONEL THOMAS W. HARTMANN
COLONEL JAMES R. HOGUE
COLONEL MARK A. KYLE
COLONEL CAROL A. LEE
COLONEL JON R. SHASTEEN
COLONEL ROBERT O. TARTER
COLONEL HOWARD N. THOMPSON
COLONEL CHRISTINE M. TURNER
COLONEL PAUL M. VAN SICKLE
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. GLENN F. SPEARS
THE FOLLOWING AIR NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE AIR FORCE TO
THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. DENNIS G. LUCAS
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE REGULAR
AIR FORCE OF THE UNITED STATES TO THE POSITION AND GRADE
INDICATED UNDER TITLED 10, U.S.C., SECTION 8037:
To be judge advocate general of the United States Air Force
MAJ. GEN. JACK L. RIVES
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. STEVEN J. LEPPER
In the Army
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COL. MALINDA E. DUNN
COL. CLYDE J. TATE III
THE FOLLOWING ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED STATES
OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE RESERVE OF THE ARMY TO THE
GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:
To be major general
BRIG. GEN. RICHARD G. MAXON
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL D. BARBERO
BRIGADIER GENERAL SALVATORE F. CAMBRIA
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN M. CUSTER III
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD P. FORMICA
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID P. FRIDOVICH
BRIGADIER GENERAL KATHLEEN M. GAINEY
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM T. GRISOLI
BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER F. HAM
BRIGADIER GENERAL JEFFERY W. HAMMOND
BRIGADIER GENERAL FRANK G. HELMICK
BRIGADIER GENERAL PAUL S. IZZO
BRIGADIER GENERAL FRANCIS H. KEARNEY III
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN R. LAYFIELD
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT P. LENNOX
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM H. MCCOY, JR.
BRIGADIER GENERAL TIMOTHY P. MCHALE
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. MORGAN III
BRIGADIER GENERAL MICHAEL L. OATES
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERT M. RADIN
BRIGADIER GENERAL CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE RANK INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
LT. GEN. THOMAS F. METZ
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. DAVID P. VALCOURT
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
LT. GEN. RAYMOND T. ODIERNO
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be lieutenant general
MAJ. GEN. STANLEY A. MCCHRYSTAL
In the marine corps
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be brigadier general
COLONEL RONALD L BAILEY
COLONEL MICHAEL M BROGAN
COLONEL JON M DAVIS
COLONEL TIMOTHY C HANIFEN
COLONEL JAMES A KESSLER
COLONEL JAMES B LASTER
COLONEL ANGELA SALINAS
COLONEL PETER J TALLERI
COLONEL JOHN A TOOLAN, JR
COLONEL ROBERT S WALSH
In the navy
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:
To be vice admiral
REAR ADM. ROBERT T. CONWAY, JR.
In the Air Force
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES C. AULT AND
ENDING WITH MARYANNE C. YIP, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
OCTOBER 17, 2005.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF BARBARA A. HILGENBERG TO BE
COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF EVELYN S. GEMPERLE TO BE COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN W. AYRES, JR. AND
ENDING WITH ALAN E. JOHNSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID HARRISION
BURDETTE AND ENDING WITH DOMINIC O. UBAMADU, WHICH
NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH KAREN MARIE BACHMANN
AND ENDING WITH MARY V. LUSSIER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RAYMOND L. HAGAN, JR.
AND ENDING WITH WILLIAM H. WILLIS, SR., WHICH NOMINATIONS
WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RUSSELL G. BOESTER AND
ENDING WITH RICHARD T. SHELTON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DIANA ATWELL AND
ENDING WITH ANNE C. SPROUL, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH GERALD Q. BROWN AND
ENDING WITH LISA L. TURNER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARK J. BATCHO AND
ENDING WITH DAVID J. ZEMKOSKY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TAREK C. ABBOUSHI AND
ENDING WITH JOHN J. ZIEGLER III, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF JEFFREY J. LOVE TO BE LIEUTENANT
COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF FRITZJOSE E. CHANDLER TO BE MAJOR.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF JOSE F. EDUARDO TO BE MAJOR.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DARWIN L. ALBERTO AND
ENDING WITH AMY S. WOOSLEY, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATION OF JULIE K. STANLEY TO BE COLONEL.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN JULIAN ALDRIDGE
III AND ENDING WITH SUSAN L. SIEGMUND, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ISIDRO ACOSTA CARDENO
AND ENDING WITH LARRY A. WOODS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH EVELYN L. BYARS AND
ENDING WITH SHERALYN A. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RONALD A. ABBOTT AND
ENDING WITH JOSE VILLALOBOS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DALE R. AGNER AND
ENDING WITH DAVID A. WILLIAMS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARK ROBERT ACKERMANN
AND ENDING WITH SHEILA ZUEHLKE, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAVIER A. ABREU AND
ENDING WITH KYLE S. WENDFELDT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ERIC J. ASHMAN AND
ENDING WITH KENNETH C. Y. YU, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 31, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BRUCE S. ABE AND
ENDING WITH ANN E. ZIONIC, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
AIR FORCE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEVEN J. ACEVEDO AND
ENDING WITH STEVEN R. ZIEBER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
In the Army
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ROBERTO C. ANDUJAR AND
ENDING WITH KENNETH A. YOUNG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
DECEMBER 13, 2005.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CRAIG J. AGENA AND ENDING
WITH JOHN S. WRIGHT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER
13, 2005.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DANIEL G. AARON AND ENDING
WITH MARILYN D. WILLS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON DECEMBER
13, 2005.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH WILLIAM G. ADAMSON AND
ENDING WITH X2451{time} , WHICH NOMINATIONS
[[Page 2066]]
WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON DECEMBER 13, 2005.
ARMY NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. OSBURN TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MARGARETT E. BARNES AND
ENDING WITH DAVID E. UPCHURCH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON DECEMBER 20, 2005.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN W. ALEXANDER, JR. AND
ENDING WITH DONALD L. WILSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SUSAN K. ARNOLD AND ENDING
WITH EVERETT F. YATES, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY
27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES A. AMYX, JR. AND
ENDING WITH SCOTT WILLENS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
JANUARY 27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JOHN E. ADRIAN AND ENDING
WITH DAVID A. YOUNG, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY
27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH TIMOTHY S. ADAMS AND ENDING
WITH PJ ZAMORA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE
AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JUDE M. ABADIE AND ENDING
WITH JOHN D. YEAW, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY
27, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LISA R. LEONARD AND ENDING
WITH BRET A. SLATER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY THE
SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON JANUARY
31, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH MITCHELL S. ACKERSON AND
ENDING WITH GLENN R. WOODSON, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
ARMY NOMINATION OF ANDREW H. N. KIM TO BE COLONEL.
ARMY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RENDELL G. CHILTON AND
ENDING WITH DAVID J. OSINSKI, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 6, 2006.
Foreign Service
FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ANNE ELIZABETH
LINNEE AND ENDING WITH KATHLEEN ANNE YU, WHICH NOMINATIONS
WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON DECEMBER 13, 2005.
FOREIGN SERVICE NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH LISA M. ANDERSON
AND ENDING WITH GREGORY C. YEMM, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON DECEMBER 14, 2005.
In the Marine Corps
MARINE CORPS NOMINATION OF BRIAN R. LEWIS TO BE MAJOR.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATION OF WILLIAM A. KELLY, JR. TO BE
CHIEF WARRANT OFFICER W4.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATION OF PHILLIP R. WAHLE TO BE
LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATION OF JAMES A. CROFFIE TO BE
LIEUTENANT COLONEL.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAMES H. ADAMS III
AND ENDING WITH RICHARD D. ZYLA, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH DAVID T. CLARK AND
ENDING WITH NIEVES G. VILLASENOR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH RALPH P. HARRIS III
AND ENDING WITH CHARLES L. THRIFT, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH STEPHEN J. DUBOIS
AND ENDING WITH JOHN D. PAULIN, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JAY A. ROGERS AND
ENDING WITH STANLEY M. WEEKS, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH SEAN P. HOSTER AND
ENDING WITH TIMOTHY D. WHEELER, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH NEIL G. ANDERSON
AND ENDING WITH EDWARD M. MOEN, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CARL BAILEY, JR.
AND ENDING WITH JAMES A. JONES, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH GREGORY M. GOODRICH
AND ENDING WITH MARK W. WASCOM, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH JACK G. ABATE AND
ENDING WITH JAMES KOLB, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED BY
THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH PETER G. BAILIFF
AND ENDING WITH TIMOTHY D. SECHREST, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH ISRAEL GARCIA AND
ENDING WITH JAMES I. SAYLOR, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BEN A. CACIOPPO,
JR. AND ENDING WITH WALTER D. ROMINE, JR., WHICH NOMINATIONS
WERE RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH PETER M. BARACK,
JR. AND ENDING WITH JOHN D. SOMICH, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
MARINE CORPS NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH BENJAMIN J. ABBOTT
AND ENDING WITH RUTH A. ZOLOCK, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE
RECEIVED BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD ON FEBRUARY 1, 2006.
IN THE NAVY
NAVY NOMINATIONS BEGINNING WITH CHRISTOPHER P. BOBB AND
ENDING WITH VINCENT J. WOOD, WHICH NOMINATIONS WERE RECEIVED
BY THE SENATE AND APPEARED IN THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ON
DECEMBER 21, 2005.