[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 2413-2567]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 2413]]
SENATE--Thursday, March 2, 2006
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Craig Thomas, a Senator from the State of Wyoming.
______
prayer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Today's prayer will be offered by our guest
Chaplain, Dr. Stephen L. Swisher, Lovers Lane United Methodist Church
in Dallas, TX.
The guest Chaplain offered the following prayer.
Let us pray.
We pray, Dear God, that You would fill this sacred minute with
meaning and make it an oasis for the refreshment of our souls, a window
cleaning for our vision, and a recharging of the batteries of our
spirit. As this day unfolds, give us the courage to step into life with
new drive and motivation.
As we gather here in this historic place, facing the stress of
committee hearings, paperwork deadlines, and seemingly endless
functions, may we not lose sight of our true purpose--to get the right
things done and in some cases the wrong things undone.
I pray Your blessings upon each Member of this our United States
Senate, their families and staff members. Surround each one with Your
protection, strength, and guidance. May they feel You as close as their
next breath.
Lord, we remember those who have stood here before us and we are
proud--and in our minds we can visualize the sea of faces whom we
represent, those multiplied millions of people looking to us to make a
real, positive, significant difference--and we are embold-
ened. May our words offer hope and our actions inspiration. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Craig Thomas 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, March 2, 2006.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Craig Thomas, a Senator from the State of Wyoming, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Ted Stevens,
President pro tempore.
Mr. THOMAS thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning we have 30 minutes set aside
for a period of morning business. Following that 30 minutes, we will
resume postcloture debate on the PATRIOT Act conference report. We had
five procedural votes on or in relation to the PATRIOT Act yesterday,
concluding with an 84-to-15 vote. Given that overwhelming vote, it is
now time for the Senate to take a final vote on this conference report.
That vote is scheduled for 3 p.m. today. We will divide the time
equally until that time.
After the vote on the adoption of the PATRIOT Act, we will proceed to
a cloture vote on the issue of LIHEAP. I hope we can proceed to the
LIHEAP bill and come to a resolution on that measure before the close
of the week. In any event, I am confident we will proceed to that
measure and work toward a vote on the LIHEAP issue. We will update
Senators this afternoon after the two votes later today.
____________________
COMBAT METH ACT
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I wish to make a brief comment on an
important provision on methamphetamine that is in the PATRIOT Act but
not a lot of attention has been focused on it over the last several
days, a very important provision.
At 3 o'clock today the Senate will vote on passage of the PATRIOT Act
conference report, and after a lot of months of debate we will finally
deliver a PATRIOT Act that is stronger and tougher and more effective
against terrorists on American soil, while at the same time protecting
our civil liberties.
It has not been easy. It has taken a long time. But now we are on the
verge of a tremendous success with the passage of a very important bill
that will benefit the American people.
The Combat Meth Act is legislation Senator Talent introduced last
year, and I and many of our colleagues are a cosponsor of that
legislation. Senator Talent's leadership has been instrumental in
pushing this bill forward, and it is something of which we can all be
very proud.
I have worked with the House leadership to encourage Members to get
this done because meth is a crisis that has been building in all of our
States. It is highly addictive, cheap, and easily available.
In the last 10 years meth has become America's worst drug problem. I
say that, even putting it before marijuana, cocaine, and heroin, in
that the use of it has increased so significantly and it is so terribly
addictive.
Last year Tennessee ranked No. 2, tied with Iowa and just behind
Missouri, in the number of meth lab seizures. Through tougher laws and
tougher enforcement over the last year and a half Tennessee is starting
to see a turnaround, and that is one of the reasons I am so convinced
this legislation will have a dramatic impact in a short period of time.
It was in March of last year that Tennessee signed its Meth Free
Tennessee Act, a much needed law that required retailers to take cold
medicines and sinus medicines containing pseudoephedrine off the
shelves and put them behind the counter where they can be closely
monitored. As a result of this powerful new approach, lab seizures have
declined dramatically, down 40 percent in May and another 60 percent in
June.
In addition, district attorneys across the State have told me of the
tremendous impact it has made and they joined Governor Bresden in
launching the Meth Destroys campaign. Through videos and brochures and
bulletin boards and other means of public relations, the Meth Destroys
campaign is reaching out to schools, to church groups, to parents, to
civic organizations, to educate the public on the grave dangers of this
highly addictive drug, methamphetamine.
Now with the imminent passage of the Combat Meth Act here in the
Senate today at 3 o'clock, everyone's job is going to get a whole lot
easier.
We learned that when one State restricted access to the precursors,
meth cooks simply crossed over to the adjoining State, bought their
ingredients and brought them back. Law enforcement told us again and
again that they
[[Page 2414]]
needed uniform law to be able to cut off this access to and purchase of
these ingredients.
Senator Talent and Senator Feinstein introduced the Combat Meth Act
to restrict access to cold medicines containing pseudoephedrine and
ephedrine across all 50 States. Under the Combat Meth Act, meth users
will no longer be able to jump from State to State, cruise from State
to State in order to buy these ingredients.
Once again I thank Senator Talent and Senator Feinstein for pushing
hard to get this done. It will have a direct impact in a short period
of time. Lives will be saved, communities will be better protected
because of their commitment. I urge all of our colleagues to vote for
the PATRIOT Act, which includes the Combat Meth Act, this afternoon. It
applies directly to the well-being and safety of our neighbors and
fellow citizens.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MINORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
____________________
ORDER OF PROCEDURE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the distinguished majority leader
leaves, will the Senator be so kind as to allow 5 more minutes in
morning business on each side, with 20 minutes on each side. We have a
number of people seeking recognition.
Mr. FRIST. That will be fine.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business for up to
40 minutes, with the first half of the time under the control of the
Democratic leader and the second half of the time under the control of
the majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to Senator Baucus of
Montana and 10 minutes to Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, in that
order.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. I thank the Chair. I thank the leader very much for the
allocation of time.
____________________
INCREASING THE FEDERAL DEBT LIMIT
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on December 29 of last year I received a
letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, John Snow, asking that
Congress increase the Federal deficit. This is extremely important,
obviously; that is, whether we should and the degree to which we should
increase the Federal debt limit. But we don't have any scheduled debate
on this and I don't think, frankly, the leadership wants to schedule
debate on whether we should and the degree to which we should increase
the Federal debt. I think the reason is pretty clear. It is because it
is embarrassing. It is an embarrassment that our Federal debt is
growing so much and at a rapid rate.
I say that in part because the Secretary says the United States will
hit the limit in the middle of this month. That is not too many days
away. I hope very much this body exercises its responsibility to do
what it should do and let's have a discussion on our fiscal situation:
How great is the debt? What should be done about it? How big is the
deficit and what should be done about that? Where are we? Where are we
headed? What are the implications?
These are very real questions that affect the financial security of
the United States and which affect very greatly individual Americans. I
very much hope we have that debate of the points I think we should
consider. It is our responsibility to address the implications of our
huge Federal debt and deficits. We have a responsibility to do that.
That is our job. It is much more our job to address that than it is
some other things I think we do here in the Senate, and I am going to
do what I can to urge my colleagues and urge, frankly, anybody
listening and watching to begin to think about what is going on here
because this is critical.
Let's review some of the facts about the debt limit. Currently, our
Treasury, the U.S. Treasury, is authorized to issue debt totaling over
$8 trillion. That is the current statute. Last year's budget resolution
proposed an increase in that authorization of $781 billion. That is an
increase. That would be the fourth largest debt limit increase in the
Nation's history.
If I might briefly indicate in a graphic way literally what that
means. This basically is a chart showing the amount of Federal debt
limit increases the Congress has enacted over various years going back
not too long ago--1986 up to the present.
The red bars here indicate the amount of the debt increase Congress
has enacted because our Federal debt was going up so quickly. You can
see there was a big increase back in 1990. That was the time when,
frankly, our country was under a little bit of pressure and the debt
was going up. Between 2000, 2001, we did not have any debt increases.
But what has happened lately?
You can see all these huge increases in the last 4 years. In 2002,
the Congress increased the national debt by $450 billion.
Here is a whopper. In 2003, Congress increased the Federal debt by
close to $1 trillion. The next year it increased the Federal debt by
$800 billion, four-fifths of a trillion dollars in 1 year. Last year it
did not have to increase the debt because the $800 billion carried us
over through 2005, but here again we have to increase the Federal debt
by $781 billion.
The debate point is that in the last years there have been big
increases in the Federal debt. Why? Because we have been borrowing so
much in this country, Congress has authorized and the President has
proposed very large expenses.
More striking, though, is that total increase has occurred since the
year 2002.
During this administration, America's debt, the total deficit, has
increased by $3 trillion. You can imagine. Since 2002, if you add up
all the increases in the Federal debt, our Federal debt has increased
by $3 trillion. That is not the level now; it is close to $9 trillion
if it is increased further. But this is the increase--and those
increases have occurred only in the last 4 years. That is a 40-percent
increase in the entire Federal debt accrued by our country in its
entire history. Forty percent of the increase in the Federal debt has
occurred in the last 4 years.
Who is lending the Federal Government these funds? Ask yourself that
question. That is a lot of debt out there. Some of it is internal. The
U.S. Government borrows from Social Security, and we all know that
pretty soon those chickens are going to come home to roost. We can't do
that much longer. We will have to start paying back all that is due to
Social Security--and that is an awful lot. Much of the borrowing is
from American citizens and businesses.
But what is more alarming is the trend where much more of the debt is
held by foreigners and central banks in foreign countries; that is, the
amount of debt held by foreign governments is much worse. Five years
ago foreigners held about $1 trillion of our Federal debt.
What is that number today? It is double. In over 5 years the amount
has doubled. The number held by foreigners has now doubled to $2.2
trillion.
Today, Japan holds two-thirds of a trillion dollars of our foreign
debt. China holds a quarter of a trillion dollars. China's reserve is
scheduled to be about $1 trillion by the end of this year.
The rate of increase in Federal debt held by foreigners--simply by
foreign banks, central banks--is alarming. I tend not to be an
alarmist. In fact, sometimes people say: Max, you are kind of easy
going, you don't get too upset, and so on. But I am quite concerned
about these trends. They are worse.
[[Page 2415]]
I might also add that the debt held by foreigners after World War II
was extremely high, too. It was. But the composition of that debt--
investments held by foreigners--was just that: investment in
infrastructure in the United States and capital assets; that is,
investments foreigners made in the United States after World War II.
The composition was not much debt. It is securities to finance the
borrowing by Uncle Sam, and we have to pay back the interest on that
borrowing.
The question is, How long can we continue to borrow all of that
money? That is the basic question.
What are the implications to our foreign policy as foreigners
increase their holdings of U.S. debt? What does that mean? What might
happen?
Try to be wholly analytical about this. What does that mean? What
percentage of the American taxes are being used to pay interest on that
debt? How much are American taxpayers paying to foreigners directly
through interest on the national debt?
I think that should be debated. That is something I think is quite
concerning, particularly with the large numbers.
These are just some of the issues I think we should debate. We also
should remember--this is not rocket science--that ordinarily there are
limits on debt. Ordinarily, credit card companies or businesses or
banks just do not automatically increase debt, which is happening in
this country in the last 4 years as I showed in that chart. It has been
automatic. We have increased the debt.
Think a little bit about the limits an institution holds on a family
and what the family wants to borrow. What about a credit card and a
maximum balance. Most Americans have credit cards. Most Americans know
there is a maximum balance on that credit card. You can only borrow so
much. After a certain limit, you can't borrow any more. That is it.
Wouldn't it be great if each individual could say: We are going to
ask the credit card company to increase the debt, and do it as the
Congress is doing right now. We will just increase the debt limit. A
person can't ask a bank willy-nilly to increase the maximum allowance
on a credit card. There is a good reason for that. There have to be
limits. We have to live within our means.
Take an ordinary business, a bank loan to a business. The bank pays a
lot of attention to how that business is being run, whether it is being
run well. It pays a lot of attention.
One could ask: Is the Treasury or foreigners or someone who holds the
debt asking how well we are running our business?
I urge the majority leader to schedule time to hold a thorough debate
on this issue.
This is real. This is really real. We all know this cannot continue.
We really do not know at what point, if we continue to increase the
debt, there might be some cataclysmic event. We just don't know that.
But we do know that with every debt limit increase we are accelerating
the time when something nasty or bad might happen economically.
Already, some countries are starting to move out of dollars into
other currencies. China is on the margin of looking at holding
currencies other than the dollar. Many countries worldwide are becoming
more self-sufficient. They don't need the United States as much now as
they once did. They are becoming more independent. They are going more
in their own direction. They are doing what they think makes sense for
them economically.
Clearly, the bottom line is we have to live within our means. Every
time we increase the debt limit we are not within our means.
I urge us to have a debate so we can know what we really should be
doing.
I thank the Chair.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. CONRAD. I thank the Chair and I thank my colleagues.
____________________
DEBT AND TAXES
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, the New York Times, in its Monday edition
editorial, said:
There's nothing Congressional Republicans would like more
than to escape the inescapable need to raise the Nation's
debt limit. The upcoming increase, from $8.18 trillion to
nearly $9 trillion, will be the fourth major hike in the last
5 years.
The editorial went on to say:
It will come as no surprise if Senate leaders squelch
debate on the debt limit until Congress is ready to begin its
next week-long recess on March 17. Then, up against the
Treasury's default deadline, the increase would be put to a
voice vote so that no individual would have to go on record
as approving the measure--
Increase in the debt.
If anybody thinks that the New York Times is just imagining that
there will be an attempt to avoid a debate on this massive increase in
the Nation's debt, this is what the chairman of the Finance Committee
said:
Senator Grassley told Reuters that the goal would be to get
the debt limit legislation passed with the least debate.
He went on to say:
I would like to see a bill on any Thursday night just prior
to a recess.
Why do our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to avoid a
discussion of the Nation's debt? Perhaps it is revealed in this chart
which shows what is happening to the Nation's debt under their
leadership.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have controlled Washington
policymaking since 2001. They have controlled the Senate. They have
controlled the House. They have controlled the White House.
Here is their record on debt. At the end of the President's first
year, the debt was $5.8 trillion. I think it is fair to leave out the
first year. He is not responsible for the first year.
Look at what happened since. The debt has gone up each and every
year--and up dramatically. At the end of this year, it is predicted, if
the President's budget is adopted, that the debt will have reached $8.6
trillion.
Every Member of this body will recall when the President embarked on
this fiscal strategy. He told us not only that he would not increase
the debt but that he would have maximum paydown of the debt. He said
his plan would virtually eliminate the Nation's publicly-held debt.
There is no elimination going on here. Instead, the debt has
exploded. We anticipate that it will be $8.6 trillion at the end of
this year, if the President's further 5-year program is adopted. The
debt will skyrocket to $12 trillion in 2011, at the worst possible time
before the baby boomers retire.
One of the results of their disastrous fiscal strategy is the debt
held by foreigners has exploded at an even more alarming rate. It took
42 Presidents--all the Presidents pictured here--224 years to run up $1
trillion of external debt. This President has more than doubled that
amount in 5 years.
This is the legacy of debt that will haunt this country for
generations to come. This is the hard reality. This is a fiscal plan
and a fiscal strategy that has failed--failed miserably, and failed by
any measure.
The Senator from Montana raised a question of who is holding our
debt. Here it is: Japan--we now owe them $685 billion. We owe China
over $250 billion. We owe the United Kingdom over $230 billion. And in
fourth place--who would have ever believed this--we now owe the so-
called Caribbean banking centers over $100 billion.
Now it comes to this year and a further continuation of the
Republican plan to load the Nation with debt. I do not know how else
you can term it because here is what has happened.
By the way, from 1998 to 2001, there was no need to increase the
Nation's debt limit. In fact, we were paying down the Nation's
publicly-held debt under the administration of President Clinton. But
in 2002, we had to raise the debt $450 billion; in 2003, we had to
raise the debt $984 billion; in 1 year, 2004, another $800 billion
increase in debt; and now, in 2006, they are seeking to raise the debt
another almost $800 billion.
You add this up and the debt will have already increased under this
President by $3 trillion. When he came into office it was more than $5
trillion.
[[Page 2416]]
And we now know, if his next 5-year plan is adopted, he will add
another $3 trillion to the debt.
This is not a sustainable strategy or plan, and it is time for
Congress to face up to it. It is time to begin the debate on what we do
to confront these rapidly growing debts.
I hope very much that we will have a chance for a full debate on the
debt limit and to consider stringent pay-go legislation, the device
which we have had in the past to provide budget discipline.
It simply says: If you want more spending, you have to pay for it. If
you want more tax cuts, you have to pay for them. That is a basic
notion that we used with great effect in the 1980s and 1990s to reduce
what were then record deficits and debt levels--levels that have been
greatly exceeded by the massive runup of debt under this
administration. I hope we have that opportunity. The Nation deserves as
much.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
____________________
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about some of the
recent developments in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We have a lot of activity today. There is a hearing in the Foreign
Relations Committee, as well as some dissidents who are in town to talk
about the state of affairs in Iran.
As many of my colleagues know, the Iranian Government's track record
with respect to supporting acts of terror inflicted upon innocent
persons and inflicting damage on peaceful relations among Middle
Eastern countries is abysmal. Iran's bad activities in the Middle East
and, candidly, bad actions in the world--at the head of the list, from
my perspective, is promoting terrorism activities and Islamic fascism
ideology that undergirds that terrorist activity in the Middle East--
have secured a designation by the U.S. Department of State as a state
sponsor of terrorism. Iran supports terrorist organizations such as
Hezbollah, the entity behind the 1983 suicide terrorist attack against
U.S. military and civilian personnel in Lebanon. Hamas is another
organization that they are now supporting, the Palestinian Islamic
Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General
Command. All of these are reprehensible organizations that the Iranian
Government is directly sponsoring as a state sponsor of terrorism.
Additionally, Iran has been implicated in the 1996 attack on U.S.
military personnel at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Iran's reach into Iraq, which many of us have been complaining about
for a couple of years and which is now being recognized by our
Government, by our Department of State, and which is now being
recognized by the world--Iran is one of the fomenters of terrorism
within the country of Iraq. Iran's connection to the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the organization's Badr Brigades
means that Iran has a hand in shaping the allegiances of both Iraq's
police and military forces.
Iran's human rights violations, in addition to their terrorist
activities, are no less chilling. The State Department reported that
the Government of Iran engages in widespread use of torture and other
degrading treatment and the Iranian Government continues to
discriminate against religious and ethnic minorities. They do not
discriminate as to who they discriminate against. Other Muslim sects--
whether Sunni or Suffi or Jews or Christians, they discriminate against
them all.
Iran's record of degradation of women is appalling and should not be
tolerated by the international community. Iranian women are severely
oppressed and their voices are constantly suffocated by the government.
There are numerous examples of Iranian women who have been arrested and
severely beaten for the simple fact they are females. One example is
Dr. Roya Toloui, a women's rights activist and the editor of a
publication that is now banned in Iran. She was arrested last summer in
the wake of a 2005 July demonstration in the town of Mahabad. Dr.
Toloui was held in prison for 66 days. While she was there, she was
raped and she was tortured. Though she has since been released from
prison, Dr. Toloui is in constant fear of rearrest and of death.
The State Department also noted Iran's continued restrictions on
workers' rights. In short, the Government of Iran oppress its people
and terrorizes the world and is a threat to the security of this
country and to the security of democracies throughout the West.
The one additional aspect that has now taken a lot of press is Iran's
pursuit of nuclear capability. This is very unsettling when you have a
regime with this kind of track record to be in pursuit of nuclear
capability. Iran, of course, is permitted to pursue peaceful nuclear
research under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Its
record on transparency and the true purpose of its program, obviously,
is very much in doubt. In November of 2003 the International Atomic
Energy Agency reported that Iran has been developing an undeclared
nuclear enrichment program for 18 years and had covertly imported
nuclear material and equipment. Furthermore, the IAEA reported that
Iran had conducted over 110 unreported experiments to produce uranium,
metal, and separated plutonium, and had possession of designs clearly
related to the fabrication of nuclear weapons.
In 2005, in August, following the election of President Ahmadinejad,
Iran announced that the ongoing negotiations under the terms of the
2004 Paris agreement, the agreement that suspended activities brokered
by the EU-3, were ``satisfactory'' according to Iran. Then they
announced they were resuming the conversion of raw uranium into gas for
enrichment. In January of 2006, Iran removed the IAEA seals on the
research enrichment plant in Natanz.
Recently, the IAEA board voted 27 to 3 to report Iran to the U.N.
Security Council, and in so doing noted Iran's many failures and
breaches of its obligations to comply with the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty. Iran's aggressive behavior and concealment of ongoing nuclear
activities can only lead to one conclusion, and that is that Iran is
seeking to enrich uranium to use for nuclear weapons.
In response to this nuclear gambit, I believe we need smart sanctions
for the U.N. to impose. For example, the U.N. should consider imposing
a travel ban on Iran's leaders, banning international flights from
Iranian air, banning the transportation of cargo carried by Iranian
Government-owned ships, and possibly to pursue legal action against
Iranian leaders responsible for human rights and terrorism abuses, as
well as executions.
I recently introduced legislation with my colleague, Senator Norm
Coleman, that seeks to empower the forces of democracy in Iran and
support efforts to foster peaceful change within Iran. It is S. 333,
the Iran Freedom and Support Act. It seeks to make it harder for the
Government of Iran to have access to revenue and foreign investment.
Resources that those investments accrue are used by the Iranian
Government to support terrorist organizations and to pursue nuclear
activity as well as to repress its people.
The bill also codifies sanctions, controls, and regulations currently
in place against Iran by Executive order. It codifies those in statute.
The bill declares it should be a policy of the United States to support
the Iranian people in their prodemocracy movements. We believe, and the
bill says, that the people of Iran are entitled to self-determination,
to free and fair elections, and we want to provide the resources in
helping those groups attain those free and fair elections. We
authorized $10 million in this bill, but thanks to the effort on the
supplemental the administration has sent up to the Congress, they have
requested $75 million for prodemocracy efforts in Iran. I hope the
introduction of our legislation last year perhaps gave some
encouragement to ask for such funding. They have asked for $75 million.
I will amend our bill to ask for $100 million for those efforts.
[[Page 2417]]
The Iran Freedom and Support Act is a nonviolent way to try to effect
change in Iraq. I agree with the President and all who have talked
about keeping our military options on the table, but it is vitally
important to try to use our diplomatic options first and foremost. At a
time when the threat from Iran is real, it is not only real to this
country, not only real to the Middle East and Iraq, but it is,
obviously, real to their own people in the way they treat them.
This is an important piece of legislation. It is something I hope we
can do. It is important in spite of what the President has done. I
support his policies that we show the Congress is 100 percent behind
his effort to do something about the nuclear gambit Iran is engaged in
right now. I am hopeful we can pass this legislation in a timely
fashion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise to join my colleague from
Pennsylvania on underscoring the urgency that surrounds the threat to
our Nation and the entire world community with Iran.
I listened to my esteemed colleague talk about the Iranian repression
of women. I thought to myself, how sad; Iran was a country that at
times led that part of the world in its respect for women and women's
rights at a time few talked about it. And how low they have sunk.
It was 100 years ago Iran's constitutional revolution was the first
genuine democracy in the Middle East, over half of the population of
that part of the world. When we look where we are today, I have a touch
of sadness in my heart as I reflect upon the plight of the Iranian
people.
Make no mistake, as my colleague from Pennsylvania noted, Iran is a
nation with painful rhetoric, rhetoric of its president, who says: Our
goal is to destroy Israel. We should take people at their word that is
the goal.
This is not, by the way, the rantings of a madman. This is the clear
policy of the regime backed by the ruling mullahs. It is the clear
policy, not the rantings of some wild man. Take him at his word, that
is his goal, his objectives, and Iran's goal and objective.
Painful rhetoric is backed by their concrete actions. They are the
largest state sponsor of state-supported terrorism in the world. It is
not just cheap rhetoric; it is a disconcerting and frightening reality
we have to deal with.
Now we have a regime that is clearly in pursuit of nuclear weapons.
We are dealing with a lot of security issues out there today. There is
lots on the agenda dealing with concerns about port security. Let's not
let this issue slip away.
Some say Washington is a town of a thousand issues and few
priorities. This is a priority and continues to be a priority. As I
said before, they have been clear about their regime and their desire
to destroy Israel and the western civilization.
At the conference where Ahmadinejad talked about destroying Israel, I
remember the picture behind him vividly, a picture of an hourglass. In
this hourglass, the ball is dropping through. This is posted not by
accident but by design. In the hourglass, the fragile glass ball is
falling through the glass, about to be shattered. That is Israel. But
already lying on the floor of the shattered glass is a shattered USA.
That is the vision, that is the plan. We have to understand that.
Clearly, the vitriolic rhetoric is backed by a clear vision and plan
and it merits immediate action by the international community.
All in all, the Tehran regime's previous and ongoing activities
indicate that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an unprecedented threat
to American national security as well as to the existence of the State
of Israel. Have no doubt about it; if Iran were to use a nuclear weapon
in the Middle East, we are not protected, even being thousands of miles
away. We will all be impacted by that. We are all in this. The outcome
of Iran's vision and the destruction of Israel is unacceptable. Common
sense and responsibility demand that action be taken now. Time is not
on our side.
The scenario we face with Iran today has many parallels to the 1930s
when the League of Nations failed to confront the aggression of the
dictatorships in Japan, Italy, and Germany. Hitler said what he would
do and the international community chose to ignore that very clear red
flag. In ``Mein Kampf,'' Hitler meant what he said. When he had the
opportunity, he acted on that.
The President of Iran has not written a book such as ``Mein Kampf,''
but he has been very clear about what his intentions are, public about
his intentions to destroy Israel and the rest. And at the same time he
is pursuing a strategy to campaign to obtain nuclear capacity. Will the
international community continue to wring its hands and allow this
murderous regime to align its intentions with its capabilities or will
it take action? The answer must be yes. The answer must be now. And the
United States must be part of leading that charge.
The IAEA has taken some action. There is a meeting of the board of
governors March 6. They must continue to put pressure on Iran. But that
is not enough. The reality is, negotiations are not enough. There is a
Russian proposal on the table. The European three have been negotiating
with Iran. The problem with this, it may seem as if there is something
there, but when you pursue this negotiation you are presuming that the
other side wants a solution. They are negotiating with someone who is
not looking for a solution to divert a crisis but playing a cat-and-
mouse game to buy time. You have to realize enough time for talk and we
have to take action. Talk is what the other side wants as it buys time.
It is clear they are not looking for a solution to avert a crisis. They
have a vision. They have a path.
They have demonstrated time and again they are not serious about
negotiating. They deserve no further opportunities to prevent them from
being held to account for their intransigence. I think it is high time
the international community called the Iranian bluff. They have had
more than enough opportunities to negotiate and have brazenly violated
every agreement. The Security Council must take strong action. This
needs to be the focus of our policy now and in the immediate future.
While all of us recognize that actions must be taken to deal with the
imminent threat of Iran's nuclear intentions, a true long-term solution
to the problem with Iran lies in efforts to promote a free and
democratic society. As Secretary Rice has noted:
Attempting to draw neat, clean lines between our security
interests and our democratic ideals does not reflect the
reality of today's world. Supporting the growth of democratic
institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of
fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present
challenges.
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush made a direct
appeal to the Iranian people and voiced our country's support for their
right to freedom. Here in Congress, we need to act to convert moral
support into concrete actions to help foster democratic change in Iran.
I commend my colleague, Senator Santorum, for his introduction of the
Iran Freedom and Support Act of 2005. I am a cosponsor of that
legislation. He has talked about that and clearly seeks to support the
roots of democratic change in Iran. We need to support democracy in
Iran. And supporting them is not being an American voice preaching
moralistically about democracy; it is an opportunity to connect with
the Iranians around the world, not just there. There are folks who have
been fighting for freedom in Iran. Some are still in Iran. We need to
figure out a way to connect with Iranian voices, with dissidents in
Iran and around the world, to let them know we are there to support
freedom, we are there to support democracy.
I urge passage of Senator Santorum's bill. It is a step in the right
direction.
Finally, I would note that March 20 and 21 is the Iranian new year. I
say that because the regime is repressing the celebration of the
Iranian new year. I want to conclude my comments by wishing the Iranian
people a happy
[[Page 2418]]
new year, one in which, hopefully, they will be closer to freedom,
closer to freedom in the year to come. And we will take those steps
necessary to help make that happen.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Minnesota.
I think he is right on target. He is putting the burden where it should
be, and that is directly on the United Nations to do what is right with
regard to Iran.
Our President has tried to put the Europeans out front to negotiate
with the Iranians. I believe they have been less than forthcoming about
what they were doing the last 2 years with nuclear capabilities. Now it
is time for us to all step in as world leaders and say to Iran: You
must stop making nuclear weapons. And further, if you do not, there
will be repercussions.
But it will take the entire world community, led by the United
Nations, to make an impact on Iran. The United States cannot do this
alone. We do not trade with Iran. We need the people who are trading
with Iran to say there will be consequences if a nuclear weapon is
produced in that country.
So I thank the Senator from Minnesota. I hope very much the United
States will step forward with the other leaders of the world to say we
are of one mind.
Mr. President, I wish to take a moment because today is Texas
Independence Day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time for morning business has expired.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for 5 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
170TH ANNIVERSARY OF TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to read the
letter of William Barret Travis from the Alamo. This is a tradition I
continue that was started by Senator John Tower to commemorate Texas
Independence Day, and that is today, March 2.
Today is the 170th anniversary of the signing of the Texas
Declaration of Independence, a document that was signed by, among
others, my great-great-grandfather, Charles S. Taylor, and also his
friend, Thomas J. Rusk, who first held the Senate seat I now hold. They
both hailed from Nacogdoches, which is the oldest town in Texas--the
town in which my mother grew up and the town in which I now own the
home my grandfather built.
It is a very historic time for Texas. We celebrate Texas Independence
Day every single year because we know that fighting for freedom has
made a difference in what Texas is. We love our history. We fought for
freedom. We were a republic for 10 years, and then we came into the
United States as a State.
The defense of the Alamo by 189 courageous men, who were outnumbered
10 to 1, was a key battle of the Texas Revolution. The sacrifice of COL
William Barret Travis and his men made possible GEN Sam Houston's
ultimate victory at San Jacinto, which secured independence for Texas.
From the Alamo, Colonel Travis wrote to his countrymen the following:
Fellow citizens and compatriots: I am besieged by a
thousand or more of the Mexicans under Santa Ana--I have
sustained a continual bombardment and cannonade for 24 hours
and have not lost a man--the enemy has demanded a surrender
at discretion, otherwise, the garrison is to be put to the
sword, if the fort is taken--I have answered the demands with
a cannon shot, and our flag still waves proudly from the
wall--I shall never surrender or retreat.
Then, I call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism
and of everything dear to the American character, to come to
our aid, with all dispatch. The enemy is receiving
reinforcements daily and will no doubt increase to three or
four thousand in four or five days. If this call is
neglected, I am determined to sustain myself as long as
possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what is due
to his own honor and that of his country--Victory or Death.
William Barret Travis, Lt. Col, Commander.
Colonel Travis's are the words of a true patriot. And his letter did
inspire Texans to ultimate victory. In fact, his holding of the Alamo
for so long did allow Sam Houston to muster his troops for the last
stand at San Jacinto.
To show you one other example of how Texans love their history, the
minister who opened our Senate today with prayer from Lovers Lane
Methodist Church in Dallas, TX, showed me, at breakfast this morning,
the ring he wears which is a replica of the ring of William Barret
Travis that he wore at the Alamo. He put the ring around the neck of
the daughter of one of those who was able to survive and leave the day
before the onslaught that killed all of those men at the Alamo. So
Susanna Dickinson's daughter had that ring around her neck--she was
about 8 years old at the time--and that is why we know what the ring
signified.
Another example of how history continues to inspire us: I, just 2
weeks ago, commissioned the newest amphibious ship of the U.S. Navy. It
is an amphibious assault ship, the first of its class, the USS San
Antonio. The USS San Antonio has in its motto the words from William
Barret Travis's letter ``Never surrender, never retreat.''
That is a great ship which is going to carry marines into battle. It
will carry our marines with the very best of technology, the very best
safety measures we can possibly give them. And the quote ``Never
surrender, never retreat'' will carry them into battle to help protect
the freedom of Americans for years to come.
I am proud to be the sponsor of the ship the USS San Antonio. It
represents the spirit of our armed services today, just as 170 years
ago when we fought for our independence from Mexico and later became a
great State of the United States of America.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
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. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
USA PATRIOT TERRORISM PREVENTION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005--
CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3199,
which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Conference report to accompany H.R. 3199, an act to extend
and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for
other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30
p.m. shall be equally divided, with 1 hour of the time controlled by
the minority to be under the control of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr.
Feingold.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to speak as in morning business for up to 15 minutes and that
the time be charged to the Republican side. I further ask that Senator
Stevens be recognized at 12:15 for up to 5 minutes and Senator Byrd
then be recognized for up to 35 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Lobbying Reform
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the very important
subject of lobbying reform. When you think of our role in our
constitutional system and how important it is that that role be held in
high regard and confidence by the American public, this issue certainly
takes center stage as a very important one that we need to address.
Again, it goes to the heart of who we are and what we are about and the
[[Page 2419]]
heart of the crucial task of having the confidence of the American
people in our system.
Obviously, in the last year, in particular, that has been shaken--
shaken by some very real and serious scandals that have touched the
Congress. Because of that, we need to address these issues of lobby
reform, campaign finance reform, and other related issues very boldly
and very directly.
Again, why do we need to do this? For a very simple reason. This goes
to the heart of our credibility, the heart of the central issue: Do the
American people have confidence in our integrity, in our ability to put
their interests ahead of the interests of narrow or special interests?
I come to this set of issues with quite a bit of experience from
Louisiana. These sorts of issues have been at the center of our
political debate for quite some time because, quite frankly, we have
fought our own challenges in terms of integrity and credibility. We
have had a political culture and a political history riddled with
corruption and cronyism. Many of us are working very hard to get beyond
that. Before I came to the House of Representatives in 1999, I served
in the Louisiana legislature. While I was there for about 7 years,
these sorts of issues--reform issues, lobby reform, campaign finance
reform--were at the very top of my agenda because, again, what could be
more important than building the confidence of citizens in the
integrity of their Government? Certainly, when I stepped into the
Louisiana legislature in January 1992, that credibility and that
integrity absolutely needed bolstering.
When I first went to the legislature in 1992, we had a Governor named
Edwin Edwards. We had an explosion of legalized gambling issues and
legalized gambling concerns. That only fueled the need to address these
central, ethical lobby and related issues. Issues such as the influence
of gambling and gambling contributions came to the floor, and the
influence of gambling entities on elected officials. Because of all
this, I filed several formal ethics complaints against our then-
Governor, Edwin Edwards. Many of those were successful to help draw
attention to the very real problems that were persistent. And then
several years later, that was actually followed by Federal prosecution
of then-former Governor Edwards on gambling-related charges, and he now
still serves a significant sentence in Federal prison.
Other issues came before us, such as gambling contributions. We had
an infamous incident of the president of the State Senate handing out
gambling contribution checks on the floor of the Senate. This caught
everybody's attention, and the good part of the incident--the only good
part--is that it ushered in more reform, more cleaning house, if you
will.
So I was very involved in those issues for exactly the same reason.
They went to the heart of what we are about. They went to the heart of
voters' and citizens' confidence. They went to the heart of the
question of our integrity.
In part, because of that background and that experience, I was very
interested in being involved in these ethics reform and lobby reform
efforts on Capitol Hill. Very early on, I joined the working group in
the Senate that was focused on these important issues. The group
consisted of Senators Santorum, McCain, Lott, Kyl, Lieberman, Obama,
Isakson, Dodd, Feingold, and Collins. It was a very strong, very
sincere bipartisan working group to look hard at these crucial
questions and to come up with a strong package that could gain
bipartisan consensus support, and that we could pass through the
Senate.
In working with this group, we discussed a lot of issues and tried to
hone in on the key abuses and, therefore, the key reforms we thought we
needed to address. That led to our releasing a statement in favor of
meaningful lobby reform, particularly with regard to the following
areas: The revolving door between private lobbying and public service;
privately funded travel, which has clearly been abused in the past;
gifts from lobbyists; improved lobbying disclosure; earmarks and the
abuse of earmarks and the need for transparency and some limit in terms
of those earmarks; strengthened ethics guidelines, training, and
enforcement.
Again, I compliment all of my fellow Senators who worked on that
important group--Senators Santorum, McCain, Lott, Kyl, Lieberman,
Obama, Isakson, Dodd, Feingold, and Collins. We all worked together in
a very aggressive and sincere way. I think we have made a lot of
headway. That headway is being exhibited this week and even more next
week.
This past Tuesday, the Senate Rules Committee, chaired by Senator
Lott, voted out a consensus package of important reforms. Now, today,
the other committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, chaired by Senator Collins, will take a look
at their side of these matters--those matters in this general category
that fall under their jurisdiction. I think they are going to come out
today with a strong and significant package in terms of matters that
come from their jurisdiction. Of course, as I said, Senators Lott and
Collins were very active, very forceful, and contributing members to
the working group.
I look forward to supporting these two packages that will come
together next week on the Senate floor. But as I do, I also look
forward to strengthening the package, perhaps here on the Senate floor,
perhaps through separate legislation, on other crucial questions, which
I truly believe we also need to address in a bold and direct and
forceful way to gain the confidence of the American people.
I want to highlight three of those additional issues today. The first
has to do with a very important matter of Indian tribe campaign
contributions. Now, this, as everyone knows, is not some theoretical
concern. This issue has been at the heart of the recent scandals that
have plagued the Congress and the country with regard to lobby reform
and campaign contributions. So this is not a theoretical or abstract
concern.
What is the problem? The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that
the rules are very different and very tilted for Indian tribes, as
opposed to other entities such as corporations. How is that true? Let
me give you a few examples. The first is that Indian tribes are treated
as ``persons'' under Federal campaign finance law, and because of that
they are allowed to contribute up to $2,100 per election to a
candidate. But they are not considered what are called ``individuals''
under the law. For that reason, there is no aggregate limit in terms of
how much money they can give to Federal political campaigns overall in
an election cycle.
For other entities, such as corporations, there is absolutely an
overall limit of $101,400. That is a lot of money but understand that
tribes have no such limit, so they can go beyond that and give
absolutely as much as they want, without limit, to Federal campaigns.
The second area of difference I think is even more significant, and
that is because most Indian tribes are unincorporated, they are not
subject to any rules or ban on using corporate treasury funds to fund
all of this or to any rules with regard to mandatory disclosure of the
source of the funds they use and where they go. That is a huge
difference.
Corporate PACs, of course, have to collect money in very certain
ways. They cannot write a check out of the corporate treasury. An
Indian tribe can and, in doing so, doesn't have to disclose in any
meaningful way where the money came from or where it is going.
The second issue I want to highlight is the ability of some
incumbents, some Members of Congress, in the House and Senate, to pay
their spouses or dependent children for work on their own political
campaign. Why is that a problem? It is a fundamental problem, in my
opinion, because it gives Members of Congress the ability to increase
their salary if they want to abuse that right to write checks to their
own personal bank account from their campaign account by ``hiring'' a
spouse or even a dependent child or both.
Again, this is not a theoretical concern; this has been a practice in
the past and is, to at least a limited extent, a practice now. There
may be
[[Page 2420]]
some spouses or some kids who do a lot of work for that paycheck, who
do a full day's work for a full day's paycheck. But, clearly, this is
an area that is wide open to abuse and, in fact, in my opinion, has
been abused in the past.
So how do we fix it? I think it is pretty simple. I think to gain the
confidence of the American people and to do ourselves a favor, we fix
it in a very simple and direct way, which is by completely banning
spouses or dependent children from being on the payroll of a Member's
campaign or on the payroll of a Member's leadership PAC.
The final issue that I quickly want to highlight is the issue of
Members' spouses being able to lobby Congress. Again, I think in the
real world, in the heartland of America, this causes average citizens
and average voters a lot of concern. The concern, again, is obvious. A
Member's spouse has a unique ability to lobby, No. 1. No. 2, that
relationship, if a Member's spouse is on the payroll of a lobbying
firm, means that the lobbying firm is writing a check, which basically
goes directly into the family banking account of that Member.
How do we address this? We need to be very careful to address it
responsibly and carefully and also to take into account the fact that
some spouses may have been a true lobbyist with true expertise, earning
an honest day's work, before they were ever spouses of a Member of
Congress. So I believe the way to address it is to ban that activity if
the spouse was not a registered lobbyist a year or more before the
Member was elected to Congress or the marriage between the spouse and
the Member occurred.
I think that is a responsible, fair way to address a very real
concern, a very real issue in the hearts and minds of the American
people.
I close by again saying I appreciate all of the work of my fellow
members of the working group on which I serve. I look forward to that
legislation coming to the floor next week, and I also look forward to
us addressing other crucial issues that may not be in that underlying
package, such as campaign contributions of Indian tribes, such as
spouses and dependent children being on the payrolls of campaigns, and
such as lobbying by Member spouses.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Who yields time? The Senator from
Alaska.
Permanent Postponement of S. 1977
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have come to the floor today to ask a
request of the joint leadership. Last year, I introduced S. 1977 to
repeal a provision of the 1977 reauthorization of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972. My bill was designed to address the concerns on
the west coast about the impact of high energy prices on their
economies, their businesses, and their consumers.
Upon its introduction, S. 1977 was immediately met with press
releases condemning it. I believe the purpose of my legislation was
deliberately misinterpreted. By repealing this provision, this bill
would ensure that the Cherry Point refinery in the State of Washington
could maintain its current capacity.
The Cherry Point refinery processes 225,000 barrels of crude oil per
day. About 60 percent of the crude oil processed at the refinery comes
from my State of Alaska, and 70 percent of its refined product is
consumed by businesses, vehicles, and industries located in Washington
State.
S. 1977 deals solely with the construction or expansion of marine
terminals and docks in Puget Sound specifically at Cherry Point. It has
nothing to do with the number or size of tankers in Puget Sound. The
Coast Guard controls that through regulation. The existing provision of
law under consideration limits the expansion of docks which is vital to
the area's economy. If this provision is enforced, it will eventually
reduce crude oil delivery at the Cherry Point refinery by about 10
percent, reducing fuel capacity for the entire region by about 704,000
gallons per day of refined product.
My intention on introducing this legislation was to ensure stable
supplies of fuel for the Pacific Northwest at the existing capacity. It
would not have increased capacity at all.
Some have litigated this issue in the press, politicized this issue,
and leveraged it for personal political publicity. Some Washingtonians
have appealed to me because they don't like to see a conflict between
our State and their State. They contacted me privately and sought to
work this out.
In particular, one letter convinced me that despite my good
intentions, the bill may not be the best policy for the people of
Washington right now. But they contacted me.
Because of my private consultation with the author of the letter,
which I do appreciate very much, I have come to the floor to ask that
the joint leadership institute procedures to bring about the permanent
postponement of this legislation and indicate we will never take it up.
It is my understanding that this is the only procedure available as
it is not possible for me to ask to withdraw it. I have never, in my 38
years in the Senate, asked to pull legislation or have any bill I
introduced be permanently postponed. But that is my intention now.
For years, I have fought for Alaska's right to determine our State's
future and to develop our own energy resources, particularly in the
Alaska Coastal Plain. I defer to this policy now, and I believe the
people of Washington will have to make this decision. It is a decision
that will have to be made. But based on the private conversations and
the letter I mentioned, I yield to the concerns of Washingtonians on
this legislation. I still believe S. 1977 is the right policy, but I
respect the rights of those living in Washington State to make the
decision as to when that policy should be pursued. Consistent with my
personal philosophy, again I ask that the leadership find a way to
permanently postpone consideration of S. 1977.
Mr. President, 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Appointing Conferees
Mr. President, still another day has gone by. It is now Thursday, and
we have been unable to appoint conferees for the pension reform bill.
This is a shame. Up to 40 million Americans are concerned about what we
do in the Senate. They may not wake up every morning thinking about it,
but there are millions of Americans who are worried about their
pensions, and they should be.
It is so important that we get this matter to conference and come
back with a bill that will help those 40 million Americans. We passed a
bill out of this body on a bipartisan basis; 97 of the Senators voted
for it. Not only was it a bipartisan vote, it was a bipartisan effort
to get it to the floor. We need to do things on a bipartisan basis.
This pension reform bill is an indication of how we can work together,
but it shouldn't break down now.
There is a dispute over whether the conference should have seven
Republicans or eight Republicans. That is what it amounts to, whether
it has seven Republicans going to conference or eight Republicans.
There is a two-vote difference. Because of the majority, 55 to 45, we
have agreed to a two-vote difference, but it is not right that we are
not going to conference because the majority doesn't want an extra
Senator.
I need an extra Senator. I need 8 to 6. I have Senators who are
heavily engaged in this matter and who have worked hard: Senator
Kennedy, Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski, and, of course, Senator
Baucus who does the finance aspect of this and has worked very hard.
Senator Rockefeller has worked hard on this. There isn't anything
unreasonable about saying: Mr. Leader, instead of going for seven
Republicans, go with eight, go with nine. They have already agreed to
go with nine, they just wanted the difference to
[[Page 2421]]
be 9 to 6. They wanted a difference of three. I can't do that. I will
go with nine. If they want nine Senators from the current seven, fine,
I will go along with that.
In yesterday's Congress Daily the majority said they didn't want an
8-to-6 ratio because, ``How do you break a tie?'' I took my math
training at Searchlight Elementary School. We had one teacher who
taught all eight grades and it wasn't that great, I am sure. But I even
know that really doesn't make sense. Remember, how do you break the tie
if the vote is 8 to 6?
We know that can't be the real reason for the delay because we know
the majority's first proposal was 7-5. You would have to have the same
concerns about 7-5, so that can't be the reason.
I understand another reason for the delay could be the majority's
insistence that they get a three-vote margin conference. We can't start
something like that around here. There are five Republicans, and I
understand and appreciate that. We have agreed to a two-vote margin.
That is fair. We have never had a conference committee that I am aware
of with a three-vote margin, certainly not in this session of Congress.
I am hard pressed to remember that it ever happened, so that can't be
the reason.
So there must be something else going on. There must be pressure
coming from people downtown, as we refer to the special interest groups
that are interested in legislation. There must be pressure coming from
these special interest groups to appoint particular Members to this
conference, to ensure that they get the result they seek at the end of
the conference. It is like fixing a jury. Sometimes you work too hard
and you wind up with a bad result.
I had a case once where I represented the North Las Vegas Police
Department. They had been accused of false arrest. So we go to pick the
jury, and the plaintiff's attorney--I was representing the defendant--
used up all their voir dire during the voir dire examination of the
jury, and then we have a period of time after that wherein you can
peremptorily challenge a juror. You don't have to have a reason, you
just get rid of them. He used all of his peremptory challenges, and
somebody stood and talked who had been a police officer. He didn't want
that guy on the jury, but he had used up all of his challenges. He
couldn't get rid of a juror who was a police officer, who would tend to
side with me. He worked a little too hard in coming up with a jury that
he thought would be OK and wound up trying too hard. So sometimes you
try to play with the jury too long and you wind up being hurt.
In that case, I got a defense verdict. I won the case. I don't know
if that was the reason, but I am sure it didn't hurt me to have a
former police officer during that jury deliberation.
So I really don't know how to explain this deadlock. The downtown
interests, the special interests say they obviously can't have that
Republican or that Democrat on this conference because they don't agree
with whomever it is on this issue.
This bill passed the Senate by a vote of 97 affirmations. Ninety-
seven Senators said it is a good bill. This is not a Republican
conference; it is a Senate conference. Is it going to make that much
difference if it is 8-6 or 9-7, compared to 7-5? I don't think so.
In the past, we would appoint conferees based strictly on seniority.
If the majority leader doesn't want to do that, then have him pick
based on some other principle. We will probably stick with the
seniority rule over here, but not necessarily. There is little
consideration of how anyone would vote. I haven't asked those I would
like to be on the conference committee--Senator Kennedy, Senator
Baucus, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Harkin, Senator Mikulski--how they
are going to vote. I do know that Senator Harkin and Senator Mikulski
both believe there should be pension reform, but they are experts in
different areas of this very complex piece of legislation that is so
important that we complete. We will appoint people to this conference
and let them do what they think is right. We need to move on.
It should not have taken 9 months to consider the bill in the first
place, and it shouldn't take us 2 months to go to conference. Democrats
have cooperated on this every step of the way--Senators Baucus and
Grassley, Kennedy and Enzi--the chairman and ranking members of the
committees. We are ready to go to conference 5 minutes from now. If the
majority leader walked through these doors and said: I move that we go
to conference, the ratio will be 8-6, 9-7, it is done. They could start
meeting today. We are not delaying this legislation.
I don't understand all the reasons that we are not going forward with
the conference, but I have to tell you, it looks somewhat suspicious to
me when they are saying, instead of having seven Republican Senators,
we want eight, for some reason. That is wrong. We need to stop playing
around with this. Up to 40 million Americans, I repeat, are counting on
us to do this the right way and to do it quickly.
Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized at 2:15 p.m. for up to 15 minutes to make some final remarks
on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate took further steps
to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act without the fundamental checks and
balances that so many of us believe are needed. To bring us back to
first principles, I read aloud the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
And to remind us of the broad, bipartisan support for amending the
PATRIOT Act all over this country, I read the eight statewide
resolutions that have passed in the last few years expressing concerns
about the PATRIOT Act. I also read some of the nearly 400 local
resolutions that have passed--the four resolutions from my own State of
Wisconsin. Today I want to continue by reading some additional items to
take my colleagues back to how hard we fought in November and December
to stop the flawed conference report, and how many Americans wanted us
to do better than we have done this week.
Let me start with a few editorials. The resolutions passed by State
and city governments that I read here on the floor yesterday are not
the only way by which Americans have expressed their concerns about the
PATRIOT Act. The Fourth Estate has weighed in too, with many newspapers
running editorials or columns criticizing the PATRIOT Act's effect on
Americans' freedom. And not just a few newspapers, but dozens and
dozens, from all across the United States. From major national
newspapers to small, local newspapers. Papers in big cities and small
towns. All concerned about the erosion of civil liberties under the
PATRIOT Act. I am going to read just a few representative editorials.
From the Orlando Sentinel, August 17, 2005; headline: Fighting the
terrorists.
Our position: Patriot Act changes need to be tough but
protect against abuse of power.
The U.S. House and Senate have taken different approaches
to renewing the USA Patriot Act, the sweeping anti-terrorism
law that otherwise would expire at year's end. The Senate's
more thoughtful, bipartisan approach deserves to prevail when
members begin meeting next month to reconcile their competing
proposals.
The House proposal leaves the Patriot Act's expanded
surveillance and law-enforcement powers largely intact. It
does not accommodate legitimate concerns raised by both
liberals and conservatives about inadequate checks on those
powers.
The Senate proposal, passed unanimously, includes what
Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter called ``responsible changes
to safeguard civil liberties.'' It would continue to let the
government obtain secret court orders to seize medical,
financial, library and
[[Page 2422]]
other records, but only records tied to suspected terrorists
or spies, or people in contact with them. It would require
the government to notify targets of secret search warrants
after seven days, though a judge could extend that deadline.
Also under the Senate proposal, two of the most
controversial Patriot Act provisions--to seize records
secretly and conduct roving wiretaps--would expire in 2009
unless renewed. That would encourage Congress to re-evaluate
those provisions in four years.
The Senate proposal would not stop the government from
using the powers in the Patriot Act to go after terrorists.
But its changes would better protect ordinary Americans from
possible abuse of those powers.
Next, The Los Angeles Times; editorial, ``Checks on the Patriot
Act,'' from November 21, 2005.
The Patriot Act, a 4-year-old federal law that gave
investigators unprecedented power to search for and chase
terrorists, is a case study in bad lawmaking. Angry and
anxious to respond to the atrocities of 9/11, Congress
hastily approved a measure that exposed an indeterminable
number of Americans to unreasonable searches and intrusive
snooping for the sake of the war on terror. The law provided
few of the legal system's usual checks to protect against
investigators abusing the new capabilities.
The measure eventually generated outrage on both sides of
the political spectrum, as well as from corporations,
libraries and retailers forced to report secretly on the
activities of employees and customers. Nevertheless, in their
haste to wrap up business before the Thanksgiving recess,
lawmakers were poised last week to reauthorize the Patriot
Act, which is due to expire at the end of the year, with only
minor changes.
That was the outcome sought by the White House and its
allies in the House. A bipartisan group of six senators
stopped the bill, however, by threatening a filibuster. They
demanded that House and Senate negotiators produce a
reauthorization bill with more of the safeguards that the
Senate had approved earlier this year.
The senators' demands are modest, recognizing that law
enforcement agencies do need enhanced powers to battle
elusive and technologically sophisticated groups of
terrorists. But the public also needs to be able to review
how those powers have been used. And people need more
assurance that the information vacuumed up by their
government is actually connected to a suspected terrorist or
spy.
In particular, the bill should do away with the automatic,
permanent gag orders that allow investigators to hide forever
their demands for records from banks, libraries, doctors and
other sources. And the most controversial provisions of the
Patriot Act should be extended for a much shorter period than
the seven years suggested by House and Senate conferees.
When Congress approved the Patriot Act, it put its trust in
prosecutors and investigators to use their expanded powers
responsibly. It now appears that trust was misplaced.
Authorities have gone on a snooping frenzy since 2001,
issuing more than 30,000 secret demands for records per year,
according to the Washington Post. And unless the law is
changed, no one will ever know whether those records should
have been gathered, or what has been done with them.
Americans want to trust their government. It is their
government's foundation, its system of checks and balances,
that enables that trust.
Now, from The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, entitled, ``True patriots:
Some in Congress won't let terror limit freedom,'' from November 30,
2005.
Long before the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the so-called
Patriot Act that was passed in reaction and fear, a man with
stellar patriotic credentials who championed the cause of
liberty had words of wisdom for his fellow Americans: ``They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''
What Benjamin Franklin said in his own day remains a
telling commentary for our time. Indeed, these words could
have been written specifically about the Patriot Act, which
went too far in trying to accomplish a legitimate goal: to
remove some of the bureaucratic and legal barriers that stood
in the way of hunting down terrorists.
But increasing government power while decreasing judicial
oversight was a troubling exercise in a free country, and
Congress realized as much when it passed the Patriot Act,
including sunset provisions that could be considered in
calmer days. That time has come and plenty of true patriots
have stood up and offered suggestions that would make the
Patriot Act more respectful of civil liberties and the
American ideal of freedom.
This is one issue that provides common ground for liberals
and conservatives. When a government has the power to search
a suspect's premises without his knowledge and can retrieve
personal business and library records of people without
showing any connection to terrorism, then the alarms that go
up are for Americans regardless of party. That is why, for
example, former Republican Rep. Bob Barr, the scourge of
President Clinton, finds himself on the same side of the
fight as the American Civil Liberties Union.
Despite the bipartisan qualms about reauthorizing the
Patriot Act without proper amendment, the Bush administration
has not been sympathetic. Trust us, it says implicitly. But
because paranoia animates policy for this White House, the
use of the Patriot Act is bound to go too far and impinge on
basic civil liberties. This is an administration, after all,
that feels threatened when Sen. John McCain and others want
to outlaw torture.
Sadly, ordinary Americans can't naively trust their freedom
to such hands. The Patriot Act needs to have reasonable
checks and balances written into it. Of the two bills to
reauthorize the act, the Senate version accomplishes this
better than the House measure. A tentative agreement has been
reached on reconciling the bills, but principled opposition
remains.
Six senators--three Republicans (Larry Craig of Idaho, John
Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska) and
three Democrats (Richard Durbin of Illinois, Russell Feingold
of Wisconsin and Ken Salazar of Colorado)--have emerged to
resist accepting a version of the Patriot Act that doesn't
meet their legitimate concerns.
This isn't about being pro-terror but pro-American. It is
possible to keep essential liberty and obtain safety. For
Americans to deserve both, the true patriots on Capitol Hill
need support.
From the New York Times, just recently, on February 11, 2006,
entitled, ``Another Cave-In on the Patriot Act.''
The Patriot Act has been one of the few issues on which
Congress has shown backbone lately. Last year, it refused to
renew expiring parts of the act until greater civil liberties
protections were added. But key members of the Senate have
now caved, agreeing to renew these provisions in exchange for
only minimal improvements. At a time when the public is
growing increasingly concerned about the lawlessness of the
Bush administration's domestic spying, the Senate should
insist that any reauthorization agreement do more to protect
Americans against improper secret searches. When the Patriot
Act was passed after Sept. 11, 2001, Congress made some of
its most far-reaching provisions temporary so it would be
able to reconsider them later on. Those provisions were set
to expire last December, but Congress agreed to a very short
extension so greater civil liberties protections could be
added. This week, four key Republican senators--later backed
by two Democrats--said that they had agreed to a deal with
the White House. It is one that does little to protect
Americans from government invasions of their privacy.
One of the most troubling aspects of the Patriot Act is the
``gag order'' imposed by Section 215, which prohibits anyone
holding financial, medical and other private records of
ordinary Americans from saying anything when the government
issues a subpoena for those records. That means that a person
whose records are being taken, and whose privacy is being
invaded, has no way to know about the subpoena and no way to
challenge it. Rather than removing this gag order, the deal
keeps it in place for a full year--too long for Americans to
wait to learn that the government is spying on them. Even
after a year, someone holding such records would have to meet
an exceedingly high standard to get the gag order lifted. It
is not clear that this change has much value at all.
The compromise also fails to address another problem with
Section 215: it lets the government go on fishing
expeditions, spying on Americans with no connection to
terrorism or foreign powers. The act should require the
government, in order to get a subpoena, to show that there is
a connection between the information it is seeking and a
terrorist or a spy.
But the deal would allow subpoenas in instances when there
are reasonable grounds for simply believing that information
is relevant to a terrorism investigation. That is an
extremely low bar.
One of the most well-publicized objections to the Patriot
Act is the fact that it allows the government to issue
national security letters, an extremely broad investigative
tool, to libraries, forcing them to turn over their patrons'
Internet records. The wording of the compromise is unclear.
If it actually says that national security letters cannot be
used to get Internet records from libraries, that would be an
improvement, but it is not clear that it does.
In late December, it looked as if there was bipartisan
interest in the Senate for changing the worst Patriot Act
provisions and standing up for Americans' privacy rights. Now
the hope of making the needed improvements has faded
considerably.
Clearly the PATRIOT Act touched a nerve, and has continued to do so
for 4 years now. While I support a strong fight against terrorism, we
cannot sacrifice our citizens' basic liberties in that fight. To do so
would weaken this country.
Next I want to turn back to some PATRIOT Act resolutions. It was not
just State and city governments that passed resolutions these past
several years. Colleges and universities across
[[Page 2423]]
the United States have become actively involved in the PATRIOT Act
debate as well. Across the country, 53 resolutions have been passed on
44 campuses advocating for substantial changes to the PATRIOT to
protect the civil liberties of the American people. From Mt. Holyoke, a
small private all-women's liberal arts school in South Hadley, MA, to
the University of Texas at Austin, one of the largest public
universities in the United States, students and faculties alike are
coming together to pass these resolutions. Resolutions have been passed
on college campuses in states from California to Kentucky. I will now
read a few of these campus resolutions.
A resolution concerning the protection of students' civil
rights in the wake of the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act.
University of Texas at Austin Student Government
WHEREAS: The United States Congress passed the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act;
Public Law 107-56) on October 25, 2001, championed by U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft;
WHEREAS: The 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights
establishes: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
2. WHEREAS: According to Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman's
Austin City Council resolution regarding the PATRIOT Act,
``fundamental rights granted by the United States
Constitution are threatened by actions taken at the Federal
level, notably by passage of certain sections of the `U.S.A.
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act,' other acts and executive orders which,
among other things:
Grant potential unchecked powers to the Attorney General
and the U.S. Secretary of State to designate legal domestic
groups as ``terrorist organizations'' by overly broad
definitions, and implying restrictions to Constitutionally
protect First Amendment rights of speech and assembly by
reference, such as political advocacy or the practice of a
religion; while lifting administrative regulations on covert,
surveillance counter-intelligence operations;
Violate the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution
through the expansion of the government's ability to wiretap
telephones, monitor e-mail communications, survey medical,
financial and student records, and secretly enter homes and
offices without customary administrative oversight or without
showing probable cause;
Give law enforcement expanded authority to obtain library
records, and prohibits librarians from informing patrons of
monitoring or information requests;
Violate the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution in establishing secret military tribunals, and
in subjecting citizens and non citizens to indefinite
detention without being allowed an attorney, without being
brought to trial, and without even being charged with a
crime;
Authorize eavesdropping on confidential communications
between lawyers and their clients in federal custody;''
WHEREAS: In the October 1997 edition of Global Issues,
available as Vol. 2, No. 4 of the USIA Electronic Journal,
then Senator John Ashcroft (R-MI) wrote in an article
entitled, ``Keep Big Brother's Hands Off the Internet,''
The FBI wants access to decode, digest and discuss
financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary
information sent abroad--all in the name of national
security. . . This proposed policy raises obvious concerns
about American's privacy. . . The protections of the Fourth
Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful
searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years
of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental
right. The state's interest in crime-fighting should never
vitiate the citizens' Bill of Rights. . .
The administration's interest in all e-mail is a wholly
unhealthy precedent, especially given this administration's
track record on FBI files and IRS snooping. Every medium by
which people communicate can be subject to exploitation by
those with illegal intentions. Nevertheless, this is no
reason to hand Big Brother the keys to unlock our e-mail
diaries, open our ATM records, read our medical records, or
translate our international communications. . .
WHEREAS: Eva Poole, President of the Texas Library
Association, the oldest and largest organization representing
Texas libraries, including university and academic libraries,
stated in a personal e-mail by request:
The USA PATRIOT Act is just one of several troubling
policies that compromise the public's privacy rights.
Enhanced surveillance powers permitted under the provisions
of the Act license law enforcement officials to peer into
Americans' most private reading, research, and
communications. Several of the Act's provisions not only
violate the privacy and confidentiality rights of those using
public libraries, but take no consideration of constitutional
checks and balances as it authorizes intelligence agencies to
gather information in situations that may be completely
unconnected to a potential criminal proceeding.
Librarians do not know how the USA PATRIOT Act and related
measures have been applied in libraries because the gag order
bars individuals from making that information public. Equally
troubling is the fact that librarians are not allowed to
comment on FBI visits to examine library users' Internet
surfing and book-borrowing habits. I oppose any use of
governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of
knowledge and information.
WHEREAS: The Student Governments of the University of
California at Berkeley and Santa Barbara, University of
Alaska Fairbanks, University of Washington, Washington State
University, University of Wisconsin and Southern Oregon
University have passed resolutions denouncing the USA PATRIOT
Act;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Student Government of the
University of Texas at Austin has been, and remains,
absolutely committed to the protection of civil rights and
civil liberties for all of its students and affirms its
commitment to embody democracy and to embrace, defend, and
uphold the inalienable rights and fundamental liberties
granted to students under the United States and Texas
Constitutions;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the
University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon the Austin
Police Department, University of Texas Police Department,
Federal Bureau of Investigation and Joint Terrorism Task
Force to refrain from and, in certain cases, discontinue the
surveillance of individuals, groups of individuals, and
organizations based solely on their participation in
activities protected by the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, such as political advocacy or the
practice of a religion without reasonable and particularized
suspicion of criminal conduct unrelated to the activity
protected by the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Student Government respectfully
requests that Dr. Fred Heath, Vice Provost of General
Libraries, direct all UT libraries to post in a prominent
place within the library a notice as follows:
``WARNING: Under Section 215 of the federal USA PATRIOT Act
(Public Law 107-56), records of books and other materials you
borrow from this library may be obtained by federal agents.
This law also prohibits librarians from informing you if
records about you have been obtained by federal agents.
Questions about this policy should be directed to Attorney
General John Ashcroft, Department of Justice, Washington, DC
20530.'';
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the
University of Texas at Austin commits to organizing a forum
addressing student privacy concerns consisting of a panel of
relevant administrators and community members;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the
University of Texas at Austin firmly calls upon UTPD to
preserve and uphold students' freedom of speech, assembly,
association, and privacy, the right to counsel and due
process in judicial proceedings, and protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures, even if requested to do
otherwise in accordance with new federal law, which infringes
upon such rights granted to federal or state law enforcement
agencies under powers assumed by the USA PATRIOT Act by
Executive Order;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Student Government of the
University of Texas at Austin calls upon the Austin City
Council to do everything in its power to protect and defend
the rights and liberties of University of Texas at Austin
students who reside within jurisdiction of the City of
Austin.
Next:
Associated Students of Mount Holyoke College
A Resolution Affirming Civil Rights and Liberties in Light of the USA
PATRIOT Act
WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College has a diverse student and
faculty body, including many students from outside the United
States, and many students with diverse cultural backgrounds
whose contributions to this community are vital to the
culture and civic character of Mount Holyoke College; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of civil rights and civil
liberties is a pillar of American society and is essential to
the well-being of any democracy, particularly during times of
conflict when such rights and liberties, especially those of
immigrants and ethnic minorities, may be threatened,
intentionally or unintentionally; and
WHEREAS the preservation of civil rights and liberties is
essential to the well-being of a democratic society; and
WHEREAS, The community of Mount Holyoke College denounces
terrorism, and acknowledges that federal, state and local
governments have a responsibility to protect
[[Page 2424]]
the public from terrorist attacks in a rational, deliberative
and lawful fashion to ensure that any new security measure
enhances public safety without impairing constitutional
rights or infringing upon civil liberties; and
WHEREAS, Mount Holyoke College as a private institution, is
also responsible to protect its community, including all
faculty, staff, and students, whether they be residents or
non-residents; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required
to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act;
Public Law 107-56) on October 26, 2001; and
WHEREAS, some provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and other
related federal orders and measures may pose a threat to the
civil rights and civil liberties of all students, staff and
faculty at Mount Holyoke College, including natural citizens
of the United States, and particularly, but not limited to,
those who are of Middle Eastern, Muslim or South Asian
descent; by:
a. Reducing judicial supervision of telephone and Internet
surveillance.
b. Expanding the government's power to conduct secret
searches without warrant.
c. Granting power to the Secretary of State to designate
domestic groups, including political and religious groups, as
``terrorist organizations''.
d. Granting power to the Attorney General to subject non-
citizens to indefinite detention or deportation even if they
have not committed a crime.
e. Granting the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
access to sensitive medical, mental health, financial and
educational records about individuals without having to show
evidence of a crime.
f. Granting the FBI the power to compel libraries and
bookstores to produce circulation or book purchase records of
their patrons, and forbidding disclosure that such records
have been requested and produced; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement and security measures that
undermine fundamental constitutional rights do irreparable
damage to the American institutions and values of equal
justice and freedom that the students staff and faculty of
Mount Holyoke College hold dear; and
WHEREAS, the Senate of the Associated Students of Mount
Holyoke College believes that there is not and need not be
conflict between security and the preservation of liberty,
and that students of Mount Holyoke College can maintain their
privacy and be both safe and free;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE OF THE ASSOCIATED STUDENTS OF
MOUNT HOLYOKE COLLEGE THAT the SGA Senate supports the
fundamental, constitutionally-protected civil rights and
civil liberties of all members of Mount Holyoke College; and
THAT the SGA Senate opposes those measures that infringe upon
such civil rights and liberties, or that single out
individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based
solely on their country of origin, religion, ethnicity or
immigration status; and THAT the SGA Senate urges all
students, staff, and faculty of Mount Holyoke College to
respect the civil rights and civil liberties of all members
of this community, regardless of citizenship or heritage; and
THAT the SGA Senate urges the Mount Holyoke College
Department of Public Safety and all other applicable
departments, except when required by law, to refrain from:
a. utilizing race, religion, ethnicity or national origin
as a factor in selecting which individuals to subject to
investigative activities except when seeking to apprehend a
specific suspect whose race, religion, ethnicity or national
origin is part of the description of the suspect,
b. participating in a joint search of the property or
residence, with any law enforcement agency absent the
assurance that simultaneous notice of the execution of a
search warrant to such member of Mount Holyoke College,
c. any practice of stopping drivers or pedestrians for the
purpose of scrutinizing their identification documents
without particularized suspicion of criminal activity, and
THAT the SGA Senate urges the Mount Holyoke College
Department of Public Safety not to subject any individual to
the custody of the South Hadley Police Department, who may be
placed in federal custody, to military detention, secret
detention, secret immigration proceedings, or detention
without access to counsel; and
THAT the SGA Senate urges the Mount Holyoke College
administration to provide notice to all individuals whose
education records have been obtained by law enforcement
agents pursuant to Section 507 of the USA PATRIOT Act
(Disclosure of Educational Records).
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the resolution passed by the United Council of Students at the
University of Wisconsin Madison.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
University of Wisconsin Student Resolution (2/19/2004)
MC1201-01: Resolution in Response to USA PATRIOT Act
Whereas the Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution states;
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall
issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized, and;
Whereas the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution states;
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or
otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the
land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual
service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person
be subject for the same offence to be put twice in jeopardy
of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation, (emphasis added), and;
Whereas Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution states;
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
(emphasis added), and;
Whereas the United Council of University of Wisconsin
Students Policy Platform in regards to Student/Civil/Legal
Rights states the following two points;
United Council opposes discrimination based on but not
limited to race, ethnicity, creed, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, religious belief or lack thereof, veteran
status, marital/familial/parental status, age, physical
appearance, disability, political affiliation, national
origin, income level or source, residency status, or
geographic disadvantage for any reason including but not
limited to educational opportunity, employment, housing,
physical or emotional well being, and social attitudes; and;
United Council supports the student campaign for the
statistical accounting and documentation of Racial Profiling
in the UW System, the state of Wisconsin, and the United
States of America;
Whereas the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism, USA PATRIOT, Act of 2001 (H.R. 3162, S. 1510) of
the title officially introduced: `To deter and punish
terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to
enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other
purposes' became Public Law No. 107-56 on October 26, 2001;
Whereas Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) was the only member of
the United States Senate to vote against this bill;
Whereas Laura Murphy, Director the American Civil Liberties
Union Washington National Office stated that, ``Included in
this bill are provisions that would allow for the
mistreatment of immigrants, the suppression of dissent and
the investigation and surveillance of wholly innocent
Americans;''
Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act overrides civil liberties such
as those encompassed within the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the United States Constitution;
Be it resolved that United Council appreciates the support
of Senator Russ Feingold for voting against the USA PATRIOT
Act;
Be it further resolved that United Council upholds Civil
Liberties such as those encompassed within the Fourth, Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
Be it finally resolved that United Council urges UW
institutions to both officially state that they will protect
students, citizens and non citizens alike, and their rights,
and inform students that they are entitled to legal advice
before cooperating with Federal law enforcement agencies.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, every day children across this country
learn about the role of their Government and how it is intended to
function. I have also collected a handful of textbooks used by children
from elementary school up through high school to see what they have to
say about the role of Government. In looking at these books, I notice
that each of them at different reading levels discuss the Government as
a whole, the importance of the Constitution as the foundation of our
Government, and the importance of checks and balances and separation of
powers. Each of these books, at whatever learning level or reading
level, teaches that
[[Page 2425]]
the Government does not have endless, unchecked powers over the people
it is intended to protect.
I started my presentation after cloture was invoked by reading the
Constitution of the United States. I wish to conclude for now by
reading a very brief portion of one of these books. It is entitled
``National Government, a Kids' Guide.'' ``Separation of Powers.''
The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution wanted to make
sure that the leaders of the government did not have too much
power. The writers spread the power among three separate
branches of government that work together to govern the
country. This is called separation of powers.
The executive branch is lead by the president of the United
States. This part of the government is responsible for making
sure the laws are carried out, or executed.
The legislative branch is made up of the people in the
Senate and the House of Representatives. Together, the Senate
and the House of Representatives are called the United States
Congress. The legislative branch makes the laws.
The third branch is the judicial branch, which is led by
the Supreme Court. The judges--called justices--of the
Supreme Court explain the laws and decide if any laws are not
fair.
Each branch of the government has its own job to do, but
the three branches have to work together. The people who
wrote the Constitution were very careful to make sure that
each branch of the government could check up on the others. A
system called checks and balances keeps different parts of
the government from having too much power.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be
recognized at 12:30 p.m. today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I yield the floor.
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. KYL. 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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to
speak until 12:30, with the time to be charged to the Republican side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the hour has almost arrived. I understand
that in a little less than 3 hours, we will finally be voting for the
final time on the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. This is critical
for the defense of our country, the security of our Nation.
I am pleased we have the opportunity now to approve it, and I predict
it will be approved overwhelmingly. The question is, What took us so
long? We could have done this at least 2 weeks ago. Indeed, we could
have done it 2 months ago. Such is the process in the Senate that
sometimes the wheels grind slowly.
The problem is the war on terror. Our enemy does not treat the war
necessarily the same way some people in this country do. They are very
flexible. They are very agile. They do not tell us what they are going
to do in advance. Sometimes they are very patient and wait a long time
to strike, and when they do strike, it can be with great speed and
lethalness, which means that our ability to fight the terrorists has to
be equally agile.
Good intelligence has a short shelf life. Yet that is basically our
main weapon in the war on terror. This is not a war we fight with
planes, tanks, and ships, but with good intelligence to find out where
the terrorists are, who they are, what they are up to, and, if we can,
find out whether we are able to stop their terrorist attacks before
they occur. That takes good intelligence. It takes agility to be able
to get that intelligence, cooperate among the various law enforcement
and intelligence agencies.
Before September 11, several of us had provisions of law we believed
were important to amend in our statutes to provide tools to fight
terrorists. Little did we know how important those would soon become.
Senator Feinstein and I have been ranking member and chairman of the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security for many
years, since I came to the Senate. We held a lot of hearings on the
subject. We had a lot of ideas about what we wanted to propose.
Shortly after September 11, a lot of these things made their way into
the PATRIOT Act which we were able to approve. Some Members said the
PATRIOT Act was approved hastily. Actually, a lot of the ideas of the
PATRIOT Act had been around for some time, had a lot of debate and
hearings, but there did not seem to be a reason to get them passed;
that is, until September 11, and then, indeed, we did act quickly. But
I submit there is a difference between acting hastily and acting
quickly.
Nevertheless, some of the provisions were sunsetted. Regarding things
we did then and some subsequent amendments to statute, we wanted to
take another look down the road to make sure we did not act too
hastily. Our action today will make it clear that by reauthorizing
these provisions, we intended them to be in effect. We know the
terrorists have not stopped their war on terror, and therefore we dare
not stop the tools to fight terrorism, many of which are embodied in
the PATRIOT Act. So it is important to reauthorize these provisions and
not have them expire or sunset.
There is a certain amount of pride of authorship I confess to since a
lot of the provisions we are reauthorizing today are provisions which I
wrote or helped to write in coauthorship with some of my colleagues.
Let me mention some of these because these are important, one of which
has been known as or has come to be known as the Moussaoui fix, which
is named after Zacarias Moussaoui, sometimes referred to as the 20th
hijacker. In the 108th Congress, Senator Schumer and I introduced the
Moussaoui fix, which allows the FBI to obtain FISA warrants to monitor
and search suspected lone wolf terrorists such as Zacarias Moussaoui.
Now, lone wolf terrorists exist because in today's world, you do not
get a little card that says: I am a proud member of al-Qaida. It is a
very loose-knit organization. Some have likened it to a franchise where
all over the world there are little bands of people--cells--who would
do harm to the West generally and the United States in particular and
who share the same goals and ideals of al-Qaida, frequently have
communication with members of al-Qaida, train in the same way, and
conduct the same kinds of terrorist activities, sometimes in
consultation or concert with al-Qaida. But it is not like a club, it is
not like you are a member of the KGB of the Soviet Union, which is what
the threat was when we wrote the FISA act.
Because the FISA act refers to foreign intelligence organizations or
terrorist organizations, we found that with people such as Zacarias
Moussaoui, who we could not prove was a card-carrying member of any
particular terrorist group but we figured he was a terrorist and up to
no good, we did not have an ability under FISA to seize and search his
computers even though we had the ability to arrest him. This was 2
weeks before September 11. Had we been able to get into the computer,
we might well have discovered the information we later found that could
have pointed us in the direction of an attack on September 11.
Well, that is what the object of the Zacarias Moussaoui fix was: to
enable us to add the lone wolf terrorist to the other situations in
which a FISA warrant could be obtained. And it filled a gap in our laws
that, as I said, might well have uncovered the September 11 conspiracy
had it been in place at the time.
It was reported out of a unanimous Judiciary Committee and passed out
of the Senate 90 to 4 in 2003. In 2004, it was added to the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, with the general
PATRIOT Act sunset applied to it. Like the other PATRIOT provisions,
the Moussaoui fix was set to expire at the end of last year. Today, we
will extend the sunset on that critical provision of law for another 4
years.
Another was the material support enhancements. In 2004, I introduced
a bill that, among other things, clarified and
[[Page 2426]]
expanded the statute prohibiting the giving of material support to a
designated foreign terrorist organization. These changes helped address
perceived ambiguities in the law that had led the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals to strike down parts of it as unconstitutionally vague. The
changes also expanded the law to bar giving any type of material aid
whatsoever--including providing one's self--to a terrorist group.
This legislative proposal also was enacted into law later that year
as part of the intelligence reform bill, and also was subjected to a
sunset. Again, today, with the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference
report, we repeal that sunset. We make the 2004 material support
enhancements permanent features of our law, as they should be.
Another part of the original PATRIOT Act I helped author was the so-
called pen registers and trap-and-trace authority. Now, the authority
for pen registers and trap and trace is critical for antiterror
investigations. It has been around for years in connection with other
kinds of investigations, and it obviously was an important tool to
fight terrorism.
What these authorities do is allow investigators to discover what
telephone numbers are being dialed into and out of a suspect's
telephone. As I said, they already had this authority in connection
with other kinds of crimes. It certainly made sense to have it track
terrorists. An important feature here was to get one court order from a
judge in one place and not have to hop all around the country wherever
the telephone was used and get a separate court order in that State.
That requirement made it totally useless.
So this one court warrant for trap and trace and pen registers was
enacted. I am very glad to see the conference report repeals the sunset
on this authority--in other words, the automatic ending of the
authority--and makes permanent for antiterror investigations this pen
register and trap-and-trace authority, another critical tool to fight
terrorism.
For the past 2 years, I have also been a cosponsor of legislation
that my colleague, Senator Feinstein, helped to coauthor on seaport
security and mass transportation security. This is especially
interesting in view of the debate and concern right now about seaport
security with which we are all familiar. This particular legislation
increases the penalties for and, by the way, also the scope of the
criminal offenses for attacks on seaports and shipping. It also
consolidates and updates the laws with regard to attacks on railroads
and other mass transportation facilities.
Now, these proposals also had been amended into the intelligence
reform bill in 2004 by the House of Representatives but have been
dropped in conference. Today these important provisions, which I helped
to coauthor, are enacted into law through the conference report of the
PATRIOT Act.
There is another rather interesting, rather esoteric--one of the
things lawyers debate about--but an interesting and important provision
of the PATRIOT Act we are going to be dealing with today. When the
final draft of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization was introduced in the
Judiciary Committee the night before the committee acted on it, for the
first time a proposed three-part test was inserted into the bill--a
test for determining whether a section 215 order is relevant to a
terrorism investigation. There has been a lot of debate about these
section 215 orders, but these are critical to obtain records that might
help in the investigation of a potential terrorist.
Several of us expressed reservations about this three-part test and
whether it would impede the use of these section 215 warrants and
impede important investigations and thought it required further study.
Well, during the next weeks and months, we became persuaded
essentially that this three-part test would simply either make
impossible or certainly delay needed investigations and, therefore,
should not be enacted. It raised more questions than it answered,
complicated this investigative tool that was being used, after all, at
the very preliminary stages of an investigation--not the stage at which
you ought to be proving probable cause to introduce evidence into the
trial.
Well, the test remains in the conference report, but with changed
language. I think it is much better in its current form. The form of
the test remains in the conference report, but investigators are no
longer required to use that test. Instead, they are simply permitted to
use that test to obtain a presumption that a 215 order is relevant to a
terror investigation, which is fine.
Usually, when we create a legal presumption that a standard has been
met, it is easier to satisfy the presumption than it is to satisfy the
underlying legal test. I do not believe that is the case here.
Relevance is a simple and well established standard of law. Indeed, it
is the standard for obtaining every other kind of subpoena, including
administrative subpoenas, grand jury subpoenas, and civil discovery
orders.
So I cannot imagine that investigators will ever bother using the
complicated three-part test in order to get a presumption when they can
simply plead relevance and that will suffice for their investigation. I
might be wrong, and they might find this test useful. It is there
should they decide they can use it. But I am pleased to see the
conference report is not impeding investigations by mandating the use
of that test.
We are not betting important antiterror investigations on the issue,
I guess, is another way to say it. I think it would have been clearer
just to eliminate the test, but it does not--other than, in my view,
cluttering up section 215 of the PATRIOT Act because it is not
mandatory, I do not think it is going to cause any harm. Investigators
are not going to be impeded in their investigations because of it. I
think that is an important change we made.
The conference report also does something that is important for
States, like my own State of Arizona, that have attempted to improve
the ability to prosecute and defend against certain kinds of serious
crimes. In the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act,
Congress made an offer to the States in effect saying: If you will
provide qualified counsel, lawyers, in capital cases to the defendants
in those cases during the stage of the case after conviction but during
appeal--it is the so-called postconviction review stage of litigation--
then the Federal Government would apply a streamlined and expedited
procedure to review the habeas corpus petitions that are normally filed
during that period of time from the conviction in the State court.
The Federal courts would be required to abide by timelines in ruling
on these cases, and they would be barred from staying Federal petitions
to allow further exhaustion or broadly exempting claims from procedural
default requirements on the grounds of the perceived inadequacy or lack
of independence of the State's procedural rules. The bottom line is
that if the defendants are represented by good counsel, by good
lawyers, then they should be able to comply with the provisions of the
law and not plead, in effect, they have to delay the law as they are
having their appeals reviewed.
Arizona did its part to comply with this statute. It enacted a system
to provide qualified counsel to capital defendants on State
postconviction review. It spent a lot of money doing it. But to date,
it has not received the benefits of the system. It is because the
decision about whether a State is entitled to the benefits of this
chapter 154 relief--including the time deadlines--is made by the same
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that would be bound by those deadlines.
And it has repeatedly refused to extend to Arizona the benefits of the
1996 law's special habeas chapter. By the way, it has also been very
slow in many of these cases, and that has been a real problem.
The good thing about today's conference report is that it includes a
provision that would shift the decision of whether a State is eligible
for this expedited review of capital cases away from the regional
courts of appeals to the U.S. Attorney General, with a review of his
decision in the U.S. Circuit
[[Page 2427]]
Court for the District of Columbia. That court hears no habeas cases;
therefore, it has no conflict of interest as the other circuit courts
would. This will allow the Federal Government to keep its end of the
bargain that it made with the States back in 1996 and will allow States
like Arizona to finally take advantage of the streamlined and expedited
procedures to which it is entitled.
I will conclude in this fashion. I think that by what I have just
said it is clear there are a variety of important provisions in this
conference report, this PATRIOT law we are reauthorizing. In some cases
we are saying this is now going to be permanent law. We do not need to
come back and reauthorize it every 4 years. In other cases, we are
saying there are important provisions of other laws that need to be put
in the PATRIOT Act and made permanent law. And we have done that. In
other cases, as I mentioned, we wrote particular provisions into the
PATRIOT Act, and it is important that we reauthorize those provisions.
And there were other provisions, in addition to pen registers and trap
and trace that I mentioned before, as well as the material support,
which were parts of the original act.
We established several crimes as part of the PATRIOT Act that would
serve as predicate crimes for further investigation, and these were
very important because in the early stages of an investigation into a
terrorist you may not have all of the scope of the activity of this
individual well in mind. You may know he has been guilty of what you
think of one particular crime, but you need to be able to use that as a
predicate to expand your investigation into other things he may have
done.
So, for example, we establish that violations of the Federal
terrorism statutes could serve as a predicate offense allowing the
Department of Justice to apply to courts for authorization to intercept
wire or oral communications pursuant to title III when investigating
such offenses. We establish that the felony violations of the Federal
computer crimes statutes, the so-called hacking statutes, might serve
as a predicate offense, allowing the Department of Justice to apply to
courts for authorization to intercept wire or oral communications
pursuant to title III when investigating such offenses.
We provide for the detention, for up to 7 days, of aliens the
Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe were engaged in
conduct that threatened the security of the United States or aliens who
are inadmissible; that is to say, they are not supposed to be coming
into the United States or are deportable from the United States on the
grounds of terrorism, espionage, sabotage, or sedition.
There are a variety of other provisions that are included in the
PATRIOT Act. The key thing to remember here is, as I said before, our
law enforcement and intelligence officials need to have adequate tools
to fight terrorism because we provide those tools when we send the
military into harm's way. We have an obligation to do that. And they
fight important fronts in the war on terror. But so much of this war on
terror relates to intelligence gathering and law enforcement activity,
investigating potential crimes of these individuals. We have to give
them the tools they need to fight these terrorists.
The PATRIOT Act does that. It is one of our tools. The FISA law is
another one of those tools, the Surveillance Act. The Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act is what FISA stands for. We have
activities such as the NSA surveillance that is another important tool
that deals with al-Qaida terrorists who are calling into or out of a
foreign country. There are other mechanisms we are using to fight the
terrorists.
But one of the bedrock laws now that we use is the PATRIOT Act. That
law passed not long after 9/11 because we understood this world had
changed and that it was time to apply to terrorism many of the same
kinds of techniques in law enforcement authorities that we already
deemed very useful in investigating other kinds of crimes. Our idea
was, if it is good enough to investigate money laundering or drug
dealing, for example, we sure ought to use those same kinds of
techniques to fight terrorists. We have done that.
Today, actually, is a very important day because many of the
provisions of the PATRIOT Act go into permanent law. Others are
reauthorized for 4 more years. They provide critical support to the
people we want to protect us in this war on terror. I am delighted we
will be adopting the PATRIOT Act conference report today. My only
regret, as I said, is we could not have done it before now. But we can
at least celebrate the fact that the Senate has done its duty for the
American people to help make them secure in the future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). The majority leader is
recognized.
Appointment of Pension Conferees
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, this morning the minority leader came to
the floor to once again call into question our good faith efforts on
the pensions bill. He now claims our longstanding offer of a 7-5 ratio
on the conference committee ``looks suspicious.'' I can't help but feel
that what is beginning to look suspicious is this continuing pattern of
obstruction on ground that seems to be ever shifting.
We originally considered proposing a 5-3 ratio but, to accommodate
his caucus, we ultimately offered a 7-5 ratio. After a 2-month delay,
this was rejected. The Democratic leader was unable to make a decision
among members of his caucus. I understand those challenges, but that is
what leadership is all about. Now he wishes to further delay with an
arbitrary dispute over the ratio of conferees and this new, equally
disingenuous charge of ``fixing the jury,'' which is absurd.
As the minority leader well knows, I have been working for years to
fix the pensions problem. The American people deserve it. People don't
understand why these games are being played.
The clock is ticking. People's lives are at stake. The first quarter
of the physical year ends on March 31, 31 days from now. Within 2 weeks
of that happening, companies have to make contributions to their
pension plans. The pensions of millions of hard-working Americans are
at stake. That is why these games don't make sense.
We have two committees with an equal stake in this bill. They should
have an equal number of conferees on the committee. The conference
committee should fairly represent the two committees of jurisdiction.
The minority leader knows his proposals won't allow for that. I am for
a fair conference but, equally importantly, I am for getting to
conference so that we can address these challenges. The American people
are waiting.
I know the Democratic leader says he wants to move forward as well.
But remember, we passed this bill in November of last year, and we are
still trying to do something very simple; that is, to get to conference
so that we can pass the legislation.
I am baffled by the minority leader's inability to decide which five
Senators from his caucus could join with our seven Senators so that we
can appoint a conference and do the Nation's business. I am equally
confused about why, in refusing to make that decision, he instead feels
that he should decide on his own, unilaterally, the ratio of conferees
with no regard for treating the two committees of jurisdiction fairly.
If anyone is trying to fix the jury, it appears to be the minority
leader by having one committee with more representatives than the
other. We go back and forth every day, and that clock is ticking.
The airline provisions of the bill are necessary to keep additional
pension obligations from being terminated and left at the doorstep of
the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. As Chairman Grassley has
suggested, in remarks that I will include in the Record, if we cannot
make some progress shortly, we may need to look at pulling these
provisions out and moving them on some other vehicle. That should not
be necessary, but continued obstruction would leave us with no other
choice. We are simply running out of time.
I plead with the Democratic leader to put forth his five. We have
been ready for the last 2 months to put forth our
[[Page 2428]]
7 so we can get to conference and provide answers and a resolution to
what millions of Americans are waiting for.
I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the above-referenced
document.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From Dow Jones Newswires]
U.S. Senator Grassley: Senator Reid Undermining Pension Talks
(By Rob Wells and John Godfrey)
Washington (Dow Jones).--A top U.S. Senate Republican on
Thursday accused Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, of
undermining talks for a final pension overhaul bill, thereby
helping the bill's critics.
``It's playing right into the hands of Ford (F) and General
Motors (GM), because they negotiated benefits, both health
and savings, they can't keep their promise to,'' said Senate
Finance Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, at the National
Summit on Retirement Savings, an industry and government
seminar.
He said these companies ``don't want these reforms because
they're going to have to pay up'' through higher pension
contributions.
The bill would change pension funding rules and increase
premiums paid by companies to the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation. The measure has divided business and labor
groups, many of whom argue that it would be too strict.
The Senate has been attempting to name negotiators since
December to a House and Senate conference to write a final
pension overhaul bill.
Grassley accused Reid of delaying final pension talks by
not formally naming Democratic negotiators. Part of the
delay, however, stemmed from internal Republican
disagreements over who would lead negotiations.
Reid and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., have
been in a standoff over the number of Democrats who will be
part of the talks.
Grassley, departing from his prepared remarks, sharply
criticized Reid for the delay. ``They're being held up
because one person in U.S. Senate can't make up his mind
which two or three Democrats ought to be on a conference
committee,'' Grassley said.
If Congress fails to act on the pension bill, companies
will have to begin using the relatively pessimistic benchmark
of the 30-year Treasury bond in pension calculations. The 30-
year bond rate would begin to apply after April 15, although
higher payments wouldn't occur until January 2007. Currently
companies are using a blend of corporate bond rates in such
calculations.
The airline industry also has a major stake in the bill
since the Senate version would give a special break from
pension funding rules for underfunded airline pension plans.
Grassley and other bill advocates say it's vital Congress
completes work on the bill by the April 15 deadline.
Without action by then, ``it's putting into jeopardy
airlines being able to fly'' Grassley said, which would
``ruin the economy if we don't get something done.''
Further delays may force negotiators to move pieces of the
bill, such as the airline provision, in separate tax
legislation to meet the April 15 deadline, he said.
A telephone call to Reid's office wasn't immediately
returned.
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. DeMINT. 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. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes as in
morning business and that this time be counted against the Republican
time in the debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Port Security
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have had a chance to listen to the
debate on the PATRIOT Act in my office. I had not planned to speak. But
hearing continued attacks on the President on security issues,
particularly port security, while some from the other side seem intent
on stopping one of the most important security pieces of legislation we
have, the PATRIOT Act, compelled me to come to the floor to straighten
out the facts.
It is important that we have an honest and fair debate. I appreciate
those on the other side who have participated in the debate in an
honest way. But I have heard enough of my colleagues from the other
side use information and perhaps take different positions than they did
only a year or so ago. I am compelled to point some of these things
out.
I will give one example. This week in a Commerce Committee hearing,
we were talking about port security. Senator Boxer said:
Our ports are a soft target. Al Qaida told us that when we
found that out through [their] documents. . . . . So you take
the Dubai situation plus our lack of action on security. . .
. . And I'm going to oppose this deal.
That is fair enough unless we put it in perspective. This week,
Senator Boxer actually voted to filibuster the PATRIOT Act, which is
dedicated in large part to security in our ports. An entire title of
the PATRIOT Act is focused on port security. Originally introduced as
the bipartisan Reducing Crime and Terrorism in America's Seaports Act
of 2005, title III strengthens criminal sanctions and takes a number of
steps to improve our Nation's ability to secure our ports and to thwart
terrorism. Yet Senator Boxer voted to filibuster the enactment of this
essential port security provision the day after lamenting the
vulnerability of American ports.
The truth is, to anyone who has watched this over time, very often
our Democratic colleagues, with all due respect, block the very thing
they blame Republicans for--in this case, blaming the President. Not
only did Senator Boxer vote to filibuster the PATRIOT Act, but after
the 9/11 attacks, Senator Boxer was one of four Democratic cosponsors
of a bill that would have specifically permitted noncitizens to serve
as airport security screeners. Senator Boxer cosponsored legislation to
allow noncitizens to do for air travel what essentially the Coast Guard
does for port security. Now she wants to block foreign companies from
using American workers to manage our port terminals. It is difficult to
reconcile the two positions.
Republicans want a fair and nonpartisan 45-day security review and a
good but honest debate. It is not fair or honest to take a position
this week that was very different than one that had been taken before.
To Republicans, port security is not a passing political issue but a
cornerstone of our commitment to protect the American people. That is
why Republicans are working to pass the PATRIOT Act. We demand a fair
and impartial 45-day security review of the proposed acquisition of the
P&O Navigation Company of Britain by the Dubai Ports World.
I don't mean to be unfair to Senator Boxer, but it is an example of
folks maybe taking a different position, trying to blame the President
for something, in fact, that they have blocked in the past.
This is from an editorial in the Los Angeles Times, February 26:
. . . Now there is a Republican in the White House, and of
all the grandstanding surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal,
none tops Boxer's performance. She said last week that she
would support legislation preventing any foreign firm, state-
owned or not, from buying port operations. Memo to Boxer: 13
of the 14 container terminals at the ports of [Los Angeles]
and Long Beach, the biggest port complex in the United
States, are run by foreign-owned companies. She later told
The Times that she meant such deals should get greater
scrutiny, not be banned. Still, this is the sort of proposal
one would expect from a Senator from a landlocked state like
Vermont, not one where international trade plays a vital role
in the economy.
The article goes on to talk about the 180-degree switch of opinions.
Again, I don't mean to pick on one Senator. My plea to the other side,
and my side as well, as we look at this vital issue of security in our
country, don't look for political opportunities to blame one side for
something we actually created ourselves. On the security issue, there
is no better example of colleagues who have blocked security in many
ways and now are attempting to suggest the President is not strong on
security. President George Bush is the world leader in the war on
terror and has probably done more to secure the borders of our homeland
than any President or any Member of Congress. It is time we give him
that respect.
Mr. President, I thank you for the time, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate passed a bill
negotiated by
[[Page 2429]]
the junior Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, to strengthen civil
liberties protections in the PATRIOT Act. In light of the improvements
contained in the Sununu bill, I will now vote in favor of the pending
conference report.
As I have emphasized many times, Democrats support the basic
authorities contained in the PATRIOT Act. We voted for the original act
in 2001. We unanimously supported the reauthorization bill that passed
the Senate last summer. In recent months, we have been vigilant to
ensure that no provision of the act would expire during ongoing
negotiations over a long-term extension of the law. But our support for
the PATRIOT Act doesn't mean a blank check for the President.
Last December, a bipartisan group of Senators joined together to
insist that the reauthorization bill which had been returned from the
House-Senate conference be improved. We defeated that conference
report, we did it purposefully, and it was done on a bipartisan basis.
I note that some of my ``admirers''--I use that caustically--have run
ads in the State of Nevada trying to embarrass me, saying that I and
the Democrats are not for the PATRIOT Act. That was raw politics at its
worst. What we tried to do, on a bipartisan basis, was to have a better
conference report. That is what is happening. Some would say it has not
been improved enough. I could argue that, but it has been improved.
Republicans and Democrats declared back then that Congress can
provide the Government with the powers it needs to protect Americans
and, at the same time, ensure sufficient checks and oversight to
prevent abuses of these powers. Security and liberty are neither
contradictory nor mutually exclusive.
Our insistence that the PATRIOT Act be improved has borne fruit. We
stood up to the White House to demand a more balanced approach to
antiterror tactics, and we have succeeded. Some say we didn't improve
it enough, but there is no question that we improved it. Thanks to the
courageous stand of Senator Sununu and a handful of other Republicans,
along with the longstanding efforts of Chairman Specter, Senator Leahy,
and other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, the Senate will soon
pass a stronger, better PATRIOT Act.
The current bill is far from perfect. It falls short of the
unanimously supported Senate bill we passed last summer. I would have
preferred additional improvements in the conference report, but the
version of the PATRIOT Act we will soon reauthorize is a vast
improvement over the law we passed hastily in 2001.
For example, under the original PATRIOT Act, people who received a
Government request for business records under section 215 were barred
from discussing the request with anyone--their wives, sons, daughters,
business partners--no one. But now, for the first time, recipients of
such a gag order will be able to challenge it before a judge.
In addition, the new bill will restrict Government access to library
records. The bill makes it clear that libraries operating in the
traditional role, including providing Internet access, are not subject
to national security letters.
Finally, under the Sununu bill we passed yesterday, individuals or
businesses that receive a national security letter will not be required
to tell the FBI the identity of a lawyer they may consult to obtain
advice or assistance. It seems so obvious that it is the right thing to
do, but we had to fight for that.
Even before the Sununu improvements, the conference report included a
number of crucial provisions to ensure congressional and public
oversight of the Government's expansive powers under the PATRIOT Act.
We insisted that the House accept 4-year sunsets instead of 7-year
sunsets on the most controversial provisions of the act. In the
original bill, we set sunsets. It is so important, as we look back and
recognize why we did that. It is so important that we did that. Because
of that, we were forced to improve this legislation. I again say that
maybe it is not to the satisfaction of some, but it is certainly
improved.
The conference report also requires extensive congressional public
reporting and mandates audits by an independent inspector general. That
wasn't there before.
I will continue to work for additional improvements in the act.
I wish to say at this time that Senator Russ Feingold is a person for
whom I have great admiration. We are so fortunate that he is a Senator.
Academically, no one in the Senate has a record that is superior to
his. He is a Rhodes scholar, someone who stands for principle. I
disagree with him on this legislation. I can support this legislation
not going with all of the improvements that he, as a matter of
principle, has caused the Senate to review.
I believe it is unfortunate that this good man, the Senator from
Wisconsin, was not able to offer even two amendments. We asked the
majority leader: How about two amendments? Don't fill the tree. He will
take 15 minutes on each amendment. We were turned down. That is why I
voted against cloture yesterday. That is a bad way, in my opinion, to
run this Senate.
So I want the record to be spread with my words that Russ Feingold is
a fine lawyer. I congratulate and applaud him for his work on this
issue and other issues.
I will continue to work with him to seek additional improvements to
the act. For example, I know he worked hard on an issue that is so
important. Let's go back to the Senate-passed version of section 215,
under which a Government request for medical records and other
sensitive personal information must have a more direct connection to a
suspected terrorist or spy.
Second, I remain extremely concerned about the lack of meaningful
checks on Government overuse or abuse of national security letters. The
Washington Post reported last November that the FBI issues more than
30,000 such letters in a year, with no judicial supervision. So we need
more oversight of the Government's power to issue these secret
subpoenas--30,000 of them. How many is that a day? How many is that a
week? How many is that a month? It is unfortunate that we were unable
to get ahold of this and change this.
Third, I still don't believe it was appropriate to include in the
conference report sections not included in either the House or Senate
bills limiting the right of habeas corpus in cases having nothing to do
with terrorism. I will oppose any further weakening of the great writ.
There is a hue and cry out there that we have to do something about
earmarks. What they always talk about are appropriations earmarks,
which include a fraction of a percentage of the spending of this
Government.
I do not back away or apologize for the earmarks I have placed in
appropriations bills. I have a responsibility. I know better than some
bureaucrat in Washington, DC, how the Forest Service should spend its
money on the forests in Nevada. I know better than some bureaucrat from
the Bureau of Land Management how money should be spent in Nevada. And
80 percent of the Federal lands controlled by the Bureau of Land
Management are in Nevada. I know better than some bureaucrat in
Washington, DC, how the money should be spent on roads and highways and
bridges and dams in my State.
I believe in the Constitution. I believe the Constitution sets forth
three separate but equal branches of Government, and by our folding on
this earmark procedure and not doing our jobs, we are caving in and not
following the Constitution. There are ways we can improve the way
earmarks are placed on bills, and I am happy to work on that. I have
worked with the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations
Committee and his staff to make sure this earmarking legislation that
will be on the floor is not going to hurt what this body does. But my
point is that earmarking is more than the Appropriations Committee. Is
this an earmark that they stick in a conference report, where it is not
in the
[[Page 2430]]
House or Senate bill, that changes one of the basic rights Americans
have guaranteed by our Constitution--a writ of habeas corpus? Yes. It
is wrong. So if you want something about earmarks, let's not just focus
on the Appropriations Committee.
I have talked about the flaws, and I am satisfied, in spite of them,
that the conference report, as improved by Senator Sununu, is a step in
the right direction and certainly better than the original PATRIOT Act.
Let me say a word about the relationship between the current debate
on the PATRIOT Act and the continuing controversy over unlawful
eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. On the same day we voted
on the PATRIOT Act conference report last December, when the conference
report wasn't allowed to go forward, the New York Times reported that
the President had authorized a secret program to eavesdrop on American
citizens without warrants required by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. That story had a clear impact on the vote that day,
as it well should have. There was some question why we were even having
this protracted debate over the PATRIOT Act, since the President seemed
to believe he was free to ignore the laws we enact anyway. But, in
fact, no one is above the law--not even the President of the United
States. One lesson of the NSA spying scandal is that Congress must
stand up to the President and must insist on additional checks on the
powers exercised by the executive branch. That is what we are doing
today with this PATRIOT Act.
In addition to what we have here with the PATRIOT Act and NSA spying,
now we have this Dubai port security, I think, scandal, on which the
final decision was made by the Secretary of the Treasury, not the
Secretary of Homeland Security. Whenever this administration is faced
with a decision that affects the business community or the national
security, the homeland security of this country, they always go with
business.
Why wasn't the Secretary of Homeland Security the one who signed off
on that? These companies control the perimeters of these facilities;
they decide who does the background checks. The debate over the PATRIOT
Act and over NSA wiretapping and the Dubai port situation is all about
checks and balances. That is what this is about. They go to the heart
of our system of separation of powers.
Today, we give the Government the tools it needs to help protect our
national security, while placing sensible checks on the arbitrary
exercise of Executive power.
So today, when this bill passes, I hope everybody will understand
that I am saying that I am voting for this conference report because I
think it improves the original PATRIOT Act, not because it is perfect.
It is far from perfect.
I hope this administration--even though the President is in faraway
India--gets the word that what is going on in this country with what I
believe are constitutional violations is inappropriate. We need to get
back to doing what is right for this country, following the
Constitution and reestablishing the legislative branch of Government as
a separate and equal branch of Government.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how long am I recognized for?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Vitter). The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized for up to 35 minutes.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Byrd pertaining to the introduction of S. 2362
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
prescribed PSE
Mr. TALENT. Mr. President, I rise today to engage the distinguished
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, in a colloquy
regarding the intent of the Combat Methamphetamine Act of 2005.
Section 701 of the PATRIOT Act of 2005 establishes restrictions on
the sales of precursor chemicals used to manufacture methamphetamine.
As you know, the methamphetamine abuse and trafficking problem is
growing in our country, and this legislation will help to combat the
epidemic.
The methamphetamine control provisions of the act are intended to
address those precursor chemicals sold without a prescription.
I know that Chairman Specter and I agree that exempting
pseudoephedrine products provided via a legitimate prescription is
critical. Physicians and other health care providers sometimes
prescribe pseudoephedrine products in amounts that could violate the
daily and monthly limits included in this legislation.
Patients who need more pseudoeph-
edrine than the law would allow need the option of getting
pseudoephedrine under a prescription, and Senator Specter and I agree
that the methamphetamine provisions should not impede the care of
legitimate patients. Our new requirements focus on products purchased
outside the current prescription process. We are seeking to stop the
bad actors from manufacturing and trafficking methamphetamine and have
no desire to prevent proper patient care. Many States that have enacted
laws to combat the methamphetamine epidemic have also included this
type of exemption. It just makes sense.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from Missouri
that physicians should not be forced to change what are common and
appropriate prescribing patterns in an effort to stop the manufacturing
and trafficking of methamphetamine.
The Senator from Missouri is correct. The Combat Methamphetamine Act
provisions in the PATRIOT Act are intended to address over-the-counter
sales, not pseudoephedrine products provided under a valid
prescription. It is my expectation that these new restrictions apply
only to pseudoeph-
edrine products provided to consumers without a prescription.
Mr. TALENT. I thank the distinguished chairman for this
clarification.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the course of this week, the Senate
has had a series of votes on the PATRIOT Act conference report as well
as on a bill amending the conference report introduced by Senators
Sununu, Craig, Murkowski, and Hagel.
Last December, I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization conference report. I did not cast that vote because I
oppose reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I supported the PATRIOT Act then
just as I do now. I voted against cloture on the conference report
because I believed that it did not adequately protect our civil rights
and liberties. Supporters of the conference report believed that you
had to choose between two extremes: taking a tough stand on terror and
protecting our fundamental constitutional rights. I thought you could
accomplish both at the same time.
On February 28, 2006, I voted against cloture on the Sununu
compromise bill, S. 2271, vote No. 22, because of procedural measures
taken by the majority to prevent Senator Feingold--or any other
Senator--from offering amendments. Senator Feingold's four proposed
amendments would have improved the Sununu compromise and addressed more
of the concerns I had with the conference report. They would have, No.
1, ensured that section 215 orders to produce sensitive library,
medical, and other business records would be limited to individuals who
had some connection to terrorism; No. 2, ensured that judicial review
of section 215 gag orders and National Security Letter, NSL, gag orders
is meaningful; No. 3, sunsetted the NSL authorities after 4 years; and
No. 4, required notification of sneak-and-peek search warrants within 7
days of the search rather than within 30 days. I believe that each of
these amendments would have improved both the Sununu compromise bill
and the conference report. Regardless of whether my colleagues agree
with me on that, I believe the Senate should have been given the
opportunity to vote on them.
On March 1, 2006, the Senate conducted a series of votes, both
procedural and substantive on the Sununu compromise bill and the
PATRIOT Act conference report. I voted to support
[[Page 2431]]
the Sununu compromise. I also voted to proceed to the motion to
reconsider the conference report, to proceed to the conference report,
and to invoke cloture on the conference report because, in my view, the
Sununu compromise and the conference report come as a package deal. I
support the two taken together, and for that reason, I also voted for
the conference report today.
I support the Sununu compromise bill because it makes some important
improvements to the PATRIOT Act. First, it allows judicial review of a
section 215 nondisclosure order 1 year after its receipt. Section 215
of the PATRIOT Act allows the Government to obtain business records,
including library, medical, and gun records among other things. Under
the conference report, recipients of these section 215 orders were
subject to an automatic permanent nondisclosure order which would have
prevented them from bringing any court challenge. Under the compromise,
a section 215 nondisclosure order is now subject to judicial review.
Second, the conference report would have required recipients of
National Security Letters, NSL, to identify their attorneys to the FBI.
NSLs allow the Government to obtain, without a warrant, subscriber
records and other data from telephone companies and Internet providers.
The compromise removes that requirement so that recipients of NSL
orders can seek legal advice without having to inform the FBI.
Third, the compromise clarifies that the Government cannot issue NSLs
to libraries unless the libraries provide ``electronic communications
services'' as defined by the statute. Thus, libraries functioning in
their traditional roles, including providing Internet access, are not
covered.
Even though this legislation does not address all of my concerns with
the conference report, these compromise provisions are steps in the
right direction and will be important components of the PATRIOT Act.
I am proud to support this legislative package and am pleased we have
reauthorized and improved the PATRIOT Act. I believe there is still
more work to be done and will work with my colleagues; such as Senator
Feingold and Senator Specter, on further improvements. For example, in
a perfect world the PATRIOT Act would provide for more meaningful
judicial review of section 215 gag orders as well as NSL gag orders.
There is no reason to have a conclusive presumption against
recipients--one that can only be overcome by a showing of Government
bad faith. Nor is there any reason to prohibit judicial review of those
gag orders until a full year has passed. They should be immediately
reviewable, and, if there are any presumptions, they should be in favor
of the privacy rights being invaded rather than the Government doing
the invading.
In a perfect world, the Patriot Act would require the subjects of
section 215 business record disclosures to have some link to suspected
terrorists. As I mentioned earlier, section 215 is expansive, and it
allows the Government to obtain very sensitive, personal records.
Simply requiring those records to be relevant to an authorized
intelligence investigation, as the conference report does, is simply
not enough. This standard will not prevent Government fishing
expeditions.
And, in a perfect world, the PATRIOT Act would have required the
Government to notify victims of sneak-and-peek searches--unannounced
and secret entries into the homes of Americans--within 7 days as the
original Senate bill did. The 30- to 60-day timeframe is simply too
long. People have a right to know when the Government has been in their
house, searching through their things.
Thus, I understand why some of my colleagues are disappointed with
the compromise. They say that it does not go as far as the original
Senate bill which was passed by unanimous consent, and they are right.
But the fact is that the compromise does improve the original
conference report. I believe the compromise was the product of good
faith negotiations. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a step in the
right direction. And I will continue to work with my colleagues so that
we can create a more even balanced PATRIOT Act.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of the
conference report on the PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005 and the accompanying measure to amend the Reauthorization
Act. I commend the work of Senator Sununu and others in addressing
several flaws in the measure reported by the conference in December.
And I congratulate the hard work of Senators Specter and Leahy in
leading the Senate's efforts to extend and improve the PATRIOT Act.
I remain disappointed, however, in the process followed by the House-
Senate conference, which not only excluded Democratic Members from key
meetings and deliberations but also excluded the public. Sadly, the
deficient process of the PATRIOT Act conference is characteristic of
the manner in which too many conferences have been conducted in recent
years.
Nevertheless, overall, adoption of the conference report, along with
the accompanying improvements contained in the Sununu bill, will not
only extend the PATRIOT Act but make it a stronger, more balanced tool
in our fight against terrorists. I was one of the Senate's 10
conferees: 6 Republicans and 4 Democrats. We were appointed from the
leadership and ranks of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence
Committees, the two committees with a direct responsibility for
reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act.
The Senate conferees were appointed on July 29, 2005, immediately
upon the Senate's passage by unanimous consent of the bill that had
been unanimously reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I had
expected that the conference with the House, which in July had passed a
different reauthorization bill, would begin promptly on the return of
the Congress at the beginning of this past September from last
session's August recess. In fact, the House did not name its conferees
until November 9.
The conference met the following day, on November 10, for its one and
only meeting. That meeting was devoted exclusively to 5-minute opening
statements. In my opening statement to the conference, I stressed the
importance of how we did our work. I urged that the conference proceed
openly, including by considering amendments in public session. I warned
that otherwise the Congress would risk losing an indispensable ally in
the long-term effort to defend the Nation; namely, a public that has
confidence in the necessity for and the balance of the PATRIOT Act.
Unfortunately, our opening statements turned out to be our closing
ones, because we never met again as a conference. The flawed process of
the conference produced a flawed result. Because it fell short of what
the conference could have achieved, I joined my fellow Senate
Democratic conferees in not signing the conference report. We then
joined a bipartisan coalition that opposed cutting off debate in
December and insisted that there be a further effort to improve the
bill. That additional time has been well spent.
From the outset of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization debate, there has
been neither division nor doubt in the Congress that we would unite in
extending the investigative and information sharing powers that were
enacted in the wake of September 11. Over this past year, as we have
debated the checks and balances that should be added or strengthened,
Republicans and Democrats alike have been prepared throughout to
achieve what we have now accomplished, the extension of essential
national security authorities.
In most cases, those authorities have been made permanent. For a few,
we have decided that a further review in 4 years is appropriate before
deciding whether to make these authorities permanent as well. The
PATRIOT Act reauthorization agreement now before us establishes or
augments some notable checks and balances. We have responded to the
concerns of librarians and booksellers by requiring high level F.B.I.
approval of applications for orders requiring the production of
records. And we also have required that any such applications to
librarians and booksellers be reported to the Congress. The holders of
other sensitive
[[Page 2432]]
records B concerning firearm sales, tax returns, education, and medical
matters B also have enhanced protection.
The Reauthorization Act also places in the law provisions for the
judicial review of orders from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court for the production of records. Similarly, it also places
explicitly into law something that the courts have already begun to
require; namely, procedures for judicial review of national security
letters to businesses from the F.B.I. demanding that they produce
records for investigators.
I join others in the Senate and House in wishing that some of these
provisions had been written in a more balanced way. Specifically, I am
concerned that some of the new judicial review procedures tilt in a
one-sided manner toward the Government and may not give the individuals
and businesses who may seek relief a fair opportunity to make their
cases. If Congress promises citizens judicial review, it ought to
deliver fully on that promise. Some of those imbalances may have to be
addressed by the courts or in future legislation.
The additional time to reach a PATRIOT Act agreement also gave us the
opportunity to change other objectionable provisions of the original
conference report. The report had contained a requirement that the
recipients of orders for the production of documents from the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court or by a national security letter advise
the F.B.I., on its request, of the name of any attorney they contacted.
This would have been the first time, to my knowledge, that Congress
had empowered the F.B.I. to demand that a citizen, who has been
presented with a demand by the Government, inform the F.B.I. that he or
she has spoken to an attorney and be required to give the F.B.I. the
lawyer's name. I found that this intrusive provision, which we were
told that the Department of Justice had insisted upon, to be
inconsistent with basic American values. I am especially gratified that
Senators Sununu, Craig, Murkowski, and Hagel were able to persuade the
White House to strike this misguided provision.
Congress has an abiding commitment to provide our law enforcement and
intelligence personnel with the tools and authorities they require to
protect America. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the
PATRIOT Act are prime examples of that commitment. And it is a
commitment that is not just a one time thing. Congress has returned
repeatedly to these statutes to add new authorities or enhance existing
ones.
In that process, any of us, as individual legislators, may not
achieve all of what we want, but collectively we fulfill our oversight
responsibilities by inquiring, debating, voting, and conducting
oversight concerning the powerful tools that a President, whomever it
may be at the time, believes that our law enforcement and intelligence
officials need to protect America.
This process has not been followed, unfortunately, with respect to
the NSA warrantless surveillance program inside the United States
recently disclosed and acknowledged by the President. The
administration continues to withhold important facts about the NSA
program and, in turn, has prevented Congress from understanding the
program and evaluating whether it is both legally and operationally
sound. If a President refuses to deal with the Congress as a co-equal
branch of Government, then the Congress cannot fulfill its
responsibility on behalf of the people to ensure that the executive
branch is acting under the rule of law.
For the PATRIOT Act, this is not the end of the process. We have an
obligation to be vigilant in our oversight. And we will be returning to
the act no later than 4 years from now when the remaining sunsets
expire, in order to consider reauthorization legislation for those
authorities.
During this time, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, of
which I am vice chairman, will continue monitoring how the authorities
contained in the PATRIOT Act are used to ensure that we have struck the
proper balance between empowering our counterterrorism efforts while
not infringing upon the civil liberties of Americans.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for months, we have been ready to roll up
our sleeves and get back to work on the PATRIOT Act, but the White
House has continued to block bipartisan efforts to improve the original
bill and accept oversight of its intrusive surveillance programs.
Again, and again, the administration has refused to join in serious
negotiations with Republicans and Democrats on matters of national
security, including the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretaps
and the FBI's use of national security letters. The latest proposal
offers improvements and deserves to pass; however, it is unacceptable
and undemocratic that further amendments could not even be considered.
We need to implement these improvements quickly given the
administration's disregard of congressional oversight. The proposed
reauthorization bill requires public reports on the use of two of the
most controversial provisions: section 215 and national security
letters. It also requires the inspector general to audit their use, and
it mandates a report on any data-mining activities by the Justice
Department.
Americans deserve national security laws that protect both our
security and our constitutional rights, and more changes are clearly
needed. One of the most glaring omissions in the proposal is the
failure to include a 4-year sunset provision on national security
letters, even though it would be consistent with the new reporting and
auditing requirements that will take effect.
The latest changes provide some additional protection for libraries,
but these safeguards should apply to all of the means used by the
Government to obtain sensitive information, including financial
documents and library records. We also need a report on the
Government's use of computerized searches from all Federal agencies,
and we will continue to seek such a requirement as part of efforts
toward other reforms.
We have not yet achieved the 9/11 Commission's goal to maintain
governmental powers that enhance our national security while ensuring
adequate oversight over their use. With so much at stake, the
administration's refusal to work with Congress can only weaken our
national security and further undermine the public's trust in their
Government. So this battle will go on, and I regret we could not
accomplish more in this needed legislation.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to
the PATRIOT Act conference report.
As I have stated in the past, I strongly support giving law
enforcement the tools they need to aggressively fight terrorism. But I
also believe that we must ensure that we adequately protect
constitutional rights and properly balance civil liberties with
national security concerns.
I support reauthorizing many of the expiring provisions of the
PATRIOT Act, but I believe we need to make some important changes to
ensure that Americans' civil liberties are protected. When the Senate
debated this issue last July, I supported the bipartisan compromise,
which unanimously passed the Senate, to reauthorize the expiring
provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, many of the improvements
that were made were later removed at the insistence of the White House
and the House of Representatives. I cannot in good conscience support a
reauthorization bill that is fundamentally flawed and lacks basic
safeguards with regard to the rights of Americans.
The final compromise that was worked out, including the conference
report and the bill offered by Senator Sununu, falls short in several
respects. First, it does not address the problems with section 215,
which allows the Government to obtain sensitive personal records, such
as library, medical, or business records, as long as the Government
submits a statement indicating that the documents are relevant to a
terrorism investigation. I, along with many other Senators, have
pressed to modify this standard to require that the Government show
that the documents sought are actually relevant to the activities of a
terrorism
[[Page 2433]]
suspect or the activities of a person in contact with the suspect.
It is reasonable to require that if the Government is going to look
at the private records of Americans that the Government demonstrate
that the request for records has some actual connection to a terrorist
and isn't just part of a fishing expedition. The final compromise does
not include any significant improvements with regard to the standard
for issuing section 215 orders.
The conference report also falls short with respect to section 215
gag orders. Under the PATRIOT Act, when a section 215 order is
issued,the receipt of an order, such as a library or doctor, is
automatically prohibited from disclosing that the FBI is seeking the
records. In addition, under current law there is no explicit right to
petition a court to modify or quash a gag order. The conference report
still provides for an automatic gag order and prohibits judicial
review, but specifies that a recipient of a section 215 gag order may
disclose its existence to an attorney to obtain legal advice.
Although the Sununu bill the Senate passed earlier this week as part
of the final compromise technically allows for judicial review of a
nondisclosure order and permits a recipient to challenge the gag order
before a FISA judge, this is merely an illusionary right and does not
provide any meaningful review. A recipient must wait 1 year to
challenge the gag order and the judge may overturn the order only if
there is no reason to believe the disclosure will endanger national
security. However, because the Attorney General may certify that the
disclosure may endanger national security and a judge must treat this
certification as conclusive unless the Government is found to be acting
in bad faith, it would be almost impossible to ever successfully
challenge a gag order.
I also have significant concerns with respect to national security
letters, or NSLs. National security letters are essentially formal
requests made by Federal intelligence investigators to communication
providers, financial institutions, and credit bureaus to provide
certain consumer information relating to a national security
investigation. The issuance of an NSL does not require any judicial
oversight. The laws explicitly permitting NSLs were meant to prevent
financial institutions from being held liable for disclosing private
financial information in contravention of Federal privacy laws. NSLs do
not require any court approval, and since 9/11 the Government has
increasingly relied on them to obtain information as part of terrorism
investigations. Like recipients of section 215 orders, NSL recipients
are subject to an automatic gag order. At least two Federal district
courts have found that NSL gag order restrictions and the lack of
judicial review amount to constitutional violations under the fourth
and first amendments.
The conference report attempts to address constitutional problems
regarding NSLs by authorizing judicial review of NSLs and providing the
ability to challenge a nondisclosure order. However, while recipients
are technically given the ability to go to court, the right is
essentially meaningless. The conference report does allow an NSL
recipient to challenge the validity of an NSL in a district court, but
it also stipulates that all of the Government's submissions are secret
and cannot be shared with the person challenging the order. In
addition, although the gag order can be challenged in court after 1
year, like section 215 challenges, the only way to prevail is to
demonstrate that the Government is acting in bad faith because the
Government's certification that disclosure would harm national security
is conclusive.
The final compromise included in the Sununu bill does not address the
significant problems with the NSL process, but rather makes some minor
improvements with regard to NSLs. Under the compromise, it would remove
the requirement that a person inform the FBI of the identity of an
attorney providing advice to a NSL receipt. The compromise also
clarifies that libraries are not subject to NSLs. Libraries, however,
would remain subject to section 215. I believe the compromise fails to
provide meaningful judicial review of NSL orders.
Finally, I also believe we missed an important opportunity to address
the so called sneak-and-peek provision, which allows the Government to
search homes without notifying individuals of the search for an
extended period of time after the search.
Many of my colleagues have come to the Senate floor and stated that
they share the same concerns that I do with regard to the shortcomings
of this current compromise. Senator Sununu, who has been instrumental
in negotiating this compromise with the White House, and Senator
Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have indicated
their intention to push legislation aimed at modifying the PATRIOT Act
in a manner consistent with the bipartisan bill that the Senate
unanimously passed in July.
Although I support these efforts, and I intend to support legislation
that would make these modifications, I am under no illusion that the
Senate will take up any of these bills in the near future. Having just
finished debate on the PATRIOT Act, I do not believe that Congress
would have much of an appetite to take up this issue again. We had our
opportunity, and, unfortunately, we missed it.
The changes that I would like to see made have the support of the
majority of Senators--indeed, they were included in the bill that
unanimously passed the Senate. However, because the majority leader
knew that these sensible changes would garner wide support, he used
procedural maneuvers to prevent any Senator from offering an amendment
to fix the bill. Had these amendments been adopted, which I think it is
fairly clear they would have, I would have voted for the conference
report without hesitation.
While I recognize that this bill will make some slight improvements
with respect to the PATRIOT Act, we have missed a critical opportunity
to address the primary issues that have concerned the American public.
As I have discussed, the Government can still access the library
records and medical records of Americans without having to show that
the documents sought have some connection to a suspected terrorist or
the activities of a terrorist. The conference report simply failed to
address the core shortcomings of some of the provisions in the PATRIOT
Act.
I supported the improvements in the Sununu bill, but the analogy I
would use is this: If you need to fix the broken windows on your house
and the repairman comes along and paints your house instead--has your
house been improved? I would say yes, but your windows are still
broken. It is time for Congress to address the primary problems with
the PATRIOT Act, and it is my hope that we can eventually enact
commonsense reforms that enable the Government to fight terrorism in a
manner consistent with our Nation's historic commitment to upholding
basic civil liberties. I truly believe that the American people expect
more of Congress with regard to the approach we have taken in ensuring
our national security while at the same time protecting the liberties
of Americans.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I discuss the pending reauthorization of
the USA PATRIOT Act.
We are near the end of what has been a very long process. For the
past year, Congress has grappled with the need to renew a handful of
provisions of the PATRIOT Act. As my colleagues know well, this
legislation has embodied the debate over how to balance the needs of
law enforcement in the war on terrorism and the paramount importance of
protecting Americans' civil liberties.
The greatest Americans have always understood our shared
responsibility as citizens of this great country to ensure that we get
this balance right. And many times over the course of the debate about
the PATRIOT Act, I have thought of Benjamin Franklin's words, ``They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.'' I have thought about how Daniel
Webster reminded us that ``God grants liberty only to those who love
it, and are always ready to guard and defend it.'' I
[[Page 2434]]
believe that it is worth taking pains to be sure that we produce the
very best balance, and the very best legislation, we can.
Last week, several Senators with whom I have worked closely over the
past year announced that they had reached an agreement with the White
House on a proposal to renew these controversial provisions.
Let me say at the outset that I do not believe this agreement is by
any means perfect. My colleagues who were involved in negotiating this
compromise would be the first to agree with me on that point.
But it does contain a number of critical improvements over the
original law. Our ultimate goal was to place reasonable checks on the
law enforcement powers provided by the original PATRIOT Act. Although
it is not as strong in some areas as I would prefer, the legislation
today accomplishes that goal.
This proposal would produce a PATRIOT Act that includes a number of
specific improvements over the law that was passed 4 years ago.
Section 215 of the original PATRIOT Act allowed the government to
obtain business, library, and a whole host of other personal records
simply by claiming the records were related to a terrorism
investigation. The current proposal provides greater protection for the
most sensitive records, by requiring senior level FBI-approval for
orders related to library, book, education, gun, medical or tax
records, and by limiting the retention and dissemination of information
regarding Americans.
The original law did not provide for judicial review of Section 215
orders, National Security Letters, or for the accompanying gag orders.
The current proposal does.
The original law did not allow the recipient of a Section 215 order
or a National Security Letter to consult with an attorney. The current
proposal does.
The original law allowed delayed notification of property searches--
so-called ``sneak-and-peek'' searches--for undefined ``reasonable''
periods. The current proposal establishes hard limits on those delays,
while continuing to allow extensions when they are warranted.
The original law allowed the government to target libraries with
National Security Letters. The legislation exempts libraries from NSLs
unless they meet the statutory definition of an Electronic
Communications Service Provider.
The original law allowed the use of ``John Doe'' roving wiretaps,
which don't specify the target or the phone or computer. The current
proposal imposes limits on the use of such wiretaps.
Finally, the current proposal once again sunsets the Act's most
controversial provisions--Section 215 and roving wiretaps--in 4 years,
increases public reporting requirements about the use of the powers
authorized by the Act, and requires the Inspector General in the
Department of Justice to audit the use of Section 215 and National
Security Letters.
These safeguards are not simply cosmetic; they make meaningful
improvements to the original law, and will go a long way toward
protecting Americans' rights and freedoms.
In spite of these safeguards, the proposal before us is not perfect.
I would have preferred a stronger standard for obtaining a search order
under Section 215. I would have preferred that the expanded authority
to issue National Security Letters be sunset. But we will have the
opportunity to review these provisions--both with the sunsets contained
in this legislation and its increased reporting and auditing
requirements. I am committed to taking advantage of those provisions to
fight for strong and appropriate civil liberties safeguards, and I know
my colleagues are, too.
I joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to push for the
very best PATRIOT Act we could realistically get. We have come to the
point where the very best achievable version of the PATRIOT act is the
one before us.
I thank Senators Craig, Durbin, Sununu, Feingold, and Murkowski--my
fellow SAFE Act cosponsors--for all of their hard work over the past
several years on this critical issue. Without their efforts, we would
not have the civil liberties protections contained in this proposal. I
express my sincere gratitude for allowing me to become involved in
these efforts.
The vote on this agreement by no means marks the end of this process.
Whether or not we differ on the legislation before us, I know we will
continue to work together to provide law enforcement with the tools
they need to fight terrorists, and to protect and preserve Americans'
basic rights and freedoms.
That has been, and will continue to be, a fight that demands our most
vigorous efforts.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I oppose the conference report for H.R.
3199, the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. This
bill does not protect the cherished civil liberties and freedoms of the
American people.
I voted for the PATRIOT Act in 2001. I believed then, as I do now,
that we must give our Government the tools it needs to fight, detect,
and deter terrorist acts. While I had reservations about the PATRIOT
Act and the possibility that it would allow the Government to infringe
upon our privacy rights and civil liberties, I supported the bill since
the more controversial provisions were not made permanent. Granting the
Government this time-limited authority allowed Congress an opportunity
to review how these broad new grants of power were being used.
Unfortunately, the administration has been less than forthcoming in
disclosing how the PATRIOT Act has been used. According to the reports
we have received, the Government has used the PATRIOT Act to:
investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism
offenses;
investigate individuals without having any cause to believe
the person is involved in terrorist activities; and
coerce Internet Service Providers, ISP, to turn over
information about email activity and web surfing while
preventing the ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public.
This information is disturbing and may be indicative of other
abuses that the Justice Department has not told us about.
Given these abuses, meaningful checks and balances on the
Government's authority to investigate Americans are essential. Last
July the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to reauthorize the PATRIOT
Act with substantially stronger protections in place. However, the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives objected to the Senate
bill and tried to pass a conference report lacking the protections that
the Senate insisted upon. Last month, a compromise bill was introduced,
S. 2271, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of
2006.
I voted for S. 2271 because it is an improvement over the PATRIOT
Act. Any improvement is good. However, S. 2271 does not go far enough
to correct the flaws in the PATRIOT Act and convince me that the
changes made to the underlying bill will preserve our civil liberties.
S. 2271 will make explicit the right to counsel and the right to
challenge in court an order from the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
FBI, to turn over records sought in an intelligence investigation,
called section 215 orders, but it does not correct the underlying
standard for issuing these orders. As such, the FBI, after going before
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, Court, can demand a
wide array of personal information--including medical, financial,
library, and bookstore and gun purchase records--about an individual
without any cause to believe the person is involved in terrorist
activities. S. 2271 does provide an express right to challenge the gag
order that accompanies a Section 215 order, but only after waiting a
year. However, if the Government certifies that the disclosure would
harm national security, the gag order cannot be lifted.
S. 2271 would also remove the conference report's language requiring
recipients of National Security Letters, NSLs, to inform the FBI of the
name of any attorney they consult about the demand for financial or
Internet records. NSLs can be issued without FISA Court review. Again
the bill still
[[Page 2435]]
does not require that there be any connection between the records
sought by the FBI and a suspected foreign terrorist or person in
contact with such a target. This is especially troubling since news
reports show that 30,000 NSLs are issued by the Government per year, a
hundred-fold annual increase since the PATRIOT Act relaxed requirements
on the FBI's use of the power.
In 2003, the State legislature in my home State of Hawaii passed a
resolution reaffirming its commitment to civil liberties and called the
entire Hawaii congressional delegation to repeal any sections of the
PATRIOT Act that limit or violate fundamental rights and liberties
protected by the Constitution of the United States. In good conscience
I cannot vote to support the PATRIOT Act because I believe that it
allows the Government to infringe upon the rights and protections we
hold most dear.
I do not believe that the PATRIOT Act makes our Nation safer. It
makes our country weaker by eroding the very freedoms that define us.
As Thomas Jefferson said, ``The man who would choose security over
freedom deserves neither.'' I am afraid that by passing this
legislation today we will in fact have neither a more secure nation nor
the freedoms for which we are fighting.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I voted for the conference report because
on balance I believe it is necessary legislation to give our law
enforcement officials the tools they need to protect the American
people from terrorist attacks. Before the Patriot Act, various law
enforcement agencies did not have the ability to share information and
work together, and this was a vulnerability that needed to be fixed
after
9/11.
But this was a difficult decision. The bill had flaws, and two in
particular concern me the most the so-called ``sneak and peek'' and
library search provisions. Given my concerns about these provisions, I
voted for every opportunity to make further improvements to the bill.
But ultimately I believe that by voting for the conference report I
will be in a stronger position to help improve the Patriot Act in the
future, working with Judiciary Committee Chairman Specter, Ranking
Member Leahy and Senators Feingold and Sununu.
I also wanted to show my support for Senator Dianne Feinstein's anti-
methamphetamine bill, which was included in the conference report. Meth
has become a terrible scourge across our country and Senator
Feinstein's bill will go a long way to combat the spread of the drug by
restricting access to the ingredients used to make meth.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I am pleased that this conference
agreement includes important provisions which will provide critical new
tools and resources to help combat methamphetamine--one of the
deadliest, most powerfully addictive, and rapidly spreading drug
threats facing our country. Fighting meth requires a comprehensive
approach designed to assist States, local law enforcement and
prosecutors to crack down on cooks and traffickers of meth while
bolstering community education and awareness and expanding treatment
options for those addicted to this dangerous drug. As a cosponsor of
the underlying Combat Meth Act that was incorporated in this conference
agreement, I believe our action today is long overdue.
In my home State of Illinois, the meth scourge, especially in rural
areas, is egregious. Like many States, Illinois faces the daunting
challenge of trying to stay one step ahead of those who will go to any
length to procure the ingredients to make their drugs.
Just a year ago, a law took effect in Illinois which required placing
adult-strength cold tablets containing ephedrine or as their only
active ingredient behind store counters. The law also limited to two
packages per transaction the purchase of adult-strength cold tablets
containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the sole active ingredient
and tablets with ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in combination with other
active ingredients. Additionally, the law required education and
training for retail sales personnel. At that time, the Illinois law was
among the toughest in the Nation and the strongest law among our border
States.
However, after that date, several States passed laws more restrictive
than the Illinois law, and reports from law enforcement authorities
indicated that meth makers from Missouri, Iowa, Kentucky and nearby
States were coming to Illinois to purchase products. Incidents such as
these led to enactment in November 2005 of the Methamphetamine
Precursor Control Act to impose stricter controls on the display and
sale of cold and sinus products containing meth's key ingredient
pseudo-
ephedrine. The Attorney General of Illinois, Lisa Madigan, has
instituted and operates an aggressive anti-meth program in partnership
with law enforcement agencies and multi-country drug task forces.
The facts and figures about the devastating impact of meth in
Illinois underscore why our actions today to advance tough new
provisions and funding authorization are so vital.
The number of meth labs seized by law enforcement authorities in
Illinois grew from 24 labs in 1997, to 403 labs in 2000, to 1,099 labs
in 2003. Illinois State Police reported 962 lab seizures in 2004 and
nearly 1000 meth labs in 2005, more than double the number uncovered in
2000. Since 1997, the quantity of methamphetamines seized annually by
the ISP has increased over tenfold.
The number of methamphetamine submissions to the Illinois State
Police crime laboratories increased from 628 in 1998 to 3,250 in 2003--
more than a five-fold increase. The number of counties submitting meth
also increased during that period, from 73 in 1998 to 96 in 2003. In
2004, Byrne grants helped Illinois cops make almost 1,267 meth-related
arrests and seize approximately 348,923 grams of methamphetamines.
Local police departments depend on Byrne grant funding to participate
in meth task forces which tackle the meth problem by coordinating the
enforcement and interdiction efforts of local agencies within regional
areas. In fact, over 65 percent of Illinois's Byrne funding in 2004
went to local law enforcement agencies.
The Southern Illinois Enforcement Group pays almost half of its
agents with funding from Byrne grants. In 2004, this regional task
force was responsible for more than 27 percent of the State's meth lab
seizures. In a recent success of Byrne grant funding, Glen Carbon
Police coordinated with the Illinois State Police Meth Task Force to
discover the largest lab in the village's history. In this incident,
local authorities raided a meth lab that proved to be capable of
producing up to 6,000 grams of finished methamphetamine. Given examples
such as this, it is baffling that this administration seeks to
eliminate these critical funds in its budget proposal.
Methamphetamine is the only drug for which rural areas in Illinois
have higher rates of drug seizures and treatment admissions than urban
areas. Meth use, and the number of people behind bars for possessing,
making or selling it, has grown rapidly over the past decade in
Illinois. Just 5 years ago, 79 inmates entered State prisons on meth
offenses. Last year, that number was 541. In fiscal year 2003, rural
counties accounted for the vast majority, 79 percent, of persons
sentenced to prison for meth-related offenses. The number of treatment
admissions relating to methamphetamine abuse in Illinois jumped from 97
in 1994 to 3,582 in 2003.
Another disturbing implication is the effect on families. In 2004,
more than half of the children entering foster care in some areas of
rural southeastern Illinois were forced into the program because their
caretakers were meth abusers. Officials expect to encounter even more
children in homes where meth labs exist in coming years.
When specific regions were examined, findings indicate that rural
counties have experienced the greatest impact of methamphetamine. Rural
counties have been greatly impacted by the presence and growth of
methamphetamine, and are responsible for driving the escalating levels
of methamphetamine arrests, drug seizures and submissions, clandestine
lab seizures, methamphetamine commitments to Illinois Department of
Corrections and
[[Page 2436]]
methamphetamine treatment admissions.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority statistics show that
in 2003, the per capita occurrence of clandestine meth labs in rural
counties was over 1700 percent greater than it is in non-rural areas.
The per capita presence of meth in rural areas in over 500 percent
greater than it is in non-rural areas; more than 73 percent of meth
labs found in the State of Illinois were found in rural counties. Of
366 felony arrests in Edgar County, IL, 145 were for methamphetamine.
But urban areas are not immune to the meth crisis. The perception
that meth labs are a rural issue ended when a major meth lab was
discovered in a Chicago apartment building last September. The
challenge we face is overwhelming and our actions today signal a
commitment to support a concerted effort to tackle this urgent criminal
justice and public health and safety challenge.
I commend the tireless and tenacious leadership of Senators Talent
and Feinstein who have labored long and hard to secure passage of a
strong Combat Meth Act. I look forward to working with them to ensure
that full funding is provided to implement these new tools and provide
the needed resources to localities grappling with this drug crisis.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr President, when the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill
left the Senate last July, we had a bill with provisions that protected
both our security and our liberty. What came back to the Senate from
the House-Senate conference committee was a bill that raised
significant concerns for Senators from both sides of the aisle. As a
result, the Senate did not vote to end debate in December, as Senators
wanted more time to address those concerns.
The PATRIOT Act conference report which is before us leaves major
problems unaddressed. Among the conference report's flaws: Section 215
of the PATRIOT Act permits the Government to seek court orders, to
compel the production of any tangible thing, including library, medical
and business records, in foreign intelligence investigations, including
records of people who are totally innocent even of any allegation of
impropriety. The conference report omits language in the Senate-passed
bill establishing a reasonable standard for the FBI to obtain these
sensitive records with Section 215 orders. And to make matters worse,
the conference report permits the FBI to include gag orders that
preclude the recipient from telling anyone they even received the
order. The conference report does not even permit recipients to
challenge those gag orders in court. Also, the conference report
requires recipients section 215 orders to tell the FBI, if asked, from
whom they have sought legal advice.
Since December, there have been a number of efforts to improve the
conference report. Unfortunately, those have met with limited success.
The Sununu bill, if it passes the House of Representatives, would make
only minimal improvements to the conference report that the Senate
considered last December.
The Sununu bill, if it passes the House, would eliminate the
requirement that recipients of 215 court orders tell the FBI, if asked,
whom they consulted for legal advice. This would be a worthwhile, if
minor, improvement. The Sununu bill also provides people the right to
challenge gag orders attached to so-called section 215 court orders.
But the benefit of that is offset by the fact that the bill severely
constrains the court's discretion to modify or set aside those gag
orders.
Some argue the conference report is an improvement over the original
PATRIOT Act. The bill before us does indeed correct some of the flaws
in the original PATRIOT Act. For example, the PATRIOT Act did not
require that a roving wiretap order identify a specific target--raising
concerns that it could authorize so-called John Doe roving wiretaps. I
am pleased that the conference accepted language that I proposed to
correct that flaw.
However, too many flaws remain, the most serious of which is the
standard of review section 215 court orders.
As I said earlier, section 215 of the PATRIOT Act permits the
Government to seek court orders, to compel the production of any
tangible thing, including library, medical and business records, in
foreign intelligence investigations. No problem there. However, under
section 215, the Government need not describe, much less identify, a
particular person to whom the records relate, even in general terms, as
linked to a terrorist groups or organization. I believe that we ought
to apply the same logic to section 215 orders that the conference
report applies to roving wiretaps. We ought to require that records
sought with section 215 orders have some connection to an alleged
terrorist or terrorist organization. Unfortunately, the standard in the
conference report does not include that. It fails to narrow the scope
of records that the Government can subpoena under section 215 to less
than the entire universe of records of people who, for instance,
patronize a library or visit a doctor's office. Instead, fishing
expeditions are authorized, which could result in invasions of the
privacy of large numbers of innocent Americans.
Let's assume the FBI has information that a person, whose identity is
not known to the FBI, is using computers at New York public libraries
to view certain Web sites.
The FBI only knows that the person has knowledge of the particular
Web sites. The person is not suspected of wrongdoing himself. The FBI
wants to find out the person's identity as part of a foreign
intelligence investigation into those Web sites. The agency believes
that they might be able to identify the person if they could review all
the computer user records held by public libraries in New York.
The conference report would presumably permit the FBI to obtain a
court order compelling the New York Public library to provide the
records of all their patrons. That is truly a fishing expedition. The
conference report would also allow the FBI to prohibit the library from
telling patrons that their names had been handed over to the FBI. While
the Sununu bill permits the library to challenge that prohibition in
court, it does not permit meaningful court review because, under its
terms, if the Attorney General or another specified senior official
certifies that disclosure may endanger national security or harm
diplomatic relations, the court must find bad faith on the part of the
Government in making such certification for the court to modify or set
aside the nondisclosure requirement. This virtually eliminates the
court's discretion.
Another example. Assume the FBI has information that a person, whose
identity is not known to the agency, is sending money to charitable
organizations overseas. They know from a credible source that the
person is being treated for HIV at a particular AIDS clinic in New York
that has 10,000 patients. The FBI wants to find out the person's
identity as part of a foreign intelligence investigation into links
between unspecified overseas charities and terrorist organizations. The
agency believes that they might be able to identify the person if they
could review the AIDS clinic's 10,000 patient files.
The conference report would permit the FBI to obtain a court order
compelling the AIDS clinic to provide the files of all of its patients.
The conference report would allow the FBI to prohibit the AIDS clinic
from telling its patients that their names had been handed over to the
FBI. While the Sununu bill permits the clinic to challenge that
prohibition in court, as I discussed earlier, it does not permit
meaningful court review because the Attorney General's unilateral
certification would have to be found by the court to have been made in
bad faith for the gag order to be lifted.
It is argued in response to the fishing expedition argument that the
Government must set forth ``facts'' supporting a section 215
application. But that requirement doesn't fix the fishing expedition
flaw. I just set forth facts, in two hypotheticals. If those
hypothetical facts would not support a broad search of the library or
clinic's records, the supporters should say what language in the
conference report would preclude a search.
[[Page 2437]]
When this bill left the Senate, it contained protections against
fishing expeditions. The Senate bill required a showing that the
records sought were not only relevant to an investigation but also
either pertained to a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,
which term includes terrorist organizations, or were relevant to the
activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power who is the subject
of an authorized investigation or pertained to an individual in contact
with or known to be a suspected agent. In other words, the order had to
be linked to some suspected individual or foreign power. Those
important protections are omitted in the bill before us.
Some kind of narrowing language needs to be included in the PATRIOT
Act for section 215 orders, just as it was when this bill left the
Senate. Without that language and that linkage, the PATRIOT Act
authorizes the rankest kind of fishing expedition.
The conference report is also flawed in its treatment of national
security letters, or NSLs. NSLs compel phone companies and banks, for
example, to turn over certain customer records. The Government can
issue an NSL without going to court. And, like section 215 court
orders, the Government does not have to show any connection between the
records sought and an individual who the Government thinks is a
terrorist. And like section 215 orders, the Government can impose a gag
order on the recipient of an NSL. Also, in the case of NSLs, the
conference report does not permit meaningful judicial review of those
gag orders.
Also troubling about the NSL authority is that there is no
requirement that the Government destroy records acquired with an NSL
that turn out to be irrelevant to the investigation under which they
have been gathered. These are records that relate to innocent
Americans, and the Government should be required to destroy them if
they contain no relevant material.
It is argued that while these protections were in the bill that left
the Senate, they are not in current law. That is true. But the reason
we put sunset provisions in the law is so we could more reliably make
changes if experience indicated the need for change. We understandably
acted quickly after 9/11 to fill some holes in our laws that needed to
be filled. We added sunset provisions so we could review the law we
wrote with the benefit of greater thought, in an atmosphere more
conducive to protecting our liberties than understandably was the
situation immediately after a horrific, wrenching, deadly attack.
Finally, I must comment on a tactic used in this debate which runs
against the very grain of the Senate. The majority leader used a
procedural tactic to prevent any Senator from offering any amendment
during consideration of the Sununu bill, amendments which could have
addressed some of the flaws I just described. That tactic of stifling
consideration of any amendment is contrary to the normal procedures of
the Senate and reflects poorly on what is sometimes billed as the
greatest deliberative body in the world. The rules of the Senate were
written with the intent of allowing the consideration of amendments. In
this instance, the rules were misused to block any effort to offer
amendments. I voted against ending debate on the Sununu bill and
against proceeding to debate on the PATRIOT Act conference report
because no amendments were allowed to be considered.
This conference report still falls short of what the American people
expect Congress to achieve in defending their rights while we are
advancing their security. As a result, although I support many of its
provisions, I must oppose it.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act conference report. I support the
conference report and, in particular, the conference report's
amendments to section 215, the FISA business records provision, because
those amendments confirm that investigators may use section 215 to
obtain records and other tangible items that are relevant to any
authorized national security investigation other than a threat
assessment. The conference report appropriately balances privacy
concerns and national security needs by amending the method by which
investigators can obtain relevant records but not changing or otherwise
limiting the scope of records that can be obtained through a section
215 order. For example, where appropriate, investigators may still
obtain sensitive records such as library or bookstore, medical, or tax
return records, but they must obtain very high-level sign-off
internally before asking the court to order those records' production.
Similarly, the conference report imposes an obligation on the Attorney
General to develop minimization guidelines for the retention and
dissemination of U.S. person information obtained through a section 215
order, but leaves the Department with flexibility in obtaining the
information in the first instance and in structuring those minimization
procedures.
My support for the conference report turns on my understanding that
it codifies our intent not to limit the scope of items and records that
can be obtained through section 215. This stands in contrast to the so-
called ``three-part test'' that passed the Senate last year, which
really did run the risk of limiting our investigators' ability to
obtain records relevant to authorized national security investigations.
The conference report is clear: we are continuing to provide our
investigators with the tools they need. Along with two of my fellow
conferees, Senators Roberts and Sessions, I sent a letter to Chairman
Specter on the eve of the conference vigorously objecting to the
Senate's proposed three- part test. As the three of us expressed in
that letter, we believed that requiring use of the three-part test to
show relevance would have been a serious mistake. I am pleased to see
that the final conference report does not mandate the use of that test.
I will have that letter added to the Record following my remarks.
I support the conference report, including its amendments to section
206 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorizes ``roving'' wiretap orders
under FISA because I believe that the amendments to section 206 do not
hamper investigators' ability to use this critical tool. In this day
and age of sophisticated terrorists and spies who are trained to thwart
surveillance, allowing investigators to seek a wiretap that follows a
specified target--rather than a particular cell phone--is critical. The
conference report explicitly preserves this ability, while clarifying
the level of detail necessary for investigators to obtain this type of
wiretap. Similarly, I support the conference report's amendments to
section 206 because they recognize that there may be some situations
where it will not be practicable for investigators to return to court
within 10 days of directing surveillance at a new phone or place. The
conference report wisely affords the FISA Court judges discretion to
extend the period of time investigators will have to keep the court
apprised of how roving wiretaps are being used.
I support the conference report, and I support the amendments set out
in S. 2271, because I think they set out the proper standard for
judicial review of nondisclosure orders accompanying section 215 FISA
business records orders and national security letters. We all recognize
the need for secrecy in national security investigations--both to avoid
tipping off targets in a particular case, and to avoid giving our
enemies a better picture of how we conduct our investigations. Our
enemies are sophisticated and devote enormous time and energy to
understanding how we operate, all in service of allowing their agents
to evade our investigations. The conference report recognizes the need
for secrecy when the Government obtains a section 215 order from a
court or serves an NSL on a business. But it also responds to concerns
raised that recipients should have an explicit right to judicial review
of nondisclosure orders.
The standard in the conference report is the appropriate one, both
constitutionally and practically, as it recognizes that sensitive
national security and diplomatic relations judgments are particularly
within the Executive's expertise. The Constitution has vested
[[Page 2438]]
these determinations with the Executive, and courts have long
recognized that judges are ill-suited to be second-guessing the
Executive's national security and diplomatic affairs judgments.
Disclosures that seem innocuous to a judge who quite naturally must
view those disclosures without being fully aware of the many other data
points known to our enemies--may nonetheless be quite damaging. The
conference report's standard is therefore the correct one. It will be
the exceedingly rare case in which a judge will find, contrary to a
certification by an executive branch official, that there is no reason
to believe that the nondisclosure order should remain in place. It will
be even rarer for a judge to find that one of the Senate-confirmed
officials designated in the conference report has acted in bad faith.
I could not have supported the conference report or the explicit
judicial review of nondisclosure orders if I thought that they would
give judges the power to second-guess the informed national security
and diplomatic relations judgments of our high-level executive branch
officials. The conference report makes clear that judges will not have
such discretion, which is why I am voting for this report.
Another provision in particular that I support is the new public
reporting obligations for the FBI's use of national security letters.
That reporting will allow Congress to better perform our oversight
obligations without endangering national security. The reporting
requirement is focused on what is the most relevant number to Congress
and the public--the aggregate number of different U.S., persons about
whom information is requested. The reporting requirement does not
require the FBI to break down the aggregate numbers in its report by
the different authorities that allowed the national security letters,
which is critical to preventing our enemies from gaining too much
information about the way we investigate threats to the national
security. And the reporting obligation is limited to information about
U.S. persons. I support this limited public reporting because I think
it will provide valuable information for our public debate--but without
revealing too much information about the FBI's use of this valuable
tool and thus compromising its use.
I ask unanimous consent that the November 3 letter to Chairman
Specter 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, November 3, 2005.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Specter: We are writing to express our
concern about legislative language that we understand that
you are considering adding to section 215 of the USA Patriot
Act, the business-records provision of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. We have learned that you have
discussed with Chairman Sensenbrenner the possibility of
adopting in the final bill a modified version of the three-
part test for ``relevance'' that was added to the Senate bill
when it was marked up in the Judiciary Committee.
We believe that adding the three-part test to the final
bill would be a serious mistake. We are deeply troubled by
the complications that this language might cause for future
anti-terrorism investigations. Given the continuing grave
nature of the terrorist threat to the United States, and the
complete absence of any verified abuses under the Patriot Act
since it was enacted, we believe that congress should be
strengthening, not diluting, the investigative powers given
to United States intelligence agents. We would have great
difficulty supporting a conference report that adds the
three-part test to section 215.
As you know, Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to
seek an order from 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.'' FISA defines ``foreign
intelligence'' as information relating to foreign espionage,
foreign sabotage, or international terrorism, or information
respecting a foreign power that relates to U.S. national
security or foreign policy.
Section 215 is basically a form of subpoena authority,
albeit one whose use requires pre-approval by a judge. As
then-Deputy Attorney General Comey noted, ``orders for
records under [Sec. 215] are more closely scrutinized and
more difficult to obtain than ordinary grand jury subpoenas,
which can require production of the very same records, but
without judicial approval.'' Similarly, the Washington Post
has noted in an editorial regarding Sec. 215 that similar
authority ``existed prior to the Patriot Act; the law extends
it to national security investigations, which isn't
unreasonable.''
Some critics of the Patriot Act have noted that it
currently does not require a finding that a Sec. 215 order be
relevant to a foreign-intelligence investigation. The Justice
Department has conceded in litigation that a subpoena must be
relevant to a legitimate investigation, and both the Senate
and House bills add an explicit relevance requirement to the
Patriot Act.
The final Senate bill goes further, however. The night
before the committee mark up of the bill, a set of additional
changes to the bill was proposed in order to address
continuing Justice Department concerns and to appease the
Democrats, who had filed in excess of 80 amendments to the
bill. This final managers' amendment included, among other
things, a three-part test for determining whether a Sec. 215
subpoena is, in fact, relevant to a foreign-intelligence
investigation.
We appreciate the need to move this bill expeditiously and
to avoid an extended debate over amendments in the Judiciary
Committee. It had been our understanding, however, that the
last-minute changes that were made to the bill in order to
speed legislative progress would be re-evaluated in
conference. And we believe that the three-part test that was
added to Sec. 215 is unsound.
The three-part test, as we understand its latest iteration,
would require the FBI to show, before a Sec. 215 subpoena may
issue, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
records that are sought either pertain to, are relevant to
the activities of, or pertain to an individual in contact
with or known to a suspected agent of a foreign power.
We have several questions about the language of the three-
part test. To begin with the first part, what does it mean
for information to ``pertain'' to a foreign power or its
agent? How is this standard different from the traditional
relevance test? Obviously, all foreign-intelligence
information in some way relates to a foreign power--FISA
expressly defines ``foreign intelligence'' in terms of
foreign powers and their activities. Does all information
that is relevant to a foreign-intelligence investigation
therefore also ``pertain'' to a foreign power? If it does,
what is the purpose of the three-part test? And if the two
standards are not co-extensive, what investigations are
blocked by the three-part test, and are these investigations
something that we want to block?
Similarly, what is the scope of the ``activities'' of a
suspected agent of a foreign power? Does it include
activities in which one suspects that a foreign agent might
generally be involved, without regard to a specific subset of
dates, times, and locations? Also, has the FBI ever
subpoenaed records in the course of an intelligence
investigation that did not relate to the activities of a
suspected foreign agent, but which nevertheless were relevant
to a foreign-intelligence investigation? Also, are there
likely scenarios that would meet the relevance test but that
do not relate to the activities of a foreign power? If so, we
should inform ourselves about these past cases and scenarios,
and ask whether we would want to preclude an FBI
investigation in those circumstances.
Finally, what does it mean for a person to be ``in contact
with'' or ``known to'' a suspected foreign agent? Does
``contact'' require a showing of communication between the
two, or mere association? If association is sufficient, must
it be recurring? And if a single instance of association is
sufficient, how long must that association last? Also, what
is the purpose of the language requiring that the ultimate
target of the subpoena be ``known to'' an agent of a foreign
power? This language appears to preclude a subpoena if the
FBI can show only that the foreign agent is known to the
target, but not that the target is known to the foreign
agent. Is this distinction intentional? Also, this part
appears to bar investigations of targets who are seeking to
make contact with a foreign power but have not yet
consummated that contact. Do we want to bar the use of
Sec. 215 in such circumstances?
Although we would hope that the three-part test would be
construed broadly by the FISA court, we would expect that
court to conclude that the test significantly retracts the
permissible scope of FISA subpoenas. First, the court
inevitably would assume that congress added the three-part
test to the statute because it perceived a need to restrict
the use Sec. 215. Further, the canon of statutory of
construction that each part of a statute should be
interpreted so that it has independent meaning also
recommends a narrow interpretation of the three-part test. If
each part of the three-part test is to have independent
meaning, it must restrict investigations to a greater extent
than does the relevance test. It thus seems to us inevitable
that if we adopt the three-part test, that test will bar some
significant subset of investigations that otherwise would be
permitted by current law and the relevance test.
Just as important as the substantive limits created by the
three-part test, however,
[[Page 2439]]
are the bureaucratic burdens that it certainly will entail.
One of the consistent lessons taught by all of the
investigations of the failures that led the 9/11 attacks is
that seemingly small or technical barriers can make a
critical difference to the success of a terrorism
investigation.
In two separate instances that we now know of, federal
investigators were in close pursuit of 9/11 conspirators
prior to the attacks and might have been able to uncover or
even disrupt the plot. In each instance, however, these
investigations were seriously--perhaps critically--undermined
by bureaucratic barriers that few would have thought
significant before 9/11. Several weeks before the attacks,
federal agents in Minneapolis had arrested Zacarias Moussaoui
and sought a FISA warrant to search his belongings, which we
now know included the names of two 9/11 hijackers and a high-
level organizer of the attacks who later was captured in
Pakistan. The FBI was unable to obtain that warrant, however,
because at the time FISA required that the target of the
warrant be an agent of a foreign power--apparent lone-wolf
terrorists such as Moussaoui, even when believed to be
involved in international terrorism, could not be the target
of a FISA warrant. Similarly, two weeks before the 9/11
attacks, federal agents learned that Khalid Al-Midhar, one of
the eventual suicide pilots, was in the United States. Based
on his past Al Qaeda associations, these agents understood
that Al-Midhar was dangerous and they immediately initiated a
search for him. These intelligence agents were barred from
seeking assistance from the FBI's Criminal Division, however,
because of the legal wall that at that time barred
cooperation between intelligence and criminal investigators.
We understand that you and Chairman Sensenbrenner are
considering adopting the three-part test as a permissive
presumption, and that you would also allow the issuance of
Sec. 215 orders that meet the relevance test but not the
three-part test so long as those orders are subject to
minimization procedures. Though such a system apparently
would eventually allow any relevant investigation to go
forward, its ultimate effect would be to greatly complicate
the process of obtaining a Sec. 215 order. Current law simply
requires a showing of relevance to an intelligence
investigation. The proposed system, in addition to its
alternative procedures and presumptions, introduces a host of
legal issues discussed earlier. These issues not only will
generate litigation, but will also produce considerable legal
and operational aversion to the use of Sec. 215.
We think that it is inevitable that in some cases, agents
will be dissuaded from or delayed in seeking a Sec. 215
subpoena by the burdens created by this proposed system. The
risk may appear insignificant that these additional burdens
would fatally undermine a critical anti-terrorism
investigation. But again, the legal and technical barriers
that seriously undercut the pre-9/11 Moussaoui and Al-Midhar
investigations also must have seemed minor at that time. When
agents are investigating a particular suspect, they typically
will have no way of knowing if he is a lead to discovering a
major terrorist conspiracy. Even the Moussaoui and Al-Midhar
investigators could not have known the importance of their
efforts. Thus even when a bureaucratic barrier can be
overcome, it is easy to envision how it might cause
investigators to abandon pursuit of one target in favor of
competing targets, or to give that target a lower priority.
We appreciate that Sec. 215 has become controversial in the
debate over the Patriot Act--that it is one of the few
provisions specifically attacked by so-called civil liberties
groups and in newspaper editorials. We understand the appeal
of doing something that would appease these parties.
Nevertheless, we believe that higher priorities must be given
precedence in this case. Absent real evidence of abuse, we
should not legislate on the basis of hypothetical scenarios.
Our national-security investigators abide by the rules
governing their conduct. We should provide them with all of
the tools to do their jobs that are constitutionally
available--especially when those tools already are available
to agents conducting ordinary criminal investigations.
Few things would cause us greater regret than if another
major terrorist attack were to occur on United States soil,
and we were later to discover that procedural roadblocks that
we had adopted in this conference report substantially
impeded an investigation that might have prevented that
attack. Again, we strongly urge you to oppose adding the
proposed three-part test to Sec. 215 of the Patriot Act, and
we note that we would have great difficulty supporting a
conference report that includes such a provision.
Sincerely,
Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senator.
Pat Roberts,
U.S. Senator.
Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senator.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, once again, I want to congratulate
Chairman Specter and Chairman Roberts for their extraordinary work in
forging a conference report on the reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT
Act. I have previously expressed disappointment that many concessions
were made during this process which I believe have resulted in a bill
far weaker than the original PATRIOT Act which passed overwhelmingly in
response to the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and which represented long-
overdue modernization of our intelligence and criminal investigative
techniques. Similarly, this bill is far weaker than that agreed to
after the hard work of the House-Senate conferees.
Nevertheless, our failure to pass this important extension would once
again relegate America's intelligence and criminal professionals to the
dark ages of investigative techniques, shackle them with outdated
constraints, and prevent them from finding and stopping those who are
intent on murder, terror, and the ultimate annihilation of Western
civilization.
Arguments against the PATRIOT Act have been largely, if not wholly,
without factual basis. They are premised upon a misperception of what
protects our liberties. For the last 5 years, it has been the PATRIOT
Act which has, at once, helped to keep us safe and to protect our
Constitutional rights and liberties. Those liberties have not been
jeopardized by expanded governmental authority, but by violent attacks
against our way of life by terrorists. Those who have systematically
worked to weaken this important bill, and who, even now oppose it,
have, in my view, lost site of that reality, whether intentionally or
not.
The PATRIOT Act represented long-overdue reforms of both our criminal
and intelligence investigative laws. It modernized outmoded and
antiquated law enforcement provisions and provided for commonsense law
enforcement at its best. The provisions of the PATRIOT Act have been
responsibly and appropriately utilized by the dedicated men and women
of Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community to accomplish
amazing victories in the war on terrorism.
In my earlier statement in support of the conference report on
December 19, 2005, I outlined in detail case after case in which
provisions of the PATRIOT Act had been utilized to identify and
successfully prosecute terror-criminals and to thwart terrorist plots
designed to harm Americans. I will not recount those cases again here,
but suffice it to say that the PATRIOT Act has, in very tangible ways
kept us safe and free.
I therefore urge my colleagues to vote for this reauthorization, even
as we work to remove the burdensome restrictions on law enforcement and
intelligence professionals which have been imposed on them during this
renewal process. We owe that much to them and to the future generations
of the free peoples of the world. We must not shrink from that solemn
obligation.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the PATRIOT
Act.
Like many of my colleagues, I am confronted with a very difficult
decision. There are rarely easy answers in the Senate and today is no
exception. The healthy debate we have had in this body over the last
few days has been vigorous and valuable.
Today, we have a solemn obligation to protect our Nation from those
who may bring terror into our homes. At the same time, we have a
responsibility to respect our rights and honor our privacy. These
principles are not mutually exclusive: we can and must achieve both.
This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation shaping our
ability to resist and eliminate terrorist activity on our home front.
Our actions today will have tremendous consequences in the lives of all
Americans in months, years, and decades ahead.
I am proud that in the rush and passions surrounding this bill, I
have worked with my colleagues to insist on a serious, patient, and
transparent debate in the Senate as we strive to find the right balance
between protecting our civil liberties and fighting terrorism.
Despite my reservations and after great deliberation, I support
reauthorization today.
[[Page 2440]]
I believe that we must not allow the PATRIOT Act to expire. With new
provisions and improved meaningful oversight secured at last, empower
our national leaders and policy makers with the accountability, wisdom,
and prudence to use this legislation's powers in a way that does not
undermine the freedoms we seek to protect.
Under provisions of this conference report, the Federal Government
must now provide public information on its use of intelligence
gathering tools like national security letters and FISA warrants. What
is more, this legislation provides for formal audits of these programs.
We must play close attention in order to learn lessons of the past and
prevent abuse in the future.
I will join my colleagues in strongly pursuing additional sunset
provisions I believe should have been included in this bill, to give
Congress the opportunity to reassess whether these tools are yielding
the intended results in the war on terror.
We have already made some critical reforms to implement meaningful
oversight. We have managed to get some of the most controversial
provisions to sunset in another 4 years, despite the administration's
desire to make them permanent. We have started with sunsets on the
roving wiretaps and record requests from businesses and libraries. They
are not enough, but they are a start.
Because of an important vote we took yesterday, we have removed
America's libraries from the purview of national security letters.
We're allowing recipients of records requests to challenge the gag
orders on the requests and have removed disclosure requirements for the
names of attorneys assisting with those challenges. We are seeing
improvements on disclosure for ``sneak and peek'' warrants.
But I want to be clear, new powers must not be allowed to chip away
at traditional privacy rights. We must closely watch how law
enforcement uses these tools and be prepared to confront all abuses.
I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those
sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass,
remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties. And that
is why I will continue our work to improve these protections even as we
implement them.
At a time when we are making permanent broad powers for our law
enforcement and intelligence communities without the full traditional
safeguards of judicial review and congressional oversight my concerns
have been exacerbated, truthfully, by the administration's explicit
attempts to go around both the courts and the Congress with their
wiretapping and secret listening posts.
So as the FBI and other agencies continue to expand and evolve, so
will their powers. We will continue to ask who should be watching the
watchers in oversight.
There is clearly more work to be done--Chairman Arlen Specter and
Ranking Member Pat Leahy have worked together and are introducing
legislation that addresses many of my outstanding concerns. I will be
on that bill--we have made meaningful reforms.
I also want to thank Senator Feingold for his continued dogged
support for reform of this bill. I want him to know that I stand with
him in the battle to gain further reforms.
Also included in this conference report is some good news for port
security. Sadly, there is not the funding that we have repeatedly asked
for from this administration--but at least new criminal penalties for
smuggling goods through ports. There are tools to help crackdown
further on money laundering overseas by terrorist organizations.
Finally, I am very pleased that the conference report includes
essential and long overdue resources to combat our Nation's surging
methamphetamine epidemic.
Meth, as a problem in our communities, will not simply disappear on
its own. We must make it a top priority and work to end it together.
That's why I had introduced similar legislation to address meth use,
manufacture, and sale, and create a law regulating the commercially
available products used to make meth, such as pseudo-
ephedrine.
And that's why I am so glad to see the Combat Meth Act included in
today's legislation. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when
Senators Talent and Feinstein introduced it, and I am pleased that it
will be signed into law, providing comprehensive reforms and critical
resources. The legislation enforces strict regulations and keeps
records so that meth producers can't get their hands on those key
ingredients. When a similar type of law was enacted in Oklahoma, it
reduced meth lab busts in the state by 80 percent.
This legislation also provides valuable resources to State and local
governments for law enforcement officials investigating and shutting
down labs, investigating violent meth-related crimes, educating the
public, and caring for children affected by the drug's scourge. The
bill also confronts international meth trafficking new reporting and
certification procedures.
My State, Washington, is sixth in the country in meth production. In
2004, 1337 meth lab sites were discovered in Washington State. That
same year, 220 fatalities were linked to the drug. And we are first in
the country, when it comes to the number of children found on raided
sites. It is clear this is neither a small problem not an isolated one.
But these aren't just numbers. They are parents and children,
individual people with terrible stories of struggle and addiction.
Acting here and now, to fight this epidemic, we can provide the
resources to and protect our Nation's families and communities.
The events of September 11 have changed our country and its people
forever. We were attacked on our own soil. Thousands have died;
thousands were injured. Very simply, we must do all that we can to stop
terrorism by finding and ending terrorist activities here and abroad.
Our challenge is to do this without compromising the values that make
Americans so unique. They are the same values that have allowed our
Nation to become great: respect for personal autonomy and the rights of
the individual; and tolerance of all regardless of race or religion.
They are the values that have always guided our Nation's leaders. It
was Benjamin Franklin who said essentially:
Make sure we have our liberties. Make sure we protect the
people from ourselves. Those who would give up their
essential liberties for security deserve neither and get
neither.
We must defend both.
We must maintain and take full advantage of meaningful oversight to
ensure power is never abused. While I will vote for this bill, I will
also continue to work to improve this bill. I will continue to be
vigilant and urge those working defend and secure our Nation to use
these powers wisely and with great deliberation.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today to comment on section 507 of the
USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act conference report. This
section originates in a bill that I introduced earlier in this year, S.
1088, the Streamlined Procedures Act. Section 507 is based on
subsections (b) through (e) of section 9 of S. 1088. My Arizona
colleague, Representative Flake, took an interest in this matter and
sought to offer this provision as an amendment to a court security and
police-officer protection bill last November. Mr. Flake's version of
the provision is printed in House Report 109-279; it made a number of
improvements to the original version in section 9 of my bill. Section
507 of the present conference report reflects most of Mr. Flake's
improvements, such as the simplification of the chapter 154
qualification standard, which obviates the need for separate standards
for those States that make direct and collateral review into separate
vehicles and those States with unitary procedures, and Mr. Flake's
enhanced retroactivity provisions.
Mr. Flake already has commented on section 507 in an extension of
remarks, at 151 Cong. Rec. E2639-40, December 22, 2005. I will not
repeat what he said there and will simply associate myself with his
remarks. Instead, I would like to focus today on why section 507 is
necessary.
[[Page 2441]]
Section 507 expands and improves the special expedited habeas-corpus
procedures authorized in chapter 154 of the U.S. Code. These procedures
are available to States that establish a system for providing legal
representation to capital defendants on State habeas review. Chapter
154 sets strict time limits on Federal court action, bars consideration
of claims that were not adjudicated in State court, and sharply
curtails amendments to petitions. The benefits that chapter 154 offers
to States that opt in to its standards are substantial. Currently,
however, the court that decides whether a State is eligible for chapter
154 is the same court that would be subject to its time limits.
Unsurprisingly, these courts have proven resistant to chapter 154.
Section 507 places the eligibility decision in the hands of a neutral
party--the U.S. Attorney General, with review of his decision in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which does
not hear habeas petitions. Section 507 also makes chapter 154's
deadlines more practical by extending the time for a district court to
review and rule on a chapter 154 petition from 6 months to 15 months.
As I mentioned earlier, section 507 of the present conference report
is based on section 9 of the Streamlined Procedures Act. The SPA and
habeas reform have been the subject of multiple hearings in both the
House and Senate during this Congress. In answers to written questions
following their testimony at a July 13 hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Arizona prosecutors John Todd and Kent Cattani
provided detailed evidence of systematic delays in Federal habeas
corpus review of State capital cases. Among the information that they
provided was a comprehensive study undertaken by the Arizona Attorney
General's Office of all capital cases in the State. This study examined
the appeals of all prisoners currently on Arizona's death row--over 100
prisoners. Mr. Todd summarized the findings in his answers to written
questions:
[S]tatistical information based on Arizona's current
capital cases in Federal court, and anecdotal information
derived from Arizona's current and former capital cases
substantiate the significant problem of delay and lack of
finality for victims. The AEDPA has not solved this problem.
There are 76 Arizona capital cases pending in Federal
court. This represents over two thirds of Arizona's pending
capital cases. Although some cases were filed within the last
few months, over half of the cases have been pending in
Federal court five years or more. Of those, thirteen cases
have been pending for seven years. Ten cases have been
pending for eight years. Five cases have been pending for
more than fifteen years.
The AEDPA was a major step in making Federal habeas review
more reliable and speedy. However, the Supreme Court's
reversals of the Ninth Circuit exemplify the unwillingness of
some court cultures to obey this Congress' directives if
there is any ambiguity in the law.
Mr. Todd also gave a summary of the extreme delays experienced by the
State of Arizona on Federal habeas review:
Only one of the 63 [Arizona death-penalty] cases filed
under the AEDPA has moved from the Federal District Court to
the Ninth Circuit. That case has been in the Ninth Circuit
for over 5 years. Twenty-eight of Arizona's capital cases
have been pending in District Court for between six and eight
years.
[One Arizona death penalty case] has been on Federal habeas
review for over 19 years. Two of those cases have been on
Federal habeas review for over 18 years, one for over 16
years, another for over 14 years, still another for over 12
years. These cases alone establish a pattern of unreasonable
delay. The [Arizona Attorney General's] report shows that
these cases are not simply strange aberrations in an
otherwise smooth functioning system of habeas review.
Mr. Todd concluded: ``there is a serious problem of delay and lack of
finality currently in Federal habeas review of state-court judgments,
even after Congress' enactment of the AEDPA almost a decade ago. . . .
Based on the attached review of the Arizona capital cases since
enactment of the AEDPA, delay has not been eliminated or even reduced,
rather it has been prolonged.''
Similarly, in his answers to written questions, Kent Cattani, the
Chief Counsel of the Capital Litigation Section of the Arizona Attorney
General's Office, reviewed the Arizona Attorney General's study of
Arizona capital cases and concluded as follows: ``Federal habeas reform
is necessary. After 9 years under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (``AEDPA''), it is clear that the Act did not
eliminate or even reduce the problem of delay in the Federal habeas
process.''
Interestingly, although the Judicial Conference of the United States
has uniformly opposed all Federal habeas reform--it even objected in
writing to SPA Section 8(a)'s requirement that circuit courts decide
habeas cases within 300 days after briefing is completed--in its
September 26, 2005 letter to Chairman Specter regarding the SPA, the
Conference itself provides substantial evidence of a growing backlog
and delays in resolution of capital habeas petitions. The September 26
letter notes the following facts: From 1998 to 2002, the number of
State capital habeas cases pending in the Federal district courts
increased from 446 to 721. During the same period, the percentage of
State capital habeas cases pending in the Federal district courts for
more than 3 years rose from 20.2 percent to 46.2 percent; in the
Federal courts of appeals, the number of pending State capital habeas
cases rose from 185 to 284; and the median time from filing of a notice
of appeal to disposition for State capital habeas cases increased from
10 months to 15 months.
It is noteworthy that all of these increases in backlog and delay
have taken place after the enactment of the AEDPA in 1996--a law that
some critics of habeas reform assert has solved all of the problems
with Federal habeas.
At the most recent hearing on the Streamlined Procedures Act, before
the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 16, Ron Eisenberg, Deputy
District Attorney for Philadelphia, summarized the problems and delays
with Federal habeas review that he encounters in the course of his
work. He stated:
I have served as a prosecutor for 24 years. I am the
supervisor of the Law Division of the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office, a group of 60 lawyers. Many of those
lawyers handle regular appeals in the Pennsylvania appellate
courts. But more and more of our attorneys must devote
themselves full time to Federal habeas corpus litigation. In
the last decade, the number of lawyers employed exclusively
on habeas work has increased 400%. Despite the limits
supposedly imposed by law, the only certain limit on the
Federal habeas process as it is currently administered is the
expiration of the defendant's sentence.
But that leaves ample opportunity and motivation for
litigation, because the cases that reach Federal habeas
review involve the most dangerous criminals, who receive the
most serious sentences--not just death penalties, but non-
capital murders, rape, violent robberies and burglaries,
brutal beatings, and shootings.
Too often, discussion of the proper scope of Federal habeas
corpus review is really just a debate about the value of the
death penalty, and the justness of imprisonment and
punishment generally. To be sure, many Federal courts seem
flatly unwilling to affirm capital sentences. In
Pennsylvania, for example, almost every single contested
death sentence litigated on habeas--over 20 cases in the last
decade--has been thrown out by Federal judges; only one has
been upheld.
But the primary problem is one of process, not results. The
truth is that, whether or not they end up reversing a
conviction, Federal habeas courts drag out litigation for
years of utterly unjustifiable delay, creating exorbitant
costs for the state and endless pain for the victims.
This data and testimony confirm what many capital litigators and
judges have told me is, in their view, an obvious and uncontestable
fact: the problems with Federal habeas corpus are systematic, they are
severe, and they and are growing worse. Yet even this information does
not really tell us why this problem matters--why ordinary people,
rather than just civil servants and judges, should be concerned about
the functioning of the Federal habeas system. For that information, it
is necessary to look at the impact of the current habeas system on the
surviving victims of violent crimes. The current system and the delays
that it engenders, particularly in capital cases, often are grossly
cruel to these individuals. The perpetual litigation of Federal habeas
cases denies the surviving family of a murder victim closure--it forces
them to continually relive the crime, rather than be able to put the
terrible events behind them.
Two parents of murder victims testified at hearings in this Congress
about
[[Page 2442]]
how they have been treated by the Federal habeas system. Their
testimony makes a compelling case that this system is broken and in
need of reform. And it highlights why we should all be concerned. What
these individuals and their families--people who had already suffered
so much--have experienced at the hands of the Federal courts should
offend every American.
The first witness to testify was Carol Fornoff, who addressed the
House Judiciary Committee's Crime Subcommittee on June 7 of last year.
Mrs. Fornoff's 13-year-old daughter, Christy Ann, was murdered in 1984.
Almost every Arizonan who lived in the State at the time knows the name
Christy Ann Fornoff. Christy's murder was an event that shattered
people's sense of security, that made them afraid to let their children
play outside or go out of their sight. I remember the case vividly. And
I was stunned when I learned last year that the man who killed Christy,
although sentenced to death by the State of Arizona, still is
litigating his conviction and sentence in Federal court. His Federal
proceedings began in 1992--14 years ago. Just think about how long ago
1992 is. President Bush's father was the President at the time. Bill
Clinton was the Governor of Arkansas. Saddam Hussein's invasion of
Kuwait is closer in time to that date than the U.S. invasion of Iraq is
to today. And yet the case of Christy's killer remains in Federal
court.
Mrs. Fornoff made a powerful case for why we should find this
unacceptable. She described the suffering of her family, how this
decades-long litigation has denied them closure. I do not think that
anyone who heard Mrs. Fornoff's testimony would assert that there are
no problems with the present system. Allow me to quote the main portion
of Mrs. Fornoff's statement to the House Crime Subcommittee:
My husband Roger and I are here today to tell you about our
daughter, Christy Ann Fornoff. Christy was our youngest
daughter. She was a loving child, very gentle. She often
seemed to make friends with the kids at school who weren't so
popular. She was very dear to us.
In 1984, our family was living in Tempe, Arizona, and
Christy was 13 years old. Christy and her brother Jason both
held jobs as newscarriers for the Phoenix Gazette, a local
newspaper. Roger and I believed that jobs like this would
teach our children responsibility, while also helping them
earn a little money.
After dinner on Wednesday evening, May 9, 1984, both
Christy and Jason had been invited to go jumping on
trampolines. Jason went, but Christy had just had a cast
removed from her ankle. Instead, she went to collect on
newspaper subscriptions at an apartment complex near our
house.
Christy delivered papers at this complex every day, it was
just two short blocks from our house. Nevertheless, it was
getting dusk, so I went with Christy; she rode her brother's
bike while I walked alongside with our little dog.
At the first apartment that Christy visited, I was stopped
by a neighbor who wanted to talk about our cute dog. Christy
went on to the next apartment alone, and I followed a few
minutes later. When I got there, the bike was outside, but
there was no Christy. I started calling her name, but there
was no answer. Our dog started to get nervous. After a few
minutes, I ran home, and came back with my daughter's
boyfriend. I asked the people at the apartment that Christy
had gone to if they had seen her, and they said yes, ten
minutes ago, and that she had left. I knew that Christy
wouldn't just leave her brother's bike there.
I ran home again. My husband had just arrived at home and I
told him that Christy was missing. He immediately called the
police, and then he went to the apartment complex and began
knocking on doors. Outside of one apartment, people standing
nearby told us don't bother knocking on that door, that is
the maintenance man, and he is looking for Christy. Shortly
after, the maintenance man joined Roger in the search for
Christy.
That night, police helicopters with searchlights examined
every corner of our neighborhood. Our son drove up and down
every alley in the area on his motorcycle. Christy's
newspaper-collections book was found over a fence near the
apartment complex. But no one found Christy.
Two days later, a policeman knocked at our door. Christy's
body had been discovered wrapped in a sheet, lying behind a
trash dumpster in the apartment complex. We were absolutely
devastated. We had been hoping against hope, and couldn't
believe that our beautiful daughter was dead.
Christy's body was taken to a morgue so that an autopsy
could be performed. On Sunday, which was Mother's day, we
were finally able to view Christy's body at the funeral home.
Mother's Day has never been the same for me since.
Ten days after Christy's body was found, the maintenance
man at the apartment complex--the same man who supposedly had
been looking for her the night that she disappeared--was
arrested for her murder. Christy had been sexually assaulted
and suffocated. There was blood, semen, and hair on Christy's
body that was consistent with that of the maintenance man.
Vomit on Christy's face matched vomit in the maintenance
man's closet. Fibers on Christy's body matched the carpet and
a blanket in the maintenance man's apartment. And police
found Christy's hair inside of the apartment. We knew who had
killed our daughter.
In 1985, the maintenance man was convicted of Christy's
murder and sentenced to death. The conviction was upheld in a
lengthy opinion by the Arizona Supreme Court. The killer
raised many more challenges, but his last state appeals were
finally rejected in 1992. By that time, we already felt like
the case had been going on a long time--it had been seven
years. We couldn't imagine that the killer would have any
more challenges to argue.
But in 1992, the killer filed another challenge to his
conviction in the United States District Court. That
challenge then remained in that one court for another 7
years! Finally, in November of 1999, the district court
dismissed the case. But then a few years later, the Federal
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to
the district court for more hearings. Today, the case remains
before that same Federal district court.
It has now been over 21 years since Christy was murdered.
By this fall, the case will have been in the Federal courts
for longer than Christy was ever alive.
I cannot describe to you how painful our experience with
the court system has been. I cannot believe that just one
court took over 7 years to decide our case.
Some might ask why we can't just move on, and forget about
the killer's appeals. But it doesn't work that way. She was
our daughter, our beautiful little girl, and he took her
away. We want to know if he was properly convicted. We want
to know, will his conviction be thrown out? Will there be
another trial? I cannot imagine testifying at a trial again.
And would they even be able to convict this man again? It has
been 21 years. How many witnesses are still here, is all of
the evidence even still available? Could this man one day be
released? Could I run into him on the street, a free man--the
man who assaulted and killed our little daughter? The courts
have turned this case into an open wound for our family--a
wound that has not been allowed to heal for 21 years.
I understand that the Federal government has the right to
create such a system. It can let the Federal courts hear any
challenge to a state conviction, at any time, with no limits.
My question to you, Mr. Chairman, is why would we want such a
system? Why would we want a system that forces someone like
me to relive my daughter's murder, again and again and again?
My daughter's killer already litigated all of the challenges
to his case in the state courts. Why should we let him bring
all of the same legal claims again, for another round of
lawsuits, in the Federal courts? Why should this killer get a
second chance? My daughter never had a second chance.
I understand that people are concerned about innocent
people being behind bars, but that is not what my daughter's
killer is suing about. Right now, the issue that is being
litigated in the Federal courts is whether the trial court
made a mistake by allowing the jury to hear that he told a
prison counselor that he ``didn't mean to kill the little
Fornoff girl.'' He claims that the counselor was like his
doctor, and that the statement is private, even though he
said it in front of other prisoners. Earlier this year, a
Federal court held a hearing on whether the killer had a
right to prevent the jury from hearing about this statement.
But the statement is irrelevant. Whether or not he said it,
the evidence of his guilt--the hairs, the fibers, the bodily
fluids--is overwhelming. The issue that the killer is suing
about was already resolved before by the Arizona Supreme
Court--over 17 years ago. Yet here we are, 21 years after my
daughter died, arguing about the same legal technicalities.
People might say that it is worth the cost to let the
killer sue over every issue like this again and again. I
don't think that it is worth the cost. When you and your
colleagues are writing laws, Mr. Chairman, please think about
people like me. Please think about the fact that every time
that there is another appeal, another ruling, another
hearing, I am forced to think about my daughter's death.
Every time, I am forced to wonder, if only Christy hadn't had
the cast on her ankle--if only she could have gone on the
trampoline that evening, she would still be alive today.
Every time that I hear a helicopter, I am terrified--I think
of the police helicopters searching for Christy on the night
that she disappeared. Every time that I hear a motorcycle, I
think of my son, searching for Christy. Every time that the
courts reopen this case, I am forced to wonder, why didn't I
follow Christy to that second apartment--why did I let that
neighbor stop me to talk? Every time, I am forced to
[[Page 2443]]
think about how scared my little girl must have been when she
died.
I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to do what you can to fix this
system. My family and I have forgiven our daughter's
murderer. But we cannot forgive a justice system that would
treat us this way.
Another witness who testified before Congress last year on the need
for Federal habeas reform is Mary Ann Hughes of Chino Hills, CA. Mrs.
Hughes's son Christopher, then 11 years old, was murdered in 1983. As
in the Fornoff case, the killer was captured, convicted, and sentenced
to death--and is still litigating his case in Federal court today. Mrs.
Hughes testified before the House Judiciary Committee's Crime
Subcommittee on November 10, 2005. This is what she said:
Christopher was a beautiful little boy. He had just
completed the fifth grade at a local Catholic school. His
classmates later planted a tree in his memory at the school.
Chris swam on the swim team and dreamed of swimming for the
University of Southern California and being in the Olympics.
He loved his younger brother, and in typical brotherly
fashion would tease him one minute and be his best friend the
next. Chris' younger brother is now 28-years-old. He has
missed Chris every day since he was murdered. Our younger son
was not yet born when Chris was murdered. I was pregnant
during part of Cooper's trial with our third son. When he was
born we gave him the middle name Christopher after the
brother he never knew. Both boys have only in the last few
years been able to face what happened to their brother. As
the years have passed, we are reminded that Chris never got
to finish grammar school, go to a prom, marry, have children
of his own, or pursue his dreams.
On Saturday, June 4, 1983, Chris asked me for permission to
spend the night at the home of his friend, Josh Ryen. We
lived in what was then a very rural neighborhood. Josh was
the only boy nearby who was really close to Chris's age and
so they formed a bond. We were good friends with Josh's
parents, Doug and Peggy Ryen. The Ryens lived just up the
road from our home with their 10-year-old daughter Jessica
and eight-year-old Josh. The last time I saw Chris alive he
and Josh were riding off on their bicycles toward Josh's
house. They were excitedly waving because they were so happy
I had given Chris permission to spend that night with Josh.
The only thing Chris had to remember was to be home Sunday in
time for church. The next time I saw Chris was in a
photograph on an autopsy table during Cooper's preliminary
hearing.
Unbeknownst to anyone, Cooper had been hiding in a house in
Chino Hills just 126 yards from the Ryen's home. He had
escaped two days earlier from a minimum security facility at
a nearby prison. When Cooper was arrested for burglary in Los
Angeles he used a false identity. His identity and criminal
past should have caught up with him before he was wrongly
assigned to the minimum security portion of the prison. The
prison, however, mishandled the processing of an outstanding
warrant for Cooper for escape from custody in Pennsylvania.
He was being held pending trial for the kidnap and rape of a
teenage girl who interrupted him while he was burglarizing a
home. While staying at the hide-out house near the Ryens,
Cooper had been calling former girlfriends, trying to get
them to help him get out of the area. A manhunt was under way
for Cooper, but the rural community surrounding the prison
was never notified of the escape.
The failure of the California prison-system to protect the
surrounding community from a dangerous felon marked the
beginning of our family and community's being let down by our
government. Within a few hours of Cooper's escape, prison
officials realized who Cooper was and how dangerous he was.
Nevertheless, they still failed to alert the community that
he was at large. Our frustration and disappointment with our
government's failings has only grown since that time as
Cooper's case continues to wind its way down a seemingly
endless path through our judicial system.
The morning following the murders, I remember being mad at
Chris because he had not arrived home on time as promised so
we could attend church. Then my anger turned to worry. I sent
my husband Bill up to the Ryen home. He saw that the horses
had not been fed, and that the Ryen station wagon was gone.
Uncharacteristically, the kitchen door was locked, so my
husband walked around the house. He looked inside the sliding
glass door of the Ryen's master bedroom. He saw blood
everywhere. Peggy and Chris were lying on the ground and Josh
was lying next to them, showing signs of life but unable to
move. My husband could not open the sliding glass door, so he
ran and kicked open the kitchen door. As he went into the
master bedroom, he found 10-year-old Jessica lying on the
floor in fetal position in the doorway, dead. He saw Doug and
Peggy nude, bloodied, and lifeless. When he went to our son
Chris, he was cold to the touch. Bill then knew that
Christopher was dead.
My husband then forced himself to have enough presence of
mind to get help for Josh, who miraculously survived despite
having his throat slit from ear to ear. Josh, only eight
years old, lay next to his dead, naked mother throughout the
night, knowing from the silence and from the smell of blood
that everyone else was dead. He placed his fingers into his
throat, which kept him from bleeding to death during the 12
hours before my husband rescued him.
Everyone inside the home had been repeatedly struck by a
hatchet and attacked with a knife. Christopher had 25
identifiable wounds made by a hatchet and a knife. Many of
them were on his hands, which he must have put against his
head to protect himself from Kevin Cooper's blows. Some were
made after he was already dead. No one should know this kind
of horror. That it happened to a child makes it even worse.
The killer had lifted Jessica's nightgown and carved on her
chest after she died. The killer also helped himself to a
beer from the Ryen's refrigerator. We wondered what kind of
monster would attack a father, mother, and three children
with a hatchet, and then go have a beer. That question has
long since been answered, but 22 years later we are still
waiting for justice.
The escaped prisoner who committed this crime was caught 2 months
later. He admitted that he had stayed in the house next door but denied
any involvement in the murders. According to the California Supreme
Court, however, the evidence of defendant's guilt was ``overwhelming.''
Not only had the defendant stayed at the vacant house right next door
at the time of the murders; the hatchet used in the murders was taken
from the vacant house; shoe prints in the Ryen house matched those in
the vacant house and were from a type of shoe issued to prisoners;
bloody items, including a prison-issue button, were found in the vacant
house; prison-issue tobacco was found in the Ryen station wagon, which
was recovered in Long Beach; and the defendant's blood type and hair
matched that found in the Ryen house. The defendant was convicted of
the murders and sentenced to death in 1985, and the California Supreme
Court upheld the defendant's conviction and sentence in 1991.
The defendant's Federal habeas proceedings began shortly thereafter,
and they continue to this day--23 years after the murders. In 2000, the
defendant asked the courts for DNA testing of a blood spot in the Ryen
house, a t-shirt near the crime scene, and the tobacco found in the
car. Despite the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, the courts allowed
more testing. All three tests found that the blood and saliva matched
the defendant, to a degree of certainty of 1 in 310 billion. Blood on
the t-shirt matched both the defendant and one of the victims.
Mrs. Hughes went on to describe, in her November 10 testimony, the
impact of this crime and the attenuated legal proceedings on her
family:
``While I know that Cooper is the one who murdered my son,
I will always bear the guilt of having given Chris permission
to spend the night at the Ryen's house. I will always feel
responsible for sending my husband to find the bodies of our
son and the Ryen family. It is a guilt similar to the guilt
that Josh feels to this day because he had begged me to let
Chris spend the night. He thinks that Chris would still be
alive if he had not spent the night. Of course, Cooper is
responsible for all the pain and suffering that he inflicted
that night and the continued pain that has followed, but it
does not help stop the pain and guilt. Kevin Cooper is still
here over 22 years later--still proclaiming his innocence and
complaining about our judicial system.
As Josh explained when he finally got a chance to speak to
the Judge about how he has been affected by Cooper's crimes:
Cooper never shuts up. We continually get to hear more bogus
claims and more comments from Cooper and his attorneys. Over
the years I have learned to know when something has happened
in Cooper's never-ending legal case: the calls from the media
start up again, or, at times, the media trucks just park in
front of our house. We have no opportunity to put this behind
us--to heal or to try to find peace--because everything is
about Cooper. Our system is so grotesquely skewed to Cooper's
benefit and seemingly incapable of letting California carry
out its judgment against him.
[The] judicial system so out of balance in favor of the
convicted that it literally enables them to victimize their
victims and their families all over again through the Federal
judicial system. We understood the rights of an accused and
that Cooper's rights took precedence over ours as he stood
trial. His trial was moved to another County because of the
publicity surrounding the horrendous crimes. I had to drive a
long distance to another county to watch the trial as
[[Page 2444]]
it could not take place in our County. Cooper's defense
attorney spent an entire year preparing to defend Cooper at
trial. Everything was about Cooper's rights and none of our
sensibilities or concerns could be dignified because Cooper
had to have a fair trial. We understood and we waited for
justice. In California, Cooper's appeal was automatic because
he had received the death penalty for his crimes. The appeal
took six years to conclude. We understood the need for a
thorough appeal and we waited for justice.
By 1991, Cooper had received a fair trial and his appeal
had been concluded. The California Supreme Court aptly
observed that the evidence against Cooper, both in volume and
consistency, was ``overwhelming''. Since then, we have waited
and watched as the United States Supreme Court has denied
Cooper's eight petitions for writ of certiorari and two
petitions for writ of habeas corpus, and the California
Supreme Court has denied Cooper's seven habeas corpus
petitions and three motions to reopen Cooper's appeal. The
Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Cooper's first Federal
habeas petition, and denied him permission to file a
successive petition in 2001, and again in 2003. But then, on
Friday night, February 6, 2004, Cooper's attorneys filed an
application with the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to
file a successive habeas petition.
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit denied Cooper's
application to file a successive petition on Sunday, February
8, 2004. Cooper was scheduled to be executed at one minute
after midnight on Tuesday, February 10, 2004. On Monday,
February 9, 2004, my husband and I made the trip to Northern
California from our home in Southern California. Relatives of
the extended Ryen family flew in from all over the Country.
Josh Ryen, now 30, left for dead at the age of eight, his
entire immediate family murdered, drove hundreds of miles to
reach the prison to witness the execution of Cooper. We all
expected that finally, this case would be brought to a close.
Mrs. Hughes went on to describe, however, how on the eve of the
execution, the en banc Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sua sponte
reviewed the denial of the petitioner's successive petition application
and reversed the three-judge panel. The en banc decision stayed the
killer's execution and permitted him to pursue a second round of
Federal habeas corpus litigation. This second round still is going on
today--15 years after the California Supreme Court affirmed the
conviction and sentence, and 23 years after the murders.
Section 2244(b)(3)(E) of title 28 states that ``[t]he grant or denial
of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or
successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the
subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.'' To
us lesser lawyers, this provision might seem like it means that there
shall be no en banc review of the three-judge panel's denial of the
application. But the enlightened jurists of the Ninth Circuit have
discovered that although subparagraph (E) bars the habeas petitioner
from appealing the denial, the en banc court remains free to sua sponte
grant review. Some might find it strange that Congress would have
intended to bar the en banc courts of appeals from considering a case
on the basis of a party's appeal and adversarial briefing, but intended
to allow the same courts to hear the same case without a request for
review and with no briefing. Typically, briefing is regarded as aiding
a court's consideration of a case. Of course, the losing habeas
petitioner typically does seek en banc review of the denial of the
successive-petition application and file a brief in support of his
request. I suppose that we are to trust that the en banc court of
appeals does not read that brief, or that if it does so, it puts the
brief out of its collective mind so that it might act ``sua sponte''
when it votes on whether to go en banc, lest its actions otherwise
appear to violate subparagraph (E)'s clear command that the denial of
the application is not ``appealable.''
In this case, I am prepared to believe that the judges did not read
the briefs. Despite DNA evidence that linked the habeas petitioner to
the murder scene to a degree of certainty of 1 in 310 billion, the en
banc Ninth Circuit determined that the petitioner met section 2244's
requirement that he present ``clear and convincing evidence that . . .
no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty of the
underlying offense.'' The Ninth Circuit's theory was that the police
might have planted the blood evidence. As Mrs. Hughes noted in her
November 10 testimony, however:
Of course, Cooper could not explain how or why police would
plant a minute amount of blood on the t-shirt only to never
use it as evidence against him at trial. Moreover, this
evidence had been in police custody since 1984. Apparently,
these supposed rogue police officers also anticipated the
development of the Nobel Prize-winning science that would
enable Cooper to have the blood tested for DNA. Cooper also
could not explain how the police could have planted his blood
at the crime scene within a few hours of discovering the
bodies, while he was still at large.
The Ninth Circuit first granted sua sponte en banc review of the
denial of a successive-petition application in the case of Thompson v.
Calderon, 120 F.3d 1045, 9th Cir. 1997, a decision with other
procedural irregularities so glaring that the Supreme Court did not
even notice this aspect of the decision when it took it up and
reversed, Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 1998. The Sixth Circuit
subsequently copied Thompson, thus allowing the Ninth Circuit to
attribute this practice to other circuits when it again applied it in
the case of the killer of Mary Ann Hughes's son. Section 8(b) of the
Streamlined Procedures Act would prevent the Ninth Circuit from doing
this in the future. Unfortunately, I was unable to have that provision
included in this conference report. I will try again in the future.
This year, it will have been 23 years since Christopher Hughes and
Doug, Peggy, and Jessica Ryen were murdered. In 2004, after the Ninth
Circuit authorized another round of litigation, a local newspaper
described the impact of this crime and the ensuing years of appeals on
the surviving family of the victims:
For nearly 20 years, since convicted murderer Kevin Cooper
was sentenced to death for the 1983 slayings of a Chino Hills
family and their young houseguest, families of the victims
have waited silently for the day the hand of justice would
grant them peace.
For those families, the last two decades have seemed like
an eternity.
I lived through a nightmare,'' said Herbert Ryen, whose
brother Douglas Ryen was among those killed, along with
Douglas' wife Peggy, their 11-year-old daughter Jessica, and
her 10-year-old friend Christopher Hughes.
[O]n the morning of Feb. 9, [2004,] the day of Cooper's
scheduled death by lethal injection, word came down that the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided to block the
execution.
[T]o the Ryen and Hughes families, the stay just hours
before Cooper's scheduled execution at San Quentin State
Prison was nearly incomprehensible. The indefinite delay has
left them in a sort of emotional limbo, questioning whether
the legal system had abandoned them.
The bottom line is that this whole issue is not about Kevin
Cooper . . . it is about the death penalty,'' said Mary Ann
Hughes, the mother of Christoper Hughes. ``We're so mad--mad
because we feel as though the courts turned their back on my
son.''
They (Court of Appeals) are holding us hostage,'' Hughes
said.
For Herbert Ryen and his wife Sue, waiting for justice has
taken an equally destructive toll on their lives. The torment
their family experienced following the murders, and the
subsequent years lost to depression, could never be replaced,
he said from his home in Arizona.
Mary Ann Hughes said the pain her family suffers is only
amplified by the seemingly continuous bombardment of
celebrities campaigning against Cooper's execution. She
wonders who will cry out in anger for the victims.
One former television star and anti-death penalty activist,
Mike Farrell of the popular series MASH, spoke of the case on
a recent news program.
``He claimed that we must feel relieved since the stay of
execution was granted,'' Hughes said. ``How can (Farrell)
have the audacity to say he knows what we are feeling?''
Farrell could not be reached for comment.
Since Christopher's death, the Hughes family has chosen to
remain out of the media spotlight. And until recently, their
efforts were successful, due largely to the support of their
surviving children, family members and a strong network of
close friends, Hughes said.
The court's decision Feb. 9 has re-opened the case, forcing
the families to re-live the nightmare they have fought so
hard to leave behind, they say.
Mary Ann Hughes is left wondering about other families who
have had loved ones taken from them, about the legal battles
they have had to endure in their own quests for justice.
She thinks of the parents of Samantha Runion, the 5-year-
old Orange County girl who was murdered in 2003, and of what
her family could face in the next 20 years.
For Bill Hughes, the anguish is intensified--he will
forever know the pain of walking into the Ryens' home the
morning after
[[Page 2445]]
the murders, and finding his son, dead and covered in blood
near the Ryens' bedroom door. He was also the first to
discover Joshua Ryen, also drenched in blood, clinging to
life.
``It is a memory he will always have to live with,'' Mary
Ann Hughes said.
Indeed, time has been no friend to the victims' families,
as California's recent appellate court ruling has further
denied them closure, she added.
``What this decision has done to our legal system in
California is unthinkable,'' she said. ``Somewhere along the
line, the courts have got to uphold the law, and we will wait
it out until they do.'' (Sara Carter, ``Families of Murder
Victims Wait for Justice in Cooper Case,'' Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin, February 24, 2004.)
The impact of this litigation on Mary and Bill Hughes and Herbert and
Sue Ryen alone makes the handling of this case indefensible. No one,
however, has borne the weight of our system of Federal collateral
review more heavily in this case than has the one surviving victim of
the June 4, 1983 attack. Josh Ryen was 8 years old when he was stabbed
in his parents' bedroom and his parents and sister were murdered. He
had been Christopher Hughes's neighbor and best friend. As of last
year, however, Mary and Bill Hughes had not seen Josh since he was
airlifted by helicopter from the scene of the murders to Loma Linda
University hospital. Then on April 22, 2005, Josh Ryen appeared at the
latest Federal habeas corpus hearing for the man who killed his family.
He is now 30 years old. Pursuant to the recently enacted Crime Victims'
Rights Act, he gave a brief statement before the court. I will quote
Josh Ryen's statement in its entirety:
The first time I met Kevin Cooper I was 8 years old and he
slit my throat. He hit me with a hatchet and put a hole in my
skull. He stabbed me twice, which broke my ribs and collapsed
one lung. I lived only because I stuck four fingers in my
neck to slow the bleeding, but I was too weak to move. I laid
there 11 hours looking at my mother who was right beside me.
I know now he came through the sliding glass door and
attacked my dad first. He was lying on the bed and was struck
in the dark without warning with the hatchet and knife. He
was hit many times because there is a lot of blood on the
wall on his side of the bed.
My mother screamed and Cooper came around the bed and
started hitting her. Somehow my dad was able to struggle
between the bed and the closet but Cooper bludgeoned my
father to death with the knife and hatchet, stabbing him 26
times and axing him 11. One of the blows severed his finger
and it landed in the closet.
My mother tried to get away but he caught her at the bottom
of the bed and he stabbed her 25 times and axed her 7.
All of us kids were drawn to the room by mom's screams.
Jessica was killed in the doorway with 5 ax blows and 46
stabs. I won't say how many times my best friend Chris was
stabbed and axed, not because it isn't important, but because
I don't want to hurt his family in any way, and they are
here.
After Cooper killed everyone, and thought he had killed me,
he went over to my sister and lifted her shirt and drew
things on her stomach with the knife. Then he walked down the
hallway, opened the refrigerator, and had a beer. I guess
killing so many people can make a man thirsty.
I don't want to be here. I came because I owe it to my
family, who can't speak for themselves. But by coming I am
acknowledging and validating the existence of Kevin Cooper,
who should have been blotted from the face of the earth a
long time ago. By coming here it shows that he still controls
me. I will be free, my life will start, the day Kevin Cooper
dies. I want to be rid of him, but he won't go away.
I've been trying to get away from him since I was 8 years
and I can't escape. He haunts me and follows me. For over 20
years all I've heard is Kevin Cooper this and Kevin Cooper
that. Kevin Cooper says he is innocent, Kevin Cooper says he
was framed, Kevin Cooper says DNA will clear him, Kevin
Cooper says blood was planted, Kevin Cooper says the tennis
shoes aren't his, Kevin Cooper says three guys did it, Kevin
Cooper says police planted evidence, Kevin Cooper gets
another stay from another court and sends everyone off on
another wild goose chase.
The courts say there isn't any harm when Kevin Cooper gets
another stay and another hearing. This just shows they don't
care about me, because every time he gets another delay I am
harmed and have to relive the murders all over again. Every
time Kevin Cooper opens his mouth everyone wants to know what
I think, what I have to say, how I'm feeling, and the whole
nightmare floods all over me again: the barbecue, me begging
to let Chris spend the night, me in my bed and him on the
floor beside me, my mother's screams, Chris gone, dark house,
hallway, bushy hair, everything black, mom cut to pieces
saturated in blood, the nauseating smell of blood, eleven
hours unable to move, light filtering in, Chris' father at
the window, the horror of his face, sound of the front door
splintering, my pajamas being cut off, people trying to save
me, the whap whap of the helicopter blades, shouted
questions, everything fading to black.
Every time Cooper claims he's innocent and sends people
scurrying off on another wild goose chase, I have to relive
the murders all over again. It runs like a horror movie, over
and over again and never stops because he never shuts up. He
puts PR people on national television who say outrageous
things and then the press wants to know what I think. What I
think is that I would like to be rid of Kevin Cooper. I would
like for him to go away. I would like to never hear from
Kevin Cooper again. I would like Kevin Cooper to pay for what
he did.
I dread happy times like Christmas and Thanksgiving. If I
go to a friend's house on holidays I look at all the mothers
and fathers and children and grandchildren and get sad
because I have no one. Kevin Cooper took them from me.
I get terrified when I go into any place dark, like a house
before the lights are on. I hear screams and see flashbacks
and shadows. Even with lights on I see terrible things. After
I was stabbed and axed I was too weak to move and stared at
my mother all night. I smelled this overpowering smell of
fresh blood and knew everyone had been slaughtered.
Every day when I comb my hair I feel the hole where he
buried the hatchet in my head, and when I look in the mirror
I see the scar where he cut my throat from ear to ear and I
put four fingers in it to stop the bleeding which, they say,
saved my life. Every year I lose hearing in my left ear where
he buried the knife.
Helicopters give me flashbacks of life flight and my
Incredible Hulks being cut off by paramedics. Bushy hair
reminds me of the killer. Silence reminds me of the quiet
before the screams. Cooper is everywhere. There is no escape
from him.
I feel very guilty and responsible to the Hughes family
because I begged them to let Chris spend the night. If I
hadn't done that he wouldn't have died. I apologize to them
and especially to Mr. Hughes for having to find us and see
his son cut and stabbed to death.
I thank the judge who gave my grandma custody of me because
she took good care of me and loves me very much.
I'm grateful to the ocean for giving me peace because when
I go there I know my mother and father and sister's ashes are
sprinkled there.
Kevin Cooper has movie stars and Jesse Jackson holding
rallies for him, people carrying signs, lighting candles,
saying prayers. To them and you I say:
I was 8 when he slit my throat,
It was dark and I couldn't see.
Through the night and day I laid there, trying to get up and
flee.
He killed my mother, father, sister, friend,
And started stalking me.
I try to run and flee from him but cannot get away,
While he demands petitions and claims, some fresh absurdity.
Justice has no ear for me nor cares about my plight, while
crowds pray for the killer and light candles in the
night.
To those who long for justice and love truth which sets men
free, When you pray your prayers tonight, please
remember me.
Even those who oppose capital punishment--who would like to see it
abolished--should not support a system that treats the victims of
violent crimes in this way. Creating a fair, efficient, and expeditious
system of Federal habeas review should be a bipartisan cause. Indeed,
it was President Clinton who noted after the enactment of the 1996
AEDPA reforms that ``it should not take eight or nine years and three
trips to the Supreme Court to finalize whether a person in fact was
properly convicted or not.''
I believe that section 507 of the PATRIOT Reauthorization Act, by
extending the benefits of chapter 154 to States that provide counsel to
capital defendants on postconviction review, will help to achieve that
goal. In Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 1989, the Supreme Court held
that States are not constitutionally required to provide counsel in
State postconviction proceedings, even in capital cases. In AEDPA,
Congress added chapter 154 to title 28 of the United States Code,
offering the States an incentive to provide qualified counsel in such
proceedings. Among the incentives was an expedited process, with time
limits on both the district courts and the courts of appeals.
AEDPA left the decision of whether a State qualified for the
incentive to the same courts that were impacted by the time limits.
This has proved to be a mistake. Chapter 154 has received an extremely
cramped interpretation, denying the benefits of qualification to
[[Page 2446]]
States that do provide qualified counsel and eliminating the incentive
for other States to provide counsel. In Ashmus v. Woodford, 202 F.3d
1160, 2000, the Ninth Circuit held that California did not qualify
because its competency standards were in the State's Standards of
Judicial Administration rather than its Rules of Court, a hypertech-
nical reading of the statute. In Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992, 1018,
2001, the Ninth Circuit held that even though Arizona had established a
qualifying system and even though the State court had appointed counsel
under that system, the Federal court could still deny the State the
benefit of qualification because of a delay in appointing counsel.
Section 507 of this bill abrogates both of these holdings and removes
the qualification decision to a neutral forum. Under new section 2265,
the Attorney General of the United States will decide if a State has
established a qualifying mechanism, and that decision will be reviewed
by the D.C. Circuit, the only Federal circuit that does not handle
State-prisoner habeas cases and therefore is not impacted by the
qualification decision. The requirements for certification are removed
from section 2261(b) and placed in the new section 2265(a). The
``statute or rule of court'' language construed so severely by Ashmus
is removed, allowing the States flexibility on how to establish the
mechanism within the State's judicial structure. There is no longer any
requirement, express or implied, that any particular organ of
government establish the mechanism for appointing and paying counsel or
providing standards of competency--States may act through their
legislatures, their courts, through agencies such as judicial councils,
or even through local governments.
Once a State is certified as having a qualifying mechanism, chapter
154 applies to all cases in which counsel was appointed pursuant to
that mechanism, and to cases where counsel was not appointed because
the defendant waived counsel, retained his own, or had the means to
retain his own. ``Pursuant'' is intended to mean only that the State's
qualifying mechanism was invoked to appoint counsel, not to empower the
Federal courts to supervise the State courts' administration of their
appointment systems. Paragraph (a)(3) of new section 2265 forbids
creation of additional requirements not expressly stated in the
chapter, as was done in the Spears case.
When section 507 was being finalized, I and others were presented
with arguments that some mechanism should be created for
``decertifying'' a State that has opted in to chapter 154 but that
allegedly has fallen out of compliance with its standards. I ultimately
concluded that such a mechanism was unnecessary, and that it would
likely impose substantial litigation burdens on the opt-in States that
would outweigh any justification for the further review. The States are
entitled to a presumption that once they have been certified as
chapter-154 compliant, they will substantially maintain their counsel
mechanisms. After all, to this day, both California and Arizona have
kept up their postconviction counsel mechanisms and standards since the
late 1980s and the mid-1990s, respectively, even though neither State
has ever received any benefits under chapter 154. This history alone
suggests that it is unnecessary to provide a mechanism for
``decertification'' of States that have opted in. Moreover, if such a
means of post-opt-in review were created, it inevitably would be
overused and abused. In my home State of Arizona, defense attorneys in
the past have boycotted the 154 system. The Ninth Circuit later used
the delays in appointing chapter 154 counsel stemming from this boycott
as grounds for denying Arizona the benefits of chapter 154 in the
Spears case. In light of this history, I thought it best to create a
system of one-time certification, with no avenues to challenge or
attempt to repeal the State's continuing chapter-154 eligibility. The
consequences of opting in to chapter 154 should not be perpetual
litigation over the State's continuing eligibility. Even if defense
lawyers in Arizona do boycott the State's system again, the resultant
delays in appointing counsel are unlikely to prejudice their clients,
who typically want delay in the resolution of their cases. And the
occasional case where such delay might prejudice a petitioner simply is
not worth the cost of creating opportunities to force the State to
continually litigate its chapter 154 eligibility. Therefore, under
section 507, once a State is certified for chapter 154, that
certification is final. There is no provision for ``decertification''
or ``compliance review'' after the State has been made subject to
chapter 154.
The incentive for a State to try to satisfy chapter 154's counsel
requirement is the array of procedural benefits that 154 provides to
States defending capital convictions and sentences on Federal habeas.
Section 2266 applies a series of deadlines for court action on chapter
154 applications: district courts will be required to rule on such
applications 15 months after they are filed.
Allow me as an aside to describe some of the back history of this
particular deadline. Current pre-conference-report law gives district
courts only 180 days to rule on a 154 petition. This probably is not
enough time for district courts to rule on these cases, even with the
streamlining provided by the rest of chapter 154. Nor was this reality
obscure to Congress in 1996. I worked on developing this provision in
my first year in the Senate, in cooperation with the Arizona Attorney
General's Office and then-California Attorney General Dan Lungren,
among others. The bill's managers initially adopted a 180-day deadline
as a bargaining position, but had always intended to extend this limit
to 1 year. Unfortunately, at a certain point in the legislative
process, other participants decided that they would object to making
any change whatsoever to the AEDPA, even to correct scrivener's or
grammatical errors--or to liberalize this deadline. Thus we ended up
with 180 days. In order to avoid imposing impossible burdens on the
district courts, I proposed extending this deadline to 15 months in the
SPA, and this extension has been included in section 507. I likely
would receive a cool reception from Chief Judge McNamee upon my next
visit to the Phoenix Federal courthouse had section 507 given Arizona
access to chapter 154 without at least somewhat liberalizing this
particular deadline.
Other relevant deadlines imposed by section 2263 are that the court
of appeals must rule on a case 120 days after briefing has been
completed. That court also must rule on a petition for rehearing and
suggestion for rehearing en banc within 30 days of the filing of the
petition and any reply. And if the court grants rehearing or goes en
banc, it must decide the case within 120 days of doing so.
These deadlines are created by chapter 154 for a reason. In too many
cases, Federal courts' resolution of capital habeas petitions has been
unreasonably slow. In the Fornoff case, for example, the petition
remained before the Federal district court from 1992 to 1999, and that
court did not even hold an evidentiary hearing in the case during that
time. And this is far from the most extreme example of habeas delay. At
the end of her written testimony before the House Crime Subcommittee,
Mrs. Fornoff included several examples of other cases involving habeas
petitioners who had murdered children and whose Federal habeas
proceedings have been unconscionably delayed. All of these examples
involved delays in the district courts much longer than the 7-year
delay in the case of the man who killed Christy Ann Fornoff: the
several cases that Mrs. Fornoff described had remained before one
Federal district court for periods of 10 years, 12 years, 13 years, and
in one case, for 15 years. I quote the portion of Mrs. Fornoff's
testimony describing these cases:
Benjamin Brenneman [was] 12 years old [when he was killed
in] 1981. This case is surprisingly similar to my daughter's
case. Benjamin also was a newspaper carrier, and also was
kidnaped, sexually assaulted, and killed while delivering
newspapers at an apartment complex. Benjamin's killer tied
him up in a way that strangled him when he moved. Police
began by questioning a man in the building who was a prior
sex offender. They found Benjamin's special orthopedic
sandals in his
[[Page 2447]]
apartment. When they interviewed him, he admitted that he
kidnaped Benjamin, but claimed that ``he was alive when I
left him.'' Police found Benjamin's body in a nearby rural
area the next day. (More information about the case is
available in the court opinion for the State appeal, People
v. Thompson, 785 P.2d 857.)
Benjamin's killer was convicted and sentenced to death.
After the State courts finished their review of the case, the
killer filed a habeas corpus petition in the Federal District
Court in 1990. Today, 15 years later, the case is still
before that same court. In 15 years, the district court still
has not ruled on the case! To put the matter in perspective,
so far, and with no end in sight, the litigation before that
one district court has outlived Benjamin by three years. This
is simply unconscionable.
Michelle and Melissa Davis [were] ages 7 and 2 [when they
were murdered in] 1982. An ex-boyfriend of the sister of
Kathy Davis took revenge on the sister for breaking off their
relationship by killing Kathy's husband and her two young
daughters, Michelle and Melissa. The killer confessed to the
crime. The State courts finished their review of the case in
1991. (People v. Deere, 808 P.2d 1181.) The next year, the
defendant went to the Federal District Court. He remained
there for the rest of the decade, until 2001. When he lost
there, he appealed, and in 2003, the Federal Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district
court for another hearing. Today, 14 years after State
appeals were completed, and 23 years after Michelle and
Melissa were taken from their mother, the case remains before
the same district court.
Vanessa Iberri [was] 12 years old [when she was killed in]
1981. Vanessa and her friend Kelly, also 12 years old, were
both shot in the head while walking through a campground in
1981. Kelly survived, but Vanessa did not. The killer did not
dispute that he shot the two girls. (The case is described in
People v. Edwards, 819 P.2d 436.) The State courts finished
their review of the case in 1991--already a long time. The
killer then went to Federal court in 1993. The Federal
District Court finally held an evidentiary hearing in
December 2004, and dismissed the case in March of this year.
Just now, 12 years after the case entered the Federal courts,
and 24 years after the murders occurred, the appeal to the
Federal Court of Appeals is just beginning.
Michelle Melander [was] 5 months old [when she was murdered
in] 1981. Michelle, who was just a five-month-old baby, and
her brother Michael, then 5 years old, were kidnaped in
Parker, Arizona, in July 1981. The killer dropped off Michael
along the road. Michelle's body was discovered six days later
at a garbage dump several miles down the same road. She had
been severely beaten and sexually mutilated. The State court
opinion describes the many injuries that this helpless baby
suffered. The man who committed this horrific crime later
attempted to kidnap and rape a 10-year-old girl.
State courts finished their review of his case in 1991.
(People v. Pensinger, 805 P.2d 899.) The case then went to
Federal District Court in 1992. The defendant raised new
claims that he had never argued in state court, so the
Federal court sent the case back to state court. Five years
later, the case returned to Federal court. Today, the case
remains before the same Federal District Court where the
Federal appeals began in 1992. Baby Michelle would be 24
years old now if she had lived, and there is no end in sight
for her killer's appeals.
Other examples of extreme delays on Federal habeas have been provided
to me by State prosecutors. Clarence Ray Allen, who was executed by the
State of California earlier this year, had begun his Federal habeas
proceedings in 1988--they lasted for over 17 years. Lawrence Bittaker
was convicted of four murders, four kidnappings, and nine rapes by the
State of California in 1981. He filed a habeas petition in the Federal
district court in 1991. That petition still is pending before the same
Federal district court today. Alejandro Ruiz was convicted and
sentenced to death for three murders in 1980. He initiated Federal
habeas proceedings in 1989. Those proceedings still are pending before
the same Federal district court today.
I do not mean to single out the Federal district courts for
criticism. Inexplicable delays in Federal habeas review of State
convictions appear throughout the Federal system. Section 2263's
deadlines for issuing court-of-appeals decisions and resolving
appellate rehearing petitions also are manifestly necessary. In Morales
v. Woodford, 336 F.3d 1136, 9th Cir. 2003, for example, the Ninth
Circuit took 3 years to decide the case after briefing was completed.
And after issuing its decision, the court took another 16 months to
reject a petition for rehearing. Similarly, in Williams v. Woodford,
306 F.3d 665, 9th Cir. 2002, the court waited 25 months to decide the
case after briefing was finished--and then waited another 27 months to
reject a petition for rehearing, for a total delay of almost 4\1/2\
years after appellate briefing had been completed. Section 2263 would
have sharply reduced these delays.
Chapter 154 also creates uniform, clear rules for addressing
defaulted and unexhausted claims. It bars all review of any claim that
has not been addressed on the merits when the Federal petition is
filed, unless the claim meets one of three narrow exceptions. Section
2264, by not extending the chapter 153 exhaustion requirement to
chapter 154, allows Federal courts to treat defaulted and unexhausted
claims the same way, rather than distinguishing between them and only
dismissing the former unless they meet an exception, but returning the
latter to State court for further exhaustion. Chapter 154 eliminates
the need to ever send a claim to State court for further exhaustion.
As those familiar with the history of chapter 154 are aware, the
chapter has its origins in the 1989 Powell Committee Report. See
Judicial Conference of the United States, Ad Hoc Committee on Federal
Habeas Corpus in Capital Cases, Committee Report and Proposal, August
23, 1989. Then-Chief Justice Rehnquist had appointed former Justice
Lewis Powell to chair this committee, which was charged with studying
problems with Federal habeas corpus review of capital cases. The report
identified a lack of finality and unnecessary delays in Federal
collateral review of State capital cases, and recommended specific
reforms. With a few significant changes, such as a more restrictive
standard for holding evidentiary hearings and accommodation of the rule
of Teague v. Lane, not to mention the changes that are about to be made
by section 507, the Powell Committee Report's recommendations are what
is now chapter 154. The Powell Report is thus a very useful guide to
understanding chapter 154.
The Powell Committee Report explains, for example, why section 2264
eliminates the exhaustion rule and treats unexhausted claims the same
way as defaulted claims. As the Report notes:
The Committee identified serious problems with the present
system of collateral review. These may be broadly
characterized under the heading of unnecessary delay and
repetition. The lack of coordination between the Federal and
state legal systems often results in inefficient and
unnecessary steps in the course of litigation. Prisoners, for
example, often spend significant time moving back and forth
between the Federal and state systems in the process of
exhausting state remedies.
The Powell Committee Report then describes its proposed approach to
unexhausted claims:
Federal habeas proceedings under the proposal will
encompass only claims that have been exhausted in state
court. With the counsel provided by the statute, there should
be no excuse for failure to raise claims in state court. The
statute departs from current statutory exhaustion practice by
allowing for immediate presentation of new claims in Federal
court in extraordinary circumstances.
The Powell Committee Report further elaborates on this change to the
exhaustion requirement in its comment following the presentation of the
language that became section 2264:
If a petitioner asserts a claim not previously presented to
the state courts, the district court can consider the claim
only if one of three exceptions to the general rule listed in
[section 2264(a)] is applicable. . . .
As far as new or ``unexhausted'' claims are concerned,
section [2264] represents a change in the exhaustion doctrine
as articulated in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). Section
[2264] bars such claims from consideration unless one of the
[subsection (a)] exceptions is applicable. The prisoner
cannot return to state court to exhaust even if he would like
to do so. On the other hand, if a [subsection (a)] exception
is applicable, the district court is directed to conduct an
evidentiary hearing [note that this aspect of the Powell
Committee recommendation is superseded by section 2254(e)]
and to rule on the new claim without first exhausting state
remedies as Rose v. Lundy now requires. Because of the
existence of state procedural default rules, exhaustion is
futile in the great majority of cases. It serves the state
interest of comity in theory, but in practice it results in
delay and undermines the state interest in the finality of
its criminal convictions. The Committee believes that the
States would prefer
[[Page 2448]]
to see post-conviction litigation go forward in capital
cases, even if that entails a minor subordination of their
interest in comity as it is expressed in the exhaustion
doctrine.
Section 2264 implemented the Powell Committee's approach by limiting
Federal habeas review under chapter 154 to ``claims that have been
raised and decided on merits in the State courts,'' and, in subsection
(b), by declining to extend the exhaustion principles of section
2254(b) and (c) to chapter 154. This system shifts the focus away from
and eliminates the need to exhaust State remedies for every claim.
Section 2264 does not require exhaustion, but, rather, adjudication on
the merits in State court or satisfaction of one of subsection (a)'s
exceptions. If an unexhausted or otherwise not-adjudicated-on-the-
merits claim can meet one of those subsection (a) exceptions, then it
can go forward, because the exhaustion requirement does not apply. And
in any event, even if a chapter 154 prisoner, for whatever reason,
still wanted to exhaust State remedies for a new claim after he has
filed his Federal petition, he would not be able to do so and then
return to Federal court: unlike chapter 153, chapter 154 sharply
curtails amendments to petitions and thus would make it all but
impossible to amend the newly exhausted claim back into the Federal
petition. Under chapter 153's stay-and-abey regime, ``a district court
may, in its discretion, allow a petitioner to amend a mixed petition by
deleting the unexhausted claims, hold the exhausted petition claims in
abeyance until the unexhausted claims are exhausted, and then allow the
petitioner to amend the stayed petition to add the now-exhausted
claims.'' James v. Pliler, 269 F.3d 1124, 9th Cir. 2001. As the courts
have explained, chapter-153 habeas petitioners are permitted to ``stay
and abey'' and then come back to Federal court because chapter 153
petitions are subject to the relatively liberal amendment standards of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. See Anthony v. Cambra, 263 F.3d
568, 576-578 (9th Cir. 2000). This system would not be possible under
chapter 154's section 2266(b)(3)(B), however. That subparagraph would
bar the post-exhaustion amendment that restores the newly exhausted
claims unless the amendment could meet the exacting standards of the
successive-petition bar.
Instead of staying and abeying and further exhausting, the chapter
154 petitioner will go forward: his claims in the Federal petition will
have either been raised and adjudicated on the merits in State court,
they will satisfy one of the section 2264(a) exceptions, or they will
be dismissed, and Federal adjudication of the merits of the claims that
remain before the court will commence immediately. This streamlined
approach is what makes chapter 154's deadlines for district court
adjudication possible. Obviously, if applicants were expected to use
the stay-and-abeyance system, and proceedings were put on hold so that
another round of State-court review could be completed, district courts
would not be able to resolve chapter 154 petitions within 15-month
limit, much less the 180 days required prior to 2006, that is imposed
by section 2266.
Section 2264's abolition of stay-and-abey would have made a real
difference in some of the cases that I have described. For example, in
the case of the man who killed Mary Ann Hughes's son, eliminating the
need to return to State court to exhaust new claims would have reduced
the delay in the Federal proceedings by nearly 3 years. And in the case
of Michelle Melander, the baby girl who was killed in 1981 whose case
is described in Carol Fornoff's testimony, the section 2264 system
would have eliminated 5 years of delay from the ongoing Federal
proceedings in that case.
By requiring that chapter 154 courts only consider claims adjudicated
on the merits in the State courts, and limiting the exceptions to that
rule to those enumerated in section 2264(a), chapter 154 also
effectively eliminates use of several other exceptions to the
procedural-default doctrine that I believe have proven problematic. The
chapter 153 procedural-default doctrine derives from the Supreme
Court's own rules for allowing review of a State court judgment when
respondent asserts the presence of an adequate and independent State
bar to review of the Federal question. These exceptions are numerous,
complex, and in some cases they are overly broad and simply do not
provide an adequate justification for ignoring State procedural rules.
It generally is not a significant burden on the States that the U.S.
Supreme Court has granted itself such broad and amorphous authority to
override State procedural requirements. The Supreme Court only decides
a limited number of cases every year. But on Federal habeas, where
every State criminal conviction effectively is subject to ``appeal of
right'' in Federal court, application of the full panoply of the U.S.
Supreme Court's exceptions to the adequate-and-independent State
grounds rule has become burdensome and unwieldy.
One exception to the adequate-and-independent State grounds doctrine
that has proved particularly problematic in the habeas context is the
rule that a State procedural bar is not adequate to preclude further
Federal review if the procedural requirement is ``inconsistently
applied'' by the State courts. Viewed literally and without regard to
the policies underlying the procedural default doctrine, the
``inconsistently applied'' standard can have a disturbingly broad
sweep. This standard can be understood to void any State procedural
rule that has been altered in any way or that is not strictly enforced
in absolutely every case.
Unfortunately, some lower Federal courts have adopted this draconian
interpretation. For example, the Ninth Circuit has held that if a
State's highest court clarifies a State procedural rule or reconciles
competing interpretations of that rule, then that rule was
``inconsistently applied'' prior to such clarification. As a result,
the Ninth Circuit deems the State rule ``inadequate'' to be enforced on
Federal habeas review prior to that point.
Another problematic area of chapter-153 procedural-default
jurisprudence is particular Federal courts' interpretation of the
``independence'' requirement. A State procedural decision cannot serve
as a bar to further review on the merits if it is not truly
procedural--i.e., if it is in reality a decision on the merits of the
Federal claim. Many State courts have incorporated into their
procedural rules--particularly their deadlines for filing claims--an
``ends of justice,'' ``plain error,'' or ``manifest injustice''
exception that allows State courts to hear the occasional egregious but
untimely or otherwise improper claim. Presumably, in applying such an
exception, these State courts perform at least a cursory review of the
merits of every petition, even those that clearly are untimely.
Technically, because these State courts conduct such review, their
deadlines are not purely ``procedural''--they involve some review,
however fleeting, of the merits--and therefore these deadlines are not
``adequate'' for habeas purposes. The Ninth Circuit has adopted this
rather extreme interpretation of the adequacy requirement.
It is difficult to understate the perverse consequences of the more
extreme interpretations of the exceptions to the chapter-153 procedural
default doctrine. By punishing State courts for ever departing from or
even clarifying their procedural rules, or for exercising discretion to
hear egregious cases, these interpretations deter State courts from
making the kind of commonsense decisions that are essential to
preventing a miscarriage of justice. No system of procedure will ever
be perfect; every system will always require some exceptions in order
to operate fairly and efficiently. Yet under some Federal courts'
interpretations of procedural default, unless the State court adopts a
zero-tolerance approach to all untimely claims, no matter how worthy of
an exception, the State procedural rule is at risk of being voided for
all Federal habeas cases.
In Arizona, litigants have seen the inevitable consequences of the
Ninth Circuit's no-good-deed-goes-unpunished rule: when liberality
towards criminal defendants is held against the State on Federal
habeas, the State will outlaw such liberality. In his August 19, 2005,
answers to written questions submitted
[[Page 2449]]
to him by Senator Leahy, Arizona prosecutor John Todd described the
effect of the Ninth Circuit's application of an extreme
``independence'' requirement:
as a result of Federal court rulings, the Arizona Legislature
repealed the requirement that all criminal cases be reviewed
by the state appellate courts for fundamental error. When an
appellate court in Arizona reviewed the entire record for
fundamental error, it did not matter that the defendant
procedurally defaulted the issue. If the error were serious
enough, even if it was only an error of state law, a
defendant would receive relief in state court through this
fundamental error review. Fearing that the Ninth Circuit's
decision in Beam v. Paskett, 3 F.3d 1301, 1305 (9th Cir.
1993), would open Arizona criminal cases to endless
litigation, the Arizona Legislature repealed Ariz. Rev. Stat.
Ann. Sec. 13-4035 in 1995.
This is not a result that anyone should want. States should not be
discouraged from affording broad review to a prisoner's claims in State
court or exercising flexibility in their application of procedural
rules. Yet in the Ninth Circuit, State executives would be ill advised
to adopt any procedural rule that affords courts any discretion or
includes any plain-error type exceptions.
The Ninth Circuit has accounted for a disproportionate share of all
Federal court of appeals decisions identifying exceptions to the
chapter-153 procedural default doctrine, and has issued several
particularly extreme interpretations of the doctrine. The States in
that circuit effectively are subject to a different habeas regime. The
Ninth Circuit has now voided State procedural rules in six of the
States under its jurisdiction. It has found State procedures either
inadequate or insufficiently independent to limit Federal review in
California, Oregon, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, and Nevada.
Section 2264 eliminates these problems. Rather than incorporating the
procedural-default doctrine and all of its baggage, it starts fresh; it
bars all claims not raised and decided on the merits unless one of
three narrow exceptions applies. It does not matter under chapter 154
that a Federal court thinks that the State's rules are not ``adequate''
or are not sufficiently ``independent,'' because the adequacy and
independence of the State rule no longer are the basis for barring
review of the claim in Federal court. Under chapter 154, that basis
will be section 2264, which employs its own standard and exceptions.
And under that section, no longer will the labyrinthine body of caselaw
governing the Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction over cases
decided on State-law grounds be applied to every State capital
conviction on Federal collateral review.
Section 2264 also eliminates the overused ``ineffective assistance
gateway'' that is a frequent feature of chapter 153 litigation. Under
chapter 153, litigants often seek to recast claims that they know are
defaulted as claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. They argue
that the default should be excused because State trial or appellate
counsel was ineffective. Chapter 154 does not include this exception.
If a claim of ineffective assistance of trial or appellate counsel
itself was raised and decided on the merits in State court, that same
claim can be raised in Federal court. But otherwise, chapter 154
charges petitioners with the acts of their attorneys. The whole point
of chapter 154 is to persuade States to establish mechanisms for
providing defendants with qualified postconviction counsel. If a State
has opted in to chapter 154, the petitioner presumptively received
qualified counsel at all stages of his State proceedings, and
opportunities to litigate issues of counsel competency should be scaled
back. If the factual predicate of a claim could have been discovered
through the exercise of due diligence, then per paragraph (3) of
section 2264(a), regardless of what the attorney did or did not do,
that claim does not qualify for an exception to the main rule of
2264(a) and it cannot be raised in Federal court.
It also bears mention that section 507 includes a retroactivity
provision that my Arizona colleague, Congressman Flake, thought
particularly important. New section 2265(a)(2) provides that the date
that a State established the mechanism by which it qualifies for
chapter 154 ``shall be the effective date of the certification under
this subsection.'' This was intended to ensure that if a State
established a mechanism for providing qualified counsel to capital
defendants on postconviction review prior to the formal designation of
a State as chapter-154 eligible--or even prior to the enactment of
chapter 154--then all capital defendants who received counsel after the
establishment of that mechanism shall be subject to chapter 154, even
if they filed a Federal petition before the State is certified as
chapter-154 eligible.
I had originally thought this provision sufficient to ensure that a
State would receive the full benefits of chapter 154 even for Federal
petitions filed before the State is certified as chapter-154 compliant.
But questions of retroactivity often prove more complicated than they
first appear. Representative Flake raised with me the question of
whether even if a Federal petition filed precertification is deemed
subject to chapter 154, Federal courts could still find that the
procedural benefits of chapter 154 only apply to that case on a going-
forward basis. In other words, the effective-date provision guarantees
that even a prefiling petition is now governed by chapter 154, but
chapter 154's procedural restrictions might be construed to not apply
to what is already in that petition. For States such as Arizona, this
would mean--assuming, of course, that I am correct in predicting that
the U.S. Attorney General will find Arizona 154-eligible--that section
507 does not completely undo the damage done by the Spears case. It is
possible, for example, that in Spears itself or in subsequent cases
that should have been subject to chapter 154, additional claims have
been amended into the petition that would not satisfy 2266(b)(3)(B), or
unexhaus-
ted claims already may have been returned to State court for further
exhaustion and the Federal petition stayed.
Given that stay-and-abey sometimes adds 5 years to the time that it
takes to address a Federal petition, Mr. Flake and I decided that it
should be made clear that the whole petition would be subject to
chapter 154, not just new claims and amendments added after the State
is certified as 154 eligible. To that end, subsection (d) was inserted
into the middle of section 507 to ensure that the 154 changes--
including the effective-date provision--would operate against pending
cases. In effect, this provision guarantees the even for a pending
case, the effective date provision applies retroactively and the case
is regarded as always having been subject to chapter 154. Thus once a
State is certified as 154-eligible and a particular petition falls
within that chapter's sweep, the courts should review the whole
petition and treat it as if chapter 154 had been applicable since
before the petition was filed. Claims added via post-answer amendments
should be reviewed for consistency with section 2266(b)(3)(B). If they
do not qualify, they should be struck, just as they would have been if
the petition had been governed by chapter 154 at the time when the
amendment was filed. And most importantly, no unexhausted claim in a
chapter-154 petition may be permitted to serve as a basis for ``stay
and abey.'' Either that claim will satisfy one of the 2264(a)
exceptions, and review of that claim and ``raised and decided'' claims
in the petition will go forward immediately, or the claim will not meet
the exception, it will be dismissed, and review of the rest of the
proper claims in that petition will go forward immediately. In either
event, review of all Federal petitions made subject to chapter 154 will
go forward immediately, though the petitioner may, of course, continue
to simultaneously pursue State review of the unexhausted claim, and the
chapter 154 time deadlines will start running. Per paragraph (d)(2),
that deadline does not run until section 507 is enacted with regard to
a particular State--meaning that it does not run until the State is
certified as chapter-154 eligible pursuant to section 507. Under
section 507, once a petition is made subject to chapter 154, it can no
longer be held in abeyance so that the petitioner can pursue State
exhaustion of unexhaus-
ted claims.
[[Page 2450]]
Finally, I would like to thank those individuals who have been
important to the enactment of section 507. This group includes Mike
O'Neill and Brett Tolman of Chairman Specter's staff, Mike Volkov of
Chairman Sensenbrenner's staff, and Brian Clifford of Congressman
Flake's staff. I also thank Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation, who came up with the idea that became section 507.
Finally, I also thank Chairman Specter, who was willing to accommodate
me on a matter of importance to prosecutors and crime victims in the
State of Arizona by including section 507 in this conference report.
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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in a few minutes, the Senate will
conclude a process that began over a year ago by reauthorizing the
PATRIOT Act. I will have a few closing remarks, but first I want to
take this opportunity to thank the extraordinary staff who have worked
on this bill for so long. These men and women, on both sides of the
aisle, have worked extremely hard, and they deserve to be recognized.
Before I yield the floor, I will recognize the staff by name.
Mr. President, beginning in November, when we first saw a draft of
the conference report, I have spoken at length about the substance of
this bill. I hoped that when we started the task of reauthorizing the
PATRIOT Act at the beginning of last year, the end product would be
something the whole Senate could support. We had a real chance to pass
a bill that would both reauthorize the tools to prevent terrorism and
fix the provisions that threaten the rights and freedoms of innocent
Americans.
This conference report, even as amended by the bill incorporating the
White House deal that we passed yesterday, falls well short of that
goal. And so, of course, I will vote no.
Protecting the country from terrorism while also protecting our
rights is a challenge for every one of us, particularly in the current
political climate, and it is a challenge we all take seriously. I know
many Senators who will vote for this reauthorization bill in a few
minutes would have preferred to enact the bill we actually passed,
without a single objection, in the Senate in July of last year.
I appreciate that so many of my colleagues came to recognize the need
to take the opportunity presented by the sunset provisions included in
the original PATRIOT Act to make changes that would better protect
civil liberties than did the law we enacted in haste in October 2001.
Nevertheless, I am deeply disappointed we have largely wasted this
opportunity to fix the obvious problems with the PATRIOT Act.
The reason I spent so much time in the past few days talking about
how the public views the PATRIOT Act was to make it clear that this
fight was not about one Senator arguing about the details of the law.
This fight was about trying to restore the public's trust in our
Government. That trust has been severely shaken as the public learned
more and more about the PATRIOT Act which we passed with so little
debate in 2001 and as the administration resisted congressional
oversight efforts and repeatedly politicized the reauthorization
process. The revelations about secret, warrantless surveillance last
year only confirmed the suspicions of many in our country that the
Government is, unfortunately, willing to trample the rule of law and
constitutional guarantees in the fight against terrorism.
The truth is, the negative reaction to the PATRIOT Act has been
overwhelming. Over 400 State and local government bodies passed
resolutions pleading with Congress to change the law. Citizens have
signed petitions, library associations and campus groups have organized
to petition the Congress to act. Numerous editorials have been written
urging Congress not to reauthorize the law without adequate protections
for civil liberties.
These things occurred because Americans across the country recognize
that the PATRIOT Act includes provisions that pose a threat to their
privacy and to their liberty. These are values--values--that are at the
very core of what this country represents and of who we are as a
people.
In 2001, we were viciously attacked by terrorists who care nothing
for American freedoms and American values. We, as a people, came
together to fight back, and we are prepared to make great sacrifices to
defeat those who would destroy us. But what we will not do, and what we
cannot do, is destroy our own freedoms in the process.
Without freedom, we are not America. If we do not preserve our
liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we
capture or kill. That is why the several Senators who have said, at one
time or another during this debate, things such as, ``Civil liberties
do not mean much when you are dead,'' are wrong about America at the
most basic level. It seems they do not understand what America is all
about. Theirs is a vision that the Founders of this Nation, who risked
everything for freedom, would categorically reject, and so do the
American people.
Americans want to defeat terrorism, and they want the basic character
of this country to survive and prosper. They want to empower the
Government to protect the Nation from terrorists, and they want
protections against Government overreaching and Government
overreacting. They know it might not be easy, but they expect the
Congress to figure out how to do it. They do not want defeatism--
defeatism--on either score. They want both security and liberty. And
unless we give them both--and we can, if we try--then we have failed.
This fight is not over. The vote today will not assuage the deep and
legitimate concerns the public has about the PATRIOT Act. I am
convinced that in the end the Government will respond to the people, as
it should. We will defeat the terrorists, and we will preserve the
freedom and liberty that make this the greatest country on the face of
the Earth.
It has been a particular privilege to work for so long and so closely
with the bipartisan group that developed the SAFE Act. Each Senator is
supported by dedicated and talented staff, and let me mention a few of
them now. For Senator Sununu, Dave Cuzzi. Joe Zogby for Senator Durbin;
Brooke Roberts and Lisa McGrath for Senator Craig; Sam Mitchell with
Senator Salazar; and Isaac Edwards with Senator Murkowski. Let me also
recognize Bruce Cohen, Julie Katzman, and Tara Magner with Senator
Leahy; and Chairman Specter's hardworking team--Mike O'Neill, Brett
Tolman, and Nick Rossi. Other key staff on the Judiciary Committee
include Joe Matal with Senator Kyl; Christine Leonard with Senator
Kennedy; Steve Cash for Senator Feinstein; Paul Thompson with Senator
DeWine; Reed O'Connor with Senator Cornyn; and Bruce Artim with Senator
Hatch; Cindy Hayden with Senator Sessions; Preet Bharara with Senator
Schumer; Chad Groover with Senator Grassley; Eric Rosen with Senator
Biden; Ajit Pai with Senator Brownback; Mary Chesser with Senator
Coburn; Nate Jones with Senator Kohl; and James Galyean with Senator
Graham.
Staff for a number of Senators not on the committee worked very hard
on this bill as well. Let me recognize Brandon Milhorn and Jack
Livingston for Senator Roberts; Mike Davidson, who works for Senator
Rockefeller; Joe Bryan with Senator Levin; Alex Perkins and John Dickas
with Senator Wyden; Steve Taylor with Senator Hagel; Ruchi Bhowmik with
Senator Obama; Mirah Horowitz with Senator Kerry; Caryn Compton with
Senator Byrd; Eric Buehlmann with Senator Jeffords; and Alan Hicks with
Senator Frist. And thanks also to Senator Reid's staffers, Ron Weich
and Serena Hoy, and to our Democratic floor staff--Marty Paone, Lula
Davis, Gary Myrick, Chris Kang, and Mike Spahn for their help over the
past several weeks of this debate.
[[Page 2451]]
Finally, let me sincerely thank my own tireless and dedicated staff:
Mary Irvine, Paul Weinberger, Sumner Slichter, Chuck Stertz, Bob
Schiff, Lara Flint, Farhana Khera, Alex Busansky, Sarah Preis, Margaret
Whiting, Molly Askin, John Haffner, Bharat Ramamurti, Avery Wentzel,
Tracy Jacobson, and Molly McNab.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. FEINGOLD. 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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield back my remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, 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. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. In more than 4 years since the September 11, 2001, attack
on the United States, the PATRIOT Act has helped to protect our
homeland from subsequent terrorist attack. Reauthorizing this effective
piece of legislation is an important victory in the continued war on
terror. The PATRIOT Act safeguards freedoms of American citizens while
aggressively curtailing the opportunities terrorists have to strike. We
have added many provisions designed to ensure that our civil liberties
remain unaffected despite the fact that civil libertarians were
completely unable to point to one incident or provide any example of
abuses under the original PATRIOT Act.
As everybody knows, that act was negotiated in the Judiciary
Committee when I was chairman, and I had a lot to do with it, along
with Senator Leahy and others. We found that the original PATRIOT Act
functioned very well in the protection of our country.
The PATRIOT Act has enjoyed robust public support in Utah since its
inception. According to Dan Jones and Associates, our leading pollster
in Utah, every time the firm has polled Utahns in the last 4 years, 60
percent or more have voiced approval of the antiterrorism measure. A
poll of U.S. citizens reported that more than 60 percent of Americans
believed that the Government should do more to protect this country
from attack. Reauthorizing this act is definitely the right thing to do
for our country at a time when we tend to forget that there are people
and governments out there and in here that are committed to wiping the
United States of America off the face of the Earth. I, for one, will
stand up and say: Not on my watch.
We have held hearing after hearing listening to all sides' robust
debate about how to change the PATRIOT Act. We have had some ridiculous
suggestions, we have had some good suggestions, and we have had some
that we have had to take on this bill that really are not very good. My
prayer is that the terrorists will be foiled by our intelligence and
law enforcement agencies before another attack. But we have to give
those agencies the tools to do that. I have a lot of faith in the
ability of law enforcement men and women to do the job effectively. My
hope is that those who have agreed that we can take away some of the
tools afforded these men and women are wrong, that we can prevent
another attack and reduce the ability of law enforcement to prevent
those attacks at the same time.
The additional language that has been demanded in this bill does
exactly that. It has reduced our ability to be able to protect the
Nation under the guise that we had to protect civil liberties that were
never infringed upon in the 4 years that the PATRIOT Act has been in
existence. I particularly commend Senators Specter and Leahy for the
work they have done, Congressman Sensenbrenner in the House, and other
members of the Judiciary Committee in the House. They have worked long
and hard. There have been some provisions that we had to take in order
to get this bill reauthorized to protect the American people that we
wish we didn't have to take. I just hope this bill will work as well as
the original PATRIOT Act which has done so well in keeping us free of
terror ever since 9/11.
I don't think anybody can doubt that. We held some 24 hearings over
the years when I was chairman on the PATRIOT Act. I demanded that every
hearing show us where the act has not acted properly, show us where
there has been a violation, show us where there has been a violation of
civil liberties, show us where somebody who is a noncriminal has been
hurt by the PATRIOT Act. The fact is, not one time in all those
hearings have they been able to come up with one illustration that
people's civil liberties have been interfered with.
We passed a bill that was the Hatch-Dole bill back in, I believe it
was 1996. It was the antiterrorism effective death penalty bill. That
bill took care of domestic terrorism, but our laws were not up to speed
with regard to international terrorism. So the PATRIOT Act was the way
that we got our laws up to speed so that we could work against
international terrorism. All of these provisions in the original
PATRIOT Act we basically have in our anticrime laws. So what we did is,
we had these laws that would enable law enforcement to do a lot of
things to protect us against the Mafia, against child molesters,
against pornographers. We brought the PATRIOT Act up to the level of
those law enforcement tools. That is what the original PATRIOT Act did.
That wasn't good enough for some of our colleagues. So there has been a
lot of screaming and shouting about the PATRIOT Act, even though not
one illustration has been given in the last, really, 5 years that would
indicate that the original PATRIOT Act had interfered with anybody's
just civil liberties.
We need to pass this bill such as it is. We need to pass it and enact
it into law and give our law enforcement the tools they need to be able
to protect us. I just wish we could have reenacted the original PATRIOT
Act. But be that as it may, I compliment the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee and the distinguished ranking member, Senator Leahy, for the
work they have done. I don't think it could have happened without them
and without Chairman Sensenbrenner and others in the House. I express
my regard for them and my regard for this bill and hope everybody will
vote for it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I know some time has been specifically
retained to the Senator from Vermont. Would the Chair be good enough to
tell me how much time that is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fourteen and a half minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank my good friend.
Today's vote marks another stage in reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT
Act. Our goal has always been to mend the PATRIOT Act, not to end it.
To that end we passed a bipartisan bill with better provisions last
July after it was unanimously reported by the Judiciary Committee. I
appreciate the kind words of the Senator from Utah. He voted for that
bill. I voted for that bill. The distinguished chairman of the
committee, Senator Specter, voted for the bill. We have all been
chairman of that committee. The bill came here to the floor of the
Senate, and the Senate voted it out unanimously. That was a good bill.
Then the House-Senate conference was hijacked. Democratic conferees
were excluded at the request of the Bush-Cheney administration, and
congressional Republicans wrote the bill. I worked to get that process
and the bill back on track and, working with Chairman Specter, we were
able to make some progress and get some helpful additions and changes.
But the conference report that was insisted upon
[[Page 2452]]
by the Bush-Cheney administration and passed by Republican leaders
through the House was still flawed.
Last December, I worked with a bipartisan coalition of Senators to
oppose final passage of that conference report and create some
additional opportunities for improvements. That led to the Sununu bill
which is in essence an amendment to the conference report. I supported
Senator Sununu's efforts and praised him for it and those who worked
with him. I voted for that bill. It contained some of the improvements
I had pushed for. Our efforts to protect libraries from national
security letters was very important to me. That is why I supported
Senator Sununu's bill in spite of the worsening of the gag rule
provisions insisted upon by the Bush-Cheney administration.
Now we turn to the conference report. Even with the Sununu bill,
which I support, the conference report has not been improved
sufficiently for me to support it. Just as I opposed it last December,
I continue to oppose it. The bill that the Senate will adopt today
falls far too short and impinges too greatly on the liberties of
Americans.
The Founders made a profound choice when they framed the fourth
amendment to our Constitution as a measure to ensure the right of the
people to be secure. The word they used was ``secure.'' The fourth
amendment is, of course, about guaranteeing our privacy rights and the
requirement of the judicial check on the Government invading our homes,
our papers, and our effects. The Founders saw that as the right to be
secure. As the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written so
carefully, every single word holds meaning. They saw a right to be
secure, and so do I. I believe that Americans' security includes our
national security, our security from terrorism, and also our right to
be secure as Americans. That means exercising the liberties and rights
and freedoms that define us across the world uniquely as Americans.
I do not believe this bill achieves the balance that we could have
and should have achieved. The final product would have been better had
the Bush-Cheney administration and congressional Republicans not
insisted on locking Democrats out of the negotiations throughout the
process.
Still this bill, through our efforts, in some ways represents an
improvement. It has better sunshine and reporting provisions. I worked
hard to include these new provisions because sunshine, coupled with
sunset provisions, adds up to more accountability in the use of these
Government powers. But some key provisions remain significantly flawed.
I respect those who conclude that on balance the bill's virtues
outweigh its vices. And it has both. But I believe we can and should do
better. I believe America can do better.
I am one who worked diligently on the original PATRIOT Act in the
days following the attacks of 9/11. I was chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. We moved it through in record time. I also voted to
reauthorize and improve a bipartisan version of the act back in July of
2005. I joined with Senator Sununu in leading the effort to ensure that
the provisions did not expire when we reached an impasse last fall.
In the PATRIOT Act, we provided important and valuable tools for the
protection of Americans from terrorism, and I have worked and voted to
preserve them. But I am disappointed that this conference report
represents a missed opportunity to get it right, to recalibrate the
balance better, to respect the liberties and rights of Americans while
protecting us from those who threaten harm.
I am concerned, as all Americans are, with our security. The
Presiding Officer and I and thousands of others come to work every day
in a building that was targeted for destruction by al-Qaida. I cannot
think of anything I will do in my life that makes me more proud than to
be in the Senate and come in this building every day. But I want this
building secure for you, for me, and for everybody who works here. I
know what it means to be targeted. I was a target of a letter laced
with deadly anthrax. I was supposed to open it. A couple of innocent
postal workers who touched the outside of the envelope died before it
reached me, and it was stopped before it got to my desk. It doesn't hit
much closer to home than that.
Many of us recall Benjamin Franklin's wise counsel. He was a man
involved in a revolution against King George III. Had that revolution
failed, he and his compatriots would have been hanged. When he was
working to form a government that would respect liberty and protect
people, he cautioned that those who would give up essential liberties
for temporary security deserve neither liberty or security.
More than 200 years later, we should listen to Benjamin Franklin. We
have to preserve our essential liberties or we do not preserve what
makes us Americans.
The seriously bad parts of this bill are made unacceptable because we
currently have an administration that does not believe in checks and
balances and prefers to do so many things in secret. We now see the
Bush-Cheney administration seeking to twist the authorization for use
of military force against al-Qaida into a justification for the secret,
warrantless wiretapping of Americans' e-mails and telephone calls. We
see them claiming that they need not fulfill their constitutional
responsibility to faithfully execute the laws but can pick and choose
among the laws they decide to recognize. Even the Attorney General
writes to the Judiciary Committee saying their position on the law
evolves. I did not realize there were such legislative Darwinists in
this administration that they believe so strongly in evolution when it
suits their purpose.
Legislative action should be the clear and unambiguous legal footing
for any Government powers. These matters should be governed by law, not
by whim or some shifting conception of the President's inherent
authority that is exercised in secret. Confronted with this
administration's unique claims of inherent and unchecked powers, I do
not believe the restraints we have been able to include in this
reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act are sufficient.
I will continue to work to provide the tools that we need to protect
the American people. I trust that Vermonters will understand that while
I have repeatedly voted to extend and reauthorize the PATRIOT Act, this
permanent measure falls short of what they deserve.
I will continue to work to provide the oversight and checks needed on
the use of Government power. I know the Senate is going to adopt this
measure now, but it is a pale shadow of what it could have been had the
administration not stepped in and told the leadership in the House and
the Senate that they had to get in line and do what the administration
wanted, not what an independent Congress should do. It is not the best
that the greatest democracy on Earth deserves. I will keep fighting for
us to do better.
I will continue to work to improve the PATRIOT Act, and I will work
to provide better oversight over the use of national security letters
and to remove the un-American restraints on meaningful judicial review.
I will seek to monitor how sensitive personal information from medical
files, gun stores, and libraries is obtained and used. I will join
Senators Specter, Sununu, Craig, and others in introducing a bill to
improve the PATRIOT Act and reauthorization legislation in several
important respects. Much is left to be done.
If Senators work together, much can be accomplished. We will be a
more secure Nation if we do, and also our liberties will be more
secure. Certainly, we owe that to the next generation, to protect the
liberties so many other generations have fought to provide for us.
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. 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.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a few moments, we will be passing the
PATRIOT Act. By passing it, we will
[[Page 2453]]
make America safer, while safeguarding our civil liberties and privacy.
America will be safer because law enforcement will have the tools to
track suspected terrorists and break up terrorist cells before harm is
done to innocent Americans. America will be safer because the
conference report goes beyond the original PATRIOT Act to combat
terrorist financing and money laundering, protect our mass-
transportation systems and the railways, secure our seaports, and fight
methamphetamine drug abuse--what has grown to become the No. 1 drug
problem in America--and it does so by restricting access to the
ingredients that make that poisonous drug.
Today we are making a statement that we cannot return to a pre-9/11
structure that could cost innocent Americans their lives. We will not
return to the days of the pre-9/11 bureaucratic wall that blocked
information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence. We cannot
go back. We must go forward.
Due to persistent delays and obstruction by some of my friends on the
other side of the aisle, it has taken far too long to get to today's
vote. By remaining focused on our goals, focused on governing with
meaningful solutions, to act on principles and to make America safer
and security our No. 1 priority, we will prevail today.
I am proud to cast my vote to support the PATRIOT Act, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Under the previous order, the
hour of 3 p.m. having arrived, the Senate will proceed to vote on the
adoption of the conference report to accompany H.R. 3199.
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 question is on agreeing to the conference report. The clerk will
call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) is
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 89, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 29 Leg.]
YEAS--89
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
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
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
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
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--10
Akaka
Bingaman
Byrd
Feingold
Harkin
Jeffords
Leahy
Levin
Murray
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Inouye
The conference report was agreed to.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 2320
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote on the motion to proceed to S. 2320, the LIHEAP bill, be vitiated.
I further ask consent that immediately after the consent, the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the bill, provided further that Senator
Ensign or his designee be immediately recognized in order to make a
Budget Act point of order and that Senator Snowe or her designee be
recognized in order to move to waive. I further ask that there then be
one-half hour of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote on the motion
to waive.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Under the previous order, the cloture motion is vitiated.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will be having a vote in 30 minutes. In
all likelihood, that will be the last vote of the day.
____________________
MAKING AVAILABLE FUNDS FOR THE LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM, 2006
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill.
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
Nevada is to be recognized. The Senate will be in order.
Mr. COBURN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the pending bill, S. 2320, offered by the
Senator from Maine, increases direct spending in excess of the
allocation to the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Therefore, I raise a point of order against the bill, pursuant to
section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904(c) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable points
of order. I move to waive the point of order under the applicable
provisions of the rules and statutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to waive is debatable. There is 30
minutes equally divided.
Who yields time? The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to ask the Senate to do the
right thing and to oppose this budget point of order brought up against
this legislation that will provide emergency funding for the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program.
I thank the majority leader for his assistance in advancing this
legislation. It is the culmination of his considerable efforts over the
last few months to bring forward this legislation. I thank the minority
leader as well for recognizing the importance and vitality of this
issue, and promoting this amendment forward as well.
Mr. President, I know you are sitting in the chair, but you have been
one of the leaders on this issue, trying to get additional commitment
for funding for low-income fuel assistance, particularly for this
winter, along with my colleague, Senator Collins of Maine. This
legislation addresses a nationwide crisis by bipartisan consensus and
fiscal responsibility. This legislation shifts the fiscal year for
LIHEAP funding into the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, which was
already signed into law, from 2007 to 2006. This will provide an
additional $1 billion for all those Americans who simply cannot wait
any longer for relief from home heating fuel costs that have
skyrocketed over last year's heating bill.
The vote we will be taking this afternoon is on the budget point of
order against this bill. I would like to elaborate on why this
legislation is absolutely vital to increasing the funding for low-
income fuel assistance for all parts of the country that depend upon
this program.
There has been a lot of misinformation with respect to exactly what
this bill is all about. First of all, it is budget neutral. Don't take
my word for it; it is the conclusion of the Congressional Budget
Office. All of the funds under this bill have already been appropriated
and accounted for within the budget. All this measure will do is shift
the funds from fiscal year 2007 to 2006. There is no additional, there
is no new spending.
[[Page 2454]]
This approach is not only fiscally sound and budget neutral, but,
critically, it will allow States the flexibility to allocate funds to
the residents who are struggling to pay for energy bills this year. The
White House and our Senate leadership recognize this is the fiscally
responsible solution to resolve this crisis.
I know some have said essentially we believe the LIHEAP program
should be funded through contingency measures such as this legislation.
That is what this legislation does, it utilizes the existing formula.
It is not only cold weather States but also warm weather States that
will benefit under this legislation.
I regret some of the misinformation that has been circulated with
respect to LIHEAP as to who will benefit, which States will benefit
under this legislation. I submit that in a year of high energy costs--
and it has been a year of high energy costs, anywhere from 30 percent
to 50 percent--it has devastated our State of Maine, Minnesota, and all
parts of the country that have had to rely on home heating oil or
natural gas or whatever the alternative. But the fact remains, the
prices have increased 30 percent to 50 percent over last year's, and
last year's prices went up 20 percent to 30 percent. That factor is not
in dispute.
The additional factor is that we are using the same distribution
formula. I believe that needs to be understood because I have seen some
of the papers distributed as to which States will benefit. It is
totally inaccurate. Nothing has changed with respect to that formula.
On the issues that are important to know about this increase in
LIHEAP funding, No. 1, it is budget neutral; No. 2, it will not
increase spending; and No. 3, the distribution formula remains the
same. I regret that we have seen so much misinformation and
mischaracterization with respect to the funding formula under this
legislation.
Finally, we have heard: Well, it is a mild winter. I would like you
to come to Maine, if you think it is a mild winter, and you ask all
those people about the 30 percent to 50 percent increases. The current
low-income fuel assistance program has not had an increase in real
dollar terms since 1983. I happened to be in the House of
Representatives when we created this program. It has not increased in
real terms. If anything, it has been reduced. I regret that we have
reached this point in time with respect to this vital program that so
many low-income individuals depend upon who can barely make ends meet
given the extent of the costs this winter with respect to home heating
oil.
We are now talking about a program that has not increased in net
terms since 1983, when oil was $29 a barrel. Today it is more than $60
a barrel. Eighty-four percent of the people qualified for LIHEAP
funds--and 80 percent of my State--are dependent upon home heating oil.
It is a crushing financial burden.
Let there be no mistake about the fact that this program is vital. It
is significant. It is essential to so many of the families in my State
and across the country. The urgency of this legislation has escalated
to an emergency. Last year, Americans struggled because of the high
cost of energy. This year, they continue to struggle. We know the
personal terms in which people have been devastated by the increased
costs of energy.
I hope the Senate would waive the budget point of order because this
amendment, this legislation, is budget neutral, and it does depend upon
the existing distribution formula. Both cold weather States and warm
weather States stand to benefit. There has also been a
mischaracterization and misinterpretation about the distribution of
this funding under this legislation. In fact, it was the agreement that
we reached before Christmas. That was essentially the agreement we
reached before Christmas. The very distribution formula we agreed to,
the one which has been the status quo, the one which we agreed to with
those who represent warm weather States, is exactly what this
legislation before us is all about. Nothing has changed. I deeply
regret to see what has been distributed and circulated that would
suggest otherwise because it simply is not true.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. The Senator from Maine has made a very passionate plea
and one with which I tend to agree. I am a supporter of this program
and a supporter of making the formula even more fair for the Southern
States that have very high energy costs as well--different but high.
But would the Senator agree that another way to bring down prices of
oil and gas would be to increase the supply of oil and gas into our
country? Would the Senator at least acknowledge that is another way to
help people?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I would like to reclaim my time because I
don't think we ought to debate the question here today. I don't think
there is any question about that.
But in the meantime, we have to address an emergency, and that
emergency exists in my State and many other States across the country,
including the Senator's State. I think it is a matter of fairness and
it is a matter of equity and it is a matter of balance.
I think indisputable about why we need this legislation and why we
need this funding now. I hope Members of the Senate will recognize
that. This is fairly distributed for warm and cold weather States. I
hope we can increase the supply. But right now we have to deal with the
emergency that is presented in my State and many other States across
the country.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. I don't want to take any more
time. I am going to support bringing this bill up because I believe, as
the Senator outlined, it is an emergency and something we need to do.
But I want to say for the record that there are other ways we can
lower the price. Louisiana and the gulf coast is prepared to do that. I
hope, as we move on with this debate, we can get to that issue as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, first of all, I was in the meeting with
Senator Snowe before Christmas. This is not the formula that we had
agreed on in those meetings.
Second of all, the formula that she says will benefit the warmer
States is not accurate. It is not historically accurate. It is not
accurate with regards to the contingency funding. Contingency funds
were released in January. There are 29 States that will be worse off
under the Snowe proposal, if this money is put through the regular
formula, the warmer States benefit. The whole formula was set up so
that mostly colder States would benefit from the first dollars, and
then if dollars are added, the warmer States would benefit.
But the way this amendment is set up that is, in fact, not what
happens.
We have a budget point of order. People have to know that we are not
voting on cloture on the bill or cloture on a motion to proceed to the
bill, but we are actually voting on a budget point of order.
This has been described as a mild winter. There is plenty of evidence
for that, especially on the east coast. I think the only two States
that could arguably say it has been a harsher winter than normal are
Oregon and Washington. And most of the rest of the country has had a
fairly mild winter.
The point that somehow the Northeast needs this more because they
have more higher heating expenses isn't true. Electricity in most of
the country now is generated by natural gas. Because of the
environmental concerns plants have switched over to natural gas. Air
conditioning in the Southern States is just as critical as heat in
Northern States. When it gets hot enough, people die from heat.
The LIHEAP formula was set up to be able to help warmer States and
help low-income people in those warmer States. Frankly, this proposal
does not do that. It does not do that fairly. If this money were all
put through the
[[Page 2455]]
regular formula this would be a fair proposal.
That is why the Senator from Louisiana's State would lose around $18
million if this formula were done differently, as she would like to see
it done, versus the way Senator Snowe has this drafted.
I didn't think this is the time for us to be waiving budget points of
order. We are facing difficult fiscal times, and we need to show some
fiscal restraint around here. Hopefully, we can sustain this budget
point of order.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Nevada, frankly,
I think the Senator from Louisiana made a very good point coming up and
saying this makes sense. I had an amendment that would allow us to go
into BLM lands to extract natural gas and for LNG plants. That was
taken out in the highway bill up in Massachusetts.
It doesn't seem at all reasonable to me that you would support
something such as this for electricity and at the same time turn around
and oppose every effort we have to try to get more natural gas to bring
to these homes.
I certainly agree. I had an amendment to do that. It doesn't look
like there will be an opportunity to entertain that amendment. Without
that, I think it is unreasonable to expect that we would be able to do
this.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, there is no question that one of the
reasons this was even in the bill--in the Defense bill--was because
ANWR was in there to help pay for extra money for LIHEAP. One of the
reasons they say this is paid for is because they are taking money out
of 2007 and moving it into 2006. We know this is a phony argument. We
have seen it done around here time and time again. They are budget
games that are played so they can say things are budget neutral. How do
you spend $1 billion and call it budget neutral? You are not taking
something else and cutting spending someplace else. You are only
shifting to the next year.
This budget point of order is real, and this budget point of order I
think should be sustained.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 5 minutes 48
seconds.
Ms. SNOWE. I yield to my colleague, Senator Collins, 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I commend you and Senator Snowe for
working so hard on this very vital issue.
I want my colleagues to understand exactly what is at stake here.
Early Tuesday morning, my State suffered a terrible tragedy--three
people, including a woman and her 10-year-old son, died when their
house caught fire and burned to the ground. There was the most deadly
fire in Maine in 6 years. They lived in Limestone, ME, a town in
northern Maine. On the night of the fire, temperatures were below zero.
The family had run out of heating oil, and as a result, was using wood
stoves to provide the heat. According to the firefighters, the fire
started near one of the wood stoves in the kitchen.
This is literally a matter of life and death.
At Christmastime, when I was home in my hometown of Caribou, ME, two
elderly women were hospitalized with hypothermia.
This is not theoretical. It is not theoretical when there is ice in
the toilet and when our elderly and low-income are at risk of illness,
disease, and, yes, even death because they cannot afford the high cost
of home heating oil.
The least we can do in a country as wealthy as ours is to provide
some modest assistance. And those who say that the winter is almost
over, come to where I am from in northern Maine. Believe me, there is a
lot more winter to come.
Maine has run out of its LIHEAP funding. It is time for us to provide
this modest help.
Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleague from Maine.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 20 minutes 43 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I agree with both Senators from Maine. Our
goal is not to have additional LIHEAP funding. Our goal is to make sure
we don't steal it from our grandchildren, robbing from the unborn and
the young in this country to do something in the name of good. It is
not moral at all.
What we are saying is pay for it. To say it is paid for, to say you
are paying for it, there is $1 billion allocated for next year, we are
going to take that away and that is going to have to be paid for by
somebody. You know who is going to pay for it? Our grandchildren.
If we want to help the people of Maine, there are a couple of things
we can do. No. 1, you can use your TANF money for LIHEAP right now.
That is allowed under Federal law. There is no reason anybody in Maine
doesn't have the LIHEAP funds. You have money in your TANF account
right now that you can transfer to solve that problem in terms of the
acute problem.
The second thing you ought to know is that there is $11.2 billion in
unobligated funds in Health and Human Services right now that the
administration could release for LIHEAP. We don't have to be doing
this. If it truly is an emergency, the administration has the money
right now to send to Maine to do that. Your Governor has the ability to
take TANF money right now and support LIHEAP in Maine.
But it is unconscionable for us to steal from the next generation and
steal from the next budget cycle saying that we have paid for it. We
haven't paid for anything. What we are doing is sacrificing the
standard of living for future generations in this country through this
type of process.
If you want to bring the bill to the floor, which we have offered the
Senator from Maine, come to the floor, offer to spend $1 billion and
give us the cuts to pay for it. Let us make the hard decisions that we
were charged with to make among priorities in this country.
The other point I would make is there was an offer by the chairman of
the Budget Committee last year to put an additional $1 billion in this
fund. The Senator from New Hampshire offered to put another $1 billion
by taking a small percentage across the board from Health and Human
Services. This body voted that down. This body said we don't want to
take a little bit from everybody else to pay for additional LIHEAP. We
wouldn't even vote for it.
Now, when we are going to steal it from our children--the people who
can't defend themselves, the future taxpayers of this country--then we
are going to say it is OK, I believe it is morally wrong.
The people who need help today can get it. They can get it from the
TANF funds in the State of Maine and the Northeast. They can get it
from Health and Human Services, unallocated and unspent money that is
sitting there right now.
We are not for not helping people, and it is not true to characterize
it that way. We want to help anybody who truly needs our help.
The distribution under this formula, if you were to divide the money
by everybody who could be eligible under LIHEAP, comes to $35 a house.
The other point I would make, since LIHEAP started, we have averaged
$160 million a year in weatherization. That is $3.2 billion in
weatherization. There are some people who would suggest that multiple
homes have been winterized multiple times. There has been no oversight
on weatherization. There has been no oversight on how the money has
been spent. We have not done our job in terms of oversight to make sure
the money that goes for LIHEAP is spent in the proper way.
I believe it very noble that the Senators from Maine want to help
their constituency. Let us help you help your constituency but let us
not steal it from the next generation.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 3 minutes 36 seconds.
[[Page 2456]]
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have an
additional 10 minutes on each side so we can make sure that everyone
who wants to speak has a chance to speak on this issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we have a
lot of requests from folks who are trying to get out. I guess there are
planes leaving. How about 2 minutes for each side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mr. COLEMAN. Madam President, I want to add my voice to this. This is
not about theoretical discussions. I understand we have debates about
oversight.
I held a hearing on this in Minnesota a couple of months ago.
By the way, winter is still there. And it is not just a matter of
winter still being there. In Minnesota, we have some programs that
allow heat not to be turned off and people have to pay that back
through the course of the summer.
I had a mom come forward who has three kids, who is working and going
to school, who is talking about having to give up going to school so
she can pay the heating bill. I had a senior woman come forward who is
paying 50 percent of her income for heat and medicine.
This is not a theoretical debate. This is about life and death. This
is about suffering.
Clearly, we have an opportunity and an obligation. I hope we do it
and simply do the right thing. This is a rich country. Those who need
to be heard, those who are raising their voices and asking us to do the
right thing in a way that is being paid for, we can debate that all we
want. But the bottom line is we have the opportunity to do what is
right.
I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I want to reiterate a little about what
Senator Coburn talked about, whether this bill is paid for; if people
want to truly pay for this legislation then we must cut other areas of
spending. This is about priorities. If this is a priority--and a lot of
people think it is, the Senator from Minnesota and the Senators from
Maine and others from around the country believe it is a priority--then
other sacrifices must be made to meet this priority. We need to set
priorities in this country.
There are those of us who believe that deficits are real. They are
absolutely real. People get up and talk about them all the time. But
when it comes right down to whether you are willing to make tough
choices instead of just increasing the spending and passing that debt
on to the next generation, they aren't willing to offer other spending
cuts so that we are not increasing the deficit.
That is the point that Senator Coburn and myself are trying to make.
It is time to start being fiscally responsible around here instead of
just passing this debt on to the next generation.
I reserve the remainder of our time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Who yields time?
The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Rhode
Island.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are here because people are suffering
throughout the country, most particularly the coldest States.
Americans throughout this country--in the southland and in the
northwest--understand that in Maine in the winter and in Washington
State in the winter, people are freezing.
Senator Collins' very poignant and very telling story about what
happens when people are desperately cold should be remembered by all of
us.
I think it is astounding that we talk about poor people, trying to
help them with a little bit of money for their heat and suggest that we
take it from other poor people who use TANF money to feed their
children so the other people can have heat. We talk of being
responsible and say: Now we have to cut the deficit. I didn't hear that
message weeks ago when we were talking about huge tax cuts to benefit
the wealthiest Americans. That was not being responsible.
We have a chance to help people, a last chance to help people this
year who are literally freezing. It we do not take it, shame on us.
Mr. COBURN. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 3 minutes, and the
Senator from Oklahoma has 7 minutes 20 seconds.
Mr. COBURN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the budget point of order is not a
technical budget point of order. It was a technical point of order with
regard to the asbestos bill. This bill would provide $1 billion more in
2006 than the budget authorized. If we are going to spend $1 billion
more than the budget authorized, how can that not be in violation of
the budget?
There are two aspects: first, you say it is paid for in the future.
That is irrelevant to whether the Budget Act is violated, even if it
were paid for. Second, we have been around here long enough to know we
are not going to cut LIHEAP next year by $1 billion. We know that.
As much as we would like to accommodate this spending--I can
understand the desire of the Senators to do so--we should not do it
because it violates the budget in a very fundamental way.
It clearly is an unfair allocation of funds compared to my State,
which receives $17 million less if it were distributed according to the
discretionary plan, as opposed to the fundamental formula.
I yield back my remaining time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from
Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me add to the words spoken by others.
With all due respect, we hear people talking about deficit financing,
and I could not agree more. Twenty years ago I offered a pay-as-you-go
bill that got 12 votes in the Senate. We ought to be doing that.
With all due respect, we have people in deep trouble, people not in a
position to have resources to take care of themselves. Those here who
live in the Northeast or the Midwest and the upper tier States
understand this problem.
I cannot say how many times I have voted when matters affected the
South or the West or when other parts of the country were devastated. I
do so proudly. I tell my constituents in Connecticut that they are
Americans, they are hurting, they need our help, and I give them my
vote when they are in trouble.
I find it astounding when I listen to Members who say my constituents
cannot get help in their time of need. That is what we are asking. It
is cold where we live. We have a month and a half of winter left.
The Senators from Maine are asking for little consideration. The next
time some Senator from some part of the country says they have a
problem in the gulf States, we will not hear the Senators from Maine
saying: I am sorry, we cannot deficit finance that. We will take care
of our people.
That is what we are asking you to do today: Help us take care of our
people. Support this, please.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. COBURN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for
yielding.
Mr. President, I have sort of a long history with this program. Years
ago on my watch we started this temporary
[[Page 2457]]
program, this emergency program called LIHEAP, energy assistance. Well,
here we are, 10 years later, almost 10, it is still here, and it is
growing.
I guess one thing that shocked me, and this is an admission against
my interests, when I realized it went from being ``heating'' assistance
to being ``heating and air-conditioning'' assistance, I began to think:
How far will this go?
I was in the ninth grade before we had air-conditioning, and we
survived. We did not suffocate. It was damn hot down there on the
Mississippi gulf coast. You could not open your windows because
mosquitos would come in because we did not have screens on the windows.
So, now, millions is going into air-conditioning. And then we have
heat. What is it we are not going to give people for free? Is there any
limit? Is there any limit to the amount of money? I thought we were
having global warming. I thought it was a mild winter.
Yes, my bills have gone up. Mine have gone up astronomically in my
State because of the disaster.
I thank the Senators from Maine, particularly Senator Snowe, for this
not being connected to the flood insurance proposal. Flood insurance is
a completely different issue, and because people paid for this
coverage, it has already been paid for, they paid the Government for
their flood insurance, and now they are going to say: Gee, because the
Senate once again does not do its job and is playing games with us, we
are not going to get the checks for the coverage we already paid for? I
don't understand that.
Second, Senator Coburn and others who are opposed to this LIHEAP
proposal have acted responsibly. They could have been obstructionist,
the way they have been on other bills around here, to insist on a vote
on a motion to proceed. The Senators from Maine are going to make their
case. Those who are opposed to it will make our case. We will have a
vote. One side or the other will win, and then I recommend we go
forward at that point.
I do think if we are going to have this program, we at least need a
formula that is a national formula. I do not like the program. I would
prefer not a nickel of it go to my State, but I would not be doing my
job if I did not insist on a formula that is fair to all of us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Ms. SNOWE. Just to make a few final points because, again, there has
been a lot of misunderstanding, mischaracterizations,
misinterpretations of the facts. The facts are, this program has not
grown. That is indisputable.
Look at this chart and see where we are. The level of funding for
LIHEAP is equivalent to 1983 buying power, when oil per barrel costs
were at $29. Today it is more than $60. The buying power for any
household that depends on low-income fuel assistance has decreased from
50 percent in 2001 down to 19.5 percent. Look at the cost of home
heating oil. That is where we are today.
I go unchallenged when it comes to matching fiscal responsibility.
There are a number of issues I have offered in the Senate to accomplish
that. That has not occurred. I agree we have to do much more. But the
fact is, this $1 billion was included in the Deficit Reduction Act that
most Members voted for in this Senate last year that included this
funding and included this formula. Those are the facts. The $1 billion
and the formula were already included in the Deficit Reduction Act.
This is not increasing spending. It is budget neutral. It is the same
funding formula that everyone agreed to that would help both cold
weather and warm weather States. That is indisputable.
I hope at least we could debate the true and accurate facts. That is
what this is all about.
This is a national issue. It is not a regional issue, it is a
national issue. It is a national crisis. I hope the Senate will vote to
waive the budget point of order so we can provide the $1 billion that
was allocated in 2007 and advance it to 2006.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, the Senator from Connecticut
makes a great point. This is not about regionalization. This is about
paying for something.
The Senator from Maine is absolutely right. It was in the act we
passed this last fall. But it was in there for next year. It was
advance funding so we would pay for the money for next year.
So if in fact we take this money now and move it out of next year, we
are going to have to come up with another $1 billion. You can play the
games with the numbers all you want, but the fact is, we are going to
have to come up with another $1 billion.
The other thing I point out, we are not in great financial shape. We
added half a trillion dollars. I was one of the few Republicans who did
not vote with the rest of my side in terms of the tax cuts this last
time through. I have been straightforward in addressing the financial
problems our country had.
I ask Members to look at this chart put out by NOAA that says, in
fact, for every area seeking today, they are either above normal or
much above normal in terms of their temperatures this year. My poor
State, Oklahoma, is red hot. It was 92 degrees yesterday in Oklahoma.
We set an all-time record. We had 20 or 30 days over 100 this past
summer.
I am not debating whether we should help people. I am debating can we
help people without killing our children. The offer was made several
times to the people offering this amendment: We will help you find
offsets to pay for this so we do not take it from future generations.
That was rejected, straightforward.
The fact is, we have to be responsible. We are going to have to come
to a point in time where we will have to make a hard choice. If we do
not, here is what will happen. The international financial community is
going to do it for us. Interest rates are going to go sky high. The
value of the dollar will fall through the floor. Talk about leaving a
heritage to our children. We will leave a heritage of poverty to our
children.
It is time for us to make the hard decision. Let's support this point
of order because it is right. If we do not support this point of order,
the budget does not mean anything, nor do the budget rules mean
anything, nor do the appropriations categories mean anything.
I yield back the remainder of our time, and I call for a vote.
Ms. COLLINS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a
sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the
Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer)
and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 66, nays 31, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 30 Leg.]
YEAS--66
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Chafee
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Frist
Grassley
Harkin
Hatch
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Wyden
NAYS--31
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Gregg
Hagel
[[Page 2458]]
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Nelson (NE)
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Thomas
Vitter
NOT VOTING--3
Boxer
Hutchison
Inouye
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote the ayes are 66, the nays are 31.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to, and the point of order falls.
The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 2899
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. Kyl], for himself and Mr.
Ensign, proposes an amendment numbered 2899.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 for allotments to States for the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006)
Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
1. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``for a 1-time only obligation and
expenditure--'' and all that follows through ``2007'' the
first place it appears and inserting ``$1,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006'';
(B) by striking ``; and''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under
this section may be used for the planning and administering
described in section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).''; and
(4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September
30, 2006''.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe what the amendment
does. I appreciate the fact that most of my colleagues are leaving, and
we will have to have the debate next week. Since the budget point of
order was not sustained, we are going to proceed to the consideration
of the addition of $1 billion to the LIHEAP funding for low-income
energy assistance. Of course, in the colder States, that generally
takes the form of assistance in the heating oil bills to heat their
homes. We have, however, in other States a crisis in the middle of the
summer when it is so hot that folks have a hard time paying the air
conditioner bills. The issue is essentially the same.
It has been pointed out by one individual that more people actually
die as a result of heat than cold. In any event, we are pleased to see
$2 billion already having been spent for the low-income energy
assistance program in those colder States.
What we are talking about here is the addition of another $1 billion.
We are saying, as to this other $1 billion, it should be spent pursuant
to the formula in the law. What our amendment does is to say take this
additional $1 billion, spend it pursuant to the formula under the law.
That formula is broken into two parts. The first is $250 million and
the second is $750 million. The formula for the first $250 million
disburses it a certain way, and for the last $750 million, it disburses
it somewhat differently. That formula actually ends up getting money to
all of the States but in a different mix than the first $2 billion,
which is so-called contingency funding, which was almost all given to
support folks in the Northeast part of the United States, in the colder
part of the country.
The problem is that by the time we get to the summertime, almost all
of the money is used, and anybody who needs it for air-conditioning
assistance, of course, has nowhere to turn. Last summer, when we had
the record-high temperatures in Arizona, we found that there was no
money. We finally located about $183 million, if memory serves me, and
by the time we located that funding, it was virtually too late to do
very much good.
That is the reason, at this point in the year, if we are going to
spend an additional billion dollars, we need to spend it pursuant to a
formula under which all States can receive funding, that it is
distributed fairly and spread out evenly so that the States that have
air-conditioning problems will receive the benefit from it just as
those States that have problems with the cold.
Mr. President, I suspect there is little point to further debating
this amendment at this time. I hope that when Members return, we will
be able to vote on this amendment. If we are going to add the
additional billion dollars, at least let's do it in a way that is more
fair. I think something like 38 States lose under the proposal of the
Senator from Maine, and they would actually be made more whole if my
amendment is adopted. I hope at that time we will act favorably on this
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the proposal
Senator Kyl has offered. I do believe it represents a step toward
fairness. But I do reiterate that I believe the budget point of order
should not have been waived, and that we actually spent, under this
proposal that has been cleared so far, another billion dollars this
year than we had within our budget. That is a bad thing. It is those
kinds of steps that get us into real trouble in spending.
We have my colleagues who say they care about spending; oh, they care
about spending. But time and time again, when a vote comes up that
actually has something to do with our deficit, they are AWOL. I thought
it was amusing that not long ago, a Senator referred to a vote he cast
15 years ago as if that is going to prove he is frugal. We have a vote
right now. This was the vote. This was a clear vote. It had to do with
whether we had any intention to be disciplined in the way we handle
money. They say: Well, we need this money. But the truth is we have had
the warmest January on record. This has been a very mild winter. For
that, we can be most thankful.
Is this an emergency? Well, what happens next year if it really is an
average or cold year and we don't have this billion dollars? It has
already been spent this year. And they say the heating oil prices don't
fall, they go up. They say the heating oil prices will go up again next
year. Where are we going to come up with that billion dollars? We don't
even have a proposal here to offset it.
With regard to the funding formula we have seen, if we can fund this
billion dollars in the way that has been proposed, my State, which
suffers from a lot of hot days--and in small houses and in mobile homes
that are not cooled, people do die. That is a tough time. If we are
going to have this fund, it is only fair that the poor people in my
State have a chance to participate in it, not just a select group.
So I just return to the fundamental principle. We are indeed moving a
piece of legislation that spends $1 billion more this year than we
authorized in spending. The fact that it came from next year's money
doesn't answer the question. We are spending a billion dollars more
than we were authorized to spend under our budget. What good is a
budget if we don't adhere to it?
What we have is some tax-and-spend people here. They vote against tax
cut extensions, they vote to raise taxes, and they vote to raise
spending. That is what it is about. They say they are frugal. They say
they are responsible. Those of us who are trying to contain spending
and maintain a low tax rate for the American people, they say somehow
we don't care about our people. That is not correct.
We are at a point in time when our Federal budget is allowing for an
increase in spending every year, and we will see again this year a very
sizable increase. We will have before the Budget Committee an effort to
contain just a little bit the growth of entitlements. Do you know what
I am hearing, Mr. President? I am hearing we don't have the votes in
the Budget Committee to
[[Page 2459]]
even have a modest containment of spending on entitlement programs,
which is where the growth is--about $870 billion for discretionary
spending and $1.2 trillion for entitlements. The discretionary budget
this year will come in almost flat this year, with little increase. But
entitlement spending is going up at about a rate of 7 percent or so. It
is just driving our deficits. We cannot even begin to discuss that,
apparently, because people want to raise taxes and spend. They want to
tax and spend. It is not the right way to go. That is not what this
country was founded on.
When you look at the Europeans who have done tax and spend--look at
Germany, with 11.5 percent unemployment, and France has 9.5 percent
unemployment. That is what the statist Socialist economies produce. How
did they get there? Because their congresses could not resist the
demand to fund every feel-good program that comes along the pike. That
is why. Then when you meet with a businessman from Germany, he says: I
know we have to do something, Senator. Maybe we can cut back on this,
but people are so dependent on these government programs, so used to
them in Germany, that we cannot quite get the votes to stop it. We know
if we don't do it, it can wreck our economy, but we cannot get the
votes because people become addicted to it, they like it. They feel
like anything they once received, if it is not received the next year,
the demagogues say it is a big cut and you have been denied something
you are entitled to.
So I just say that if I seem a bit frustrated, you can know that I
am. We have had a lot of good discussion about how to contain the
growth of entitlements--and I am not a bit sure that is going to bear
fruit this year--just to maintain the current tax level and keep taxes
from being increased next year. Now we come along on top of a generous
LIHEAP program and add $1 billion more, in violation of the budget
agreement. We just voted to waive the Budget Act and do it anyway with
66 votes. I am telling you, this is not the way to get spending under
control in this country. It is the way to move our country to a statist
economy. That is not our strength.
Our unemployment is not 11.5. Our unemployment is not 9.5. Ours is
4.7. In my State of Alabama, it is 3.5. We didn't get there by taxing
and spending; we got there by reducing the burden of government on the
private sector and allowing the private sector to flourish. Tax
revenues are up in every city in the State, I do believe. I traveled 26
counties last week. Every mayor and county commissioner I talked to is
seeing increases in sales tax revenues. Many are telling me they have a
14-, 15-, to 18-percent increase in taxes. Why? Because the economy is
booming. Companies are hiring people. They are bidding up the wages.
They cannot find people, and they have to pay higher wages. People are
making more money, and they pay taxes on that. So revenue to the
Federal Government is up. Yes, we have a deficit, but revenue is up.
People don't pay taxes to Uncle Sam if they don't make money. They
are paying more taxes because they are making more money. We have a
free market economy that allows growth and vitality. So I think this
vote is an important vote for us as a people. It is a sad vote to me to
see many people who claim to be frugal, claim to care about spending,
but when the chips are down and we have a clearly dangerous bill like
this one, a bill that we ought to be able to vote down overwhelmingly,
we could not even get 40 votes to say no. We could not find 40 votes to
say no to this plan. I don't blame Senators for trying to do this. They
say that you in the South want help. Well, scrutinize the help we are
asking for. If we are asking for something that is unfair, say so, vote
against it. Don't come in here and vote for everything this one wants,
everything that one wants, and everything that one wants, and then walk
in here and say the deficit is too big and now we have to raise taxes.
That is where we are headed. I think everybody here knows that. There
are a lot on the other side of the aisle, and apparently some on this
side, for whom that is a strategy. That is a strategy. The strategy is
to increase spending and then say you cannot have lower taxes and we
have to have higher taxes and we have to raise taxes. They don't want
to say it publicly and openly, but that is what they are working
toward.
That is a big divide in the Congress, as I see it. I hate that we
have a dispute over this spending, but apparently we have. It is
discouraging to see the vote. But I think, as we continue to talk about
it, perhaps the American people will talk to their Senators and
Congressmen. When I travel around, they talk to me about spending. Of
course, they want their projects. They say: Oh, don't cut that. But
overall, they want constraint.
I believe the American people fundamentally will respect us if we
maintain some discipline. That means, on the discretionary account,
staying within our budget figure, which is basically flat spending.
When we are in a crisis, we try to keep our spending level. We have a
deficit. We ought to stay level. We are not slashing anything. We have
to stop going for more and more red ink, more and more new spending
programs that we have not had before to fund heating oil in the warmest
winter on record.
We are going to keep talking about it. There will be more votes in
this Congress and in this Senate. We did pretty well last year. We did
do some reduction--modest reduction in entitlements with the Medicaid
Program. We limited the growth of Medicaid, and we were proud of
ourselves. Over 5 years, it was going up 41 percent before we passed
the cost-saving bill, and now it is going up 40 percent. We thought we
were quite proud of ourselves to save a little money that way. If we
would do that on the other accounts, like Medicaid and Medicare and
some other accounts--just a little bit--we would have big numbers as we
go along and make a real difference in what we are doing. But it looks
like that may not happen.
So we are going to have to, I guess, reengage the American people,
reengage the Members of Congress, and they are going to be asked by
constituents: How did you vote? How did you vote on LIHEAP? Did you
vote to spend another $1 billion? Maybe we can begin to have the
American people talk some sense into those of us in Congress.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have some remarks to make in tribute to
a combat infantry and armored brigade from Mississippi which has
returned from Iraq. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Cochran are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 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.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE SERVICE OF THE 155TH SEPARATE ARMORED BRIGADE
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to pay tribute to the
service of the 155th Separate Armored Brigade of the State of
Mississippi. The 155th has a rich history of extraordinary military
service to our Nation. It has participated in the War of 1812, the
American Civil War, the Spanish-American
[[Page 2460]]
War, both World Wars, Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and operations in
Bosnia.
Recently, the 155th completed a year-long tour in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 4,000-member brigade combat team was
attached to the II Marine Expeditionary Force and deployed to the Al
Anbar Province of Iraq. They conducted operations that included
rebuilding infrastructure, hunting down insurgents, and supporting
elections. Each of these activities made an indelible impact on the
people of this fledgling democracy and improved their chances of
surviving and prospering in a much safer and secure environment.
It is truly remarkable what our soldiers have accomplished. They
served in a combat environment where they thwarted continuing attacks
from a determined insurgency. They endured the hardships of being away
from their families. They suffered the loss and injury of their fellow
comrades. They had to endure the worry for their families' well-being
as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast. Through it
all, they remained dedicated and determined to carry out their mission.
As Mississippians have done for centuries, these soldiers left their
families and the comforts of home to answer the call of duty. This was
not done without cost. During its deployment, the 155th lost 24
soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice. These soldiers left behind
wives, children, and loved ones. They answered the call of duty and
gave their lives for America's freedom and security. This wasn't done
for fame or fortune. It was done out of a commitment to duty and
service to our great country. They are true heroes.
The 155th is the modern-day ``Mississippi Rifles'' that has carried
on the proud traditions of Mississippi and our Nation.
As we honor these brave men and women, it is appropriate for us to
also honor their families. No one understands the hardships of war and
sacrifice more than a soldier's family. For 18 months, these
Mississippians sacrificed as their loved ones answered our Nation's
call. Although their lives were disrupted, they assumed the role of
both mother and father. Their resilience and courage during Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita continue to be admired by us all.
Of course, they did not accomplish all of this alone. Our Mississippi
communities came together to provide support which ranged from
countless letters and packages, to daily support at home that included
clearing storm debris and ensuring shelter for their loved ones, to
support for the families of fallen comrades and those who were
seriously wounded.
As we pay tribute to the accomplishments of the 155th and give thanks
to their sacrifice and service, it is important we remember our country
is still at war. The State of Mississippi has over 500 of its citizens
deployed in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan continuing to fight the
global war on terrorism. In addition, we have citizen-soldiers in
various stages of mobilization preparing to answer our Nation's call.
Our country's military is the most committed and powerful in the world,
and they are well prepared to serve in our hometowns and across the
globe. We will keep them in our prayers as they continue their great
legacy of sacrifice and service.
____________________
BOULDER CITY 75TH ANNIVERSARY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 75th
anniversary of Boulder City, NV.
Boulder City lies 24 miles east of Las Vegas, and 40 miles from
Searchlight near Lake Mead. It's very close to my hometown,
Searchlight, and it is a city dear to my heart. Boulder City is a
Nevada treasure, and I am proud to honor them today.
Boulder City was created by the Federal Government on March 11, 1931,
to provide housing to the thousands of people who built the Hoover Dam.
Because Boulder City was operated as a Government reservation, the
residents could not buy homes and unlike its neighboring cities, liquor
and gambling were prohibited. In fact, gambling is prohibited in
Boulder City to this day.
As the first planned community built in the United States, Boulder
City has gone to great lengths to maintain its small town feel. Boulder
City only sees about 400 new residents each year due to a growth
control ordinance that was enacted in 1979.
Boulder City is most widely known as the home of the Hoover Dam.
Twenty-one thousand men worked for 5 years and poured more than 5
million barrels of cement to complete the work on the $49 million dam.
Forty-nine million dollars adjusted for inflation equals $676 million.
Named after President Herbert Hoover, the dam is located in the Black
Canyon of the Colorado River. It sits on the border between Nevada and
Arizona and sees 13,000 to 16,000 people cross it each day.
Mr. President, it is important that everyone understand that Boulder
City is more than just the home of the Hoover Dam, more than just a
tourist attraction. It is a city whose people exemplify what being a
Nevadan is all about. I invite all my colleagues here in the Senate and
all the people of this great country to experience a part of Nevada
that I love.
____________________
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES
staff sergeant gregson gourley
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, it is my solemn duty to rise before the
Senate to pay tribute to one of the great sons of Utah, SSG Gregson
Gourley.
Sergeant Gourley, who grew up in Sandy and Midvale, UT was killed
last week with three other members of the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry
Regiment, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) near Hawijah, Iraq.
As I sat down to learn more about Sergeant Gourley's life, I was
struck by his dedication to service. He first served as a missionary in
Pennsylvania for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, then
spent 16 years as a member of our Armed Forces. His aspiration for the
future was to begin a career in law enforcement.
According to what his comrades have said, Sergeant Gourley's service
surpassed the motto of his battalion: ``Above the Rest.'' Not
surprisingly, he had previously been decorated for meritorious service.
I believe that his grandmother, Adena Gourley, said it best, when
reflecting on the sergeant's life:
He was a very gentle person. He has a great desire to be an
outstanding soldier and an outstanding man.
Mrs. Gourley, I can say that, by all accounts, he achieved those
goals.
Sergeant Gourley's passing is a further tragedy because he leaves
behind a wife, three sons under the age of 10, and a newborn daughter.
To his boys, and especially little Alexa, over the years you will
learn more about your father and that he was a remarkable man. But you
should always remember that your father was a hero, a man anyone would
be proud to call father, and our country will forever owe a debt of
great gratitude to him for his unselfish service to our country.
I hope my colleagues will all join me in saluting the bravery of
Sergeant Gourley, and in sending our condolences, prayers, and best
wishes to his family during their time of sorrow.
Sergeant Rickey E. Jones
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart and deep
sense of gratitude to honor the life of a brave young man from Kokomo.
Sergeant Rickey Jones, 22 years old, was one of four soldiers who died
on February 22 when their vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb during a
patrol near Hawijah, 150 miles north of Baghdad. With his entire life
before him, Rickey risked everything to fight for the values Americans
hold close to our hearts, in a land halfway around the world.
A 2002 graduate of Kokomo High School, Rickey joined the Army because
of concerns about a tight local job market at the time. After his first
tour in Iraq, he returned with a new world view and volunteered for a
second tour of duty. His mother told local media that the change in her
son was unmistakable and that during his time in the Army, Rickey had
matured into a man and a true soldier. Rickey's
[[Page 2461]]
brother, Michael, spoke of his admiration for Rickey's patriotism,
saying, ``Rickey was proud of what he did and proud to serve his
country. He died proud.'' Other family members fondly recalled that
Rickey was a loving person and the pride of his family, who simply
wanted to help ensure a better quality of life for Iraqi children.
Rickey was killed while serving his country in Operation Iraqi
Freedom. He was a member of the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment,
101st Airborne Division based at Fort Campbell, KY. Today, I join
Rickey's family and friends in mourning his death. While we struggle to
bear our sorrow over this loss, we can also take pride in the example
he set, bravely fighting to make the world a safer place. It is his
courage and strength of character that people will remember when they
think of Rickey, a memory that will burn brightly during these
continuing days of conflict and grief.
Rickey was known for his dedication to his family and his love of
country. Today and always, Rickey will be remembered by family members,
friends and fellow Hoosiers as a true American hero, and we honor the
sacrifice he made while dutifully serving his country.
As I search for words to do justice in honoring Rickey's sacrifice, I
am reminded of President Lincoln's remarks as he addressed the families
of the fallen soldiers in Gettysburg: ``We cannot dedicate, we cannot
consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and
dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power
to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we
say here, but it can never forget what they did here.'' This statement
is just as true today as it was nearly 150 years ago, as I am certain
that the impact of Rickey's actions will live on far longer that any
record of these words.
It is my sad duty to enter the name of Rickey Jones in the official
record of the United States Senate for his service to this country and
for his profound commitment to freedom, democracy and peace. When I
think about this just cause in which we are engaged, and the
unfortunate pain that comes with the loss of our heroes, I hope that
families like Rickey's can find comfort in the words of the prophet
Isaiah who said, ``He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord
God will wipe away tears from off all faces.''
May God grant strength and peace to those who mourn, and may God be
with all of you, as I know He is with Rickey.
____________________
LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for
hate crimes legislation. Each Congress, Senator Kennedy and I introduce
hate crimes legislation that would add new categories to current hate
crimes law, sending a signal that violence of any kind is unacceptable
in our society. Likewise, each Congress I have come to the floor to
highlight a separate hate crime that has occurred in our country.
On March 30, 1999, Tracey Thompson was murdered in Wilcox County, GA.
Thompson was a transgender person that was found bleeding from a head
wound after walking a half-mile to a local farmhouse. According to
police, she was beaten with a baseball bat, and desecrated in a way
that made the attack an apparent hate crime.
I believe that the Government's first duty is to defend its citizens,
to defend them against the harms that are born out of hate. The Local
Law Enforcement Enhancement Act is a symbol that can become substance.
I believe that by passing this legislation and changing current law, we
can change hearts and minds as well.
____________________
KRESMIR COSIC
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize
one of the greatest foreign athletes to play in my home State of Utah--
Kresmir Cosic.
My dear friend from Yugoslavia fell victim to cancer in 1995, but
this Saturday, Brigham Young University will officially retire
Kresmir's No. 11 jersey during a ceremony at BYU's final home game this
season. It is a fitting tribute to a four-time Olympian and two-time
all-American already enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame.
Kresmir--or Kresh, as I called him--is a legend at BYU, but he will
most likely be remembered for opening the door for foreign athletes in
American colleges and the NBA. He truly had a global influence--Drazen
Petrovic, Toni Kukoc, Dino Radja, and Vlade Divac are just a few
players who owe their success in America to their former coach from
Yugoslavia.
When I visited Yugoslavia one time, Kresh heard that I would be in
Zagreb and drove up from Zadar so he could introduce me to one of his
former players, who was a leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints in the area. He arrived in a VW bug, and to see Kresh
unwind out of that little car was a humorous experience.
I considered Kresh to be a tremendous friend. When he became the
deputy ambassador for his country, he went out of his way to see me,
and I was more than pleased to be an advisor and help him. He
tirelessly walked the halls on Capitol Hill, trying to dispel
misunderstandings about Croatia and Bosnia and the Serbian war waging
in his native land.
The last time I saw Kresh was at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. The
doctors thought he was in a coma, but when I spoke to him, tears came
to his eyes, and a warm look of caring showed he understood my words of
consolation.
After his death, when once again I was in his native land, I was
pleased to see his wife, the person he loved so much.
Mr. President, I have only mentioned just a few highlights from the
life of this great man. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a touching article from the Deseret Morning News that summarizes
why so many of us in Utah are looking forward to finally seeing his
jersey hang from the Marriott Center's rafters this weekend.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Deseret Morning News]
Late Cougar Cosic's Talent, Fun Couldn't Be Contained
(By Dick Harmon)
Kresimir Cosic could barely fit into my '63 Volkswagen that
day. But who'd have guessed this world, as well, could hardly
contain him and, at the age of 46, gave him back to God.
I was just 17, puttering around in my Bug when I saw the 6-
foot-11 Cosic walking down the sidewalk of a street in Provo
on his way to basketball practice. I stopped and asked if he
wanted a ride. He said he did and he crammed himself into the
car. It was like putting a praying mantis in a thimble.
The first thing Cosic did was reach over and turn on the
radio. He broke out in a big smile, turned his face to mine
and said: ``I love the music.''
In a nutshell, that epitomized all you need to know about
Cosic, the Yugoslavian. He loved life. He loved basketball,
and he loved playing to the largest crowds in the college
game when they hatched out the Marriott Center back in 1972.
To Cosic, music played when he had a basketball in ``his
hands. He may have been one of the most entertaining players
who ever lived. Certainly he was the most gifted passing
center to play the game. As they say in Europe, Cosic was
Magic Johnson before Magic Johnson.
On Saturday, folks at BYU will officially retire Cosic's
No. 11 jersey during a ceremony at the final home game this
season, against New Mexico. There is a generation of BYU fans
who never saw Cosic play. They got robbed.
``When we toured Europe a couple of summers ago, everywhere
we went, they knew BYU basketball because of Cosic,'' BYU
coach Dave Rose said.
Cosic's resume reads like he invented basketball. In
Europe, and in his native Yugoslavia, he just about did. A
four-time Olympian and two-time all-American, Cosic is
enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield,
Mass.
Cosic died in May 1995 of lymphatic cancer. The week before
he passed, he was distraught when he talked to his former
coach, Glenn Potter, because he felt he'd defeated the
cancer, but in the process, he'd contracted hepatitis and was
going to get a liver transplant. ``The next thing I knew, he
died,'' Potter said.
Cosic's passion for the game overwhelmed his approach to
play. Cosic took more pleasure in passing the ball and
setting up teammates than shooting. Still he could be heard
[[Page 2462]]
yelling ``Opa, Opa'' (I'm open, I'm open). He thought himself
a point guard, but he was a devastating inside player, a
master of the hook, fade-away, running jumper, set shot and
long bomb. He was a showman, a Globetrotter-type star who
oozed charisma on the court in an era absent of freshman
varsity players, dunks and 3-point lines.
Imagine, if he played today.
``This was before the 3-point shot, and you weren't allowed
to dunk the ball,'' remembered guard Belmont Anderson, now a
podiatrist in Las Vegas. ``He had a Larry Bird range with his
outside shot. When he'd take it, the coaches would yell, `no,
no, no . . . good shot, Kresh.' They frowned on taking the
long shot because you weren't rewarded for it. Imagine what
he'd have done if the 3-point shot was in back then or if he
was allowed to dunk.''
Cosic was famous for leading the fast break, making a
pinpoint pass or doing a jackknife lay-up, tucking in his
knees, going airborne, looking like a camel in flight. He
once took off against UCLA's Sidney Wicks, and the Bruin big
man looked perplexed--he'd never seen a 6-11 guy playing
point guard.
``He loved to dribble the ball up court,'' Potter said. ``I
remember one day in scrimmage he took off with the ball
leading the break, and our point guard, Bernie Fryer, ran up
behind him and stole the ball. He was upset. They were on the
same team.''
Said Anderson: ``If you were cutting for the basket and he
had the ball, you had to be alert because Cosic could hit you
with a pass, and if you weren't ready, it would hit you in
the head,''
Cosic was a master of behind-the-back and between-the-leg
deliveries, Potter added. ``I remember one game in the Smith
Fieldhouse, Moni Sarkalahti cut for the basket and Cosic
passed the ball between his own legs, between the legs of the
center guarding him, and hit Moni in the hands for a lay-
in.''
Former BYU assistant coach Pete Witbeck called Cosic the
best center in the college game, better than Bill Walton.
Joe Watts, now executive director of the Utah Golf
Association, was a sportswriter covering Cosic's final home
game in Provo when he penned: ``The thought leaves me with an
empty feeling, a loneliness, a sadness, like I'll be losing a
friend. Something really good will be leaving my life.
Kresimir Cosic has brought me, and many others, some of our
most enjoyable moments in basketball. He is without any
question the greatest passing center I have ever seen in the
game. That alone has been thrilling.''
UTEP's Don Haskins, on whom Hollywood based the movie
``Glory Road,'' called Cosic the best center in the Olympics.
It was a Cosic long bomb at UTEP that handed Haskins his
first defeat on the Miner home court since joining the WAC, a
five-year perfect league home record.
Cosic could have had a solid NBA career. He would have sold
tickets and helped TV ratings. Instead, he chose to return
home to Yugoslavia and help develop others and play for the
Yugoslavian Olympic team. He later became the Croatian
ambassador to the United States.
``That tells you a lot about Cosic when compared to players
today who won't even play in the Olympics,'' Anderson said.
``Cosic cared about the game, his country, more than money
and fame.''
Potter remembers Cosic's late return from playing in the
Olympics before his senior year. He missed several deadlines
to return to Provo. Potter called Cosic twice and asked when
he'd come back.
``Coach, I'll be there,'' Cosic said twice.
Finally, when he showed up in Provo, Potter asked Cosic why
he'd been delayed so long, for nearly a month. Cosic told him
when he was touring Yugoslavia with a national club team, he
once told an audience in a gym he had a film for them to see
later. It was ``Man's Search for Happiness,'' an LDS Church
film explaining the plan of salvation. After that, Cosic
said, his phone was bugged and his passport was confiscated.
Potter recalls an exhausted Cosic leaning against the
basketball standard at practices that year. Potter asked him
what was up and Cosic told him he was tired, he'd gone to bed
about 3 or 4 in the morning the past few weeks. Potter asked
him why.
Unknown to Potter, Cosic stayed up translating the Book of
Mormon into Croatian. ``It's something he thought was
worthwhile and he had to do.''
Potter remembers Cosic coming in his BYU office and
debating tactics of the game, arguing strategy.
The bottom line was to give him the ball.
He was such a good passer you wanted him to have the ball
in his hands.
When Cosic returned to Zadar, Yugoslavia, to coach, he
invited Potter to visit him three times. One day Cosic called
Potter and asked him to come to Zadar and help him with a
coaching problem.
``What is it?'' Potter asked.
``Coach, I don't know what to tell the guards to do.''
Potter about keeled over laughing. ``All those times in my
office, arguing.''
Cosic ended up a European hero, opening the door for
foreign athletes in American colleges and the NBA. Aside from
filling the new Marriott Center night after night in the
early '70s, his influence was global. Those who learned at
his hand or were influenced by Cosic include Drazen Petrovic,
Toni Kukoc, Dino Radja and Vlade Divac--all players on
Yugoslavia's 1984 Olympic team coached and handpicked by
Cosic.
In his final years, working in Washington, D.C., as
ambassador, Cosic worked to dispel misunderstandings about
Croatia and Bosnia and the Serbian war waging in his native
country.
Cosic told then Deseret News Washington correspondent Lee
Davidson he'd like to get back into coaching basketball
someday but wasn't sure if it was in the cards, with the
cancer and all.
``But it is what I would like to do, not necessarily what I
will do. You never know what will happen. My country may need
me to do something more. Or maybe God will have other
ideas.''
He was right. Within six months of that interview, he died.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT
______
A TRIBUTE TO VERMONT'S OLYMPIANS
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the
outstanding accomplishments of the Vermonters participating in the
recent Winter Olympics in Turin, Italy. These Olympians proudly follow
a long line of Vermonters competing at the highest levels of winter
sports.
Three Vermonters made particularly extraordinary impressions in
Turin: Hannah Teter, Bud Keene, and Lindsey Jacobellis.
Hannah Teter, of Belmont, VT, was the first Vermonter to medal in
Turin when she earned the gold in the women's halfpipe competition.
Hannah is very much a product of Vermont, growing up amidst the beauty
of the Green Mountains in a family that embraced the outdoors. More
importantly, Hannah was raised on homemade maple syrup, one of
Vermont's most treasured products.
In her halfpipe competition in Turin, despite already holding a
comfortable lead, Hannah won the gold medal with a bold and inspired
final run. Though I will not pretend to perfectly understand terms like
front-side 900, I can tell you that Hannah's snowboarding acrobatics
were some of the most impressive athletic sights I have ever seen.
Coaching Hannah to her success was Bud Keene of Moscow, VT, the U.S.
Olympic snowboard team's halfpipe coach. Bud was an avid snowboarder
long before the sport was included in the Olympics. Bud coached at
Mount Mansfield before becoming an assistant snowboarding coach during
the 2002 Olympics. Bud was named the head halfpipe coach for the 2006
Olympics and he led the team to a remarkable performance: the U.S. won
an amazing two gold medals and two silver medals in the men's and
women's halfpipe competitions. Bud deserves a lot of credit for the
unparalleled success of the American snowboarding team at this year's
games.
Vermont's second Olympic medal also came in snowboarding when Lindsey
Jacobellis of Stratton, VT, earned the silver medal in the women's
snowboardcross. As many know, snowboardcross is a dangerous and
difficult event that requires snowboarders to navigate a narrow 1,000-
yard course while avoiding the three other competitors trying to
navigate the terrain at the same time. Lindsey survived two of these
incredible races just to qualify for the final medal heat, where she
emerged with a silver medal in a race so challenging that two of her
competitors crashed and one left the course on a stretcher.
In addition to Hannah, Lindsey, and Bud, I would like to commend the
other Vermonters who traveled to Turin for the Olympics. These
accomplished men and women include snowboarder Kelly Clark of Mount
Snow, cross-country skier Andrew Johnson of Greensboro, freestyle skier
Hannah Kearney of Norwich, alpine skier Chip Knight of Stowe, cross-
country skier Andrew Newell of Shaftsbury, honorary Vermonter Jimmy
Cochran of the famed Olympic ski family in Richmond, and countless
other athletes who have trained, studied, or lived in Vermont and
competed in Turin.
I would also like to acknowledge two Olympians who are currently
serving
[[Page 2463]]
our country in the Vermont National Guard: SP Jeremy Teela and SGT
Tuffield ``Tuffy'' Latour. An Alaskan, Jeremy competed in the biathlon
in Turin, while Tuffy coached the U.S. Men's bobsled team.
We are very lucky in Vermont to have the privilege of watching and
following such an impressive group of athletes. There are many reasons
why our small State has so many top-tier competitors but, to steal a
line from Hannah Teter, I bet one of those reasons is Vermont's great
maple syrup.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT
Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.
____________________
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
At 12:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, with an amendment:
S. 1777. An act to provide relief for the victims of
Hurricane Katrina.
The message also announced that the House has agreed to the following
concurrent resolution, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H. Con. Res. 335. Concurrent resolution honoring and
praising the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People on the occasion of its 97th anniversary.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message further announced that the Speaker has signed the
following enrolled bill:
S.449. An act to facilitate shareholder consideration of
proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees,
eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18,
1971, and for other purposes.
The enrolled bill was signed subsequently by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Stevens).
The message also announced that pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h, and the
order of the House of December 18, 2005, the Speaker appoints the
following members of the House of Representatives to the Mexico-United
States Interparliamentary Group, in addition to Mr. Kolbe of Arizona,
Chairman, and Mr. McCaul of Texas, Vice Chairman, appointed on February
16, 2006: Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. Manzullo of Illinois, Mr.
Delahunt of Massachusetts, Mr. Faleomavaega of American Samoa, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weller of Illinois, Mr. Reyes of Texas,
Mrs. Davis of California, and Mr. Fortuno of Puerto Rico.
____________________
MEASURES REFERRED
The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as
indicated:
H. Con. Res. 335. Concurrent resolution honoring and
praising the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People on the occasion of its 97th anniversary; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED
The Secretary of the Senate reported that today, March 2, 2006, she
had presented to the President of the United States the following
enrolled bill:
S. 449. An act to facilitate shareholder consideration of
proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees,
eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18,
1971, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-5836. A communication from the Board of Trustees,
National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the Trust's Annual Management Report for
Fiscal Year 2005; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5837. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Postponement of Deadline for Making an
Election to Deduct Certain Losses Attributable to Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma'' (Notice 2006-17) received on
February 22, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5838. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Supplemental Clean Renewable Energy Bond
Notice'' (Notice 2006-7) received on February 22, 2006; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-5839. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Applicable Federal Rates--March 2006'' (Rev.
Rul. 2006-10) received on February 22, 2006; to the Committee
on Finance.
EC-5840. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Energy Efficient Home Credit; Manufactured
Homes'' (Notice 2006-28) received on February 27, 2006; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-5841. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Qualifying Gasification Project Program''
(Notice 2006-25) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-5842. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Qualifying Advanced Coal Project Program''
(Notice 2006-24) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-5843. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Certification of Energy Efficient Home
Credit'' (Notice 2006-27) received on February 27, 2006; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-5844. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Nonbusiness Energy Property Credit'' (Notice
2006-26) received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on
Finance.
EC-5845. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Special Rules Regarding Certain Section 951
Pro Rata Share Allocations'' ((RIN1545-BE71) (TD9251))
received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5846. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``TD 9250, Application of Section 367 in Cross
Border Section 304 Transactions'' (RIN1545-BD46) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5847. A communication from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department of
the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Bureau of Labor Statistics Price Indexes for
Department Stores--December 2005'' (Rev. Rul. 2006-8)
received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5848. A communication from the Regulations Coordinator,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of
Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Medicare Program; Medicare
Secondary Payer Amendments'' (RIN0938-AN27) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-5849. A communication from the Administrator, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Assistance
Provided to Foreign Aviation Authorities for Fiscal Year
2005''; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5850. A communication from the Under Secretary and
Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office,
transmitting , pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
[[Page 2464]]
``Clarification of Filing Date Requirements for Ex Parte and
Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings'' (RIN0651-AC02)
received on February 27 , 2006; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-5851. A communication from the Executive Secretary and
Chief of Staff, U.S. Agency for International Development,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of the confirmation
of a nominee for the position of Inspector General, received
on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-5852. A communication from the Director, National Marine
Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled ``2005 Report to Congress on Apportionment of
Membership on the Regional Fishery Management Councils''; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5853. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation , transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled ``Aviation and the Environment: A National Vision
Statement, Framework for Goals and Recommended Actions''; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5854. A communication from the Secretary of
Transportation , transmitting, pursuant to law, a report
entitled ``2004 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and
Transit: Conditions and Performance''; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5855. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Naples and Sanibel,
Florida)'' (MB Docket No. 05-134) received on February 22,
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5856. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Prospect, Kentucky, and
Salem, Indiana)'' (MB Docket No. 05-120) received on February
22, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5857. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Grand Portage,
Minnesota)'' (MB Docket No. 04-433) received on February 22,
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5858. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Beaumont and Mont Belvieu,
Texas)'' (MB Docket No. 04-426) received on February 22,
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5859. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Ocala, Florida and St.
Simons Island, Georgia)'' (MB Docket No. 05-267) received on
February 22, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5860. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Memphis and Arlington,
Tennessee, and Saint Florian, Alabama)'' (MB Docket No. 05-
140) received on February 22 , 2006; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5861. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Roma, Texas)'' (MB Docket
No. 05-142) received on February 22, 2006; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5862. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.202(b), Table of
Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations (Water Mill and Noyack, New
York)'' ((MB Docket No. 03-44) (RM-10650)) received on
February 22, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5863. A communication from the Legal Advisor to the
Bureau Chief, Media Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a
rule entitled ``Amendment of Section 73.622(b), Table of
Allotments, DTV Broadcast Stations (Johnstown and Jeannette,
Pennsylvania)'' ((MB Docket No. 05-52) (RM-10300)) received
on February 22, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
EC-5864. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Safety Zones (including 5 regulations):
[COTP Western Alaska-06-002], [CGD09-06-002], [COTP Western
Alaska-06-001], [CGD13-06-002], [CGD09-05-142]'' (RIN1625-
AA00) received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5865. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Security Zones (including 3
regulations): [CGD05-06-009], [COTP Honolulu 06-002], [CGD09-
06-001]'' (RIN1625-AA87) received on February 27, 2006; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5866. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations
(including 3 regulations): [CGD05-06-005], [CGD01-06-005],
[CGD01-06-011]'' (RIN1625-AA09) received on February 27,
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5867. A communication from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, United States Coast Guard, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report
of a rule entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations;
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Cape Fear River, and
Northeast Cape Fear River, NC'' (RIN1625-AA09) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5868. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pacific Cod by Catcher Vessels 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length
Overall and Using Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands Management Area'' (I.D. No. 020106A) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5869. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska;
Pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the Gulf of Alaska'' (I.D.
No. 012006A) received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5870. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; North
Pacific Halibut and Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Cost
Recovery Program'' (I.D. No. 120805C) received on February
27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5871. A communication from the Acting Director, Office
of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Atka
Mackerel in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management
Area'' (I.D. No. 011806K) received on February 27, 2006; to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5872. A communication from the Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
Fisheries; Temporary Rule; Inseason Retention Limit
Adjustment'' (I.D. No. 011206I) received on February 27,
2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5873. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National
Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of
a rule entitled ``Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico,
and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico;
Gulf Grouper Recreational Management Measures'' (RIN0648-
AT45) received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5874. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Standard Instrument Approach Procedures--Amdt. No. 3148''
(RIN2120-AA65) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5875. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
[[Page 2465]]
entitled ``Part 95 Instrument Flight Rules--Amdt. No. 459;
Miscellaneous Amdts. (9)'' (RIN2120-AA63) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5876. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Federal Register Dispositions for Petitions for Exemption;
Docket No. FAA-2005-22982'' (RIN2120-AI69) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5877. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Service Difficulty Reports--Docket No. FAA-2000-7952''
(RIN2120-AI08) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5878. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Maintenance Recording Requirements; Docket No. 2005--
23495'' (RIN2120-AI67) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5879. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs for
Personnel Engaged in Specified Aviation Activities''
(RIN2120-AH14) received on February 27, 2006; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5880. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Noise Stringency Increase for Single-Engine Propeller-
Driven Small Airplanes; Docket No. FAA-2004-17041'' (RIN2120-
AH44) received on February 27, 2006; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-5881. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP
Series Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2005-NM-101)) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5882. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems Limited Model Avro
146-RJ Airplanes'' ((RIN2120-AA64)(2005-NM-084)) received on
February 27, 2006; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-5883. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 B4-600, B4-
600R, and F4-600R Series Airplanes, and Model C4-605R Variant
F Airplanes; and Airbus Model A310 Series Airplanes''
((RIN2120-AA64)(2004-NM-74)) received on February 27, 2006;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. SPECTER, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
without amendment:
S. 2178. A bill to make the stealing and selling of
telephone records a criminal offense.
____________________
EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following executive reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. SPECTER for the Committee on the Judiciary.
Terrance P. Flynn, of New York, to be United States
Attorney for the Western District of New York for the term of
four years.
Jack Zouhary, of Ohio, to be United States District Judge
for the Northern District of Ohio.
Stephen G. Larson, of California, to be United States
District Judge for the Central District of California.
(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. DeMINT:
S. 2352. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of duty
on certain manufacturing equipment; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. DeMINT:
S. 2353. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on certain
integrated machines for manufacturing pneumatic tires; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr.
Feingold, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2354. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to reduce the coverage gap in prescription drug coverage
under part D of such title based on savings to the Medicare
program resulting from the negotiation of prescription drug
prices; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Frist, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McCain,
Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2355. A bill to amend chapter 27 of title 18, United
States Code, to prohibit the unauthorized construction,
financing, or reckless permitting (on one's land) the
construction or use of a tunnel or subterranean passageway
between the United States and another country; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2356. A bill to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating
to military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 2357. A bill to provide for economic security and
prosperity; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2358. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report
on health care quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2359. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative
under the Medicare program to assess and report on health
care quality in hospitals; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2360. A bill to ensure and promote a free and open
Internet for all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Carper, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Johnson,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Menendez, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Obama, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Salazar, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Nelson of Florida):
S. 2361. A bill to improve Federal contracting and
procurement by eliminating fraud and abuse and improving
competition in contracting and procurement and by enhancing
administration of Federal contracting personnel, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
By Mr. BYRD:
S. 2362. A bill to establish the National Commission on
Surveillance Activities and the Rights of Americans; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Allard, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Carper, Mr. Roberts, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Dole, Mr.
Santorum, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cornyn, Mrs. Hutchison,
Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Frist):
S. 2363. A bill to extend the educational flexibility
program under section 4 of the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act of 1999; considered and passed.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Kerry):
S. 2364. A bill to provide lasting protection for
inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Voinovich,
Mr. Coburn, and Mr. Kyl):
S. Res. 387. A resolution recognizing the need to replace
the United Nations Human Rights Commission with a new Human
Rights Council; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Santorum, and Mr.
Brownback):
S. Res. 388. A resolution urging the Government of National
Unity of Sudan and the Government of Southern Sudan to
implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was
signed on January 9, 2005; considered and agreed to.
[[Page 2466]]
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 333
At the request of Mr. Santorum, the name of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl) 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. 654
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 654, a bill to prohibit the
expulsion, return, or extradition of persons by the United States to
countries engaging in torture, and for other purposes.
S. 908
At the request of Mr. McConnell, the name of the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. Salazar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 908, a bill to
allow Congress, State legislatures, and regulatory agencies to
determine appropriate laws, rules, and regulations to address the
problems of weight gain, obesity, and health conditions associated with
weight gain or obesity.
S. 985
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the names of the Senator from New
York (Mr. Schumer) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg)
were added as cosponsors of S. 985, a bill to establish kinship
navigator programs, to establish kinship guardianship assistance
payments for children, and for other purposes.
S. 1172
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1172, a bill to provide
for programs to increase the awareness and knowledge of women and
health care providers with respect to gynecologic cancers.
S. 1283
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the names of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Dayton), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper) were
added as cosponsors of S. 1283, a bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to establish a program to assist family caregivers in
accessing affordable and high-quality respite care, and for other
purposes.
S. 1289
At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1289, a bill to provide
for research and education with respect to uterine fibroids, and for
other purposes.
S. 1376
At the request of Mr. Cochran, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1376, a bill to improve
and expand geographic literacy among kindergarten through grade 12
students in the United States by improving professional development
programs for kindergarten through grade 12 teachers offered through
institutions of higher education.
S. 2157
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from Montana
(Mr. Burns) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 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
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Santorum)
and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) were added as cosponsors of
S. 2178, a bill to make the stealing and selling of telephone records a
criminal offense.
S. 2231
At the request of Mr. Byrd, the name of the Senator from Washington
(Mrs. Murray) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2231, a bill to direct the
Secretary of Labor to prescribe additional coal mine safety standards,
to require additional penalties for habitual violators, and for other
purposes.
S. 2243
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2243, a bill to
make college more affordable by expanding and enhancing financial aid
options for students and their families and providing loan forgiveness
opportunities for public service employees, and for other purposes.
S. 2253
At the request of Mr. Domenici, the names of the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2253, a bill to require the Secretary of the Interior
to offer the 181 Area of the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas leasing.
S. 2320
At the request of Mr. Specter, his name was added as a cosponsor of
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.
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
DeWine) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2320, supra.
S. 2333
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Kohl), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) were added as cosponsors of S. 2333, a bill to require
an investigation under the Defense Production Act of 1950 of the
acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Company, and for other purposes.
S. 2351
At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the names of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2351, a bill to provide additional
funding for mental health care for veterans, and for other purposes.
S. RES. 383
At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 383, a
resolution calling on the President to take immediate steps to help
improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan, with an emphasis on
civilian protection.
At the request of Mr. Biden, the names of the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Bingaman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) and the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) were added as cosponsors of S.
Res. 383, supra.
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, her name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 383, supra.
At the request of Mr. Frist, his name and the names of the Senator
from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) and the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 383, supra.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 2354. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
reduce the coverage gap in prescription drug coverage under part D of
such title based on savings to the Medicare program resulting from the
negotiation of prescription drug prices; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my
colleague and cosponsor Senator Susan Collins as we introduce the
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.
For years now, I have advocated for providing seniors with meaningful
prescription drug coverage. Seniors in this
[[Page 2467]]
country should never have to choose between their meals and their
medications.
Unfortunately, Congress created a Medicare prescription drug plan
that is confusing and contains a huge coverage gap. These are some of
the reasons that I did not support the legislation that created this
program. But this flawed plan is what passed. Our job now is to help
seniors by fixing the underlying law. I have spoken with Medicare
beneficiaries across Florida and they are understandably concerned
about the new prescription drug benefit. One issue of great concern to
Floridians is the large gap in coverage called the ``doughnut hole.''
The Medicare drug benefit contains a large coverage gap during which
beneficiaries continue to pay premiums but get no drug coverage at all.
For most plans, Medicare will pay 75 percent of initial drug costs up
to $2,250 after a $250 deductible. But then the program pays nothing
until drug expenses reach $5,100. This lack of coverage for drug
spending is often called Medicare's doughnut hole.
More than one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries are projected to
have drug spending that falls in the doughnut hole's range, according
to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Millions of beneficiaries
will pay premiums yet receive no coverage during this time. This is
simply unacceptable.
In response, we are introducing the Medicare Prescription Drug Gap
Reduction Act of 2006 which will reduce the impact of the doughnut hole
on Medicare beneficiaries.
Our bill allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to
negotiate on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries for lower drug prices.
Unfortunately, the law that created the new Medicare drug program
actually prohibits the Secretary from using the purchasing power of
over 40 million seniors to negotiate for lowers prescription drug
prices. The savings generated from allowing negotiations would then be
applied towards reducing the doughnut hole, providing more drug
coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.
A recent analysis was conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins
Center for Hospital Finance and Management on the Medicare doughnut
hole. They concluded that ``the gap in coverage could be completely
eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Veterans'
Administration, or Department of Defense and 75 percent of the gap
could be eliminated if Medicare paid the same prices as the Federal
Ceiling Price.'' Our bill gives the Secretary authority similar to
entities like the Veterans' Administration and the Department of
Defense, to negotiate contracts and obtain the lowest possible
prescription drug prices for Medicare beneficiaries.
Allowing the Federal Government to utilize market forces to negotiate
for lower prescription drug prices and using these savings to alleviate
the impact of the doughnut hole is a common-sense approach to providing
Medicare beneficiaries with affordable prescription drugs.
This issue boils down to just one goal--helping seniors. We urge all
of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this
effort to help lower prescription drug costs for Medicare
beneficiaries.
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. 2354
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 Prescription Drug
Gap Reduction Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. REDUCING COVERAGE GAP.
Section 1860D-2(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395w-102(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and
inserting ``paragraph (4), subject to the increase described
in paragraph (7)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(7) Increase of initial coverage limit based on medicare
savings due to negotiation of drug prices.--For each year
(beginning with 2006), the Secretary shall increase the
initial coverage limit for the year specified in paragraph
(3) so that the aggregate amount of increased expenditures
from the Medicare Prescription Drug Account as a result of
such increase under this paragraph in the year (as estimated
by the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services) is equal to the aggregate amount of
reduced expenditures from such Account that the Office of the
Actuary estimates will result in the year as a result of the
application of the amendment made by section 3(a) of the
Medicare Prescription Drug Gap Reduction Act of 2006.''.
SEC. 3. NEGOTIATING FAIR PRICES FOR MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION
DRUGS.
(a) In General.--Section 1860D-11 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-111) is amended by striking subsection
(i) (relating to noninterference) and inserting the
following:
``(i) Authority To Negotiate Prices With Manufacturers.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (4), in order to
ensure that beneficiaries enrolled under prescription drug
plans and MA-PD plans pay the lowest possible price, the
Secretary shall have authority similar to that of other
Federal entities that purchase prescription drugs in bulk to
negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered part D
drugs, consistent with the requirements and in furtherance of
the goals of providing quality care and containing costs
under this part.
``(2) Mandatory responsibilities.--The Secretary shall be
required to--
``(A) negotiate contracts with manufacturers of covered
part D drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan under
subsection (g); and
``(B) participate in negotiation of contracts of any
covered part D drug upon request of an approved prescription
drug plan or MA-PD plan.
``(3) Rule of construction.--Nothing in paragraph (2) shall
be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary under
paragraph (1) to the mandatory responsibilities under
paragraph (2).
``(4) No particular formulary or price structure.--In order
to promote competition under this part and in carrying out
this part, the Secretary may not require a particular
formulary or institute a price structure for the
reimbursement of covered part D drugs.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of section
101 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and
Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Kyl, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Frist,
Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. McCain, Mr. Domenici, and Mr.
Bingaman):
S. 2355. A bill to amend chapter 27 of title 18, United States Code,
to prohibit the unauthorized construction, financing, or reckless
permitting (on one's land) the construction or use of a tunnel or
subterranean passageway between the United States and another country;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, our borders are our Nation's first
line of defense. They are the key to our homeland, and ensuring their
integrity is vital to our national security.
But there are some who seek to create a means of entering our country
illegally. For years, they've tried to go around the border
checkpoints. Now they are trying to go under them through sophisticated
border tunnels.
In fact, there have been 40 border tunnels financed and constructed
since 9/11--to move humans, drugs, and weapons under the border.
Twenty-one of these were on the California-Mexico border--eight since
January of this year.
This is a serious issue not just for San Diego and California, but
for the entire country.
Surprisingly, there is no law on the books now that makes it a crime
to construct, finance, build, or use a tunnel into the United States.
Last week, I toured a recently discovered tunnel in San Diego with
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders, Police Chief Bill Lansdowne, Sheriff
Bill Kolender and various Federal Government officials from the
Department of Homeland Security.
This tunnel is the largest, most sophisticated underground passageway
ever discovered; approximately half a mile long (8 football fields); at
its deepest point, more than nine stories below ground; equipped with a
drainage system, cement flooring for traction, lighting, and a pulley
system; disguised as a produce distribution company
[[Page 2468]]
known as ``V & F Distributors, LLC''; and accessible only through a
small office inside this warehouse, covered by four square tiles.
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement began investigating
the case two years ago, and raided the tunnel last month from the
Mexican side not knowing if or where an opening on the U.S. would be
found. They discovered over 2,000 pounds of marijuana on the Mexican
side of the border and approximately 300 on the U.S. side.
The legislation which I am introducing today--joined by Senator Kyl
as the Republican lead, as well as Senators Frist, Cantwell, Boxer,
Hutchison, McCain, Bingaman and Domenici--throws the book at those who
build these tunnels and subterranean passageways into the United
States.
It would: criminalize the construction or financing of an
unauthorized tunnel or subterranean passage across an international
border into the United States with a term of imprisonment up to 20
years; punish those who recklessly permit others to construct or use an
unauthorized tunnel on their land with a term of imprisonment of up to
10 years; punish those who use a tunnel to smuggle aliens, weapons,
drugs, terrorists, or illegal goods by doubling the sentence for the
underlying offense; in addition to imprisonment, ensure that assets
involved in the offense, or any property traceable to the offense, may
be subject to forfeiture; and instruct the U.S. Sentencing Commission
to promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for criminal
penalties for persons convicted under this bill, and to take into
account the gravity of this crime when considering the base offense
levels.
The legislation is critical. We must secure every aspect of our
borders.
Since 9/11: forty border tunnels have been discovered in the United
States; all but one have been on the southern border; twenty-one of the
tunnels were along the California-Mexico border; eight of the tunnels
were discovered in San Diego since the beginning of the year; these
tunnels range in complexity from simple ``gopher holes'' a few feet
long at the border to massive drug-cartel built mega-tunnels, costing
hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to construct.
The need for this legislation is urgent. We must secure every aspect
of our borders, including those we can't always see. And it is in our
national security interest that we find these tunnels and prosecute
those who construct, finance or recklessly permit the use of these
tunnels on their land or property to the fullest extent of the law.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 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. 2355
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 ``Border Tunnel Prevention
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONSTRUCTION OF BORDER TUNNEL OR PASSAGE.
(a) In General.--Chapter 27 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages
``(a) Any person who knowingly constructs or finances the
construction of a tunnel or subterranean passage that crosses
the international border between the United States and
another country, other than a lawfully authorized tunnel or
passage known to the Secretary of Homeland Security and
subject to inspection by the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, shall be imprisoned for not more than 20
years.
``(b) Any person who recklessly permits the construction or
use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection (a) on
land that the person owns or controls shall be imprisoned for
not more than 10 years.
``(c) Any person who uses a tunnel or passage described in
subsection (a) to unlawfully smuggle an alien, goods (in
violation of section 545), controlled substances, weapons of
mass destruction (including biological weapons), or a member
of a terrorist organization (as defined in section
212(a)(3)(B)(vi) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi))) shall be subject to twice the
penalty that would have otherwise been imposed had the
unlawful activity not made use of such a tunnel or
passage.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
27 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``Sec. 554. Border tunnels and passages.''.
(c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(6) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``554,'' before
``1425,''.
SEC. 3. DIRECTIVE TO THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with
this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for
increased penalties for persons convicted of offenses
described in section 554 of title 18, United States Code, as
added by section 1.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines, policy
statements, and official commentary reflect the serious
nature of the offenses described in section 554 of title 18,
United States Code, and the need for aggressive and
appropriate law enforcement action to prevent such offenses;
(2) provide adequate base offense levels for offenses under
such section;
(3) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that might justify exceptions, including--
(A) the use of a tunnel or passage described in subsection
(a) of such section to facilitate other felonies; and
(B) the circumstances for which the sentencing guidelines
currently provide applicable sentencing enhancements;
(4) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutes;
(5) make any necessary and conforming changes to the
sentencing guidelines and policy statements; and
(6) ensure that the sentencing guidelines adequately meet
the purposes of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of
title 18, United States Code.
______
By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 2356. A bill to prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to
military action, relief, and reconstruction efforts, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``War
Profiteering Prevention Act of 2006.'' This bill creates criminal
penalties for war profiteers and cheats who, for ill-gotten gain, would
exploit the United States Government's taxpayer-funded war and
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. I am
pleased that Senator Dorgan has also included this legislation in the
``Honest Leadership and Accountability in Contracting Act of 2006''
that is also being introduced today.
I previously introduced this legislation in 2003. It came to be
cosponsored by 21 Senators, including Senators Clinton, Dodd,
Feinstein, Johnson, Kerry, Landrieu, Bill Nelson, Wyden, Dayton,
Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kohl, Lieberman and Reid.
The Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously accepted these
provisions during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup of the $87
billion appropriations bill for Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year
2004, and it passed the Senate. It was the right thing to do then, and
it is the right thing to do now.
Regrettably, the Republican leadership in the House stripped this
legislation out of that appropriations bill, and we regrettably have
been witnessing the results in the meantime. Billions appropriated for
the continuing war efforts and for reconstruction are unaccounted for,
and fraud has been rampant. The recent report of the special inspector
general confirms that U.S. taxpayer funds appropriated for
reconstruction have been lost and diverted.
There are, of course, anti-fraud laws to protect against waste of tax
dollars at home. But none expressly prohibits war profiteering, and
none expressly confers jurisdiction for fraud overseas. This bill would
criminalize ``war profiteering''--overcharging taxpayers in order to
defraud and to profit excessively from a war, military action, or
reconstruction efforts. It would prohibit any fraud against the United
States involving a contract for the provision of goods or services in
connection with a war, military action, or for relief or reconstruction
activities. This new crime would be a felony, subject to
[[Page 2469]]
criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1
million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime.
The bill also prohibits false statements connected with the provision
of goods or services in connection with a war or reconstruction effort.
This crime would also be a felony, subject to criminal penalties of up
to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the
illegal gross profits of the crime. These are strong and focused
sanctions that are narrowly tailored to punish and deter fraud or
excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the
United States Government's war or reconstruction efforts.
Congress has sent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars to Iraq
with too little accountability and too few financial controls.
Disturbingly, there are widespread reports of waste, fraud and war
profiteering in Iraq, and the special inspector general examining the
use of reconstruction funds in Iraq recently found that billions of
taxpayer dollars remain unaccounted for.
For example, a recent report on 60 Minutes revealed that more than
$50 billion of U.S. taxpayer funds have gone to private contractors
hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and
rebuild in Iraq. This is more than the entire annual budget of the
Department of Homeland Security.
In addition, just this week, the New York Times, reported that the
Army has decided to reimburse a Halliburton subsidiary--Kellogg Brown &
Root--for nearly all of its disputed costs on a $2.41 billion no-bid
contract to deliver fuel and repair oil equipment in Iraq, even though
the Pentagon's own auditors had identified more than $250 million in
charges as potentially excessive or unjustified. That article further
notes that the Army's decision to pay all but 3.8 percent of these
questionable charges lies well outside the normal practice of the
military.
The recent revelations about contract fraud and abuse in Iraq make
clear that the approach to reconstruction in Iraq has been a formula
for mischief. We need strong disincentives for those who would take
advantage of the chaos of war to defraud American taxpayers.
We also need to strengthen the tools available to federal prosecutors
to combat war profiteering. Despite well-publicized allegations of
fraud and war profiteering in Iraq, so far the Government has brought
only one case to recover these funds--a civil lawsuit brought under the
False Claims Act. That case involves a contractor accused of
overcharging the Government millions of dollars under a contract to
help distribute new Iraqi currency during the first months after the
collapse of the Hussein government. The Government's ability to recover
funds in that case is being questioned by the defendant, however, who
argues that legal technicalities may constrain current law from
reaching all of the conduct of contractors working in Iraq or elsewhere
overseas. This bill would address this problem by providing clear
authority for the Government to seek criminal penalties and to recover
excessive profits for war profiteering overseas. It should already be
law, but three years ago the House Republican leadership rejected it.
Every penny of our taxpayers' money must be expended carefully and
purposefully and protected from waste. The message sent by this bill is
that any act taken to financially exploit the crisis situation in Iraq
or elsewhere overseas for exorbitant financial gain is unacceptable,
reprehensible--and criminal. Such deceit demeans and exploits the
sacrifices that our military personnel and National Guard are making in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
When U.S. taxpayers have been called upon to bear the burden of
reconstruction contracts--where contracts are awarded in a system that
offers little competition and even less accountability--concerns about
wartime profiteering are a grave matter. Historical efforts to stem
such profiteering have been successful: Congress implemented excessive-
profits taxes and contract renegotiation laws after both World Wars,
and again after the Korean War. Advocating exactly such an approach,
President Roosevelt once declared it our duty to ensure that ``ar few
do not gain from the sacrifices of the many.'' Then, as now, our
Government cannot in good faith ask its people to sacrifice for
reconstruction efforts that allow so many others to profit unfairly.
There is urgency to this important measure because criminal statutes
cannot be applied retroactively. These controls should have been put in
place at least three years ago; they need to be in place now. I urge
that the Senate make prompt passage of this legislation a high
priority. I hope that this time the House Republican leadership will
have learned the hard lessons of the last three years and that, this
time, they will allow this bill's enactment, on behalf of the Nation's
taxpayers. 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. 2356
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 ``War Profiteering Prevention
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF PROFITEERING.
(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military
action, relief, and reconstruction efforts
``(a) Prohibition.--
``(1) In general.--Whoever, in any matter involving a
contract or the provision of goods or services, directly or
indirectly, in connection with a war, military action, or
relief or reconstruction activities within the jurisdiction
of the United States Government, knowingly and willfully--
``(A)(i) executes or attempts to execute a scheme or
artifice to defraud the United States; or
``(ii) materially overvalues any good or service with the
specific intent to defraud and excessively profit from the
war, military action, or relief or reconstruction activities;
shall be fined under paragraph (2), imprisoned not more than
20 years, or both; or
``(B)(i) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
``(ii) makes any materially false, fictitious, or
fraudulent statements or representations; or
``(iii) makes or uses any materially false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under paragraph (2) imprisoned not more than
10 years, or both.
``(2) Fine.--A person convicted of an offense under
paragraph (1) may be fined the greater of--
``(A) $1,000,000; or
``(B) if such person derives profits or other proceeds from
the offense, not more than twice the gross profits or other
proceeds.
``(b) Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.--There is
extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under
this section.
``(c) Venue.--A prosecution for an offense under this
section may be brought--
``(1) as authorized by chapter 211 of this title;
``(2) in any district where any act in furtherance of the
offense took place; or
``(3) in any district where any party to the contract or
provider of goods or services is located.''.
(2) Table of sections.--The table of sections for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``1039. War profiteering and fraud relating to military action, relief,
and reconstruction efforts.''.
(b) Civil Forfeiture.--Section 981(a)(1)(C) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``1039,'' after
``1032,''.
(c) Criminal Forfeiture.--Section 982(a)(2)(B) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``or 1030'' and
inserting ``1030, or 1039''.
(d) RICO.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting the following: ``, section 1039
(relating to war profiteering and fraud relating to military
action, relief, and reconstruction efforts)'' after
``liquidating agent of financial institution),''.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 2357. A bill to provide for economic security and prosperity; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, these have not been easy times for vast
numbers of Americans. In many ways, the American dream is in peril for
millions of our fellow citizens as global forces have caused the
economy to shift against them.
[[Page 2470]]
Complacency is not the answer. Few things more affect the way we live
than our shrinking and rapidly changing world. Unless we begin to
address this immense challenge more effectively, the Nation will pay a
high price for years and years to come. Now is the right time to
reinvest in America's future, which is why I am today introducing the
Right TRACK Act.
American families across the Nation know the problem. It is measured
in jobs moving overseas, stagnant or even falling wages and benefits,
our schools losing ground compared to other nations, and fewer
opportunities to attain the American dream. Indeed, the course we are
on today is a course that will make the American dream the impossible
dream.
America cannot move forward if we cut back on investments in
education, invention, and innovation, as the administration has
proposed. We cannot compete in the world if our companies and our
workers are saddled with soaring costs for health care. We cannot
advance if we fail to invest in our own employees by paying them a
decent wage, by taking steps to enable companies to keep jobs here at
home, and by investing wisely in our own economic growth.
The 20th century was widely hailed as the American century, but the
21st century is up for grabs. No nation is guaranteed a future of
lasting prosperity. We have to work for it. We have to sacrifice for
it.
We have a choice. We can continue to be buffeted by the harsh winds
of the global economy or we can think anew and guide the currents of
globalization with a new progressive vision that strengthens America
and equips our citizens to move confidently to the future.
Competing better in a race to the bottom is not the answer. Equality
of opportunity--a bedrock principle of our democracy--is suffering
already. Today, children born of parents in the bottom 20 percent of
income have only a 1 in 15 chance of reaching the top 20 percent in
their lifetimes. Also disturbing is the fact that those born in the
middle are more likely to sink to the bottom than to rise to the top.
And those born at the top are likely to stay at the top.
We cannot and should not compete by lowering wages. Instead, we must
open new doors and new avenues for all Americans to make the most of
their God-given talents and rekindle the fires of innovation in our
society. By doing so, we can turn this era of globalization into a new
era of opportunity for America.
As Thomas Jefferson said, ``Every generation needs a new
revolution.'' And I believe the revolution for this generation is to
master our own destiny in the new global economy.
What is most required is a new vision for America's future in the
global community. Our goal is to rekindle the American Dream, so that
if people work hard and play by the rules, they can succeed in life, be
better off than their parents, live in good neighborhoods, raise strong
families in safe surroundings, work in decent jobs with decent pay and
decent benefits and a decent retirement.
To do all that, we must make a commitment to lifelong education, to
prepare every man, woman, and child for the new world of intensifying
competition and increasingly sophisticated technologies.
We must create high-quality jobs for the years ahead by investing in
research and development, encouraging innovation, and modernizing all
aspects of our infrastructure.
We must level the playing field for American businesses and
employees, to ensure fair worldwide competition and preserve good jobs
in the United States.
And we must make a fair commitment to assist and care for workers and
communities harmed by the forces of globalization.
We can do all that, but only if we make the right choices, and the
time to start is now.
I strongly believe that our highest priority must be a world class
education for every American. We must seek a future where America
competes with other nations, not by reducing our employees' pay and
outsourcing their jobs but by raising their skills.
As a Nation, we must invest in Americans by ensuring access to the
highest quality educational opportunities. We must make the American
worker and manager the best educated, best trained, and most capable in
the world. We need to nourish the capacities of every person in the
nation.
To do that, we must begin in the earliest years. Research proves
conclusively that what we do for children's early education and
development does more to ensure their later success in school than any
other investment we can make. It is far less costly to society to spend
millions to put young children on the right track from the start,
instead of spending billions to rescue them from the wrong track later.
In fact, one study concludes that in the long run, we save $13 for
every dollar invested in the early education of our youngest citizens.
Prevention works in health care, and it can work in education too.
For generations, we have treated education as a three-legged stool--
elementary and middle school, high school, and college. To create a
solid foundation for the future, we have to add a fourth leg--early
childhood education.
In elementary and secondary education, the No Child Left Behind Act
was a pioneering reform that held great promise when it was signed into
law by President Bush 4 years ago.
No Child Left Behind was not just an abstract goal. It was a moral
commitment to every parent and every child and every school in America,
and I was proud to stand with President Bush when he signed it. It soon
became clear, however, that to the administration, it was more a slogan
than a promise. Too many parents, too many children, too many schools
are still waiting for the help we pledged.
We can't reform education without the resources needed to pay for the
reforms. Promises alone won't provide the qualified teachers, high
standards in every classroom, good afterschool activities, and the
range of supplemental services that every good school needs if it is to
provide the right help for students who need it.
No Child Left Behind was also a promise that every child counts--
Black or White or Brown, rich or poor. It was a promise that disabled
children too will have the qualified teachers and individual support
they need to succeed in school and in life.
We must also do more to help students prepare for college, afford
college, be admitted to college and complete college. In 1950, when I
graduated from school, only 15 percent of jobs required some
postsecondary training. Today, the number is over 60 percent and rising
rapidly.
However, we are witnessing a growing gulf in college attendance
between the rich and poor. The gap is shameful. Each year, 400,000
college-ready students don't attend a 4-year college because they can't
afford it. Never before has the financial challenge of attending
college been greater for young students.
It is time for America to agree that cost must never be a barrier to
college education. Every child in America should be offered a contract,
when they reach eighth grade, making clear that if they work hard,
finish high school, and are accepted for college, we will guarantee
them the cost of earning a degree. The Right TRACK Act authorizes
Federal grants to States to support the creation of ``Contract for
Educational Opportunity'' grants to cover students' unmet need up to
the cost of attendance at 2-year and 4-year public colleges in that
State.
Perhaps nowhere is it more obvious that we are falling behind than in
math and science. For a nation that prides itself on innovation and
discovery, the downward slide is shocking. In recent years, we have
dropped to 28th in the industrial world in math education. Each year,
China graduates three times as many engineers as we do. Other nations
are gaining on us because they give higher priority to education.
The last time America was shocked into realizing we were unacceptably
behind in math and science was in 1958, when the Soviet Union launched
Sputnik. Republican President Eisenhower
[[Page 2471]]
and a Democratic Congress responded by passing the National Defense
Education Act, and almost overnight we doubled the Federal investment
in education.
In fact, throughout our history, we have remade American education to
conquer the challenges of each time. In the mid-1800s, with the
Industrial Revolution in full swing, we created free and mandatory
public schools before most other nations did. And to stay ahead, we
rapidly established public high schools at the start of the last
century to keep pace with a growing economy.
Once again, we did something comparable at the end of World War II.
We passed the GI Bill of Rights and gave every returning veteran the
chance for a college education. The Nation reaped a $7 return for every
dollar it invested in their education. The result was the ``greatest
generation,'' and it would never have happened without the GI bill.
That is the kind of initiative we need today, because the need is
just as great. We need a new Education Bill of Rights, a new National
Defense Education Act, for our own day and generation in science and
math.
Let's make college free for students training to become math or
science teachers.
Let's make college and graduate school free for low- and middle-
income math and science students.
Let's see that our standards are internationally competitive, so that
our high school graduates can succeed in this new economy. Let's offer
incentives and other support for schools to develop and implement
rigorous standards and courses in math and science.
The Right TRACK Act responds to each of these challenges. The
legislation provides grants to low- and middle-income students studying
in science, technology, engineering, and math fields, as well as
critical-need foreign languages. The bill provides larger grants to
students studying to become teachers in these fields who agree to work
in a high poverty school for at least 4 years. It also provides
teachers with tax credits, increased loan forgiveness as additional
incentives to continue to teach where they are needed the most and
invests in teacher training programs supporting their continuing
education.
The Right TRACK Act also provides resources to states to create P-16
Preparedness Councils to help States with their efforts to improve
State standards and ensure that they are aligned with the expectations
of colleges, employers, and the armed services. The bill also provides
funding to States working in collaboration to establish common
standards and assessments.
The bill also directs resources to high need schools so they can
invest in math, science, engineering, and technology textbooks and
laboratories to ensure their students have equal access to a curriculum
that will provide them with the skills they need to be successful in
the 21st century global economy.
It is becoming increasingly important for students to become exposed
to and immersed in other languages and cultures. In recent years,
foreign language needs have significantly increased throughout the
public and private sector due to the presence of a wider range of
security threats, the emergence of new nation states, and the
globalization of the U.S. economy. American businesses increasingly
need employees experienced in foreign languages and international
cultures to manage a culturally diverse workforce. Foreign language
proficiency is a consideration in 44 percent of hiring decisions and 66
percent of retention decisions. Currently, the U.S. Government requires
34,000 employees with foreign language skills in 100 languages across
more than 80 Federal agencies.
The Right TRACK Act responds to these needs by providing grants for
elementary and secondary critical-need language programs, summer
institutes to improve teachers' knowledge and instruction of foreign
languages and international content, and study abroad and foreign
language study opportunities for high school students, undergraduate,
and graduate students.
We must also continue to invest in our current workforce. The Right
TRACK Act builds on existing formula funds for job training with
competitive grants to support innovative strategies to meet emerging
labor market needs.
From our earliest days as a nation, education has been the engine of
the American dream. Our country is home to the greatest universities in
the world, and our education system has produced the world's leading
scientists, writers, musicians, and inventors. We cannot let these
achievements stall now. Slogans aren't strong enough. We have to put
first things first and give children, parents, schools, communities and
States the support they need to refuel the amazing engine of education
and keep our country great in the years ahead.
Beyond education, we must recognize that the foundation of our
prosperity in this global world is to remain on the cutting edge of
technology and medical and scientific breakthroughs in the years ahead
and translate those advances into reliable products and services. A
strong and fully developed infrastructure will provide the backbone for
that success.
America has always been a world leader in research and development,
but we can no longer take our success for granted. Even in highly
skilled industries, where our technology and infrastructure have
preserved our competitive advantage we are increasingly at risk today.
Rapidly growing economies in Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America
are now formidable competitors, developing their economies into engines
of growth based not just on low wages but on well-educated citizens,
advanced infrastructure, and well-run businesses.
In Bangalore, India, a G.E. center employs more than 2,200 Ph.D.s.
These workers are not sewing buttons on shirts; they are carrying out
advanced research on jet engines and developing mathematical models for
investment. An Intel research and development center in the same city
employs 3,000 engineers designing the next generation of computer
chips.
However, despite increasing international competition, the Federal
commitment to research outside the defense arena has declined under the
Bush administration. Of particular concern is the drop in funding for
basic research. Much of the research conducted by private companies is
focused on getting a product quickly to market. That is not the basic
research that lays new foundations for new discoveries. Funding for
basic research has declined in the past few years at the National
Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department
of Energy, and other key scientific agencies. And overall the Federal
investment in research which once exceeded one percent of our GDP is
now less than half a percent.
We cannot allow this trend to continue. The Right TRACK Act will help
America maintain its position as the leader in innovation. The Right
TRACK Act will not only make the R&D credit permanent but expand it to
encourage small businesses, universities, and Federal laboratories to
collaborate on research. And it will increase R&D funding for major
Federal research agencies by 10 percent that we double it in 7 years.
Innovation is important for its own sake, but it is also what creates
jobs. We are currently seeing our investment in R&D paying dividends in
high growth, high technology industries such as nanotechnology. We need
to help usher these new technologies out of the laboratory and into the
marketplace. The Right TRACK Act would encourage investment in
nanotechnology businesses and increase support for critical programs at
the Department of Commerce that help manufacturers adopt and
commercialize new technologies.
We also must invest in innovation and infrastructure--highways, mass
transit, new sources of clean energy, health I.T., and more. The Right
TRACK Act will authorize funds for capital improvements to Amtrak and
expands and increases tax credits for school renovation and
construction that will equip schools with 21st century technology.
These investments not only improve the quality of our lives, but they
also
[[Page 2472]]
create the quality jobs that drive our economy forward.
Broadband infrastructure is a perfect example. Two years ago,
President Bush declared that every American should have access to
affordable broadband technology by the year 2007. But the
administration still has no plan to get us there. In the meantime, we
have fallen to 16th in the world in broadband access behind countries
such as Japan and the Netherlands that have broadband speeds four and
five times faster than ours.
Widespread use of basic broadband would add $500 billion to our
economy and create 1.2 million jobs. Clearly, this is the kind of
infrastructure we should invest in to produce good jobs and economic
growth in the future. The Right TRACK Act also puts us on the ``right
track'' to take full advantage of that economic opportunity.
We also live in an age exploding with medical miracles. A generation
ago, few could possibly have imagined the advances in science and
biology that have revolutionized the practice of medicine. No one today
can predict how new discoveries in the life sciences will improve our
lives and change the world, but we can be certain the effects will be
profound.
Thanks to the genius and dedication of scientists, doctors, and
business leaders, the potential of medical research is virtually
limitless. Diagnosing a faulty heart valve or blocked artery once meant
risky and traumatic exploratory surgery. Today, doctors make the
diagnosis with a miniature camera and fiber optic cable, and the
patient can walk out of the office moments later.
A few years ago, it seemed inconceivable that anyone could decipher
the entire genetic code--the very blueprint of life. But today, doctors
across the globe can read that sequence on their computer screens and
use the information to search for new ways to treat cancer, diabetes,
Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other major illnesses.
Continuing at the forefront of the life sciences may well be the most
important way for America to retain its leadership in the world economy
in the coming years.
Another of the fundamental challenges of the global economy is that
our companies are losing business and our people are losing jobs
because they are not competing on a level playing field.
Foreign governments manipulate their currencies to give their
products an unfair advantage. They refuse to enforce basic labor
protections like a minimum wage. They use abhorrent practices like
child labor and forced labor. As a result, these countries can produce
goods much more cheaply and dominate the global marketplace.
Our own trade deficit is skyrocketing because we are producing less
at home and buying more from other nations. Last year, we imported a
record $726 billion more than we exported--an alltime high.
We can't continue down this reckless path. It is too damaging to our
economy. Over $2.2 trillion of our national debt today is owed to
foreign investors and foreign governments. America has always
controlled its own destiny but when foreigners are bankrolling our
Government, our destiny is no longer in our hands.
It is not just our companies that suffer--our workers are also
struggling because the playing field is so uneven. More and more of our
companies are shipping U.S. jobs overseas. Fifty-four percent of
America's top companies have already done so. Even governments are part
of the offshoring bandwagon. In my home State of Massachusetts, the
State government has hired contractors that used workers from India to
process Medicaid data and answer questions about food stamps.
The Nation as a whole has lost nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs
since 2001. The pain is widespread--48 States have lost manufacturing
jobs under President Bush. These are not just blue-collar jobs.
Millions of high-paying, white-collar jobs are also at risk of being
shipped overseas, especially in the fields of medicine and computers.
The disappearance of these good jobs is reducing our standard of
living and threatening the very existence of the American middle class.
President Bush's so-called economic recovery has the worst job creation
record of any recovery since World War II.
Those fortunate enough to have jobs are finding that their wages are
stagnant even though other costs are soaring. College tuition is up 46
percent since 2001. Housing costs are up 49 percent. Health insurance
is up 58 percent. Gasoline is $2.33 a gallon--40 percent higher than it
was 5 years ago.
The foundation of the America dream is weakening. That is because
more of what our economy produces in this recovery now goes to business
profits and executive suite salaries, and less to employees, than at
any time since such records began in 1929. Wages are down, but profits
are up by more than 60 percent.
There is a better way. We need policies that reject the Walmart-
ization of the American workforce.
We must level the playing field in the competition for good jobs and
demonstrate leadership in promoting fair wages for workers around the
world. This is not just an economic issue--it is a moral issue. The
Right TRACK Act will help raise living standards worldwide by
prioritizing the elimination of forced labor and child labor in U.S.
trade agreements and providing incentives for multinational
corporations to treat their foreign workers with respect. It will also
level the playing field for American businesses by ensuring that
countries cannot manipulate their currencies to give their goods an
unfair advantage in the global market.
Rejecting the race to the bottom also means reaffirming our
commitment to workers here at home. We must stop rewarding companies by
giving them favorable tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. The Right
TRACK Act corrects this nonsensical policy by eliminating the tax
loophole that allows companies to avoid paying taxes on money they have
earned overseas. The act also addresses the offshoring epidemic by
requiring companies to give workers better notice when their jobs could
be offshored to other countries and ensuring that the Government does
not use hard-earned tax dollars to ship jobs overseas.
Our commitment to workers at home also demands that we give them
their fair share of the economic growth that globalization brings. In
this century, just as in the last, we must ensure that workers can
organize and have a voice at work. The Right TRACK Act preserves the
basic rights of American workers by protecting employees who try to
organize from employer intimidation, supporting the democratic right of
a majority of workers to choose a representative through fair and
neutral card-check procedures, and requiring employers to come to the
table and negotiate a first contract.
We owe a particular duty to those Americans who lose their jobs due
to the effects of trade or economic downturns. When workers lose their
jobs in the global economy, we should help in the difficult and painful
transition to new employment with top-notch job training and income
assistance for their families until they get another paycheck. The
Right TRACK Act gives workers and communities harmed by trade the
support they deserve. It expands the Trade Adjustment Assistance
Program to include service workers and workers who lose their jobs due
to increased trade with countries like China and India. It also
improves funding levels for training programs, provides wage insurance
for older workers who lose their jobs, and helps workers to retain
their health care coverage during times of transition.
And it is a scandal that the minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an
hour for the past 9 years, below the poverty line for a family of
three. It is the lowest the minimum wage has been in real value in more
than 50 years. How can so many Republicans in Congress keep voting
against any increase? Why can't we all at least agree that no one who
works for a living in America should have to live in poverty? The Right
TRACK Act gives these hardworking Americans a long overdue raise by
increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour in three steps.
[[Page 2473]]
America has to rise to each and every dimension of this challenge. We
can do it by creating a new culture of innovation and creativity that
keeps our Nation in the lead in the global market place--by equipping
every American to compete and win in the new global economy. Only then
will our economy continue to grow and prosper. Only then will the good
jobs of the future be made in the U.S.A.
The same can-do spirit of innovation, invention, and progress that
brought us the automobile, the airplane, and the computer can do it
again. Those advances brought the American dream closer for all, and we
can't afford to let it slip away now.
The essence of the American dream is the ability to provide a better
life for yourself and your family. At its very heart are a good job,
first-class education, good health care, and a secure retirement. Some
say the dream is out of reach in today's global economy. But I am here
today to tell you it doesn't have to be that way. We can revitalize the
American dream.
I have full confidence in our ability to meet these challenges and
reach new heights of discovery prosperity, and progress. Passing the
Right TRACK Act that I've introduced today is an important step towards
ensuring that the American dream remains attainable for generations to
come, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2358. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to establish a
Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to report on health care
quality in Veterans Affairs hospitals; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 2359. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative under the Medicare
program to assess and report on health care quality in hospitals; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that
would expand and improve quality reporting for our Nation's hospitals
through the establishment of a national Hospital Quality Report Card
Initiative.
Study after study has documented that health care quality in the
United States is inconsistent and inadequate. The landmark 2003 RAND
report by Beth McGlynn found that the chance of Americans getting
recommended care is not much greater than the flip of coin. For many
conditions, the chances are even worse--only about a third of diabetics
and a quarter of patients with atrial fibrillation and hip fractures
receive the right treatment, as do only about 10 percent of patients
with alcohol dependence. Patients are suffering, and the financial
costs of poor care are staggering. We can and must do more to ensure
that every patient gets the right care, at the right time, in the right
way.
One way to help improve health care quality is to measure and report
the quality of care in our nation's hospitals. Hospital quality reports
can help patients and consumers choose the hospital that will best
serve their health needs. Purchasers and payers can use hospital
quality information to help their decision-making about where employees
and members can go for care. Hospitals and health care professionals
would similarly benefit from identification of areas of need, and
opportunities for quality improvement and cost containment. And
finally, with greater quality reporting and transparency, we can begin
to have an honest dialogue about health care quality and how to reform
our health care system.
Several States have already developed and implemented hospital report
card initiatives, and I am proud to say that Illinois began its own
report card initiative in January of this year--an initiative that I
spearheaded when I served in the Illinois State Senate.
On the national level, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(CMS) and the Hospital Quality Alliance have partnered to identify and
encourage submission of quality measures for several health conditions,
on a voluntary basis, in exchange for greater federal reimbursement.
The Deficit Reduction Act codified this initiative earlier this year.
The Hospital Report Card Act, which I am introducing today, takes
quality measurement one step further, by mandating that the Secretary
expand and improve upon current quality reporting for hospitals. Within
18 months, the Secretary would establish a formal Hospital Report Card
Initiative, and publish reports on individual hospital quality using
data submitted for the value based purchasing program at CMS, but also
including other data available to the Secretary. The report cards would
report quality measures that align with those used in the National
Healthcare Quality Report, including measures of effectiveness, safety,
timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity. In addition,
the report cards would provide information on other quality priorities
for patients, such as staffing levels of nurses, rates of infections
acquired in hospitals, volume of procedures performed, and availability
of specialized care. The Secretary would also report measures of
relevance to a number of priority populations, including women,
children and minorities.
The bill requires the Secretary to take steps to ensure that all
reported data is accurate and fairly represents hospital quality, and
that hospitals have an opportunity to participate in the development of
the report card initiative. I also want to make sure that sick patients
have full access to the best hospitals, and so the report cards will
risk-adjust quality data, so that hospitals are not inadvertently
penalized for caring for more challenging patient populations.
We are hearing a lot of rhetoric about patient empowerment and
consumer-driven health plans. However, we can't expect patients to make
the best choices for their health care in the absence of accurate
information on quality and costs. Similarly, we can't expect hospitals
to recognize their areas of deficiencies or strengths without a
critical look inwards. Finally, we can't expect the Nation at large to
support and embrace healthcare reform without greater awareness of
quality problems.
The Hospital Quality Report Card Act will help the Nation take one
step closer to improving health care quality and containing costs, and
I hope my colleagues will join me in passing this critical legislation.
______
By Mr. WYDEN:
S. 2360. A bill to ensure and promote a free and open Internet for
all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, a headline in today's Wall Street Journal
warns consumers that they will soon face a ``pay to play'' Internet
where those businesses and consumers who want to continue to see equal
content get equal treatment will have to pay more. Rather than let them
continue to have the freedom to choose whatever content, applications
and services they want, the big network operators want to control the
content consumers can access. Allowing the big network operators to
discriminate on the Net is bad news for consumers, small businesses,
schools, libraries, nonprofits and any other user who enjoys their
freedom of access.
That is why today I am proposing legislation that will codify the
principle of network neutrality. I want consumers, small businesses and
every other Internet user to continue to enjoy tomorrow the full array
of content, service and applications they enjoy today.
My legislation, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006, will
establish the principle of network neutrality by requiring the
operators of the network to treat all content on the Internet equally.
It will ensure transparency so that everyone can easily determine all
rates, terms and conditions for the provision of any communications.
Transparency coupled with a complaint process before the Federal
Communications Commission will encourage compliance.
This legislation has been developed in consultation with a number of
consumer groups and businesses, and I ask
[[Page 2474]]
unanimous consent 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. 2360
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 ``Internet Non-Discrimination
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Since passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,
the Internet has grown robustly. Today, Americans are
changing how they access the Internet, moving from dial-up to
broadband for their home connections. According to the Pew
Internet and American Life Project, 72 percent of Americans
use the Internet and 59 percent of Americans with home
Internet have a high-speed Internet connection.
(2) Americans use the Internet for many daily activities.
Over 17 percent of Americans have sold something over the
Internet. Everyday, approximately 60,000,000 Americans use
search engines to get access to information. 80 percent of
Americans have looked online for health care information. In
growing numbers, Americans are using the Internet to place
phone calls, watch their favorite televisions shows or
movies, and play games.
(3) The growth of the Internet and its success are due in
large part to the freedom that has always existed on the
content and applications layer of the Internet. Innovation
has thrived on this layer, as anyone with a good idea has the
ability to access consumers. The continuation of this freedom
is essential for future innovation.
(4) Freedom on the content and applications layer has also
led to robust competition for retail goods for consumers.
Consumers can shop at thousands upon thousands of retailers
from their home computers, including small businesses located
miles away in other towns, States, and even countries.
(5) Such freedom is leading to the development of important
new entertainment offerings, on-demand video and movie
purchases, Internet Protocol television, and enhanced gaming
options. The entertainment options available in the future
will only be limited by the bandwidth that can be used and
the innovation of people all over the world.
(6) Despite the growth of the Internet and increased access
to the Internet for Americans, there is very little choice in
who provides them high-speed Internet access. According to an
April 2005 White Paper by Harold Feld and Gregory Rose, et.
al., entitled, ``Connecting the Public: The Truth About
Municipal Broadband'' only 2 percent of Americans get high-
speed Internet access from someone other than their local
phone company or cable provider. According to the Federal
Communications Commission, approximately 20 percent of
Americans do not have a high-speed Internet access provider
that offers them service.
(7) As more and more Americans get high-speed access to the
Internet without having much choice of who their provider
will be, it is important that Congress protect the freedom on
the Internet to ensure its continued success.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Application or service.--The term ``application or
service'' means any information or service--
(A) by which an end-user through software or a device
engages in an exchange of data or information; and
(B) conveyed over communications.
(2) Bits.--The term ``bits'' or ``binary digits'' means the
smallest unit of information in which form data is
transported on the Internet as a single digit number in base-
2.
(3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Communications Commission.
(4) Communications.--The term ``communications''--
(A) means any voice, video, or data application or service,
regardless of the facilities or technology used, that--
(i) is a transmission to subscribers by use of--
(I) the public rights-of-way;
(II) spectrum;
(III) numbering or addressing resources; or
(IV) other inputs licensed or managed by a unit of local
government, or a private entity working in concert with such
unit of local government, for the benefit of the public;
(ii) is offered to the public, or as to such classes of
subscribers as to be effectively available directly to the
public, with or without a fee; and
(iii) enables an end user, as part of such service, to
transmit content of their own design or choosing between or
among points specified by such user;
(B) includes interactive on-demand services, as such term
is defined in section 602(12) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 522(12)); and
(C) does not include cable service, as such term is defined
in section 602(6) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 522(6)).
(5) Content.--The term ``content'' means information--
(A) in the form of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and
sounds of all kinds, including stored information requested
by an end user; and
(B) that is generated based on the input or request of such
user.
(6) Person.--The term ``person'' means any natural person,
partnership, firm, association, corporation, limited
liability company, or other legal entity.
(7) Network operator.--
(A) In general.--The term ``network operator'' means any
person who owns, operates, controls, or resells and controls
any facility that provides communications directly to a
subscriber.
(B) Obligations.--Any obligation imposed on a network
operator by the provisions of this Act shall apply only to
the extent that such network operator is engaged in providing
communications.
(8) Subscriber.--The term ``subscriber'' means any person
who--
(A) is an end user of an application or service provided
through communications; and
(B) consumes or provides goods provided through such
application or service.
(9) Transmission component.--The term ``transmission
component'' means the portion of communications which enables
an end user to transmit content of their own design and
choosing between or among points specified by such user.
SEC. 4. OBLIGATIONS OF NETWORK OPERATORS.
(a) In General.--A network operator shall--
(1) not interfere with, block, degrade, alter, modify,
impair, or change any bits, content, application or service
transmitted over the network of such operator;
(2) not discriminate in favor of itself or any other
person, including any affiliate or company with which such
operator has a business relationship in--
(A) allocating bandwidth; and
(B) transmitting content or applications or services to or
from a subscriber in the provision of a communications;
(3) not assess a charge to any application or service
provider not on the network of such operator for the delivery
of traffic to any subscriber to the network of such operator;
(4) offer communications such that a subscriber can access,
and a content provider can offer, unaffiliated content or
applications or services in the same manner that content of
the network operator is accessed and offered, without
interference or surcharges;
(5) allow the attachment of any device, if such device is
in compliance with part 68 of title 47, Code of Federal
Regulations, without restricting any application or service
that may be offered or provided using such a device;
(6) treat all data traveling over or on communications in a
non-discriminatory way;
(7) offer just, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rates,
terms, and conditions on the offering or provision of any
service by another person using the transmission component of
communications;
(8) provide non-discriminatory access and service to each
subscriber; and
(9) post and make available for public inspection, in
electronic form and in a manner that is transparent and
easily understandable, all rates, terms, and conditions for
the provision of any communications.
(b) Preserved Authority of Network Operators.--
Notwithstanding the requirements described in subsection (a),
a network operator--
(1) may--
(A) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to
protect subscribers from adware, spyware, malware, viruses,
spam, pornography, content deemed inappropriate for minors,
or any other similarly nefarious application or service that
harms the Internet experience of subscribers, if such
subscribers--
(i) are informed of the application or service; and
(ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any
such preventative application or service;
(B) support an application or service intended to prevent
adware, spyware, malware, viruses, spam, pornography, content
deemed inappropriate for minors, or any other similarly
nefarious application or service that harms the Internet
experience of subscribers, if such subscribers--
(i) are informed of the application or service; and
(ii) are given the opportunity to refuse or disable any
such preventative application or service; and
(C) take reasonable and non-discriminatory measures to
protect the security of the network of such operator, if such
operator faces serious and irreparable harm; and
(2) shall--
(A) give priority to an emergency communication;
(B) comply with any court-ordered law enforcement
directive; and
(C) prevent any activity that is unlawful or illegal under
any Federal, State, or local law.
[[Page 2475]]
SEC. 5. COMPLAINTS REGARDING VIOLATIONS.
(a) Complaint.--Any aggrieved party may submit a written
complaint to the Commission seeking a ruling that a network
operator has violated a requirement described in section
4(a).
(b) Content of Complaint.--In any complaint submitted under
subsection (a) an aggrieved party shall make a prima facie
case that--
(1) a network operator violated a requirement of section
4(a);
(2) such violation was not a preserved authority described
in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 4(b)(1); and
(3) such violation is harmful to such party.
(c) 7-Day Acceptance Period.--Not later than 7 days after
the date of the submission of a complaint under subsection
(a), the Commission shall issue a decision regarding its
acceptance or denial of the prima facie case made by an
aggrieved party.
(d) Cease and Desist.--
(1) In general.--If the Commission accepts the prima facie
case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a network
operator shall be required to cease and desist the action
that is the underlying basis of the complaint for the
duration of the proceeding on such complaint, until such time
as the Commission may rule that a violation of a requirement
of section 4(a) has not occurred.
(2) Authority to extend cease and desist order.--The
Commission shall have the authority to extend any cease and
desist order to any similarly situated person as the
Commission determines necessary and appropriate.
(e) Burden of Proof.--If the Commission accepts the prima
facie case of an aggrieved party under subsection (c), a
network operator shall bear the burden of proving that--
(1) no violation of section 4(a) occurred; or
(2) such violation was a preserved authority described in
section 4(b).
(f) Final Decision.--
(1) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the submission of a complaint under subsection (a), the
Commission shall issue a final decision regarding the request
for a ruling contained in such complaint.
(2) Failure to issue decision.--If the Commission fails to
issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period
described in paragraph (1), a violation of a requirement of
section 4(a) shall be deemed to have occurred.
(g) Rules of Construction.--
(1) Delegation.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed--
(i) to prevent the Commission from delegating any authority
granted to it under this section to a relevant office or
bureau pursuant to the authority granted the Commission under
section 5(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
155(c)); or
(ii) to limit the Commission from adopting any appropriate
procedures pursuant to any other provision of law.
(B) Limitation.--The rule established under subparagraph
(A) shall only apply if at the expiration of the 90-day
period described in subsection (f)(1)--
(i) the Commission issues a final decision that is ripe for
judicial review; or
(ii) a violation of a requirement of section 4(a) shall be
deemed to have occurred under subsection (f)(2).
(2) Petition for reconsideration.--
(A) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect the ability of any eligible party to file a
petition for reconsideration under section 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 405).
(B) Timing.--
(i) 90-day period.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the submission of a petition for reconsideration under
section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
405), the Commission shall issue an order granting or denying
such petition.
(ii) Failure to issue an order.--If the Commission fails to
issue a decision at the expiration of the 90-day period
described in clause (i), the previous decision of the
Commission shall be considered affirmed and final for
purposes of judicial review.
(3) Judicial review.--Notwithstanding section 402(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(b)) and any other
provision of law, any appeal of a decision of the Commission
under this section shall be made to United States district
court for the district in which the principle place of
business of the aggrieved party is located.
(4) Intervention by third parties.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed to prevent any interested person from
intervening in any appeal of a decision of the Commission in
accordance with section 402(e) of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 402(e)).
SEC. 6. PENALTIES.
(a) In General.--If the Commission issues a ruling under
section 5 that a network operator is in violation of a
requirement of section 4(a), such network operator shall be
subject to the penalties prescribed under section 501 of the
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 501).
(b) Separate Violations.--Each violation of a requirement
of section 4(a) shall be treated as a separate incident for
purposes of imposing penalties under subsection (a).
______
By Mr. BYRD:
S. 2362. A bill to establish the National Commission on Surveillance
Activities and the Rights of Americans; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Presidents Day recess, I spoke
about recent egregious examples of domestic surveillance by the
executive branch, and I announced my intention to introduce legislation
to establish a commission to investigate the instances of warrantless
wiretapping and spying on U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency
and other departments of Government.
I am not the lone voice raising questions about the legality of this
program and its effect on the rights of law-abiding American citizens.
I am only one--only one--in a growing chorus--a growing chorus--of
concerned individuals. Since the New York Times broke the story of the
NSA's wiretapping program, many in this Chamber on both sides of the
aisle have questioned the legality of the warrantless wiretapping and
have called for investigations into possible violations of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, as well as other transgressions against
the spirit or the letter of our revered Constitution.
Many of our country's foremost constitutional scholars and professors
of law have expressed their categorical opposition to the NSA's
program, citing possible violations of both the Constitution and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. They agree that ``the program
appears on its face''--on its face--``to violate existing law.''
These concerns have, of course, been dismissed by the same branch of
Government that hatched the domestic spying program. Did you hear that?
I will say it again. These concerns have been dismissed by the same
branch of Government that hatched the domestic spying program. But this
stonewalling--yes, that is stonewalling--this stonewalling is only part
of the story. Important questions about NSA's program have been
answered with strained and tenuous justifications or claims of the dire
need for secrecy and, as a result, Congress's access to information has
been severely--severely, severely--curtailed, by whom? By whom? Guess
what, by the administration; by the administration.
There are some things we do know. We know that top officials in the
Department of Justice who were concerned about questions of legality
and lack of oversight of the program refused to endorse continued use
of the NSA's wiretapping. That isn't all. We also know because of these
concerns this secret program was suspended. Do you get that? This
secret program was suspended temporarily due to questions about its
legality.
What most Americans don't know is that FBI agents complained about
the utility of the wiretapping program. Voluminous amounts of
information and records that were gleaned from this secret
eavesdropping program were sent from the National Security Agency to
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI officials repeatedly
complained that they were being drowned by a river of useless
information that diverted their resources from pursuing important
counterterrorism work. Such complaints raise the question of whether
the domestic wiretapping program may have backfired by sending our top
counterterrorism agencies on wild-goose chases, thus making our country
less secure instead of making our country more secure.
We know that one member of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, Judge James Robertson, resigned--yes, resigned--4 days after the
New York Times first detailed the NSA's warrantless--warrantless--
domestic surveillance. We know that only the chief judge of the FISA
Court, the secret court charged with approving requests to conduct
domestic surveillance, had any knowledge of this clandestine
wiretapping program. The other judges, who are sworn to strict secrecy,
learned of the program just as many of our citizens did--through
reports in the press. Yes, thank God for a free press.
We know that although most of the judges of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court were kept in the dark about the program, at least
one of the
[[Page 2476]]
judges was tipped off by an attorney within the Department of Justice
that some of the information being presented to the court to secure
warrants was improperly obtained, meaning the Government had apparently
circumvented a court-ordered screening process to eliminate tainted
evidence.
We know that in a February 28 letter to Senate Judiciary Committee
Chairman Arlen Specter, Attorney General Gonzales admitted that the
Justice Department's legal justification for the wiretaps has ``evolved
over time.''
What does that mean? Does it mean that there actually was no legal
basis for the NSA to spy on American citizens when it first began the
surveillance? Does it mean the Department had to gin up some legal
basis for the spying once the program became public? Does it mean the
administration's reliance on the use-of-force resolution to justify its
snooping was simply a ploy--just a ploy--an ``after the fact'' face-
saving device meant to give the administration cover for having
violated the civil liberties of Americans?
We know that earlier this week, 18 Members of the House of
Representatives sent a letter to President Bush requesting that he
appoint a special counsel to investigate the NSA's warrantless
surveillance of our citizens. In their letter, the House Members noted
that with no clear information coming from the administration, they and
all of America have been forced to rely primarily on press reports to
determine the scope of the NSA's activities.
With so many questions unanswered by the administration, it is
absolutely imperative that there be an objective investigation of this
program and any violations of law that may have occurred.
We are in a supercharged political year--we know that, you know that,
everybody knows that--an election year for one-third of the Senate,
including this Senator from West Virginia, and for the entire House of
Representatives. And the Senate Intelligence Committee as of today has
refused to initiate a serious investigation into this matter. But an
investigation has to go forward. The efficacy of our laws and our
Constitution is at stake. That is why I am proposing legislation to
establish a nonpartisan commission to review and investigate domestic
surveillance in America, along with serious allegations of abuse. In
this way, we will be sure to safeguard our first and fourth amendment
rights as enumerated in this Constitution, as well as evaluate the
actual effectiveness of such programs in combating terrorist threats.
James Madison wrote in his essay, ``Political Reflections,'' that
``[t]he fetters''--the fetters, f-e-t-t-e-r-s--``[t]he fetters imposed
on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided
for defense against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad.
No one is suggesting that the threat of terrorist attacks is anything
but a real threat, and one that must be of the Congress's utmost
priority. But the suggestion that the American people would be safer in
their homes if they just forego their constitutionally protected rights
is a deliberately deceptive assertion that may forge the fetters that
bind law-abiding citizens. Make no mistake about it: It is these ill-
conceived strictures that may ultimately destroy precious liberties.
In fact, it is because our forefathers were fearful of re-creating
the same tyrannous form of government from which many of them had fled,
that the Bill of Rights--the Bill of Rights, those first 10
amendments--the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to better
secure for all time--all time--the freedom from oppression that ever
looms from an overly powerful executive. Get that. Get that. Let me say
that again. It was because our forefathers, thank God, were fearful of
re-creating the same tyrannous, the same tyrannical form of government
from which many of them had fled that the Bill of Rights was added to
the Constitution to better secure, for all time, the freedom from
oppression that ever looms from an overly powerful executive. And you
better believe it. You better believe it. Hear me. Hear me now. I will
always speak out against an all-powerful executive, under either party.
In a climate of fear, liberties have been sacrificed time and again
under the guise of keeping the Nation from harm. Fear. Yes, fear is a
powerful tool for manipulation; useful for easing the American people
out of their liberties and into submission. Fear. When the public is
confronted with a situation, real or imagined, that inspires fear, the
public rightfully look to their leaders--look to their leaders, Mr.
President--for protection from foreboding consequences. The claim of
wartime necessity always strengthens the hands of a President. Let me
say that again. The claim of wartime necessity always strengthens a
President, any President, Republican or Democrat. And often facts are
sealed from the prying eyes of Congress by a purported need for
secrecy.
But Senators, and that includes this Senator from West Virginia,
Senators have a sworn duty--a sworn duty, a sworn duty--sworn right up
there at that desk with their hand on the Bible--the holy Bible, the
holy Bible, the holy Bible--with their hand on the Bible to check
executive power. We have to be on guard every moment of every day. The
executive branch, whether it be Democratic or Republican, is always
reaching--always reaching, always reaching--always grabbing more power,
more power, more power, and we have to be on guard. We have a sworn
duty to check executive power and, as long as I live, I am going to
stand for the checking of the executive power; I don't care whether it
is a Democrat or Republican in the White House or an Independent. It
makes no difference. We have a sworn duty. We swear. We put our hand on
the Bible before God and man, and we swear to check executive power at
all times--at all times--in times of crisis or otherwise. Each of us
here, and there are 100 here, and each of this 100, 100 Senators, we
are each bound to defend the Constitution and each bound to defend the
liberties that the Constitution gives to all Americans, at all times,
in times of peace and in times of war.
History has shown us many times that a climate of fear can take a
hefty toll on our freedoms. That is your freedoms. That is your
freedoms. That is your freedoms. Worse still are liberties surrendered
in vain, resulting in little added security.
There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be
abolished in one fell swoop--never--for the American people cherish
their freedoms, and they would not tolerate such a loss if they could
perceive it; if they could see it coming, if they could hear it, if
they could feel it, if they could perceive it. But the erosion of
freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault; rather, it is
gradual, noxious, creeping, cloaked in secrecy and glossed over by
reassurances of greater security.
The American people are a people born of sacrifice, and the
sacrifices that the American people are willing to endure speak well of
the tenacity and the strength that makes the United States of America
what it is. Some may be tempted to accept on blind faith the
administration's--any administration's, any administration's--promise
of increased security, and they may see it as a duty to capitulate
their rights for that flimsy promise. May we all pause to reflect on
the hard-won liberties--the hard-won liberties--for which earlier
generations fought and died. Remember Nathan Hale. He died. He
regretted that he had but one life to give, to lose, one life to lose
for his country. Remember Patrick Henry: ``Give me liberty or give me
death,'' he said. John Paul Jones: ``We have only begun to fight.''
So may we all pause to reflect, as we have just done, on the hard-won
liberties for which earlier generations fought and died before we
easily accept convincing rhetoric. Rhetoric is cheap. Talk is cheap. To
suggest that innocent Americans surrender rights to preserve freedom is
a false choice. It is also a slippery slope, one that is fraught with
ever more secrecy and the certainty of egregious abuses of our Bill of
Rights and of our laws over time.
[[Page 2477]]
The commission that I propose would determine how to best protect the
homeland, as well as the most effective ways of gathering needed
intelligence. It will examine the procedures for the NSA's use and
retention of intelligence obtained without warrants, and the method and
scope of dissemination of such information to other agencies. It will
investigate any questions raised by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court concerning the legality of the domestic spying
program. It will examine the obligation of the President--do you get
that? Do you hear that, Mr. President? Republican or Democrat. It will
examine the obligation of the President to brief Members of Congress--
not just one or two or three or four--on warrantless surveillance of
American citizens. It will lift the fog--lift the fog--of secrecy and
clandestine government activity misaimed at law-abiding citizens and
perhaps, most importantly, it will shed much needed sunshine--let the
sunshine in--much needed sunshine on any unlawful or unconstitutional
executive--executive, executive intrusions into the lives of ordinary
Americans.
______
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 2364. A bill to provide lasting protection for inventoried
roadless areas within the National Forest System; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman,
Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd
and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006.
Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100
years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have
provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls.
However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered
our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands
before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children.
Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a
balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public
lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to
protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5
million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally
damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000
acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as
Roadless areas under the legislation.
The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in
inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting,
fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing
and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests.
The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to
allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas
development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as
ski trails.
What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest
stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This
legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented
by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction
backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads.
Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many
ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration
finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001,
following three years of official review and public participation, over
600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and
hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region.
During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John
Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He
pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen
also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule.
But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet
unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to
be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and
developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or
settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to
these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the
pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001
Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless
forest land protections.
The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are
national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation
opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean
drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or
effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not
impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on
those roads and trails.
The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support,
including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest
Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000
Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have
filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001
Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such
groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage
Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club.
I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I
came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets
signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to
see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless
patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining.
Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The
American people and future Americans deserve nothing less.
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. 2364
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 ``Roadless Area Conservation
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
(a) In General.--Congress finds that--
(1) there is a compelling need to establish national
protection for inventoried roadless areas of the National
Forest System in order to protect the unique social and
ecological values of those irreplaceable resources;
(2) roadless areas protect healthy watersheds and their
numerous benefits including--
(A) protecting downstream communities from floods and
tempering the effects of drought;
(B) ensuring a supply of clean water for domestic,
agricultural, and industrial uses;
(C) helping maintain abundant and healthy fish and wildlife
populations and habitats;
(D) providing the setting for many forms of outdoor
recreation; and
(E) providing drinking water to millions of citizens from
the more than 354 municipal watersheds found on roadless
areas;
(3) maintaining roadless areas in a relatively undisturbed
condition--
(A) saves downstream communities millions of dollars in
water filtration costs; and
(B) is crucial to preserve the flow of affordable, clean
water to a growing population;
(4) the protection of roadless areas can maintain
biological strongholds and refuges for many imperiled species
by halting the ongoing fragmentation of the landscape into
smaller and smaller parcels of land divided by road
corridors;
(5) roadless areas conserve native biodiversity by serving
as a bulwark against the spread of nonnative invasive
species;
(6) roadless areas provide unparalleled opportunities for
hiking, camping, picnicking, wildlife viewing, hunting,
fishing, cross-country skiing, canoeing, mountain-biking, and
similar activities;
[[Page 2478]]
(7) while roadless areas may have many wilderness-like
attributes, unlike wilderness areas, the use of mechanized
means of travel is allowed in many roadless areas;
(8) roadless areas contain many sites sacred to Native
Americans and other groups that use roadless areas for
spiritual and religious retreats;
(9) from the inception of Federal land management, it has
been the mission of the Forest Service and other agencies to
manage the National Forest System for the dual purposes of
resource extraction and conservation;
(10) consistent with that dual mission, this Act--
(A) protects social and ecological values, while allowing
for many multiple uses of inventoried roadless areas; and
(B) does not impose any limitations on the use of, or
access to Nation Forest System, State, or private land
outside inventoried roadless areas;
(11) establishing a consistent national policy for the
protection of inventoried roadless areas--
(A) ensures that the considerable long-term ecological and
economic benefits of protecting roadless areas for future
generations are properly considered;
(B) diminishes the likelihood of controversy at the project
level; and
(C) enables the Chief of the Forest Service to focus on the
economic and environmental benefits of reducing hazardous
fuel buildups in portions of the landscape that already have
roads;
(12) the National Fire Plan indicates that fires are almost
twice as likely to occur in roaded areas as in roadless
areas, because roadless areas are generally located further
away from communities and are harder to access;
(13) the report entitled ``Protecting People and Sustaining
Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems--A Cohesive Strategy''
(65 Fed. Reg. 67480) advocates a higher priority for fuel
reduction on land that is near communities and readily
accessible municipal watersheds;
(14) the Forest Service has an enormous backlog of
maintenance needs for the existing 386,000 mile road system
of the Forest Service that will cost millions of dollars to
eliminate;
(15) no State or private land owner would continue to build
new roads in the face of such an enormous backlog;
(16) failure to maintain forest roads--
(A) limits public access; and
(B) causes degradation of water quality and wildlife and
fish habitat; and
(17) protection of roadless areas--
(A) will impact less than 0.5 percent of the national
timber supply; and
(B) will have a negligible impact on oil and gas production
because--
(i) the entire National Forest System provides only
approximately 0.4 percent of the quantity of oil and gas that
is produced in the United States; and
(ii) roadless areas provide only a fraction of the quantity
of oil and gas that is produced in the National Forest
System.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide, within
the context of multiple-use management, lasting protection
for inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest
System.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Classified road.--
(A) In general.--The term ``classified road'' means a road
wholly or partially within, or adjacent to, National Forest
System land that is determined to be needed for long-term
motor vehicle access.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``classified road'' includes a
State road, county road, privately-owned road, National
Forest System road, and any other road authorized by the
Forest Service.
(2) Inventoried roadless area.--The term ``inventoried
roadless area'' means 1 of the areas identified in the set of
inventoried roadless area maps contained in the document
entitled ``Forest Service Roadless Areas Conservation, Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2'', dated November
2000.
(3) Responsible official.--The term ``responsible
official'' means a Forest Service line officer or employee
with the authority and responsibility to make decisions
regarding the protection and management of inventoried
roadless areas under this Act.
(4) Road.--The term ``road'' means a motor vehicle
travelway over 50 inches wide, unless designated and managed
as a trail.
(5) Road construction.--The term ``road construction''
means activity that results in the addition of classified
road or temporary road miles.
(6) Road improvement.--The term ``road improvement'' means
activity that results in--
(A) an increase of the traffic service level of an existing
road;
(B) an expansion of the capacity of the road; or
(C) a change in the original design function of the road.
(7) Roadless area characteristics.--The term ``roadless
area characteristics'' means resources or features that are
often present in and characterize inventoried roadless areas,
including--
(A) high quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;
(B) sources of public drinking water;
(C) diversity of plant and animal communities;
(D) habitat for--
(i) threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive
species, and species proposed for listing, under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.); and
(ii) species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;
(E) primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, and
semiprimitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;
(F) reference landscapes;
(G) natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;
(H) traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and
(I) other locally identified unique characteristics.
(8) Road maintenance.--The term ``road maintenance'' means
ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the
road in accordance with approved road management objectives.
(9) Road realignment.--The term ``road realignment'' means
an activity that results in--
(A) a new location of all or part of an existing road; and
(B) treatment of the old roadway.
(10) Road reconstruction.--The term ``road reconstruction''
means an activity that results in improvement or realignment
of an existing classified road.
(11) Temporary road.--The term ``temporary road'' means a
road that is--
(A) authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written
authorization, or emergency operation; and
(B) not intended to be part of the forest transportation
system and not necessary for long-term resource management.
(12) Unclassified road.--The term ``unclassified road''
means a road on National Forest System land that is not
managed as part of the forest transportation system,
including--
(A) an unplanned road, abandoned travelway, or off-road
vehicle track that has not been designated and managed as a
trail; and
(B) a road that was once under permit or other
authorization and was not decommissioned on the termination
of the authorization.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD
RECONSTRUCTION IN INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
road construction and road reconstruction may not take place
in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest
System.
(b) Exceptions.--Road construction and road reconstruction
may take place, including through the use of appropriated
funds, in an inventoried roadless area of the National Forest
System if the responsible official determines that--
(1) a road is needed to protect public health and safety in
a case of an imminent threat of flood, fire, or other
catastrophic event that, without intervention, would cause
the loss of life or property;
(2) a road is needed to conduct--
(A) a response action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq.); or
(B) a natural resource restoration action under--
(i) that Act;
(ii) section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 1321); or
(iii) the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et
seq.);
(3) a road is needed pursuant to a reserved or outstanding
right, or as provided for by law or treaty;
(4) a road realignment is needed--
(A) to prevent irreparable resource damage that arises from
the design, location, use, or deterioration of a classified
road that cannot be mitigated by road maintenance; and
(B) to provide for essential public or private access,
natural resource management, or public health or safety;
(5) road reconstruction is needed to implement a road
safety improvement project on a classified road determined to
be hazardous on the basis of accident experience or accident
potential with respect to the road;
(6)(A) a Federal-aid highway project authorized under
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code, is--
(i) in the public interest; or
(ii) consistent with the purposes for which the land was
reserved or acquired; and
(B) no other reasonable and prudent alternative to the
project exists; or
(7)(A) a road is needed in conjunction with--
(i) the continuation, extension, or renewal of a mineral
lease on land that is under lease by the Secretary of the
Interior as of January 12, 2001; or
(ii) the issuance of a new lease issued immediately on the
date of expiration of an existing lease described in clause
(i);
(B) road construction or road reconstruction under this
paragraph will be conducted in a manner that--
(i) minimizes the effects on surface resources;
[[Page 2479]]
(ii) prevents unnecessary or unreasonable surface
disturbance; and
(iii) complies with all applicable laws (including
regulations), lease requirements, and land and resource
management plan directives; and
(C) a road constructed or reconstructed under this
paragraph will be removed on the earlier of--
(i) the date on which the road is no longer needed for the
purposes of the lease; or
(ii) the date of termination or expiration of the lease.
(c) Road Maintenance.--A classified road in an inventoried
roadless area may be maintained.
SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON TIMBER CUTTING, SALE, OR REMOVAL IN
INVENTORIED ROADLESS AREAS.
(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
timber may not be cut, sold, or removed in an inventoried
roadless area of the National Forest System.
(b) Exceptions.--Timber may be cut, sold, or removed in an
inventoried roadless area if the responsible official
determines that the cutting, sale, or removal of the timber
is expected to be infrequent and--
(1) the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small
diameter timber--
(A) will improve or maintain 1 or more roadless area
characteristics; and
(B) is needed--
(i) to improve habitat for threatened, endangered,
candidate, or sensitive species, and species proposed for
listing, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.); or
(ii) to maintain or restore the characteristics of
ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the
risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range
of variability that would be expected to occur under a
natural disturbance regime of the current climatic period;
(2) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is incidental
to the implementation of a management activity not otherwise
prohibited by this Act;
(3) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and
appropriate for personal or administrative use, in accordance
with part 223 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations; or
(4) roadless characteristics have been substantially
altered in a portion of an inventoried roadless area as a
result of the construction of a classified road and
subsequent timber harvest, if--
(A) the road construction and subsequent timber harvest
occurred after the area was designated an inventoried
roadless area and before January 12, 2001; and
(B) timber is cut, sold, or removed only in the
substantially altered portion of the inventoried roadless
area.
SEC. 6. SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
(a) Effect.--This Act does not--
(1) revoke, suspend, or modify any permit, contract, or
other legal instrument authorizing the occupancy and use of
National Forest System land issued or entered into before
January 12, 2001;
(2) compel the amendment or revision of any land and
resource management plan;
(3) revoke, suspend, or modify any decision concerning any
project or activity made before January 12, 2001; or
(4) apply to road construction, reconstruction, or the
cutting, sale, or removal of timber in an inventoried
roadless area of the Tongass National Forest if a notice of
availability of a draft environmental impact statement for
such activity has been published in the Federal Register
before January 12, 2001.
(b) Limitation on Revision.--The prohibitions and
restrictions established in this Act are not subject to
reconsideration, revision, or rescission in any subsequent
project decision or amendment or revision to any land and
resource management plan carried out in accordance with
section 6 of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources
Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 387--RECOGNIZING THE NEED TO REPLACE THE UNITED
NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION WITH A NEW HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Coburn, and
Mr. Kyl) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Foreign Relations:
S. Res. 387
Whereas the United Nations Human Rights Commission
(hereinafter ``UNHRC'') has lost its credibility as an
instrument for the promotion or protection of human rights,
instead allowing repressive regimes to shield themselves from
criticism for their human rights violations;
Whereas Secretary-General Kofi Annan has also acknowledged
that, ``the Commission's declining credibility has cast a
shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system'';
Whereas the primary deficiency of the Human Rights
Commission is directly related to its membership, where 6 of
the 53 current members, namely China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, are listed as the worst human-
rights abusers by Freedom House, and many other members have
serious deficiencies concerning commitments to democracy and
human rights according to the Department of State Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices;
Whereas the lack of membership criteria of the UNHRC,
particularly when combined with the relatively large
membership of 53 countries, hinders efforts to filter out
countries with poor human rights records from membership;
Whereas the UNHRC spends a disproportionate amount of time
vilifying Israel, its primary target for criticism, but fails
to direct such sustained criticism at states engaged in the
systematic abuse of human rights, with 30 percent of all
country-specific resolutions critical of human rights records
over the history of the UNHRC have been directed at Israel
alone, while there has never been a single such resolution on
China, Syria, or Zimbabwe;
Whereas the UNHRC has consistently failed to take decisive
action against member states implicated in the massive
violation of human rights, which is evidenced by the fact
that the UNHRC has never held a special emergency session on
Sudan despite millions of deaths over 2 decades in Sudan, but
the UNHRC has held a special sitting to criticize Israel on
the death of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas;
Whereas the UNHRC only meets for 6 weeks each year,
providing the UNHRC with insufficient time to review and take
action against the most flagrant human rights violators;
Whereas Israel has been consistently discriminated against
by being denied full participatory rights in regional group
meetings associated with the operation of the UNHRC, while
non-United Nations members such as the Holy See (WEOG) and
the Palestinian observer participate in these meetings;
Whereas the overwhelming failures of the UNHRC led to an
international consensus that it must be abolished and
replaced with a new Human Rights Council, and the United
Nations Summit Outcome Document, signed by all United Nations
member states in September 2005, stated that ``Pursuant to
our commitment to further strengthen the United Nations human
rights machinery, we resolve to create a Human Rights
Council. The Council will be responsible for promoting
universal respect for the protection of all human rights and
fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind
and in a fair and equal manner. The Council should address
situations of violations of human rights, including gross and
systematic violations and make recommendations thereon. It
should also promote effective coordination and the
mainstreaming of human rights within the United Nations
system.''; and
Whereas efforts by the United States and other committed
democracies to carry out the mandate of the Summit Document
to create a new credible Human Rights Council have been
strongly opposed by human rights abusers at the United
Nations: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That--
(1) the United States remains strongly committed to the
creation of a new Human Rights Council to replace the
discredited United Nations Human Rights Commission
(hereinafter ``UNHRC''), and the proposal for such a Council
should work to assure the integrity of its membership as well
as provide a strong mandate for action;
(2) the Senate urges the President to use the present
opportunity that has been generated by the international
recognition of the need to replace the current UNHRC, and to
refrain from supporting any proposal for a Human Rights
Council that would result either in only cosmetic changes or
changes that would even further degrade the membership and
mandate of the current UNHRC;
(3) the Senate urges the President and the governments of
other member countries of the United Nations to continue with
negotiations for the creation of a Human Rights Council that
is a credible human rights institution; and
(4) it is the sense of the Senate that an acceptable
proposal for a credible Human Rights Council would--
(A) establish criteria for membership that would serve to
exclude the worst human rights abusers, and such criteria
would include, but should not be limited to, the automatic
exclusion of member countries that are subject to Security
Council sanctions;
(B) include a provision allowing full participation by
Israel in all operations associated with the Council;
(C) set a size limit that is consistent with the goal of
ensuring that only countries that respect human rights are
members of the primary human rights body of the United
Nations;
(D) establish a human rights review requirement that is
tied to a mandatory outcome and takes place prior to
elections for membership;
(E) exclude any provision that prevents the consecutive
election of member countries to the Council; and
(F) utilize a formula for the distribution of membership
among United Nations member
[[Page 2480]]
countries that gives priority to countries that respect human
rights, while also giving consideration to geographical
distribution, the representation of different forms of
civilization, and the principal legal systems.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 388--URGING THE GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL UNITY OF SUDAN
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF SOUTHERN SUDAN TO IMPLEMENT FULLY THE
COMPREHENSIVE PEACE AGREEMENT THAT WAS SIGNED ON JANUARY 9, 2005
Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Brownback) submitted
the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 388
Whereas the people of Sudan have been devastated by war for
all but 10 years since Sudan gained its independence in 1956;
Whereas the second civil war in Sudan between the
Government of Sudan in the north and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement in the south lasted for more than 20
years;
Whereas more than 2,000,000 people died and more than
4,000,000 people were internally displaced or became refugees
as a direct or indirect result of the civil war in Sudan;
Whereas, on January 9, 2005, the Government of Sudan and
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended Sudan's 21-year
civil war;
Whereas the Comprehensive Peace Agreement provides for a
new constitution, new arrangements for power sharing and
wealth sharing, and a 6-year interim period to be followed by
a referendum in Southern Sudan so that the people of Southern
Sudan can decide their political future;
Whereas the parties have implemented parts of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, such as the ratification of
the new constitution and the formation of the Government of
National Unity and the Government of Southern Sudan;
Whereas the overall pace of implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement has been slow and insufficient;
Whereas the recommendations of many of the commissions
established by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement have yet to
be implemented;
Whereas 1 of the keys to a lasting and durable peace in
Sudan is the full and timely implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement by all sides, wholly consistent
with the letter, spirit, and intent of the agreement;
Whereas, despite the signing of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement and an end to the civil war, there has been little
progress made in ending the genocide in Sudan's western
region of Darfur;
Whereas hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have
died in Darfur as a result of violence, disease, and
malnutrition, and millions more have been internally
displaced or sought refuge in refugee camps in neighboring
Chad;
Whereas millions of the people across Sudan continue to
suffer from the effects of war, including displacement and
war-related disease, hunger, and malnutrition;
Whereas the United States and the international community
must not neglect the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of
the people of Southern Sudan;
Whereas, according to the World Food Program, more than
2,900,000 people in Southern Sudan have been severely
affected by the civil war;
Whereas the people of Southern Sudan are in desperate need
of reconstruction assistance to build and improve vital
infrastructure components, such as an education system, a
health care system, and a transportation system, that are
nearly nonexistent in Southern Sudan;
Whereas the current humanitarian crisis in Southern Sudan
is considered 1 of the worst in decades; and
Whereas the reconstruction process in Southern Sudan is
vital to delivering the benefits of peace to the people of
Southern Sudan and stability to the region: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) strongly urges the new Government of National Unity of
Sudan to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in
a timely manner consistent with the letter, spirit, and
intent of the agreement;
(2) calls on the Government of National Unity to meet the
terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to achieve an
equitable distribution of wealth and resources between the
North and the South and to provide a full and transparent
accounting of Sudan's oil revenues;
(3) urges the United States Government--
(A) to maintain appropriate pressure on the Government of
National Unity to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement;
(B) to maintain sanctions and pressure on the Government of
National Unity until the Comprehensive Peace Agreement has
been fully implemented and the crisis in Darfur has been
resolved; and
(C) to address, as appropriate, any legal barriers which
prevent humanitarian and reconstruction operations in
Southern Sudan;
(4) supports the continued provision of humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance from the United States to the
people of Southern Sudan, in addition to the assistance
allocated for the people of Darfur, so that the people of
Sudan may experience and appreciate the benefits of peace;
(5) strongly urges the Government of National Unity to use
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement as the basis for
negotiation of a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in
Darfur and other areas of Sudan; and
(6) strongly urges all countries in the region and the
international community to support actively the full
implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 2899. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Ensign) proposed an amendment
to the 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.
SA 2900. Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 2320, supra; which was ordered to lie on
the table.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 2899. Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. Ensign) proposed an amendment
to the 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; as follows:
Strike all after the first word and insert the following:
1. FUNDS FOR LOW-INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Section 9001 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``for a 1-time only obligation and
expenditure--'' and all that follows through ``2007'' the
first place it appears and inserting ``$1,000,000,000 for
fiscal year 2006'';
(B) by striking ``; and''; and
(C) by striking paragraph (2);
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c);
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Limitation.--None of the funds made available under
this section may be used for the planning and administering
described in section 2605(b)(9) of the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8624(b)(9)).''; and
(4) in subsection (c) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)),
by striking ``September 30, 2007'' and inserting ``September
30, 2006''.
______
SA 2900. Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the 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; which
was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROTECTION FOR MEDICARE BENEFICIARIES WHO ENROLL IN
THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BENEFIT DURING 2006.
(a) Extended Period of Open Enrollment During All of 2006
Without Late Enrollment Penalty.--Section 1851(e)(3)(B) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)(3)(B)) is
amended--
(1) in clause (iii), by striking ``May 15, 2006'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2006''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new sentence:
``An individual making an election during the period
beginning on November 15, 2006, and ending on December 15,
2006, shall specify whether the election is to be effective
with respect to 2006 or with respect to 2007 (or both).''.
(b) One-Time Change of Plan Enrollment for Medicare
Prescription Drug Benefit During All of 2006.--
(1) In general.--Section 1851(e) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-21(e)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (2)(B)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``for first 6 months'';
(ii) in clause (i), by striking ``the first 6 months of
2006,'' and all that follows through ``is a Medicare+Choice
eligible individual,'' and inserting ``2006,''; and
(iii) in clause (ii), by inserting ``(other than during
2006)'' after ``paragraph (3)''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``2006'' and inserting
``2007'' each place it appears.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1860D-1(b)(1)(B)(iii) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-101(b)(1)(B)(iii))
is
[[Page 2481]]
amended by striking ``subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph
(2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (2)(C)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the
Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization
Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).
____________________
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 take place on Thursday, March 9, 2006 at 10 a.m., in
room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nominations of:
Raymond L. Orbach, of California, to be Under Secretary for Science,
Department of Energy.
Alexander A. Karsner, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, vice David Garman.
Dennis R. Spurgeon, of Florida, to be Assistant Secretary of Energy,
Nuclear Energy.
David Longly Bernhardt, of Colorado, to be Solicitor of the
Department of the Interior, vice Sue Ellen Wooldridge.
For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of the
committee staff at (202) 224-1327.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on armed services
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate
on March 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on
the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2007 and the future
years Defense program.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on banking, housing and urban affairs
Mr. KYL. 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 March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing
on ``Continued Examination of Implementation of the Exon-Florio
Amendment: Focus on Dubai Ports World's Acquisition of P&O.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Mr. KYL. Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on
Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m., on USF Distributions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on energy and natural resources
Mr. KYL. 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, March 2, at 10 a.m. The purpose of this
hearing is to review the proposed fiscal year 2007 Department of
Interior budget.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 9 a.m., to hold a closed briefing
on A Nuclear Iran: Challenges and Responses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on Foreign Relations
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on
A Nuclear Iran: Challenges and Responses.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Mr. KYL. 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, March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m.
in SD-430.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on
Thursday, March 2, 2006, at 10 a.m. for a business meeting to consider
pending committee business.
Agenda
Legislation
1. S. 2128, Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act of 2005.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a markup on Thursday,
March 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. in Senate Dirksen Office Building room 226.
I. Nominations
Jack Zouhary, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio; Stephen G. Larson, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California; Steven G. Bradbury, to be an Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel; John F. Clark, to be Director
of the United States Marshals Service; and Terrance P. Flynn, to be
U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York.
II. Bills
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, Specter; S.
--Comprehensive Immigration Reform, Chairman's Mark; S. 489, Federal
Consent Decree Fairness Act, Alexander, Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch; S.
2178--Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006, Schumer,
Specter, Cornyn, DeWine, Feinstein, Feingold, Kyl, Kohl, Durbin; S.
2039--Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005, Durbin; Specter,
DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold; and S. 2292--A bill to
provide relief for the Federal judiciary from excessive rent charges,
Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein.
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. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, March 2, 2006, to hear the legislative
presentations of the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants
Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Gold Star Wives of
America, and the Military Officers Association of America. The hearing
will take place in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building at 10
a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
select committee on intelligence
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on March 2, 2006 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed briefing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
subcommittee on readiness and management support
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee
on Readiness and Management Support be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on March 2, 2006, at
[[Page 2482]]
2 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on military installations,
military construction, environmental programs, and base realignment and
closure programs, in review of the defense authorization request for
fiscal year 2007.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at 5 p.m. on
Monday, March 6, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider en
bloc Calendar Nos. 517, 518, and 519. I further ask consent the
following Senators be allocated 5 minutes each for debate in relation
to the nominations: the two Senators from Georgia, two Senators from
West Virginia, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee. I further ask consent at 5:30 the Senate proceed to
executive session for votes on the confirmation of the nominations, in
the order listed, with no intervening action or debate; further, that
following those votes, the President be immediately notified of the
Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SUDAN PEACE AGREEMENT
Mr. FRIST. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to
consideration of S. Res. 388, submitted earlier today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 388) urging the Government of the
National Unity of Sudan and the Government of Southern Sudan
to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was
signed on January 9, 2005.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I applaud my Senate colleagues for
supporting this resolution urging all parties in Sudan to implement
fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended Sudan's decades-long
civil war.
For more than 50 years, Sudan has been plagued by war and violence.
In fact, since gaining independence in 1956, the people of Sudan have
known only 10 years of peace. But, last January, following painstaking
negotiations and numerous unsuccessful attempts at peace, the
Government of Sudan in the north and the Sudan People's Liberation
Movement in the south signed the Comprehensive Peace Agreement,
bringing an end to Sudan's second civil war that lasted more than 20
years.
This second civil war led to the deaths of more than 2 million
people, and an additional 4 million were internally displaced or became
refugees. I have visited Sudan on a number of occasions, and I have met
with the victims and survivors of this tragedy. The CPA offers the
Sudanese people a chance at a peaceful and secure life. It is time for
the agreement to be fully implemented.
In the past year, the government of Sudan and the SPLM have taken
concrete steps to implement certain parts of the CPA. For example, the
two sides have ratified a new national constitution and have formed a
government of National Unity in Khartoum and a Government of Southern
Sudan based in Juba in the south.
However, the overall pace of implementation has been slow and
insufficient, and both parties have failed to meet certain benchmarks
or adopt the recommendations of the commissions established to monitor
the CPA's implementation. These include the formation of Joint
Integrated Units, which aim to integrate forces from both the north and
the south, a more equitable distribution of resources between the north
and the south, and a full and transparent accounting of Sudan's oil
revenues.
The implementation of the CPA is particularly urgent for the people
of Southern Sudan. In this region alone, the World Food Program
estimates that more than 2.9 million people were severely and adversely
affected by the civil war.
Last month, I met with Mrs. Rebecca Garang. She currently serves as
the Minister for Roads and Transport for the Government of Southern
Sudan. She is also the wife of the late John Garang, the long-time
leader of the SPLM who successfully negotiated the CPA but died
tragically in a helicopter crash last summer.
During our talks, Mrs. Garang stressed the humanitarian and
reconstruction needs of the Southern Sudanese people. They are in
desperate need of assistance to build and improve vital infrastructure
components such as an education system, a health care system, and a
transportation system that are virtually non-existent in Southern
Sudan.
At the end of the current six-year interim period, the CPA provides
for the people of Southern Sudan to decide their own political future
in a referendum. But in order to achieve John Garang's vision of a new,
united Sudan, the people of Southern Sudan must see the tangible
benefits of peace.
Implementing the CPA can also have a positive impact on ending the
genocide in Sudan's western region of Darfur. Unfortunately, since the
signing of the agreement, little progress has been made in ending this
genocide. Hundreds of thousands have already died as a result of
violence, disease, and malnutrition. And, millions more have been
internally displaced or continue to languish in refugee camps in
neighboring Chad.
However, the CPA can serve as a basis for a peacefully negotiated end
to the genocide in Darfur. For this reason, it is even more vital for
the full and complete implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement.
Until that time, the United States should continue to apply pressure
on the Government of National Unity in Khartoum to fully implement the
CPA. This includes maintaining the sanctions that are currently in
place.
In addition, we need to continue to expand our humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance to the people of Southern Sudan. Delivering
to them the real benefits of peace will strengthen their support of the
CPA and for a united Sudan.
During my travels to Sudan, I have heard first-hand accounts of the
violence, suffering, and insecurity endured by so many in Sudan. Much
of the Sudanese population has never known or experienced any sustained
period of peace, stability, or security. This needs to change.
Those in leadership in Sudan need to proceed with full implementation
of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. And, I urge the United States and
the international community to take concrete, assertive steps to
demonstrate their continued solidarity with the Sudanese people to help
them achieve their goal of a peaceful and stable Sudan.
I ask unanimous consent 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. 388) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 388
Whereas the people of Sudan have been devastated by war for
all but 10 years since Sudan gained its independence in 1956;
Whereas the second civil war in Sudan between the
Government of Sudan in the north and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement in the south lasted for more than 20
years;
Whereas more than 2,000,000 people died and more than
4,000,000 people were internally displaced or became refugees
as a direct or indirect result of the civil war in Sudan;
Whereas, on January 9, 2005, the Government of Sudan and
the Sudan People's Liberation Movement signed the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended Sudan's 21-year
civil war;
Whereas the Comprehensive Peace Agreement provides for a
new constitution, new arrangements for power sharing and
wealth sharing, and a 6-year interim period to be followed by
a referendum in Southern Sudan so that the people of Southern
Sudan can decide their political future;
Whereas the parties have implemented parts of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement, such as the ratification of
the new
[[Page 2483]]
constitution and the formation of the Government of National
Unity and the Government of Southern Sudan;
Whereas the overall pace of implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement has been slow and insufficient;
Whereas the recommendations of many of the commissions
established by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement have yet to
be implemented;
Whereas 1 of the keys to a lasting and durable peace in
Sudan is the full and timely implementation of the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement by all sides, wholly consistent
with the letter, spirit, and intent of the agreement;
Whereas, despite the signing of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement and an end to the civil war, there has been little
progress made in ending the genocide in Sudan's western
region of Darfur;
Whereas hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians have
died in Darfur as a result of violence, disease, and
malnutrition, and millions more have been internally
displaced or sought refuge in refugee camps in neighboring
Chad;
Whereas millions of the people across Sudan continue to
suffer from the effects of war, including displacement and
war-related disease, hunger, and malnutrition;
Whereas the United States and the international community
must not neglect the humanitarian and reconstruction needs of
the people of Southern Sudan;
Whereas, according to the World Food Program, more than
2,900,000 people in Southern Sudan have been severely
affected by the civil war;
Whereas the people of Southern Sudan are in desperate need
of reconstruction assistance to build and improve vital
infrastructure components, such as an education system, a
health care system, and a transportation system, that are
nearly nonexistent in Southern Sudan;
Whereas the current humanitarian crisis in Southern Sudan
is considered 1 of the worst in decades; and
Whereas the reconstruction process in Southern Sudan is
vital to delivering the benefits of peace to the people of
Southern Sudan and stability to the region: Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) strongly urges the new Government of National Unity of
Sudan to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in
a timely manner consistent with the letter, spirit, and
intent of the agreement;
(2) calls on the Government of National Unity to meet the
terms of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement to achieve an
equitable distribution of wealth and resources between the
North and the South and to provide a full and transparent
accounting of Sudan's oil revenues;
(3) urges the United States Government--
(A) to maintain appropriate pressure on the Government of
National Unity to implement fully the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement;
(B) to maintain sanctions and pressure on the Government of
National Unity until the Comprehensive Peace Agreement has
been fully implemented and the crisis in Darfur has been
resolved; and
(C) to address, as appropriate, any legal barriers which
prevent humanitarian and reconstruction operations in
Southern Sudan;
(4) supports the continued provision of humanitarian and
reconstruction assistance from the United States to the
people of Southern Sudan, in addition to the assistance
allocated for the people of Darfur, so that the people of
Sudan may experience and appreciate the benefits of peace;
(5) strongly urges the Government of National Unity to use
the Comprehensive Peace Agreement as the basis for
negotiation of a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in
Darfur and other areas of Sudan; and
(6) strongly urges all countries in the region and the
international community to support actively the full
implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement.
____________________
TO IMPROVE THE SECURITY SITUATION IN DARFUR, SUDAN
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign
Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of and the
Senate now proceed to S. Res. 383.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 383) calling on the President to take
immediate steps to help improve the security situation in
Darfur, Sudan, with an emphasis on civilian protection.
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. 383) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:
S. Res. 383
Whereas, the April 8, 2004, N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement,
calling for an end to hostilities in Darfur, Sudan, has been
flagrantly violated by all parties to the agreement;
Whereas the Government of Sudan continues to commit crimes
against humanity and engage in genocidal acts in Darfur;
Whereas the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement
between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement/Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLM/
SPLA) on January 9, 2005, has not resulted in an improvement
of the security situation in Darfur;
Whereas United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has
indicated that, ``People in many parts of Darfur continue to
be killed, raped, and driven from their homes by the
thousands.'';
Whereas United Nations officials have stated that at least
70,000 people have died due to violence and insecurity in
Darfur, but that the total may be as high as 400,000 people;
Whereas nearly 2,000,000 people have been internally
displaced, 3,000,000 people are dependant on international
assistance to survive, and over 200,000 people are refugees
in neighboring Chad due to the conflict in Darfur;
Whereas escalating tensions along the border between Chad
and Sudan have increased instability in Darfur;
Whereas neither the mandate nor the troop strength of the
African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) is adequate to protect
civilians in Darfur;
Whereas the United States has demonstrated leadership on
the Sudan issue by having United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations John Bolton, in his
first action as President of the United Nations Security
Council, request in February 2006 that Secretary-General
Annan initiate contingency planning for a transition from
AMIS to a United Nations peacekeeping operation;
Whereas, although the United Nations Security Council has
concurred with this recommendation and taken steps toward
establishing a United Nations peacekeeping mission for
Darfur, it could take up to a year for such a mission to
deploy fully;
Whereas, as the deteriorating security situation in Darfur
indicates, the people of Darfur cannot wait that long for
security to be reestablished;
Whereas the international community currently has no plan
to address the immediate security needs of the people of
Darfur; and
Whereas all members of the international community must
participate in efforts to stop genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity in Darfur: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) strongly condemns--
(A) the continued attacks on civilians in Darfur by the
Government of Sudan and Government-sponsored militias; and
(B) the continued violations of the N'Djamena Ceasefire
Agreement by the Government of Sudan and rebels in Darfur,
particularly the Sudan Liberation Army;
(2) commends the Africa Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) for
its actions in monitoring the N'Djamena Ceasefire Agreement
in Darfur and its role in diminishing some acts of violence;
(3) calls upon all parties to the N'Djamena Ceasefire
Agreement--
(A) to abide by the terms of the N'Djamena Ceasefire
Agreement; and
(B) to engage in good-faith negotiations to end the
conflict in Darfur;
(4) calls upon the Government of Sudan immediately--
(A) to withdraw all military aircraft from the region;
(B) to cease all support for the Janjaweed militia and
rebels from Chad; and
(C) to disarm the Janjaweed;
(5) calls on the African Union to request assistance from
the United Nations and NATO to strengthen its capacity to
deter violence and instability until a United Nations
peacekeeping force is fully deployed in Darfur;
(6) calls upon the United Nations Security Council to
approve as soon as possible, pursuant to Chapter VII of the
Charter of the United Nations, a peacekeeping force for
Darfur that is well trained and equipped and has an adequate
troop strength;
(7) urges the President to take steps immediately to help
improve the security situation in Darfur, including by--
(A) proposing that NATO--
(i) consider how to implement and enforce a declared no-fly
zone in Darfur; and
(ii) deploy troops to Darfur to support the African Union
Mission in Sudan (AMIS) until a United Nations peacekeeping
mission is fully deployed in the region; and
(B) requesting supplemental funding to support a NATO
mission in Darfur and the African Union Mission in Sudan
(AMIS);
(8) calls upon NATO allies, led by the United States, to
support such a mission; and
[[Page 2484]]
(9) calls upon NATO headquarters staff to begin prudent
planning in advance of such a mission.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, both of these resolutions have to do with
the Sudan, a country where for the last really 23 years there has been
real turmoil in terms of a civil war underway that is addressed in part
under S. Res. 388, the Sudan Peace Agreement, and then, more recently,
over the last 3 years, in a western part of Sudan, the Darfur region,
where we have seen genocide underway, as we have spelled out on the
floor over the last year and talked about.
Both of these resolutions address a human tragedy that has played out
over the last several years. The first, the Sudan Peace Agreement, is a
reaffirmation of a peace agreement which has been made that we need to
support. And it is probably the only way we can reverse what has been a
tragedy that has killed about 2 million people and caused 5 million
people to be displaced from their homes throughout Sudan over the last
23, 24 years.
The Darfur crisis is one that we have described on this floor many
times. And as we have followed it, since February a year and a half
ago, things have gotten better and worse and better and worse. Right
now they are not going very well. So I appreciate Senators Biden and
Lugar putting forth that resolution.
____________________
EXTENDING THE EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM OF THE EDUCATION
FLEXIBILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1999
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 2363, introduced earlier
today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2363) to extend the educational flexibility
program under section 4 of the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act of 1999.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support
for the extension we are passing tonight of the Education Flexibility
Partnership Act.
I authored the original legislation to create Ed-Flex, as it is more
commonly known, back in 1999 after learning through my chairmanship of
the Senate Budget Committee Task Force on Education about the excessive
red tape attached to Federal education funding.
I listened to school administrators and education leaders who told me
again and again about the bureaucratic challenges they faced when
trying to improve education.
After seeing how a demonstration project involving 12 States achieved
such impressive results in improving student performance, I wrote
legislation to expand the program to all 50 States.
The Ed-Flex program gives greater flexibility to States in using
Federal funds in exchange for greater accountability for student
achievement.
The program does not change the amount of funding available--but it
eliminates some of the strings attached. Schools must still use the
Federal funds for the purposes for which they were designed, and
health, safety, civil rights, and disabled requirements cannot be
waived.
Ed-Flex was an early attempt at education reform aimed at improving
student achievement, and paved the way for the No Child Left Behind Act
just 2 years later.
It allows educators to find new ways of improving the quality of
education for every child, and it set the stage for acknowledging the
connection between flexibility and accountability in improving student
performance.
Ed-Flex encourages innovation within America's schools and allows our
students the opportunity to succeed academically and globally.
I thank Senator Burr for his leadership on this extension of Ed-Flex,
and for the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for
their recognition of this important tool for America's students.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third
time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and
that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (S. 2363) was read the third time and passed, as follows:
S. 2363
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EDUCATIONAL FLEXIBILITY PROGRAM EXTENSION.
(a) Extension Authority.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Education is authorized to
carry out the educational flexibility program under section 4
of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (20
U.S.C. 5891b), until the date of enactment of an Act that
reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311 et seq.), for any State that was an Ed-Flex Partnership
State on September 30, 2004.
(b) Designation.--
(1) In general.--Any designation of a State as an Ed-Flex
Partnership State that was in effect on September 30, 2004,
shall be extended until the date of enactment of an Act that
reauthorizes programs under part A of title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, if the
Secretary of Education makes the determination described in
paragraph (2).
(2) Determination.--The determination referred to in
paragraph (1) is a determination that the performance of the
State educational agency, in carrying out the programs for
which the State has received a waiver under the educational
flexibility program, justifies the extension of the
designation.
____________________
ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2006
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:45
a.m. on Friday, March 3. I further ask consent that following the
prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of
proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be
reserved, and the Senate then resume consideration of S. 2320, the
LIHEAP funding bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
PROGRAM
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, today the Senate overwhelmingly, finally
adopted the PATRIOT Act conference report with a vote of 89 to 10. We
spent a great deal of time considering this bill, and I am pleased and
relieved that we reached a final conclusion on this important
legislation. It has a very careful balance of civil liberties and at
the same time guarantees elimination of that barrier between law
enforcement and our intelligence community to make sure that men and
women and children and families are protected here in our homeland. It
has been tough to get to this point with a lot of negotiation and a lot
of delay and postponement, but finally we have completed that important
bill.
We are now considering the LIHEAP bill, and we hope to complete
action on that bill early next week. Also, next week we will begin work
on the lobbying reform measure. We made progress on the whole effort of
lobbying reform both in the Government Affairs Committee today, as well
as in the Rules Committee earlier in the week.
Next week we will be busy with votes each day as we work through
initially LIHEAP and then the lobbying bill. Tomorrow I will have more
to say on both the sequencing and timing of the lobbying bill and
LIHEAP. The next votes will occur on Monday at 5:30 in the evening on
the confirmation of three district judges.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:45 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. FRIST. 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 6:22 p.m., adjourned until
Friday, March 3, 2006, at 9:45 a.m.
[[Page 2485]]
____________________
NOMINATIONS
Executive nominations received by the Senate March 2, 2006:
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
JOHN W. COX, OF TEXAS, TO BE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VICE CARIN M.
BARTH, RESIGNED.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
GEORGE MCDADE STAPLES, OF KENTUCKY, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE FOREIGN SERVICE, VICE W. ROBERT
PEARSON, RESIGNED.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
MICKEY D. BARNETT, OF NEW MEXICO, TO BE A GOVERNOR OF THE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 8,
2013, VICE ROBERT F. RIDER, TERM EXPIRED.
KATHERINE C. TOBIN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE A GOVERNOR OF THE
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 8,
2012, VICE S. DAVID FINEMAN, TERM EXPIRED.
IN THE AIR FORCE
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. THOMAS J. LOFTUS, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES AIR FORCE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 624:
To be major general
BRIGADIER GENERAL CHRIS T. ANZALONE, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL KURT A. CICHOWSKI, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS F. DEPPE, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL PAUL A. DETTMER, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL WILLIAM L. HOLLAND, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL RONALD R. LADNIER, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL ERWIN F. LESSEL III, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN W. MALUDA, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK T. MATTHEWS, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL GARY T. MCCOY, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL STEPHEN J. MILLER, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS J. OWEN, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD E. PERRAUT, JR., 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL POLLY A. PEYER, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL DOUGLAS L. RAABERG, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL JEFFREY A. REMINGTON, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL ROBERTUS C.N. REMKES, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL FREDERICK F. ROGGERO, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARSHALL K. SABOL, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL PAUL J. SELVA, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD E. WEBBER, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL THOMAS B. WRIGHT, 0000
BRIGADIER GENERAL MARK R. ZAMZOW, 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 brigadier general
COL. WILLIAM H. WALKER IV, 0000
IN THE ARMY
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 brigadier general
COL. JOSEPH C. CARTER, 0000
IN THE NAVY
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT AS DEPUTY JUDGE
ADVOCATE GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND FOR
APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 5149:
To be rear admiral
CAPT. JAMES W. HOUCK, 0000
[[Page 2486]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, March 2, 2006
The House met at 10 a.m.
The Reverend Stephen A. Owenby, Senior Pastor, Stewartsville Baptist
Church, Laurinburg, North Carolina, offered the following prayer:
Our sovereign Lord, we praise You for the freedom to enter Your
heavenly throne room. We deserve not Your favor nor are we worthy of
Your grace. All we can ask is, ``Forgive us our transgressions, grant
us salvation and guide us in the way of righteousness.''
We have prayed, ``God bless America.'' You have. ``Some trust in
chariots, and some in horses; but we will remember the name of the Lord
our God.'' May we not depend upon our own ingenuity, but in You alone.
I offer thanks for these men and women You have lifted up to serve
their fellow countrymen. In James chapter 1, you tell us, ``If any lack
wisdom, let him ask.'' So we ask, Please grant to these servants the
wisdom necessary to carry out Your will for our Nation. We ask this in
Jesus' name and for His sake. Amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. The Chair has examined the Journal of the last day's
proceedings and announces to the House his approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The SPEAKER. Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) come
forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California 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 REVEREND STEPHEN A. OWENBY
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an individual here with
us who has dedicated his life to the service of others in his
congregation and in his community. Pastor Steve Owenby is a selfless
person who continually exemplifies servant leadership. I want to
express my appreciation for his witness and the difference he makes in
the lives of others each day, and thank him for being here with us to
deliver this morning's prayer.
Steve has been married to his loving wife, Donna, for almost 21 years
and has three wonderful children, Megan, Josh and Christy.
As a young adult, Steve began his life of service in the United
States Air Force where he served 4 years honorably. He later felt
called to the ministry and attended Liberty University, where he
completed his Master of Theology.
He is currently the Senior Pastor of Stewartsville Baptist Church in
Laurinburg, North Carolina. Stewartsville is a member of the Southern
Baptist Convention and currently has about 800 members. It is a vibrant
congregation that has a strong focus on missions, to the credit of
Pastor Owenby and his family.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in appreciation for Steve's many
years of service as he leads his family, congregation, and community. I
pray that others may follow his lead so that they too would understand
the true meaning of life.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will recognize 10 one-minute speeches on each
side.
____________________
MORE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THE ECONOMY
(Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share more good news with the
American people about our economy.
Yesterday, the Commerce Department reported that consumer spending
shot up by nine-tenths of a percent in January, which is the strongest
gain in 6 months. In addition, Americans' personal incomes rose by
seven-tenths of a percent, which is the highest rate since September.
Clearly, our economy's positive momentum is a direct result of the
pro-growth agenda of our President and our Republican-led Congress.
We are the party that is holding the line on fiscal responsibility
and showing our commitment to continuing economic growth. We are the
party that is working to improve the lives of the American people by
lowering taxes, enacting legal reform, and decreasing government
interference in the lives of entrepreneurs and small business owners.
Democrats, on the other hand, continue to promote their tax-and-spend
policies, because they think they know how to spend your hard-earned
money better than you do. My Republican colleagues and I know better
than that.
____________________
JUXTAPOSITION OF TWO NEWS STORIES
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to call the attention of the House
to the juxtaposition of two news stories: one that says, relating to 9/
11, Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the
September 11, 2001, terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda
were planning aircraft hijacking and suicide attacks according to a new
report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.
And this, from the front page of today's Washington Post: a newly
leaked video recording the high-level government deliberation the day
before Hurricane Katrina hit shows disaster officials emphatically
warning President Bush that the storm posed a catastrophic threat to
New Orleans and the gulf coast, and a grim-faced Bush personally
assuring State leaders that his administration was fully prepared,
quote-unquote, to help.
Do we see a pattern here? 9/11, Katrina? They knew something was
going to happen and they did not act. They knew that if they went into
Iraq that we were looking at a disaster, that there was no way we were
going to be able to run that country.
They know that global climate change poses a threat to the entire
planet. Nothing is being done. There is a pattern of recklessness,
indifference, callousness. The implications are deadly for the people
of the United States.
____________________
CHILDREN'S SAFETY ACT
(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, last September the House overwhelmingly
passed H.R. 3132, the Children's Safety Act.
This bill will, among other things, overhaul and strengthen our
Nation's sex offender registration and notification laws.
Over the past few years we have lost too many children to the hands
of these pedophiles: Jessica Lunsford, Jetseta Gage, Sarah Lunde, Megan
[[Page 2487]]
Kanka, Jacob Wetterling, just to name a few.
While it may not be on the national news, there are still stories
every day of children being hurt by these predators.
We still have over 150,000 offenders missing, and those numbers are
growing.
Mr. Speaker, the House did its job last fall by passing that bill.
Now it is time for the other Chamber.
I applaud the Senate majority leader's recent decision to cosponsor
the Senate version of the sex offender bill and his commitment that he
made the other day to victims' parents to move the bill soon.
We must pass this bill, and we must do it now before another victim
is killed.
____________________
IN SEARCH OF A COMPETENT CONSERVATIVE
(Mr. EMANUEL asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, by now we have all seen the Katrina tape of
the President being briefed on the magnitude of the upcoming hurricane
disaster. The tape clearly shows that the President and his
administration knew about Katrina's magnitude, regardless of their
after-action denial.
All I can say is forget the compassionate conservative that we were
promised in 2000. At this point I would settle for a competent
conservative.
Remember, this administration repeatedly maintained that if American
leaders in Iraq needed more troops all they needed to do was ask. But
now we know that the President's top man in Iraq, Paul Bremer, asked
for more troops right after the invasion and the President and the
Secretary of Defense failed to respond.
This administration said that the intelligence it used as a case for
the war was flawed. But Paul Pillar, a high-ranking CIA official,
recently revealed that the administration intentionally distorted and
cherry-picked the intelligence in order to justify the prescribed
decision.
Today, we are seeing the failure of those decisions. This
administration said that the Medicare prescription drug benefit would
cost no more than $400 billion. The real cost of the benefit, nearly
$800 billion, and the administration knew all along the true cost.
The President's people say people do not need to worry about
security, and then we found out that neither the President nor the
Secretary of Defense knew that the United Arab Emirates was about to
take over the six major American ports. We do not need a compassionate
conservative, a fiscal conservative. We need a competent conservative.
____________________
OUR ECONOMY IS ON A ROLL
(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, if you get your news from the main-
stream media, you probably don't know that our economy is on a roll.
Our tax policies, the tax relief and reform we passed in 2003 and
2005, helped get government out of the way of America's entrepreneurs,
and our unemployment rate is now lower than it was in the 1970s, the
1980s, and the 1990s.
Those across the aisle who voted against our tax relief for
Americans, and against our tax reform, say that Americans are not
paying enough and that the tax relief costs the government too much.
Imagine that. They think government has the first right of refusal on
your paycheck. Well, they are wrong on that.
Our tax relief generated $160 billion more in tax revenues in 2004
and 2005 than what was anticipated, than what was expected.
Mr. Speaker, the liberals in this body think that tax relief is a
gift from the government to the American worker. They are wrong on
that. We Republicans know that they are wrong. We know taxes are a gift
that the American taxpayer sends to Washington.
____________________
EDUCATION CUTS IN THE BUDGET
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, in his State of the Union speech, President
Bush said: ``Our greatest advantage in the world has always been our
educated, hardworking, ambitious people, and we are going to keep that
edge. But the President's budget for next year cuts education by more
than $2 billion. His budget freezes the maximum award for Pell grants
for the third year in a row. That means Pell grants will be worth
almost 10 percent less than they were just 5 years ago.
His budget cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from loan programs,
making it more difficult for half a million low- and moderate-income
students to get the financial aid they need to stay in college.
His budget totally eliminates funding for TRIO Upward Bound that
helps students trying to be the first person from their family to go to
college. Yet President Bush's budget adds over $350 billion to the
national debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay.
Americans lose when the President's actions contradict his promises.
____________________
STATE OF THE UNION'S HEALTH CARE
(Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, the rapidly rising cost of health care has
put quality coverage out of the reach of millions of families. Too many
cannot afford to see their doctor. Too many put off early treatment.
Too many are overwhelmed by hospital bills. Too many meet a wall of
bureaucracy that stands between them and their doctor. This system
costs too many lives and too many dollars.
Each side of the aisle has offered solutions: national health care on
one side of the aisle, health savings accounts on the other. But these
two plans deal with payments. Neither solves the problem of costly
errors and inefficiency. Cost shifting is not cost savings. They only
focus on who is paying, when we need to reform what we are paying for.
Electronic medical records, electronic prescribing, eliminating
hospital-borne infections, accurate dates on prescription drugs,
expanding patients' care management, ending defensive medicine and
allowing doctors to volunteer at community health centers are among the
reforms our Nation needs.
Any of us would reach out to save the life of one person. We must
reform the health care system to save ten of thousands of lives and
tens of billions of dollars. Members can see more information on this
at www.murphy.house.gov.
____________________
{time} 1015
REPUBLICANS' FAILURES IN SECURING PORTS: FAILURES GO BEYOND DUBAI PORTS
WORLD
(Mr. CARNAHAN asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the Bush administration's deal with the
United Arab Emirates showed the American people again that securing our
ports is not their priority.
The bipartisan and unanimous 9/11 Commission report clearly showed
the need for increased security for our Nation's ports. Now 4 years
after 9/11, less than 10 percent of the 9 million containers entering
our ports are ever screened. Even worse, Republicans in this House have
fought Democratic efforts to increase port security funding.
In 2003, this House voted to kill a Democratic amendment to add $250
million for port security grants; then again, in 2005, against a
Democratic proposal calling for an additional $400 million in funding
for port security.
For the record, let me say, my constituents in St. Louis, Jefferson
County, and Ste. Genevieve County, Missouri, understand right from
wrong.
[[Page 2488]]
They, like all Americans, demand action from this Congress that is long
overdue, and they will not go along with any deal compromising our
national security.
The American people have every right to be outraged with the
administration's approval of the UAE port deal. It is time the people's
House make the security of our Nation's ports a priority.
____________________
HONORING GENERAL SAM HOUSTON
(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Sam Houston from Virginia was born this day,
March 2, 1793. He was unique among all Americans. He grew up in the
mountains of eastern Tennessee. He befriended the Cherokees as a kid.
He fought the British in 1814. He stood with Andrew Jackson and was
wounded three times fighting Indians. He became a lawyer, Member of
Congress, and a Governor of the great State of Tennessee. More than
enough for one life. But then he left for Texas and quickly got passion
about Texas independence.
On his birthday, March 2, 1836, he was one of the signers of the
Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico. General Sam was made
commander in chief of all Texas armies, and on the plains of San
Jacinto his outnumbered volunteer army defeated the invaders. Texas was
free.
General Sam became President of the Republic of Texas, and when Texas
joined the Union, he became Governor and U.S. Senator. He is the only
American in history to be Governor of two different States.
His example was a majestic story of bravery, boldness, and brashness.
Mr. Speaker, his last words before he died were ``Texas, Texas,
Texas.'' Sam Houston, the stuff real Americans and real Texans are made
of. And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.
____________________
DEMOCRATS' EFFORTS TO ADDRESS PORT SECURITY
(Mr. CLEAVER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, the United Arab Emirates port deal should
never have been approved. Sure, the administration is now backpedaling,
but despite this 45-day delay, the administration is still going to try
to push this deal through.
It does not matter that the Coast Guard voiced concerns about the
proposal before the administration initially approved the deal. It does
not matter that large numbers of Democrats and Republicans have come
out in opposition to the deal. It does not matter that the overwhelming
majority of Americans do not support this deal and believe it to be
dumb. Nor does it matter that the administration never checked with the
affected communities before signing off on it. No, the Bush
administration sees this 45-day period as an opportunity to steamroll
Congress.
We simply cannot allow that to happen. Congress must play an active
role in this decision. I hope, I really hope, that the House
Republicans will join us in insisting that no deal move forward without
a vote here on this floor. Democrats insist that in addition to the 45-
day investigation there must also be a congressional vote. This is a
national security decision, and it is simply too important for
partisanship to take precedence over prudence.
____________________
IMMIGRATION BILL IN SENATE AND CAMPBELL AMENDMENT
(Mr. CAMPBELL of California asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Speaker, today the Senate Judiciary
Committee will begin work on the immigration and border security
legislation the House passed at the end of last year.
This bill is one of the most important pieces of national security
legislation before Congress because border security is national
security.
Recently we have been engaged in debates, some of which you have just
heard, about whether or not our ports are secure. This is an important
debate. But we know our southern border is not secure; we know that
illegal aliens, criminal illegal aliens, are attempting to cross that
border every single day, and it is time that we stop it.
In December, the House passed a good enforcement and border security
bill, and the bill is a great start to address this problem and make
our Nation safer. One important provision included in the bill was an
amendment I had authored which will withhold Federal law enforcement
funding from sanctuary cities that prohibit law enforcement officers
from notifying Federal officials about known illegal aliens.
The practice of prohibiting cooperation is appalling. We should not
reward these cities with Federal funds. I urge my colleagues in the
Senate to include this provision and pass a strong enforcement bill
without amnesty.
____________________
BUSH ONCE AGAIN SKIRTING LAW IMPACTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, Congress should not allow the secretly
decided backroom United Arab Emirates port deal to go through. It must
be stopped, and House Republicans should stand up to the President in
the name of national security. Our ports are not for sale to the
highest bidder.
This deal shows once again the lengths the Bush administration will
go to bend the laws to their advantage. The administration failed to
conduct a 45-day investigation that is legally required. This, in
itself, should be enough to stop this deal. The national security
implications are simply too important to ignore. And, unfortunately,
House Republicans have neglected our vulnerable ports since 9/11.
Over the past 4 years, House Republicans have opposed and defeated
Democratic efforts to increase funding for port security. Right now,
only 6 percent of cargo coming into the U.S. is being checked,
producing a large hole in our homeland security.
I would hope that we can make port security a top priority.
____________________
ENTITLEMENT REFORM
(Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, in the coming days we will take up the
Federal budget. While I am pleased to see the President's budget hold
the line on discretionary spending, the Congress should also get
serious about entitlement reform.
The numbers speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. Three entitlement
programs alone, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, currently
consume about 42 percent of the entire budget. If we add defense and
homeland security, which most people would consider mandatory spending,
along with all the other entitlements, we get 82 percent. Only 18 cents
on the dollar really is discretionary.
Mr. Speaker, entitlements are important programs, but they will
benefit no one if they go bankrupt. And we are headed for a fiscal
tsunami in this country. So as we begin the budget process, let us keep
in mind that runaway discretionary spending is wrong, and we would do
well to rein it in.
But unsustainable entitlement spending is a greater problem that we
should address as well for the sake of our children and grandchildren.
Whether we like it or not, this is a very real problem. It is not going
to go away.
Doing nothing is simply not an option. In fact, doing nothing is the
worst thing we can do.
____________________
IT IS TIME FOR A POLICY THAT REALLY SECURES AMERICA
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute.)
[[Page 2489]]
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of days
we have seen the focus of the American conscience look toward whether
America is actually secure.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is time now for the administration to craft a
policy that answers the enormity of the concerns that Americans have
expressed in town hall meetings across America. Frankly, I think when
the headlines read 1,300 Iraqi dead, our soldiers standing by, not
knowing whether to engage or not in the civil war that is pending, it
is actually now time for the President to acknowledge that our troops
have done their job, they have won the victory, and they need to come
home.
And then we speak of securing America and having conflicts cause the
tension that they are causing and then we still want to say that it is
all right to sell our ports to foreign entities; and, of course, I
think America needs to know that in the 2007 budget there is no funding
for securing the Nation's ports around America.
It is time now for the administration to craft a security posture and
policy that really secures America. The time is now.
____________________
STATE TAX COMPETITIVENESS
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, this week the Tax Foundation, an
educational foundation for taxpayers since 1937, released its much
anticipated third edition of their State business tax climate index. It
ranks the 50 States on how business friendly their tax systems are.
The study finds the most business-friendly tax systems in Wyoming,
South Dakota, Alaska, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. The
least business-friendly tax codes were found in New York, New Jersey,
Rhode Island, Vermont and Maine.
Low-tax States are where the job growth is. Governors and businesses
and residents want jobs to flow to their States. Low taxes will do
that. So low taxes in America will also keep jobs here.
So, Mr. Speaker, there is a cautionary tale from this report,
reminding us that we are truly competing in a global economy, and we
cannot ignore the fact that low taxes indeed create new jobs.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AMBER CASHWELL'S SERVICE TO SOUTH CAROLINA
(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. Mr. Speaker, as I always say,
congressional schedulers have some of the hardest jobs in Washington.
While serving as a scheduler, Amber Cashwell has seamlessly planned a
calendar, helped manage the office, and assisted the citizens of the
Second District of South Carolina. Throughout her service she has
handled her responsibilities with patience, professionalism, and good
humor. Her colleagues and I truly appreciate her hard work and
dedication.
A native of Spartanburg, South Carolina, Amber began her career in
Washington as a staff assistant for Congressman Bob Inglis. In May,
2004, she graduated from Converse College with an impressive double
major in French and history.
Tomorrow, Amber will depart the halls of Congress to work at the
Moore Van Allen law firm in Charlotte, North Carolina. I am proud of
her success and pleased to congratulate Amber on this wonderful
opportunity.
In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September 11.
____________________
MALPRACTICE INSURANCE
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, when I opened up my local paper
the other day, I was troubled by a letter to the editor. This gentleman
was lamenting the fact that he and his wife were losing a long-time
doctor because the physician could not afford to remain in business.
What is even more troubling is that none of this is a surprise.
Every day more and more doctors across the country are watching their
malpractice rates skyrocket. These premiums are going up as the
insurance companies are being forced to pay higher and higher awards
for malpractice lawsuits.
Doctors need to be held accountable, yes. However, there is also a
need to recognize the institutional abuse that is far too often
perpetrated in our courts by personal injury lawyers and the frivolous
lawsuits they introduce. These lawsuits do not just affect doctors.
They are affecting patients all across the country who either lose
access to their doctor altogether or are cared for by a physician who
has been intimidated into practicing defensive medicine.
While everyone is talking about rising health care costs, let us not
forget to recognize there are a number of different ways to lower those
costs, and starting with lawsuit abuse reform would be a genuine first
step.
____________________
KATRINA EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2006
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of March
1, 2006, I call up the Senate bill (S. 1777) to provide relief for the
victims of Hurricane Katrina, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Pursuant to the order of the
House of Wednesday, March 1, 2006, the Senate bill is considered read,
and the amendment placed at the desk is adopted.
The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as follows:
S. 1777
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 ``Katrina Emergency Assistance
Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in the case of
an individual eligible to receive unemployment assistance
under section 410(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5177(a)) as a
result of a disaster declaration made for Hurricane Katrina
or Hurricane Rita on or after August 29, 2005, the President
shall make such assistance available for 39 weeks after the
date of the disaster declaration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Shuster) and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
{time} 1030
General Leave
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. 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 S. 1777.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, S. 1777, as amended, extends the disaster unemployment
assistance for those affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Unfortunately, the economy in the gulf coast area remains devastated
and re-employment opportunities are greatly limited.
Currently, disaster unemployment assistance is only available for 26
weeks following a disaster declaration. March 4, 2006, is the current
deadline for program assistance as a result of Hurricane Katrina
disaster declarations for Louisiana and Mississippi. Unless we act,
unemployment benefits will expire this Saturday. This bill would extend
that period for an additional 13 weeks, making disaster unemployment
assistance available for 39 weeks total. This assistance is only
[[Page 2490]]
available to those persons who are not eligible for regular
unemployment assistance.
By extending these benefits, we are helping those most in need in the
gulf coast region as they continue to recover and rebuild. We extended
disaster unemployment assistance benefits after September 11 in the
same fashion as we are extending these benefits today. I support this
legislation and encourage my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Don Young,
Ranking Member Jim Oberstar, and, of course, my subcommittee chairman,
Bill Shuster, for their leadership in acting together to assure that
unemployment benefits are available to the many victims of Hurricane
Katrina and Hurricane Rita who want to work.
We are acting in virtual unison, though under the wire, to pass S.
1777, the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006, which extends
unemployment assistance under the Stafford Act, providing essential
unemployment benefits before they lapse on Saturday. This bill extends
the period that victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita would be
eligible for unemployment benefits to an additional 13 weeks, for a
total of 39 weeks.
Currently, the disaster unemployment assistance benefit period begins
the week following the disaster or the date thereafter that the
individual becomes unemployed and can extend up to 26 weeks after the
declaration or until the individual becomes reemployed. This bill means
39 more desperately needed weeks, in addition to the first 26 weeks.
The Department of Labor has the usual authority to administer the
program.
The extension of these benefits would help untold thousands of
workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of the unprecedented
storms that hit the gulf region late last summer but do not qualify for
regular unemployment assistance. The Labor Department reports that more
than 500,000 individuals have already filed new unemployment claims.
Unemployment at 12.5 percent for those who had returned in November
was more than twice the national rate; and for those still displaced
the rate was an amazing 27.5 percent, more than twice the rate for
those who had returned.
Unemployment benefits are available, of course, only for workers in
search of actual employment. These benefits may, nevertheless, of
course, be used wherever these workers are living today. However, the
benefits also may encourage needed workers to take the many risks
associated with returning to gulf cities and towns at a time when all
the basic ingredients of working communities, from housing to health
care, are at unprecedented low levels.
For example, relatively few workers have returned, despite a high
rate of job openings in New Orleans. With at least the guarantee of
unemployment benefits during the job hunt and much more rapid and
sensible job training and reconstruction policies, these benefits could
leverage new work opportunities for gulf residents that were
unavailable even before the storm, leave alone what the benefits could
do in helping the reconstruction of the region itself.
At the same time, I regret that a provision similar to the one
approved by the committee of jurisdiction in the other body to increase
unemployment benefits to 50 percent of the national average of
unemployment benefits had to be removed from the final bill to achieve
the rapid agreement needed. Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana have
the lowest unemployment benefits in the country. As a result, disaster
unemployment benefits for these States are as low as $87, $90 and $97
per week, respectively.
Fifty percent of the national average for unemployment benefit
amounts to $135 a week. In an area of the country that even before
Hurricane Katrina suffered long-term unemployment at record levels,
this increase could have made a major difference to families who need
much more assistance than the typical unemployed worker, because many
have lost everything, including their homes.
For the gulf victims, the job search that S. 1777 will afford is much
more than finding a job. This bill will help some victims return to the
gulf region to begin building their lives from scratch. Many who
qualify for these benefits were in the lowest wage categories and are
among the neediest for assistance. This extension will help them move
forward after experiencing the worst natural disaster in the Nation's
history. The American people would want us to take at least the step of
passing this urgently needed legislation today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to S. 1777.
One of the things that I am concerned about is we are spending billions
of dollars every day on this Katrina emergency disaster, with very
small results. We have people filing lawsuits against the government to
keep them from being kicked out of apartments, while thousands of
trailers are idle just a few hundred miles away.
Certainly, our hearts and thoughts go with the people who experienced
this tremendous tragedy, but I think one of the things that I hear from
the people in the 19th District of Texas is that they see we are
spending billions and billions and billions of dollars, yet we are
getting reports of mismanagement almost at every level of government.
One of the things that I think we have to do, and it is the reason I
am going to encourage my colleagues today not to support this, is I
think we have to step back and look at where we are spending our money
today, the American taxpayers' money, by the way, and by the way, money
that we don't have. Every dollar we are spending right now for Katrina
relief is money that we are borrowing, and we are going to saddle our
future generations with that debt.
So I believe that what we have to do is begin to assess what are the
job creation opportunities going to be in that region. We are at a time
in our country today, quite honestly, where we have record low
unemployment, yet we are here today to extend unemployment benefits for
another 13 weeks.
The question I have is not whether these people need a job, but the
question is are we providing opportunities for them to get a job and
moving them away from an environment of entitlement to an environment
of empowerment, where we are investing dollars in those communities in
such a way that those communities will be able to create jobs for those
people that maybe lost their jobs because of this disaster that
happened.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues today, let's vote
this down. Let's sit back and assess where we are spending our
resources. I know that we have a $20 billion additional supplemental
coming to the floor of this House for debate, and I think as we keep
throwing money at this problem, what we hear on the national news every
day is the people living in these areas are saying they are not getting
any of the help. The way to make sure you have accountability is not to
give someone more money, but to bring in more accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues not to support this.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, we thought of going forward with this bill
under unanimous consent because we did not think there was a single
Member of the House of Representatives who would want to deny to people
searching for a job after the worst disaster in American history the
funds that would enable them to live while they search for a job. So I
am amazed. I will be amazed that there is a single vote against the
bill.
But I think the chutzpah to stand on the floor and say we are
throwing money at a problem, when I have just recounted what these
benefits will
[[Page 2491]]
mean in that part of the country, less than $100 a week for families
looking for work, is an amazing statement to make. We are throwing
money at a problem? We are giving unemployment benefits to people
looking for work who have no other means because Mother Nature has
taken their means from them. Moreover, may I remind this House that
twice after 9/11 we extended unemployment benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlelady for her leadership, as well as Mr. Shuster. I also thank Mr.
Young, and certainly Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. Speaker, I represent the bulk of Texans, those of us who are now
hosting more than 200,000 Katrina survivors and Rita survivors. Might I
say to my good friend who lives a little further from the gulf that he
should recognize that this legislation also includes Hurricane Rita
survivors, who are all throughout the southern part of Texas.
But this is not an isolated whose-State-are-we-in type of
legislation. It is a legislative initiative. As a member of the
Homeland Security Committee, I see my ranking member has come who has
worked very hard on these issues, this is an answer to the cry of
Americans. For anyone to suggest this is frivolous or throwing good
money after bad is wrongly focused and misdirected.
Let me suggest to you the parameters, or at least the scene, that we
are now talking about. We already know that we have suggested that the
government in all of its power absolutely abysmally failed in its
ability to save the lives of those on the gulf coast, and they knew
that there was going to be a catastrophic event.
So what we are trying to do here on the floor of the House is, on the
backdrop of our failure, not to look back, we wish there was a 9/11-
type commission, but to go forward with solutions.
I want to applaud my colleagues for going forward. We are going
forward by providing assistance to those Katrina and Rita survivors,
who are scattered now through 44 States. I would like to ask my
colleague, when in the history of America did we scatter Americans
throughout 44 States? This is to help those States, because many of the
individuals who are there are layered on top of the citizens of Utah,
the citizens of Kentucky, the citizens of Georgia, who may be
themselves unemployed; and therefore it makes it difficult for them to
find jobs, even to be able to develop an income to be able to return
home to the gulf coast region.
Mr. Speaker, this provides a cushion for those who are scattered in
the 44 States. Then it helps additionally those who are in large urban
areas like Houston. Houston, of course, a percolating economy, still
has its unemployment. So for you to indict people, to suggest that they
are doing nothing to find work, you don't know the economy in America.
Let me also acknowledge that this particular provision will pay back
communities for buying soap and food for those who have been in our
community. It also provides for student scholars who are on visas,
whose visas may be expiring and they have no paperwork, so they will
not be deported, not because they are here illegally, but because they
cannot find the paperwork coming from that region.
This is an emergency. This is a life-saver. We will be in a
devastated condition this Saturday if this bill is not passed.
Let me say that the bulk of Texans, the majority of Texans, 90
percent of Texans, understand the value of this legislation; and they
want this bill to pass because we see firsthand those who are trying to
struggle to survive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the proposed legislation, S.
1777, the ``Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2005.''
As the law stands, unemployment assistance to those affected by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is going to be running out. We urgently
need to act to extend unemployment assistance to the survivors of
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
S. 1777 extends disaster unemployment assistance, DUA, to individuals
affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. It does so by
expanding FEMA's authority to help individuals affected by Hurricane
Katrina and Rita by allowing the President to waive the limitations on
direct and financial assistance and by providing 13 additional weeks of
unemployment benefits.
With merely days remaining before the unemployment benefits begin to
expire, the people displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Rita are facing a
dire crisis. The survivors of Hurricane Katrina, and from Hurricane
Rita, have faced tremendous stress over these past months. Not only
have these men and women lost their jobs, but their homes have been
razed to the ground, their beloved city swept away, and their
livelihoods destroyed. They have suffered through unspeakable
devastation, both to their mental and physical states. But, these proud
people have not lost hope. Thousands of people, many in my district of
Houston, are working hard to find jobs and rebuild their lives. It is
very difficult for them to integrate into their new community, and very
difficult for them to find a job.
In these most trying times, however, their government is threatening
to remove them from their temporary, emergency unemployment assistance.
Many of these people, their last options exhausted, will be left on the
streets. It is a moral, public safety and public health imperative that
this not be allowed to occur. I am making an urgent appeal to my
colleagues in the House to take the necessary steps to avert this
disaster and vote to provide disaster unemployment assistance for the
displaced persons.
Late last night I received an urgent call from a constituent of mine,
Dr. Ikili Graham. Dr. Graham explained that his friends and family were
affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many had lost their homes and
their jobs, and were struggling to integrate in their new city of
Houston. Jobs were scarce, but progress was being made.
He called to urge me to support S. 1777, a bill that would provide
much needed help to those who are still unemployed as a result of
Hurricane Katrina and Rita. This bill would extend unemployment
assistance for just 13 additional weeks--hopefully enough time for
people to find new jobs and sources of income.
I would like to passionately thank the Minority Leader and the
Speaker of the House for their wisdom in bringing this necessary piece
of legislation to the floor. The survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita need our continued support.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the proposed resolution for the
foregoing reasons, and I urge my colleagues from both sides of the
aisle to follow suit.
{time} 1045
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the comments of my
good friend from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer). I certainly understand his
concern about some of what has gone on in the gulf coast region, things
that have not been efficiently moved forward. There have been cases of
money being spent unwisely.
But on this bill, S. 1777, with the disaster unemployment assistance,
this is important, to go to people that do not get normal unemployment.
This goes out to people that are self-employed, small business owners.
It is critical to the recovery that they have income until they are
able to get their businesses back up, or if they are a professional, to
get their operations running again.
So again I understand the concern of my colleague, but this bill is
about disaster unemployment assistance. It is critical to get it back
on line. It expires on Saturday. So I would urge all of my colleagues
to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. The kind of small
business owners, for example, that the gentleman was talking about, if
you are a hot dog vendor, those are some of the most industrious people
in society. An example would be people who are willing to work for
themselves where they get no benefits of any kind, but work harder than
most of us.
I used the hot dog vendor, because that is fairly typical of the kind
of person we are talking about.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
[[Page 2492]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Thank God that the Speaker is taking a trip down to
New Orleans, because we have waited for a long time for this bill. Six
months ago I introduced legislation to extend unemployment benefits.
But the majority party has ignored the problem until today, a few days
before it is going to run out.
Now as a doctor and psychiatrist, I can tell you a couple of things:
When people suffer a catastrophic loss, they need comfort and
certainty, a helping hand. Instead, you have waited with unemployment
benefits until they were beginning to run out before you acted. You
have made matters worse for people who already have much damage to
their lives.
For 6 months this body functioned like that empty FEMA trailer when
it came to meeting the needs of the people devastated by the
hurricanes. The White House was in the driver's seat. No more need be
said.
But thankfully, at the urging of Ms. Pelosi from California,
Republicans are going to do what I said 6 months ago. We are going to
extend unemployment benefits to the people in the gulf coast. Later
today, we will go and visit the region and tell the people all the good
we are doing for them.
Now, the Republicans will take credit for acting. But there is no
credit for acting 6 months late. Six months ago I said we should be
protecting the children of the gulf coast. I ask today, are we doing
all we can to ensure vulnerable children are protected? Have we done
anything to ensure that parents receive counseling and children receive
the necessary social services to cope with the trauma in their lives?
The answer is ``no.''
We may have sent some money to the States, but we have done nothing
to ensure that Federal child welfare programs receive additional
resources to cope. Kids are not as important as workers. In fact,
Republicans refused to even hold a hearing, despite my repeated pleas
to the chairman.
We know child abuse spikes after natural disasters. We know that
foster families are living in FEMA trailers. They are living with four,
six and eight kids in a trailer, and the State is asking them to take
more because they do not have enough places for neglected and abused
kids. These trailers do not come close to passing the safety standards
that we would demand of an ordinary foster home.
We cannot keep pretending that the Federal Government is responding
to the gulf coast. FEMA and the White House knew the storms were
coming; we found that out yesterday. We knew they were going to
devastate the area, and they failed to prepare and respond. For the
last 6 months there has been nothing going on here.
We have got a chance today to follow the Golden Rule: Treat others as
we would be treated. I speak as someone representing Seattle. We know
that one day we will have another shaker, another earthquake. And
anybody who gets out on this floor and says, oh, well, we're throwing
money at Louisiana, don't you dare come near this floor asking for
money when it happens to you in California or anywhere else.
This is not a local problem, this is a national problem that the
Republicans refuse to respond to until it is at the last second. A day
late, a dollar short.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman, we are not a day late and a
dollar short. We are responding in a timely fashion. We certainly would
have liked to have done this a couple of weeks earlier, but we are here
on the floor today. We are going to respond to this situation in time.
I think it is important. As we move legislation forward in a
situation like this, I think the folks in the gulf coast know that
those of us in Congress are concerned about their situation; and that
is why we are acting in time for this to be extended. I don't believe
that responding 6 months prior to the need is something that is wise
policy.
Let's move forward, let's study the situation and when it gets to a
point where we have to extend, where we have to act, I think it is
prudent that we do that.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I mentioned 9/11 because I think
there is a standard here, a kind of control group. I mentioned that we
had had to extend unemployment benefits twice during 9/11. This was a
terrorist attack, 3,000 people killed. Thank God, the entire City of
New York was not wiped out.
Compare, however, that disaster, as tragic as it was, with wiping out
an entire city, the whole city gone, all means of employment gone, now
being slowly revived. And I think we will have some appreciation for
the American heart.
We knew what to do on 9/11. We will be there for people as long as
you need us. And the wonderful thing about unemployment benefits is,
they go straight to the person. And, of course, what unemployment
benefits do, because the people who get them spend them for necessities
in their communities, so what unemployment does at the same time is, of
course, to help the community, the economy of the community where the
unemployment benefits are being spent.
This is very good money for very desperate people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, as I listen to the debate here, one of the
things that I keep hearing in this House is a question of what the role
of government is. One of the gentlemen who spoke earlier would insist
that all this is about is throwing money, good money, after bad.
I think there are people in this Congress who actually believe that
government does not have a benign role in the lives of the people,
except as an engine to redistribute the wealth of the Nation upwards.
This legislation proves otherwise. It proves that government does have
a responsibility to step up when people have a problem. It also
confirms the role of the Congress of the United States.
We see in today's news that the administration was warned on Katrina.
It didn't respond quickly enough. Well, the Congress of the United
States has an obligation to respond here. That is what we are doing
with this legislation today. That is why I support it. We know that so
much of the Federal response to the economic security of the Katrina
victims has been lacking.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, unemployment is a serious
problem for hurricane victims. But the evacuees who are still not back
in their homes, and they number 500,000 people, to them unemployment is
epidemic, one-quarter of Whites, one-half of African American evacuees
are still out of work.
The cause, Mr. Speaker, is not a lack of jobs. At the current time
there is a labor shortage in New Orleans. The cause is a lack of
housing near the job sites. The Economic Policy Institute found that
simply returning home from the Katrina Diaspora makes a dramatic
difference in those staggering unemployment figures.
Unemployment rates fall among Whites to 10.7 percent, among Blacks to
11.6 percent if people have a home to go to. But the unfortunately
indifferent Bush administration, through the now infamous FEMA, is
compounding the unemployment problems of the hurricane victims. The
Federal emergency housing effort located the largest temporary housing
facility for New Orleans evacuees in Baker, Louisiana, 91 miles away
from New Orleans. That is not a commute for anyone, especially low-
income workers.
On September 8, the President urged a proclamation to lower the wages
of all workers on a Federal contract to rebuild the hurricane-affected
region. He suspended Davis-Bacon, a 74-year-old law which requires that
companies receiving Federal contracts pay the average wage to employees
who are hired to perform those Federal contracts.
He also suspended the requirement of having affirmative action plans.
Fortunately, some Members of Congress became involved in that and
offered a counterbalance.
[[Page 2493]]
That is what we are trying to do here today. We are trying to offer a
counterbalance to an administration that was not there when the
American people needed some guidance.
But today this bill will show that Congress has a role, and we have
to keep remembering it. Congress has a role in meeting the needs of the
American people and government has a role in the life of the American
people, has a positive, a powerful, a constructive role; and we have to
confirm that role over and over again with our work on the floor of the
House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bipartisan initiative to give
the people of the Katrina disaster area some additional relief. I think
we need to keep focusing on what is the appropriate role of government.
Let's help people in this country with the resources we have.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Ohio's support on this
piece of legislation today. But I want to remind my friends on the
other side that Congress does have a role. And we took it very
seriously when we set up the Katrina committee. It was the Democratic
leader who refused to appoint Members from the minority to the Katrina
committee.
But there were courageous Members on your side, I see Mr. Jefferson
here today, who defied the leadership and who came to the committee
hearings for the last 4 or 5 months. We did the hard work. We put forth
a document that pointed out some serious problems that we had. It was
critical of this administration. But the minority was MIA, missing in
action from the Katrina committee.
So Congress does have a role. We took it very seriously.
And once again I just want to applaud Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Taylor, Mr.
Melancon, Ms. McKinney. I hope I am not forgetting anybody. But as I
said, they defied their leadership and came to these important Katrina
committee hearings, and they were a big part of, I believe, the
hearings and had great input into what we produced.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from New Orleans (Mr. Jefferson), the city which suffered the
worst natural disaster of any big city in American history.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
the time to speak on this legislation.
I want to thank the bipartisan group that has developed this
legislation. We, of course, had hoped for more from it. We were hoping
that we would get to $135 a week, as the Senate had proposed. And we,
of course, hoped for other provisions in the bill.
But, nonetheless, this is an important step forward, and an important
response to the needs of the people in our area. I regret that there is
objection to this legislation today, because I think it can only be
objected to because folks just do not understand. I will not say that
anyone is so callous as to not care, but I would have to say that you
cannot really understand the dimensions of this issue if one objects to
what we are doing here today.
In many ways, the district that I represent and the area that I
represent and the whole gulf region is frozen in time. Not a whole lot
has changed since August 29 in this aftermath, except that in our city
the water has been pumped out. But other than that, the city is largely
depopulated. Business has still not stood up. Hospitals are not
working. The school system is not working. Our city has no tax base.
People do not have jobs. Many have no place to come back to, even for
temporary housing.
And those few who are there, of those who are there now, some 16,000
of them who are there in temporary housing, other housing conditions
that are not ones that any of us would really like to have to put our
families into, 16,000 of them do not have jobs now and are seeking this
unemployment extension benefit.
{time} 1100
Across the Gulf there are 165,000 families who are either there or
displaced some other place around our country who do not have jobs, not
because they are not seeking them, not because they do not want to
work, but because the storm has displaced them and destroyed not only
where they live but where they worked as well.
So the things we have talked about on the committee that reviewed the
Katrina lawsuit, I do want to give some compliments to those who worked
on that issue, who helped to, I think, make some critical decisions
about it that I think will in the future portend better outcomes for
these disasters as they occur. We hope they do not occur to anybody
like they occurred to us; but if they do, I think we are in a far
better position to deal with them now.
I do want to say there is a great deal more to be done in our area.
And we are hoping that this Congress as a result of the trip that will
be taken in just a few hours down there to take some 35 or 40 Members
of Congress down to take a look at this, that people can continue to
develop an appreciation for the extent of this disaster. Many of us
have said it was not just a natural disaster that drowned our city.
There are also some man-made issues here about how our levees failed
and about how we could have done more to make sure that that did not
happen. Frankly, had the levees had not failed, our city would not have
drowned and we would not have had the 80 percent of our city under
water, and all of the untoward consequences I just talked to you about
would not have happened. We would have had a serious storm, a series of
brief clean-up, and people would be back in town, and we would not have
to be here talking about extending unemployment.
We are extending it today because this is a long-term set of issues
here. This is not the ordinary disaster. We will be living with this
for a very, very long time. It will take a lot of hard work on the part
of all of us to make this close to right down the road.
So I hope this Congress is prepared to stick with the people of the
region. I hope we will get a full understanding of exactly how folks
are suffering and how this approach is a Band-Aid approach to helping
people who are in the most dire circumstances, as I said, not because
of anything they have done or have failed to do, not because they are
not looking for work every day, but because they are displaced. They
are disconnected. Their jobs are destroyed. They have no place to go.
And they have no means of support for their families except this
Congress and this country come to their aid. And this is a small
measure to do that.
I am grateful to the committee for the work that it has done. I look
forward to our committee realizing that there may be more work to do in
this area. I hope we can make a rebound in this work as quickly as we
can. But the biggest thing now is how we can keep families together,
how we can give them a little support while they struggle to get back
to normalcy, and how at the end of the day we can give them the choice
to return to the place where they lived, where they have their cultural
connections, and where they have dedicated a part of their lives and
their influence and where they, frankly, want to return to.
All of us have someplace we call home around here; and for them, no
matter how dangerous we think it is, how difficult it is for them,
these people, all of our people, all of us want to have a way to come
back and reconnect to our home, at least to make a decision about
whether we want to make a reconnection or not.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this issue. I hope that
whatever objections there are they will be withdrawn because this ought
to be an issue on which we are all together, on which there is
bipartisan agreement.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the kind
of bipartisan cooperation that I think truly reflects the spirit in
which this bill comes to the floor today.
Our country is so well known for disaster relief, generously and
spontaneously given to the rest of the world,
[[Page 2494]]
that the rest of the world actually came forward and offered relief to
the United States after Katrina occurred.
In a real sense the standard we have set for ourselves in the rest of
the world sets the standard for what we do in our country. Will we be
known when this disaster has cleared for the generosity of the response
to Katrina?
Despite the sour note of one Member only at the beginning, I want to
say that I have seen anything but that in the workings of our
committee. It did make it necessary for us to make the case in a way we
thought would have been unnecessary. For example, when you talk about
throwing money at a problem, it makes me realize that some people do
not even understand what unemployment benefits are about. They do not
understand that you can only get unemployment benefits if you have had
a job so that we are by definition talking about working people. And
because many have not been unemployed, they may not understand what you
have to go through to keep getting your benefits, to report to the
office, to show evidence of having looked for a job.
In other words, we are talking here about people who worked, who have
every desire to work, and who need a meager benefit in order to keep
looking for work. That is why this bill is minimally reflective of
where most Members would be. I think the bill at its base reflects the
bipartisan spirit of this House when it comes to extending benefits
that would allow people who want to work to, in fact, do that work.
And, indeed, if we should be so fortunate that these benefits may
inspire some to go back home to places few of us would want to go
because of all the future comforts that are gone, to go back home with
meager benefits, with no housing, with insufficient health care, to go
back home to help rebuild their community, that is the America that we
all know.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 4\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the
floor today to speak on behalf of people of the gulf region of New
Orleans, of Mississippi, of Alabama who have in many ways been
dismissed, marginalized, even violated. I rise in strong support of the
passage of S. 1777.
Six months after Hurricane Katrina, life for Louisiana and
Mississippi residents remains an uphill battle. Houses have not been
rebuilt. Many are still without gas, electricity, and other needed
utility service; and those who once resided in the New Orleans ninth
ward are still unable to return home, and other areas also. Yes, some
help has been given; however, much more needs to be done.
There has been a lot of talk in the news about how America is not a
country that will cut and run. Yet that is what we are doing to
Hurricane Katrina survivors if we do not extend the services they so
desperately need. If passed, S. 1777 will extend the much-needed
unemployment assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.
The unemployment rate of the hurricane survivors has reached epidemic
proportions. This effect is compounded by the fact that the affected
areas had some of the country's highest unemployment rates prior to the
storm. Six months have already passed, although it seems the desperate
images of survivors was just yesterday. As a result, providing
unemployment assistance for survivors for up to 39 weeks is not only
desperately needed but it is the right thing to do.
S. 1777 will waive the $25,000.00 limitation faced by individuals and
household under existing law. As we have seen many individuals and
families have to rebuild their entire lives from nothing. A recent
media report chronicled the life of one woman whose sole possession
after Hurricane Katrina was one dining room chair. The amount of funds
these individuals receive needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case
basis.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at the way the press has not closed up
shop and gone home after Katrina. Story after story continues to tell
us what is happening in the gulf region. We have just seen Mardi Gras
stories over and over again. I was pleased to see Mardi Gras celebrated
in the region.
The region is doing for itself what it can do. As I think about this
bill, I think that there are people who are on unemployment benefits
who got a job during Mardi Gras and who came back home who no longer
need unemployment benefits.
I want us to also remember that New Orleans, in particular, which is
known for its Mardi Gras gaiety, this is the oil producing, the energy
producing region of our country. We need it to get back on its feet.
This bill will help the region, the whole region, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Alabama, to do just that. We are helping the people,
and that is the way to help the region.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments about the press
talking about some positive stories coming out of Louisiana, but we
should not forget there are also positive stories in Mississippi. The
gentlewoman has traveled to the Gulf Coast on a couple of occasions,
and the people of Mississippi were devastated as well.
The gentleman from Louisiana talked about the hard work. There is a
lot of hard work left to do in rebuilding the Gulf Coast, but it is
important that we at the Federal level do it in a fiscally responsible
way in conjunction with the State and local governments in the Gulf
Coast. But we also have hard work ahead of us in fixing the emergency
management system, and that is something we are already starting to
engage in. And we are going to have, I think, a significant debate on
how we move forward.
This legislation today is important. The extension of the disaster
unemployment assistance, it is money that, as I said earlier, is going
to people that traditionally are not eligible for normal unemployment.
These are small business owners, many of them. I think the gentlewoman
from the District used the example of the hot dog stand owner, people
working hard, small businesses. They do not have any income, and this
is going to give them that income they need to get them back on their
feet.
I want to also remind my colleagues that there is not an additional
appropriation required for this. This has already been appropriated.
The funds are in the disaster relief funds and CBO has scored this as
no net increase in spending.
So as we move forward, I think it is responsible for us to do this. I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I also want to thank my
colleague from the District for the work she has put into it.
This has been a bipartisan effort. I also want to thank Chairman
Young and Ranking Member Oberstar. I also do not want to forget members
of the committee from the Gulf Coast, Mr. Boustany and Mr. Baker, for
their leadership, and Mr. Pickering for his leadership.
I want finally to thank the majority leader for working with us to
get this legislation on the floor today.
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, before Katrina slammed into my city, we
had 2,100 hospital beds. Now we have 400 beds between Touro and
Children's. When Katrina struck, about 22 percent of Louisiana
residents and 23 percent of New Orleans residents were living in
poverty, $16,090 for a family of three. Over 900,000 people or 21
percent of all residents in Louisiana had no health insurance before
Katrina and after the storm 1.2 million were uninsured. Tied to these
poverty and uninsurance rates, Louisiana also had some of the poorest
health statistics in the country with high rates of infant mortality,
chronic diseases such as heart disease and diabetes, and AIDS cases,
and lower than average childhood immunization rates.
To this end Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join Congresswoman Christensen
and a number of my congressional colleagues in introducing
[[Page 2495]]
the first in a series of healthcare bills that I will be introducing in
the coming weeks. The Katrina Health Access, Recovery, and Empowerment
Act of 2006 or KHARE Act of 2006 has 4 main provision areas, each which
addresses a key component in rebuilding the health care infrastructure
in the Gulf Region, and meeting the unique health and health care needs
of those displaced by the hurricanes. They include the following:
Title I: Rebuilding the Health Care Infrastructure. This title will
meet the immediate and longer-term needs of the health care providers
in the hurricane-affected regions by directing the Department of Health
and Human Services in consultation to provide forgivable low-interest
loans to eligible small business concerns for the restoration of health
care and other services connected to health care.
This title will extend tax-credits for medical malpractice insurance
to health professionals whose primary place of employment is located in
the Hurricane Katrina-affected area and offer grants to eligible non-
profit hospitals and clinics to assist hospitals and clinics in
defraying qualified medical malpractice insurance expenditures.
In addition, this title will allow healthcare professionals whose
healthcare practice is located in the Hurricane Katrina-affected area
and is in a high risk specialty, will be allowed to deduct from gross
income an amount equal to 125 percent of the aggregate premiums paid
for medical liability insurance.
Title II: Rebuilding Pipelines of Providers in Medically-Needy and
Underserved Areas and Communities. This title offers support to health
care facilities in the hurricane-affected areas in order to expand
access to needed health and health care services for hurricane affected
individuals in medically needy and underserved areas and communities.
The title establishes a Healthcare Safety Net Infrastructure Trust
Fund. The Trust Fund will provide Federal guarantee of loan repayment,
including guarantees of repayment of refinancing loans, to non-Federal
lenders making loans to eligible healthcare facilities for healthcare
facility replacement (either by construction or acquisition),
modernization and renovation projects, and capital equipment
acquisition.
Title III: Providing Relief to Academic Institutions. This provision
provides support to academic institutions, with health and health care
related programs, in hurricane-affected areas in order to ensure that
they have the capacity to retain health and health care-related staff
and personnel, and continue to offer programs that are important to
bolstering the health and health care workforce in hurricane-affected
areas.
Title IV: Restoring Key Components of the Health Care Infrastructure
in Medically-Needy and Medically-Underserved Areas. This title provides
grants and technical assistance support to low-income communities with
noted health disparities in order to implement programs to improve
health and healthcare. It also provides disparity grants to
organizations and others in hurricane-affected areas to implement
programs to healthcare programs. Finally, this provision expands access
to care for low-income hurricane-affected residents by offering
disaster relief Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, this bill codifies legislatively the framework needed to
implement sound public health and healthcare practices and this bill is
a start to a new direction for healthcare in the Gulf Coast region and
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, so that we do what is so
clearly needed to improve the health and health care for millions of
Americans.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1777, as
amended. The bill provides much needed aid for individuals left
unemployed after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita by extending the period of
disaster unemployment assistance from 26 weeks to 39 weeks from the
date of the disaster declarations. Without this extension, disaster
unemployment assistance for those left unemployed by Hurricane Katrina
would expire this Saturday, March 4, and unemployment assistance for
those left unemployed by Hurricane Rita would expire by the end of this
month. There is no doubt that the people of the Gulf Coast need this
assistance, and I strongly support this bill, and thank the Democratic
Leader, Ms. Pelosi, for joining me in urging its consideration in the
House today.
Let's be clear about what this bill does. It extends unemployment
benefits for those 165,000 workers left unemployed as a result of
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita for an additional 13 weeks. People
in the Gulf Region are still struggling to reclaim their lives. It is
the right thing to do to extend these benefits--just as we did after
September 11--so that people can put food on their table. It is simply
shocking to me that some Members on the other side of the aisle have
stood up to oppose this bill. Where is the compassion for those who
have suffered most dearly over the past several months?
Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Nevertheless, I believe that
Congress can do more, and should. Last December, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure reported H.R. 4438, the Gulf Coast
Recovery Act, a bill that would have extended the period of eligibility
of disaster unemployment assistance for those left unemployed by
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to 52 weeks from the date of the disasters.
Further, the bill provided a much-needed increase to the minimum amount
of assistance available to an individual. Right now, assistance
provided to individuals in the Gulf Coast is among the lowest in the
Nation. H.R. 4438 would have provided an increase in the amount of
assistance to 50 percent of the national average ($135 per week).
Currently, the minimum is set at one-half the state average
(approximately $100 per week in Louisiana).
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4438 also addresses other pressing needs of the
Gulf Region. It allows the President to provide assistance to
financially distressed state and local governments to cover base pay
and overtime expenses for essential response and recovery personnel for
six months--from January 2006 through June 2006. At Committee hearings,
and on a tour of the region, I have heard from Gulf Coast
representatives, including Mayor Ray Nagin of New Orleans, that without
help from the Federal government they would have to continue to layoff
workers that are essential to the recovery, thereby adding to the
scores of unemployed in the region and substantially hindering the
recovery.
In addition, to help communities with limited resources, the bill
amends the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 to allow local
governments to receive loans up to 50 percent (an increase from the
current 25 percent limit) of the local government's budget.
Further, there is considerable confusion among local governments
regarding the cost of debris removal. H.R. 4438 provides clarity on
this issue by establishing a 100 percent Federal cost share of debris
removal for disaster declarations resulting from Hurricane Katrina or
Rita.
The bill also provides an increase in the Federal cost share of the
Hazard Mitigation Grant program (HMGP) to at least 75 percent for one
year. Many of the Gulf Coast communities simply do not have the ability
to meet the Federal cost share and that will severely limit their
ability to utilize cost-effective mitigation measures during the
recovery. Mitigation saves lives, reduces property damage, and saves
limited government funds. Congress should ensure that we have strong
mitigation programs that will help encourage communities to rebuild
safer and smarter.
H.R. 4438 also makes a permanent change to the Stafford Act and
restores the percentage used to calculate the availability of HMGP
funds following a disaster from 7.5 percent to 15 percent. This House
has previously approved this change in H.R. 3181, the Predisaster
Mitigation Program Reauthorization Act of 2003, in the 108th Congress.
This change will help improve the use of HMGP for any future disasters
in every part of the country.
Finally, the bill establishes a national program by which FEMA can
provide grants to state and local governments to purchase or improve
emergency interoperable communications equipment (including satellite
phone and satellite communications equipment); mobile equipment to
generate emergency power; and to train first responders and emergency
personnel on how to best use such equipment. The bill authorizes $200
million for each of fiscal years 2006, 2007, and 2008 for this program.
It is a sad fact that this Nation still does not have sufficient
interoperable and emergency communications equipment that can be relied
on in the event of a disaster. Since the Transportation Committee
reported H.R. 4438 in December, many of the recent government
investigations into what went wrong with the Federal Government's
response to Hurricane Katrina have concluded that having operational,
emergency communications equipment is essential to respond to any
disaster. The program authorized in H.R. 4438 will go a long way to
ensuring that emergency responders have this vital equipment by
providing states and localities much needed resources to purchase and
improve their equipment and also train emergency personnel on how to
use the equipment.
H.R. 4438 is an important component to rebuilding the Gulf region. It
should be scheduled for an up or down vote on the House Floor. The
people of the Gulf Coast deserve at least that much.
Given that the Republican Leadership has been unwilling to schedule
H.R. 4438 since the Committee reported the bill in December of last
year, we are faced with passing a simple extension of the unemployment
benefits
[[Page 2496]]
for Hurricane Katrina and Rita survivors or facing the prospect of
165,000 survivors losing their benefits.
Although Congress can and should do more, I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation to extend the hurricane survivors'
unemployment benefits, and I commit that I will continue to work to
ensure that the people of the Gulf Coast are not forgotten.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1777, the Katrina
Emergency Assistance Act. This bill would extend jobless unemployment
benefits for 165,000 survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for 13
weeks.
In August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina laid waste to our Gulf Coast
region, including the City of New Orleans, and devastated other
villages and towns in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The extent of
the devastation was unprecedented in our Nation's history. I have
repeatedly expressed my outrage at the failure of our Federal
Government to adequately respond to this disaster.
Without this legislation, victims of the Hurricane Katrina disaster
will lose their unemployment assistance this Saturday. Under current
law, Federal emergency unemployment assistance expires 26 weeks after
the emergency occurs. Congress must act now to ensure that these
victims continue to receive our support as they attempt to rebuild
their lives and their communities.
While I support the legislation before us, this is only a first step
for Congress. Many of the Katrina survivors have also lost their homes
and belongings. They are continuing to look for employment in the
region.
Congress needs to take a bold step and enact a comprehensive approach
to help the people and the region recover from this natural disaster. I
have co-sponsored H.R. 4197, the Hurricane Katrina Recovery,
Reclamation, Restoration, Reconstruction and Reunion Act of 2005,
introduced by the Congressional Black Caucus. I urge the House
leadership to bring up this legislation immediately. This legislation
would take important steps toward fully restoring the Gulf Coast and
reuniting evacuees with their families. The bill addresses the needs of
evacuees in the areas of health, education, housing, community
rebuilding, voting rights, business, and financial services.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and again urge the
House leadership to immediately allow the House to vote on H.R. 4197,
the comprehensive Hurricane Katrina recovery legislation.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Wednesday, March 1, 2006, the
previous question is ordered on the Senate bill, as amended.
The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
____________________
PRIVILEGED REPORT ON RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted an
adverse privileged report (Rept. No. 109-382) on the resolution (H.
Res. 643) directing the Attorney General to submit to the House of
Representatives all documents in the possession of the Attorney General
relating to warrantless electronic surveillance of telephone
conversations and electronic communications of persons in the United
States conducted by the National Security Agency, which was referred to
the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
{time} 1115
PRIVILEGED REPORT ON RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY TO THE PRESIDENT
Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted an
adverse privileged report (Rept. No. 109-383) on the resolution (H.
Res. 644) requesting the President and directing the Attorney General
to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days
after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the
possession of those officials relating to the authorization of
electronic surveillance of citizens of the United States without court
approved warrants, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered
to be printed.
____________________
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4167, NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD
ACT OF 2005
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 702 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 702
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act to provide for uniform food safety warning
notification requirements, and for other purposes. The first
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. After general debate the Committee of the Whole
shall rise without motion. No further consideration of the
bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent order
of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). The gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Gingrey) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 702 is a general debate
rule that provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce. It waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill, and it provides that after general debate, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the
bill shall be in order except by a subsequent order of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 702 and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4167, the National Food for Uniformity Act of
2005.
H.R. 4166 was introduced by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers)
and reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee on 15
December 2005 by a vote of 30-18. This is a good bill, and I would like
to thank Chairman Barton and Representative Rogers for their work in
bringing this bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, currently food regulation is composed of a variety of
different and sometimes inconsistent State requirements. These
different State standards hamper the free flow of interstate commerce.
They also result in increased costs to manufacturers and distributors
that are then, of course, passed on to consumers. The greatest burden
falls on our citizens and resident immigrants who are at the lowest end
of the economic scale, who are struggling to pay for even basic
staples.
So, Mr. Speaker, these differing standards and their effects are very
similar to problems plaguing the health insurance industry, which also
drive up the cost to consumers and lock the door to many low-income
individuals and families who simply cannot afford basic health care
coverage because of all the required, expensive and often unnecessary
extra screenings, tests and procedures mandated by 50 different State
legislatures.
From State to State, we have a patchwork quilt of health and
insurance regulations and mandates that would create bureaucracy upon
bureaucracy, driving up the costs and driving away coverage for those
who need it most. These regulatory inconsistencies in both the
insurance health care industry and in the food industry impose
unnecessary costs and jeopardize the well-being of American consumers
nationwide.
[[Page 2497]]
However, Mr. Speaker, the National Uniformity for Food Act would
establish national standards to ensure consistency in food labeling
regulation. The bill will amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
to establish a nationwide system of food safety standards and warning
requirements for food labels instead of just a hodgepodge of different
and, yes, even contradictory warnings among the various and sundry
States.
Mr. Speaker, establishing nationwide, uniform standards is by no
means unprecedented. We already have national standards in the areas of
meat and poultry products regulated by the United States Department of
Agriculture. We have national standards for nutrition labeling, health
claims, standards of identity, pesticide residue tolerance, medical
devices and drugs regulated by the United States Food and Drug
Administration.
Mr. Speaker, for those who fear an important warning might fall
through the cracks, I want to emphasize that this bill does allow
States whose requirements differ from the Federal requirements the
opportunity to petition the FDA to adopt the requirement as a national
requirement or to exempt it from the requirement of uniformity for
their particular locality. If it is worthwhile to the State of
California, as an example, I trust that the FDA would hold that it is
worthwhile for the 49 other States, including my State of Georgia. This
petition process will allow States to have notification requirements
that address food safety issues unique to their States, bottom line.
H.R. 4167 also, Mr. Speaker, includes a provision that allows the
State to exercise imminent hazard authority to prevent the sale of
dangerous food by applying a State requirement that would otherwise be
preempted. They can do it in that emergency situation.
With the passage of this rule, the House of Representatives will move
forward today with general debate to discuss the overall merits of the
bill, and we will resume consideration next week on a multitude of
proposed amendments. This additional time will help to ensure an open
and fair process so that we ultimately arrive at consensus legislation
based on sound policy.
So I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and, ultimately, the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman very much for
yielding time to me. It is extraordinary that she let me go ahead of
her, and I appreciate it very much because of her accommodation of my
schedule.
This bill is the most sweeping change in decades to our Nation's
efforts to protect the food supply. H.R. 4167 is a disaster waiting to
happen. This legislation could overturn 200 State laws, laws that the
American people rely on every day to ensure the safety of the food they
eat and to ensure that they know what they are buying: laws that ensure
that the shellfish they buy is not tainted; laws that let a pregnant
woman know what foods can increase the risk of birth defects; laws that
could inform consumers whether fish have high levels of cancer-causing
PCBs; and laws that ensure the safety of our milk.
The opposition to this bill is strong, and it is growing stronger.
Last night, 37 State attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats
alike, announced their opposition to the bill.
They join the opposition of dozens of public health, environmental
and consumer groups. Florida, Georgia, New York, Wisconsin, and
Illinois have all written to Congress opposing the legislation. The
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture and the
National Association of Food Drug Officials strongly oppose this bill
as well.
I hope that next week we will be able to offer some amendments to the
bill. Since there has never been a day of hearings on the legislation
in committee, I think there ought to be an open rule.
One amendment that I would like to support is the Capps-Eshoo-Stupak-
Waxman amendment, and I think it must be adopted by this House. It
would allow States to take the necessary steps so that consumers will
be told of food that contains cancer-causing substances, developmental
toxins, sulfites and reproductive toxins. It will also let States take
action to protect the health of their children.
Secondly, this bill will undermine our Nation's defenses against
bioterrorism, according to State and local officials, and we are
proposing that this bill not handcuff the first responders who deal
with food safety issues every day.
The amendment we will be offering will help preserve the authorities
of the governors and State legislatures to establish and maintain a
food safety system that can be responsive to the threats that we face.
I am stunned by so many of my Republican colleagues, even the
gentleman that spoke on the Republican side of the aisle from the State
of Georgia, suggesting that States should not have the right to go
ahead and adopt food safety and labeling laws unless the FDA, a
bureaucracy in the Federal Government, allows them to do so. The States
have always had this constitutional authority. The States should have
this right.
I have been told so many times over the decades that Washington does
not and should not have one-size-fits-all for everybody. Let us let
States exercise their rights to protect their own people and not
preempt them.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to the gentleman from California, first of all, Mr.
Speaker, I have got a document here of 119 groups supporting H.R. 4167,
the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005, which I will submit for
the Record at this point.
Groups Supporting H.R. 4167--The National Uniformity for Food Act of
2005
Ahold; Albertson's; Altria Group, Inc.; American Bakers
Association; American Beverage Association; American Feed
Industry Association; American Frozen Food Institute;
American Plastics Council; American Meat Institute; American
Spice Trade Association; Animal Health Institute; Apple
Products Research and Education Council Association for
Dressings and Sauces; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers
Association; Bush Brothers & Company; Business Roundtable.
Cadbury Schweppes plc; California Farm Bureau Federation;
California Grocers Association; California League of Food
Processors; California Manufacturers & Technology
Association; Calorie Control Council; Campbell Soup Company;
Cargill, Incorporated; Chocolate Manufacturers Association;
The Coca-Cola Company; Coca-Cola Enterprises Inc.; ConAgra
Foods, Inc.; Council for Citizens Against Government Waste;
Dean Foods Company; Del Monte Foods.
Diamond Foods, Inc. Flavor & Extract Manufacturers
Association; Flowers Foods, Inc.; Food Marketing Institute;
Food Products Association; Frito-Lay; Frozen Potato Products
Institute; General Mills, Inc.; Gerber Products Company;
Glass Packaging Institute; Godiva Chocolatier Inc.; Grain
Foods Foundation; Grocery Manufacturers Association; H.J.
Heinz Company; The Hershey Company.
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.; Hormel Foods Corporation;
Independent Bakers Association; Institute of Shortening and
Edible Oils; International Association of Color
Manufacturers; International Bottled Water Association;
International Dairy Foods Association; International Food
Additives Council; International Foodservice Distributors
Association; International Formula Council; International Ice
Cream Association; International Jelly and Preserves
Association; The J.M. Smucker Company; Jewel-Osco; Kellogg
Company.
Kraft Foods Inc.; Land O' Lakes, Inc.; Maine Potato Board;
Masterfoods USA; McCormick & Company, Inc.; McKee Foods
Corporation; Milk Industry Foundation; The Minute Maid
Company; National Association of Convenience Stores; National
Association of Manufacturers; National Association of
Margarine Manufacturers; National Association of Wheat
Growers; National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors;
National Cattlemen's Beef Association; National Cheese
Institute.
National Chicken Council; National Coffee Association of
USA; National Confectioners Association; National Fisheries
Institute; National Frozen Pizza Institute; National Grape
Cooperative Association; National Grocers Association;
National Institute of Oilseed Products; National Milk
Producers
[[Page 2498]]
Federation; National Pasta Association; National Pecan
Shellers Association; National Pork Producers Council;
National Potato Council; National Restaurant Association;
National Turkey Federation.
Nestle USA; North American Millers' Association; Osco Drug;
O-I; Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association; Pepperidge
Farm Incorporated; PepsiCo, Inc.; Pickle Packers'
International; The Procter & Gamble Company; Quaker Oats;
Rich Products Corporation; Rich SeaPak Corporation; Safeway;
Sara Lee Corporation; Say-on Drugs.
The Schwan Food Company; Snack Food Association; Society of
Glass and Ceramics Decorators Supervalu Inc.; Target
Corporation; Tortilla Industry Association; Tropicana;
Unilever; United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association; U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Vinegar Institute; Welch Foods, Inc.;
Winn-Dixie; Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company; Yoplait.
To my friend from California, I want to point out that among these
119 just happens to be the California Farm Bureau Federation, that is
in support; the California Grocers Association, which is in support;
the California League of Food Processors, which is in support; the
California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which is in
support. I do not guess this is a California company, but interesting
to note that also the H.J. Heinz Company is in support.
I think that reminds me of the past Presidential election and maybe
one of the candidates from the other side of the aisle.
In regard to the preempting States, I want to remind my friends and
all of our colleagues that we are dealing here with interstate
commerce, and we are not talking really about preemption, even with
that, of State law, because these 200 State laws that the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) was talking about in the various and
sundry States, this is part of the problem. But all of those laws, each
and every one of those laws, could be incorporated, Mr. Speaker, and
possibly will be, into the FDA guidelines.
I wanted to make sure that they understand that.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
{time} 1130
Mr. Speaker, warnings of mercury levels in fish, the safety of our
children's milk, birth defect warnings, reducing lead in calcium
supplements, cans, and wine bottle caps, if we pass H. Res. 702, the
rule governing the National Food Uniformity Act, and ultimately the
underlying legislation, these are but a few of the food safety laws
that would be preempted.
We would be placing at even greater risk the health of millions of
Americans, our children, and pregnant women. Parents would have less
information about the harm their children would come to because of a
simple meal. This is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.
Information about the health implications of what we are assuming is
abundant, and we should be an ally in helping parents to protect their
children.
With this legislation, Federal food safety regulations would supplant
State food safety laws. Even though our food safety system has been
created to rely upon the States, the FDA will make recommendations on
its Web site. But the States need to take this information and
determine the best way to inform and protect their residents. There is
a reason for this: 80 percent of the enforcement is at the State and
local levels.
Let me take one example: mercury levels. Because of the implications
of mercury in my home State of California, we have a program to place
in-store notices about mercury levels. This concern about mercury has
been raised by the Centers for Disease Control, the American Medical
Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I remember when my
daughter-in-law Amy was pregnant with my granddaughter Anna. Her doctor
repeatedly warned her about the harm mercury could cause her fetus.
Fortunately, she was able to afford prenatal care and had the warnings,
so Anna was born a perfectly normal child, free from any adverse
effects of any mercury.
But what about those who do not have adequate prenatal care or have
warnings? How do they learn about these? Most of us will never think to
go to the FDA Web site before putting our shopping list together. We
find out about FDA warnings because our State laws require them to be
posted next to the supermarket fish counter. We see the sign as we
shop.
As many of you are probably aware, certain fish contain high levels
that can harm pregnant women and young children. High levels of mercury
can damage the brain or kidneys. And this is in adults. Imagine what
this can do to a developing fetus: blindness, seizures, speech
problems, as well as nervous and digestive problems. But under this
legislation, this program would be gone, as would the protections for
our children. All that would remain is a posting on the FDA's Web site.
Under President Bush's budget, the FDA's food safety funding would be
cut by $445 million over 5 years. Where does this leave parents and the
health of our children?
When it comes to our children's health, we should be setting the
highest bar possible rather than the lowest common denominator. Why
would we not warn parents of this potential for harm? I urge my
colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate what the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui) just
mentioned. And certainly as a physician, and we have health care
providers on both sides of the aisle, we may be hearing from a
physician Member, a friend and colleague on their side of the aisle in
just a few minutes in regard to similar issues, so I do, I do
understand, Mr. Speaker, that there are concerns about consumption of
fish; the concern for Ms. Matsui's daughter and her granddaughter. And
I am in the same category. She certainly looks a lot younger than I do
and a lot prettier, Mr. Speaker, but I have grandchildren as well.
Those are legitimate concerns. However, I will point out that fish is
an excellent source of nutrition for mothers, expectant mothers,
pregnant mothers, and young children. It is a wonderful source of
protein and polyunsaturated fats. Those of us who have had little heart
problems in the past understand that it is much more healthy to consume
fish than red meat, not that an occasional steak should be denied
anybody, Mr. Speaker.
But it is true, as the gentlewoman says, that the mercury content is
a concern, and I have done some reading on this issue. I talked just
last night, Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss this issue
with the pediatrician who took care of my children, my adult children,
and who now, this same pediatrician, Dr. Larry Clements in Marietta,
Georgia, of Kenmar Pediatrics, is taking care of my grandchildren, and
I asked about this issue. And certainly there is a concern about
mercury levels in certain fish, but also in my reading and in talking
with Dr. Clements found out what the American Academy of Pediatrics
says about it, found out what the EPA says about it, and found out what
the FDA says about it.
The FDA has guidance and guidelines right now that says to these
women that four-tenths of a microgram per kilogram per day is a safe
consumption level. And so this idea of the FDA being oblivious to the
concerns about mercury, organic mercury, that the fish consume and then
it gets into the blood stream of the mother; that it actually crosses
the blood brain barrier, the placental fetal barrier and gets into the
blood stream of a child and can adversely affect their neurological
system, the FDA is certainly not oblivious to that.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) has an amendment
that we will discuss thoroughly, thoroughly, and give careful
consideration to her amendment and other similar amendments that Mrs.
Matsui is talking about when we do this next week. And that is one of
the reasons we wanted to divide up the general debate and the debate on
those important
[[Page 2499]]
amendments because of what the gentlewoman just said.
So it is very possible that the California guidelines in regard to
this concern or the Florida guidelines about mercury levels will very
likely be incorporated into the national standards. Because, for
goodness sake, what is good and safe for her grandchildren, I know my
good friend would want the same safety standards for my grandchildren
in Georgia, for example. So I think she makes a good point, and I don't
object to that at all; but I feel like this national standard will take
care of that.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, what this bill does, I say to the gentlewoman from
California, is to create circumstances where it undermines all these
food safety laws all over the States. Under the guise of promoting
uniformity in food safety and labeling laws, this bill requires all
State food safety laws to be identical to the requirements of the
Federal Food and Drug Administration. And since the States regulate
many food safety issues not covered by the FDA, many food safety laws
will be voided and replaced actually with no law at all.
The uniformity to be achieved by this bill is, in many instances, the
uniform absence of food safety regulation, which is desired by the food
industry. So this bill is uniformly bad.
For example, the bill would preempt Alaska's newly passed law to
label genetically engineered fish. The Alaskan State legislature passed
this law to ensure the State's principal industries are protected. The
State of Alaska has an interest to ensure that its products and
reputation are not harmed. Today, we are telling the people of Alaska
that the natural Alaska king salmon cannot be distinguished from the
genetically engineered version bound to enter the market one day.
Another great example of the State laws this bill is designed to
undermine is California's Prop. 65. Prop. 65 provides for the labeling
of products that contain compounds that cause cancer or reproductive
problems. California voters approved it by a 2-1 margin in the 1980s.
Since enacted, it has sped the elimination of toxic compounds from the
products we use or eat every day. It led one company to remove a
carcinogenic chemical from a waterproofing spray. It led to the removal
of lead foil from wine bottles. It led to the removal of lead solder in
cans used for food. It took lead out of calcium supplements, brass
kitchen faucets, and hair dyes.
In fact, when many companies reformulated their product to avoid
having it labeled as a carcinogen, they did it without telling anyone
because they didn't want to draw attention to the fact that their
product included dangerous chemicals in the first place.
So there are countless other examples of Prop. 65 protecting public
health and the environment that we don't even know about. It is exactly
this triumph of public heath over large food corporations that has
driven the food industry to push for the so-called National Food
Uniformity Act. But it is bad policy. In fact, even President Reagan
rejected attempts to undermine it.
This so-called uniformity bill will cost the taxpayers dearly. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal Government will
have to pay $100 million to consider States' appeals; and at the local
and State level, food and safety officials would be obstructed. They
perform some 80 percent of the work to ensure the safety of our food.
In 2001, States acted in 45,000 separate instances to keep unsafe
food from entering our food supply. This bill simply says that the
United States Congress believes uniformity is more important than food
safety or the consumers' right to know.
This bill ought to be defeated. We need to listen to what the people
in the States are saying about their desire to have food that is safe
to eat, and this bill absolutely vitiates any effort that States make
to protect their own people.
This is a bad bill. Large corporations are pushing for it, just like
years ago they pushed to try to stop this Congress from investigating
cigarettes that caused cancer. We need to defeat this bill. It is a
rotten idea.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to point out to the gentleman who just spoke that of course
one of the major provisions of H.R. 4167 is that it does allow a State
to petition for an exemption or to establish a national standard. I
think even better, as I said earlier in my response to Ms. Matsui, is
to establish a national standard regarding any requirement under FFDCA
or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act related to food regulation.
It allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide such
an exemption if the requirement protects an important public interest
that would otherwise be unprotected. I think that is a hugely important
provision of H.R. 4167.
Again, we are dealing with interstate commerce, and I have a very
strong feeling and affinity for States' rights. We all do in Georgia.
But, Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments about this bill, I made an
analogy of health insurance mandates, that the 50 States are not the
same. It would be far easier if they were the same, but 50 States have
different mandates that State legislatures pass to put in a so-called
basic health insurance policy that you cannot sell in the State without
including provisions.
I remember very clearly when I was a State senator, before becoming a
Member of this august body, that, unfortunately, one of our colleagues'
mother-in-law was dying of ovarian cancer. She and he made the strong
case for a screening test, a blood test to purportedly determine who is
going to get or likely to get or in the earliest stages of ovarian
cancer should be made part of every health insurance policy. In other
words, every woman in the State of Georgia on a yearly basis could be
provided with this blood test called CA-125. But, Mr. Speaker,
gynecologic oncologists, medical cancer specialists, would tell you
almost to a person that this is a very poor test for screening for that
particular disease.
{time} 1145
Yet in the State of Georgia, that is mandated. And that drives up the
cost of health insurance, and it also drives up the number of people in
Georgia who cannot afford a basic policy of health care. That is really
what we are talking about here. We are not talking about taking away
the States' rights. And after all, the FDA scientific body, they study
these issues very carefully. All of these State mandates will be looked
at extremely carefully, and those that need to be in the national
guidelines will be there. Those that are not, the States can petition
to have them included.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
previous question and also will oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter from the Colorado
Department of Agriculture. And if I could respond to my good friend
from Georgia, in the letter from the Department of Agriculture, they
make the point that although the States can seek waivers, in our State
we believe, the Department of Agriculture believes that a State
required to seek a waiver from the Federal Food and Drug Administration
would incur significant legal and expert witness expenses which could
be better used in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. It should be rejected. It would make
it much harder for Colorado and other States to protect public health
and respond to acts of bioterrorism.
The bill would preempt virtually every State and local law that does
not mirror Federal law, and it would require Colorado and other States
to
[[Page 2500]]
navigate a bureaucratic and costly morass if they want to act to
protect the public.
In Colorado specifically, the bill would erase laws dealing with the
safety of restaurants, packaged food, wholesale foods and milk.
Further, it would prohibit Colorado and other States from passing laws
or regulations dealing with animal feeds, feed additives, and drugs
used on animals.
Additionally, States could not respond quickly to extreme public
health risks like avian flu, mad cow disease or chronic wasting disease
without first seeking the guidance of the Federal Government. It is
shocking, I think truly shocking, that in the wake of Hurricane Katrina
we would further hamstring our State and local officials when they need
to respond quickly.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill that would undermine Colorado's ability to protect consumers and
the public health.
Colorado Department
of Agriculture,
Lakewood, CO, January 30, 2006.
Hon. Mark Udall,
House of Representatives, Cannon House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Mark Udall: On behalf of the Colorado
Department of Agriculture, I am writing to express our
concerns regarding H.R. 4167, ``The National Uniformity for
Foods Act of 2005,'' which will appear before the House for
action in the next few weeks.
This bill would preempt state feed safety agriculture
defense programs from performing certain functions that
protect citizens. Under this bill, a state would no longer be
able to formulate laws and rules concerning the labeling of
foods, animal feeds, feed additives and new animal drugs.
Preempting state regulatory agencies from having autonomy to
address food and animal feed safety concerns compromises
public and animal health. Each state must have the latitude
to act quickly to enact laws and rules that address local or
statewide health concerns.
In addition, the waiver process required by H.R. 4167 would
impose substantial financial burden on the state and federal
governments. A state required to seek a waiver from the
Federal Food and Drug Administration would incur significant
legal and expert witness expenses, which could be better used
in conducting food and animal feed safety inspections.
Consumers benefit from strong food safety laws at the
federal and state levels. Elimination of the authority of
each state to set policy and take appropriate action would
reduce consumer protection. Therefore, I urge you to oppose
H.R. 4167.
Your consideration of our concerns is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Don Ament,
Commissioner, Colorado Department
of Agriculture.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
I just want to say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), that
in addition to the provision that I just quoted, there is this other
provision that would address his concerns, and obviously it is a
legitimate concern. It is very clear in the language of the bill, Mr.
Speaker. It says this: it allows a State to establish a requirement
that would otherwise violate an FFDCA act, or FDA provisions relating
to national uniform nutritional labeling of this act if the requirement
is needed to address an eminent hazard to health, like Mr. Udall
mentioned, that is likely to result in serious adverse health
consequences and if other requirements are met.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I did not have a chance to look at the
calendar to find out what organization from K Street is having a big
convention. But that is the only explanation for why this bill is here.
This bill has not had a single hearing, not a single hearing on food
safety in this country. All the relevant State agencies oppose the
bill, the State Departments of Agriculture across the country, the
Association of State Food and Drug Officials, the National Conference
of State Legislatures.
Why are we moving a bill through here without a single hearing to
give the people of California and Washington a chance to say we want to
have higher standards than you guys who run FEMA, who run FEMA?
Remember, this is FEMA.
One of the things that we did in Washington State when we had an
earthquake was that the Washington State Department of Agriculture
embargoed the movement of fish products contaminated by ammonia. That
would be outside their ability, unless they went and got a waiver.
Now, why should the people of the State of Washington have to go and
get a waiver from the Federal Government to provide protection for the
people in an emergency? You make it more bureaucratic.
I really find it very hard that anybody in the health care industry
could come out here and want to take away from the Washington State
Department of Agriculture the ability to stop the movement of
contaminated eggs, which were implicated in salmonella. That happened
in Washington. Why would you want to stop the movement of contaminated
foods and improperly labeled products? Why would you want to take that
away from the States?
Oh, because we are going to make it easier for the manufacturers to
slide through whatever they want to slide through. Done. However they
want it done. No one trusts the States suddenly. All these States
righters come out here, and those legislators who sit and listen and
have hearings are ignored.
This is a travesty of the political process that you would bring out
a health safety bill. Listen, we had an epidemic of problems with food
from a company that was making hamburgers. We had a bunch of kids die
in Seattle because they were getting undercooked hamburgers. Now, this
Congress never did anything about it. But they did in the State of
Washington. And if you cannot get this Congress to act on the safety of
hamburgers in the country of McDonalds, you have got a serious problem.
Somebody has got their foot on something someplace. And the people in
the State of Washington ought to have the right to defend themselves
against bad food products.
Now, I listen to Mr. Gingrey, and I understand the debating
technique. If you are going to lose the argument, change the subject.
Why don't we talk about health care out here today? Let us talk about
access to health care and the insurance industry and all the wonderful
things they have done for us instead of talking about food safety. Talk
about food safety. Why shouldn't the State of Washington, that deals
with seafood products, what the heck does anybody in here know from
Kansas or Nebraska or anything else, about what is going on in the
coasts of Washington, Oregon and California? And even if you did know
something about it, you do not allow a hearing process.
That is an insult to the American people, and it has got to be about
some kind of fundraiser or something related to that. I do not know
what it is. Maybe the press will follow it up and see why we have a
bill rifled through here. One hour or 30 minutes before we are going to
get out and go down to Katrina and look at the Katrina catastrophe, we
rifle this bill through here. There is something bad about this bill.
It stinks. It is a bad bill. We ought to vote against the rule and vote
against the bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to respond to the gentleman from Washington. I think he
asked about how many of the supporters, 119 that we have submitted for
the record, were K Street folks. Well, I do not know. I will ask him.
The State of Washington is an apple-producing State. I will just
mention one. Apple Products Research and Education Council, Association
for Dressings and Sauces, Frozen Potato Products Institute. I guess
that is mainly Idaho. We mentioned earlier the H.J. Heinz company.
Maybe we will ask the gentleman on the other side of the Capitol how
they came to the conclusion to support this bill. The National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the National Fisheries Institute, Nestle
USA, Quaker Oats, Sarah Lee Corporation, United Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Association. That has got to be very important in the State
of Washington.
[[Page 2501]]
So I say to the gentleman, I do not know about K Street. I do not
know that I have ever been there. But I know that these are hardworking
people, businesses, small business in many instances, that produce
these consumer food products that are engaged in interstate commerce,
and if we do not have national standards, the price of their products
goes up tremendously. And who does it put the greatest burden on? Those
at the least economic level of our society, our poorest citizens and
our immigrant population. So this is a good bill.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
defeating the previous question so that we may offer a proposal to
ensure that America's ports remain safe.
As we all know, a company owned by the government of the United Arab
Emirates is attempting to purchase another company that runs several
port terminals throughout the United States.
Even though the law requires an extra 45 days to investigate a
contract like this if there is even a chance that it could threaten
national security, the Bush administration chose to approve the deal
without the extra investigation.
The administration approved the deal, even though we now know that a
classified Coast Guard report said the deal might be a security risk.
The President and the UAE company have now voluntarily agreed to an
extra 45-day investigation. But that is no longer good enough. We
simply cannot trust this administration to get it right.
If we defeat the previous question, we will offer a bipartisan bill
that I have introduced along with chairman of the Homeland Security
Committee, Peter King, giving Congress the authority to prohibit the
deal if the President decides to let us go forward when the
investigation is over.
Mr. Speaker, an extra provision has been added to Chairman King's
bill to ensure that congressional leadership cannot prevent Congress
from taking action. The UAE deal is just further proof that we cannot
get our port security right with this administration.
The 9/11 Commission said that the threat to our ports is as great, if
not greater, than the 9/11 attacks.
And how has this administration responded? It has not dedicated
enough personnel and resources to the two programs, CSI and CT-PAT,
that are designed to secure our ports. As a result, high-risk container
shipments enter the U.S. unchecked.
It has not created standards for container security to keep
terrorists from tampering with our cargo. It has only deployed
radiation detectors to equip 25 percent of the Nation's seaports. It
only screens about 6 percent of the cargo that comes into this country.
Mr. Speaker, we have a problem. Our ports are not secure. By
defeating this measure, we will give an opportunity for this Congress
to vote on securing our ports.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the
purpose of closing.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California, our minority leader, Ms. Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, as House Democratic leader, I am pleased to
rise in opposition to this bill in that capacity, and sorry because of
the nature of the rule that we have before us.
But before I get to that point, I want to rise as a mother and
grandmother to say something about the underlying bill that this rule
is addressing. If there is one thing that America's families look to
government for, it is clean air for their children to breathe, clean
water for them to drink, and food safety. When I say one thing, I mean
what their children intake is very important to their health and well-
being.
Today on the floor, we have legislation which seriously jeopardizes
the food safety for America's children. It is a bill that I urge all to
vote against. And the rule that brings that bill to the floor is, in my
view, one that allows us to speak to safety in another way as well.
{time} 1200
Yesterday marked the third anniversary of the Homeland Security
Department. Yet today, 3 years later, our country is not as safe as it
should be. We have a port security system that is full of holes.
The ports are our first line of defense in protecting our country.
Yet the backroom port deal that the Bush administration negotiated
shines a bright light on the failure of the President and this
Republican Congress to secure our ports.
The intelligence community tells us, and we know, that the biggest
threat to our security are the fissile materials that are still out
there, the nuclear materials in the post-Soviet Union world. They were
formerly weapons of the Soviet Union, and now they are out there
available, available to terrorists. And the single biggest threat are
those weapons in a container coming into our country.
I really cannot explain to anyone why this administration has refused
to do what is necessary to protect our ports from that threat.
And it is not only our ports. When these containers come from
overseas to our country, they are unloaded onto a truck, onto a train,
and drive right through your city, your town, perhaps past your home.
So the danger goes well beyond our ports.
Here at home 6 percent of the containers entering our ports are
screened. Yet, at two of the busiest terminals in the world, in Hong
Kong, 100 percent of the terminals are screened. If Hong Kong terminals
can do it, why can't we?
That is why Democrats are proposing that 100 percent of the cargo
that comes into our ports is screened in their port of origin long
before they reach our shores and into our waterways.
Today, as we debate and vote on another issue of security, food
safety, Democrats demand that attention be given to our ports. We will
call for a vote on a bipartisan bill that is identical to the King
bill, the King-Thompson bill, introduced by a Republican and a Democrat
on the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. King, the chairman of the
committee, and Mr. Thompson, the ranking member. It will require a 45-
day investigation of the Dubai deal. In addition, we require that both
Houses of Congress have an up-or-down vote on whether or not to approve
this agreement.
Congress must assert itself. Congress must take responsibility. We
take an oath of office to protect the American people, and we take that
oath seriously.
Today is the day that the backroom port deal will be finalized. This
is our best chance to require a congressional vote on whether or not
that backroom deal should go through.
I urge my colleagues to assert Congress' responsibility to protect
the American people, to assert Congress' role in checks and balances in
our Constitution.
I urge our colleagues to vote against the previous question.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time for the purpose of closing.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so
I can amend the rule and allow the House to approve a plan that lets
Congress vote up or down on the President's plan to turn over six of
our Nation's ports to a government-run company in Dubai.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous
question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, my amendment to the rule would provide that
immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up
legislation to guarantee that the House will
[[Page 2502]]
have the opportunity to vote to block the President from moving forward
with his deal to transfer operations at six of our Nation's busiest
ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.
This legislation is nearly identical to a measure introduced by the
chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee that
requires a thorough, in-depth, 45-day investigation of this contract
followed by a report back to Congress on the results of that
investigation. The only difference is that this bill requires a vote in
the House and Senate to block the agreement if the President decides to
proceed.
The same administration that talks tough on terrorism and protecting
Americans on every front has now negotiated a secret, backroom deal to
turn the management of these vital ports over to a foreign entity. And
it has done so without going through the proper channels as required by
law and without including Congress in the process.
The House must have the opportunity to play a role in this matter of
national security. It is time for the Republican-controlled Congress to
stop giving rubber-stamp approval to this administration at the expense
of our Nation's citizens. This bill is the only way to guarantee that
the House and Senate have the opportunity to vote on the Dubai deal, a
vote that cannot be blocked by the Republican leadership.
Whatever Members believe about this deal and whatever results from
this investigation, the House should be allowed to vote up or down on
whether or not we want to turn control of six of our Nation's ports
over to this foreign-government-owned entity.
I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can bring up legislation that gives Congress the right
to participate and to vote on this matter of significant national
security. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Getting back to the subject at hand, H.R. 4167, I will draw this
debate to a close so that we can move forward with consideration of
H.R. 4167. Without question, this is a common-sense bill that will
ensure not only economic savings for consumers, but it will also
provide additional safeguards for their health. We have heard a lot of
discussion about that this morning in this hour.
Mr. Speaker, all consumers should have the same access to safety
precautions and lifesaving information regardless of the State in which
they live. And, again, whether it is California or Georgia or your own
State of Arkansas, there is no excuse to allow regulatory inconsistency
to drive up costs and keep some consumers in the dark on matters that
will affect their health.
As a physician, I am convinced that the FDA has the scientific
knowledge and professional expertise to provide for these safeguards,
Mr. Speaker. But as an ardent supporter of States' rights, I am
personally reassured by the bill's provisions allowing States the
ability to petition the Food and Drug Administration for either an
exemption to the uniformity or application of their State's
requirements on a national level.
I want to encourage my colleagues to support this rule, to move
forward with the general debate today so that we can come back next
week to further discuss the underlying bill and potential amendments.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me remind all of my colleagues that the
minority wants to offer an amendment that would otherwise be ruled out
of order as nongermane. So the vote is without substance. The previous
question vote itself is simply a procedural motion to close this debate
on the rule and proceed to a vote on its adoption. The vote has no
substantive policy implications whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, at this point in the Record I insert an explanation of
the previous question.
The Previous Question Vote: What Does It Mean?
House Rule XIX (``Previous Question'') provides in part
that:
There shall be a motion for the previous question, which,
being ordered, shall have the effect of cutting off all
debate and bringing the House to a direct vote on the
immediate question or questions on which it has been ordered.
In the case of a special rule or order of business
resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing
for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the
previous question is moved following the 1 hour of debate
allowed for under House Rules.
The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural
vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting
the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and
amendment on the legislation it would make in order.
Therefore, the previous question has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Matsui is as follows:
At the end of the resolution add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House a bill consisting of the text
specified in Section 3. The bill shall be considered as read
for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. The text referred to in section 2 is as follows:
H.R.--
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 ``Foreign Investment Security
Improvement Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. INVESTIGATION UNDER DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT OF 1950.
(a) Investigation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the President or the President's designee shall conduct
an investigation, under section 721(b) of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(b)), of the
acquisition by Dubai Ports World, an entity owned or
controlled by the Emirate of Dubai, of the Peninsular and
Oriental Steam Navigation Company, a company that is a
national of the United Kingdom, with respect to which written
notification was submitted to the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States on December 15, 2005. Such
investigation shall be completed not later than 45 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Suspension of existing decision.--The President shall
suspend any decision by the President or the President's
designee pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) with respect to the
acquisition described in paragraph (1) that was made before
the completion of the investigation described in paragraph
(1), including any such decision made before the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(b) Requirements for Investigation.--The investigation
under subsection (a) shall include--
(1) a review of foreign port assessments conducted under
section 70108 of title 46, United States Code, of ports at
which Dubai Ports World carries out operations;
(2) background checks of appropriate officers and security
personnel of Dubai Ports World;
(3) an evaluation of the impact on port security in the
United States by reason of control by Dubai Ports World of
operations at the United States ports affected by the
acquisition described in subsection (a); and
(4) an evaluation of the impact on the national security of
the United States by reason of control by Dubai Ports World
of operations at the United States ports affected by the
acquisition described in subsection (a), to be carried out in
consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard, the Commissioner of the Bureau
of Customs and Border Protection, the heads of other relevant
Federal departments and agencies, and relevant State and
local officials responsible for port security at such United
States ports.
(c) Responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland
Security.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
provide the following information for the investigation
conducted pursuant to this section:
(A) Any relevant information on Dubai Ports World from the
Automated Targeting System maintained by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
(B) Port assessments at foreign seaports where Dubai Ports
World operates, to be conducted as part of the review for the
Container Security Initiative, a U.S. Customs and Border
Protection program designed to target and screen cargo at
overseas ports.
[[Page 2503]]
(C) Copies of the completed validations conducted through
the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program by
U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
(D) Any additional intelligence information held by the
Department of Homeland Security, including the Office of
Intelligence and Analysis.
(2) Additional responsibilities.--The information required
by paragraph (1) shall not be construed as limiting the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Homeland Security in the
investigation conducted pursuant to this section.
(d) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date on which
the investigation conducted pursuant to this section is
completed, the President shall submit to Congress a report
that--
(1) contains the findings of the investigation, including--
(A) an analysis of the national security concerns reviewed
under the investigation; and
(B) a description of any assurances provided to the Federal
Government by the applicant and the effect of such assurances
on the national security of the United States; and
(2) contains the determination of the President of whether
or not the President will take action under section 721(d) of
the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d))
pursuant to the investigation.
(e) Congressional Briefing.--
(1) In general.--Not later than the date on which the
report described in subsection (d) is submitted to Congress
pursuant to such subsection, the President or the President's
designee shall provide to the Members of Congress specified
in paragraph (2) a detailed briefing on the contents of the
report.
(2) Members of congress.--The Members of Congress specified
in this paragraph are the following:
(A) The Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate.
(B) The Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives.
(C) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, the Committee on
Finance, and the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs of the Senate.
(D) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on
Financial Services, the Committee on Homeland Security, and
the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives.
(E) Each Member of Congress who represents a State or
district in which a United States port affected by the
acquisition described in subsection (a) is located.
SEC. 3. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION.
(a) In General.--If the determination of the President
contained in the report submitted to Congress pursuant to
section 2(c) of this Act is that the President will not take
action under section 721(d) of the Defense Production Act of
1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170(d)) and not later than 30 days
after the date on which Congress receives the report, a joint
resolution described in subsection (b) is enacted into law,
then the President shall take such action under section
721(d) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 as is necessary
to prohibit the acquisition described in section 2(a),
including, if such acquisition has been completed, directing
the Attorney General to seek divestment or other appropriate
relief in the district courts of the United States.
(b) Joint Resolution Described.--For purposes of subsection
(a), the term ``joint resolution'' means a joint resolution
of the Congress, which may not include a preamble, the sole
matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows:
``That the Congress disapproves the determination of the
President contained in the report submitted to Congress
pursuant to section 2(c) of the Foreign Investment Security
Improvement Act of 2006 on ______.'', with the blank space
being filled with the appropriate date.
(c) Computation of Review Period.--In computing the 30-day
period referred to in subsection (a), there shall be excluded
any day described in section 154(b) of the Trade Act of 1974
(19 U.S.C. 2194(b)).
(d) Congressional Procedure.--
(1) Introduction, referral, and committee consideration.--
Any joint resolution introduced pursuant to this section
shall be immediately referred to one committee of the House
of Representatives or the Senate, as the case may be, and
such committee shall report one such resolution, without
amendment, not later than three calendar days after the day
on which the first such resolution is referred to such
committee. If such committee does not report such resolution
within the time period specified in the preceding sentence,
such committee shall be discharged from further consideration
of such resolution.
(2) Floor consideration.--After any such joint resolution
is reported or such committee is discharged, on the next
legislative day, the House in question shall immediately,
without the intervention of any point of order or intervening
motion, consider the joint resolution as follows:
(A) House of representatives.--In the House of
Representatives, the joint resolution shall be considered as
read, and the previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the joint resolution to final passage without
intervening motion except one hour of debate equally divided
and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their
designees.
(B) Senate.--In the Senate, it shall at any time be in
order (even though a previous motion to the same effect has
been disagreed to) for any Member of the Senate to move to
proceed to the consideration of such joint resolution. Such
motion shall be highly privileged and shall not be debatable.
Such motion shall not be subject to amendment, to a motion to
postpone, or to a motion to proceed to the consideration of
other business. A motion to reconsider the vote by which such
motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall not be in order. If
a motion to proceed to the consideration of such resolution
is agreed to, such resolution shall remain the unfinished
business of the Senate until disposed of. Debate on such
joint resolution, and on all debatable motions and appeals in
connection with such resolution, shall be limited to not more
than 10 hours, which shall be divided equally between Members
favoring and Members opposing such resolution. Immediately
following the conclusion of the debate on a such joint
resolution, and a single quorum call at the conclusion of
such debate if requested in accordance with the rules of the
Senate, the vote on final approval of such joint resolution
shall occur. Appeals from the decisions of the Chair relating
to the application of the rules of the Senate to the
procedure relating to such joint resolution shall be decided
without debate.
(3) Consideration by other house.--If, before the passage
by one House of a joint resolution of that House described in
subsection (b), that House receives from the other House a
joint resolution described in subsection (b), then the
following procedures shall apply:
(A) The joint resolution of the other House shall not be
referred to a committee.
(B) With respect to a joint resolution described in
subsection (b) of the House receiving the joint resolution--
(i) the procedure in that House shall be the same as if no
joint resolution had been received from the other House; but
(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on the joint
resolution of the other House.
(e) Rules of the House of Representatives and Senate.--This
section is enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of
the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively,
and as such these provisions--
(1) are deemed a part of the rules of each House,
respectively, but applicable only with respect to the
procedure to be followed in that House in the case of joint
resolutions described in subsection (b) of this section;
(2) supersede other rules of each House only to the extent
the provisions are inconsistent therewith; and
(3) are enacted with full recognition of the constitutional
right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating
to the procedure of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as in the case of any other
rule of that House.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216,
nays 197, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 18]
YEAS--216
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
[[Page 2504]]
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
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
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
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
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--197
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
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)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
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
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--19
Bono
Burton (IN)
Costa
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Evans
Gohmert
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Issa
Istook
Jones (OH)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Norwood
Roybal-Allard
Sweeney
Terry
{time} 1234
Messrs. RUSH, PETERSON of Minnesota, CRAMER, VISCLOSKY, LARSEN of
Washington, MARSHALL, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Thursday, March 2, 2006,
because of a recent death in the family.
Had I been present on rollcall vote No. 18 on the Previous Question
on the General Debate Rule for H.R. 4167, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, due to illness I was regrettably
unable to be on the House Floor for rollcall vote No. 18, providing for
the consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National Uniformity for Food
Act.''
Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 18.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and could not be
present for rollcall vote No. 18. Had I been present I would have cast
the following vote: ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 18.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Buyer was allowed to speak out of order.)
Moment of Silence in Memory of Sergeant Rickey E. Jones
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House to address a national
virtue, to address the proper tone and tenor of a Nation. It is
outrageous, appalling and indecent for an American citizen to commit
crimes and perversions against a family grieving at the loss of their
son.
Army Sergeant Rickey Jones, along with three of his comrades, was
killed in Baghdad. With his body in transport to Kokomo, Indiana,
someone has egged his family's home and left harassing phone calls that
said, ``I'm glad your son is dead.''
My colleagues, a great virtue of the American character is our
compassion. It is how we care for each other in good times and in
difficult times.
It is our compassion and human decency that represent the very best
of our Nation. So to condemn these despicable acts, I ask all of you to
rise and join me in a moment of silence to extend to all families who
have sacrificed in the name of freedom.
Thank you and Godspeed.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boozman). Without objection, 5-minute
voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I will yield to my friend, Mr. Boehner, for
the purposes of informing us of the schedule.
Mr. BOEHNER. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Next week, Mr. Speaker, the House will convene on Tuesday at 12:30
for morning hour, and at 2 o'clock for legislative business. We will
take up several measures under suspension of the rules. A final list of
those bills will be sent to Members' offices by the end of the week.
Any votes that are called on those measures will be rolled until 6:30.
On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will finish consideration of
H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.
Finally, we will consider H.R. 2829, the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2005. The committees are
continuing their excellent and hard work to develop this bill to
reauthorize laws to combat drug trafficking. The Government Reform
Committee has completed its action, and we expect the Judiciary
Committee will complete its work today.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that
information.
Mr. Leader, as you know, we have been considering the rule for the
food labeling bill. It is my understanding we are going to be limited
to general debate.
It is also my understanding that the reason we are not completing the
bill is the Rules Committee has had some issues with reference to
exactly the way in which we are going to consider the bill and the
amendments.
Mr. Leader, as you know, this bill has had no hearings. None. As you
further know, there are States who are
[[Page 2505]]
very concerned. As a matter of fact, I think I have gotten a letter
indicating there are 36 attorneys general around the country,
Republican and Democrat, who have concerns with this bill.
Mr. Leader, I would hope that the leadership on your side would
convey to the Rules Committee the necessity to have, A, open debate,
and hopefully, as well, significant possibility of amendment.
I do not know whether it would be an open rule or certainly, I
hesitate to use this word, but a liberal rule which will allow
significant amendments to be considered by this House, again, in light
of the fact that it has had no hearings whatsoever as it comes to this
floor.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is probably aware, this
bill has been around for many, many years. There has been lots of
discussion and debate about this bill. It did come out of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
The reason for the split rule is because there are a significant
number of Members going to the gulf coast this afternoon to review the
recovery, and we knew we would only get through the general debate
today.
The Rules Committee is expected to meet and to finalize the rule.
Those discussions about what the rule will look like and the number of
amendments and the type of amendments is continuing.
But I clearly understand the interest of my colleague from Maryland
for a more open rather than a more closed process.
Mr. HOYER. That word will do if it becomes realty. We appreciate your
comments, Mr. Leader.
The PATRIOT Act, that was supposed to be on the calendar, we thought,
this week. It is not on the calendar. I see you have not mentioned it
in the work for next week.
Can you tell me whether we expect it to come before us next week as a
suspension bill or under a rule?
Mr. BOEHNER. We thought that we would have the bill up yesterday
because the Senate was contemplating action yesterday morning. The
expiration date of the temporary extension of the PATRIOT Act is soon
to expire.
We expect that the Senate will take this bill up tomorrow. If, in
fact, that is the case, it will be brought up on Tuesday under the
suspension calendar.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for that comment. Let me move on, if
I can, to the budget resolution.
Can you give us a sense at this point in time of the timing of the
budget resolution? We know that there have been some concerns raised in
the other body; obviously, some concerns raised here. We understand
that it was the intention to bring that up prior to the St. Patrick's
Day recess.
Can you tell me whether that is still the intent and when we might
expect to see that bill on the floor?
{time} 1245
Mr. BOEHNER. That was a rumor that was floating around. We expect
that the budget resolution will move sometime soon. Whether it happens
next week or the week after is still up for discussion. When we get
closer to having a firm plan for moving it, you will be the first to
know.
Mr. HOYER. Well, that will be a first, if I am the first to know.
Mr. BOEHNER. Once I know.
Mr. HOYER. This is a new era in which we are moving, and I cannot
tell you how excited I am about that.
Mr. BOEHNER. I can tell.
Mr. HOYER. And how I stand here in anticipation of that fact. If the
leader does not mind, I will hold him to that.
Mr. BOEHNER. I will do my best.
Mr. HOYER. Thank you, sir.
On the supplemental appropriation, we know that the President has
made a request. Can you tell us when the supplemental appropriation
might be considered?
Mr. BOEHNER. In discussions with Chairman Lewis of the Appropriations
Committee, there is a lot of work being done, hearings scheduled.
Again, I do not think we have a firm timetable for moving the
supplemental, but over the next week or so I think we will have a much
better idea. And I will be glad to inform you as soon as I know.
Mr. HOYER. I see there is not a representation, however, that I will
be the first to know on this one.
Mr. BOEHNER. I am protecting myself.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate that.
Last, these are all important and while we are being humorous to some
degree about when we know about these, clearly we have a lot of
important business to do, and we are now going into the third month of
the year. Can you tell us what your expectations are on the tax
reconciliation conference report? Obviously, that was a very
contentious bill as it passed out of the House as you know, Mr. Leader;
and we would like to be prepared for that bill when it comes back, when
the conference committee comes back to the House.
Mr. BOEHNER. The tax reconciliation bill is in conference. I know
there have been some discussions. From my standpoint, I would rather
have that conference report sooner rather than later. But I have not
had any indication from Chairman Thomas that it is imminent; and
secondly, it is important for the House to go to conference with the
Senate on the pension bill. We are approaching a very critical deadline
on the interest rate used to calculate the obligations of a defined
benefit pension plan that expired at the end of the year. That interest
rate needs to be reset in the large pension overhaul bill. I have got
to tell you that we are waiting on Senate action. Because there are tax
provisions in it, they have to take up the House bill. I suspect they
will reject the House bill and go to conference. But it is important
for us to get into conference on the pension bill and action is going
to be required rather quickly. I do expect the tax reconciliation bill,
over the next couple of weeks, I would hope that they will be finished.
Mr. HOYER. I appreciate the leader's information.
Again, in closing, I would ask the leader if he would use his good
offices on the food bill because there is substantial controversy
around the country, as well as on the House floor, on that bill to
provide for as full a consideration and amendatory process as possible.
I appreciate the leader's attention to that.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. 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 H.R. 4167.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Price of Georgia). Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
NATIONAL UNIFORMITY FOR FOOD ACT OF 2005
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 702 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4167.
{time} 1250
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
provide for uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Boozman in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, the National
Uniformity
[[Page 2506]]
for Food Act. The manufacturing and distribution of the things we eat
and drink is now a national industry. Coca-Cola, which is based in my
home State in Atlanta, Georgia, for instance, is shipped to every
corner of the country and throughout the world. Many believe that it is
just common sense for these types of food manufacturers and
distributors to have one labeling standard for the country, not 50
standards for 50 States.
More importantly, in order to make informed choices, consumers need
consistent information. When a food warning is supported by science and
consumers need to know it, the same warning should be applied to food
everywhere. H.R. 4167 achieves that result.
With a mobile society, inconsistent warning requirements are
guaranteed to confuse. When it is a matter of health and safety, a
little confusion can have catastrophic effects.
A person in North Augusta, South Carolina, for example, can walk into
a store and buy a product with no warning label. The same person could
walk across the street to a store in Augusta, Georgia, and buy the same
product but have a warning label attached. Does this make any sense? Of
course not. It does not make any more sense to the shopper than it
makes here in the House today.
When people need to be warned that a food product may hurt them,
everyone needs to be warned. Uniformity in food regulation and labeling
is not without precedent. Meat and poultry are regulated under uniform
standards. The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires
uniform nutrition labeling. If consistency in nutrition labeling is
warranted, consumers should certainly have the benefit of consistency
in warning labels of the food they eat.
Some have rightfully argued that State-specific circumstances might
necessitate a warning unique only to their State. This bill
acknowledges that fact by inviting States to assert their unique
problems and ensure that they will get a fair and fast response from
the Food and Drug Administration.
I would also like to dispel some of the misinformation that opponents
of the bill have been perpetuating. In no way will this bill hinder the
ability of States to respond to public emergencies. If a State feels
there is an imminent public health threat that must be protected by
requiring manufacturers and distributors to put a warning label on
their product, they can do it immediately. All this bill requires is
they tell the FDA of the threat. That is something they should be doing
anyway and in most cases are already doing.
Additionally, this bill does not affect a State's ability to issue
its own notification to the public, to embargo a product, or to issue
recalls when they deem that necessary.
Finally, this is mostly a question about food safety, but there is a
broad economic aspect to it too. Making consumers deal with 50
different labeling requirements is not without cost. In effect, it
divides America into 50 different markets where each of the products
cost the consumer just a little more to buy.
The men who wrote our Constitution decided that letting each State
wage trade wars with its neighbors was a terrible idea, so they
outlawed it by putting the Federal Government in charge of interstate
commerce. It is hard to see the Framers changing their minds today so
that one big market for American food can revert to 50 little markets
where consumers pay more and get less.
Consistent requirements will lead to consistent results for those who
make our food, and consistent information will lead to consistently
better and safer choice for our consumers.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4167.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
legislation.
This is the second Congress in which this bill has been approved by
the House Energy and Commerce Committee without the benefit of a
hearing.
Committee approval of a bill with universal support is one thing. But
this bill does not enjoy universal support and raises serious questions
about States' rights and national security. Had we been given the
benefit of a hearing, we could have learned more about the National
Association of Attorneys General's opposition. We could have learned
about the elements of the bill that led the Association of Food and
Drug officials to conclude that this bill would ``handcuff the first
responders who deal with food safety issues every day.''
Legislation that causes this degree of concern should not be pushed
through committee and brought to the floor without the benefit of a
hearing.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is an affront to States' rights. In each of
the 50 States, State legislatures have passed food safety laws that
offer residents additional food safety protections than federal law
provides.
This sweeping legislation would eliminate those State laws. It does
so in two ways.
First, the bill preempts all existing State-mandated food safety
warnings.
Second, it eliminates all State food safety laws that are not
identical to federal law.
In the name of food uniformity, this bill will actually disrupt State
food safety enforcement activities and hinder States' ability to
protect residents from unsafe foods.
The bill also would prevent State and local governments from warning
residents about the presence of contaminants in local food.
In my State of Texas, this bill would nullify laws protecting Texans
from unsafe food and color additives. It would have the same effect on
nearly 200 laws in each of the 50 States. Jurisdiction for food safety
activities has long resided with the States, which conduct 80 percent
of all food safety inspections.
This bill also has serious implications to national security.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture--which
opposes this bill--has highlighted the role that the current food
safety system plays in national security, saying that it ``forms the
first line of defense against the growing threat of a terrorist attack
against our nation's food supply.''
According to the State Agriculture Departments, the preemption
provisions of this bill ``would leave a critical gap in the safety net
that protects consumers.''
I encourage my colleagues to protect consumers, stand up for States'
rights, and ensure the security of our Nation.
Oppose this misguided bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, today the House takes up legislation that would
overturn 200 State laws that protect our food supply. Some of them are
in labeling and some actually deal with the substance of what can be in
food in the State.
A year ago, the House passed legislation to try to dictate private
end-of-life decisions of Terry Schiavo and her family. This intrusion
of the Federal Government into personal decisions was, I think,
universally condemned, and yet today the House is once again trying to
usurp powers that do not belong in Washington.
Why are they doing it? Because some special interests want to
overturn State laws that they never liked. The only difference is that
it is the authority of State and local governments to protect against
food-borne hazards that is now under assault.
In California, for example, we have candies that come in from Mexico
that have lead in them. So our legislature passed a law regulating lead
in candy. It is a sensible idea. Lead can cause brain damage to
children. Yet the authors of this bill that is before us today, without
holding any hearings, want to preempt that law.
Now, their argument is, well, we ought to have a Federal law that
does the same thing. If we ought to have a Federal law to do the same
thing, why has the Federal Government not done that? The Federal
Government has not been involved in these areas. They have been in the
area of State control.
In Maine there is a law that requires consumers to be warned about
the dangers of eating smoked alewives. This is not a problem in
California, but apparently it is one in Maine. Yet again it would be
preempted.
I could go on and on. Wisconsin knows a lot about cheese. It has
special
[[Page 2507]]
labeling requirements for cheese. Florida has special labeling
requirements for citrus. Mississippi and Louisiana have special rules
for differentiating farm-bred from wild catfish, and Alaska has similar
rules for salmon. Ten coastal States have special laws protecting their
residents from contaminated shell fish, and all 50 States have laws
ensuring the safety of milk. And all of them would be preempted.
The arrogance of the House of Representatives appears to know no
bounds. The attitude seems to be that all knowledge resides in
Washington and all power should as well.
This is dangerous legislation. I know the proponents are going to say
to you, well, they can appeal to the Food and Drug Administration to
allow them at the State level to continue with their laws. Can you
imagine that? The States, the sovereign States of this country, have to
go hat in hand to a Federal bureaucracy to allow them to continue laws
that their people accepted, passed under their rules, the State
legislature and the Governors, to protect their population?
The FDA cannot protect the food supply all by itself. The agency is
underfunded and overworked, and it is failing even at the core mission
of protecting consumers from dangerous drugs.
You do not have to take my word for it. Just yesterday, 37 State
Attorneys General, Republicans and Democrats, sent a letter to Congress
opposing this radical legislation. They stated: ``We write to urge you
to oppose the National Uniformity For Food Act which undercuts States'
rights and consumer protection.'' And they go on to say: ``State and
local governments are often the first line of defense when problems
emerge. Prohibiting State and local leadership and action in this area
is a serious mistake.''
{time} 1300
We have also had opposition from the National Association of the
State Departments of Agriculture and the Association of the Food and
Drug Officials. These food safety experts know that passage of this
legislation would create havoc and endanger families.
For years, I have heard my Republicans say, let us allow the States
to do what they need to do to protect their people. I agree with them.
Do not bring everything to Washington.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) who is the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman and I
want to thank our 59 Democrat cosponsors. I want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Towns) and the chairmen, Chairman Barton and
Chairman Deal, for the work that they have done on this very important
piece of legislation.
I will say today that you will see great political theater, and I
have the greatest respect for the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) and normally the great substantive debate that is put forth,
but what we are going to see today are a lot of half-truths, or no
truths at all or not even getting close to what this bill really does.
If you truly care about the health of the pregnant woman who is
driving from Michigan to Florida to Illinois to meet family members all
through that journey, then when she goes to that store to pick out some
food, the label for her safety and the safety of her child ought to be
the same. It should not be any different, the science that says that
Illinois ought to label a safety provision in food; I cannot think of
anything more important than the safety of our food ought to be the
same.
Because you know what? Science in California or science in Alaska or
science in Florida is no different. The periodic tables are the same in
Michigan as they are in Florida, as they are in Maine, as they are in
New York. If it rises to that level where somebody with good science
and scientists who care passionately about the safety of food and what
we put in our bodies, to say we better tell people about this safety
hazard, if it is good enough for one State's children, it is good
enough for 50 States' children.
Matter of fact, one of the examples that my good friend mentioned
about the Florida citrus example is not preemptive because it has
nothing to do with food safety. You are going to hear this again and
again and again today, that we are somehow doing something awful and
not letting them protect their citizens. That simply is not true.
Matter of fact, if they have a standard based on good science that
says, hey, we think that this food ought to have this warning label,
then come to the FDA, show us the science, so we can share it with the
rest of the country. Is that not the right thing to do? Do you not want
to protect the children of all our 50 States? Absolutely you do.
So I will say to you, let us subside with the political theater, the
half-truths, the scare tactics and say we are going to embrace what we
know is the right thing to do, a single standard. It is very much a
common-sense issue. You are not going to find any family in America who
thinks we ought to have 50 States and 50 different organizations trying
to determine what is safe in our food and what is not.
The same way we do with nutritional labeling, we went through and
said the Federal Government better set some standards if we are going
to have a consistency in all 50 States. It was widely supported, as
this bill is bipartisanly supported.
We said, hey, we better set an organic standard so we can tell all of
America that we have got one standard that rises to the ability to
label it as organic. Today, we are saying food safety rises to that
same level. Every American, every mother, understands it. I am sure my
colleagues on the other side will as well.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If the Federal Government wanted one uniform standard and wanted to
preempt the States from different standards, they could do it. They
could do it, but what this bill would do is to preempt the States from
even going forward on their own initiative to look at problems and have
a standard or label in their State.
The problem has never been demonstrated that there is an issue where
there are too many State differences. The problem is that the Federal
Government has not been involved in this area. So if we can get the
States out of it and the Federal Government out of it, then processors
can just sell their food and not worry about having to meet any
standard anywhere.
In California, we have a law that says you must designate if some
harmful substance is in food. The consequence of that warning label
means that the food producers make sure they do not have to put a
warning label on because they get rid of any toxic substance that might
be in their product. That is a good result of that requirement. It
would be preempted by this law.
Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo), my colleague and a very important member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Ms. ESHOO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman), my distinguished colleague, for not only his eloquence on this
bill but all the work that he has done on public health issues and
health in general for the people of our country.
I rise to oppose this bill, and I do because I believe it is an
assault on public health and consumer protection. It is no wonder there
has never been a hearing on this bill in the last 8 years.
So this is not about theater. This is not, as the gentleman who
introduced the bill said a few moments ago, about theater and
deception. This is a very, very serious debate, and it is a debate that
should have been taking place in a public hearing, in a hearing of our
committee; and it has not. I think that that in and of itself is an
assault on the American people. It is disrespectful.
The bill will preempt any State or local food safety law that is not
identical to a Federal law, and we do not have those Federal laws. So
it will absolutely leave a void. Is the majority
[[Page 2508]]
saying here that they are set to put into place, if this bill passes,
God forbid, that they are going to place on the Federal books, 200
Federal laws in a nanosecond? I do not think so.
Under this bill, the FDA will have to approve any food safety law
that is at variance with Federal policy, and according to the CBO, the
bill will preempt an estimated 200 State and local laws dealing with
food safety. Absolutely, preempt them, right away, 200 State and local
laws.
It is going to cost the FDA $100 million over the next 5 years to
process petitions from States seeking to retain these laws. There is
simply no credible public health justification for the extraordinary
steps that this bill takes.
The attorney general of California has weighed in against the bill. I
insert this memorandum to the California delegation as part of the
Record at this point.
MEMORANDUM
February 10, 2006.
To: Honorable Members of the California Congressional
Delegation
From: California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer
Re Opposition to H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Foods
Act of 2005.
H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Foods Act of 2005,
endangers important public health protections California law
provides its citizens. As the measure moves toward a possible
vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, I wanted
to make sure members of the California delegation fully
understand this threat, and urge you to oppose the bill.
Perhaps the proponents did not make clear the extent to which
H.R. 4167 would deprive Californians of the particular
benefits of Proposition 65. This landmark law was passed by
63 percent of the voters, and it has reduced Californian's
exposure to toxic chemicals in food.
1. Scope of the Bill
The dramatic sweep of this bill may not have been made
apparent:
It would forbid any state from requiring any form of health
disclosure for a food, even where the FDA has no requirement
in place for a given food, and is not even considering a
requirement. This prohibition would even bar warnings posted
in stores within a single state, and which therefore have no
effect on interstate commerce, other states or a
manufacturer's nationwide product label. (Proposed 2(b)(2).)
It apparently would bar states from limiting toxic
chemicals in a food simply because the FDA has a general rule
barring foods that are ``injurious to health,'' even where
the FDA has not set any exposure standard for specific toxic
chemical states may want to regulate. (Proposed 2(a)(3).)
It would remove the incentive that currently exists for
food companies to reduce toxic chemicals in food products to
below the level that requires a warning under Proposition 65.
2. Examples of Benefits of State Regulation
There are many examples of how Proposition 65 has
benefitted Californians. An excellent case in point is the
recent effort by my office, the Legislature and Governor
Schwarzenegger to address the issue of lead in imported
Mexican candies. These candies are extremely popular with
millions of Californians, especially our large Latino
population. But they have garnered little attention from
federal regulators in Washington, D.C. For years, FDA has set
an allowable lead level in these candies of 0.5 parts per
million. That standard, uniformly recognized by public health
officials as too lax, allows approximately 20 times more lead
in a piece of candy than Proposition 65 permits. Lead damages
the developing fetus, and impairs nervous system development
ill young children. A 2003 article in the New England Journal
of Medicine concluded that levels of lead previously
considered safe, actually caused a significant reduction of
children's IQ. Thus, what may in the past have been
considered a ``trace amount'' posing no real risk now is
known to damage health.
Despite numerous press stories showing these candies'
adverse health effects on children in the local Latino
population, FDA took only limited action to enforce its own
alarmingly lax standard. As a result, in June 2004, my office
filed an action under Proposition 65 which will force Mexican
style candy manufacturers to reduce to safe levels the lead
in their candies. In addition, last year the Legislature
passed and the Governor signed Assembly Bi11 121, which
prohibits the sale of adulterated candy containing lead,
imposes fines for the sale of such candy and directs the
state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment to set
a regulatory level allowing only ``naturally occurring'' lead
to be present in candy.
H.R. 4167 would preempt Assembly Bill 121, simply because
FDA has a more lax, and largely unenforced, lead standard.
Additionally, H.R. 4167 would preempt Proposition 65's
warning requirement because it is a non-uniform disclosure.
The bill would preempt another important use of Proposition
65--my vigorous efforts to assure that parents and women of
childbearing age are aware of the risks to unborn babies and
their small children from consuming too much fish with high
levels of mercury. This effort is largely consistent with the
FDA's own policies. The FDA website warns that women who are
pregnant or may become pregnant should not consume certain
types of fish (such as swordfish and shark), and should limit
consumption of all types of fish, because of their mercury
content. California has given life to this requirement by
requiring that similar information be posted in grocery
stores that sell fresh fish and restaurants that serve fish.
At least six other states have instituted similar public
disclosure requirements concerning mercury in fish. We
recently completed the evidence phase of a trial concerning
warnings for canned tuna. We believe such warnings can be
provided in a manner that will not conflict with FDA's
advice, but will ensure the advice is seen by more consumers
of fish than FDA's website. H.R. 4167 would preempt this
disclosure requirement.
In addition, even well established and successful uses of
Proposition 65 could no longer be enforced, unless approved
by the FDA. For example:
Lead in ceramic tableware: Based on a 1991 action by then
Attorney General Dan Lungren, industry agreed to
substantially reduce lead that leaches from ceramic tableware
into food and beverages. Manufacturers took that step because
of the marketplace incentive created by the duty to post
conspicuous point-of-sale warnings. While warnings initially
were common, most companies have reduced lead levels to
substantially below FDA requirements.
Lead in calcium supplements: In June of 1997, California
reached agreement with makers of calcium supplements to
reduce levels of lead contamination in their products below
the level at which a warning would be required under
Proposition 65. Because of the importance of encouraging
women to increase their intake of calcium, this agreement was
negotiated without ever providing a consumer warning.
Meanwhile, FDA issued advisories concerning some sources of
calcium as early as 1982, and requested additional data in
1994. But it never has taken regulatory action.
Arsenic in Bottled Water: Arsenic in bottled water has been
reduced to less than 5 parts per billion under the settlement
of a Proposition 65 action reached in 2000. FDA, in contrast,
still applies a standard of 50 parts per billion.
Leaded crystal: Based on science showing that substantial
quantities of lead leach from fully-leaded crystal (defined
as 24 percent lead) into beverages, California took action to
require visible warnings at the point of sale in California,
as early as September of 1991. Leaded crystal--as
distinguished from other types of glassware--now carries
prominent warnings in California stores. Since 1991, FDA
never has publicized its advisory addressing this hazard in a
manner likely to be seen or read by consumers.
In other instances, quiet compliance with Proposition 65
has produced public health benefits without litigation. Lead
soldered cans leach substantial amounts of lead into foods
stored in the cans. As soon as Proposition 65 took effect in
early 1988, our investigations found that food processors
were switching to cans that do not use lead, before
enforcement action was even necessary. In 1993, years after
Proposition 65 took effect, FDA issued ``emergency'' action
level. Similarly, potassium bromate is a listed carcinogen
under Proposition 65. Informal surveys in 2002 of stores in
Ca1ifornia found no bread containing potassium bromate for
sale. And the 2002 surveys found stores in other states sold
bread containing potassium bromate. Meanwhile, FDA remains
engaged in a multi-year process to encourage bakers to stop
using this additive.
I recognize many have expressed concern about certain
enforcement activities of Proposition 65 by private parties.
That is why my office and the California Legislature have
taken vigorous action to ensure that private lawsuits brought
under Proposition 65 are pursued only in the public interest.
In 1999, the Legislature amended the statute to require that
private plaintiffs report to the Attorney General concerning
their enforcement activities. In 2001, I sponsored additional
legislation that requires all persons who want to bring
private Proposition 65 cases seeking consumer warnings to
first provide my office with appropriate scientific
documentation. That statute also requires that all
settlements of those cases be reviewed by my office and
approved by courts in a public proceeding under specific
legal standards. These actions by the state have curbed
questionable lawsuits filed by private litigants, and reduced
the number of settlements that are not in the public
interest.
I am aware that many in the food industry have expressed
great concern over the chemical acrylamide, its presence in
many foods, and the potential application of Proposition 65
to those foods. The FDA has been considering this issue since
2002, and currently has no schedule for when, or whether, it
will take any action concerning the matter. In the meantime,
a single serving of french fries contains 80 times the amount
of acrylamide EPA allows in drinking water. Accordingly, I
have filed suit under Proposition 65
[[Page 2509]]
to require warnings for acrylamide in french fries and potato
chips, so that people in California can make their own
choices about their exposure to this chemical. This suit
would not ban any products or require that warnings be
provided in any other state. It would, however, provide
Californians the health information they demanded in passing
Proposition 65.
3. Petition Process
While H.R. 4167 would allow states to petition FDA for
authority to impose additional requirements, it is
inappropriate to require a state to seek the federal
government's permission to protect the health of its
citizens. Moreover, our past experience suggests the FDA
would deny any such petition.
Further, the specific provisions of the petition process
raise concerns. Initlal1y, states would have six months to
petition FDA for approval of existing requirements applicable
to specific foods, during which time those requirements would
remain in effect until disapproved by the FDA. (Proposed
Sec. 403B(b).) While the bill provides for judicial review of
FDA's decision, it does not establish the standard by which
any denial of a petition would be judged. The lack of a
review standard would leave FDA potentially limited
discretion to arbitrarily strike down state requirements.
(Proposed Sec. 403B(b)(3)(C)(ii)(I).)
Any general requirement such as Proposition 65 itself--and
any new requirement, could be adopted only after approval by
FDA. The FDA could delay that process indefinitely through
extension of the ``public comment period.'' (Proposed New
Sec. 403B(c)(1), (3)(B).) Thus, it appears that any time a
state official sought to apply an existing law to a food
product where no specific requirement for that food had been
set, enforcement of the law would be barred until and unless
the FDA granted its permission.
Indeed, H.R 4167's petitioning scheme brings to mind one of
the grievances against distant British authority recorded in
the Declaration of Independence. ``He has forbidden his
governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance,
unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be
obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.'' (Declaration of Independence, 4th
paragraph.)
4. Need for National Uniformity
In a few instances, legitimate reasons exist for national
uniformity in food labeling and standards. These
circumstances, however, already are addressed under current
federal law, which. also prohibits states from adopting
requirements that conflict with properly adopted and
necessary federal labeling requirements.
Existing section 403A of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act expressly precludes state laws mandating label
requirements for a wide variety of matters on which the FDA
has acted and uniformity is necessary. This preemption covers
standards of identity, use of the term ``imitation,''
identification of the weight of the product and its
manufacturer, the presence of food allergens, and whether the
product is pasteurized.
Other federal regulatory statutes that govern nationwide
industries, such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), adopt a much more limited approach.
FIFRA, for example, preempts only state warning requirements
that would appear on the nationwide label of the product. It
also allows each state to adopt more restrictive requirements
for use of pesticides within that state.
Even where Congress has not expressly preempted state law,
courts uniformly have held that state law must give way to
federal requirements where the two are in ``actual and
irreconcilable conflict.'' The California Supreme Court
applied that requirement in Dowhall v. SmithKlineBeecham
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 910.) This doctrine sufficiently ensures
state regulations do not interfere with properly adopted
federal requirements.
In fact, FDA officials have demonstrated a disturbing
tendency to manufacture ``conflicts'' in their desire to
preclude states from enforcing their own laws to protect
public health. FDA officials arbitrarily declare
``misbranded'' products for which additional warnings would
be given, without even consulting state authorities. For
example, last August, the FDA, at the behest of a Washington,
D.C. law firm, sent me a letter asserting that state warning
requirements concerning mercury in canned tuna conflicted
with federal law. The FDA sent this letter without any
advance notice to my office. Further, the letter was based on
inaccurate information provided the FDA by the industry law
firm, and was sent without awareness that we proposed only
that California states provide warnings completely consistent
with FDA's own published ``mercury in fish advisory.'' In
light of such incidents, it's arguable that if there is any
need for legislation, it is to amend federal law to protect
the states against arbitrary and informal action by federal
officials who take it upon themselves to declare California
law in ``conflict'' with federal law, without providing state
authorities advance notice or any opportunity to be heard.
H.R. 4167 would greatly impede our ability to protect the
health of Californians, both under Proposition 65 and under
other laws that could be adopted by the voters or our
Legislature. I thank those of you who are opposing this
measure. For those of you still considering the bill, I
strongly urge you to oppose it and for those of you who have
agreed to co-sponsor the measure, I hope you will reconsider
your position in light of the important consumer protections
H.R. 4167 will impede.
Madam Chairman, the State Departments of Agriculture, as well as
State and food safety officials from all 50 States oppose the bill
because they believe it hampers their ability to protect the public
from hazards in the food supply, even potential bioterrorist attacks,
an issue that really should be debated and discussed and would have
been if we had ever had a hearing.
These State and local officials are responsible for conducting 80
percent of the food safety inspections in the country, and yet today we
are diminishing their ability to carry out their important role.
The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
representing every State in the Union has come out against the bill.
The Association of Food and Drug Officials wrote that ``The bill will
preempt States and local food safety and defense programs from
performing their functions to protect citizens.''
Equally disturbing, the bill will scale back State laws designed to
protect pregnant women and children from potential hazards in foods.
Why would we ever take such a step?
For all of these reasons and many more, I rise in opposition to the
bill. It is bad public policy and it should be rejected by the House.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding time to me to enter in a colloquy so that we may clarify
certain parts of this.
I, and other Members, would like to be certain that we understand how
this bill affects State food safety laws. It is my understanding that
the bill contains a list of 10 provisions of Federal food safety laws
and that State law dealing with the same subject as the Federal law is
required to be identical to the Federal law. Is my understanding
correct?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, yes, it is.
I would add that, under the bill, ``identical'' means that the
language in the State law is substantially the same as that in the
listed sections of Federal law and that any differences in language are
not material. This is important to understand.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
clarification.
Am I correct in also understanding that virtually all of the State
laws that relate to the sections of Federal law listed in the bill are
identical to Federal law already?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. If the gentleman would further yield, yes.
For example, Federal law contains what is referred to as the ``basic
adulteration standard,'' which provides that a food is adulterated if
it bears any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render
the food injurious to health. All States have a provision that is
identical to this provision of Federal law.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Is the basic adulteration standard to which the gentleman has
referred the standard that the Federal Government or States would rely
on to deal with the presence of unsafe levels of contaminants in food?
Would that provision permit a State to take action against a terrorist
threat to food supply?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. The gentleman is correct on both of those
points.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, a lot of us are confused. There have been a
lot of allegations coming from all directions. There are folks who
oppose the bill, that have produced a list of 77 State laws that would
purportedly be nullified under this bill.
If the gentleman would, is that an accurate portrayal of the effects
of this bill?
[[Page 2510]]
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman would continue
to yield, no, it is not.
Careful analysis of that list shows that of the 77 State laws listed,
55 would not be preempted. Let me give you two examples. First,
included on the list is an Alabama law that sets nutritional standards
for grits. This uniformity bill does not deal with nutritional
standards or with grits, so the Alabama law is unaffected by the bill.
Secondly, the list includes several State laws that require that fish
be labeled as previously frozen, if that is the case. These laws are
not affected by the uniformity provision because those State fish
labeling requirements are not warnings.
Of the 22 State laws that would be affected by the bill, 14 authorize
States to adopt requirements for food and color additives that are
different from Federal requirements. Although these laws would be
preempted under the bill, the fact is that none of the 14 States that
have these laws have any current requirement for food or color
additives that are different from Federal requirements.
So, in spite of all the wild assertions that the uniformity bill
would nullify ``the bulk of the State food safety laws,'' as one
opponent has put it, the fact is it would do nothing of the sort.
Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that
comprehensive and reassuring response. I agree there is a lot of
confusion about the bill, and we do not clearly understand the effects
on State law and authority. I am satisfied, however, that the bill
properly preserves the ability of States to take action to protect
consumers, while ensuring that food safety policies will be uniform and
scientifically based, and I thank the gentleman for his time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), an important Member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee, who has been very active on FDA issues for a number of
years.
Mr. STUPAK. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 4167.
I find it interesting that the majority party, which calls itself an
advocate for States' rights, would actually put forth a bill that
eviscerates State food safety laws. If passed, this bill would be a
huge setback for consumer safety, public health and America's war on
terror.
Yesterday, I urged the Rules Committee to accept the Capps-Eshoo-
Waxman-Stupak consumer protection amendment which would permit States
to maintain or enact food safety and food warning laws that require
notifications regarding the risks of cancer, birth defects,
reproductive health issues, and allergic reactions associated with
sulfiting agents in bulk foods.
{time} 1315
Our amendment would also permit States to maintain or enact food
warning laws and notify parents about risks to children.
I offered a second amendment which would allow States to maintain or
enact food warning laws that require notification labeling regarding
the treatment of foods with carbon monoxide. This bill, as written,
would wipe out over 80 food safety laws and put our Nation's food
safety standards squarely in the hands of the FDA.
Michigan maintains and has laws that would be overturned with this
bill regarding sulfiting agent warnings in bulk foods, smoked fish, the
safety of food in restaurants, and laws governing the safety of milk.
That is why 37 bipartisan State attorneys general oppose this bill.
The bipartisan Association of Food and Drug Officials also have
strong concerns. They stated and wrote to us, and I quote, ``This
legislation undermines our Nation's whole biosurveillance system by
preempting and invalidating many of the State and local food safety
laws and regulations that provide the authority necessary for State and
local agents to operate food safety and security programs. The pre-9/11
concept embodied in this bill is very much out of line with the current
threats that confront our food safety and security.''
They also said that preemption and invalidation of State and local
food safety and security activities will ``severely hamper the FDA's
ability to detect and respond to acts of terrorism.'' They added, and I
quote, ``Our current food safety and security system will be
significantly disrupted and our inability to track suspected acts of
intentional alteration of food will be exploited by those who seek to
do harm to our Nation.''
The danger of placing our Nation's food safety laws squarely in the
hands of the FDA is demonstrated by my amendment on carbon monoxide.
Madam Chair, I would like to direct your attention to these pictures.
Which meat do you think is older, the red meat on the top or the brown
meat on the bottom? It is a trick question. They are both the same age.
Both have been sitting in a refrigerator side-by-side for 5 months.
You can see the date of the labels, October 2005. The meat on the
top, which is bright red and looks very, very healthy, has actually
been treated with carbon monoxide, which causes the meat to look red
and fresh long into the future. The meat on the bottom here, the brown,
is actually brown and slimy. Like I said, the meat on the top is 5
months old and looks as good as new, but what happens if you eat this?
You will probably become very ill and possibly die from a foodborne
pathogen like E. coli.
The FDA, in all of its wisdom, or lack thereof, has no objection to
allowing carbon monoxide meat to be packaged. Color is the most
important factor people look at when they determine which type of meat
to buy, according to numerous studies. This new practice is clearly
consumer deception, yet the FDA decided it was okay. The FDA either did
not look at the evidence or it just didn't find this whole matter
troubling. I do not know which is worse.
Right now, States may pass their own laws which label carbon monoxide
meat so the consumers are well aware of what they are getting before
they purchase it. All my amendment says is to allow the States to
require carbon monoxide labeling if you are going to try to freshen up
your meat. That is all we want to do, to allow a consumer to know what
is going on. So when they go to the store and look at the meat, if they
buy it based on a color which supposedly brings out the freshness, they
will know it was done by tricking it with carbon monoxide, but that it
is the same meat, kept for the same amount of time. All we are asking
with our amendment is to allow us to prevent this.
Do we really want this? We want to let the consumer know that the
meat has been chemically treated before they purchase it. This bill
would prevent me from doing that.
Public health and food safety have primarily been the responsibility
of the States. We should not now tie the hands of the States who want
to protect the health of their citizens in the absence of FDA judgment,
resources, expertise, or the will to do the right thing. I urge the
majority party to stand up for the American people and allow our
Democratic amendments and the Stupak carbon monoxide amendment on the
floor next week for consideration.
America can make the choice. With this bill, we will get tainted meat
with carbon monoxide and jeopardize the health and safety of the
American people.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I think what the gentleman is
illustrating is so important, because the sponsors of this bill said we
need the Federal Government to protect the health of people all over
the country. So let us have one uniform standard.
Well, right now, the FDA could adopt that standard and stop the use
of carbon monoxide as a food additive and as
[[Page 2511]]
a preserver of meat, but they have not acted. So if a State wants to
act, why should we tell them they cannot act when the FDA hasn't done
anything at the Federal level? I think that is the point you are
making.
Let the States, if the Federal Government fails, sometimes because
they have lobbyists up here who are more powerful, let the States at
least be able to protect their own citizens to pass the laws they think
are appropriate.
Mr. STUPAK. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is absolutely correct.
What we are saying, basically, is let the consumer be aware of what
they are buying. Let the buyer beware.
I should know if the meat I am buying here, the hamburger, has been
treated with carbon monoxide to make it look fresh and healthy, but it
has been sitting for 5 months and really contains a deadly pathogen,
with E. coli, that can kill me.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I now yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue, and I rise
in support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005.
This bill takes a measured approach to national uniformity for food by
providing a mechanism for a thorough, orderly review of States'
existing regulations that may differ from those of the Federal
Government.
In the United States, the food production and distribution system is
truly national. Products made in one State are distributed not only in
all 50 States, but also the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories,
and many countries around the globe. Consumers, as well as food
manufacturers, have a right to expect that rational, scientifically
based and consistent standards will apply. Citizens of all States and
territories deserve and expect the same level of food safety
protection. Likewise, all citizens in this country will benefit from
uniform standards.
The House Committee on Agriculture oversees a significant portion of
America's food safety system. The Federal food safety functions over
which this committee has jurisdiction have long employed uniform
standards to protect public health, facilitate the marketing of
agricultural commodities, and improve efficiency of the interstate
trading of producers' goods. The adoption of uniform standards is
common practice and, indeed, the general rule when it comes to the
Federal food safety efforts.
The USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service is responsible for the
safety of domestic and imported meat in the United States. It enforces
uniform standards through the authority granted by USDA, by the Federal
Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Ag
Products Inspection Act, and other authorities.
Likewise, previous amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
which were included in the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996,
provided that a State may not set tolerance levels for pesticide
residues that differ from national levels unless the State petitions
the Environmental Protection Agency for an exception based on a State-
specific situation.
Moreover, uniformity is not limited to those areas of food safety.
Congress has repeatedly recognized the importance of uniformity in food
regulation in other sectors. For example, the FDA, as authorized by the
Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, implements uniform standards for
nutrition labeling, health claims, and standards of identity.
With the world's safest food supply, every American benefits from
this system of national food safety standards. H.R. 4167 builds on this
record of success by extending this same approach to food safety
standards used by USDA and other agencies to the FDA's food safety
programs. This is an important step forward in ensuring consumer
confidence in the food they buy for their families, and I urge all
Members to support H.R. 4167.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I am now proud to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the chairman of the
Appropriations subcommittee that deals with the Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Agency.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Madam Chairman, every time this body considers a bill on how we
regulate the food of this country it is designed not to strengthen
existing law, but to weaken it, and this despite the fact that we face
many threats to our food supply: avian flu, BSE, and bioterrorism.
Today, we debate the National Uniformity for Food Act. This bill would
make our food safety laws uniform: uniformly weak, uniformly toothless.
Right now, it is States, not the Federal Government, that conduct the
body of our food safety work. State and local agencies do 80 percent of
the food inspections in the United States. They are on the front lines.
They test food products and they manage food emergencies. Yet under
this bill, State laws requiring warnings and labels on foods would be
superceded or eliminated.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 200 State
laws would be immediately affected by this bill's passage, requiring
States to submit requests for waivers to the FDA. The cost to the FDA
for reviewing these waivers would be $100 million. Does this bill
authorize another $100 million to FDA? Of course not. This, at a time
when the administration's budget proposals cut Federal food safety
funding by over $450 million.
One of my colleagues talked about this being theater. This is not
theater. Many of us have been asking for more funding for food
inspections and food safety over the last several years, and the
administration and the leadership in this House have refused to do it.
This bill has other problems. States regulate shellfish, milk
production, and other food products. In the absence of any Federal
standards, those State protections will disappear. The bill undermines
our ability to respond to bioterrorism and other food emergencies. It
would require the notification of the Secretary of HHS before
responding to a food emergency. They could only respond once they have
received assurance that the Federal Government is not taking
enforcement actions of their own. The State would then be required to
apply for waiver, after the fact, to justify their actions. This is
absurd.
If this Republican Congress wanted to make our food safety laws
uniform, it would create a single food agency that would regulate the
safety of our food, as some of us have suggested over and over again.
We have 12 different agencies and 35 statutes currently in place to
regulate food safety at the Federal level. If you want to be serious
about this issue of food safety, let us have one single agency whose
responsibility it is to make sure our food supply is safe and ensure
the public health of this Nation.
We need to do a better job of coordinating our efforts to protect the
public health, but we do not get there by weakening our laws; we get
there by strengthening them. And that is something that this bill does
not even begin to attempt to do.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I now yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 4167, the
National Uniformity for Food Act. If enacted, this important
legislation would set much-needed national standards for food safety
and put an end to the confusing and often contradictory standards that
exist across many States.
This is important, given that consumers have a right to expect the
same scientifically based safety standards everywhere in the United
States. By establishing a single national system based on
comprehensive, science-based standards, consumers and businesses will
be clear about what is safe, what is permissible, and what needs to be
labeled. This is an opportunity to bolster consumer confidence.
The legislation would ensure that the FDA incorporates the best
safety and
[[Page 2512]]
warning practices of States, and allows States to continue to carry out
sanitation inspections and enforcement. It would also create a process
by which States can petition the FDA to adopt their own regulations as
the national standard or to seek an exemption from national uniformity.
A State's requirements would remain in effect while the FDA considers
the State's petition. And where no Federal requirement exists, States
could proceed pursuant to their own standards.
H.R. 4167 is good, commonsense legislation. It is greatly needed, and
I urge my colleagues to support it.
{time} 1330
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I don't think consumer confidence is going to be bolstered when we
pass a law that the State Attorneys General say would strip State
governments of the ability to protect their residents through State
laws and regulations relating to the safety of food and food packaging.
Some of the more obvious State level warnings that almost certainly
would be challenged include consumer warnings about mercury
contamination of fish, arsenic in bottled water, lead in ceramic
tableware, the alcohol content in candies, the content of fats and oils
in foods, and postharvest pesticides applicable to fruits and
vegetables. The States would not be allowed to do that.
Now, the previous speaker said that we ought to have a Federal
requirement. But he was mistaken when he said that if there were no
Federal requirement States can pursue their own standards. He is wrong
because the bill before us would stop the States from pursuing their
own standards unless the Federal Government allowed them to do so. And
I think that is an intrusion on States' rights, a usurpation of power
by Washington and an ability for the industries involved to be able to
make their claim to the Federal Government to stop States from doing
exactly what they think is appropriate to protect their public and to
bolster consumer confidence.
I don't think that the confidence of the consumer should be bolstered
when we have a bill on the floor that has been around for a number of
years and no committee has ever held a hearing on it. We did not allow
the scientists to come in and tell us whether it is a good idea or not.
We didn't hear the problems from the industry that should justify this
bill. We didn't hear the opponents and the arguments that they might
make. Instead, in committee we had a mark-up where Members could debate
what we were told by different groups, but not based on a hearing
record. I think that the confidence of the American people in Congress
should be very, very low; and if this bill passes the confidence of the
American public about their food supply should be also in doubt.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act. As ranking
Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, I support this bill because it
provides uniform food safety standards and warning requirements, and it
creates a single national system for food and food products regulated
by the FDA.
Establishing uniform standards increases efficiency and safety as we
have seen in practice today with the USDA and the Federal Meat
Inspection Act, the Poultry Inspection Act, and other authorities that
were referred to by the chairman in his remarks a short time ago.
Consumers gain with this consistency and uniform regulations for
packaged food all across the 50 States under this jurisdiction of the
FDA. If a food product is safe in one State, it is safe in all States.
With the world's safest food supply at the lowest cost to its
consumers, every American benefits from this system of national food
safety standards. H.R. 4167 builds on this record of success by
extending the same approach to food safety standards used by USDA and
other agencies; and, therefore, I believe this bill should be
supported.
I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and
to oppose any amendments that weaken or attempt to gut the commonsense
approach of this legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to read a portion of a letter from Tommy Irvin who is
from the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he said, ``The bill is
craftily written to disguise its true effects on our authority to
protect consumers. Both vague and broad in scope, this legislation
will, in reality, go far beyond the stated purpose of uniformity. The
real effect of this legislation will be the deregulation of the United
States Food Industry.''
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have at the Federal level, the
Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture has a dual
mission: to protect consumers from unsafe agriculture products,
particularly meat and chicken. But they also have the obligation to
bolster the agriculture industries in this country. And they always
have this tension about who to respond to first.
We also have the Food and Drug Agency, and they regulate food
additives and the food supply that the USDA does not cover. Well, as
Representative Rosa DeLauro mentioned, we ought to have one food
agency, but we have never been able to do that because people fight
over their turf.
Well, while the Federal Government is fighting over its turf, this
bill would take away the jurisdiction from the States to protect their
own people, and that is why we never hear a bill labeled as the
``usurpation of power in Washington to take away from the States the
ability to protect consumers of food.'' They do not call it that. They
call it the ``National Uniformity Bill for the Food Product,'' or
something along those lines. They always have a very nice sounding
label for legislation.
Well, do not be fooled by the label that this bill has, because it
misleads the consumer and the American public into thinking we are
doing something to protect them, when I fear it is going to make them
weaker.
Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Wu).
Mr. WU. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding, especially under these circumstances where I am not
completely decided about this legislation. I have a sincere inquiry for
my friends on the other side of this debate, and I realize that there
are Democrats and Republicans on both sides of this debate.
Given my background in securities law, if one wants to sell
securities across this country, there is one layer of regulation at the
Securities and Exchange Commission, but you have to run the securities
through the blue sky laws of every single State in the United States.
Similarly, there is banking law at the Federal level; but if you want
to do, say, furniture lending and consumer lending, you have to do
compliance work under consumer protection laws for every State in the
Union. I used to do this kind of legal work when I was in the private
sector.
I had not intended to participate in the debate today; but, quite
frankly, I was eating. And as important as securities and insurance and
other issues are, it seems to me that Americans truly care about the
safety of what they are eating and the ability to know what it is that
they are putting down the hatch. And I am truly curious about the folks
on the other side of this debate.
What is it that distinguishes the food industry so that it does not
have to, say, like the securities industry, comply with both Federal
and State law, or with furniture lending, comply with both Federal and
State law? Because it seems to me that the food industry is pretty
healthy in this country and making good money, and we do not need to
give it, if you will, an artificial boost.
[[Page 2513]]
I would be happy to yield to someone from the other side.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. They would
have to comply with both. But what this deals with is labeling. If
there is a label that is necessary for your people in Oregon to protect
their safety, then it ought to be necessary for the people of my State
of Georgia, and it ought to be uniform in that regard, and that is what
we are saying.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
And in response to the gentleman's point, which I think is an
excellent one, industries in this country often have to meet State
standards as well as Federal standards. I have always heard that if it
ain't broke, why fix it. And I have never heard a reason why we need
this bill. What are we fixing? What is the problem? I do not see what
the problem is, except some people would like to overturn State laws.
And if they have the case to do that, they ought to make it at the
State level, or they ought to come to the Federal Government and say
this particular law is too burdensome; we ought to have a Federal law
in its place.
But that is not what we are having proposed to us today. We are
having proposed to us a bill that just would, in a blanket way, allow
the preemption of all duly adopted laws at the State level.
Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Black-
burn).
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, the National Uniformity for Food Act
would actually foster greater cooperation among the States and the
Federal Government on an issue that I honestly believe is very
important to every American family, and that is food safety. Consumers
across the country deserve a single set of science-based food warning
requirements, not the confusing patchwork that we have today.
I am a supporter of States' rights, and our friends across the aisle
have not stood up for States' rights many times in the past, and I
really don't think they are doing so today. They are standing up for
what they love most, which is lots of government regulations.
The bill before us, the National Uniformity for Food Act, strikes an
important balance between States' rights and Federal responsibility.
The bill really enhances the model for a Federal-State regulatory
cooperation that already occurs in many areas of food safety. The bill
gives the FDA authority where it would have authority and should have
authority, which is general and scientific oversight over packaged food
safety.
It leaves to the States the fundamental tasks that are best handled
at that level, ensuring proper sanitation and making sure that the
manufacturing plants, refrigeration facilities, and food transportation
all meet or exceed minimum standards.
I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. May I inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has
remaining?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I am prepared to close.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I will close the debate on our side.
Madam Chairman and my colleagues, let me just go through the kinds of
laws we are talking about. There are 50 State laws regulating the
safety of milk. They are not identical. And I don't know if there will
be one uniform law for the safety of milk at the Federal level, and I
am not sure that it would make sense to have it. There may be
differences that are justified. But that debate could go on, and it
could be resolved by itself. But meanwhile, we shouldn't jeopardize 50
laws on the subject when there is no Federal law to take its place.
There are 50 State laws regulating safety of food in restaurants. Why
should the restaurants in a State be regulated by Washington if their
State chooses to have a food safety disclosure or other food law?
There are 10 State laws regulating the safety of shellfish. Why
should those laws be eliminated?
There is an Alabama law regulating infested, moldy, or decayed pecans
and other nuts. That may be a problem that Alabama has. Why shouldn't
they be able to act on it, and why should we have to have that same law
elsewhere or have no law anywhere on the subject?
California law requiring consumers to be notified when food contains
contaminants that cause cancer or birth defects, a California law
limiting the amount of lead in candy, a Florida law regulating labeling
of citrus fruit and citrus products, a Maine law requiring disclosure
of the risk of eating smoked alewives, whatever that may be. A Maryland
law, prohibiting the sale of frozen food that has been previously
thawed. A Minnesota law requiring labeling of the types of wild rice. A
Mississippi law requiring the labeling of farm-raised catfish. A
Virginia law prohibiting the removal of sell-by date labels, a
Wisconsin law requiring a label showing the age and type of cheese made
in Wisconsin.
I don't know whether those are all good laws or not, but the
legislatures probably had hearings, and they got the input from people
who are supporting it, and opposing it. And they adopted it and their
Governors signed the laws.
We are now about to overturn those State laws with a bill that had no
hearing here in the Congress of the United States, and will turn it
over to the FDA, a Federal bureaucracy, to decide whether those States
may have those laws in their States still in effect. I think it is
wrong. I do not see the problem it is solving. I think that this is
legislation that has been poorly thought out. I hope we get a chance to
offer amendments to the bill next week when we start considering it.
Especially since it has never had a day of hearings, we ought to have
an open rule. There are a limited number of issues to debate. We ought
to at least be able to debate them and have votes on those issues so
that Members can make a determined judgment as to whether this bill
ought to pass the House of Representatives.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
First of all, this has been a good debate, and I appreciate the
interest and concern.
And to my good friend, Mr. Waxman, who has handled it on the other
side, I am glad he has now become converted to being a States' righter.
Back in 1990 when he was the author of the Nutrition Labeling and
Education Act of 1990, we heard exactly the opposite arguments. I was
not here, but I am told those were the opposite arguments because as
far as nutrition labeling, it does require uniformity across the
country.
Now, if labeling on nutrition requires consistency, why should not
there be consistency in warning labels of the foods that people eat?
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. I do recall and I can explain the situation.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Does it require uniformity?
Mr. WAXMAN. It does because there was no nutritional labeling at the
State level. It had been done by the industry voluntarily, and they had
different kinds of labels, and it was not in a way that we could
compare the calorie content, the carbohydrate content, the fat content.
So we decided that since this was all under Federal jurisdiction
anyway, we ought to standardize the labeling.
It was not an issue of usurping the power from the States because the
States look to the FDA to make that decision.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. You would not advocate repealing that law and
giving it back to the States, I would assume?
[[Page 2514]]
Mr. WAXMAN. No, of course.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
Mr. WAXMAN. You would not, however, want the Federal Government to
legislate in every area that any State thinks ought to be done in their
State?
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. No.
Reclaiming my time, let me give the Members of this body examples of
some of the things that are excluded from it.
The gentleman mentioned shellfish. Shellfish are specifically
excluded from the provisions of this act. Some of the ones that I think
most of us think of as the kinds of labels that may have peculiar
application to locales that may not have application nationwide and
that are therefore not included or prohibited from being placed on
products are some of the following: open date labeling, grade labeling,
State inspection stamps, religious dietary labeling, organic or natural
designations, returnable bottle labeling, unit price labeling, and
statement of geographical origin. Those all still continue to be
allowed; they are not preempted by this legislation.
I believe we have heard from a wide variety of people who represent
points of view from their committee assignments on the Democrat side as
well as the Republican side. The gentleman quoted my Democrat
commissioner of agriculture from the State of Georgia. I called on my
Democrat Member from the State of Georgia, who has served on the
Agriculture Committee here in the House of Representatives, who said
exactly the opposite of what our State agriculture commissioner says.
Now, I think that the overall conclusion that we should reach is that
this is a good piece of legislation. It is time that we recognize that
there is a necessity for uniformity in labeling of food products, and
this legislation moves us in that direction. I would urge the adoption
of the bill when it is considered next week.
Madam Chairman. I ask that this exchange of correspondence be
included in the debate on H.R. 4167.
Congress of the United States,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to
expedite consideration of H.R. 4167, the ``National
Uniformity for Food Act of 2005,'' the Committee on the
Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. There are
several provisions contained in H.R. 4167 that implicate the
rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Specifically, the legislation contains a number of judicial
review provisions.
The Committee takes this action with the understanding that
by foregoing consideration of H.R. 4167, the Committee on the
Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter
contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also
reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate
conference on this legislation and requests your support if
such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your
including this letter in your Committee's report for H.R.
4167 and in the Congressional Record during consideration of
H.R. 4167 on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to
these matters.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman.
____
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter
concerning H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of
2005, which the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported on
December 15, 2005.
I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on
H.R. 4167. I agree that your decision to forego action on the
bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with
respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future
legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request
conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the
Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a
House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.
I will include our exchange of letters in the Committee's
report on H.R. 4167, and in the Congressional Record during
consideration of the bill on the House floor.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Chairman.
Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R.
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act.
Food safety labeling standards currently vary from state to state,
which has created a patchwork of different and inconsistent
requirements. H.R. 4167 would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to provide for national, uniform food safety
standards and warning requirements. I am cosponsor of this bipartisan
legislation because it will enhance consumer protection through
coordinating and harmonizing federal, state, and local food safety
requirements. Consumers deserve the same high level of protection
against unsafe food regardless of where they may live.
While H.R. 4167 would provide for national, uniform food safety
standards and warning requirements, the legislation, however, does not
affect state authority in several areas that are traditional local food
enforcement matters, including: freshness dating, open date labeling,
grade labeling, state inspection stamp, religious dietary labeling,
organic or natural designation, returnable bottle labeling, unit
pricing, and statement of geographic origin. Further, states would be
exempted from national food safety standards to respond during times
when substantial concerns are raised about the safety of food. I
support H.R. 4167 because it provides these important exceptions to
national standards, which will ensure authority of states in
traditional local food enforcement matters and allow states to act if
presented with an imminent food safety crisis.
Food safety labeling standards are an important public health issue,
and I support H.R. 4167 because it will provide uniform, national
standards to ensure greater consumer protection.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Chairman, the National Uniformity
for Food Act deserves our full support.
This act is consistent with our long tradition of cautious
Congressional oversight of interstate commerce to protect American
consumers. The act is simple. By requiring states and the FDA to
provide consumers with a single standard for food safety, this
important legislation delivers protection to American consumers.
I strongly believe the National Uniformity for Food Act is the best
way to apply the safeguards we now have over meat, poultry, drugs, and
many other products to packaged food. Under the bill, states would
retain their important functions such as sanitation, inspections and
enforcement. The act also contains mechanisms to review state food
safety laws and consider them for national application.
This act provides important federal protections, while retaining
valuable input from states and coordination between state and federal
food safety experts. I strongly appreciate my good friend Congressman
Mike Rogers' efforts to ensure that Americans are confident that
packaged food they find on our store shelves is safe for them and their
families. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important act.
In conclusion, God bless our troops and we will never forget
September 11th.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R.
4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act of 2005. I am opposed to
this legislation for two reasons.
First, and foremost, this legislation would completely eliminate any
State or local food safety law that is not identical to requirements
established by the FDA. Even laws that go beyond the federal
requirements to protect their citizens would be pre-empted. For
example, in my home state of New Jersey, a number of labeling
requirements for milk, restaurant food safety and many other State laws
would be completely negated, thereby placing the health and well-being
of our citizens at increased risk. How is that good public policy?
I also have to oppose this legislation for the way it has completely
violated the legislative process. This bill has escaped any real
scrutiny from the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction
over such food safety matters. No hearings were held, no witnesses were
called to testify, and no effort was made to determine the actual
impact this bill will have on the safety of our nation's food supply.
It is clear that this bill was insufficiently reviewed and I fear that
Congress is acting far too quickly to enact legislation that will have
such sweeping affects.
I believe improving the quality of our nation's food supply is one of
the most important challenges facing Congress today. A vote for this
legislation, however, would put consumers at increased risk. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. UPTON. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4167, the
National Uniformity for Food Act.
This is common sense legislation that will benefit both consumers and
businesses--and particularly small businesses.
Consumers will benefit from being able to rely on scientifically-
based national food safety
[[Page 2515]]
and warning standards, just as they now rely on national standards for
nutrition labeling.
When we think of the food manufacturing industry, we may not realize
that small manufacturers account for the bulk of the industry.
Specifically, nearly 73 percent of food manufacturers have fewer than
20 employees. These smaller firms are especially burdened by having to
comply with up to 50 different food safety and warning regimens if they
are in or wish to enter interstate commerce.
I know many of us have heard from our governors about important state
food safety and warning requirements that could be pre-empted by a
national standard. But it is important to underscore that this bill
provides for a 180-day period after enactment for states to petition
the FDA and make their cases for either permitting a state requirement
to remain in place or to make a state requirement a national standard.
Further. the state requirements will remain in place until the FDA
makes a determination on the state's petition.
Mr. DEAL of Georgia. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mrs. Drake). All time for general debate has
expired.
Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Deal of Georgia) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Drake, Acting Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
4167) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for
uniform food safety warning notification requirements, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, MARCH 6, 2006 AND HOUR OF MEETING ON TUESDAY,
MARCH 7, 2006
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when
the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next,
and further, when the House adjourns on that day, it adjourn to meet at
12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 7, 2006, for morning hour debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY NEXT
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with
on Wednesday next.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF HON. MAC THORNBERRY AND HON. FRANK R. WOLF TO ACT AS
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
THROUGH MARCH 7, 2006
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 2, 2006.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Mac Thornberry and the
Honorable Frank R. Wolf to act as Speaker pro tempore to sign
enrolled bills and joint resolutions through March 7, 2006.
J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the appointments are
approved.
There was no objection.
____________________
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.
____________________
NO PLACE BUT TEXAS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, today is my favorite day in Texas history.
March 2 marks Texas Independence Day. On this day, 170 years ago, Texas
declared independence from Mexico and its evil dictator, Santa Anna,
the 19th century Saddam Hussein, and Texas became a free nation.
In 1836, in a small farm village of Washington-on-the-Brazos, 54
``Texians,'' as they called themselves in those days, gathered on a
cold rainy day like today to do something bold and brazen: They
gathered to sign the Texas Declaration of Independence and once and for
all ``declare that the people of Texas do now constitute a free,
sovereign, and independent republic.''
As these determined delegates met to declare independence, Santa Anna
and 6,000 enemy troops were marching on an old, beat-up Spanish mission
that we now call the Alamo. This is where Texas defenders stood defiant
and determined. They were led by a 27-year-old lawyer by the name of
William Barrett Travis. The Alamo and its 186 Texans were all that
stood between the invaders and the people of Texas. And behind the
dark, dank walls of that Alamo, William Barrett Travis, the commander,
sent a fiery, urgent appeal requesting aid.
His defiant letter read in part: ``To all the people in Texas and
America and the world, I am besieged by a thousand or more of the enemy
under Santa Anna. I have sustained a continual bombardment and cannon
fire for the last 24 hours, but I have not lost a man.
``The enemy has demanded surrender at its discretion; otherwise, the
fort will be put to the sword. I have answered that demand with a
cannon shot, and the flag still waves proudly over the wall. I shall
never surrender or retreat.
``I call upon you in the name of liberty and patriotism and
everything that is dear to our character to come to my aid with all
dispatch. If this call is neglected, I am determined to sustain myself
for as long as possible and die like a soldier who never forgets what
is due to his own honor and that of his country.
``Victory or death,'' signed William Barrett Travis, commander of the
Alamo.
Madam Speaker, after 13 days of glory at the Alamo, Commander Travis
and his men sacrificed their lives on the altar of freedom. The date
was March 6, 1836.
Those lives would not be lost in vain. Their determination for the
cause paid off, and because heroes like William Barrett Travis, Davy
Crockett, Jim Bowie and others held out for so long, Santa Anna's
forces took such great losses they became battered and demoralized and
diminished. As Travis said in his last letter, ``Victory will cost the
enemy more dearly than defeat.''
He was right.
General Sam Houston, in turn, had devised a strategy to rally other
Texas volunteers to ultimately defeat Santa Anna at the battle of San
Jacinto on April 21, 1836. The war was over. The Lone Star flag was
visible all across the bold, brazen, and broad plains of Texas. Texas
remained an independent nation for over 9 years.
The Alamo defenders were from every State in the United States, 13
foreign countries. They were black, brown, and white, ages 16 through
67. They were mavericks, revolutionaries, farmers, shopkeepers, and
freedom fighters. They came together to fight for something they
believed in. Liberty. And, Madam Speaker, they were all volunteers.
In 1845, Texas was admitted to the United States by only one vote.
Some have said they wished the vote had gone the other way. Be that as
it may, every day, each school day, kids across the vastness of Texas
pledge allegiance to not only the American flag but they also pledge to
the Texas flag; and by treaty with the United States, the Texas flag
flies next to the American flag but never below it.
We all know that freedom has a cost. It always has. It always will.
And we also pause to remember those who lost their lives so that
Texas could be a free nation. And as we do so, we remember the brave
Americans in our military that are fearlessly fighting in
[[Page 2516]]
lands far, far away to preserve and uphold freedom from a new world
threat of terrorism.
Texas Independence Day is a day of pride and reflection in the Lone
Star State. Today we remember to pay tribute to heroes like William
Barrett Travis, Jim Bowie, Davy Crockett, Juan Seguin, Jim Bonham, and
General Sam Houston and the rest of those volunteers who fought the
evil tyrant and terrorist, Santa Anna.
Madam Speaker, I hope that Congress and the rest of the country will
join me in celebrating Texas Independence Day. In Colonel Travis' final
letter and appeal for aid, he signed off with three words that I leave
you with now. ``God and Texas.'' ``God and Texas.'' ``God and Texas.''
And the rest, as they say, Madam Speaker is Texas history. And that's
just the way it is.
____________________
PORT SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe, but the Bush
administration, through its Director of National Intelligence, John
Negroponte, has given a nod and green light to the Dubai Ports World
deal.
Mr. Negroponte says the Bush administration ``assessed the threat to
U.S. national security posed by Dubai Ports World to be low. In other
words, he said, ``We didn't see any red flags come up during the course
of our inquiry.''
Now the questions I have to ask: Why should we trust the Bush
administration or their analysis on intelligence on anything certainly
when it comes to the Middle East? It seems to me their record on
assessing risk is not good.
Let us review some of their intelligence predictions:
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, back in February, 2003, said
about the war in Iraq, ``It is unknowable how long that conflict will
last. It could last 6 days, 6 weeks. I doubt 6 months.'' That is what
he said. His estimate was dead wrong.
Vice President Dick Cheney, March, 2003, said, ``We will, in fact, be
greeted in Iraq as liberators . . . I think it will go relatively
quickly . . . in weeks rather than months.'' His estimate was dead
wrong.
President Bush told us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction. Well, the United States called off that search in January,
2005. There were no weapons of mass destruction. His estimate proved to
be dead wrong.
{time} 1400
This administration seems to make wrong decisions about a lot of
things, like knowing who the enemy really is, like knowing what causes
enemies to rise in the first place, and working to prevent that by
avoiding cozy deals with dictatorships of all stripes.
I think it is clear to even the least interested of observers that
the architects of this war, starting with the President, the Vice
President and the Secretary of Defense, allowed our troops to go to war
in insufficient numbers, with inadequate resources, with fantastic
escalating costs and with absolutely no plan whatsoever to win the
peace. Globally, their approach is yielding more terrorism every day.
Their approach is yielding more anti-Americanism every day globally.
Why then should we trust the Bush administration? Why should we
believe their intelligence that the Dubai Ports World deal will not
risk U.S. national security? Those who seek to do us harm know a lot
about ports. Two weeks ago, in Yemen, 23 al Qaeda members escaped from
prison. Thirteen of them were men convicted in involvement in the 2000
suicide attack on the USS Cole that occurred in Yemen's harbor which
killed 17 American soldiers. The others were attackers of the French
supertanker Lindbergh in 2002.
Some of those who are our enemy have spent decades working the oil
fields and sea lanes of the Middle East. Supertankers like the
Lindbergh now wend their way to our shores because we irresponsibly are
dependent on oil imports to sustain this economy. Those who want to
harm us know this system well.
The quagmire in Iraq is bringing contempt for the United States
around the world and our enemies seek to harm us. That is why port
security must be uppermost in our minds.
America is fast becoming a dependent Nation, dependent on other
countries for oil, for food, for autos, for electronics, for toys, even
for clothing. Our maritime system includes over 95,000 miles of open
shoreline, and 316 U.S. ports and ships carry more than 95 percent of
our non-North American trade. But only 2 percent of what comes into
this country is even inspected. Just last week, we saw what happened in
Saudi Arabia as an al Qaeda attack occurred at their largest oil
facility.
In this era, when vastly more is shipped into our ports than goes
out, we had best be on the alert to protect our portals. I am
introducing legislation to prohibit any foreign government or foreign-
owned company from owning, leasing, or in any way controlling a U.S.
port. The bill will ask our Coast Guard to assume full oversight and
control over these bloodlines and all inspection of all cargo flowing
into them until America is no longer at war.
The Federal Government controls and operates the agencies that admit
people into this Nation. Our Federal Government controls and operates
the systems and agencies that admit airplanes into this Nation. We
should have the very same system of control over our port systems, one
that, by the way, is increasing and expanding at a very rapid rate. In
2005, more than 11 million containers came into our country from
abroad, and the estimate is that will quadruple in the next 20 years if
we don't get this trade balance in line.
We have invested billions in other systems and pennies in our port
system. Isn't it time to put America's national security first before
any private deals?
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF IDALIA LUNA SMITH
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
honor the life of Mrs. Idalia Luna Smith. Idalia was a caseworker in my
district office. She was also a dear and loving friend to hundreds in
our region of California. She was a community activist, and she was a
loving wife and mother of three children.
Idalia passed away on Saturday, February 18, 2006, ending a long and
difficult battle with cancer. She is survived by her husband, John, and
her two sons and daughter: Jack, Patrick, and Veronica.
Idalia was born and raised in East Los Angeles. Her interest in
politics and social justice developed early in life. At the age of 14,
she was influenced by her father's involvement in the famous 1970
Chicano Moratorium, an event which raised political consciousness for
thousands in the Mexican America community of greater Los Angeles. As a
teenager and college student, Idalia became politically active in her
community, fighting for the equal treatment of Latinos and other
underrepresented people.
Idalia graduated from Sacred Heart of Mary High School, then studied
pre-medicine at Immaculate Heart College and Chicano studies,
journalism and theatre at East Los Angeles Community College. She then
earned her bachelor of science degree in biology at the University of
La Verne.
Upon graduation, Idalia went to work for the Southern California
Edison Company. In her 20 years there, she worked in many departments,
including power production, informational technology, health care, and
occupational health and safety. As a testament to Idalia's good will
and generosity, she organized several blood donation drives and health
fairs at Southern California Edison.
In 2001, seeking to combine her love of science, children and
education, Idalia went back to school to earn a
[[Page 2517]]
teaching credential at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.
From 2001 to 2003, she taught science to young children at Beatitudes
of our Lord School at La Mirada, California. However, her time at
Beatitudes was unfortunately cut short by breast cancer. For the next 3
years, Idalia underwent the difficult rigors of chemotherapy and other
treatments. Through her strength and courage, she was determined to
return to help her community.
In 2003, Idalia did just that as she joined her husband, John, in
founding the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club in La Mirada. In this
way, Idalia continued the legacy of fighting for social justice that
she began in East Los Angeles 30 years earlier.
In just one year, Idalia and John Smith increased the RFK Club's
membership from 20 to 112 people. In acknowledgment of her work, Idalia
was named the 2005 Democrat of the Year for the 60th Assembly District
of California by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party, and that same
year she was honored by her local peers with the 2005 Community Service
Award from the Robert F. Kennedy Democratic Club.
Over the past year, I had the pleasure of getting to know Idalia well
as she worked in my district office as an office manager first and then
a caseworker. Idalia's humor, optimism, and general goodwill always
brightened our office and the lives of the constituents that she
served. Not a day went by that she did not make us smile and laugh.
As a caseworker, she tirelessly worked to help others with their
problems, all while she struggled with cancer. Despite her own health
concerns, Idalia always lent an empathetic ear and dedicated herself to
the individuals she helped. She was incredibly modest, humble, and
charming. My staff and I will miss her greatly.
Through it all, Idalia believed in being proactive. She was committed
to learning about her disease and did what she could to help others
facing the same pain. I urge everyone to follow Idalia's example and
make a personal commitment to ease the suffering of others as well and
to help eradicate the horrible disease of cancer.
Mr. Speaker and distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring
Idalia Luna Smith. May God bless her and ease her family's pain as they
mourn for their loss.
____________________
U.S.-INDIA AGREEMENT MAKES WORLD A MORE DANGEROUS PLACE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, as if we haven't done enough damage to the
cause of global peace and security in Iraq, today the President has
continued to make the world a more dangerous place with his misguided
agreement on nuclear energy with India. If this deal is ratified by the
Congress, and, believe me, I will do everything in my power to see that
it is not, we will be sharing sensitive nuclear technology with a
nation that was testing nuclear weapons as recently as 1998. We will be
rewarding India for its refusal to sign on to the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, a treaty which has helped keep the world safe
in this nuclear age for nearly four decades.
What message does the India pact send to Iran and North Korea? What
leverage do we now have with these countries to give up their nuclear
ambitions? Especially when, even though they are dangerous regimes,
they have done nothing to violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
While Great Britain, France and Germany are going back to the
negotiating table to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program, the
United States is giving away nuclear technology to a nation that has
rejected the NPT. How can we call ourselves a responsible global
superpower when we thumb our noses at established international law? Is
it any wonder that America is losing credibility and respect around the
globe?
How will we now deal with India's neighbor and rival, Pakistan, which
will likely demand the same nuclear concessions from the United States,
and which has a dishonorable history of sharing nuclear technologies
with other rogue states? The India-Pakistan border, which has been
called the world's most dangerous nuclear flash point, will now be more
dangerous, thanks to this agreement.
The President claims that this deal is about easing the pressure on
the global energy supply given India's enormous population and soaring
energy demands. First of all, where does the confidence come from that
there can be an airtight firewall between India `s civilian and
military nuclear programs? Technology used for one can inevitably
benefit the other.
Furthermore, it is laughable to hear concern about fossil fuel
consumption from a President who never saw an ocean floor or wildlife
refuge he didn't want to drill holes in. But I don't support nuclear
power plants, because I believe it is not the answer to global energy
and our energy challenge.
So if the President is serious about this issue, he will aggressively
promote conservation and renewable energy right here in our very own
United States of America, the world's hungriest energy consumer; and he
will do it with real programs and investments, not a few lines of
rhetoric in the State of the Union. But I am not holding my breath.
This acquiescence to India underscores more than ever that we need a
new approach to our national security. To that end, I have offered a
new strategy called SMART Security, SMART standing for Sensible,
Multilateral American Response to Terrorism. I have been working on
this idea with groups like Physicians For Social Responsibility, the
Friends Committee For National Legislation, and Women's Action For New
Directions.
SMART has five major components: first, prevent future acts of
terrorism, not with military force, but better intelligence and
multilateral cooperation; second, stop the spread of weapons of mass
destruction with aggressive diplomacy, vigorous inspection and a
commitment to nonproliferation; third, address terrorism's root causes
with a humanitarian effort to invest in poor nations and conquer the
depravation and despair that fosters terrorism in the very first place;
fourth, rethink our budget priorities, in other words, less spending on
Cold War weapons systems and more spending on efforts like energy
independence that are relevant to the security threats we face today;
and, fifth, pursue alternatives to war, exhausting every conceivable
diplomatic channel before resorting to armed conflict.
Finally, let me note the ironies of the President's deal with India.
On the one hand, here we are feeding the nuclear appetite of a nation
that has failed to show the responsibility expected of a nuclear state.
On the other hand, we have sacrifice 2,300 Americans and $250 billion
on a war that was launched because of nuclear weapons that never
existed.
____________________
{time} 1415
HONORING AMERICA'S FALLEN IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, March 18 will mark the 3-year anniversary
of America's involvement in Iraq. Two thousand two hundred ninety-six
American military personnel have now given their lives fighting in
Iraq. Two hundred seventy-seven Americans have also fallen in the line
of duty in Afghanistan.
We owe these great men and women and their families a debt of
gratitude that can never be fully repaid.
Last year I led a bipartisan group of 21 Members of Congress in
reading the names of the fallen into the Congressional Record. We made
a commitment to continue to read the names of our fellow citizens as
long as the fighting continues.
In the words of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, each of those heroes
stands on
[[Page 2518]]
the unbroken line of patriots who have dared to die that freedom might
live and grow and increase in its blessings.
God bless and keep each of the brave Americans whose memory we honor
today:
1st Lieutenant Robert C. Oneto-Sikorski
Private 1st Class David J. Martin
Sergeant 1st Class Jonathan Tessar
Petty Officer 2nd Class Allan M. Espiritu
Sergeant Daniel A. Tsue
Private 1st Class Tyler R. MacKenzie
Specialist Benjamin A. Smith
Specialist Joshua J. Munger
2nd Lieutenant Mark J. Procopio
Specialist Dennis J. Ferderer Jr.
Captain Michael D. Martino
Major Gerald M. Bloomfield II
Major Jeffrey P. Toczylowski
Specialist Darren D. Howe
Sergeant 1st Class Daniel J. Pratt
Staff Sergeant Kyle B. Wehrly
Gunnery Sergeant Darrell W. Boatman
Private 1st Class Dustin A. Yancey
Captain James M. Gurbisz
Specialist Timothy D. Brown
Staff Sergeant Jason A. Fegler
Lieutenant Colonel Thomas A. Wren
Sergeant 1st Class James F. Hayes
Captain Joel E. Cahill
Lance Corporal Ryan J. Sorensen
Private 1st Class Mario A. Reyes
Specialist Robert C. Pope II
Staff Sergeant Brian L. Freeman
1st Lieutenant Justin S. Smith
Sergeant 1st Class Alwyn C. ``Al'' Cashe
Lance Corporal Jeremy P. Tamburello
Lance Corporal Daniel Freeman Swaim
Sergeant Joshua A. Terando
Staff Sergeant Michael C. Parrott
Sergeant Tyrone L. Chisholm
Private 1st Class Antonio Mendez Sanchez
Corporal Donald E. Fisher II
Staff Sergeant Stephen J. Sutherland
Lance Corporal David A. Mendez Ruiz
Lance Corporal Scott A. Zubowski
Corporal John M. Longoria
Lance Corporal Christopher M. McCrackin
Major Ramon J. Mendoza Jr.
Lance Corporal Nickolas David Schiavoni
Private 1st Class Travis J. Grigg
Specialist Matthew J. Holley
Staff Sergeant James E. Estep
Private Dylan R. Paytas
Sergeant Jeremy E. Murray
Specialist Alexis Roman-Cruz
Corporal Joshua J. Ware
Corporal Jeffry A. Rogers
Lance Corporal Roger W. Deeds
Lance Corporal John A. ``JT'' Lucente
2nd Lieutenant Donald R. McGlothin
Specialist Vernon R. Widner
Staff Sergeant Ivan Vargas Alarcon
Sergeant Luis R. Reyes
Private 1st Class Anthony Gaunky
Private Christopher M. Alcozer
Lance Corporal Tyler J. Troyer
Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas
Specialist Michael J. Idanan
Specialist Dominic Joseph Hinton
Corporal Jonathan F. Blair
Staff Sergeant Edward Karolasz
1st Lieutenant Dennis W. Zilinski
Master Sergeant Anthony R. C. Yost
Sergeant Dominic J. Sacco
Private 1st Class John Wilson Dearing
Sergeant Denis J. Gallardo
Specialist Allen J. Knop
Sergeant William B. Meeuwsen
Staff Sergeant Aram J. Bass
Private 1st Class Ryan D. Christensen.
Mr. Speaker, President Abraham Lincoln once wrote to the mother of
five fallen soldiers, ``I pray that our heavenly Father may assuage the
anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of
the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have
laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.''
I would also like to thank the brave men and women who continue to
serve our Nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world and
serve with distinction.
Our thoughts, prayers and gratitude are with you and your families at
this time until they return home.
____________________
THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 opportunity given
to me by the leadership and by the Republican Conference to come and
share a few words this afternoon. This is something that we call the
Official Truth Squad, and we have been coming to the floor of the House
almost every day that we have been in session this year.
We who have organized it are the freshman class. There are about 25,
26 members of the Republican freshman class. We are the new folks on
the block. We have been in Congress now for about 14 months. And one of
the things that disturbed us so, being here, was the tone of the
debate, was the level of incredible partisanship, the remarkable and
distasteful distortion of facts, the personal attacks, some of which we
have heard within the past 30 minutes. The hyperbole and the
disinformation and the misinformation that goes on here in Washington
seems to be kind of the order of the day.
What we thought we might be able to do to contribute to kind of
raising the level of the rhetoric and the tone is to develop what we
call the Official Truth Squad. And our effort and our desire is to try
to bring a positive view of America, a truthful view of America, point
out some of the wonderful and great things that go on in our Nation and
that our citizens are involved in. Because truth is incredibly
important to public debate.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, if are you not dealing with truth in the
area of public policy, you cannot reach the right solution, you just
cannot get to the right end point. That is what is so disheartening
about much of the debate that goes on here. And I say that in all
sincerity, understanding, as I know my constituents do, that these are
not Republican problems or Democrat problems, these are American
challenges that all of us face. So truth is so incredibly important.
In my former life, I was a physician, and I knew that if I did not
have truthful, accurate information going in to take care of a patient,
that I could not make the right diagnosis. If somehow the information
was distorted or not accurate, then it just was not possible to get to
the right diagnosis.
The same is true in the public policy arena. If we are not talking
about truthful items, then it just becomes that much more difficult to
reach appropriate conclusions. I know that when I go home and talk to
my constituents. They say, do you not get tired of all of that
negativity up there? And I do. And I know that you do too, Mr. Speaker.
But that is why our goal is to try to put a little positive spin on
exactly what is happening here in Washington and present to the
American public an optimistic view of where we are.
And we have in the Official Truth Squad many quotes that we are fond
of. One of the ones I am most fond of is one from former New York U.S.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. He says, ``Everyone is entitled to
their own opinion, but not their own facts.'' Everyone is entitled to
their opinion, but not their own facts.
And it really is so true about much of the debate that goes on here
in Washington. Because with many people, everybody obviously has their
opinions. But oftentimes they are not supported by facts. And we have
heard recently some incredible accusations given about, for example,
the Dubai Ports deal.
Now, I am not certain that I support that at all, but I do know that
unless you are dealing with truth and with fact, you cannot reach the
right conclusion. And one of the things that has come to the floor is
this huge accusation that there just has not been any money for port
security, that Congress has been delinquent, that the White House has
been delinquent, that they are not even paying attention to what is
happening at the ports.
Well, here are the facts. Here are the facts. Port security funding
in 2001, prior to 9/11, was at a level of about $250 million. $250
million. Fiscal year
[[Page 2519]]
2006, port security nearly $3 billion. Nearly $3 billion. The request
for 2007, over $3.5 billion.
So when you look at the facts, they do not back up the rhetoric of so
many individuals who are obviously playing politics. And you cannot
take the politics out of politics, I understand that. But it is
important that we talk about truth. It is important that we talk about
real numbers when we are trying to get to solutions to these incredible
challenges that we have before us.
So there are the facts on port security funding. Almost a 700 percent
increase since 9/11. Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not inattentiveness
to port security funding.
We have also heard recently about the ``cuts'' in certain budgetary
items; and the other side is fond of saying that there are cuts in
Medicare and cuts in education. And so what I would like to do today is
just share very briefly with folks what the actual facts are, what the
truth is.
This is Medicare funding. This is Medicare spending from 1995 to
2005. These are not my numbers, these are Treasury, budget office of
the U.S. Government: 1995, $156.9 billion; 2000, $187 billion; 2005,
$294 billion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where you went to school, but I do
not think that they would call moving from $187 billion to $294 billion
a ``cut.'' It is simply not. And so when people describe it as such,
then all they are doing is playing on the fear of the American public.
And that does a disservice to the debate. It is dishonest. It does not
help get us to the right conclusion. Medicare spending every single
year has increased.
Education spending: Many are fond of saying that the amount of money
spent on education over the past 5 years has been cut. You have heard
them say that. I heard them say that. I always shake my head when I
hear it, because if you look at the facts, if you look at the truth,
what we have here is total education spending since the year 2000 to
2005 has grown, on average, 9.1 percent each year over the past 5
years.
Those are the facts. That is the truth.
So when you hear people talk about the kind of allegations that they
have regarding decreases to, cuts in spending, it simply is not so.
What they are talking about it a decrease in the increase; only in
Washington is that described as a ``cut.''
So it is important that we talk about truthful things. It is
important we talk about facts, important that we agree on those items
before we get to the solution to the remarkable challenges that we
have.
Today we are going to talk a little bit about the economy. And if you
were just getting your information from the major media markets, the
major television stations and the networks, or the major newspapers
across this Nation, you might not appreciate that the economy is
ticking along pretty doggone well. And so we are going to bring some
information today, some facts, some truth about the economy, that we
hope will be helpful to the debate and also helpful information for the
American public.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be joined today by many of my
colleagues, and initially, Congresswoman Shelly Moore Capito from West
Virginia. Congresswoman Capito is a veteran here compared to us
freshmen. She is from West Virginia and has been a real leader in the
area of our economy, and a real leader in the area of health care, has
been working actively to make certain that health care costs do not
continue to skyrocket because they play into our economy to a great
degree.
So I am so pleased that you are able to join us. I yield to you and
look forward to your comments.
{time} 1430
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank my colleague from Georgia for his
leadership on so many issues, but also on his leadership of the
Official Truth Squad.
I think one of the things that I find when I go back to my home
district is people do not get what the real truth is. The way we debate
here in Congress, it is almost who can besmirch somebody's character.
Who can besmirch somebody's program. Who can say in the most
sensational way why something is not good, instead of actually looking
at the facts and debating the truth on the facts.
That is why I am pleased to be here today, because I want to talk
about something that I think is very good news for the American public,
and certainly the State I represent, West Virginia, is one of these and
that is the state of our economy.
The American economy in 2005 was the envy of the world. Just
yesterday, the Prime Minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, was here
extolling the virtues of a democratic government, extolling the virtues
of the enormous economic engine that the United States has and brings
to the global economy. And I think he made us realize that, number one,
we should not take this for granted and, number two, we should
recognize it.
I will talk about facts. We will stick with the facts today. Just the
facts, ma'am. That is what they say. The economy grew at a robust 3.5
percent rate in 2005, making this the fourth year of expansion. For 10
of the last 11 quarters, the economy has grown at better than 3.3
percent and that is sizable. Furthermore, our economy's fundamental
health was underscored by the fact that gulf coast hurricanes and
rising energy prices could not derail significant growth, much to our
relief.
We have now seen 29 consecutive months of job gains. During this
period, 4.8 million jobs were created, and 193,000 just this past
January. The latest national employment figure, 4.7, is the best since
July 2001, two months shy of September 11. In my home State of West
Virginia, we have perennially fought high unemployment. We have
perennially fought low economic gains, but I am really pleased West
Virginia is part of this economic boost we are feeling across the
country.
Our seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 3.8 percent in January;
3.8 percent is the lowest seasonally adjusted rate we have ever had in
the history of keeping statistics in West Virginia. In December alone,
the statistics of unemployment was the lowest rate that had ever been
in the history of any December when that rate was recorded in the State
of West Virginia. That is wonderful news for our State.
The numbers do not lie. They are real results, and the results like
these do not happen by accident. Not so long ago in late 2001 during
the recession, the economy was being afflicted by serious problems in
the wake of 9/11, corporate scandals, and other problems. Economic
growth was lagging, and Americans had stopped investing like they used
to. There was no job growth, or very little. Fortunately, we here in
the House acted on a piece of commonsense legislation. The less you tax
something, the more you get. That goes for income, but it also goes for
investment. So Congress responded with real tax relief in 2003,
encouraging more Americans to invest their earnings.
The Jobs and Growth Act of 2003 lowered all individual tax rates, but
lowered the individual tax rate on dividend and capital gains to 15
percent. This loosened the shackles on every individual and freed the
genius of the American economy. Since May 2003 when the Jobs and Growth
Act was enacted, 4.7 million jobs have been created. Now, that is a
truth that is undeniable.
After nine straight declining quarters of business, we have seen 10
straight quarters of rising business investment. Unemployment had
reached 6.3 percent in 2003; and as I said today, the 4.7 figure is
lower than the averages of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
An added benefit of the tax cut was that the Federal Government
actually collected more tax revenue from capital gains even though the
rate was lowered. From 2003 to 2004, revenues from capital gains taxes
increased from $50 to $60 billion. Last year, the Federal Government
received $75 billion in capital gains tax revenue. In fact, overall
government tax revenue is currently at its highest level in American
history, and our State revenues are reflecting this as well. So we need
to keep that tax rate at 15 percent.
[[Page 2520]]
We recently passed H.R. 4297, and this bill would make the 15 percent
tax rate permanent, and I am hopeful that will pass. But, you know, it
is not Washington, D.C. that drives the economy. It is the daily
choices of millions of free Americans that drive it. Small businessmen
and -women, miners, farmers, taxi drivers, doctors, teachers, all these
people who contribute to what we call the national economy. And we
should always remember that we owe the strength of our economy to all
these hardworking Americans who quietly make this country work every
single day.
I would like to take just a few more minutes about my home State of
West Virginia. I am very proud that we have had low unemployment. It
has been spiraling downward over the last several months. Our
homeownership has gone up. We are at one of the highest levels of
homeownership across the Nation.
Our crime rate, which we are very, very pleased is perennially low,
is lower than ever. I think that is indicative of the rise of the
economy and the feeling of robustness and optimism that they have that
they can provide for their families.
In West Virginia, more people are going to college than ever before.
To me that is an indicator of several things: people are preparing to
engage in the knowledge-based economy that we see in our future. Also,
if they are able to go on to college right after high school, what does
that tell you? It means they can improve their education and they do
not need to go into the workforce right away to help their families.
And this is a positive step, I think, in broadening and making our West
Virginia economy much greater.
As everyone knows, coal is very important to our West Virginia
economy. We are a resource-based economy. We always have been. We have
had some very sad times recently in our coal industry, and I want to
take this opportunity to thank the Nation for their heartfelt prayers
and sincere thoughts concerning the loss of our miners in West
Virginia.
It has been very difficult for us because we are a small State. We
care about each other very much and one person's loss is every person's
loss. That is why we are working in a bipartisan way to do mine safety
legislation here in Congress to help with oxygen supplies, to help with
tracking miners, to help with communications, to help with response
times. And I think that we will get to a good bipartisan resolution on
how we can prevent these accidents from happening in the future.
We have over 12 new mines opened in West Virginia. Twelve more than
last year. Over 1,200 new miners. This shows you the strength of our
economy. Over 50 percent of the electricity generated in this country
is generated through coal, and we are very, very pleased about that.
So I think that the problems now that I am hearing or whenever I go
out to my town meetings or around grocery shopping or wherever I happen
to be, I ask people all the time, how is it going? How is your
business? How is work? How are you feeling about the economy? And
honestly, to a person, the optimistic flavor of West Virginians both in
the State and national economy is immeasurable.
It is so much greater than it has been in the past, to the point
where, what am I hearing now: I cannot find enough people to employ; I
need 50 more people; we need more miners; we need more electricians; we
need more clerks. So I think that we are going to see a time of
national prosperity, as we have now, continue to grow and to continue
to make that American Dream possible for every American family: the
ability to buy a home, to raise your family in a community that you
know is safe, to be able to enjoy those small-town values that States
like Georgia and West Virginia provide in abundance to Americans.
So I am very pleased that the growth and jobs packages that we have
put forward in this Congress are translating into the real meat-and-
potato issues on the dinner tables of America. So I thank you very much
for giving me the opportunity to speak. I am going to be speaking about
this a lot because I think not only do people realize it, but they need
to be reminded that these things do not happen by accident; that
policies go into place that bring about the economic changes that bring
about more jobs, lower unemployment, more homeownership, more people
going to college, and a more optimistic attitude about our future.
Again, I would remind you if you did not see the Prime Minister from
Italy yesterday, he had a very powerful message for Americans on
several fronts, national security certainly, but also the fact of the
admiration that people around the world and countries around the world
have for our American economy.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia so
much for sharing those words and what a wonderful, wonderful picture
you paint about West Virginia, about the economy and about the policies
that we adopt here and their effect on the Nation and each and every
State.
I too was struck by the Prime Minister from Italy, Prime Minister
Berlusconi yesterday. It was really a moving time to have him speak to
us in his native tongue and to describe what he said he saw in America.
And that is the leader of the world in the area of democracy, in the
area of freedom and liberty but also in the area of the economy, and
how those things are so interwoven and intertwined together. So I
appreciate you bringing that up. Thank you ever so much for being with
us today.
Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I want to very briefly comment about how all of
our hearts go out to West Virginians and the miners and their families.
We had a committee meeting yesterday on mine safety, and I know that we
will reach the right conclusion on trying to get to the tracking and
the oxygen and resources for them. Thank you ever so much.
Mr. Speaker, did you hear the numbers that were described by the
gentlewoman from West Virginia? Did you hear the unemployment numbers:
3.8 percent in West Virginia. Most economists will tell you that 5
percent, or even some will say 6 percent, is full employment. If you
have unemployment of 5 or 6 percent, then you are at full employment
because of people desiring to be between jobs; but West Virginia is at
3.8 percent, which tracks relatively well to the entire Nation.
Again, the Official Truth Squad's desire is to put real information,
honest information, truthful numbers out for the American public and
just let them draw the conclusions that they draw, understanding that
the conclusions that we draw when we look at these numbers are pretty
doggone optimistic, pretty positive, not what you normally hear coming
out of Washington.
This chart here talks about the unemployment rate and the jobs
rebound. And the graph here goes from January of 2003 to just the end
of last year, the end of 2005. Now, it ought to go further. I have to
get this updated because the trend of these lines continues in the same
direction. And this upper line here, the red line here, is the
unemployment rate; and the green line down here is the number of jobs.
And as you see, there was a peak of unemployment around the beginning
to the middle of 2003, and that rate at that time was somewhere in the
range of 6.1, 6.2 percent.
What we have seen since that time is a steady decrease in
unemployment and a consistent increase in jobs. As the gentlewoman from
West Virginia mentioned, in January 193,000 new jobs. And although this
has the unemployment rate at 5 percent, which it was toward the ends of
2005, the unemployment rate now for the Nation is 4.7 percent.
{time} 1445
4.7 percent, as she mentioned, is the lowest monthly rate since July
of 2001.
I think it is important when we talk about these numbers, again
truthfully, honestly and openly, to give folks an opportunity to
compare them to something. What are you going to compare it to?
The best thing to compare it to is the history. What is our history?
Where
[[Page 2521]]
has the rate been? Well, the rate that we currently have now, 4.7
percent, is lower than the average for the decade of the 1970s, decade
of the 1980s, and the decade of the 1990s. You remember the boom time
in the 1990s?
Lower than the average for the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. Over 2
million jobs created in the last 12 months and over 4.7 million jobs
created since 2003.
I am fond of charts and pictures because I think they just paint the
story so much better than I can describe it. There is also a line here,
this vertical line here of the dotted green color, and what happened at
that point, curiously enough, is what again the gentlewoman from West
Virginia mentioned, and that is, that the Jobs and Growth Act went into
effect, the fair tax decreases went into effect so that there was more
money to put into the economy so people had more disposable income. And
when you give people back more of their own money, what happens? The
economy booms, the economy increases and gets better. So it is a cause-
and-effect relationship without any doubt.
I mentioned the number of new jobs, 4.7 million new jobs, and again,
with a picture being able to paint it so much better than I can
describe, on this axis down here, we have January 2002, all the way
over to January 2006. These are the percentages of unemployment, the
monthly change each month in the number of jobs, the amount of
unemployment, and before the fair tax decreases went into effect, what
you see is a decrease in the number of jobs available, lower jobs
available.
Then, as soon as that happens, as soon as those tax decreases went
into effect, what happens? We see significant increases in the number
of jobs available; so much so that it is a steady run, and it continues
as such, again, 193,000 new jobs in January of this year.
So these are facts. This is the truth. The picture tells the story,
and it is a story, again, that you often do not get if you are paying
attention to your nightly news or your friendly newspaper.
So we are proud and pleased to come before the American people and
tell this kind of optimistic and positive story.
I am always pleased to be joined by the gentlewoman from Virginia,
another fellow freshman who, like I, was somewhat distressed at the
tone of the rhetoric that we heard in Washington and was really a prime
mover in getting this started, this Official Truth Squad, to bring a
positive message to the American people.
And today, talking about the economy, a successful small business
woman; and I am so pleased to have you join us again. I yield to the
gentlewoman from the great State of Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, Congressman Price, and I really
do appreciate the effort you have made to make sure that the American
people truly understand what is happening within our economy today. I
know you and I share a lot of very similar beliefs.
I just wanted to start today by reminding you and bringing to mind
again a really wonderful quote by former President Ronald Reagan, when
he said, ``There are no great limits to growth because there are no
limits of human intelligence, imagination and wonder,'' and that is
part of what you are seeing in this increase in job growth.
We believe that the strength of our Nation lies with the individual
and that each person's dignity, freedom and ability and responsibility
must be honored. We believe that free enterprise and encouraging
individual initiative have brought this Nation opportunity, economic
growth and prosperity.
But there is an alternative to what we believe, and that alternative
belief is one that seeks a solution that consists more of invasive
government. And not surprisingly, Ronald Reagan had something to say
about that as well. I think we as Americans remember the quote very,
very well, and it is that ``The government's view of the economy could
be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps
moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.''
In economic terms, we will all remember the 21st century began
slowly. The telecom bubble burst. We were attacked in the heart of our
financial sector. Certain industries lagged, and we had entered a
recession. It is during these difficult periods that we require
leadership more than ever. We needed to pursue positive economic
policies that would put the American people back in the driver's seat.
I know you and I share the belief that our tax policies should be one
that supports our economy, that it increases our revenue, and so that
is why I wanted to talk today about what changes have come about in the
past 5 years, these changes that support our American families and
support American businesses.
You will remember in the 2001 tax cuts that the first objective was
to put money back in the hands of individuals and families. In June of
2001, tax cuts were enacted through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act. Some of the most important aspects of that act are
that they lowered marginal income tax rates, reduced the marriage
penalty and the death tax, and increased the child tax credit, all
things that are very important to American families. This was
comprehensive legislation that reduced the tax burden on all Americans.
In the 2003 tax cuts, the objective was to create a more favorable
climate for industry and small business to invest and to create job
growth. In the years preceding the 2003 Jobs and Growth Act, business
investment spending had steadily declined. We needed to pull businesses
and entrepreneurs back into the market through investment-friendly tax
policies, restoring economic competitiveness and employment
opportunities. So Congress took decisive action.
Despite the naysayers, the results speak for themselves, and the
results are very clear. Growth in our economy is one of the least told
stories. I believe, and I know that you believe that if we allow
Americans to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, that they will
save that money, they will invest that money, they will create new jobs
with that money.
And business investment has grown in every quarter. Today, small
businesses, small businesses like mine, represent 99.7 percent of all
employer firms. They employ nearly half of all private sector
employees, and over the past decade, on average, have generated 60 to
80 percent of the net new jobs.
Job creation, as you were showing the chart there right now, nearly
4.7 million jobs have been created since President Bush signed the 2003
Jobs and Growth Act, with 2.1 million of those created in the past
year.
Today's unemployment rate is at 4.7 percent and is lower than the
decade averages of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. What an incredible
statement. And they are good jobs. Real, after-tax income has risen at
a rate higher than inflation since 2001, and personal income has grown
above inflation in 49 of our 50 States.
Most importantly, Federal revenues have been rising during this time.
If we let people save their money or create new jobs, create new
revenues, that creates additional tax revenue for the Federal
Government. In May of 2003, receipts were under $1.8 trillion. In
fiscal year 2005, they rose to an all-time high of $2.15 trillion.
We realize that we cannot feed the Federal Treasury by starving
American businesses, but thanks to these policies, more low- and
middle-income Americans looking for a job will be able to find one
simply because there are 2.1 million more jobs this year.
But you and I realize there is more work to be done, that America
agrees, and I think it is in everyone's minds that we do need complete
tax reform, and I know that is something we will be working on.
I really think that there are models across the world for us, and I
think the most compelling story today is the story of Ireland. In the
mid-1980s, Ireland's economy was faltering; we all know that. College
graduates could not find a job and were leaving the country in droves.
Confidence in the Irish economy was at an all-time low. Change
[[Page 2522]]
was necessary, along with the leadership necessary to implement it.
The corporate tax rate today in Ireland is 12.15 percent, far below
the rest of Europe. This attracted foreign investment necessary to
boost economic growth. Today, nine of ten of the world's top
pharmaceutical companies and seven of the top ten software designers
currently have operations in Ireland, and it is currently the second
richest country in the European Union with a per capita GDP higher than
that of Germany, France and Britain.
Now we have to ask ourselves, do we continue to encourage American
businesses by creating the climate necessary for success or do we allow
them to go somewhere else?
So I thank you for the opportunity, thank you for your work in making
sure that we do tell the American people the good news story that we
are in as a result of the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. It is our
responsibility to make sure that we maintain a solid policy, tax policy
that grows our economy, grows our revenues and benefits each and every
American.
Thank you for what you are doing.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you are very kind. I appreciate
you coming and sharing those words and, once again, words of optimism,
words of truthful perspective as it relates to the United States.
I was struck by your description of the tax policy because what we
saw with that tax policy is the increase in the child tax credit, the
decreased marriage penalty. These are family-friendly things. This is
what some of the folks on the other side of the aisle will call tax
cuts for the wealthy. It just is not so. Again, we have got to talk
about truth if we are going to get to the right solution.
When you decrease taxes, as you well know, on small business, which
is the engine of our economy, small businesses across our Nation, what
happens is that you allow individuals more opportunity for employment.
When people have jobs, then they are able to care for their families
and, again, a family-friendly environment that we have in this Nation
now as it relates to tax policy. Those are the kinds of things that
need to continue.
People say, well, what difference does it make who is in charge there
in Washington? I am here to tell you, elections are about choices and
the choices we are going to have this year are fairly stark from
individuals on one side who will tell you that, no, you do not need to
have the kind of tax decreases, the tax cuts, that we have had; what
the government needs is more of your money. That just is not the case,
as we have demonstrated time and time again here with The Official
Truth Squad.
But when you put more people's money back in their pockets, what
happens? They are happier, their families are more secure, the
communities are more secure, and businesses and the economy flourish.
So thank you very much for sharing those kind words.
I was also struck by the description of Ireland, which nobody a few
years ago would have said was an economic engine or a powerhouse, but
now it is. It is again because of their tax policy that is friendly to
business, which, in turn, becomes friendly to communities and friendly
to families, and that is how economics work.
If you appreciate and you understand how a capitalist economy works,
and then you understand that it is important to put more money, more
people's money back in their own pockets; that it is not the
government's money, it is the people's money; and that we here in
Washington do not have a revenue problem, we have got a spending
problem.
So I am so pleased to be able to be joined by my colleagues to bring
light to that, and one of my great freshman colleagues who has just
been a wonderful contributor and supporter and innovator in the
Official Truth Squad joins us now, the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx). She is a great friend, has a great history in the arena of
education, but understands clearly the importance of a positive
economic outlook and a positive economic perspective and economic
policy.
So I welcome and yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Price for yielding. I
appreciate it very much, and as our colleagues have expressed to you
before, we thank you for organizing these meetings and helping to get
the Truth Squad out here.
Many of us have been concerned for the past several months that there
is a lot of disinformation out there and that the time has come for us
to set the record straight, and I think that it is very important that
we do so. Just saying things will not make them so, but if they are not
responded to, then people will believe that they are so.
I thought that our colleague, the gentlewoman from the State of
Virginia (Mrs. Drake), was doing a great job of talking about several
of the issues that I think are important, and talking about Ireland as
a great success story is important to do.
{time} 1500
Our economy is doing great, and talking it down does not help our
situation and our country. I think we do need to be positive and talk
about how things are going great.
I speak to a lot of school groups, and they will often ask me what is
the difference between Democrats and Republicans, and I generally give
them several things to think about. But as my colleague pointed out,
the biggest difference between Democrats and Republicans is we believe
that the public knows how to spend its money better than the government
knows how to spend their money. That is sort of a short definition. If
we left it up to the Democrats, they would basically be taking all the
money from everybody and giving it to government bureaucrats to spend.
I think the whole issue of family friendly taxes is very important
too. We are not a party of extremely wealthy people, as we are
portrayed to be. In fact, there is a lot more wealth on the other side
than there is on our side, but they do a pretty good job of trying to
hide that.
I want to talk about some specific numbers also, in addition to
talking about in general terms some things that may have already been
said by some of my colleagues. I have been out meeting with
constituents, so I am not sure of all the things that were said, and I
hope I do not repeat too many of the same things.
I think it is important to talk about the fact that our unemployment
rate right now is 4.7 percent, the lowest monthly rate since 2001, and
lower than the averages of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Just today I was talking to a man with a very large business down in
North Carolina in the fifth district, and he was saying they could grow
their business by 300 or 400 people if they could get the skilled
workers that they need to grow that business. That is a very
significant point for us. Our economy could be doing even better, but
we do lack skilled folks. I talked with him and I will be working with
the community college system down there to try to help him get the
programs established that he needs so that they can get people with the
backgrounds that they need.
I am not sure if Congresswoman Drake mentioned this, but real
household net worth right now is $51.1 trillion, an all-time high in
this country. Our GDP, of course, is growing at a much higher rate than
anybody thought it was going to grow. The fourth quarter grew at 1.6
percent, and the estimate had been 1.1 percent. This encouraging
economic news is proof that lower taxes plus restrained Federal
spending equals economic growth.
That is a math equation that the Democrats just cannot seem to grasp.
Maybe it is because they keep trying to substitute new variables and it
just does not work. Taxing plus spending will never equal economic
growth and prosperity. But the Republican formula of lower taxes and
restrained Federal spending will always come out in favor of the
American taxpayer and his checkbook, and that is what we need to be
concentrating on.
[[Page 2523]]
I am going to throw out a few more facts to go along with what we are
trying to do through the Truth Squad. We have got high consumer
confidence these days, too. It rose to 106.3 in January, the highest
level in over 3 years. So we are doing our best to make sure people
know the economy is doing well and to raise consumer confidence.
We know that incomes rose in December, and we are up 1.4 percent in
2005. Again, very, very good news. Retail sales rose in December. We
are up 6.4 percent in 2005 over 2004. Our manufacturing continues to
expand. Manufacturing activity grew for the 32nd consecutive month in
January. There is tremendous expansion out there, so we want that to
continue to grow.
Construction spending is at an all-time high. Construction spending
rose 1 percent in the month of December alone. For 2005, spending
reached a record $1.120 trillion, an increase of 8.9 percent over the
previous record set in 2004. Housing starts continue to go up.
So our economy is doing very well, and, again, it is based on the
fact that Republicans believe in lower taxes and leaving more money in
the pockets of American families. That is the way we can grow the
economy. I hate hearing the words ``government investment.'' The
government never invests. It spends.
We have to get people to understand the language. As my colleagues
know, language is a very important thing to us. How we use words is
important because it gets people's minds set about what those words
mean. We need to stop government spending, and we need to leave as much
money as possible in the hands of the American taxpayers. We need to
keep this economy growing vitally, and the way to do that is to keep
Republicans in charge.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I will yield back to the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Congresswoman Foxx, thank you so very, very
much for coming and joining us today and really painting a wonderful
picture.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you heard all of the items that
Congresswoman Foxx ticked off there, but this is positive news. This is
great news. This is good, good news.
Consumer confidence increasing, incomes up across the Nation, average
real after-tax income per person has risen 7.9 percent, retail sales
increased, manufacturing continues to expand, durable goods orders on
the rise, new orders for durable goods increased 1.3 percent in
December with new orders for machinery rising 6.5 percent, the highest
level since the series began tracking that in 1992. That is good news.
Productivity growth is strong. Productivity increased 2.3 percent and
has grown 3.2 percent, at that annual rate, since the end of 2000. That
is good news. Construction rates up; all-time high. Again, remarkable.
Remarkably good news.
And that is what the Official Truth Squad is all about, coming to the
floor to give honesty to the debate. Truthful numbers. Real numbers.
Because it is important that people have that in order to make
decisions.
Something that has been alluded to a number of times as we have had
our discussion here today is the effect of tax decreases. I call them
fair tax decreases. Some people call them tax cuts, I guess. I call
them fair tax decreases. And what they will say is, we cannot have any
more tax cuts. We cannot have any more tax decreases or even keep what
we have. That is what the other side says, we cannot allow you to keep
your money because government needs it. That is the way the line goes.
But what is the effect of tax decreases? What is the effect from an
economic standpoint? Well, again, a picture paints it better than
anything I could ever say. Down here is the year 2000 all the way to
2005. The vertical line there, the vertical dotted green line is when
the tax decreases, the Jobs and Growth Act, went into effect. And the
red line is revenue coming in to the government, how much money the
government is receiving based upon the taxes.
Again, remember, revenue going down here from 2000 to 2003,
decreasing money coming into the government. So what do the President
and the Republican Congress do? Well, they decrease taxes. A fair tax
decrease. That is what happened here. Then what happens? Revenue
increases. Money coming into the government increases.
That seems counterintuitive, but that is what happens. President
Kennedy knew that. That is what happened when he had his tax decreases.
President Reagan knew that. That is what happened when he instituted
his tax decreases. And what happened with President Bush's tax
decrease? Same thing.
You would think there was a trend there, Mr. Speaker. You would think
that, in fact, if you decreased taxes, you would increase governmental
revenue. Well, that is the secret. That is what happens. And why does
that happen? Because as we have talked about, the economy flourishes.
The economy flourishes when you put more of the people's money in their
back pocket and in their purses, and not in the government's purse.
What happens is that the economy flourishes.
Now, I mentioned a little earlier that we in Washington, that
government does not have a revenue problem. It has enough revenue. That
is clear. It has a spending problem. So Congress is trying as hard as
it can to decrease the amount of spending. And it is a difficult thing
to do in this environment where you have the distortion and the
misinformation and the disinformation and the incredible personal
attacks that are given. So it is a difficult thing to do.
But all last year what we tried to do is to work on what is called a
deficit reduction act, which is spending less money. Ultimately, it
took a little over a year, but in January when we came back, in early
February we passed the Deficit Reduction Act that saved, that saved
$39.8 billion. That is a good thing. That is a positive thing.
I asked my staff to see if they could get me a poster of the number
of folks on the other side of the aisle, the Democrats, that supported
a decrease in spending, which is what they say they want to do all the
time. How many folks on the other side of the aisle voted for that? And
I have that chart here somewhere. I found it. I found the poster that
has the name of every single Democrat that voted in favor of a $39.89
billion decrease in spending.
There it is. Right there. Not a one. Not a one. I point up the other
charts because, as I say, they are truthful. This is truthful. This is
the slate of individuals on the other side of the aisle who are
interested truly in stepping up to the plate and working hard together.
Because these are not Republican problems, and they are not Democrat
problems. But, Mr. Speaker, when only one party is interested in
working positively, it gets pretty doggone hard to do something here.
It really does.
So those are the folks willing to help us on the other side in terms
of decreasing spending. So that is what the Official Truth Squad is all
about, bringing appropriate, honest, truthful information to the
American people. And we get terribly frustrated, as I mentioned, with
what has been described as the politics of division. Many people
practice it here in Washington. It is kind of tried-and-true; but,
again, it does not get to the right answers. It does not help. It has
been used for a long time, but it is not positive, it is not a
productive activity, and it does not serve people well back home.
One gentleman who knew that well was Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln
knew that the politics of division are destructive, and he talked about
it in a way that I think is more eloquent than anybody has ever said.
What he said was: ``You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging
thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You
cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot
encourage the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You
cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character
and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. And you
cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could do for
themselves.''
[[Page 2524]]
Remarkable words from one of the pillars in our Nation's history. It
kind of crystallizes the American philosophy. It puts it better than,
frankly, I have ever heard it.
So what the Official Truth Squad is all about, Mr. Speaker, is
bringing truth and enlightening information to the American people and
trying to give them a little alternative to what they oftentimes hear
coming out of Washington. We try to make sure there is a positive tilt
to it, because we live in the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth.
We live in a glorious and wondrous Nation. It is a Nation that still is
seen by men and women around the world as a beacon of liberty and a
repository of hope.
I am so honored and proud to serve in the United States House of
Representatives and to have the opportunity to share a positive
perspective and a positive vision with my colleagues and with the
American people.
____________________
{time} 1515
MISSED OPPORTUNITIES IN AFGHANISTAN AND BEYOND
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Davis of Kentucky). Under a previous
order of the House, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's brief stopover in
Afghanistan yesterday gives us an opportunity to take stock of the
progress that has been made there. It also provides an opportunity to
reflect on what the world might look like today if the United States
had adopted a wiser foreign and national security policy after the
terrible attacks on our country on September 11, 2001.
After that tragic day, the world united behind the United States and
our determination to destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the
terrorists responsible for those attacks. We sometimes forget here that
within days of the attack the United Nation's General Assembly, friends
and foe alike, unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the attacks
on the United States. And NATO, for the first time in its history,
invoked article 5 of the Washington Treaty stating an attack against
one is an attack against all.
When the brutal Taliban regime refused to support action against al
Qaeda, the United States took appropriate military action to force out
the Taliban and attempt to destroy the al Qaeda terror network. That
was the right action and had the strong backing of the American people.
And Afghanistan is a much better place today.
However, while we succeeded in driving out the Taliban from the
capital city of Kabul and killed a number of al Qaeda leaders, we have
not finished the job. Indeed, Osama bin Laden, the man responsible for
masterminding the 9/11 attacks, is still alive and likely to be
somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border, less than 100 miles from
where President Bush stood just yesterday.
And the continued presence of active Taliban and al Qaeda resistance
in Afghanistan and along the Pakistan border represents a lost
opportunity. Instead of finishing the job against al Qaeda, the
President decided instead to attack Iraq, a nation with no weapons of
mass destruction and a government that was actually an ideological
adversary of al Qaeda.
As a result of invading Iraq, the Bush administration squandered a
huge opportunity to keep both our forces and the international
community focused on defeating al Qaeda and its brand of radical Islam.
The goodwill that the United States had developed throughout the world
in the aftermath of 9/11 evaporated as we switched our focus from the
enemy that attacked us to one that had not. As a result, our invasion
of Iraq has fueled radical Islamic and anti-American forces and allowed
al Qaeda to gain new recruits around the world.
Today, the United States is tied down in an increasingly volatile
Iraq, and the man actually responsible for launching the attacks on the
United States, Osama bin Laden, remains at the top of his terrorist
network.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to make mistakes that will
hamper our ability to put the Taliban and al Qaeda out of business
permanently. First, the United States is sending the wrong message by
reducing the number of our forces in Afghanistan. Just yesterday, as
President Bush was arriving in Afghanistan, the director of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, General Maples, told Members of this Congress that
the insurgency in Afghanistan is growing and will increase this spring,
presenting a greater threat to the central government's expansion of
authority than at any point since 2001. And the greatest threat of
Taliban resurgence is in southern Afghanistan, the area from which the
United States will be withdrawing more than 2,000 troops.
While we welcome the additional NATO forces in Afghanistan, it would
be far wiser to use these NATO troops to supplement rather than replace
the U.S. forces in the region. We should not be sending the wrong
signal to the Taliban and al Qaeda at this delicate time. We are still
living with the consequences of neglecting Afghanistan in the past.
Second, Mr. Speaker, the United States must end the abuse of the
detainees at the prison at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Recent
evidence suggests that the abuses that have taken place there are even
worse than those that occurred at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in
Baghdad.
The United States must lead by example. The abuse of prisoners is
wrong and will only strengthen the hands of al Qaeda and the
extremists. We cannot credibly demand that others adhere to the rule of
law if we are flouting international human rights standards. The
President's stopover in Afghanistan gave him a chance to declare that
such abuse is unacceptable.
Like so much else, however, it was another missed opportunity. As a
result of many missed opportunities since 9/11, the United States is
less secure than we could be. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are still in
operation. The Taliban are feeling emboldened. We are bogged down in
Iraq, and our weakened moral standing around the world has made it more
difficult for us to influence events and protect our security. Let us
stop missing opportunities to strengthen our security. We must not
reduce our commitment to the people of Afghanistan, and we must
increase our commitment to human rights.
Mr. Speaker, we can and should do better, much better.
____________________
THE PRESIDENT'S 2007 BUDGET
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I plan to yield to several of my
colleagues. Mr. Scott from Virginia is also going to speak, and as soon
as Mr. Spratt, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, comes
out of an important hearing on the Dubai ports issue, he will be able
to join us as well.
Mr. Speaker, the 2007 budget takes America down a wrong and unsus-
tainable path. The decisions the President made in this budget favor
the wealthy over the working class. These decisions reward those who
live off what the IRS considers to be unearned income, while making
those who have to work long hours every day, to support themselves and
their families, pay far more in taxes. In fact, I think you would have
found bipartisan agreement if we could have worked out tax cuts that
were more in the interest of the working class and those hardworking
families.
But, in fact, when you combine the focus of the tax cuts on those who
live primarily off unearned income and the spending cuts that
purportedly are necessary to offset the cost of these tax cuts, the
majority of young people in this country will find it harder to go to
college. It will be harder for low-income elderly to get the nutrition
and health care they need, and it will be much harder for our
grandchildren to pay for the future needs that their generation will
face.
[[Page 2525]]
The decisions made in the President's 2007 budget, like his budgets
since 2002, define a Nation, a community, if you will, that is not the
America that we know. In fact, his priorities are just the opposite of
what makes America great.
We heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle; they
call it a so-called Republican truth squad. It boggles your mind.
But the fact is that the Bush administration has raised spending
while they have cut taxes. You can't fight two wars on four tax cuts,
ladies and gentlemen.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina suggested that the government
never invests, it only spends. Well, what does she think is the purpose
of the interstate highway system that enabled our economy to fulfill
its potential during the Eisenhower administration and subsequent
administrations, or the money that we have put into the public schools
systems to empower our working class?
And that is what we are talking about, investment that will give us
sustainable benefits versus tax cuts that are immediately lost, most of
which seem to be invested overseas, and cuts in the real safety net
that can make America achieve its greatness.
The conscious choices made in this budget reflect the flawed policies
of an administration that has taken this country down a terribly wrong
path, one that consists of waging an unnecessary and extraordinarily
costly war, delivering huge tax cuts to the very wealthiest of this
Nation, and taking the Federal debt to depths never before experienced,
while reducing services to working Americans.
First, the 2007 budget is heavily impacted by the consequences of a
reckless foreign venture, namely, the war in Iraq. The President's 2007
budget sets aside another $120 billion supplemental to cover the cost
of waging this war in fiscal 2007. Of course, this is on top of a
regular defense budget of over $450 billion. And, in fact, we have now
allotted over $400 billion, when you look through fiscal 2007,
primarily for this war in Iraq, and very little for the war in
Afghanistan that was referred to by our colleague from Maryland.
The money that is requested in these Iraq war supplementals is $40
billion more than we request for transportation, $33 billion more than
we request for education and training, more than $40 billion more than
we request for the care of our military veterans, more than $90 billion
more than we will set aside to protect our environment and natural
resources, and more than $80 billion for what is considered diplomacy,
but is spent on dealing with the AIDS crisis, on dealing with the
ethnic cleansing, the genocide in Sudan and throughout the world,
places where we could have such a constructive, positive effect.
The amount of money that is being requested in fiscal 2007 for this
war in Iraq will bring the total amount requested by the Bush
administration to $490 billion, an enormous sum. The American people
have to ask, has this been worth it, given the results to date? But we
know the results are more than 2,300 Americans who have lost their
lives in Iraq; more than 16,700 who have been wounded; tens, if not
hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi casualties; and yet Osama bin Laden is
still on the run. Iraq now appears to be descending into an all-out
civil war and al Qaeda recruitment levels are reportedly stronger than
ever.
But while our men and women are risking their lives overseas, at the
instruction of this administration, and of course, we have great regard
for their courage and sacrifice, we are not being asked to sacrifice at
home; and, in fact, the people who have been the most rewarded by this
great economy--that was built on the investments that have been made in
prior generations--they are being asked to sacrifice the least. In
fact, they are actually being rewarded. The same time that these men
and women are going to war, we are continuing trillions of dollars of
tax cuts that primarily benefit the very wealthiest in our society. And
yet these tax proposals are going to cost the American people about $3
trillion, $3 trillion over the next decade. The benefits from these tax
cuts are heavily skewed toward the wealthy.
If they were to fix the alternative minimum tax for the middle class,
that would be one thing. If they were to help working-class families
deal with the vulnerabilities they face in providing for their
families, that would be one thing. But that is not where most of it
goes. More than half of these benefits go to the 4 percent of Americans
who make over $200,000 annually.
Four years from now, in 2010, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1
million a year will receive average tax cuts worth $155,000, 100 times
the tax cut that the average taxpayer will receive. Is that fair? Is
that smart? I don't think it is appropriate, and I don't think it
reflects America's priorities. And they come at a huge cost to the
fiscal security of this Nation; causing massive amounts of annual
Federal deficits.
Over the last 4 years, we have seen the largest deficits in the
history of our Nation. Mr. Scott is going to show you what has happened
over the last 5 years on a chart. I hope you will pay close attention.
It is unbelievable.
The current fiscal year, 2006, is expected to produce the largest
deficit ever in the history of our country at $423 billion. And this
doesn't even take into account the supplemental spending requests that
the President will send up to the Hill any day now which will increase
the 2006 deficit to well over half a trillion dollars. And fiscal 2007
will be another year of historic deficits predicted to be $354 billion.
{time} 1530
In fact, since President Bush took office, we have had the largest
annual deficits in the history of this country, and those numbers are
net numbers after you take the Social Security surplus and offset it
against general fund deficits. So you can add another $200 billion
annually to each of those numbers.
So we are creating debt of over $500 billion a year, Mr. Speaker.
These deficits and the $8 trillion in debt we now have as a result of
prior deficits will place on our children and grandchildren an
unprecedented level of debt burden.
Because of these policies, every child born today automatically
inherits $28,000 as their share of the Federal debt. And under the
President's budget proposals, a child born just 5 years from now will
inherit a much larger share. In fact, they will be paying taxes for
nearly the first 5 months of every year just to pay the interest on the
debt that their parents' generation incurred.
The President's massive budget deficits also require us to borrow
from foreign governments. Foreign investors now hold half of the
country's publicly held debt. China alone holds $250 billion of the
public debt, which is more than 300 percent the amount that China held
only 5 years ago. They have a fiscal guillotine over our necks if they
chose to use it. We are so dependent upon China's being willing to
borrow all this debt that we generate year after year.
Let me just show you a chart, in fact, of this foreign debt; Mr.
Kahn, our very able staff director on the House Budget Committee, has
put this together. This is the aggregate U.S. national debt held by
foreign countries.
Now, the debt was climbing during the Reagan years in the 1980s,
continued to climb during the Bush years. During the beginning of the
Clinton years, it started to top off, and then with President Clinton
having adopted the pay-as-you-go policy of the first President Bush,
having to pay for tax cuts as well as additional spending, we got the
budget under control. We had an estimated $5.6 trillion surplus
predicted for the succeeding decade. So foreign debt would have gone
down just like this. And as our foreign debt went down, our national
security would have gone up.
But this administration decided they did not want to adopt the
policies of the father. They did not want any pay-as-you-go. They just
wanted to cut taxes. The heck with paying it. We will send a credit
card to the next generation. They can pay off our debt. That is their
problem, not ours. We are going
[[Page 2526]]
to live high off the hog. We are going to reward our contributors. And
the fact is that that is exactly what has happened, and we have driven
this Nation into debt.
But even more seriously, look at what has happened to foreign debt.
Foreign debt has gone up like this to here. We are now at $1.5
trillion. Here we are at $1.175 trillion and here we are over $2
trillion in 2005, a substantial share being purchased by China, as I
just said, a 300 percent increase in China's share of the foreign debt.
But imagine what has happened to foreign debt since 2001 when this
President took office. Talk about endangering national security.
Now, who pays for all of this? Well, what happens is that the
American people obviously pay. Our children will pay most of it. But
even today the sick and the elderly who need care that cannot be
provided by their families will pay. We will have our college students
pay in reductions in student loans, and basically the dignity and the
upward mobility of the American working class is going to suffer for
these policies. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is not
sustainable, that has to be reversed.
Now, everyone is entitled to their own ideological opinions. I do not
think they ought to be entitled to their own set of facts. This is
factual information. You can check in any of these budget documents put
out by the government. You can find that the amount of debt has
skyrocketed. The amount of debt held by foreign nations has skyrocketed
to an even greater degree. We are dependent on countries like China to
keep us afloat.
And, in fact, the working class has suffered. Our children are going
to pay the bill, and we are involved in a war that we are only paying
for by borrowing from the future. We have not paid one dime of the cost
of the Iraq war nor have we paid for the tax cuts that we have so
blithely passed.
Mr. Speaker, with this, I would like to yield to Mr. Scott, who has
been on the Budget Committee for several years, and he is going to show
you some shocking charts as well.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Virginia for yielding to me.
My colleague from Virginia, you have done an excellent job in
outlining what the problem is.
I like to use charts as I describe what the problem is. Our previous
speaker indicated, the Truth Squad, as to what the truth is. I would
like to point out exactly what he is talking about because this chart
shows the deficit back through the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton
administrations, up to a surplus and what has happened in the last 5
years.
When they talk about bragging about fiscal responsibility from the
Republican side, this is the line they are talking about, the one they
are bragging about right here.
When they ask what the Democratic plan is to get us out of this mess,
I would say, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is this blue line right
here. That is what we had under President Clinton. My colleague from
Virginia will remember in 1993 the first budget passed under the
Clinton administration. It passed without a single Republican vote,
House or Senate, and we took that budget and took it up to a surplus.
In 1995, when the Republicans came in and took control of Congress,
they passed a different kind of budget, and President Clinton vetoed
that budget. In fact, they threatened to close down the government if
he did not sign those tax cuts, and he vetoed it again and the
government was shut down. President Clinton would not sign an
irresponsible budget. And as a result, we have almost a straight line
up into a surplus.
When President Bush came in, everything collapsed. They stopped
paying for tax cuts or paying for spending cuts. Pay-as-you-go
dissolved, and here is what you have. And this is the line they are
bragging about.
Now, unfortunately, it is going to get worse before it gets better.
The President says that he wants to cut the deficit in half in 5 years.
That is a fairly, what I would say, modest goal, taking into
consideration the fact that you had a huge surplus to begin with to say
that you are only going to clean up half of the mess, but the fact is
he cannot even do it if we make the tax cuts permanent and do other
things that he has suggested. And they are passing.
This is the line we are going to follow for the next 10 years. Deep
into deficits. This green line is the promise, which is not much, but
the red line is what we are going to probably do.
This little blue line up here is an interesting line because that is
the budget from this administration in 2003 before they continued
cutting taxes. They showed that by now we would be up into surplus.
2003 is significant because that is after 2001. After the war we still
had projected, before we continued to mess up the budget, we were
supposed to be in surplus now, but here we are deep in the ditch. In
fact, as my colleague from Virginia has indicated, we had, when this
administration started, a projected $5.6 trillion surplus for the
following decade. We have dropped almost $9 trillion to, the same year,
a $3.3 trillion deficit, a turnaround of $8.9 trillion.
Now, let us put that number in perspective because it is a big
number. If you add up everybody's individual income tax, what everybody
pays on April 15, every individual, what your individual tax is, it
averages year by year to be about $800 billion. An average
deterioration in the budget, almost $900 billion, deterioration in the
budget. And when you talk about the war, the gentleman mentioned less
than $500 billion, 0.5.
Talk about Katrina, $200 billion, we might want to pay for the
Katrina aftermath, 0.2. An $8.9 trillion deterioration; you cannot
blame it on 0.5 and 0.2. And since that happened, it looks like you
would have changed course somehow to accommodate it. No, you kept going
straight. But you cannot blame 0.5 and 0.2 on a $9 trillion
deterioration.
Now, the Truth Squad indicated a blank slate of the Democrats who
voted for the spending cuts in 1991. That is true. But they did not
tell you what the spending cuts were. Food stamps and health care for
the working poor, and I say ``working poor'' because when you cut, you
cut from the top. The ones that are struggling, the ones that are just
barely making it, you whack them. The very poor are untouched; it is
just the working, struggling poor that get whacked with food stamps and
health care.
They also cut child care, child support enforcement, foster care. We
had a group come into my office the other day talking about the effects
on foster care. Many at-risk children who are in foster care now will
not have resources to help them. These are the ones at most risk of
getting into trouble, getting into other problems that we are going to
have to deal with. Those are the ones that got whacked by that budget,
as well as, as the gentleman indicated, student loans. That is what we
did not vote for.
But he also did not say what that was a total package of. They had
spending cuts and they had tax cuts. The spending cuts were less than
$40 billion. The tax cuts were $70 billion. Had we passed the plan, we
were going to be $30 billion worse off, further in the ditch than we
started off. These are some of the problems with the budget.
And let me get these other charts which point out that when you run
up that kind of deficit, that is kind of esoteric, but at some point
not only do you have to pay it back, but in the meanwhile, interest on
the national debt. By 2010, compared to where we were on the line on
interest in the national debt, we are going to be spending over $200
billion more in interest on the national debt, $227 billion more in
interest on the national debt than we had projected.
At $22,000 a year for a job, how many people can you hire with $227
billion? Answer: 10 million. There are only 8 or 9 million people
looking for work, drawing unemployment today. You could hire each and
every one of them with a $22,000 job and have money left over with the
additional interest in the national debt that we are going to have to
pay.
Now, as you have indicated, we are running up debt. This chart shows
the
[[Page 2527]]
Social Security cash flow. What we are spending now, the little blue
line, shows that we are bringing in more than we are paying out. In
2017, we are going to start paying out more than we are bringing in.
Right at the time we are deepest in the debt, paying the most in
interest on the debt, we are going to need to come up with cash to pay
for Social Security.
Now, there is an old adage that goes, ``If you don't change
directions, you might end up where you're headed.'' Let us look at what
where we are headed with this budget. This black line shows the taxes
if we continue making these tax cuts permanent, as the Republicans have
continued to pass. Where are we headed? By 2040, this line goes across
and shows that we could be able to pay for the blue, interest on the
national debt; the yellow, Social Security, and we would have to borrow
a lot of money to pay for that because you are not even covering Social
Security; but we would also have to borrow for the red, which is
Medicare and Medicaid; and green, which is government spending like
defense, education, FBI, and everything else we do, all with borrowed
money.
{time} 1545
Obviously, this is not a sustainable direction. We have to change
directions, and we need to start now. It is not getting any better.
I thank you for leading this Special Order. We have a lot of work to
do. Again, if people want to know what the Democratic plan is, the
democratic plan is the blue. We dug ourselves deeply out of debt and
ran up a surplus sufficient to have an over-$5 trillion surplus.
Mentioning Social Security, to pay for Social Security for the next
75 years, we would need today $4 trillion more in the trust fund, $4
trillion more. We had over a $5 trillion surplus squandered away,
turned into a deficit. We had the Social Security problem licked
because we had gone into surplus. We could have paid Social Security
for the next 75 years. But, no, we went in a different direction.
We need to get back to the Democratic plan and certainly reject more
of what we have been doing for the last 5 years.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Virginia. Let me
just clarify a couple of points. In the Democratic plan, it was
basically based upon the pay-as-you-go concept of 1990 with the first
President Bush, a bipartisan plan to pay for any subsequent tax cuts,
to have sufficient revenue to pay for whatever spending occurred, but
to balance the budget each year. By those efforts to balance the
budget, it actually created a surplus.
Now, I know that the gentleman voted after 9/11 to go to war in
Afghanistan, to go after the people that attacked us, Osama bin Laden,
as I did; but that is a small fraction of the money that we are
spending on the Iraq war.
The gentleman knows a lot of people, men and women, who have been
financially successful. Does he feel that if they had been asked to
sacrifice to pay for the war to go after those people who attacked us
on 9/11, that they would have readily foregone tax cuts so that we
could keep the budget balanced and avoid deficits being passed on to
future generations?
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. If the gentleman would yield further, not only
that, and the way the question is framed, it is significant, because
the overwhelming portion of the tax cuts are going to people that make
more than $200,000.
There is one tax cut that goes into effect this year, colloquially
known as PEP and Pease, dealing with standard deductions and other
kinds of deductions that can be made. To make a long story short, it
only affects the wealthy. If you are making more than $1 million, you
get out of this tax cut, when it is fully phased in, about $19,000. If
you are down between $75,000 and $100,000, on average you will get $1.
If you are under $75,000, you get zero. This shows how we are going to
spend $20 billion a year when this thing is fully phased in.
It would seem to me this is how we get into deficit, with those kinds
of cuts. $20 billion a year, let's put that into perspective. All the
BRAC base closings that you suffered in Northern Virginia and I
suffered in Hampton Roads, Virginia, all of the BRAC closings, we will
be lucky to save $20 billion over 20 years. $20 billion a year, when
people under $75,000 don't get a dime; people over $100,000 might get
$1; $100,000 to $200,000 might get $25, over $1 million, $19,000. That
is how we are spending $20 billion a year in that tax cut.
It seems to me before we pass tax cuts like that, we ought to get the
budget straight. Let's not be down here in the dumps talking about more
tax cuts, particularly when they are weighted overwhelmingly toward the
wealthy.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman for illuminating those
misplaced priorities, and I thank him very much for his extraordinarily
illuminating set of charts and numbers.
Mr. Scott, do you have one further thing you wanted to share with the
American people? I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. I would say that if we had actually improved
the economy with all those tax cuts, it might have been worth it. But
this chart shows that the economic improvement, the number of jobs
created since Herbert Hoover, it shows that after we have run the
budget into the ditch, we still have ended up with the worst job
performance since Herbert Hoover.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Unbelievable charts. So for all of those
Presidents since Herbert Hoover who had a net loss of job creation
because of the Great Depression, Presidents Roosevelt, Truman,
Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the first
President Bush, and then President Clinton, of course, they all created
far more jobs than this Presidency, the worst job creation record in
our lifetimes, in the last, what, 65 years. So, it is an unbelievable
record. We thank you for sharing it with us, Mr. Scott.
We will now hear from the gentleman from Long Island, New York, Tim
Bishop, a member of the Budget Committee, and very much concerned about
the fiscal policy of this administration.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Virginia for yielding, and I thank both gentlemen from Virginia and Mr.
Spratt and all of our colleagues on the Budget Committee for their
leadership and diligence in making the case against the Republicans'
failed economic strategy and misguided budget priorities.
These shortcomings are conspicuous in the President's fiscal 2007
budget. If the last few years have taught us anything, the emerging
Republican budget resolution to be considered by this House in the
coming weeks will mirror the problems and missteps called for in the
President's proposal.
On one hand, we are hopeful, even optimistic, that the promise of his
competitiveness agenda represents a down payment on the long-term
priority investments we need to make in order to maintain our
competitive edge in the global economy. Yet, on the other hand, this
budget is perhaps the single most disappointing, counterintuitive, and
hypocritical proposal of his six requests thus far. Calling for deep
cuts in education and health care, for example, while advocating a
competitive workforce, represents a fundamentally incompatible
strategy. Americans shouldn't be surprised, though, given this
administration's history of cutting taxes for the wealthiest
individuals and corporations at the expense of middle-class priorities.
After a dozen town hall meetings in my district in recent weeks, my
constituents have spoken loud and clear about how these budget cuts are
making it tougher for their families to stay ahead in today's economy.
Let me focus on two aspects of the President's budget proposal, each
of which reflects deeply flawed policies.
First, education. Under the so-called Deficit Reduction Act and the
President's 2007 budget request, student loan programs are cut by $12
billion, Pell grants are frozen for the fourth year in
[[Page 2528]]
a row, and the Federal portion of the Perkins loan fund is recalled.
This decision alone will take out of the student loan system another
$600 million per year.
As a consequence, the rapidly expanding gap between the amounts of
available student aid compared to the total cost of obtaining a college
education is growing out of control. Yet this administration's response
is that colleges should simply charge less.
But it is not making the same demands of other industries that are
equally critical to our economy's infrastructure and competitiveness.
While the budgets of college students and their families are stretched
to increasingly thin margins and the dream of obtaining a higher
education is placed farther out of reach, the administration isn't
calling upon the drug companies or the oil and gas companies or those
industries operating with banner profit margins to make the same
sacrifices.
The central point is this: we can propose a competitiveness agenda,
but it is simply an empty promise if our policies are going to make it
more difficult for students to attend college. We can educate all of
the AP students we want, we can have the best AP teachers in the world
we want, but if once they finish those AP courses they don't have
access to a higher education, our competitiveness agenda is simply an
empty promise. It is a sham.
Investing where the government's help is needed the least, including
$16.5 billion worth of tax breaks and generous subsidies for the most
profitable oil and gas companies, at the expense of extending a helping
hand to those Americans that need it the most is an economic strategy
headed for failure.
Similarly, the President has chosen to scale back investments in the
other pillar of America's competitiveness and critical infrastructure,
health care. His plan to cut $36 billion from providers through fiscal
year 2011 could result in Medicare reimbursements to medical facilities
in my congressional district of approximately $28 million over the next
5 years, this on top of the $1.2 billion in cuts already enacted.
Reasonable people simply have to ask what kinds of priorities are
revealed by these policy initiatives. More importantly, what kinds of
values are revealed by these policy initiatives? Cutting funding for
medical facilities doesn't save taxpayer dollars; it passes the costs
on to local communities and places a greater strain on the middle
class. Our health care system is already in tatters. The Medicare part
D drug benefit remains in shambles, and more families are joining the
ranks of the 46 million uninsured Americans.
These are the consequences of the Republicans' flawed policies.
America needs a new prescription for competitiveness, one that we
should rewrite as we take up the budget resolution in the weeks ahead.
If we are truly committed to sharpening our competitive edge and
meeting the goals set forth in the President's budget, I suggest that
we back up our promises by fully funding our health care and education
priorities.
Mr. Speaker, this budget reflects priorities and values that simply
cannot be supported. We can do better, and I look forward to working
with my colleagues towards that end.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, we are very appreciative of the
gentleman's comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.
I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Washington State,
Brian Baird.
Mr. BAIRD. I thank my good friend and colleague. This is an important
topic, because it strikes at so many issues important to our families
back home and the people we represent.
This administration has said repeatedly, no new taxes. What they are
not telling you is while they say on the one hand no new taxes, they
are in fact passing a host of hidden fees that are tantamount to taxes
onto the backs of the American people.
Let me give you some examples that directly impact my constituents,
the first of which is, indeed, according to the administration, a new
tax. If you listen to President Bush and our friends on the other side
of the aisle, they will tell you that if we do not extend the capital
gains and dividend tax cuts that go to the wealthiest Americans, that
is equivalent to raising taxes. In other words, if you don't extend the
tax cut, then you have effectively raised taxes. Yet the President's
budget does not extend deductibility of the State sales tax that
affects people in my State of Washington and six other States across
the country.
How much is this matter worth? Last year our deduction for sales
taxes, which we fought to put in on a bipartisan basis, saved the
taxpayers of Washington State alone $500 million. If the President
believes that we don't need to extend that, then the President,
according to his own logic, would raise taxes on Washington State
taxpayers to the tune of $500 million a year, which would be $5 billion
over the next decade.
A second effective tax increase that is going to strike the Northwest
comes from the President's ill-conceived proposals for dealing with
Bonneville Power Administration revenues. The President would force
Northwest taxpayers and the Bonneville Power Administration to take
additional revenues from Bonneville and send them to the Federal
Treasury to disguise the true cost of the deficit, rather than using
them to lower the power rates, which currently are 50 percent higher
than they were before the 2001 energy price crisis, which, not
coincidentally, was precipitated by the actions of this very
administration.
Friends, if policies of this administration increase your utility
bill 10 percent above the current levels, that is equivalent to a tax
from an administration that swore it would have no new taxes.
{time} 1600
The President also is going to shift critical fees and expenses that
also amount to an effective tax onto our local communities through
their proposals to cut dramatically the Secure Rural Schools
Initiative.
In my district, two of the highest recipients in Washington State,
two counties are the highest recipients, Lewis and Skamania Counties,
absolutely depend on this money to make their counties operate.
As we have seen curtailments in timber harvests and resulting
revenues, these counties have come to depend and desperately need this
money for public infrastructure, education and safety, yet this
administration would first cut the funding for this program and,
second, require that we sell off Federal lands again in a short-term
effort to disguise the deficit, that we sell off Federal lands in order
to provide the meager funds that would remain.
Our local communities depend on this creative, collaborative effort
by environmentalists and timber companies and timber interests to get
responsible, practiced harvests in the woods, that would be decimated.
We cannot let this go forward.
That the Federal Government would also renege on its fundamental
commitment to community safety by cutting this figure is astonishing,
up to 80 percent of Federal support for local law enforcement programs.
Come to my district, Mr. President and my friends on the other side
of the aisle. Talk to my local sheriffs and police officers who fight
the daily battle against the scourge of methamphetamine, other drugs
and other crimes. Ask them, can you do without Byrne Grants? Can you
sustain the kind of cuts we are talking about in the COPS program? Can
we really support further cuts in the High Intensity Drug Trafficking
Area? We are making progress in the battle against methamphetamine, but
increasingly international supplies are coming through our virtually
open borders.
Our young people, even middle-aged people are getting addicted to
this horrific drug, and this administration says, now is the time to
cut funding that the Federal Government provides local communities. It
is bad policy, friends, and it amounts to a tax on our local
communities because they will be left to pick up the tab of the reduced
Federal dollars. And it is a tax on you if your home is burglarized, if
your
[[Page 2529]]
family is assaulted, if your workplace no longer functions effectively
because of the effects of this drug. It is a tax, my friends, and it is
being levied by the policies of this administration.
Finally, last month, we had a number of folks from our local school
boards in my office. And they talked to me about the proposed cuts to
critical education programs and the shortfalls in key educational
opportunities. We all know that this administration and this
Republican-led Congress has proposed to increase the cost of student
loans even as college costs are skyrocketing.
But we need to know too that folks who are not planning to go to
college, the folks who need a vocational education, who want to learn a
trade or a skill will be dramatically and adversely impacted by this
ill-conceived budget.
The President has proposed zeroing out the Perkins Grant program
which local high schools and community colleges and voc programs
absolutely depend on to sustain their voc education program.
It happened to me last month that we had school board members and
community college board members in my office one day talking about how
devastating these cuts would be. The next day I heard from Josh Bolten,
the President's OMB Director, who said everything is going to be just
fine.
Mr. Bolten, Mr. President, please come to my district. When we finish
talking to law enforcement about what you are going to do to them, we
will come talk to our educators about what your proposals will do to
them. It is a tax on our schools. It is a tax on our students. It is a
tax on our families if you cut these resources.
You cannot continue to do this. You are funding a war without paying
for it. You are funding tax cuts without paying for it. You are passing
the debt onto our children and our grandchildren, and all the while you
are cutting vital and essential services and you are trying to disguise
the costs of our cuts by increasing the rates on our northwest
electrical ratepayers, by shifting costs to local communities, and by
trying to sell off the Federal lands.
None of that is responsible policy. The American people should know
about it. And we must reject this ill-conceived budget plan by this
administration, and our friends on the Republican side. I yield back to
you.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the very astute gentleman from
Washington State. And now we have our very diligent, conscientious
member of the Budget Committee from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Ms. Schwartz.
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the President's budget
is fiscally irresponsible and cuts services vital to American families.
I rise today in opposition to the President's proposals to cutting
funding for homeland security.
I represent the Port of Philadelphia, the world's largest freshwater
port and one of the Nation's strategic military seaports. Over 3,000
ships load and offload at the Port of Philadelphia each year, making it
one of the busiest ports on the Atlantic coast, and the fourth largest
port in the United States for the handling of imported goods.
In addition to the port, the greater Philadelphia region is home to
other critical transportation economic infrastructure, such as a large
portion of Amtrak's northeast corridor, SEPTA and PATCO high-speed
lines, and major highway infrastructure.
Situated around this transportation hub are almost 5.7 million
people. These factors led to the Insurance Services Office, which
assesses risks for the insurance industry, to conclude that
Philadelphia is among the 10 cities most vulnerable to a terrorist
attack.
Madam Speaker, the President's cuts to port security and first
responder funding will adversely affect the ability of Philadelphia and
cities across the Nation to protect those who live, work and visit the
city, to protect them from traditional and emerging threats.
Specifically, the President's budget slashes funding by 25 percent
for first responders. These are the very dollars that allow American
cities to equip, hire and train police officers and firefighters. The
President's budget eliminates funding for law enforcement terrorism
prevention, and the President's budget eliminates funding for port
security grants which were created by Congress in 2002 as a means of
directly funding the installation of security perimeters, surveillance
technology, and other very important counterterrorism measures at our
ports.
These cuts come at a time when the administration is allowing our
major ports, including Philadelphia, to be managed by Dubai Ports
World, a UAE-owned company, a company located in a country whose key
agencies, including security and monetary agencies, al Qaeda has
claimed to have infiltrated since 2002.
While the President justifies this decision by saying that the
Federal Government, not Dubai Ports World, will be responsible for
security, he has proposed to eliminate funding for port security by the
Federal Government. Neither justification nor the President's proposals
will make Americans safer.
My colleagues, while it is good that the Nation is finally focused on
the critical issue of securing our ports, our rhetoric and our passion
about Dubai must be matched by the funding necessary to keep our ports
and our citizens safe.
That is why when the House Budget Committee votes on the President's
proposed budget in the coming weeks, I will lead the fight to restore
these and other harmful cuts to port security. The security of our
Nation depends on our making the right investment and the right funding
choices to protect America.
I yield back.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the Congresswoman from Pennsylvania.
I am happy to yield to the Congressman from Alabama, Congressman
Artur Davis. Thank you for your leadership, particularly on the Budget
Committee.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for what you and Mr. Spratt and Mr. Scott and
so many others do.
Mr. Moran, Mr. Scott, one of the helpful things about these
colloquies and these special orders at the end of the day is that they
have enormous nutritional content for people who really want to
understand the budget issues. They expose some of the argument that
happens on the floor.
As you know, when we have our full-fledged budget debate, we match
each other in bits of 1 minute, 2 minutes, and it is hard to get
clarity in 1- and 2-minute exchanges. These kinds of conversations
allow for a lot more light to be shed.
And one of the points that you have made, that my friend from
Virginia has made, and others have made, is exactly how fundamentally
unserious the administration is about restraining spending. That is the
point we ought to make over and over again, Madam Speaker, because when
people hear these budget debates, they often think that folks on our
side of the aisle are enamored with spending, they think the people on
the other side of the aisle are resistant to it.
Well, you cannot be serious about spending cuts when you pass a
reconciliation package that cuts spending by about $45 billion, and
then you push just as hard for revenue cuts, for tax cuts to the tune
of $70 billion. That is a simple matter of math and arithmetic. You
cannot be fundamentally serious about spending cuts when your
administration has presided over the largest rise in discretionary
spending in the last 10 years for a variety of programs.
So the American people ought to understand, this is not an argument
about who wants to spend more and who wants to spend less. It is an
argument about a far different set of issues. That is what we value and
what we prioritize.
As so many have pointed out during all of these debates, Mr. Moran,
the reconciliation packets that passed a few weeks ago, the budget that
we will debate in committee next week will
[[Page 2530]]
not make much of a dent in the deficit when all is said and done. But
it will wreak havoc with a lot of families in this country.
Just a few weeks ago, this body thought it was so important to start
this session of Congress out by passing a bill, a reconciliation
package, that will mean that 13 million working poor and poor families
will have to dig deeper in their pockets to go to the doctor.
This House thought it was so vitally important to open this session
of Congress by passing a package of cuts that took the heart out of the
Federal Government's efforts to collect child support, that took the
guts out of a program that the administration said was one of the best
performing programs in the government.
And you will see it again and we will see it again in committee next
week. You will see a budget that does very little to rein in spending,
when all is said and done, but yet will have a disproportionate impact
when it does make cuts on the people who are struggling in our
communities right now. And that is what the people ought to understand
this debate to be about.
We can do all kinds of things, cut spending that will attract support
from both sides of the aisle. We can do all kinds of things to rein in
the deficit that would attract support from all sides of the aisle. But
every choice that the administration and the majority have made has
been aimed at one set of people, the weaker people, the older people,
the younger people, the people who are struggling to get by. And it is
just wrong to put them in isolation. It is wrong to make them bear the
brunt of these kind of cuts.
So as we move through this budget debate next week and over the next
several weeks, I hope the American people understand, it is not an
argument about cutting spending, it is an argument about what we value.
It is an argument about what we prioritize. And finally it is an
argument about who we give value to.
We know who the administration and our friends on the other side of
the aisle often value. They often value people who are doing rather
well in this society and they often reward that. They do not put a lot
of value in some of the people who are living in my district, which
happens to be the fifth poorest district in the United States. They do
not put a lot of value in their needs.
So if you believe in a better way of looking at the American people,
if you believe in a more principled way of understanding that everyone
should count and not just some people, you will vote against this
budget, you will reject this budget. And that is the kind of debate
that we ought to be having in the next several weeks.
So, Mr. Moran, I thank you for your leadership. Mr. Scott, I thank
you for your leadership, and I yield back.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman very much, and
particularly for revealing the real effects upon the hard-working
people in your congressional district. Many of them are poor because
they have not had the opportunities to be as prosperous as others. And
that is a situation perhaps more pronounced in your rural district, but
it is the case through so many parts of the country.
We need to be investing in as strong an America as we can possibly
create. Our strength is in America's workers, and the education our
children receive, in the roots that our families put into their
communities.
And I know your total commitment to the people of your district as
well as to the country and I appreciate your input. Thank you,
Congressman Davis.
We now call upon the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the
former State insurance commissioner who watches this budget very
carefully. And he is going to share with us some of his concern about
the direction our fiscal policy has taken over the last 5 years.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and
thank him and all of my colleagues, Democratic colleagues, on the House
Budget Committee.
I have previously served on the House Budget Committee and the task
before you points out the absolute lunacy of the Republican budget
plan. This is extremely important. Thank you for the time you are
spending on it today.
Earlier this morning I was at an event where we heard from several
Republican Congressmen and the Vice President of the United States.
They were sharing the same talking points. Because even the phrasing
was identical in speech after speech. And it was something like this:
The economy is going great. Growth is strong. Unemployment is down. We
deserve a lot of credit.
What they did not tell you, what they did not tell the crowd this
morning, made no mention of it at all, is that this crowd is funding
the government on borrowed money.
{time} 1615
The good times we are seeing today are very much like someone that
might be living down the street, living high and mighty, driving nice
cars, wearing fancy suits and doing it all on borrowed money.
There is a wonderful television commercial that has a very self-
contented man. He says, I have got a nice family. I have got a nice
house. I have got a nice car. And then he looks at the camera and says,
And I am in debt up to my eyes. Because what they are doing is
artificially creating today the appearance of prosperity while they
mask the depth of debt they are pushing our country into. That is what
is so important on this chart.
We have had the most significant financial swing in the history of
our country going from projection of surpluses as this crowd took over
to the deepest deficit we have ever had in the history of the country.
Record deficit in 2003. Record deficit in 2004. Record deficit in 2005.
And this year the biggest kahuna of them all, the deepest deficit ever,
which is why they have brought this case in the national debt. It seems
like this crowd and their wonderful economy have borrowed so much money
the Nation has maxed out its credit card limit. They are at the edge of
what we have authorized them to borrow.
Now, we have already increased this debt limit by votes of Congress
on three different occasions under this President. I feel like the loan
officer as a Member of Congress. They keep coming back for more and
more and more. And now even while they proclaim how wonderful things
are, they are presiding over the deepest deficit in the history of the
country and an increase in the national debt limit authority down to
$3.3 trillion of debt.
This is going exactly the opposite of the values of the families I
represent. Household after household in North Dakota and across the
country, you have got moms and dads at the kitchen table working hard
to make ends meet and sharing a conviction that, no matter what, things
are going to be better for their children; no matter what, they are
going to make sure that their children have more opportunity.
Do you know what? A recent survey shows that more than half of the
people in this country believe that it is going to be worse for our
children than we ourselves have had it. Now, I ask you, why should
Congress run this ``live for today economy,'' racking up debt for our
children, doing exactly the opposite, living for today, reducing the
prospects for tomorrow for our kids when individually the families of
America would do anything to leave things better for their children
than they themselves had it? In my opinion, that is the heart of this
budget debate.
Are we going to pay our way? Are we going to take the stand now to
leave things better for our kids? Well, you sure would not have known
from this morning. They are crowing about the happy economy and not
saying one word about pushing our Nation into the deepest debt it has
ever been in, leaving our children to clean up this mess. I believe
they should be ashamed of themselves.
As I prepare to yield back, I again want to express my appreciation
for the efforts of the House Democrats on that Budget Committee
fighting this fight and getting the word out. We should not fund
today's good times based on tomorrow's debt that our kids are going to
have to take care of. We ought to pay our own way, and I intend
[[Page 2531]]
to work with Republicans and Democrats to get us back to that point. I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr.
Pomeroy) for his extraordinary leadership and his very deep and genuine
concern over the fiscal policy direction of this country.
Even beyond the immorality of this wild, profligate spending and then
sending the bill to our children to pay, what American family would
take a credit card, max it out, and then tell the credit card company,
Do not worry about it. Send the bill to my kids after I die.
And that is what is going to happen. The amount of debt and even the
interest on that debt is going to cripple generations to come.
____________________
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to my good
friend from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank my good friend from Florida, the son
of one of our most distinguished Members, who is rapidly becoming a
leader in his own right.
I mentioned to him that yesterday I stood transfixed at the
television set watching his speech on the floor, and it brought up the
issue of security. And I trust the gentleman will underscore the
national security implications of this budget deficit, because the only
way that we are able to spend so profligately, get away with it, is
that we have found people who are willing to buy our debt. Not here,
but overseas. And for some reason, China seems just as happy as they
could be to increase the amount of American debt that they hold by 300
percent over the last 5 years. Billions of dollars they hold; and all
they have to do is to say, we do not think that we are going to buy
your debt in the manner and to the extent that we have in the past, and
our stock market, our economy would crumble.
Imagine putting this country into that kind of vulnerability where we
are dependent upon a communist nation buying our debt just so we can
continue this misguided fiscal policy.
I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I look forward to
watching him and reading his statement in the Congressional Record
tomorrow too. You have been terrific on this. Thank you, Congressman
Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. We in the 30-something Working Group,
and as other Members come to the floor, we talk about these issues that
are facing Americans and this issue of selling off our country,
borrowing off of our country to foreign nations. You start talking
about China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, even the Caribbean countries. They
cannot do it by themselves. They have been able to accumulate over 45
percent of your debt thus far because the Republican majority has
handed it to them.
I must say, you are a part of Congress, and a number of you who are
part of Congress were on the floor when we balanced the budget. The
Republicans are talking about cutting it in half. We actually have
experience in following through on our side. So we have to continue to
come to the floor and share not only with the Members but with the
American people about what we can do and what we want to do. We do not
want to sell off our country, and that is what it is all about.
The work that you all do in the Budget Committee is so very, very
important to us all.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are welcome. I must say, Madam Speaker, it
is an honor to come to the floor once again. I know that the Members
appreciate the information that we provide to not only the Democratic
Members but also Members of the Republican side, the majority. I think
it is also important for us to point out issues that are working
against Americans and those issues and bipartisan pieces of legislation
that are working for America. And we have to see more of that.
I think it is important for us to also reflect on the fact that right
now more than ever we need to have a forward lean in getting our fiscal
house in order as we start moving through this budget process and also
making sure we come clean with the American people on all fronts.
This afternoon we are going to not only talk about our fiscal house
but we are also going to talk about making sure we are straight with
the American people. The whole reason we come to the floor is there are
so many disturbing things that are happening in our country. I am not
talking about everyday Americans. I am talking about those who are
elected to come here and represent, need it be a lack of oversight or
need it be something that the executive branch has done, that this
Congress, the majority side has rubber stamped.
Here on this side we have a number of examples of how we have tried
to put America back on the right track, not only in leveling with them
on homeland security, leveling with the American people as it relates
to protecting our ports and our airports and seaports, but also as it
relates to the dollar. A lot has happened in the last 4 years, and we
have to share that information with them.
I am so glad my good friend and also a part of the 30-something
Working Group, Mr. Artur Davis from Alabama, is continuing on. I know
you were part of the last hour with the Budget Committee. I appreciate
the work that you all have done thus far, the work that you are doing,
looking at what the President has done.
I was hoping maybe you could shed some light on when we start talking
about the President during the State of the Union. We were both here.
He talked about innovation. He talked about it; and when he released
his budget, I heard the talk, but I did not see the walk afterwards as
it relates to the fiscal situation. But I appreciate your work on the
committee, and maybe you can shed some more light on this, sir.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am always
pleased to see you and Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz lend your
eloquence on these issues.
Let me make a couple of points. You touched on something enormously
important about the President's commitment to more competitiveness in
the economy and the strengthening of our workforce. You and I remember,
we both came one Congress ago. We came here in January, 2003, and I
remember the President's first State of the Union. He was standing not
far from where we stand now. And the only line, frankly, I recall from
that speech was a rather memorable one.
He said that this Congress should not put off what future Congresses
would do and this generation should not put off for future generations
what it could do for itself. That sounded good. It sounded like a bold
President saying that we have real opportunities today if we are
daring. Well, you look several budgets later. You have a verbal
commitment to make the economy stronger. You have a pattern of cutting
student loans and making them harder to get, and by the way, changing
the eligibility outside the budget process in the dead of night in a
way that it is not even debated by this Congress.
You have a promise of more effort to make the country competitive.
You see reductions every year in workforce development programs. You
see promises every year to strengthen our schools, and you see
continued cuts in all of the educational programs in this country or so
many of them, and the outright elimination of many of those programs.
In fact, almost half of the title items in No Child Left Behind are
gone with the wind now as we approach reauthorization.
And you see a promise by this President to make America stronger; but
it appears, Mr. Meek, that making America stronger does not include
making our workers stronger and creating more fair, stronger conditions
for them.
As I said in the last hour, that is what this debate is about. It is
not
[[Page 2532]]
about cutting spending. You are not serious about cutting spending when
you say, I am going to cut $45 billion and then cut taxes another $70
billion. The math works against you on that.
You are not serious about cutting spending when you have had the
greatest level of discretionary spending increase in the last 10 years,
in the last several budgets. You are not serious about those things.
What we have is an administration and a Congress that, frankly, is not
somewhat serious about cutting spending. They are very serious about
changing the definition of what we owe each other as Americans.
They want to move us away from a world where we feel connected and
obligated to each other across all kinds of lines, and they want to
more or less move us to a place where you have got to take care of
yourself.
These 13 million families on Medicaid who have got to dig deeper in
their pocket now to go to the doctor, well, we have decided that it is
such an important proposition that poor people pay more for health care
that we rammed that into the budget reconciliation several weeks ago,
or they rammed it in.
They think it is so important to spend less money on child support
that they rammed that into the reconciliation package several months
ago. It goes on and on. But the question is what exactly do we think we
owe each other as Americans.
There are some people and some of them sit on the other side of the
aisle who believe that we owe each other very little. There are some of
us who believe that we can be no stronger than some of our people who
are weak and who are hurting through no fault of their own.
{time} 1630
There are a lot of kids in this country who will be pushed off
Medicaid because of this reconciliation bill a few weeks ago. There are
a lot of kids in this country who will not get the doctor visits they
need because the Federal Government changed them the Medicare rules a
few weeks ago. Those kids are blameless. They did not ask to be born
into families under Medicaid or the distressed communities they live
in.
So it is very much a matter of priorities and values and choices, but
as I close out, I want to make one other point.
You talked about the importance of candor with the American people
and the importance of leveling with the American people, not promising
you are cutting and spending when you are actually causing the deficit
to go up. You talked about the importance of not pretending that you
are not taking people off programs, but in fact, you are moving them
off programs.
I do not know if your office has been like mine in the last week. I
have received so many phone calls from people wondering why their
government cannot be more straight with them on what is going on with
our ports right now. So many people have called our office and they are
wondering exactly why we do not have a stronger shipping industry in
the United States, why we have not built stronger port operators in
this United States and why we have to keep delegating this stuff out.
They hear all the procedural stuff about the 45-day review period, but
really, what they wonder is why in the world are we doing a $6 billion
deal with a country that helped launder money for the people who
attacked our towers, a country that is a very strong and vociferous
opponent of our strongest ally in the region, why are we doing business
with a country that does not follow any of the rules that we said we
want for good trading partners.
It is interesting. It is as if the administration's policy on this
issue is completely unconnected to common sense and, frankly,
completely unconnected from values because one value would be if you
want to do business with the United States, well, maybe you need to do
better in terms of your human rights policies; if you want to do
business with the United States, maybe you need strong money laundering
laws so people cannot pervert your system and finance terrorists; if
you want to do business with the United States, maybe you need to be
far stronger than this country has shown itself to be on the question
of freedom around the world.
These are the values the President talks about every time he stands
up there and does a State of the Union. He talks about exporting
democracy. He talks about we are this great beacon of democratic
freedom. He talks about countries all over the world that are not up to
our standard. If that is the case, what signal are we sending?
The last point I want to make is the President wanted to know what
signal are we sending to our friends in the Arab world if we do not do
this deal. The question is, what signal are we sending if we do it?
Here is the signal. The signal is you can fall short of every value and
standard that we have in this country, and we will pick you up on the
back end and we can make a good enough deal with you.
Now, this is the administration that said it built a foreign policy
based on our best moral values. Those moral values appear to be watered
down to the way to do a deal, have we got a deal for you, and that is
wrong. It has upset people all over this country. It does tie into this
debate about the deficit because I think people are wondering who is it
we are trying to help; why are we not standing up more for our people
who need help and why are we not being more candid about what we are
doing.
I really predict to you, as I close today, I think when we come back
here after the elections in November, I think that our side of the
House will be the side that has got more people. I think the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) will honor us by being the
first female Speaker of the House. I am being stronger convinced that
you will be the new chair of the subcommittee that you serve on so ably
as ranking member, and Mr. Ryan and I will get to move up the dais,
too, because I think the American people are getting this. They are
getting that the side that says it is strong and says it is serious is
neither as strong nor as serious as they have said.
People are really smart. They are smart in my district and yours and
all over the country, and I think that what we will see is a change in
the politics of this country, a change in the leadership of the House.
I welcome it when we stand up here next year crafting the budget, and
it will matter. The Democratic alternative we are putting together
right now, it will really matter next year because we are going to be
in the majority, and we will be crafting a budget and sending it to the
President and saying, Mr. President, we dare you to veto a stronger
commitment to education and health care and growing our economy; we
dare you to veto a stronger commitment to strengthening working
families. I would be happy to. He has not vetoed anything in 6 years.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, our friend Mr. Davis is on the
Budget Committee, and I think when he talks about you are preparing a
substitute right now, what the Democrats are going to do when we are in
charge, Madam Speaker, we have a track record already, and Mr. Meek has
the statistics, and we have the charts here.
Mike Thompson from California offered a vote on pay-as-you-go to make
sure everything we spend money on was budget neutral, so we did not go
into deficit. Charlie Stenholm, when he was in office, offered it.
Republicans voted against that, and voted against Mike Thompson's bill.
Dennis Moore of Kansas offered a pay-as-you-go amendment to a piece
of legislation that got shot down. Every Democrat voted for it. Every
Republican voted against it.
Mr. Spratt offered amendments within our budget that we were
providing to try to amend the budget resolution, on two occasions, in
March of 2005 and again in March of 2004. Zero Republicans voted for
this.
So when Mr. Davis says this is what the Democrats are going to do
when we are in charge, that is what we are talking about here, making
sure you pay for your bills as you go along, not this reckless
spending.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, let me follow up on what my
friend from Ohio just said.
[[Page 2533]]
This PAYGO rule you talk about, we call it PAYGO for various reasons.
Really, it is the be-like-the-American-family rule. Every family I
know, yours, mine, every other one, has to decide, if we are going to
go out and buy some new things, we better make some more money or we
better pull into our savings. All this rule says is if you are going to
have new spending, you have got to pay for it. You can do it one of two
ways, with spending cuts by making changes in the marginal rate or
changes in revenue. That is the honesty stuff, that is the candor
stuff.
The reality is, why would anybody not want to do that? If you are a
fiscal conservative, why would you not want to go to a world that says
let us just be no better or worse than the American family?
So this is an argument, once again, about whether we follow the same
rules and the same principles that people follow all around the
country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I mean, we are willing to follow
the rules. We are ready. We are ready to do what we have to do to be
able to put this country on the right track.
The bottom line is that the Republican majority, time after time,
because they are not doing their job by keeping the executive branch in
check, Madam Speaker, things like videos that are broadcast throughout
the world, commander-in-chief says I did not know anything about
Hurricane Katrina, it was a shock to me, I learned 72 hours after the
hurricane, blankets and everything is on the way to New Orleans, and we
are going to do what we have got to do. Then lo and behold, in this
great democracy of ours, a video surfaces where the President was
informed of the power of this hurricane and that 12,000 people
evacuated or went to some sort of high ground in the Superdome and that
we are going to have massive flooding, and that this was bigger than
Hurricane Andrew that hit my community almost 12 years ago, Madam
Speaker. The President's in Crawford, Texas, on video phone, and he
says we are ready and we are prepared to respond. Then he shows up a
couple of days later, goes back to the White House acting like he is
shocked.
That is what I am talking about, leveling with the people, but it is
easy to say that you do not know because you have said it before. Well,
I did not know anything about the intelligence, no one told me, no one
told me about a special port deal dealing with the questionable, quote,
unquote, new ally. No one told me; I did not know. I feel sorry for the
White House spokesperson. Goodness gracious. I mean, the guy must have
an ulcer by now because he has to come week after week, day after day
now, and say, well, you know, we did not know, we did not know.
I am sick and tired, and I do not care, if I had no party affiliation
in this House, I am sick and tired of folks here in Washington saying
they do not know. Somebody knows. This stuff just does not happen on
its own, and it is very, very wrong for someone to sit up here and
insult the American people. I think the American people have had enough
of this stuff. The polling indicates they have had enough of it and the
Republican majority.
We are here saying let us get together on innovation. Let us make
sure our country is ahead of other countries in innovation and the
sciences and math. Let us educate our children in broadband access. We
are here with this innovation document almost every day. Madam Speaker,
we encourage Members to go on housedemocrats.gov. We say it every day.
This has been out for several weeks. The ink's pretty dry. We can bring
the big binder down here if someone wants to get a copy of that.
They do not want to level with the American people. We have got men
and women in harm's way right now based on weapons of mass destruction,
and a lot of folks are running around here saying we did not know. We
have got CIA agents that have been outed; oh, I did not know anything
about that; I do not know how that happened; I do not even know the
lady. Okay.
I just want to go down memory lane here, and it is continuing to
unfold. Here the Republican majority just last year this time, well,
let us just put it this way, 3 months ago, this time embracing and
boasting about the K Street Project. Yes, we have the K Street Project,
and guess what, if the lobbyists are not in tune with us, then they do
not even get to come into our office, if they are not a part of the K
Street Project.
It is basically you pay your dues to the Republican National
Committee or the Republican Congressional Committee and you get access.
Oh, well, that is fine. And are you a part of that project? And
Democrats, who if they even have a Democratic affiliation, they could
not even go into a lobbying firm. They had to be okayed and checked off
by this so-called K Street Project that grew out of the Capitol, not
into the Capitol.
So I do not blame lobbyists and special interests for that. I blame
folks that walk in here and have voting cards just like we do on the
majority side.
I am going to say this, too, Madam Speaker, it is disturbing. Folks
run around here saying we need lobbying reform. Well, you know, I do
not recall the lobbyists walking in here knocking on the door of the
Republican majority, saying you know something, I want you to make me
contribute to your campaign; I want you to make me hire your ex-
staffers; I want you to make me do things that I ordinarily would not
do because I think I need to have some sort of approach for the best
person; but if you send a person to me and I want to have access to
this House, to this Senate and to the White House, I have got to play
by your rules.
I doubt if that happened. I guarantee you that did not happen, and
now after a certain lobbyist has said guess what, you are an attorney
and you were educated at one of the best schools here in this country.
A man says, okay, I know you accuse me of being a part of the
Washington inside game, what a lobbyist does, he goes to trial, do we
have to go through a jury pool selection? The guy says I am guilty,
right here, handcuff me, please hurry up before I do something else,
and I am willing to help you with some folks on Capitol Hill that I did
business with on a daily basis for access into the process, okay, then
the Republican majority comes out and says that K Street Project, hey,
that is wrong. All right. Well, there is something really, really wrong
with that.
Then you wonder exactly what you are talking about, how did we get to
allowing countries to borrow $1.16 trillion of the American apple pie.
How did Japan infiltrate the United States of America, owning a piece
of the American pie? How did Red China get into it? How did the OPEC
Nations like Saudi Arabia and other questionable lists get there when
people start talking about this?
So when folks come to the floor and try to have a moment of clarity,
I have to kind of just stand up and say, hey, the 30 Something Working
Group, we have been talking about this stuff. Folks can talk about a
green assault or they can come with a positive message. I am going to
take from Mr. Ryan. You show me a way to talk positively, how we are
selling our country off to foreign Nations and we will do it if it is
okay.
I know Mr. Ryan wants to say something, and I am going to go to Mr.
Davis because he has been holding something for a very long time, but I
had to get that out, because as an American, let us just put the
Democratic thing aside.
This is our country, too. This is our country, too, but Madam
Speaker, I may represent too many veterans, too many troops in harm's
way, allowing us to salute one flag. Maybe I am just a little bit too
attached to my constituency, but I tell you one thing, they defended
this country for us to be up here in this chamber representing them in
a way they should be represented.
I will be doggone if we let whoever it is in the majority or what
have you run this country, continue to run this country into the
ground, and we do not have the prerogative to say anything.
We are in the minority. There is very little we can do because we
cannot put a bill on the floor, but we are going to do everything we
can do to step on the
[[Page 2534]]
line, cross the line, because this country's being sold over to foreign
Nations, and folks are running around here talking about security. They
do not even want to level with the American people even about a
hurricane.
{time} 1645
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman for yielding. All of my
colleague's points are so powerful that they inspire other thoughts and
ideas that just want to tumble out of you. So let me go back a little
bit to what you were saying, because you make a very important point.
I think there has been an interesting flip between where our party
was at one point and where the Republicans are at this point. We are
all fairly young guys. This is a little bit before our time, but we hit
a zone as a party in the 1970s and 1980s where we would make decisions
as a party and sometimes they would not be smart decisions. But we,
frankly, couldn't and wouldn't defend them.
We would just say to the American people and some folks in our party
would say to the American people, you know what, trust us. We have the
facts, we are diligent, we know what is right, we have more information
than you do, so you ought to just trust us. And, frankly, Mr. Meek,
that didn't work terribly well as a strategy for our party and people
started to lose confidence in us. And they started to think, well, we
put you there, so you have to tell us more, you have to level with us
more.
Now, what have we seen in the last several weeks, essentially, when
everybody all over the country is saying, why can't we find a country
that doesn't have a history of terrorist ties to help police our ports,
pretty simple question? What do they say? They say, trust us. They say
we have got the facts, we have got information you don't have, we know
more than you do, let us do our jobs. Trust us.
And they have said it before. They say it with these budgets. They
say, yes, there is a lot of stuff in here nobody understands, and they
bring them to the floor and we get a few hours to look at it. But they
say, trust us, we have the information, we have the facts and we know
what is right for the American people.
And I am sure a lot of folks are probably thinking right now that
they did that back in March 2003, and they said, no, you don't have all
the intel, you don't have all the evidence, but we do. Trust us and we
will get us in and out of this war real quick. And if you doubt that,
well, trust us.
This ``just trust us'' politics took us from having, what was the
number we had, it was 292, was the maximum we got to. We had 292 seats
here at one point, but we lapsed into the ``just trust us'' politics
and now we are down to 203.
Well, I think now they are the ``just trust us'' folks, and they have
started to move down the scale in the numbers, and I think they are
going to be moving from around 231 to about 208 or 209 or so in not too
long.
The American people put us here. We get whatever little authority we
derive from the Constitution and from them. So we do owe them candor,
we do owe them explanations, we do owe them a sense of direction. It is
not enough to say, just trust us, is it?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Davis, the bottom line is, and Mr.
Ryan said it last night and I will say it again, the American public is
very coachable. The bottom line is: So shall it be written, so shall it
be done out of the White House, and we have got to protect the
President.
Let me tell you something. The President has Secret Service, all that
good stuff, and about 100 staffers, or more than that.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Actually 1,000, Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. A thousand staffers. A whole army of them
wearing suits. And I will tell you this. Everyone respects the
commander in chief, but the thing about our Constitution, our
democracy, and the three branches of government means that we don't
have to follow the President when he is heading us down the road.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He is not a king, Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. He is not a king. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Thank you
for making that very clear.
But it seems that folks don't understand that that is the case.
Now, I have Republican constituents that are very highly upset. Some
of them got into the Republican Party looking for fiscal responsibility
because that is all they sold, Madam Speaker. But the bottom line is,
when you look in the final analysis, who is spending the money now? Who
is borrowing the money now?
The thing is, we balanced the budget. We had surpluses as far as the
eye could see, yet within a matter of a few, short, single-digit years
this country is far beyond a point of return if we don't stop this
Republican Congress from doing what they are doing.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, I thought it was very
interesting when our friend talked about trust. I couldn't help but see
earlier our friends, the Truth Squad, and they were talking about all
the spending increases and spending increases, all borrowed money. All
of it is borrowed. And it is not having results. We are talking about
results. We are talking about having an impact.
And as my friend, Mr. Davis, said, who I just enjoy being around him.
I mean he is good.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. He is real good.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to be friends with you.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are friends, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I am friends with him.
But the point that he made, Mr. Meek, talking about their saying,
trust us; and Republicans say that the American people should trust
them. But we have a history here that says we have trusted you and you
have misled us.
You misled us with the facts of the war, you misled us on the
economy, you misled us on the results of what the tax cuts would be,
you misled us when you said government was going to be smaller under
your reign, you misled us when you said government would be more
responsible under your reign. It has failed time and time again.
I have two images in my head, Mr. Meek, about the real incompetence
of the Republican majority to be able to run government. I have a
picture of 11,000 trailers that are sitting in Hope, Arkansas, in the
mud right now that cost the taxpayers $300 million that are sitting in
the mud, and we still have people that are not in their homes in the
gulf coast. That is a government that does not work.
And what the Democrats are saying is that we have solutions to this.
We are not going to participate in cronyism and the lack of
responsibility and responsiveness on the Republican side for not
providing any oversight to all this.
Then we have the administration come out and say they didn't know
anything about it, but memos leak out, and we find out they knew about
it. Now, all of a sudden we get videos that are out saying that the
administration knew exactly what the threat was and what would happen
yet still not being able to respond.
That is the bottom line. The people of this country, Mr. Meek, want a
responsive government. It doesn't have to be big, and in today's
society, government should not be big, but it should be responsive,
effective, efficient, nimble, flexible, able to change with different
scenarios as the scenarios change and as society changes.
Our Republican friends, and I mean that sincerely because I consider
many of them friends, they just lack the ideas to try to move the
country forward. So it is not anything personal, it is just that they
do not have the ideas, Madam Speaker, to move this ahead.
What the Democrats offer, and this is the thing, Mr. Meek, for us
personally, definitely in the 30-somethings, and I know our Democratic
friends believe, profit is not a dirty word. Profit is good. Greed is
bad; profit is good. We want more profit, because that means more
people are going to get hired. But in the end, our friends on the other
side, on the Republican side, cannot put forth an adequate reform
agenda that will move the country forward.
[[Page 2535]]
All we have to do, Mr. Meek, is look at what the budget looks like
right now. Look at what the budget looks like right now.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz just joined us, and I can
tell both my colleagues right now what is wrong here. We talk about
folks not leveling with the American people, which is wrong, and they
are still not. They are still not.
We come to the floor because we think it is important that people
understand what is going on. We have been talking about the debt
ceiling being raised, and I want to be able to raise this again,
because this stuff is historic. We know it, but I want to make sure the
Members know what is going on. This is historic.
It is historic in a way that in the middle of the holiday season last
year, on the 29th of December, when I was with my family.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Getting ready for New Year's.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Getting ready for New Year's, looking forward to
the New Year, and Members of Congress were back in their districts, as
we all should be, with pies being baked and all kind of good stuff.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Cabbage and sauerkraut.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, things like that. And Secretary Snow
obviously was in his office that day, the 29th of December 2005, Madam
Speaker, and he wrote this letter to one of our Senators informing him
of the current $8.1 billion ceiling that we had.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Meek. It's trillion.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Currently, the debt limit is $8.1 trillion. He
wrote billion in this letter. I am just reading what he says there. It
says billion. It doesn't say trillion, it says billion.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wrong.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, it could be a typo.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is a big typo.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. But he is basically just talking about the debt
ceiling, that it will be reached in 2006; at this time, unless the debt
ceiling is raised, we will no longer be able to continue financing
government operations.
This is on the 29th of December. On February the 16th he writes
another letter, Secretary Snow. We talk about him. We have his portrait
here. He is a nice guy. He is just trying to figure out how to run this
thing because the Republican Congress is handing him a fixed deck.
He writes John Spratt, who is the ranking minority member on the
Budget Committee here in the House, an honorable man, and he says, on
December 29th I wrote the Congress regarding the need to increase the
statutory debt limit. Because the debt limit has not been raised, I
must inform the Congress that pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8438(h)(2) that it
is my determination that by reason of the fact the public debt limit
has not been raised, I can no longer pay into the retirement system.
That is the retirement system that we call the G Fund, which
basically puts forth the dollars for us to be able to invest in the
retirement system of the Federal employees. He can no longer do it. He
goes on, to relieve the Federal employees, that when the debt ceiling
is raised that he would be able to continue the investment there.
Now, if you can just bear with me for 1 second, because I have to go
through this and make sure everyone is clear. Again, this chart is one
of the most famous charts; one day it may appear somewhere over in the
National Archives, because it is history. It is history in our country.
Unfortunately, it is bad history, not good history. And we keep things
because we have to make sure we never make this mistake again.
In the 224 years prior to this President and the Republican Congress
getting their opportunity to have free rein on borrowing, 42 Presidents
before President Bush only borrowed $1.01 trillion. That is a fact.
Anyone can check it out. This is the U.S. Department of Treasury. That
is our third-party validator, Madam Speaker.
President Bush, along with friends and colleagues in the Republican
Congress, has borrowed $1.01 trillion and counting from foreign
nations.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Unbelievable.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let us talk about these foreign nations just for
a second. This is a silhouette and map of the United States of America,
one of the greatest countries on the face of the Earth. I think it is
important that we talk about the people that own all the parts of the
American apple pie.
I challenge Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and any Member of
this U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat or Republican, that can
explain to me a better way to say that this is a good thing for the
American people.
Canada. We will put that up there. They own $53.8 billion of the
American apple pie.
{time} 1700
Korea, they own $65.5 billion of the American apple pie that we have
borrowed from these countries. $65.7 billion, Germany owns a piece of
the American apple pie, thanks to the Republican majority and the
President, with their policies. The UK, some may say friend and ally,
they are friends and allies of our efforts that are going on. They own
a piece of America right now at $223.2 billion. That is a lot of money.
OPEC nations. I am going to put that here, down there by Texas. They
own $67.8 billion of the American apple pie. And I think it is
important.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Meek, will you yield for one moment?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will yield.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to let the Members know according to
the Department of Treasury, again, third-party validator, the OPEC
designation includes those countries, what is it, $65 billion?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. $67.8 billion and counting, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Okay. That is what we have borrowed from them.
Iran, Iraq, Libya, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Bahrain, Ecuador, Oman,
Venezuela, Qatar, Nigeria, Kuwait, Indonesia.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Did you say Iran?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I said Iran and I also said Iraq. I also said UAE,
which has been in the news lately. But I just wanted to clarify for
you.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. So it is not shocking from this administration
to get anything from folks that may have a questionable past in the
effort against terrorism. Am I correct, sir?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Iran, all the nuclear issues, all the conflict and
controversy, we are borrowing money from them to finance the Republican
spending spree that is rewarding their wealthy contributors.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. So they hold the note on the United States of
America?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Them, along with a lot of other countries, yes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Be happy to yield.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because, Mr. Meek, what you are saying here,
it is not simply a matter of fact. It goes beyond just factual accuracy
that you are talking about. There is risk when it comes to this much
debt being owned, this much of our debt being owned by another country.
And then that doesn't even take into consideration whether the country
that owns that debt, how friendly they are towards us.
Let us just talk about some recent comments by some of the leaders of
the nations that own our debt. The Japanese Prime Minister, obviously
Japan is an ally of ours and not one that we have to do a lot of hand
wringing about, but Prime Minister Hashimoto just recently, I think
this was a couple of weeks ago, stated, ``We hope we don't have to
succumb to the temptation to sell off U.S. Treasury bills.'' And later
that same day the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 192 points, one of
the largest declines in points in history. So there is real risk to
accumulating that much debt in each of these nations economically in
our country and economically across the world.
I have heard many of our colleagues, very flippantly on the other
side of the aisle, write off the issue of debt as if it is not a big
deal. Debt, in someone's household individually, would be a big
[[Page 2536]]
deal. When we talk about the deficit and deficit spending, which is
obviously a separate issue, that is a very big deal. Debt is something
that we should begin to move away from. Yet, instead of that, what
Secretary Snow has been asking us to do is continually increase it. And
what did they do recently, just during that February 16 letter when the
Secretary indicated that the debt limit needed to be raised again?
Because the Congress has not done that, he had to dip into the pension
fund. He actually had to, because something has to give. If Congress is
not raising the debt limit, then he has got to cover that debt
somewhere.
What I have found ironic for a very long time is that the Republicans
like to throw around the L word when it comes to us and that we are
tax-and-spenders. Honestly, first of all, that certainly is incorrect.
But beyond that, what has been equally, if not more, irresponsible
since they have been stewards of this economy is the borrow-and-spend
philosophy that they have engaged in, because during the Clinton years
there was a surplus. We were only arguing over what we were going to do
with that surplus. And now we don't have the ability to talk about
that. So how much we are borrowing and dipping into our reserves, so to
speak, other people's reserves, is really inappropriate.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are 110 percent right, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are not done yet.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. There are so many people, so many countries,
questionable and nonquestionable, ally and non-ally, Madam Speaker,
that have a part of the American apple pie.
China. There are a lot of concerns about China. Red China, Communist
China. Guess what? In the shining example of a democracy, they own
$249.8 billion of our debt. They have it.
Taiwan, a lot of things are made there in Taiwan. $71.3 billion in
Taiwan that they own of U.S. debt.
Japan. You heard of Japan and we just finished talking about Japan,
$682.8 billion.
Now, Mr. Ryan, if you were to take all of the State budgets, Ms.
Wasser-
man Schultz, and all of us, you were a senator, State senator, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz and I were State Senators once upon a time, we
understand State budgets. They have to balance. But I guarantee you can
put all of the State budgets together in the United States, including
Alaska and Puerto Rico and Hawaii, you name it. It doesn't total up to
the amount of debt that Japan owns of the United States, which is the
$682.8 billion.
Now, that is history and that is the present. The only one way we can
have a paradigm shift, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is to do what Mr. Ryan
talked about earlier. We share with the Members, time, examples, page,
routing numbers, all of those things that the American people and these
Members and the Republican Members can go back and see where we have
tried to stop them from doing this. You pay as you go, like you said.
If you end up finding yourself in a financial situation, what do you
do, go out and get another credit card? No, you start saying I have to
pay for things because I can't get any more credit.
But the thing about this Republican majority, Madam Speaker, and the
President of the United States, they just feel it is okay. Oh, I can go
out and talk to one of our other friends and say, buy our debt.
Mr. Ryan, would you take that chart where you talk about domestic
borrowing. You go over that, but I want to make sure that you share
with the Members exactly what they are doing.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, let us do this here. This is the debt
increases that you were referring to in the letter. Already, this
President, and this Republican Congress have raised the debt ceiling,
which means this country can now go out and borrow more money from the
countries that Mr. Meek was talking about.
June 2002, this Republican Congress okayed raising this debt ceiling
by $450 billion. In May of 2003, $984 billion increase in the debt
ceiling. November of 2004, $800 billion, raising the level of the debt
ceiling again. And then the pending increase, $781 billion increase in
our debt ceiling. That is a total of $3 trillion, $3 trillion that this
Republican Congress has okayed, Madam Speaker, and will go out and
borrow from the countries that Mr. Meek just spoke of.
Now, real quick, of that increase, since 2001, this country has
borrowed $1.18 trillion, which is signified by the blue bar there on
the far left. Of that money, of the $1.18 trillion, $1.16 trillion, the
orange bar is foreign debt borrowed from foreign countries. And over
here, this bar, you could barely see, Mr. Meek, that is domestic
borrowing. So of all these, of this debt of the money we are borrowing,
it is almost 100 percent from foreign countries. Piece by piece by
piece.
It is not just the ports. It is not just the ports, Mr. Meek, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz. It is our future. It is this country that is getting
mortgaged, and we have to pay interest on that.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I yield to you to talk about that.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, because, you know, the concept of
the debt and the deficit is kind of hard to get your mind around
sometimes because the numbers are so big and the concepts are somewhat
complex. So we always try, in our 30-something hours, to translate
these concepts into what it means to everyday people. So let us just
talk about the interest payments on the debt that we owe to these
countries that Mr. Meek slapped up on our Nation's map.
What we could do with the money, just on the interest payments, just
the interest payments on the debt that we pay for veterans: we could be
spending about $35 billion, billion with a B, more money on services
for our Nation's veterans.
We could be spending about $20 billion on homeland security. Billion
with a B. Certainly we could dedicate all that money to port security,
because we spent about $18 billion since 2001 and 9/11 on airport
security. I think we could probably equal it out just with the interest
payment on the debt.
Let us take a look at education. We are seriously underfunding the No
Child Left Behind Act and preventing children from getting themselves
prepared for the path that they choose in life. And we could take just
the interest payments on the debt and spend that on education. That
would be about $75 billion for education. Or we could continue to spend
it on the interest, which is now at $250 billion.
Let us take it a little bit further and translate that even more
specifically. What else could the government do with the interest that
the country pays every day on this publicly held debt?
We could invest $1 million a day in every single congressional
district. Now, I think all 435 of us could find something good we could
do to improve the quality of people's lives with $1 million a day.
We could provide health care to almost 80,000, 79,925 more veterans
in this country. And we know each of us in our districts hears from our
veterans about the pitiful health care services that they are receiving
and the struggle that they have in just getting an appointment to get
health care from the Veterans Administration.
We can enroll 60,790 more children in the Head Start program, which
we are going in the wrong direction in right now and enrolling fewer
because we are not funding it adequately.
Or we could improve the solvency of Social Security, which this
President has said is in crisis. We have differed with his definition
of crisis; but even if it is half as big a problem as he says, we can
improve Social Security solvency by almost half a billion dollars, just
by using the interest that this Nation pays on the national foreign
debt that other countries hold.
Now, if you went to a town hall meeting in each of our districts and
asked our constituents, and the three of us have a diverse
constituency. We represent all different kinds of folks between the
three communities that we represent. Universally, they would prefer
that that money be available to be spent on these items rather than
making interest payments on debt that we owe to foreign countries.
[[Page 2537]]
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And in addition to the money that we could be
investing, and those are all investments, those are paying our Head
Start, a million per Congressional district that is going to get spent
on health and education and pushing it into our future making sure that
we keep our promise to our veterans who we have promised that we would
provide health care for.
But at the same time, when you balance the budget, you keep interest
rates low. And we notice now how interest rates are starting to creep
up every few months another quarter point, quarter point, half. It
keeps going up. We want to balance the budget here like President
Clinton and the Democratic Congress did in 1993 without one Republican
vote, Madam Speaker, without one Republican vote, balanced the budget.
Interest rates stayed low, and people went out and borrowed and
invested in the economy.
So it is not government's job to go out and create work. We have a
responsibility, and one of the things is to keep the budget balanced,
keep interest rates low, and then allow that money to be borrowed by
the private sector, so people can go out and make a profit and hire
people and put that money back into the economy.
Be happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, the bottom line is that you really
started to paint a picture here. What has happened over the last 4 to 5
years of this Republican Congress rubber stamping what the President
has proposed has driven this country almost to the point of the 50
percent mark of foreign countries owning the United States of America
financially. We owe them. Countries that don't even recognize, folks
want to talk about an effort against terrorism.
Right now there is something major going on in the Middle East. You
have the countries that are a part of this port deal that don't even
recognize Israel. I mean, they are like, well, we don't even want to do
business with them. Okay? As a matter of fact, Iran wants to blow
Israel off the map. You have folks that are there saying all these
statements every week about our friends and allies: if this is about
the war on terror, we have to make sure that we do what we need to do
and stick close to our friends.
{time} 1715
And what is wrong here, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is that
the President is still making statements, Madam Speaker, such as, well,
I have not changed my mind. They are going to have their 45-day review
and all that kind of stuff.
It happens to be a U.S. statute, I must add.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A small detail.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Saying that if anyone, anyone, raised any
concerns, any concerns, one of the lowest bars of statutory language,
that there should automatically be a 45-day review.
Do you remember that we went for 72 hours, Madam Speaker, and no one
bothered to open the statute books to say we should have had an
investigation because there is a questionable pass of this country and
that it should be done. But the administration came out stonewalling
and trying to strong-arm this House of Representatives and the Senate,
saying, we are going to do what we have got to do and we are going to
stick with it, and we think it is the right thing to do. And the
statutes were on our side, on the people's side, saying, no, there
should be a 45-day review.
So we are going to see what is going to happen.
But I hope, Madam Speaker, that the Republican majority here in the
House and in the Senate no longer says, well, Mr. President, we still
have our stamp. If you say we should do it, we will figure out a way to
do it, and we will not object because we have got to be close to our
friends.
Well, we are going to find out the leaders from the followers. The
bottom line, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan, is, are you with them
or are you with our allies, our true allies? That is the question.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yesterday the amazing thing about this whole
port deal that you are alluding to, in the Financial Services Committee
we had an opportunity to question the representatives of the
administration. Do you know that they testified that six different
entities within the White House were aware of the proposal to close
this Dubai Ports World deal, and the President still did not know about
it, with six of his offices in the White House knowing about it? No
explanation in committee for why that happened.
Really, this picture says it all. We are essentially outsourcing
America's security to a foreign-government-owned company. We are not
talking about just a foreign company.
I think I can tell you that I recognize that we are not going to shut
down foreign companies from owning and operating facilities in our
Nation's ports. We are a global economy now. But is it appropriate to
allow foreign governments to have intimate knowledge about America's
security in our ports and run the terminal operations inside those
ports? Overwhelmingly, I think Republicans and Democrats in Congress
are saying ``no.'' Why is the President saying ``yes''? This is a
person who supposedly thinks that America's national security should be
a priority. It has left Americans scratching their heads.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think, at the end of the day, this is symbolic of
what is happening in all these other areas that we talked about
tonight. It puts a face, so to speak, on what is happening, that Mr.
Meek talked about, all the foreign borrowing, the deficits and
everything else. Now, it is like, well, it is our ports, my goodness
gracious. Well, that is just the tip of the iceberg, unfortunately.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is indifference, Mr. Ryan. It is
indifference, that there is a total disconnect between what the
American people care about and understand are their needs and what this
administration and this President understand.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As we have been saying for a long time in the 30-
something group, we have got to try to convince, Madam Speaker, the
Republican majority to start putting the country before their own
political party, and I think we would be okay.
The Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/30something, Madam Speaker, for
all the Members who want to access this. All the charts that you saw
here tonight, Madam Speaker, are accessible on this Web site for
Members to access.
To my friend from Florida, I thank you for the opportunity to be here
with you.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. With that, Madam Speaker, we would like to thank
Mr. Jim Moran, who was with us earlier, Mr. Artur Davis also and Ms.
Wasserman Schultz and definitely Mr. Ryan for coming to the floor. We
would like to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have
the hour.
____________________
APPOINTMENT AS INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule II,
and the order of the House of December 18, 2005, the Chair announces
the joint appointment by the Speaker, the majority leader and the
minority leader of Mr. James J. Cornell of Springfield, Virginia, as
Inspector General for the United States House of Representatives to
fill the existing vacancy.
____________________
OMMISSION FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD OF TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006,
AT PAGE 2257
______
SENATE BILL REFERRED
A bill of the Senate of the following title was take from
the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:
S. 2141. An act to make improvements to the Federal Deposit
Insurance Act; to the Committee on Financial Services; in
addition to the Committee on the Judiciary for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of
[[Page 2538]]
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Hinchey (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
illness.
Mr. Hinojosa (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account of
business in the district.
Ms. Roybal-Allard (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) for today on account
of illness.
Mr. Sweeney (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for February 28 and the
balance of the week on account of medical reasons.
Mrs. Bono (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
illness.
Mr. Gohmert (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
business in the district.
Mr. Norwood (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of a
death in the family.
____________________
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. Woolsey) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Schiff, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Emanuel, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Van Hollen, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gene Green of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
The following Member (at the request of Mr. Price of Georgia) to
revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material:
Mr. Osborne, for 5 minutes, March 7.
____________________
SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate
of the following title:
S. 449. An act to facilitate shareholder consideration of
proposals to make Settlement Common Stock under the Alaska
Native Calims Settlement Act available to missed enrollees,
eligible elders, and eligible persons born after December 18,
1971, and for other purposes.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now
adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 20 minutes
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday,
March 6, 2006, at noon.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
6397. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the Department's report on the United States
Radiological Threat Reduction Program, pursuant to Public Law
109-58, section 631(b)(2); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
6398. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the Department's report entitled, ``Impact of
Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 206 Rebates on Consumers
and Renewable Energy Consumption, With Projections to 2010,''
pursuant to Public Law 109-58, section 206(d); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6399. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the Department's report on the Failure to Comply
with Deadlines for New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards, pursuant to Public Law 109-58, section 141; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
6400. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting a copy of a report
required by Section 202(a)(1)(C) of Pub. L. 107-273, the
``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act,'' related to certain settlements and
injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6401. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting a copy of a report
required by Section 202(a)(1)(C) of Pub. L. 107-273, the
``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act,'' related to certain settlements and
injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6402. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting a copy of a report
required by Section 202(a)(1)(C) of Pub. L. 107-273, the
``21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act,'' related to certain settlements and
injunctive relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 530D; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6403. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting the report on the
administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act
covering the six months ended June 30, 2004, pursuant to 22
U.S.C. 621; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
6404. A letter from the Solicitor General, Department of
Justice, transmitting Determination not to petition for a
writ of certiorari in the case Ramirez-Landeros v. Gonzalez,
No. 03-71743 (9th Cir. 2005); to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
6405. A letter from the Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice, transmitting a letter concerning
grants made during FY 2005 under Section 2806(b) of the Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Science Improvement Act of 2000
(Pub L. 106-561) to improve forensic science services; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6406. A letter from the Office of Public Information,
Supreme Court of the United States, transmitting a copy of
the 2005 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
6407. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Civil Works, Department of the Army, transmitting a copy of
the the Final Feasibility Report of the Stillaguamish River
Ecosystem Restoration project in Snohomish County,
Washington; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6408. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Chicago New Year's Celebration, Lake Michigan, Chicago, IL
[CGD09-05-135] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received December 28, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6409. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Notification of
Arrival in U.S. Ports; Certain Dangerous Cargoes; Electronic
Submission [USCG-2004-19963] (RIN: 1625-AA93) received
January 10, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6410. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AICW),
Cape Fear River, Northeast Cape Fear River, NC [CGD05-05-102]
(RIN: 1625-AA09) received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6411. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
North Portland Harbor Dredging Operations; Portland, Oregon
[CGD 13-06-002] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received January 24, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6412. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone; Town
Creek Channel, Grace Memorial and Silas Pearman Bridges,
Charleston, South Carolina [COTP Charleston 05-143] (RIN:
1625-AA97) received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6413. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Cooper River, Hog Island Channel, Grace Memorial and Silas
Pearman Bridges, Charleston, South Carolina [COTP Charleston
06-003] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received January 24, 2006, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
6414. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone
Regulation; Tampa Bay, FL [COTP ST Petersburg 05-163] (RIN:
1625-AA00) received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
[[Page 2539]]
6415. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Mission Creek Waterway, China Basin, San Francisco Bay,
California [COTP San Francisco Bay 05-011] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
6416. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulation; Bayou Lafourche, LA [CGD08-05-049]
(RIN: 1625-AA09) received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6417. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Housatonic River, CT [CGD01-05-102]
(RIN: 1625-AA09) received January 24, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6418. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Niantic River, Niantic, CT [CGD01-06-
011] received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6419. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, Old Lyme, CT
[CGD01-06-005] received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6420. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Shark River (South Channel), Avon, NJ
[CGD05-06-005] (RIN: 1625-AA-09) received February 23, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6421. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zones;
Pearl Harbor and adjacent waters, Honolulu, HI [COTP Honolulu
06-002] (RIN: 1625-AA87) received February 23, 2006, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
6422. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
Choptank River, Cambridge, Maryland [CGD05-06-009] (RIN:
1625-AA00) received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6423. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Security Zone;
Superbowl XL, Detroit River, Detroit, MI [CGD09-06-001] (RIN:
1625-AA87) received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6424. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal; Romeoville, IL [CGD09-05-
142] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received February 23, 2006, pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6425. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zones;
North Portland Harbor Dredging Operations; Portland, OR [CGD
13-06-002] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received February 23, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6426. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Alaska, South Central, Cook Inlet, Kamishak Bay [COTP Western
Alaska-6-001] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received February 23, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6427. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone;
Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH [CGD09-06-002] (RIN: 1625-AA00)
received February 23, 2006, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6428. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Safety Zone; Gulf
of Alaska, Narrow Cape, Kodiak Island, AK [COTP Western
Alaska-06-002] (RIN: 1625-AA00) received February 23, 2006,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6429. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Willamette River, Portland, OR [CGD13-
05-023] (RIN: 1625-AA09) received December 23, 2005, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure.
6430. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Mianus River, CT [CGD01-00-228] (RIN:
1625-AA09) (Formelry 2115-AE47) received December 28, 2005,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
6431. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations; Sacramento River, Isleton, CA [CGD 11-
05-035] received December 28, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6432. A letter from the Chief, Regulations and
Administrative Law, USCG, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting the Department's final rule -- Drawbridge
Operation Regulations: Connecticut River, CT [CGD01-05-110]
received December 28, 2005, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6433. A letter from the Administrator, National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, transmitting a letter of support
for the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005, Pub. L.
109-112; to the Committee on Science.
6434. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, Department of Commerce, transmitting the
annual report on the activities of the Foreign-Trade Zones
Board for fiscal year 2004, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 81p(c); to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
6435. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Labor,
transmitting the Department's twelfth report on the impact of
the Andean Trade Preference Act on U.S. trade and employment
for 2005, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 3205; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
6436. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Health and
Human Services, transmitting the Department's report
entitled, ``Report to Congress on Adoption and Other
Permanency Outcomes for Children in Foster Care: Focus on
Older Children,'' pursuant to Public Law 108-145; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
6437. A letter from the Principal Deputy Director, Office
of the Director of National Intelligence, transmitting the
Office's report containing an Information Plan for the
Information Sharing Environment, pursuant to Public Law 108-
458, section 1016(e); to the Committee on Intelligence
(Permanent Select).
6438. A letter from the Director, Office of Legacy
Management, Department of Energy, transmitting the Annual
Report on Contractor Work Force Restructuring for Fiscal Year
2004, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7274h; jointly to the Committees
on Armed Services and Energy and Commerce.
6439. A letter from the Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy, transmitting the ``Plan Colombia/Andean Ridge
Counterdrug Initiative Semi-Annual Obligation Report, 1st and
2nd Quarters Fiscal Year 2005,'' pursuant to section 3204(e)
of Pub. L. 106-246; jointly to the Committees on
International Relations and Appropriations.
6440. A letter from the Administrator, General Services
Administration, transmitting a copy of a draft bill entitled,
``To amend 40 U.S.C. 590 relative to child care services for
Federal employees in Federal buildings''; jointly to the
Committees on Government Reform and Transportation and
Infrastructure.
6441. A letter from the General Counsel, Office of
Government Ethics, transmitting the report to the President
and to Congressional Committees on the Conflict of Interest
Laws relating to Executive branch emplyment, pursuant to
Public Law 108-458; jointly to the Committees on Government
Reform and the Judiciary.
6442. A letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary for
Economic Development, Department of Commerce, transmitting
the annual report on the activities of the Economic
Development Administration for Fiscal Year 2004, pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 3217; jointly to the Committees on Transportation
and Infrastructure and Financial Services.
6443. A letter from the Architect of the Capitol,
transmitting the Report on the Requirements of the Energy Act
of 2005 Related to Congressional Facilities; jointly to the
Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy
and Commerce.
6444. A letter from the Chairperson, National Council on
Disability, transmitting a copy of the Council's report
entitled, ``The State of 21st Century Long-Term Services and
Supports: Financing and Systems Reform for Americans with
Disabilities''; jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means
and Energy and Commerce.
6445. A letter from the Board Members, Railroad Retirement
Board, transmitting
[[Page 2540]]
the Board's Congressional Justification of Budget Estimates
for Fiscal Year 2007, pursuant to 45 U.S.C. 231f(f); jointly
to the Committees on Appropriations, Transportation and
Infrastructure, and Ways and Means.
____________________
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. House
Resolution 643. Resolution directing the Attorney General to
submit to the House of Representatives all documents in the
possession of the Attorney General relating to warrantless
electronic surveillance of telephone conversations and
electronic communications of persons in the United States
conducted by the National Security Agency; adversely (Rept.
109-382). Referred to the House Calendar.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER: Committee on the Judiciary. House
Resolution 644. Resolution requesting the President and
directing the Attorney General to transmit to the House of
Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the
adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of
those officials relating to the authorization of electronic
surveillance of citizens of the United States without court
approved warrants; adversely (Rep. 109-383). Referred to the
House Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Ms. Berkley, Mr.
Buyer, and Mr. Evans):
H.R. 4843. A bill to increase, effective as of December 1,
2006, the rates of disability compensation for veterans with
service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency
and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-
connected disabled veterans, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. HYDE:
H.R. 4844. A bill to amend the National Voter Registration
Act of 1993 to require any individual who desires to register
or re-register to vote in an election for Federal office to
provide the appropriate State election official with proof
that the individual is a citizen of the United States to
prevent fraud in Federal elections, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mrs.
Johnson of Connecticut, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Sweeney, and
Mr. Tiahrt):
H.R. 4845. A bill to better prepare and develop the United
States workforce for the global economy, and remove barriers
that stifle innovation; to the Committee on the Judiciary,
and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Science,
Education and the Workforce, and 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. GOODLATTE (for himself, Mr. Goode, Mrs. Jo Ann
Davis of Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Cantor, Mrs. Drake, Mr.
Boucher, Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Smith of
Texas):
H.R. 4846. A bill to authorize a grant for contributions
toward the establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential
Library; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4847. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality
Act to provide for legal permanent resident status for
certain undocumented or nonimmigrant aliens; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4848. A bill to provide for permanent resident status
for any alien orphan physically present in the United States
who is less than 12 years of age and to provide for deferred
enforced departure status for any alien physically present in
the United States who is the natural and legal parent of a
child born in the United States who is less than 18 years of
age; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4849. A bill to amend title 49, United States Code, to
provide that individuals who are eligible to join the Armed
Forces of the United States are also eligible to be security
screening personnel; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4850. A bill to provide for prices of pharmaceutical
products that are fair to the producer and the consumer, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and in addition to the Committee on 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 Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4851. A bill to provide for general revenue sharing
and assistance for education for States and their local
governments; to the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform, 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. OWENS:
H.R. 4852. A bill to curtail the use of high-stakes tests
in elementary and secondary schools; to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.R. 4853. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to impose an additional tax on taxable income
attributable to contracts with the United States for goods
and services for the war in Iraq; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself and Mr. Osborne):
H.R. 4854. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to exclude from gross income interest received on loans
secured by agricultural real estate and rural housing; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia (for himself and Ms.
Norton):
H.R. 4855. A bill to amend the District of Columbia College
Access Act of 1999 to reauthorize for 5 additional years the
public and private school tuition assistance programs
established under the Act; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Ms. BEAN:
H.R. 4856. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow a credit to homeowners for Energy Star
qualified homes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Miss McMORRIS (for herself, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Otter,
Mr. Simpson, Mr. Hastings of Washington, and Mr.
Walden of Oregon):
H.R. 4857. A bill to better inform consumers regarding
costs associated with compliance for protecting endangered
and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of
1973; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. JEFFERSON (for himself, Mrs. Christensen, Mr.
Clay, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Meeks of New York, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Ms. Lee,
Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Al Green of Texas,
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Ms. Waters, Ms. Moore
of Wisconsin, Ms. Millender-McDonald, Mr. Wynn, Mr.
Scott of Georgia, Mr. Meek of Florida, Ms. Norton,
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Cummings,
Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan, and Mr. Owens):
H.R. 4858. A bill to provide for the restoration of health
care-related services in Hurricane Katrina-affected areas,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means,
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. PORTER (for himself and Mr. Clay):
H.R. 4859. A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United
States Code, to provide for the implementation of a system of
electronic health records under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program; to the Committee on Government Reform.
By Ms. GRANGER (for herself and Mr. Hoyer):
H.R. 4860. A bill to reduce and prevent childhood obesity
by encouraging schools and school districts to develop and
implement local, school-based programs designed to reduce and
prevent childhood obesity, promote increased physical
activity, and improve nutritional choices; 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. FERGUSON (for himself, Mr. Towns, Mrs. Bono, Mr.
Gordon, and Mrs. Blackburn):
H.R. 4861. A bill to authorize the Federal Communications
Commission to impose licensing conditions on digital audio
radio to protect against the unauthorized distribution of
transmitted content; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CAMPBELL of California (for himself, Mrs.
Blackburn, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Chabot, Mr.
Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. Dreier, Ms. Eshoo, Mr.
Fossella, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Ms. Harris, Mr.
Hayworth, Mr. Herger, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota, Mr.
Kirk, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Mack, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr.
Otter, Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Simmons, Mr. Upton, Mr.
Weldon of Florida, Mr.
[[Page 2541]]
Westmoreland, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Sam
Johnson of Texas, Mr. Akin, Mr. Feeney, Mr. Kline,
Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Graves, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Kuhl of
New York, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Pitts, Ms. Foxx, Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Pence, Mr. Fortuno, and Mr. McHugh):
H.R. 4862. A bill to amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to
make permanent the moratorium on certain taxes relating to
the Internet and to electronic commerce; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
By Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida:
H.R. 4863. A bill to establish a pilot program in the
Department of State for improvement of government-to-
government relations with the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of
Florida; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. EVERETT:
H.R. 4864. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior
to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor in Alabama and
Georgia, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Resources.
By Mr. CONAWAY:
H.R. 4865. A bill to require every Senator and
Representative in, and Delegate and Resident Commissioner to,
the Congress to obtain copies of the Constitution of the
United States of America and distribute them to their staff
and require that they all read such document; to the
Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. FORD:
H.R. 4866. A bill to promote responsibility by improving
development education; to the Committee on Ways and Means,
and in addition to the Committees on Financial Services,
Education and the Workforce, 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 Mr. FORTUNO (for himself, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Pryce of
Ohio, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart of Florida, Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island, Mr.
Hyde, Mr. Putnam, Mr. Flake, Mr. Pence, Mr. Tom Davis
of Virginia, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Weller, Mr. McKeon, Mr.
Feeney, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Bonilla, Mr.
Abercrombie, Mr. Foley, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Cannon, Mr.
Gilchrest, Mr. Pearce, Mr. Nunes, Ms. Loretta Sanchez
of California, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Renzi, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Doolittle, Ms. Bordallo, Mr.
Dent, Ms. Harris, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Poe, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Marchant, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Mica, Mr. Crowley, Mr.
Boustany, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Schwarz of Michigan,
Ms. Hart, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Mack, Mr. Weldon of
Florida, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. Fitzpatrick of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Fossella, Mr.
Hensarling, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Coble, Mr. Mollohan, Mr.
Hostettler, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Keller, Mr. Kuhl of New
York, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Moran of Virginia, Mr. Wynn,
Mr. Kind, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Mrs. Tauscher, and Mr. Gene Green of Texas):
H.R. 4867. A bill to provide for a federally sanctioned
self-determination process for the people of Puerto Rico; to
the Committee on Resources.
By Mr. GORDON:
H.R. 4868. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow certain agricultural employers a credit against
income tax for a portion of wages paid to nonimmigrant H-2A
workers; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. HOEKSTRA:
H.R. 4869. A bill to require the Director of National
Intelligence to release documents captured in Afghanistan or
Iraq during Operation Desert Storm, Operation Enduring
Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom; to the Committee on
Intelligence (Permanent Select).
By Mrs. KELLY:
H.R. 4870. A bill to establish certain rules for Surface
Transportation Board approval of waste management company
applications to become rail carriers; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. PALLONE:
H.R. 4871. A bill to ensure the coordination and
integration of Indian tribes in the National Homeland
Security strategy and to establish an Office of Tribal
Government Homeland Security within the Department of
Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Homeland
Security, 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. 4872. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow medical care providers a credit against income
tax for uncompensated emergency medical care and to allow
hospitals a deduction for such care; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. RAMSTAD:
H.R. 4873. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to encourage investment in affordable housing; to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ROSS:
H.R. 4874. A bill to authorize the Federal Emergency
Management Agency to provide relief to the victims of
Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita by placing manufactured
homes in flood plains, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Salazar):
H.R. 4875. A bill to amend the Healthy Forests Restoration
Act of 2003 to help reduce the increased risk of severe
wildfires to communities in forested areas affected by
infestations of bark beetles and other insects, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to
the Committees on Resources, Ways and Means, and Science, 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. UDALL of New Mexico:
H.R. 4876. A bill to ratify a conveyance of a portion of
the Jicarilla Apache Reservation to Rio Arriba County, State
of New Mexico, pursuant to the settlement of litigation
between the Jicarilla Apache Nation and Rio Arriba County,
State of New Mexico, to authorize issuance of a patent for
said lands, and to change the exterior boundary of the
Jicarilla Apache Reservation accordingly, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Resources.
By Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico (for herself and Mr.
Lantos):
H.R. 4877. A bill to direct the Attorney General to study
how private entities and State and local government agencies
store explosives, and to issue regulations providing for the
safe and secure storage of explosives by such entities and
agencies, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. OWENS:
H.J. Res. 80. A joint resolution proposing an amendment the
Constitution of the United States limiting the number of
consecutive terms that a Senator or Representative may serve
and providing for 4-year terms for Representatives; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CANTOR (for himself, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Lantos, and
Ms. Millender-McDonald):
H. Con. Res. 350. Concurrent resolution permitting the use
of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the
commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the
Holocaust; to the Committee on House Administration.
By Mr. COSTA (for himself, Mr. Regula, Mr. Gillmor, Mr.
Hobson, and Mr. Shadegg):
H. Con. Res. 351. Concurrent resolution recognizing and
honoring the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Sigma
Alpha Epsilon Fraternity; to the Committee on Education and
the Workforce.
By Mr. BERRY (for himself, Mr. Ross, Mr. Bonner, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mr. LaHood, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Skelton,
Mr. Edwards, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr.
Melancon, Ms. Her-
seth, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Marshall, Mr.
Kind, Mr. Graves, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Taylor of
Mississippi, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Filner, Mr. Evans, Mr.
Boozman, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Leach, Mr. Ford, and Mr.
Clay):
H. Res. 706. A resolution expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives that Congress should enact legislation to
provide direct emergency assistance to American farmers who
were adversely affected by natural disasters and unforeseen
production costs during the 2005 crop year; to the Committee
on Agriculture.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey:
H. Res. 707. A resolution condemning the Government of
Iran's offer of assistance to Hamas, a known terrorist
organization which currently controls the Palestinian
Authority, and its call for other Arab nations to do the
same, and the anti-Israeli and anti-American statements of
the leaders of Iran; to the Committee on International
Relations.
By Mr. GUTIERREZ:
H. Res. 708. A resolution recognizing the centennial of
Christopher House in Chicago; to the Committee on Government
Reform.
By Mr. PAUL:
H. Res. 709. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to ensure that Members have a reasonable
amount of time to read legislation that will be voted upon;
to the Committee on Rules.
[[Page 2542]]
____________________
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 3 of rule XII, private bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. LaTOURETTE:
H.R. 4878. A bill for the relief of Karen Poppell; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MICHAUD:
H.R. 4879. A bill to reliquidate certain entries of salmon;
to the Committee on Ways and Means.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 94: Mr. Tiberi, Ms. Pryce of Ohio, and Mr. Brown of
Ohio.
H.R. 147: Mr. Renzi and Mr. Deal of Georgia.
H.R. 182: Mr. Istook.
H.R. 198: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 215: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 224: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 282: Mr. Osborne.
H.R. 390: Ms. McKinney and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 450: Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota,
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Kline, and Miss McMorris.
H.R. 503: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 521: Mr. Everett.
H.R. 552: Miss McMorris.
H.R. 583: Mr. Rahall, Mrs. Bono, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Meeks of New York, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Oberstar,
Ms. Carson, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Otter, Ms. Schwartz of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 591: Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 625: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 693: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 699: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 807: Mr. Ford and Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 880: Mr. Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 994: Mr. Owens and Mr. Weiner.
H.R. 995: Mr. Conyers, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. Murphy.
H.R. 998: Mrs. Capito and Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 1002: Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 1016: Mr. Moran of Kansas and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 1053: Mr. Issa.
H.R. 1125: Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 1249: Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr.
LoBiondo, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1298: Mr. Michaud, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Clyburn, Mr.
LaHood, Mrs. Drake, and Mr. Wynn.
H.R. 1351: Mr. Ford.
H.R. 1356: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzpatrick of
Pennsylvania, and Ms. Bean.
H.R. 1393: Mr. Ford.
H.R. 1426: Mr. Boozman and Mr. Boucher.
H.R. 1578: Mr. Weldon of Florida, Mr. Pombo, and Mr. Davis
of Illinois.
H.R. 1592: Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
H.R. 1603: Mr. Goode.
H.R. 1634: Mr. Tierney, Mr. Otter, Mr. Walsh, and Mr.
Pombo.
H.R. 1663: Mr. Pallone and Mr. Cannon.
H.R. 1707: Mrs. Maloney and Mr. Lewis of Georgia.
H.R. 1749: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 1806: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 1823: Mr. Allen.
H.R. 1950: Mr. Shaw.
H.R. 1951: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma and Mr. Lewis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2014: Mr. Lucas.
H.R. 2238: Mr. Davis of Kentucky.
H.R. 2305: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 2317: Mr. Lantos and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 2328: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 2345: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 2356: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 2369: Mr. Stupak, Ms. Schakow-
sky, Mr. Bradley of New Hampshire, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida, Mr. Costello, Mr. Beauprez, Mr. Kucinich, and Mr.
Wu.
H.R. 2370: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 2389: Mr. McCaul of Texas.
H.R. 2421: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H.R. 2525: Mr. Kline.
H.R. 2671: Mr. LaHood.
H.R. 2684: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. DeGette,
and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 2727: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 2943: Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3142: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 3145: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 3278: Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3307: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
H.R. 3312: Mr. Waxman and Ms. Schakowsky.
H.R. 3413: Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 3449: Mr. Andrews.
H.R. 3559: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Sherwood, Mr. Jones of
North Carolina, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Larsen of Washington, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, and Mr.
Moran of Kansas.
H.R. 3778: Mr. Putnam, Mr. Akin, and Ms. Corrine Brown of
Florida.
H.R. 3917: Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 3933: Mr. Rothman.
H.R. 3949: Mr. Petri.
H.R. 3997: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 4005: Ms. Waters, Ms. Schwartz of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Rothman, Mr. Lantos, and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 4156: Mr. Cummings.
H.R. 4188: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 4197: Mr. Van Hollen.
H.R. 4215: Mr. Brown of Ohio.
H.R. 4228: Mr. Schwarz of Michigan.
H.R. 4239: Mr. Green of Wisconsin.
H.R. 4265: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Mr. McCotter,
and Mr. Fortuno.
H.R. 4296: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 4298: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 4303: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Owens, Mr. Davis of Illinois,
Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Carson, Mr. Case, Ms. Norton, and Ms.
DeGette.
H.R. 4343: Mr. Wexler, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Grijalva, Mr.
Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Reyes, Mr. McDermott, Mrs.
McCarthy, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr.
Skelton, and Mr. Evans.
H.R. 4366: Mr. Farr.
H.R. 4394: Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 4408: Mr. Gary G. Miller of California and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4434: Mr. Simmons, Mr. Kildee, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin,
Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Allen, and Mr. Levin.
H.R. 4435: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Fattah, and Ms.
Harman.
H.R. 4450: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia.
H.R. 4452: Ms. Hart and Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 4460: Mr. Lantos and Mr. Butterfield.
H.R. 4466: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Towns, Mr. Engel, and
Mr. Gonzalez.
H.R. 4542: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Clay, Ms. Moore
of Wisconsin, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Pomeroy, and Mr. Ackerman.
H.R. 4561: Mr. Neugebauer.
H.R. 4575: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 4596: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 4597: Mr. Terry.
H.R. 4604: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
H.R. 4606: Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 4608: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 4621: Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 4622: Mr. Fortuno, and Ms. McKinney.
H.R. 4657: Ms. Moore of Wisconsin and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 4666: Mr. Murphy, Mr. Paul, Mr. Brown of Ohio, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Filner, and Mr.
Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 4675: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 4681: Mr. Linder, Mr. Berman, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr. Ross.
H.R. 4685: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California and Mr.
Levin.
H.R. 4704: Mr. Murtha and Mr. Cleaver.
H.R. 4729: Mr. Kuhl of New York and Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas.
H.R. 4732: Mr. Gibbons.
H.R. 4740: Mr. Levin.
H.R. 4749: Mr. Honda and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 4755: Mr. Melancon, Mr. Manzullo, Ms. Schwartz of
Pennsylvania, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Gordon, Mr.
Rothman, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Foley, Mr. Kirk, and Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 4760: Ms. Norton, Mr. Owens, Mr. Bishop of New York,
Mr. Payne, Mr. Conyers, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Clay, Mr. Grijalva, and Ms. McCollum of
Minnesota.
H.R. 4761: Mr. McHugh and Mr. Westmoreland.
H.R. 4773: Mr. McGovern, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Gene Green of
Texas, and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 4776: Ms. Harris and Mr. McCotter.
H.R. 4780: Mr. Burton of Indiana.
H.R. 4792: Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 4793: Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mr. Evans, Mr. Payne, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 4798: Mr. Baca.
H.R. 4799: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 4800: Mr. Inslee and Ms. Lee.
H.R. 4807: Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Boren, Mr.
Meehan, Mr. Foley, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Ms.
Norton, and Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 4813: Mr. Meeks of New York and Mr. Camp of Michigan.
H.R. 4824: Mr. Gerlach.
H. J. Res. 16: Mr. Price of Georgia.
H. Con. Res. 85: Mr. Gerlach.
H. Con. Res. 137: Mr. Clay.
H. Con. Res. 272: Mr. Honda.
H. Con. Res. 299: Mr. Wamp and Mr. Kucin-
ich.
H. Con. Res. 314: Mr. Farr.
H. Con. Res. 318: Mr. Stark and Ms. Woolsey.
H. Con. Res. 343: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H. Res. 521: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Mario Diaz-
Balart of Florida.
H. Res. 603: Ms. Woolsey.
H. Res. 635: Mr. Sabo.
H. Res. 643: Ms. Hooley.
H. Res. 658: Mr. Meeks of New York.
H. Res. 681: Mr. Boehlert.
H. Res. 685: Mr. Pallone, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Payne, Ms.
Lee, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Conyers,
Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Meeks of New York, Ms.
Waters, Ms. McKinney and Mr. Stark.
H. Res. 691: Mr. Owens, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Burton of Indiana
and Mr. McDermott.
[[Page 2543]]
H. Res. 698: Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Camp of
Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Miller of
Michigan, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Levin, and Mr.
Schwarz of Michigan.
H. Res. 699: Mr. Foley.
H. Res. 703: Mr. McCotter.
____________________
DISCHARGE PETITIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XV, the following discharge petition was
filed:
Petition 11, February 28, 2006, by Mr. JOHN BARROW on House
Resolution 614, was signed by the following Members: John
Barrow, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Jane Harman, Jesse L.
Jackson, Jr., David E. Price, John Lewis, Janice D.
Schakowsky, George Miller, Fortney Pete Stark, Patrick J.
Kennedy, Barney Frank, Louise McIntosh Slaughter, Michael F.
Doyle, Bart Stupak, John B. Larson, Earl Blumenauer, Michael
R. McNulty, Tom Udall, Steven R. Rothman, John D. Dingell,
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Timothy H. Bishop, Joe Baca, G. K.
Butterfield, Al Green, Lynn C. Woolsey, John W. Olver, Martin
T. Meehan, Sanford D. Biship, Jr., Bennie G. Thompson, James
P. Moran, Jerrold Nadler, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Jim
McDermott, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ellen O. Tauscher, Carolyn
McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Tammy Baldwin, Shelley Berkley,
Dennis Moore, James R. Langevin, John Conyers, Jr., and Gwen
Moore.
____________________
DISCHARGE PETITIONS--ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS
The following Members added their names to the following discharge
petitions:
Petition 3, by Mr. EDWARDS on House Resolution 27: Tim
Holden, Barbara Lee, John Conyers, Jr., and Gwen Moore.
Petition 4, by Ms. SLAUGHTER on House Resolution 460: John
Barrow, John Conyers, Jr., and Gwen Moore.
Petition 5, by Mr. WAXMAN on House Resolution 537: John
Conyers, Jr. and Gwen Moore.
Petition 6, by Mr. ABERCROMBIE on House Resolution 543:
Janice D. Schakowsky, Fortney Pete Stark, Marcy Kaptur.
Petition 7, by Ms. HERSETH on House Resolution 568: Nick J.
Rahall II, Alcee L. Hastings, Anna G. Eshoo, Albert Russell
Wynn, Jesse L. Jackson, Jr., Bob Etheridge, John F. Tierney,
Dale E. Kildee, Russ Carnahan, John Lewis, Ruben Hinojosa,
Janice D. Schakowsky, Patrick J. Kennedy, Dennis A. Cardoza,
Barbara Lee, James E. Clyburn, Michael F. Doyle, Tom Udall,
Steven R. Rothman, John Barrow, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Joe
Baca, Lynn C. Woolsey, Martin T. Meehan, Major R. Owens,
Bennie G. Thompson, James P. Moran, Marcy Kaptur, Jim
McDermott, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ellen O. Tauscher, Betty
McCollum, Tammy Baldwin, Lois Capps, C. A. Dutch Ruppers-
berger, John Conyers, Jr., Gwen Moore, and Steny H. Hoyer.
Petition 8, by Mr. WAXMAN on House Resolution 570: Nick J.
Rahall II, Michael H. Michaud, Alcee L. Hastings, Anna G.
Eshoo, Albert Russell Wynn, Jane Harman, Jesse L. Jackson,
Jr., Bob Etheridge, John F. Tierney, Dale E. Kildee, John
Lewis, Ruben Hinojosa, Patrick J. Kennedy, Dennis A. Cardoza,
Barbara Lee, Michael F. Doyle, Bart Stupak, Earl Blumenauer,
Tom Udall, Steven R. Rothman, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Lynn C.
Woolsey, Major R. Owens, Martin T. Meehan, James P. Moran,
Mark Udall, Marcy Kaptur, Jim McDermott, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, Ellen O. Tauscher, Betty McCollum, Tammy Baldwin,
Lois Capps, Dennis Moore, John Conyers, Jr., and Gwen Moore.
Petition 9, by Mr. BOSWELL on House Resolution 584: Nick J.
Rahall II, Anna G. Eshoo, Tim Holden, Diane E. Watson, Albert
Russell Wynn, John F. Tierney, John Lewis, Fortney Pete
Stark, Patrick J. Kennedy, Henry A. Waxman, James E. Clyburn,
Sherrod Brown, Michael F. Doyle, John B. Larson, Stephanie
Tubbs Jones, G. K. Butterfield, Al Green, Lynn C. Woolsey,
John W. Olver, Major R. Owens, Martin T. Meehan, Bennie G.
Thompson, Jerrold Nadler, Ben Chandler, Juanita Millender-
McDonald, Betty McCollum, Dennis Moore, Raul M. Grijalva,
Artur Davis, C. A. Dutch Ruppers-
berger, John Conyers, Jr., and Steny H. Hoyer.
Petition 10, by Ms. HERSETH on House Resolution 585: Nick
J. Rahall II, Anna G. Eshoo, Tim Holden, Diane E. Watson,
Albert Russell Wynn, Bob Etheridge, John F. Tierney, John
Lewis, Fortney Pete Stark, Patrick J. Kennedy, Henry A.
Waxman, James E. Clyburn, Sherrod Brown, Michael F. Doyle,
John B. Larson, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, G. K. Butterfield, Al
Green, Lynn C. Woolsey, John W. Olver, Major R. Owens, Martin
T. Meehan, Bennie G. Thompson, Ben Chandler, Juanita
Millender-McDonald, Betty McCollum, Raul M. Grijalva, Dennis
Moore, Artur Davis, C. A. Dutch Ruppers-
berger, John Conyers, Jr., and Steny H. Hoyer.
[[Page 2544]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
RECOGNIZING HAZEL HARVEY PEACE
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today to recognize
Hazel Harvey Peace for her commitment to the people and City of Fort
Worth, Texas. Mrs. Peace is a pillar of her community through various
volunteer works and a career as a devout educator.
As a Fort Worth native, Mrs. Peace began her profession as a teacher
at I.M. Terrell High School. During her tenure as a teacher, she
partook in several duties including service as a Counselor, Dean of
Girls, and as a Vice Principal. She was a strict advocate of literacy
and reading to young children which is among Mrs. Peace's many other
charitable works.
For Mrs. Peace's continued efforts, she was honored in 2004 with the
presentation of a professorship in Children's Library Science. In
addition, Mrs. Peace was also the first African American woman to be
named to a professorship at a 4-year Texas State-funded institution.
She has touched the lives of so many and which we are truly thankful.
It is the servant leadership of Mrs. Peace, and those like her, which
truly makes our Nation great. Once again, Mr. Speaker, it is my honor
to recognize Mrs. Hazel Harvey Peace.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO HOWARD W. ``HODDY'' HANNA III
______
HON. MELISSA A. HART
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the 2006 recipient of the National American Heritage
Award, Howard W. ``Hoddy'' Hanna III, of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The National American Heritage Award is given by the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL). The ADL is the nation's preeminent human rights
organization. The organization was founded in 1913 and is dedicated in
purpose and in program to defending democratic ideals, safeguarding
civil rights and combating anti-Semitism, prejudice, discrimination and
bigotry of all kinds. The National American Heritage Award is presented
to an individual or company whose leadership and character is
demonstrated both in work and in deed. It recognizes individuals who
embody what is best in America--justice, freedom equality and
fellowship.
Mr. Hanna will be presented with the National American Heritage Award
on Thursday, March 16, 2006 at a dinner in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to
join me in congratulating Howard W. Hanna III, the 2006 recipient of
the National American Heritage Award. It is an honor to represent the
Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania and a pleasure to salute
such a determined individual like Howard W. Hanna.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MS. ARLENE KAPLAN
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, Arlene Kaplan, a resident of
Randolph, Massachusetts, was elected president of the National Ladies
Auxiliary, Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America on
August 19, 2005 in San Diego, California, during the organization's
77th Annual National Convention.
Born in Boston, Massachusetts, Ms. Kaplan was the eldest of the late
Sally and Larry Tattlebaum's four children. After graduating from high
school, she attended Hickox School for Business Skills and Quincy
College for Business Courses. At age 19, she married Sumner ``Sunny''
Kaplan, a Navy veteran of World War II. Together, they raised three
children, and are the proud grandparents of six grandchildren.
Once her children were in school, Ms. Kaplan began working for the
Esselte Pendaflex Corporation, a Fortune 500 company. When her husband
was elected JWV Department of Massachusetts Commander, Ms. Kaplan
played a vital role in reorganizing Auxiliary 302, and served as
president for its first 2 crucial years. She continues to be active in
her auxiliary today.
She has served the JWV Department of Massachusetts in various
capacities over the years, including as its president from 1996 to
1997. She has been a member of the JWV National Ladies Auxiliary
Advisory Board and has chaired several of the organization's
committees. Arlene and Sunny Kaplan have been members of Temple Beth Am
in Randolph for more than 50 years.
____________________
COMMEMORATING NATIONAL BLACK HIV/AIDS AWARENESS DAY
______
HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Black
HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, which occurred on February 7, 2006. In its
sixth year of observation, the event promotes the mobilization of the
black community in an effort to educate and increase community
awareness and participation about HIV/AIDS.
The event was created in February 2001 by the Community Capacity
Building Coalition, a group of national non-profit organizations whose
mission is to assist in creating HIV/AIDS prevention capacity building
among community organizations in the black community. The coalition was
funded and formulated by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention.
The annual event emphasizes the importance of testing, education, and
awareness through a unified community construct. Additionally, the day
is used to remember all those who are infected as well as those who
have lost their battle with the disease since its onset in the United
States in 1981.
Mr. Speaker, National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is a powerful
combating mechanism. However, based on the current state of the disease
in the African-American community as revealed by the following
startling statistics and research, much more work needs to be done to
halt the spread of this devastating disease.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
Although African-Americans comprise only 13 percent of the
population, they account for 49 percent of all new AIDS cases in the
nation. This is an alarming increase from the startling account of 25
percent of AIDS cases in 1985.
Results from a large study of African-American homosexual and
bisexual men in five studies found 46 percent of the men to be HIV
positive and 67 percent of them unaware of their status.
African-American women account for 67 percent of all newly diagnosed
female AIDS cases.
Although African-American youth comprise only 15 percent of U.S.
teenagers, they accounted for 66 percent of new AIDS cases reported
among teens in 2003. A similar picture is found among African-American
children.
Over a third of African Americans with HIV diagnoses (39 percent)
were tested for HIV late in their illness and subsequently diagnosed
with AIDS within one year of testing positive.
Additionally, in a report recently released by the Maryland AIDS
Administration, the Baltimore-Towson metropolitan area, which houses my
district in its entirety, is classified as having ``the fifth highest
AIDS case report rate of any major metropolitan area in the United
States (32.8 cases per 100,000) . . . 2.2 times higher than the
national average of 15.0 cases per 100,000.'' Within these reported
cases, 89 percent are African-Americans, 62 percent are male and 65
percent are between the ages of 30-49.
These statistics are mind boggling. However, one thing remains
consistent and clear.
[[Page 2545]]
If not mitigated, the disease will continue to wreak devastation. HIV/
AIDS is a pandemic that belongs to each and everyone of us and we must
address it societally and holistically.
In his 2006 State of the Union address, President Bush did in fact
acknowledge and address the state of HIV/AIDS in the African-American
community. Specifically, he stated that, ``[a] hopeful society acts
boldly to fight diseases like HIV/AIDS, which can be prevented, and
treated, and defeated . . . We will . . . lead a nationwide effort,
working closely with African American churches and faith-based groups,
to deliver rapid HIV tests to millions, end the stigma of AIDS, and
come closer to the day when there are no new infections in America.''
Although a very promising and audacious statement, action speaks
louder than words. With that said, I encourage this Congress post haste
to reauthorize and fully fund the Ryan White CARE Act--and to
strengthen it to ensure accountability and equitable access to
treatment, prevention, and medical care for all affected. I urge this
Administration to work in full concert of accomplishing this critical
goal.
I conclude with the words of the late and great first lady of the
Civil Rights Movement, Coretta Scott King, who stated that ``AIDS is a
global crisis, a national crisis, a local crisis and a human crisis . .
. No matter where you live, AIDS is one of the most deadly killers of
African Americans. And I think anyone who sincerely cares about the
future of Black America had better be speaking out, calling for
preventive measures and increased funding for research and treatment.''
____________________
TRIBUTE TO ARKANSAS STATE SENATOR JERRY BOOKOUT
______
HON. MARION BERRY
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise here today to pay tribute to one of my
great friends, Mr. Jerry Bookout of Jonesboro, who is one of Arkansas'
greatest public servants. With more than 40 years of work in the
Arkansas General Assembly, Bookout has pioneered countless reforms in
education, retirement, and especially health care.
As a military veteran, elected official, and community volunteer,
Bookout has devoted his entire life to public service. He worked to
elevate Arkansas State College to university status, strengthened the
State's retirement system, and established the first doctoral and
physical therapy programs at Arkansas State University.
Although Bookout has championed many issues during his lifetime, he
has worked particularly hard to improve the quality of health care in
Arkansas. From chair of the American Cancer Society, to a leader in
Arkansas' General Assembly, Bookout has shaped health policy for many
years. His achievements earned him several distinguished positions as
chair of the Senate Public Health/Senate Health Services Committee, the
Senate Health Insurance and Prescription Drugs Committee, and vice-
chair of the Senate Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee.
Bookout and his wife, the former Loretta Langford, have one son,
Paul, who serves in the Arkansas House of Representatives and a
daughter, Jill Rogers. He and his wife also have three grandchildren,
Morgan and P.J. Bookout and Rachel Rogers.
On February 25, 2006, our community will gather at the American
Cancer Society's 1st Annual Daffodil Ball to honor Jerry Bookout for
his remarkable contributions to health care in Arkansas. I ask my
colleagues in Congress to join me in congratulating him on this
occasion and thanking him for over half a century of dedicated service,
as a great friend, and a great American.
____________________
ANDREA COREY SHOWING GREAT PROMISE IN RANGEL FELLOW PROGRAM
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform you of the achievements of
Andrea Corey, a young lady whose aspirations and goals are contributing
to her success as an international affairs scholar.
Andrea's record is cause for great pride to the International Affairs
Diversity Fellow Program, which is identifying and preparing qualified
minority applicants for the Foreign Service. Having obtained an
International Affairs' masters through hard work and perseverance with
a current 3.6 GPA, she is also a concerned citizen who will certainly
change the way American diplomacy is practiced.
She is an example of what the program has achieved with Federal
funding, awarding deserving minority students with grants to cover
their tuition, books and fees.
Andrea Corey has already experienced the reality of the Foreign
Service, having worked with Foreign-Service diplomats at the United
States Embassy in the Dominican Republic and writing talking points for
speeches by the United States Ambassador.
She plans on working with political economic issues at the U.S.
Embassy in the Bahamas this summer, while expanding her knowledge and
professional experience.
____________________
RECOGNIZING GENERAL CASIMIR PULASKI
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor I recognize General
Casimir Pulaski, a living legend who became known as the ``Father of
the American Cavalry'' after leaving his native land Poland to defend
this great country during the Revolutionary War.
A bold and dedicated soldier, Pulaski defined his selfless loyalty in
a letter to George Washington in which he stated, ``I came here, where
freedom is being defended, to serve it, and to live or die for it.''
In February of 1778, with Washington's endorsement, Pulaski submitted
his plan to Congress and with their authorization he formed the
Independent Corps later known as the Pulaski Legion.
During the siege of Savannah in 1779, General Pulaski paid the
ultimate sacrifice and was mortally wounded; leaving a legacy of
heroism that continues to inspire people around the world.
In 1910, by an order of Congress, a statue of Gen. Pulaski was
erected at Pennsylvania Avenue and 13th Street in Washington, DC,
paying tribute to this great hero.
My hometown of Buffalo, New York, is one of a handful of communities
which have also recognized Pulaski's contributions with a statue.
Monuments can also be found in Hartford, Connecticut; Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Savannah, Georgia; and Czestochowa and Warka Poland.
On Friday, March 3, 2006, I will have the privilege to join community
leaders and friends from the western New York General Pulaski
Association in celebrating the legacy of General Pulaski in a wreath
laying tradition at the Pulaski statue which first began in the 1930s.
Mr. Speaker, we in western New York have the great privilege of
having a strong and vibrant Polish American community. Thank you for
allowing me to recognize the contributions of General Pulaski, a man
who has served as a patriot to not one, but two great nations.
____________________
FIRST NATIONAL STUDY OF DAY LABORERS EXPOSES ABUSE, INJURIES, H.R. 4437
WOULD MAKE MATTERS WORSE
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, they pay taxes, raise children, attend
church, and participate in community activities and institutions. Yet,
when America's day laborers go to work, they have experiences that
would shock any other upstanding community member: police harassment,
violence at the hands of employers, withheld wages and conditions so
dangerous that is not unusual for them to be sidelined for more than a
month with work-related injuries or to work for weeks on end in pain.
In Illinois and in other States in the Midwest, day laborers work under
more dangerous conditions, are more likely to suffer labor abuse, and
are also more likely to suffer police harassment compared to workers in
other regions.
This is the vivid portrait painted by the first nationwide study of
America's 117,600 day laborers. The result of research by social
scientists from the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), the
University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), and New York's New
School University, ``On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States,''
presents findings from a survey of 264 hiring sites in 143
municipalities in 20 U.S. States and the District of Columbia.
``The goal was to document a population that, though quite visible on
the corners of U.S. cities, is poorly understood by the public
[[Page 2546]]
and by policy makers,'' said Nik Theodore, an assistant professor in
the Urban Planning and Policy Program at UIC, and one of the study's
three lead authors. ``We hope to inform policy debates so that
decisionmakers can devise thoughtful and effective strategies for
resolving many of the problems that day laborers face.''
According to the national study's findings, worker centers give a
voice and power to people who often lack both. They are gateway
organizations that meet immigrant workers where they are and provide
them with a wealth of information and training. In all too many cases,
these centers are the only ``port in the storm'' for low-wage immigrant
workers seeking to understand U.S. labor and immigration laws, file
back wage claims, and organize against recalcitrant employers. The
Latino Union of Chicago runs the only worker center for day laborers in
the Midwest, located in the Albany Park neighborhood of Chicago.
If the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism and Illegal Immigration Act
(H.R. 4437) is enacted, this comprehensive community approach would
come to an end. It would destroy the very institutions in our
communities that have developed real solutions. Day labor centers (and
the private individuals, churches and government agencies that work
with them) could face thousands or even millions of dollars in fines if
they assist in the process of connecting day laborers to employers. The
trust that day labor centers have built with communities would be
eroded as the centers become responsible for verifying workers'
immigration status. Volunteers and staff of worker centers would be
turned into criminals and work center property could be seized. Good
work, such as providing ESL classes and job skills training or
leadership development, would be equated with alien smuggling.
H.R. 4437 and bills with similar provisions don't just jeopardize the
lives of some immigrants, they are attacks on all our communities. As a
first-generation American and as a Congresswoman who is honored to
represent one of the most richly diverse districts in the country, I
believe Washington must act now on immigration reform that keeps the
American dream alive--not roll back the good work that day labor
centers do every day across the Nation.
I urge my colleagues to look at the national study released by UIC
and UCLA, which I hope is the first of many, to help us understand the
problems day laborers and immigrants face in our country.
On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States
(By Abel Valenzuela, Jr., Nik Theodore, Edwin Melendez, and Ana Luz
Gonzalez)
Executive Summary
This report profiles, for the first time, the national
phenomenon of day labor in the United States. Men and women
looking for employment in open-air markets by the side of the
road, at busy intersections, in front of home improvement
stores and in other public spaces are ubiquitous in cities
across the nation. The circumstances that give rise to this
labor market are complex and poorly understood. In this
report, we analyze data from the National Day Labor Survey,
the first systematic and scientific study of the day-labor
sector and its workforce in the United States.
This portrait of day labor in the United States is based on
a national survey of 2,660 day laborers. These workers were
randomly selected at 264 hiring sites in 139 municipalities
in 20 States and the District of Columbia. The sheer number
of these sites, combined with their presence in every region
in the country, reflects the enormous breadth of this labor
market niche.
Our findings reveal that the day-labor market is rife with
violations of workers' rights. Day laborers are regularly
denied payment for their work, many are subjected to
demonstrably hazardous job sites, and most endure insults and
abuses by employers. The growth of day-labor hiring sites
combined with rising levels of workers' rights violations is
a national trend that warrants attention from policy makers
at all levels of government.
In some cities, the rise of day labor has been accompanied
by community tensions, in part because of inaccurate and
unsubstantiated portrayals of these workers. The aim of this
study is to provide sound empirical data on the day-labor
phenomenon that can inform public discussions and provide the
basis for thoughtful policy approaches to this complex issue.
____________________
10TH ANNIVERSARY GALA FOR THE SAGEMONT SCHOOL
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to
the Sagemont School on the occasion of their 10th anniversary
celebration.
The Sagemont School is an educational establishment in my district
that provides a nurturing and stimulating learning environment that
inspires each student to think critically, reach his or her maximum
potential and grow into a valuable citizen of our global community.
The Sagemont School's academic program is a rigorous college-prep
curriculum that includes a variety of Honors and AP courses. Sagemont
is second to none when it comes to integrating state-of-the-art
technology, Internet use and even additional coursework at their
``virtual school'' education partner, University of Miami Online High
School. Sagemont also meets the needs of students with specific
learning disabilities through its Mountain Peak Academy, a program that
mainstreams with the school's regular program.
The Sagemont School operates two campuses in Weston, in addition to
its Virtual School known as The University of Miami Online High School.
The Sagemont Lower School serves students in pre-K through grade 5; the
Sagemont Upper School serves grades 6 through 12. The faculty and staff
at Sagemont are dedicated to parent-teacher relationships in a high-
tech learning environment. With multiple computers in the classroom and
an average class size of 17 students, children are learning the skills
they will need to be successful both in school and later in life.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to acknowledge the achievements of The
Sagemont School over the past decade. It is my sincere belief that the
Sagemont School will continue to instill in each of their students the
joy of learning, personal growth, and a sense of personal and community
responsibility for many years to come.
____________________
HONORING THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PEACE CORPS
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Peace
Corps, and the wonderful volunteers who enable this great institution
to provide invaluable humanitarian service throughout the world.
Forty-five years ago this week, President John F. Kennedy established
the Peace Corps to ``promote world peace and friendship.'' That message
has never been more important than it is today. At a time when
America's image abroad needs all the help that it can get, the Peace
Corps provides us with the magnificent opportunity to demonstrate to
the world that we are not only a nation of great prosperity, but great
generosity as well; not only a nation of incredible might, but
tremendous compassion.
Since 1961, more than 182,000 volunteers have served in 138
countries. Peace Corps volunteers serve as community leaders, business
advisors, ecological conservationists, information technology
consultants, health and HIV/AIDS educators, agricultural workers, and
school teachers. President Kennedy said of these fine women and men:
``For every young American who participates in the Peace Corps--who
works in a foreign land--will know that he or she is sharing in the
great common task of bringing to man that decent way of life which is
the foundation of freedom and a condition of peace.''
Today there are nearly 8,000 volunteers serving in 75 different
countries. I would especially like to recognize the eight current
volunteers from New Jersey's Ninth district: Julie Castner, Lucia Chan,
Adam Kaufman, Suzanne Lee, Joseph Maggio, Reuben Man, Domenick
Piccinich, and Troy Wolfe. You have made me and the people of New
Jersey very proud.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me today in commending
the thousands of Americans who serve and have served as Peace Corps
volunteers. They are I a great credit to our country.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF TREAT PHYSICIANS FAIRLY ACT
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Treat Physicians
Fairly Act, legislation providing tax credits to physicians to
compensate for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This
legislation helps compensate
[[Page 2547]]
medical professionals for the costs imposed on them by federal laws
forcing doctors to provide uncompensated medical care. The legislation
also provides a tax deduction for hospitals that incur costs related to
providing uncompensated care.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)
physicians who work in emergency rooms are required to provide care,
regardless of a person's ability to pay, to anyone who comes into an
emergency room. Hospitals are also required by law to bear the full
costs of providing free care to anyone who seeks emergency care. Thus,
EMTALA forces medical professionals and hospitals to bear the entire
cost of caring for the indigent. According to the June 2/9, 2003
edition of AM News, emergency physicians lose an average of $138,000 in
revenue per year because of EMTALA. EMTALA also forces physicians and
hospitals to follow costly rules and regulations. Physicians can be
fined $50,000 for technical EMTALA violations!
The professional skills with which one's earns a living are property.
Therefore, the clear language of the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment prevents Congress from mandating that physicians and
hospitals bear the entire costs of providing health care to any group.
Ironically, the perceived need to force doctors to provide medical
care is itself the result of prior government interventions into the
health care market. When I began practicing medicine, it was common for
doctors to provide uncompensated care as a matter of charity. However,
laws and regulations inflating the cost of medical services and
imposing unreasonable liability standards on medical professionals even
when they where acting in a volunteer capacity made offering free care
cost prohibitive. At the same time, the increasing health care costs
associated with the government-facilitated overreliance on third party
payments priced more and more people out of the health care market.
Thus, the government responded to problems created by its interventions
by imposing the EMTALA mandate on physicians, in effect making health
care professionals scapegoats for the harmful consequences of
government health care polices.
EMTALA could actually decrease the care available for low-income
Americans at emergency rooms. This is because EMTALA discourages
physicians from offering any emergency care. Many physicians in my
district have told me that they are considering curtailing their
practices, in part because of the costs associated with the EMTALA
mandates. Many other physicians are even counseling younger people
against entering the medical profession because of the way the Federal
Government treats medical professionals. The tax credits created in the
Treat Physicians Fairly Act will help mitigate some of the burden
government policies place on physicians.
The Treat Physicians Fairly Act does not remove any of EMTALA's
mandates; it simply provides that physicians can receive a tax credit
for the costs of providing uncompensated care. This is a small step
toward restoring fairness to physicians. Furthermore, by providing some
compensation in the form of tax credits, the Treat Physicians Fairly
Act helps remove the disincentives to remaining active in the medical
profession built into the current EMTALA law. I hope my colleagues will
take the first step toward removing the unconstitutional burden of
providing uncompensated care by cosponsoring the Treat Physicians
Fairly Act.
____________________
WOODROW WILSON PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AUTHORIZATION ACT
______
HON. BOB GOODLATTE
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Woodrow
Wilson Presidential Library Authorization Act.
As a statesman, scholar, and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic
crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians
agree that World War I, and President Wilson's leadership, radically
altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy--a policy
that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies
throughout the world. So too did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a
legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the Executive
Branch in times of war.
As a professor and president of Princeton University, Wilson created
a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By
instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of
teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most
renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at
Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of current President
Shirley Tilghman as we seek to establish a Presidential library and
museum at Wilson's birthplace in Virginia.
On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint
session of Congress to seek a Declaration of War against Germany, for
``The world must be safe for democracy.'' Eighty-eight years later, we
continue to champion that right of mankind.
In order to increase the awareness and understanding of the life,
principles and accomplishments of the 28th President of the United
States, I ask that you join me in co-sponsoring legislation that will
enable the construction of a Presidential Library and Museum dedicated
to Woodrow Wilson at his birthplace in Staunton, Virginia.
Specifically, this legislation will make grants from the National
Archives for the establishment of a Presidential Library to provide
educational and interpretive services to honor the life of Woodrow
Wilson. To ensure that a public-private partnership exists, my
legislation also mandates that no grant shall be available for the
establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at
least twice the amount to be allocated by the Congress. Finally, once
the library is complete, this legislation states that the Federal
government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of
the library.
In studying the life and times of the 28th President, we see how
Woodrow Wilson affected and continues to influence how the United
States responds to national and international crises. I ask my
colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation that would
establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton,
Virginia.
____________________
PASTOR AND CHAPLAIN KENNETH WELLS CELEBRATES 25 YEARS OF SERVICE
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Kenneth Wells as he
celebrates 25 years as the pastor for Northview Baptist Church in
Lewisville. Pastor Kenneth Wells is undoubtedly the pride of the
Northview Baptist community because of his unrelenting outreach to
preach joy to so many.
Pastor Kenneth Wells has been enriching the lives of Lewisville
community since the first Sunday at Northview Baptist Church in 1981.
In addition to his church duties as Pastor, Kenneth Wells is an active
member of the greater Lewisville community. He serves as chaplain for
the city of Lewisville police and fire departments. He created this
ministry over 25 years ago with other area pastors. Pastor Kenneth
Wells, along with his wife Teresa, remain committed to serving their
community and their church.
Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I stand here today to honor
Pastor Kenneth Wells in recognition of his devotion and selflessness to
those around him.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE NEW CASTLE BUILDERS CHAPTER OF THE ORDER OF DeMOLAY
______
HON. MELISSA A. HART
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate the New Castle Builders Chapter of the Order of DeMolay
for its 87th anniversary.
The New Castle Builders Chapter #39095 Order of DeMolay serves the
New Castle and Lawrence County area with additional chapters in Butler,
Erie, Greensburg and Pittsburgh.
The Order of DeMolay is a character-building and leadership
development organization for young men between the ages of 12 and 21.
The organization aims to better sons which will in turn mean better men
to be better citizens and leaders in the future.
The New Castle Builders Chapter of the Order of DeMolay hold its
annual meeting on Wednesday February 22, 2006, and celebrate its 87th
anniversary.
I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to
join me in congratulating the New Castle Builders Chapter of the Order
of DeMolay for its 87th anniversary. It is an honor to represent the
Fourth Congressional District of Pennsylvania and a pleasure to salute
an organization such as the Order of DeMolay.
[[Page 2548]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. DAVID L. MAGIDSON
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on August 19, 2005, David L.
Magidson was elected to a 1-year term as National Commander of Jewish
War Veterans of the United States of America, during the organization's
101st Annual National Convention in San Diego, California.
Mr. Magidson's military service began when he joined the U.S. Army in
1968. He graduated as a 2nd lieutenant from Infantry Officer Candidate
School at Fort Benning, Georgia. He also served as the Operations
Officer for the Miami Field Office of the 111th Military Intelligence
Group. His active duty service ended in 1971.
Mr. Magidson has held numerous positions in Post 243, including Post
Commander. Additionally, he has served as Judge Advocate for the JWV
Department of Florida, and as the organization's National Judge
Advocate since 2001.
Mr. Magidson also serves his Jewish heritage, and is currently a
member of the Commission on Social Action of the Union for Reform
Judaism. In 2000, he completed a 2-year term as president of Temple
Judea in Coral Gables, Florida.
Although a native of New York City, Magidson was raised in the
Washington, DC, area, the son of a Department of Defense civilian who
headed the Claims Division for the U.S. Marine Corps. He earned his
undergraduate degree in Spanish at Franklin and Marshall College, and
went on to earn a Master's degree in Latin American History from the
University of Florida.
Upon his release from military service, he attended the University of
Miami Law School on the G.I. Bill, and received a law degree. He also
studied international law at the Escuela Libre de Derecho in Mexico
City. A family man, Mr. Magidson has been happily married to his wife,
Carol, for 35 years, and they have two adult children, Ben and Rebecca.
____________________
PORT SECURITY AND THE SALE OF FIRMS OPERATING TERMINALS AT U.S. PORTS
______
HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about port security
and the sale of firms operating terminals at U.S. ports. The proposed
sale of the P&O firm--which manages terminal operations at major East
Coast ports, including the Port of Baltimore--to a company controlled
by the government of Dubai has made many aware for the first time that
major seaports in the U.S. are operated by firms controlled by foreign
interests, including foreign governments.
We have long known that we have not closed gaps in physical security
at our ports. Only approximately 5 percent of the nearly 9 million
containers coming into our nation are physically inspected.
These gaps exist in part because we have simply not prioritized port
security. Since 9/11, more than $20 billion in federal funding has been
directed to aviation security while just over $630 million has been
directed to port security.
However, the proposed sale of P&O now makes us aware that not only
have we overlooked physical security, we have failed to develop the
systems necessary to manage the unique security issues that the
increasingly global nature of port management raises.
Most U.S. ports are owned by public or quasi-public authorities.
These authorities frequently lease their terminal spaces to operating
companies. P&O is one such operating company--and a quick review of
U.S. port facilities reveals that like P&O, many terminal operating
companies active in the United States are either foreign-owned or are
subsidiaries of foreign entities.
In some case, these firms not only manage ports around the world,
they also run the shipping lines that travel between these ports.
These kinds of relationships may be very good for business, but our
government is not comprehensively assessing what threats these
relationships could pose to our national security.
The Coast Guard analyzed the P&O deal because this deal was subjected
to the scrutiny of the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States.
Under normal circumstances, no federal entity comprehensively
assesses terminal operating agreements for their security implications.
Each U.S. port is responsible for developing a facility security
plan, which the Coast Guard approves. Amazingly, the Coast Guard does
not regularly review terminal operating agreements as part of its
assessment of a port's security plan.
I believe that Congress should, at the very least, examine whether
the Coast Guard should be required to review terminal operating
arrangements as part of their review of port facility security plans.
In the absence of such assessments, we do not really know whether
firms managing our ports have ownership or business relations that
could create a security threat.
Our transportation networks are truly global and all aspects of
transportation businesses have significant foreign involvement. If our
government has yet to take stock of these complex business arrangements
and of the threats they pose to our transportation security, what other
gaps exist and what incidents more threatening than a proposed sale
will reveal them?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, while we have been conducting a national
dialogue over recent weeks about the extent of foreign involvement that
should be allowed in the operation of our ports, ports are just one of
the many pieces of sensitive infrastructure in this nation which have
not been adequately secured.
As we continue to examine our national security policies, we must
examine whether our current laws on foreign ownership and operating
arrangements pertaining to our nation's infrastructure are in the best
interests of our national security. The American people well understand
that the protection of our nation should not be subject to the
seemingly relentless advancement of trade at all costs.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO FREDDIE BRYANT
______
HON. MARION BERRY
of arkansas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise here today
to commemorate a remarkable man, Mr. Freddie Bryant, on ninety years of
endurance, patience, and strength of character. His selfless acts have
touched so many, especially his twelve children, who thrived under his
guidance and cherish the wonderful memories of growing up in Freddie's
home.
Freddie has been a hard worker his entire life. He took on family
responsibilities at the age of seven when his father moved to Hughes,
Arkansas, and continues to plant a garden and raise livestock to this
day. Although he only has a seventh grade education, he has an
equivalent of a Ph.D. degree in agriculture, teaching, leadership,
business, counseling, and theology.
According to Freddie's family--he does it all. He continues to sow
and reap his land where he built the house, barn, and pasture from
trees he cut down himself. Freddie always has a way to make a situation
work. He would walk for miles with his old horse Pearl and a cotton
sack on his back to feed his twelve children. When his eldest child
wanted to attend college, he took a job at the granary in Helena,
Arkansas, until he could send every one of his kids to college. To this
day, whenever he meets a stranger, he always says ``let me tell you
about my children.''
His children remember his ambition and sacrifice with such
admiration. They remember the smells of childhood that bring them back
so fondly to the shack in Lexa, Arkansas. Many events happened in this
home that helped them grow into notable members of society. Throughout
it all, it was in the arms of a loving father that guided them in the
right direction.
Freddie Bryant has been married to the former Josephine Dunlap of
Lexa, Arkansas, for 67 years. Josephine is a valiant woman, whose
determination to raise her family goes unmatched.
On March 11, 2006 the community will meet to honor and celebrate the
90th birthday of this simple yet great man who only refers to himself
as ``Fanny's Boy.'' I ask my colleagues in the U.S. House of
Representatives to join me in wishing Freddie many more years of
happiness, and thanking him for his service as a great father and great
American.
[[Page 2549]]
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS ON SENATE PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION CREATING CARIBBEAN-
AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my congratulations
to Rep. Barbara Lee of California for her leadership in championing
legislation that would designate a national Caribbean-American Heritage
month.
I am looking forward to the signing of this legislation by the
President and to having the first celebration of Caribbean-American
Heritage Month later this year. We as a nation will enthusiastically
participate in this celebration in recognition and gratitude for the
contributions made by our Caribbean-American communities. We have been
richly blessed by this immigrant community who have followed and
achieved their American dream through hard work and devotion to self-
improvement.
As you know Mr. Speaker, the United States Senate earlier this month
unanimously approved the legislation, H. Con. Res. 51, introduced by
Rep. Lee last year. Last summer, the bill was approved by the House of
Representatives and had 81 co-sponsors and support from more than 40
non-governmental organizations working on Caribbean-American issues. As
the most senior Democratic woman on the House International Relations
Committee, and a member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, Rep.
Lee has worked to strengthen U.S.-Caribbean relations and wanted to
raise awareness about the role that Caribbean people and their
descendants have played in the United States by introducing the bill.
As an original co-sponsor of H. Con. Res. 51, I am ecstatic that the
lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate lent
their support to such a worthy bill. The Caribbean people have been a
blessing both to the 15th Congressional District of New York and the
country. There have been many influential Caribbean-Americans in U.S.
history who have changed the fabric of this fine nation. Shirley
Chisolm, the first African-American Congresswoman and first African-
American woman candidate for President, had familial roots in Barbados.
The parents of Colin Powell, the first African-American Secretary of
State, were Jamaican. In the area of the arts, Celia Cruz, the world-
renowned queen of Salsa music, was Cuban, while the parents of Sidney
Poitier, the first African-American actor to receive the Academy Award
for best actor in a leading role, hailed from the Bahamas.
It is undeniable that great patriots of the United States have
cultural roots in the beautiful countries of the Caribbean. Mr.
Speaker, please join me again in congratulating Rep. Lee on her hard
work to advance this legislation and lawmakers in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate on passing H. Con. Res. 51. I also hope
you will join me in urging the President to designate the month of June
for annual national recognition of Caribbean-American Heritage Month.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE ``BLUE & GOLD'' WITH CUB SCOUT PACK
60
______
HON. BRIAN HIGGINS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure I recognize the
young men from Cub Scout Pack 60 from Buffalo, New York as they
celebrate the traditions and contributions of the Boy Scouts of America
on this the 76th anniversary of Cub Scouting.
Since 1910 Cub Scouts have embraced their motto ``Do Your Best'' and
promoted the values of: citizenship, compassion, cooperation, courage,
faith, health, honesty, perseverance, positive attitude,
resourcefulness, respect, and responsibility among its membership.
Today we have more than 885,000 Cub Scouts across America, learning
valuable life lessons through the scouting program, who will be the
next generation of leaders.
On Sunday, March 5, 2006 Pack 60 will celebrate the Anniversary of
Scouting with a ``Blue & Gold'' dinner; blue representing truth,
spirituality, steadfast loyalty and the sky above and gold which stands
for warm sunlight, good cheer and happiness.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to recognize Cub Scout
Pack 60 whose members have learned at a very young age the importance
of teamwork and giving back to one's community. We should be proud
knowing they are this Nation's future.
____________________
H.R. 4682, THE HONEST LEADERSHIP AND OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT: DEMOCRATS
LEAD THE NATION ON LOBBYING REFORM
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, our country was established as a
government `of the people, by the people, and for the people.' The
Republican majority has turned it into a government of, by, and for a
few of the people. We need to address the Republican culture of
corruption and lead the charge to restore honor and dignity to the
House of Representatives. America can do better. The American public
deserves better.
Mr. Abramoff and his associates have clearly broken the law. It takes
two to tango. I believe Republican Members of Congress who put America
up for sale should also be held accountable for their corrupt dealings
and ``pay for play'' politics that put special interests first at the
expense of the priorities of the American people.
Americans pay when lobbyists are granted special access in the
legislative process and democratic procedures are abandoned on the
floor of the House. Americans pay for the cost of corruption in many
ways: a prescription drug bill that puts the greed of pharmaceutical
companies ahead of the need of senior citizens for affordable
prescription drugs; energy legislation that gives tax breaks and
subsidies to oil companies while Americans pay record prices at the
pump and for home-heating; and a waiver of liability so that vaccine
manufacturers can profit while Americans can be hurt.
To end this culture of corruption and restore integrity and openness
to the House, Democratic Leader Pelosi and my Democratic colleagues
have introduced the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act that will
eliminate the K Street Project that trades legislative access for
Republican-only employment, stop the revolving door between government
and lobbyists, end the ``dead of night'' special interest provisions,
prohibit cronyism in key appointments, and eliminate contracting abuses
like those benefiting Halliburton. I support this bill, and I urge my
colleagues to enact and vigorously enforce needed reforms.
I am, however, concerned with the proposal to ban all privately-
funded congressional travel without making a distinction between social
or recreational trips and educational travel. Travel that includes
lobbyists funding lawmakers to go to luxurious resorts for golf trips
is abuse of House rules, and I believe we need to put an end to it.
But fact-finding trips on the other hand are an important way to
educate members of Congress about issues. Banning them would make it
harder for Members to get real-world understanding of matters that
arise on Capitol Hill. I want to make sure that nonprofit
organizations, whether they undertake no lobbying or devote a very
small percentage of their budgets to lobbying, are not precluded from
taking members on these trips because of this bill. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on this issue.
The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a
marketplace of ideas. Democrats are leading the effort to once again
put power where it belongs--in the hands of the American people. I look
forward to enacting real reform that addresses serious ethical abuses,
increases the transparency and openness of government, and enforces the
rules and laws already on the books.
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. RONALD L. BOOK
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, February 25, 2006,
Ronald L. Book was awarded the Anti-Defamation League's Torch of
Liberty Award, which recognizes outstanding individuals who have
exhibited humanitarian concerns and whose efforts bring together people
of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds.
Mr. Book serves as a member of the University Outreach Development
Council at Florida International University and is Board Member
Emeritus of the Memorial Hospital Foundation and the Joe DiMaggio
Children's Hospital & Foundation. He is chairman of the Dade County
Homeless Trust and its executive committee and serves as outside
advisor
[[Page 2550]]
to the Broward Community Partnership on the Homeless.
He is also an active participant in South Florida's business
community. Mr. Book is a trustee and Council of 100 members of the
Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce and was the Director and Special
Counsel for former Florida Governor, Bob Graham's Cabinet.
Mr. Book earned a Juris Doctorate at Tulane University and a
Bachelor's degree in Political Science at Florida International
University. He currently practices in Aventura and Tallahassee. Of all
his accomplishments, Ron and his wife, Pat, are most proud of their
children, Lauren (20), Samantha (18) and Chase (13).
For his exemplary and inspirational work, reflecting the goals and
aspirations of the ADL, I congratulate Ronald L. Book on this
distinguished honor.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF 2006 WINTER OLYMPIC ATHLETES
______
HON. STEVEN R. ROTHMAN
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize all of the
Olympic athletes who competed last month at the Winter Games in Turin,
Italy. The Olympic Games have always sought to bring people together in
peace to respect universal moral principles. They give the finest
athletes in the world the chance to compete with pride and honor. I am
proud that three of my constituents from East Rutherford, New Jersey,
in my Ninth Congressional District, competed among the world's best at
the 2006 Winter Olympics. Brian Gionta, Scott Gomez, and Brian Rafalski
were all members of the Men's United States Olympic Ice Hockey Team.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to especially honor these three young men
who have distinguished themselves in the sport of ice hockey, and
proudly represented the United States at the 2006 Winter Olympic Games
in Turin, Italy.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE SUNLIGHT RULE
______
HON. RON PAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously
said, ``Sunlight is the best disinfectant.'' In order to shine sunlight
on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore
public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the
sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that Members have
adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of
the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is
the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without
Members having an opportunity to read the bills. This is particularly a
problem with the Appropriations conference reports, which are often
rushed to the floor of the House in late-night sessions at the end of
the year. For example, just this past December, the House voted on the
Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Conference Report at
approximately 4 a.m.--just 4 hours after the report was filed. Yet, the
report contained language dealing with avian flu, including
controversial language regarding immunity liability for vaccine
manufacturers, that was added in the House-Senate conference on the
bill. Considering legislation on important issues in this manner is a
dereliction of our duty as the people's elected representatives.
My proposed rule requires that no piece of legislation, including
conference reports, can be brought before the House of Representatives
unless it has been available to Members and staff in both print and
electronic version for at least 10 days. My bill also requires that a
manager's amendment that makes substantive changes to a bill be
available in both printed and electronic forms at least 72 hours before
being voted on. While manager's amendments are usually reserved for
technical changes, oftentimes manager's amendments contain substantive
additions to or subtractions from bills. Members should be made aware
of such changes before being asked to vote on a bill.
The sunlight rule provides the people the opportunity to be involved
in enforcing the rule by allowing a citizen to move for censure of any
House Member who votes for a bill brought to the floor in violation of
this act. The sunlight rule can never be waived by the Committee on
Rules or House leadership. If an attempt is made to bring a bill to the
floor in violation of this rule, any member could raise a point of
order requiring the bill to be immediately pulled from the House
calendar until it can be brought to the floor in a manner consistent
with this rule.
Mr. Speaker, the practice of rushing bills to the floor before
individual Members have had a chance to study the bills is one of the
major factors contributing to public distrust of Congress. Voting on
bills before Members have had time to study them makes a mockery of
representative government and cheats the voters who sent us here to
make informed decisions on public policy. Adopting the sunlight rule is
one of, if not the, most important changes to the House rules this
Congress could make to restore public trust in, and help preserve the
integrity of, this institution. I hope my colleagues will support this
change to the House rules.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVENESS ACT
______
HON. BOB GOODLATTE
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Innovation
and Competitiveness Act.
The Framers of our system of government realized that innovation was
essential to the success of the United States. They embodied this
strong belief in Article I Section 8 of our Constitution, which lays
the framework for our nation's copyright and patent laws. The Framers
realized that American innovation was so important that it merited
specific reference and protection in our founding document.
Today, America is the world leader in innovation. However, to ensure
that America remains the world leader, we must again take a hard look
at our policies to make sure that they still encourage inventors to
create and businesses to grow and expand.
Every business and individual must weigh the advantages and the
hurdles when making the decisions about whether to bring an idea to the
market, expand services to other geographical areas and the like. In
addition to market factors, unfortunately, today there are additional
hurdles to innovation and growth--excessive litigation, as well as
taxation, red tape and regulation imposed by governments.
The Innovation and Competitiveness Act is a comprehensive piece of
legislation to get Congress engaged in the business of promoting
innovation in America by creating additional incentives for private
individuals and businesses to create and rollout new products and
services so that America will remain the world leader in innovation.
Government sometimes is the problem--not the answer to the problem--so
the Innovation and Competitiveness Act also addresses government-
imposed hurdles to innovation by clearing the way for inventors and
businesses to do what they do best--create and compete.
Specifically, this legislation will promote research and development
by permanently extending the R&D tax credit. Companies know best how to
spend their money on research and development, not government
bureaucracies.
In addition, excessive red tape and confusing rules regarding tax
liability are currently stifling businesses from moving across State
lines. Increasingly, States are taxing businesses outside their borders
for the right to do business within the State even when those out-of-
State businesses have minimal contacts with the taxing jurisdictions.
Given this environment, some businesses have made the decision that it
is not worth expanding to other jurisdictions because of the ambiguity
about when they must pay these taxes and the fear of aggressive
taxation and the resulting litigation and compliance costs. The
Innovation and Competitiveness Act contains provisions to set clear,
bright line rules for when out-of-State businesses would be obliged to
pay taxes to a jurisdiction. This bill creates a physical presence test
such that States could only collect business activity taxes from
businesses with employees or property in the taxing State. This will
create the clarity necessary for businesses to grow beyond State lines,
and offer new and exciting products and services to consumers.
In addition, excessive litigation hampers investment and innovation.
With that in mind, this legislation cracks down on frivolous lawsuits
by strengthening sanctions against attorneys who file truly frivolous
actions.
Furthermore, rising health care costs are one of the most difficult
challenges facing individuals, businesses and manufacturing today.
[[Page 2551]]
The Innovation and Competitiveness Act contains provisions that will
allow individuals to purchase health insurance that best suits their
needs and budgets, while also promoting competition in health care. In
addition, our bill encourages the use of health information technology,
which will improve health quality and reduce errors by leveraging
cutting edge technology to make medical records available almost
instantaneously to doctors when they are needed so that they can best
treat patients. Technology can help reduce paperwork and administrative
burdens and thus help doctors provide the best and fastest care
possible to their patients.
Finally, as we have heard, by 2010, more than 90 percent of all
scientists and engineers could be living in Asia. This is a major
challenge to our competitive leadership, but America must keep pace. To
address this issue, the Innovation and Competitiveness Act includes
provisions that will provide incentives for teachers to specialize in
math, science, and other technical fields--and to remain in the
classroom to educate our youth in these fields. In addition, this
legislation provides incentives for students to receive degrees in
technical fields with financial aid and scholarships.
The Innovation and Competitiveness Act will get Congress into the
business of protecting America's place as the world leader in
innovation and competitiveness, and I urge the Members of the House to
support the initiatives in this important legislation.
____________________
HONORING THE NATIONAL COALITION FOR CANCER SURVIVORSHIP ON ITS 20TH
ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. DEBORAH PRYCE
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship based in Silver Spring,
Maryland on its 20th anniversary.
For the past two decades, NCCS has worked tirelessly to advocate for
quality cancer care for all Americans and to empower cancer survivors.
By stressing its commitment to evidence-based advocacy, NCCS has worked
with policy makers to evaluate and recommend changes in how the nation
researches, regulates, finances and delivers quality cancer care.
In addition, NCCS has provided cancer survivors and their loved ones
access to credible and accurate information on many important
survivorship issues, especially the critical role of advocating for
oneself.
I ask that all of my colleagues in the House of Representatives join
me in honoring the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, whose
leadership has provided an invaluable service to this country's more
than ten million cancer survivors and the millions more affected by
this devastating disease. I wish them all best in the future.
____________________
RECOGNIZING ROSS HAYNES JR. FOR HIS ENDLESS COMMUNITY SERVICE
______
HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Ross Haynes Jr.,
from Fort Worth, Texas, in the heart of the 26th Congressional District
of Texas, for his dedicated service to the community.
Ross Haynes Jr. makes helping his community a high priority in his
life. He has dedicated time to assisting others in the community,
specifically, its youth. From sports to education on life, Ross Haynes
Jr. has made a difference in our lives.
From his own humble beginnings, Mr. Haynes has amassed great wealth
in the form of friendship and encouragement in which he has inspired
throughout his community. He has been involved with the lives of a
great deal of Fort Worth's underprivileged youths through the Fort
Worth Boys & Girls Club. Mr. Haynes effortlessly educates kids about
the positive things to aspire for in life.
In addition, he has fulfilled his dream to open his own business
along with his wife, Delessa. This alone is a phenomenal achievement
for one to accomplish. Mr. Haynes serves as a most honorable role model
for many by continuing to strive for one's own personal goal.
I am proud to represent Ross Haynes Jr.--a man who has given so much
back to his community. Mr. Haynes's advice, council and support to the
community, whether directly or indirectly, over the years, are
certainly something for which to be thankful. I am grateful to
represent such a wonderful citizen like Mr. Haynes.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE CRISIS SHELTER OF LAWRENCE COUNTY
______
HON. MELISSA A. HART
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate The Crisis Shelter of Lawrence County on the 25th
anniversary of its founding.
In September of 1981 the Lawrence County Crisis Shelter opened its
doors to women and children who have suffered domestic abuse. Over the
past 25 years the Shelter has grown to provide free services to men,
women and children that are victims/survivors of sexual assault and
domestic abuse.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the opening of the Crisis
Shelter. To kick off the celebration, the shelter will be holding it's
annual auction, which is scheduled to be held at the Scottish Rite
Cathedral on Saturday, February 25th at 6 p.m. The funds raised at the
auction help support many services offered by the shelter, including
the 24-hour hotline, prevention education in schools, intervention
training, and the emergency shelter.
I ask my colleagues in the United States House of Representatives to
join me in honoring the 25th anniversary of The Crisis Shelter of
Lawrence County. It is an honor to represent the Fourth Congressional
District of Pennsylvania and a pleasure to salute such a principled
organization as The Crisis Shelter of Lawrence County.
____________________
HONORING THE SANTA BARBARA BOTANIC GARDEN UPON ITS 80TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. LOIS CAPPS
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the Santa
Barbara Botanic Garden board of trustees, staff and volunteers as they
celebrate the 80th anniversary of the garden. The botanic garden
provides many different services to the Santa Barbara community,
including conservation, education and research.
As an active member of the Center for Plant Conservation, the Santa
Barbara Botanic Garden is the only organization actively developing and
maintaining a conservation collection of rare and endangered species in
the central coast region. Through cooperation with private and public
resource management agencies, seeds and living plants are collected in
the wild to represent genetic and geographic variation. These
conservation efforts are critical to ensuring that the areas of vast
beauty and great significance are preserved so that our future
generations may enjoy and learn from them.
The Botanic Garden has a comprehensive education program that
includes programs for school groups, various certificate programs and
excursions to such regions as Anacapa Island and Lake Cachuma. Their
education program aims to increase our understanding of the role of
plants in the natural world. Currently, the Botanic Garden co-sponsors
programs with the Los Padres National Forest, University of California
Cooperative Extension and the Gevirtz Research Center in the Graduate
School of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
They also have a relationship with our local schools that ensures that
our children learn the importance of preserving our natural treasures
and allows teachers an opportunity to help students learn in an outdoor
classroom environment.
Research at the Botanic Garden began in the late 1920s and has
continued to be innovative and to contribute to our understanding of
the natural world. Beginning in the 1960s, Dr. Ralph Philbrick (Garden
Director from 1974 to 1987) expanded the Garden's floristic research of
the Channel Islands. For over 40 years, Garden surveys and inventories
have significantly expanded our knowledge of these remarkable offshore
terrains. As a result, the Garden's herbarium includes over 30,000
specimens of the Channel Islands' vascular plants and lichens, which
are consulted by researchers throughout the world. This research on the
Channel Islands is of particular importance because of its status as a
National Park
[[Page 2552]]
which possesses many native plants and animals.
I am so pleased to be able to recognize all of the hard work of the
trustees, staff and volunteers as a part of this 80th Anniversary
celebration. I am privileged to work and live in a community that is so
physically beautiful and blessed with so many dedicated individuals who
work tirelessly to maintain the many things that make this area so
special. Congratulations and happy anniversary!
____________________
CELEBRATING THE BIRTH OF NATHANIEL COLE ZARRELLI
______
HON. JOE WILSON
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I am happy to
congratulate Leslie and Mike Zarrelli of Silver Spring, Maryland, on
the birth of their new baby son. Nathaniel Cole was born on February 9,
2006, at 10:46 a.m., weighing 7 pounds and 4 ounces. Nathaniel has been
born into a loving home, where he will be raised by parents who are
devoted to his well-being and bright future. His birth is a blessing.
____________________
RECOGNIZING AN ARTICLE BY RABBI ISRAEL ZOBERMAN, SPIRITUAL LEADER OF
CONGREGATION BETH CHAVERIM IN VIRGINIA BEACH, VA
______
HON. J. RANDY FORBES
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce an article written
by Rabbi Israel Zoberman, spiritual leader of Congregation Beth
Chaverim in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The article by Rabbi Zoberman
reads as follows:
I was in Israel on a mission of the ARZA (Association of
the Reform Zionists of America) Rabbinical Council during the
recent Palestinian elections to its legislative Council. The
unexpected, stunning victory of Hamas winning 74 out of a
total of 132 seats though only 44 percent of the cast votes,
remains a source for analysis and a cause of concern.
The embarrassing defeat of ruling Fatah whose leader Mahmud
Abbas continues to serve as a Palestinian Authority
President, was primarily due to the long frustration and
mounting anger caused by years of Fatah's inept management
and outright corruption. Hamas cleverly ran on a Change and
Reform list having already succeeded in establishing an
infra-structure of supportive economic and social services to
a deprived population. However, the victory took Hamas too by
surprise saddling it with critical choices and decisions. Is
it ready through to transform its very identity from a
terrorist organization to one recognizing the State of Israel
and negotiating peace with, is yet to be seen.
Essential financial support from Israel, the United States
and the European Union depend on it. Hamas may likely choose
a middle course of not repudiating its very nature while
abstaining from military action to allow it to consolidate
power, becoming in time even a greater threat to the Jewish
state. A nightmarish scenario would be a hostile Hams state
bordering on Israel with an extreme Muslim agenda and heavily
influenced by Iran who is also behind the Hizballah in
Southern Lebanon. That would pause unacceptable risks to the
entire Middle East and beyond.
Our group was most warmly greeted by the new American
Ambassador to Israel, Dr. Richard Jones, who reiterated
President Bush's policy of fighting terrorism and nonsupport
for a Palestinian Authority deviating from the Road Map. We
also had the opportunity to meet at the historic King David
Hotel with Laura King, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for the Los
Angeles Times, who covered the Palestinian elections and
conveyed her sense of not being surprised by the outcome.
Our memorable day visit to Jordan's fascinating Petra via
the Yitzhak Rabin border crossing at Israel's most southern
city of Eilat, was a reminder to appreciate anew the Israel-
Jordan peace treaty of 1994. In addition to the natural
wonders and rich history of the 1800 year old Nabatean city
of Petra carved in Biblical red rock, the past
interconnectedness of the entire region through fruitful
commerce and cultural exchange should inspire once again its
revitalization for benefit of all.
With hospitalized Ariel Sharon's unchanged medical
condition, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's resolve has
weathered the evacuation of the illegal outpost of West
Bank's Amona in spite of the accompanied violence. Surely it
is the first of the post-Gaza disengagement challenges that
will test the emerging new leadership and the vibrant Israeli
democracy, even as was revealed for the first time by the
Israeli Institute for Economic and Social Research the high
financial cost of 14 billion dollars investment in the
territories since 1967. The centrist Kadima (``Forward'')
party created by Sharon and now headed by Olmert continues
with only a small drop in its strong showing in the polls
toward the March 28 elections. However, the unpredictable
nature of erupting Middle East events forestalls the assurity
of the elections' outcome at this time. The elections will
nonetheless reflect the Israeli voters verdict on Sharon's
legacy of sacrificing the vision of a greater Israel for the
more realistic one of a smaller Israel yet a Jewish and
democratic one; an Israeli society in a far better position
to tackle its demanding and urgent agenda of socio-economic
dilemmas and gaps that will ultimately determine Israel's
character and moral fiber so crucial for its survival.
____________________
CONGRATULATING THE 2006 CENTRAL INDIANA BUSINESS HALL OF FAME LAUREATES
______
HON. MIKE PENCE
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to personally congratulate Dick
Johnson and Fred Klipsch, two individuals inducted into the Central
Indiana Business Hall of Fame last week. These business and civic
leaders are being recognized with this high honor for achieving success
and contributing to the Indiana business community.
Dick Johnson exemplifies the entrepreneurial spirit that has made
Indiana great. He graduated from Indiana University and started a
petroleum distribution company in 1957 with a $10,000 loan co-signed by
his father. In the beginning, wife Ruth and children Rick and Jenny
helped out by preparing all invoices for mailing. Johnson Oil Company
grew to be one of the largest independent gas distributors in the
country with 200 Bigfoot stores employing 1,500 people.
Dick went on to build multiple companies from scratch, starting with
very little capital to build a significant enterprise. A generous
philanthropist, he and Ruth have given over $1 million to his alma
mater alone.
I am proud to say that Dick has roots in my own hometown of Columbus,
where he has never stopped giving back to the community. He has
received numerous awards, including Columbus Community Service Award,
1997; IU Annual Distinguished Entrepreneur Award, 1994; and Columbus
Small Business Person of the Year, 1988.
Another hometown hero, Fred Klipsch is the model of the successful
American businessman. From humble blue-collar beginnings to the blue
suits of the boardroom, he made the transition without losing the
ethics and values with which he was raised.
Along the way, Fred acquired and managed several companies. Perhaps
the most well-known firm is the one that bears his name: loudspeaker
manufacturer Klipsch and Associates.
Managing multi-million-dollar companies didn't keep Klipsch from
volunteering his services. He has been very active at Purdue University
and just retired from a term as president of the Educational Choice
Charitable Trust, an organization that gives scholarships to inner-city
children to attend private schools.
Fred has also worked hard to reposition the state Republican Party
and is still Republican National Committeeman for the State of Indiana.
Once again, my congratulations to 2006 Central Indiana Business Hall
of Fame Laureates Dick Johnson and Fred Klipsch.
____________________
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT FOR H.R. 4843, VETERANS' COMPENSATION COST-OF-
LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2006
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee
on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs of the Veterans' Affairs
Committee, I am proud to introduce H.R. 4843, the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2006.
The Subcommittee's Ranking Member, Shelley Berkley, as well as full
Committee Chairman Steve Buyer and Ranking Member Lane Evans, join me
as original cosponsors of the bill.
H.R. 4843 would provide a cost-of-living adjustment to veterans'
benefits effective December 1, 2006. This would affect more than
[[Page 2553]]
2.9 million service-connected veterans and survivors of service-
connected veterans.
The VA Committee periodically reviews the service-connected
disability and dependency and indemnity programs to ensure that the
benefits provide reasonable and adequate compensation for disabled
veterans and their families. Based on this review, Congress acts
annually to provide a cost-of-living adjustment in veterans'
compensation and survivor benefits.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has provided increases in these rates for every
fiscal year since 1976. The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
submission includes funding for a projected 2.6 percent increase.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
____________________
THANKING JUANITA CONKLING FOR HER SERVICE TO THE HOUSE
______
HON. VERNON J. EHLERS
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of her retirement in April
2006, I rise to thank Mrs. Juanita Conkling for over 40 years of
outstanding service to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Juanita began her career with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). After a year of service with the FBI, Juanita joined the U.S.
House of Representatives on May 1, 1965, and has worked for the House
Sergeant at Arms and the Chief Administrative Officer as the Payroll/
Benefits Administrator in the Office of Members' Services. In this
position, she has provided payroll and benefits guidance and counsel to
countless Members of Congress and their families. Over the past 40
years, Juanita has assured that the Members of Congress were paid
accurately and on time each month. Additionally, she has provided
current and former Members of Congress with advice and counsel about
their ongoing options relative to their compensation and benefits.
Juanita has been instrumental in assisting both new and departing
Members of Congress--orienting new Members about their pay and benefits
issues as well as counseling departing Members about their options for
continuation of benefit programs. During her 40 years working for the
House, Juanita's career has given her the opportunity to have many
long-lasting relationships with current and former Members of Congress,
their families and congressional staffs.
On behalf of the former and current Members and the House community,
I extend congratulations to Juanita for her many years of dedication
and outstanding contributions to the Members and the U.S. House of
Representatives. We wish Juanita many wonderful years in fulfilling her
retirement dreams.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RITA J. BOARD
______
HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Rita J.
Board, Governmental Liaison for the Internal Revenue Service. Ms.
Board's career extends over a 30 year period in Parkersburg, West
Virginia, serving not only the taxpayers of the Second Congressional
District of West Virginia but the entire State of West Virginia. The
positions she held include Taxpayer Service Specialist, Taxpayer
Education Coordinator, Management Analyst in the Taxpayer Advocate
Service and most recently Governmental Liaison. Ms. Board has received
numerous awards in recognition and appreciation of her superior effort,
dedication, and personal contribution to accomplishing the goals of the
Internal Revenue Service as Congress intended.
It is impossible to estimate the enormous number of lives positively
impacted by Ms. Board--small business individuals, volunteers, low
income families, educational institutions, and exempt organizations.
Ms. Board played a large part in establishing an extremely successful
Taxpayer Advocate Office in West Virginia that aims to work
cooperatively with Congressional Offices. Ms. Board also successfully
led in the establishment of an excellent relationship between the State
of West Virginia and the IRS. I commend her for these contributions to
the West Virginia public.
Ms. Board's family is service-oriented. Her husband, Gerald, is a
retired police officer. Her daughter, Leslie, and her son, Matthew, are
currently serving the public as police officers. Ms. Board has been a
role model to everyone she meets.
I urge my colleagues to join me, as Rita J. Board retires from the
Internal Revenue Service, in celebrating her tremendous achievements
during her career and in her personal life.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. DAVID G. REICHERT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, on March 1, 2005, I missed roll call vote
#17, honoring the contributions of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I was
unavoidably detained chairing a subcommittee hearing on the state of
interoperable communications. If I had been present, I would have voted
``yes.''
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE PEACE CORPS VOLUNTEERS FROM OREGON'S 3RD DISTRICT
______
HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
of oregon
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, President Kennedy once stated that
``Peace is a daily, a weekly, a monthly process, gradually changing
opinions, slowly eroding old barriers, quietly building new
structures.'' As we celebrate the 45th anniversary of the establishment
of the Peace Corps, the truth of that statement is confirmed every day
by the outstanding group of men and women promoting international
understanding and progress across the globe.
During this National Peace Corps Week, I want to honor the service
and commitment of the Peace Corps Volunteers from Oregon's 3rd
Congressional district and express my pride in my fellow Oregonians who
have chosen to devote years of their lives in service to others.
In particular, I want to recognize the current Peace Corps Volunteers
whose service began in the past year: Ethan Choi (Bulgaria), Katie
Conlon (Mali), Nancy Davis (Mexico), Rebecca Inman (Madagascar),
Michael Lemmo (Ecuador), Cara McCarthy (Madagascar), Chris Pexton
(Namibia), Jonathan Ruff (Costa Rica), Patrick Schmidt (Namibia),
Candace Watson (Swaziland), Delores Watts (Malawi), Kimberly Wells
(Malawi), and Malia Wetcher (Mozambique).
Their work to empower people and communities in developing countries
is a crucial contribution to creating a safe and prosperous world,
building bridges between America and the world, and establishing a
better future for people everywhere.
____________________
CONGRATULATING MR. JIMMY FAULKNER, SR. ON THE OCCASION OF HIS 90TH
BIRTHDAY
______
HON. JO BONNER
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with both pride and pleasure that I
rise this week to honor a great man, as well as a true friend, Mr.
Jimmy Faulkner, on the occasion of his 90th birthday.
Few people have enjoyed a more wonderful life than ``Mr. Jimmy.''
As an Air Force pilot, young Jimmy Faulkner answered his nation's
call to serve and serve he did, always with distinction, valor and
honor.
Upon completing his service in the Air Force, Jimmy Faulkner set out
to blaze a trail of success in the world of business, spanning 42 years
as the owner and publisher of a chain of south Alabama newspapers, as
well as serving as president of seven radio stations. At the same time,
he continued to find a way to serve his community, state and nation,
first by being elected the youngest mayor in America in 1941, when he
was elected mayor of his beloved Bay Minette.
[[Page 2554]]
Years later, Mr. Jimmy would go on to serve Baldwin, Monroe and
Escambia Counties by becoming one of Alabama's most respected and
influential state senators. Twice he also ran for governor of Alabama.
Still later, Mr. Jimmy's entrepreneurial talents would give him the
confidence to start Loyal American Life Insurance Company. And during
most of the past 50 years, he has also been associated with Volkert &
Associates, one of the top engineering, architectural, planning and
environmental firms in the United States.
One of Jimmy Faulkner's passions has been his lifelong dedication to
improving education. He has served as a member of the Board of
Directors for the Alabama Christian College in Montgomery, which was
renamed Faulkner University in his honor, and Chairman of the Advisory
Board for James H. Faulkner State Community College in Bay Minette. Mr.
Jimmy holds seven honorary doctorate degrees in law and humane letters,
and he has served on several commissions that worked to improve
Alabama's secondary education system.
Jimmy Faulkner was named the North Baldwin Chamber of Commerce
``Person of the Century'' in 2000. In 2003, he was awarded the Alabama
Press Association's ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' and received the
Volkert Chairman's Award in 1994.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no other individual more important to
south Alabama or to the life of his local community than James H.
``Jimmy'' Faulkner, Sr. He is an outstanding example of the quality
individuals who have devoted their lives to public service, and I ask
my colleagues to join with me in congratulating him on reaching this
milestone. I know Mr. Jimmy's colleagues, his family and his many
friends join with me in praising his significant accomplishments and
extending thanks for his many efforts over the years on behalf of the
First Congressional District and the entire state of Alabama.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE 415TH CIVIL AFFAIRS BATTALION FROM KALAMAZOO, MI.
______
HON. FRED UPTON
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the members of
the 415th Civil Affairs Battalion from Kalamazoo, MI who have bravely
served our Nation overseas in Iraq. This Sunday, March 5th, the entire
Battalion will be honored for its distinguished service in Iraq,
receiving the prestigious Meritorious Unit Commendation that is
bestowed upon battalions that are particularly meritorious and
exceptional in their services against an armed enemy during Operation
Iraqi Freedom.
In addition to the Battalion's group recognition, 100 members of the
unit will also be personally awarded the Combat Action Badge, which
provides special recognition to Soldiers who personally engage the
enemy, or are engaged by the enemy during combat operations.
I am so proud of the 415th Battalion because they represent all of
the many and diverse jobs that our troops have set out to accomplish in
Iraq. For example, this Battalion has administered over 1000
reconstruction projects, implemented and managed 43 separate school
reconstruction projects, provided medical screening to Iraqi citizens,
even helped forge a relationship between Harvard University's medical
school and Iraq's Tikrit University of Medicine.
The work of these men and women represents the positive progress that
is actually going on in Iraq. The stories and accomplishments of the
415th Battalion are the ones that should truly be grabbing the
headlines back home. Once again, I would like to congratulate the 415th
Battalion for their much-deserved recognition and thank them on behalf
of all the folks in Southwest Michigan for their great service. We are
safer as a nation for your service--you make us all proud.
____________________
PUERTO RICO DEMOCRACY ACT OF 2006
______
HON. LUIS FORTUNO
of puerto rico
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Speaker, today, Puerto Ricans celebrate the 89th
Anniversary of being granted United States citizenship by an Act of
Congress. It is on this historic occasion that I, as Puerto Rico's sole
representative in Congress, am proudly introducing on their behalf the
Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2006.
Since 1917, we have cherished that citizenship, and the principles of
freedom and democracy for which our Nation stands. Hundreds of
thousands of Puerto Ricans have fought valiantly in all wars since then
to defend those principles that we so strongly value, with 50 of our
own making the ultimate sacrifice in our Nation's current War on
Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill I am introducing today
honors the life and sacrifice of these heroes . . . heroes who have
left their loved ones behind to defend our democratic values even as
they themselves are unable to vote for their Commander in Chief.
After 108 years of being a territory of the United States, Puerto
Rico's status dilemma remains unresolved. Over the years, many in
Congress have expressed their willingness to respect the right of self-
determination for the U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico yet, during
that time, there has never been a federally sanctioned self-
determination process.
On December 22, 2005 the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's
Status issued a comprehensive and balanced report providing options for
the Island's future status and relationship with the United States.
This Task Force, created by Executive Orders from President Clinton and
President Bush, clearly outlines in its report a process to address
Puerto Rico's century old status dilemma.
The bill that I am introducing today simply implements the
recommendations of the Task Force Report in order to preserve the
guiding principles found in that report, which avoid prejudice towards
a particular status option, and develops alternatives that are
compatible with the U.S. Constitution and basic policies of the United
States.
Some will argue that Puerto Rico's status should be determined by a
select few, however, I sustain that, after 108 years of waiting, the
four million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico deserve nothing less than a
direct and meaningful vote. The Puerto Rico Democracy Act of 2006
guarantees that the terms and conditions of Puerto Rico's future be
developed jointly and democratically by the people of Puerto Rico and
the Congress and not by the whims of an elite few.
In supporting this legislation, Congress would finally sanction a
real opportunity for the people of Puerto Rico to exercise their right
of self-determination with a process that would allow for a direct vote
from the people. The first plebiscite, which would be held during the
110th Congress, but no later than December 31, 2007, would allow the
people of Puerto Rico to elect whether to remain a U.S. territory, or
to pursue a path toward a constitutionally viable permanent non-
territorial status. It would not be until a second plebiscite during
the 111th Congress that specific non-territorial status options would
be defined, should the voters decide they want to opt for a permanent,
non-territorial status.
Congress has a date with history. As a territory, Puerto Rico is
subject to Congressional authority under the Constitution's Territorial
Clause. After 89 years as U.S. citizens, we deserve the opportunity to
provide the people of Puerto Rico with a process where, through their
direct vote, they can choose the status of their choice. Congress must
assume its constitutional responsibility and act now; otherwise the
efforts of the Presidential Task Force on Puerto Rico's Status,
established by President Clinton and President Bush, would have been in
vain.
I wish to thank my many colleagues, on both sides of the aisle, who
have agreed to become original co-sponsors of this bill, validating the
recommendations made by the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico's
Status to commence a democratic process under which the people of
Puerto Rico will be able to exercise their inherent right to self-
determination. The four million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico deserve no
less.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RUSSELL GWATNEY
______
HON. HAROLD E. FORD, JR.
of tennessee
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, it is with honor I rise today to recognize the
great achievement of Russell Gwatney, a noted and respected business
leader in the great state of Tennessee and the nation at-large. Russell
Gwatney, president for Gwatney Chevrolet, Chevrolet-Isuzu was recently
named a finalist for the 2006 Time Magazine Quality Dealer Award.
The Time Magazine Quality Dealer Award is the automobile industry's
most prestigious and highly coveted award for car dealers. The award
recipients are among the nation's most
[[Page 2555]]
successful auto dealers. Criteria for the award include recipients'
demonstration of a long-standing commitment to effective community
service. As a finalist, Mr. Gwatney is one of 66 automobile dealers
from more than 19,500 nominees nationwide nominated for the annual
award--now in its 37th year.
An Arkansas native, Mr. Gwatney grew up in the car business. His
father became a Chevrolet dealer when Russell Gwatney was just 6 years
old. Mr. Gwatney started selling cars in 1973 after an illness caused
him to leave the University of Arkansas during his junior year. After
completing undergraduate studies in 1976, Mr. Gwatney returned to the
dealership in sales management, where he later became general manager
in 1979 and co-dealer in 1984.
In addition to his business successes, Mr. Gwatney and his dealership
have supported a wide range of organizations and philanthropic efforts
in the community. As well, he has served as chairman for the St. Louis
Federal Reserve Bank and also member to the executive committee of the
Memphis Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Gwatney was nominated for the annual Time Magazine Quality Dealer
Award by Robert V. Weaver, president of Tennessee Automotive
Association. Mr. Gwatney lives in Germantown, Tennessee with his wife
Elizabeth. They have three children, including their two sons John and
David who have joined the family business.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues in the U.S. House of
Representatives to join me in recognizing and commending Russell
Gwatney and for this great achievement.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MAJOR R. OWENS
of new york
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent on Tuesday, February 28, 2006,
due to unavoidable circumstances in my Congressional District. Had I
been present, I would have voted: ``yea'' to H.R. 1096--Act
Commemorating the LITE, or Lifetime Innovations of Thomas Edison;
``yea'' to H. Res. 668--Celebrating the 40th anniversary of Texas
Western's 1966 NCAA Basketball Championship and recognizing the
groundbreaking impact of the title game victory on diversity in sports
and civil rights in America and ``yea'' to H.R. 1259, to authorize the
President to award a gold medal on behalf of the Congress,
collectively, to the Tuskegee Airmen in recognition of their unique
military record, which inspired revolutionary reform in the Armed
Forces.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF DR. WILLIAM L. LESTER
______
HON. MIKE ROGERS
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and pay
tribute to Dr. William L. Lester, the longtime Provost at Tuskegee
University in Tuskegee, Alabama, who passed away on February 6, 2006.
Dr. Lester was dedicated to academics. He first arrived in Tuskegee
University in 1968 to work as a mathematics instructor, and later left
in 1970 to pursue his doctorate at Southern Methodist University. He
returned to Tuskegee in 1974 to head the Mathematics Department, and
later served as Assistant Provost in the Academic Affairs office. He
became Tuskegee's Provost in 1984.
Dr. Lester was truly a model citizen, both for the university
community and his family. His tireless work on behalf of Tuskegee
helped make the institution the world-renowned university it is today.
He will be sorely missed. His memory lives on through his wife, Virda,
and their children.
I am privileged to have the opportunity to honor the late Dr. William
L. Lester today, and appreciate the House's attention to the life and
legacy of this important Alabamian.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO DEREK PARRA, CHAMPION SPEEDSKATER FOLLOWING THE CONCLUSION
OF HIS PARTICPATION IN THE WINTER OLYMPICS AND IN ADVANCE OF HIS
RETIREMENT
______
HON. JOE BACA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, Americans have watched with great pride as our
athletes have taken part in the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino. The
greatness of the Olympics comes from the spirit of friendly
international competition, and we are inspired by our athletes as they
strive for excellence and represent our country with honor. During the
Games, not only have we seen amazing athletic accomplishments--but also
we have learned about the lives of the athletes away from the arena, as
they dedicated themselves to their training and preparation, made
sacrifices, overcame challenges, celebrated victories, and sometimes
suffered through defeat.
Among the many stars of America's Olympic team, one shines
particularly bright to the people of my District and to me personally:
speedskater Derek Parra.
Derek grew up on the west side of San Bernardino, California with his
father Gilbert and his brother. He attended Roosevelt Elementary and
Eisenhower High School in Rialto. In fact my son, Joe Baca, Jr., went
to school with him, and I attended church with Derek's father, Gilbert
Parra, at St. Catherine's in Rialto.
Southern California's Inland Empire is wonderful place for children
to grow up and to get involved in sports, but with the sunny climate,
it is hardly a winter sports haven. So not surprisingly, Derek grew up
roller skating not ice skating. He first learned to skate at the
Stardust Roller Rink in Highland, where he was an inline skater. Derek
first set foot on ice when he was 17 years old and was 26 when he
switched from inline skating to ice skating in 1996 to pursue his
Olympic dreams.
Derek was determined, focused and relentless in this pursuit. Even
among his fellow athletes in a demanding sport, he was respected for
the work ethic that made him an Olympic hero.
Four years ago, I rose to honor Derek after his amazing performance
at the 2002 Games in Salt Lake City. At those Games, he won a gold
medal in the 1,500-meter race and a silver medal in the 5,000-meter
race, breaking the previous world records for both distances.
Derek Parra was the first Mexican American to ever participate in the
Winter Olympics, let alone win a medal. Derek also carried proudly the
flag of the United States in the opening ceremonies at Salt Lake.
Since those exciting days four years ago, a lot has changed in
Derek's life. He made great sacrifices in his personal life to continue
his Olympic dreams. He moved away from loved ones in Florida to
continue his training in Utah. While some athletes are able to
concentrate solely on their sport, Derek has continued to work part-
time in order to pay the bills. And he has experienced the breakup of
his marriage. Additionally, Derek is now 35, which is young for most of
us but old for a champion skater.
Yet, through all the challenges both on and off the ice, Derek earned
a spot on the 2006 Olympic team and the opportunity to again represent
the United States. He skated in two events: the team pursuit
competition and the 1,500-meter race, in which he had set a world
record on his way to gold 4 years ago. This time, however, he did not
match his success in the 2002 Games--no medals, no world records.
Instead, Derek skated for the joy of competition and the thrill of
representing his country on the world stage one more time. He skated
for his daughter, Mia Elizabeth, who turned 4 years old in December,
with the hope that she will remember watching him race against the
world's best. He skated because he loves to skate and because he is
proud to be an American athlete.
Having accomplished his goals, Derek is ready to retire next month,
following a competition in the Netherlands. Quietly, a world away from
his glorious achievements of 2002, he will hang up his skates and end
his competitive career.
But Derek Parra will not be forgotten. His story will continue to
inspire young people, those who dream of Olympic gold and more
generally those who have big ambitions despite long odds against them.
He has broken down barriers in his striving for greatness--and he has
done it all with determination and dignity.
Thank you, Derek, for allowing us to share in your dreams for so
long. With great appreciation and admiration I repeat what I said 4
years ago: San Bernardino is proud of you. Mexican Americans are proud
of you. All Americans are proud of you. You are our hero. God bless
you.
[[Page 2556]]
____________________
ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOREST INSECTS RESPONSE ENHANCEMENT AND SUPPORT ACT
(ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIRES ACT)
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, with my Colorado colleague,
Representative John Salazar, I today am introducing a bill to help
protect Rocky Mountain communities from the increased risks of severe
wildfire caused by large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other
insects in our forests.
Entitled the Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and
Support--or Rocky Mountain FIRES--Act, the bill will provide the Forest
Service and Interior Department with more tools and resources to
respond to this serious problem.
In Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states, the risk of severe
wildfires is very real. Partly, this is because of drought. But there
are other contributing factors. One is that for many years, the federal
government's policy emphasized fire suppression, even though fire is an
inescapable part of the ecology of western forests like those in
Colorado. Today, in many parts of the forests there is an accumulation
of underbrush and thick stands of small diameter trees that is greater
than would be the case if there had been more, smaller fires over the
years. They provide the extra fuel that can turn a small fire into an
intense inferno. The problem has been made worse by our growing
population and increasing development in the places where communities
meet the forests--the so-called ``urban interface.'' And when you add
the effects of widespread infestations of insects, you have a recipe
for even worse to come.
I have put a priority on reducing the wildfire risks to our
communities since I was elected to Congress. In 2000, with my
colleague, Representative Hefley, I introduced legislation to
facilitate reducing the buildup of fuel in the parts of Colorado that
the Forest Service, working with state and local partners, identified
at greatest risk of fire--the so-called ``red zones.''
Concepts from that legislation were included in the National Fire
Plan developed by the Clinton Administration and were also incorporated
into the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. As a Member of the
Resources Committee, I had worked to develop the version of that
legislation that the committee approved in 2002, and while I could not
support the different version initially passed by the House in 2003, I
voted for the revised version developed in conference with the Senate
later that year--the version that President Bush signed into law.
Since 2003 welcome progress has been made--in Colorado, at least--in
developing community wildfire protection plans and focusing fuel-
reduction projects in the priority ``red zone'' areas, two important
aspects of the new law.
But at the same time nature has continued to add to the buildup of
fuel in the form of both new growth and dead and dying mature trees.
This has resulted from a variety of reasons, including the fact that
dense stands of even-aged trees (one result of decades of fire
suppression and reduced logging) are stressed by the competition for
nutrients. This stress, which has been intensified by the effects of
the drought that has plagued the west for nearly a decade, makes these
stands less able to resist insects.
Many species of bark beetles, such as the mountain pine beetle, are
native to our forests. These insects fly to a tree--typically one that
may be weakened by age, disease or lack of water and nutrients--where
they burrow through the bark. If the tree is healthy, it can defend
itself through the production of sap to repel and expel the invading
insect. If the insect is successful, it lays its eggs in the woody
material below the bark. Once the eggs hatch, they feed on the tree's
fiber and disrupt the flow of water and nutrients from the tree's roots
to its needles and braches. In addition, the insects bring in fungi and
other invaders that further damage the tree. If enough insects are able
to penetrate the tree and lay eggs, the tree dies. The offspring then
mature and leave the tree flying to the next tree and the cycle begins
anew.
These insects and the cycles they engender are a natural component of
forest ecosystems. They help to balance tree densities and set the
stage for fires and thereby the generation of new tree growth. When
forests are healthy and there are adequate supplies of water, the
effects of insects are relatively low-scale and isolated. But under the
right conditions-such as during drought conditions or when there are
dense stands of even aged trees--the insects can cause large-scale tree
mortality, turning whole mountainsides and valleys rust red.
That is what has been happening in many mountainous areas in
Colorado. For example, in the Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys
north of the Winter Park Ski area, the insect epidemic has decimated
wide swaths of forests. Most alarmingly, areas around populated
communities in these valleys from Winter Park all the way up to the
west side of Rocky Mountain National Park are living with acres of dead
trees, turned rust red by the insects and creating intense concern of a
catastrophic wildfire that could race through these landscapes and
communities.
To learn more, last year I convened a meeting in Winter Park, in
Grand County, that was attended by more than 200 people, including
local elected officials, homeowners, timber industry representatives,
Forest Service officials, ski area employees, and other Coloradans.
They offered observations on the extent of this problem and proffered
suggestions on ways to better respond to it.
Based on that meeting and other conversations, draft legislation was
developed that Representative Salazar and I circulated widely so we
could obtain further comments and suggestions. The bill we are
introducing today reflects much of what we heard from Coloradans and
others interested in this subject.
Our goal is not to eradicate insects in our forests--nor should it
be, because insects are a natural part of forest ecosystems. Instead,
our intention is to make it possible for there to be more rapid
responses to the insect epidemic in those areas where such responses
are needed in order to protect communities from increased wildfire
dangers.
The bill would add a new section to the Healthy Forests Act to
specifically address insect epidemics like those now visible in the
Fraser and upper Colorado River Valleys. It would apply to the entire
Rocky Mountain west. It would authorize the Forest Service to identify
as ``insect emergency areas'' Federal lands that have already been
slated for fuel-reduction work in community wildfire protection plans
and that have so many insect-killed trees that there is an urgent need
for work to reduce the fire-related risks to human life and property or
municipal water supplies. The Forest Service could make such a
determination on its own initiative or in response to a request from
any State agency or any political subdivision (such as a county, city,
or other local government) of a State. If the Forest Service receives
such a request, it must make a decision in response within 90 days. A
designation must be made by a Regional Forester or higher-ranking
official of the Forest Service.
In these emergency areas, the Forest Service or Interior Department
would be authorized to remove dead or dying trees on an expedited
basis, including use of a ``categorical exclusion'' from normal review
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Although categorical exclusions from NEPA are controversial, I
believe they are appropriate for these emergency situations. And
because recent lawsuits have led to some confusion about the
relationship of Forest Service categorical exclusions and the Appeals
Reform Act, the bill would exempt such categorically-excluded projects
in insect emergency areas from the Appeals Reform Act. This would make
it clear that the projects categorically excluded in an insect
emergency situation would not need to go through additional steps in
order to enhance the rapid use of such categorically excluded projects.
As the focus of the bill is on the potential fire threats to
communities from insect-killed tress and the encouragement of treatment
projects in the ``community wildfire protection plan'' areas, the bill
also includes provisions to help communities establish such plans.
Toward that end, the bill includes language to make clear that
development of protection plans qualifies for assistance under the
Federal Fire Protection and Control Act. And, more importantly, the
bill provides that annually for the next five years $5 million will be
diverted from the federal government's share of royalties for onshore
federal oil and gas resources and made available to help Rocky Mountain
communities develop their protection plans.
At the meeting in Winter Park last fall, I also heard concerns from
private landowners who are doing what they can to reduce fuel loads,
cut down insect-killed trees, and otherwise mitigate the fire risks on
their lands.
Because some of them would like to be able to do similar work on
adjacent National Forest lands, the bill makes clear that the Forest
Service can award them stewardship contract or enter into agreements
authorizing them to do that carry out fuel-reduction work on those
lands, subject to terms and conditions set by the Forest Service. Those
arrangements could
[[Page 2557]]
provide for reimbursement by the government for their work, and the
bill specifies that if their work is not reimbursed, it will be treated
as a donation to the government for income-tax purposes, meaning it is
deductible from income tax by people who itemize their deductions.
The bill would also encourage the Forest Service to establish
``central collection points'' where trees and other vegetative material
could be deposited and made available for further uses as fuel or
products.
Also at the Winter Park meeting, I heard that there are some barriers
to the private sector in doing the treatment work on Forest Service
land. So, the bill would allow the Forest Service to extend the length
of time for stewardship contracts for thinning work in insect-emergency
areas by as much as an additional 5 years beyond the current 10 year
limit.
This could help attract more entities willing to do the needed
treatment work in these emergency areas, as could another part of the
bill that would allow people carrying out fuel-reduction projects in
insect-emergency areas to exclude up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint
returns) from the amount of their income subject to federal income tax.
Finally, as trees removed to reduce fuel loads or respond to an
insect emergency may have some value as a fuel, the bill would
authorize the Forest Service to make grants to owners or operators of
facilities that convert the removed trees and other vegetative material
into energy.
Although we cannot and should not eradicate insects from our forests,
we can and we should strive to help reduce the increased wildfire risks
to communities that result from their increased infestations. The
purpose of this bill is to provide some additional tools and resources
that will enable relevant federal agencies, local communities, and
residents of the Rocky Mountain region to better respond to this
problem. For the benefit of our colleague, I am attaching a short
outline of the bill's provisions.
The bill has 8 sections, as follows:
Section One--provides a short title and table of contents. The short
title is ``Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and
Support (or Rocky Mountain FIRES) Act.''
Section Two--sets forth finding regarding the need for the
legislation, and states the bill's purpose, which is to facilitate a
swifter response by the Forest Service and Interior Department to
reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in the
Rocky Mountain regions caused by the effects of widespread infestations
of bark beetles and other insects.
Section Three--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to: Add
definitions of terms; Require that in the Rocky Mountain region at
least 70% of the funds allocated for hazardous fuel reduction projects
be used for projects in the wildland-urban interface and lands near
municipal water supplies or their tributaries that have been identified
for treatment in a community wildfire protection plan; Provide for
designation of insect-emergency areas by the Forest Service; Specify
the effect of designation of insect-emergency areas; Specifically
authorize the Forest Service to relocate or reassign personnel to
respond to an insect emergency; Clarify the relationship of this part
of the bill and the Appeals Reform Act; (The bill defines ``Rocky
Mountain region'' as Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.)
Section Four--amends Healthy Forests Restoration Act to authorize
help to communities preparing or revising wildfire protection plans,
and provides for annual diversion (for five years) of $5 million from
federal share of royalties from onshore federal oil and gas
developments to fund this assistance.
Section Five--amends Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974
to clarify that development of community wildfire protection plans
qualifies for assistance under that Act.
Section Six--amends biomass-grant provision of Healthy Forests
Restoration Act to allow grants to facilities using biomass for wood-
based products or other commercial purposes (in addition to uses now
specified in the Act); to require that priority go to grants to people
using biomass removed from insectemergency areas; to increase
authorization to $10 million annually through 2010 (instead of $5
million annually through 2008); and to provide for establishment of
central collection points for material removed from forest lands as
part of hazardous-fuel reduction projects.
Section Seven--amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to
specifically authorize Forest Service and Interior Department to award
stewardship contracts to owners of lands contiguous to Federal lands
(or enter into agreements with such landowners) so the landowners can
do fuel-reduction work on the Federal lands and either be reimbursed
for such work or authorized to treat value of such work as a donation
to the United States for purposes of federal income taxes.
Section Eight--amends Internal Revenue Code to exclude from taxable
income up to $10,000 ($20,000 for joint return) received from the
Federal government as compensation for work done in the Rocky Mountain
Region as part of an authorized hazardous-fuel reduction project or a
silvicultural assessment done under section 404 of the Healthy Forests
Restoration Act.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO RETIRING GENERAL LANCE W. LORD
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity to recognize
the long and distinguished career of General Lance W. Lord. General
Lord is retiring after serving in our nation's Air Force with
distinction for over 37 years.
General Lord received a Bachelor of Science in education from
Otterbein College in Ohio, where he entered the Reserve Officer
Training Corps Program. He earned a Master's degree in industrial
management from the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. He also
attended the Squadron Officer School, Air Command and Staff College,
and the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base.
After entering the Air Force in 1969, General Lord served four years
of Minuteman II ICBM alert duty. He was the Director of the Ground-
Launched Cruise Missile Program Management Office in West Germany and
he was the Commander of two ICBM wings in Wyoming and North Dakota. At
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California he commanded a space wing
responsible for satellite launch and ballistic missile test launch
operations. He led Air Force Education as the Commander of Air
University at Maxwell Air Force Base and was the Assistant Vice Chief
of Staff for the Headquarters U.S. Air Force. Since 2002, General Lord
has been the Commander of the Air Force Space Command at Peterson Air
Force Base in Colorado, where he has been responsible for the
development, acquisition, and operation of the Air Force's space and
missile systems.
General Lord has earned numerous decorations and badges for his
outstanding efforts in the military. These decorations and badges
include a Legion of Merit with two oak leaf clusters, a Meritorious
Service Medal with oak leaf cluster, an Air Force Commendation Medal,
an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with oak leaf cluster, an Air Force
Organizational Excellence with two oak leaf clusters, a Combat
Readiness Medal, and a National Defense Service Medal with two bronze
stars. He also has received many honors, including the Secretary of the
Air Force Leadership Award from Air War College at Maxwell Air Force
Base, the General Jimmy Doolittle Fellow Award from the Air Force
Association, and the Space Champion Award from the National Defense
Industrial Association.
Mr. Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying
tribute to General Lance W. Lord for his exceptional service to the
United States and will wish him and his family all the best in the days
ahead.
____________________
A BILL TO RATIFY A CONVEYANCE OF THE JICARILLA APACHE RESERVATION TO
RIO ARRIBA COUNTY, STATE OF NEW MEXICO
______
HON. TOM UDALL
of new mexico
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce a bill to
ratify a conveyance of a portion of the Jicarilla Apache Reservation to
the county of Rio Arriba, New Mexico. This legislation will bring
resolution to a long-standing dispute between the Jicarilla Apache
Nation and Rio Arriba County.
The dispute, which has been ongoing for nearly two decades, is over
the ownership of a road on a parcel of land formerly referred to as
Theis Ranch. The Jicarilla Nation purchased Theis Ranch in 1985 and, in
March 1988, the Nation subsequently conveyed a trust deed for Theis
Ranch to the United States. The Theis Ranch property then, by
proclamation of the Secretary of the Interior, became part of the
Jicarilla Reservation in September 1988.
[[Page 2558]]
A lawsuit was filed in October of 1987 and the District Court was
asked to determine the ownership status of the disputed road. In the
original lawsuit, Rio Arriba County sought to establish that the county
acquired the disputed road by prescription and, therefore, the county
was the road's rightful owner. However, the Jicarilla Nation contended
that the Nation owned the road because the road was, and continues to
be, within the boundaries of the expanded 1988 Jicarilla Reservation.
On December 10, 2001, the District Court found in favor of the
Jicarilla and determined that the disputed road traversed the Jicarilla
Reservation in several locations. Rio Arriba County appealed the
December 2001 District Court decision and the appeal is currently
pending before the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico. In a
separate yet relevant matter, Rio Arriba County appealed a February
2003 decision by the Southwest Bureau of the United States Department
of the Interior to acquire a tract of land referred to as the Boyd
Ranch in trust for the Jicarilla Nation. Rio Arriba's appeal of this
determination is currently pending before the Interior Board of Indian
Appeals.
In an effort to settle the road dispute, the Jicarilla Nation and Rio
Arriba County entered into mediation. The parties successfully reached
a settlement that was subsequently executed by both the Jicarilla
Nation, on May 3, 2003, and Rio Arriba County, on May 15, 2003.
Representatives of the Secretary of the Interior approved the
settlement on June 18, 2003. The settlement agreement, which would be
implemented by this legislation, provided that the Jicarilla Nation
would transfer, more or less, 70.5 acres of land located with the
expanded 1988 Jicarilla reservation to Rio Arriba County. In exchange
for the Jicarilla Nation's land conveyance, Rio Arriba County agreed to
permanently abandon any and all claims to the disputed road. The
settlement also provides that the terms of the agreement do not take
effect until all parties complete their respective promises in the
agreement and the United States, pursuant to federal law, approves of
the conveyance of this particular Jicarilla trust land to Rio Arriba
County.
Both parties and the Secretary of the Interior have fully preformed
the terms agreed to within the settlement agreement. All that stands
between the parties to this dispute and long overdo resolution is
Congressional approval. Consequently, the legislation will adjust the
Jicarilla Reservation border in order to account for the transfer. At
the same time, this legislation upholds Congress' trust responsibility
to the Jicarilla Nation by placing restrictive covenants on the trust
land transferred to the County. In other words, this legislation
recognizes that the transferred land is immediately adjacent to the
remainder of the Jicarilla Nation. As a result of the transferred
land's proximity to the reservation, certain uses of the transferred
land would have a detrimental effect on the remaining reservation.
Therefore, this legislation allows the County to use the land only for
``governmental purposes'' and specifically prohibits the County from
using the land for prisons, jails, or other incarcerated persons, and
other purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to expedite passage of this very
important legislation. Both the Nation and the County have waited years
for this agreement to be implemented. Congress must now do their part
to provide long overdue resolution.
____________________
PAYING TRIBUTE TO ALDEANE COMITO RIES
______
HON. JON C. PORTER
of nevada
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Aldeane Comito Ries,
who served as a teacher and principal in the Clark County School
District for 38 years. She will be recognized at the formal dedication
of Aldeane Comito Ries Elementary School, which was named in her honor.
Raised in Des Moines, Iowa, Aldeane graduated from Roosevelt High
School and then attended the University of Iowa. She went on to earn an
undergraduate degree in elementary education, with a minor in Italian.
She subsequently earned a master's degree in elementary education and
is certified in counseling, administration, secondary education and
vocational education.
Aldeane began her distinguished teaching career in 1962 at J.E. Manch
Elementary School in Las Vegas. After teaching elementary school for 5
years at both Manch and Ruth Fyfe Elementary Schools, she moved to
Farside Middle School where she taught for a year. In 1968, she was
appointed as the Dean of Students at Garside and K.O. Knudson Middle
Schools. After 2 years as a middle school administrator, she moved to
Valley High School where she served as the Dean of Students. Following
her time at Valley High School, Aldeane spent 6 years as the Dean at
Chaparral High School. In 1981, she was appointed as the Assistant
Principal at Chaparral and held that position for 9 years. In 1990, she
was appointed to her first principalship at Valley High School. In
1993, she was the first woman to be selected to open a new metropolitan
high school when she was appointed as principal of Silverado. She
served there until her retirement. Since retirement, Aldeane has
remained active in education by mentoring new principals. Additionally,
she touches the lives of the students at Ries Elementary School by
volunteering to participate in the Clark County Reads Program.
Throughout her thirty-eight years in the Clark County School
District, regardless of her position, Aldeane held fast to the belief
that schools should always act in the best interest of their students.
Her ``students first'' philosophy won the hearts of the students and
staff with whom she served. Her steadfast commitment to her students
and the courage with which she advocated for them serve as an
outstanding example for all educators.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Mrs. Aldeane Comito Ries today
on the floor of the House.
____________________
COLUMN BY THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
______
HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the
House a recent column by Thomas L. Friedman, which offers acute
insights into the Dubai Ports World controversy. Mr. Friedman removes
politics from the debate and presents a clear and concise evaluation of
the issue.
I strongly recommend Mr. Friedman's column to my colleagues.
[From the New York Times, Feb. 24, 2006]
War of the Worlds
(By Thomas L. Friedman)
Since 9/11, whenever the Bush team has found itself in
political trouble, it has played the national security card
against Democrats. It has worked so well that Karl Rove, in a
recent speech to the Republican National Committee, made it a
campaign theme for 2006.
He said America today faces ``a ruthless enemy'' and
therefore needs ``a commander in chief and a Congress who
understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the
moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the
Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said
for many Democrats.''
Mr. Rove added: ``Republicans have a post-9/ll worldview,
and many Democrats have a pre-9/11 worldview. That doesn't
make them unpatriotic--not at all. But it does make them
wrong--deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong.''
I particularly like the line ``that doesn't make them
unpatriotic,'' when that was exactly the political slur Mr.
Rove was trying to implant.
So I understand why Democrats were eager to turn the soft-
on-terrorism card back on President Bush when it was revealed
that P&O, the navigation company based in London--which has
been managing the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore,
New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia--had been bought by Dubai
Ports World, a company owned by the Dubai monarchy in the
United Arab Emirates, an Arab Gulf state, and that the Bush
team had approved the Dubai takeover of the U.S. port
operations.
I also understand why many Republicans are now running away
from the administration. They know that if they don't
distance themselves from Mr. Bush, some Democrats are going
to play this very evocative, very visual ``giving away our
ports to the Arabs'' card against them in the coming
elections. Yes, you reap what you sow.
But while I have zero sympathy for the political mess in
which the president now finds himself, I will not join this
feeding frenzy. On the pure merits of this case, the
president is right. The port deal should go ahead. Congress
should focus on the NSA wiretapping.
Not this.
As a country, we must not go down this road of global
ethnic profiling --looking for Arabs under our beds the way
we once looked for commies. If we do--if America, the world's
beacon of pluralism and tolerance, goes down that road--we
will take the rest of the world with us. We will sow the wind
and we will reap the whirlwind.
If there were a real security issue here, I'd join the
critics. But the security argument is
[[Page 2559]]
bogus and, I would add, borderline racist. Many U.S. ports
are run today by foreign companies, but the U.S. Coast Guard
still controls all aspects of port security, entry and exits;
the U.S. Customs Service is still in charge of inspecting the
containers; and U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargos.
The port operator simply oversees the coming and going of
ships, making sure they are properly loaded and offloaded in
the most cost-effective manner. As my colleague David E.
Sanger reported: ``Among the many problems at American ports,
said Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander who is
an expert on port security at the Council on Foreign
Relations, `who owns the management contract ranks near the
very bottom.' ''
What ranks much higher for me is the terrible trend
emerging in the world today: Sunnis attacking Shiite mosques
in Iraq, and vice versa. Danish caricatures of the Prophet
Muhammad, and violent Muslim protests, including Muslims
killing Christians in Nigeria and then Christians killing
Muslims. And today's Washington Post story about how some
overzealous, security-obsessed U.S. consul in India has
created a huge diplomatic flap--on the eve of Mr. Bush's
first visit to India--by denying one of India's most
respected scientists a visa to America on the grounds that
his knowledge of chemistry might be a threat. The U.S.
embassy in New Delhi has apologized.
My point is simple: the world is drifting dangerously
toward a widespread religious and sectarian cleavage--the
likes of which we have not seen for a long, long time. The
only country with the power to stem this toxic trend is
America.
People across the world still look to our example of
pluralism, which is like no other. If we go Dark Ages, if we
go down the road of pitchfork-wielding xenophobes, then the
whole world will go Dark Ages.
There is a poison loose today, and America--America at its
best--is the only antidote. That's why it is critical that we
stand by our principles of free trade and welcome the world
to do business in our land, as long as there is no security
threat. If we start exporting fear instead of hope, we are
going to import everyone else's fears right back. That is not
a world you want for your kids.
____________________
ON THE 45TH ANNIVERSARY OF PEACE CORPS
______
HON. MICHAEL M. HONDA
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, as a former Peace Corps Volunteer, I am
honored to formally recognize the agency on the 45th Anniversary of its
inception and to help kick-off National Peace Corps Week. This week
begins a year long celebration of Peace Corps' 45th Anniversary with
events taking place across the country and throughout the world.
During National Peace Corps Week, we salute the men and women of this
nation who selflessly have served abroad as Peace Corps Volunteers, as
well as those current Volunteers who continue to carry out the Peace
Corps mission: empowering people in developing countries through their
grassroots development efforts.
Seventeen constituents of the 15th Congressional District of
California are currently serving in the Peace Corps. These honorable
constituents serve in almost every continent. The countries being
served include Peru, Armenia, Georgia, Namibia, Benin, Bolivia,
Ukraine, Moldova, Mali, Namibia, Ghana, Kenya, Kazakhstan, Thailand,
and Guinea.
I am encouraged by the growth in the number of Peace Corps Volunteers
and posts over the years. 7,810 Volunteers are currently in 69 posts
serving 75 countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Latin America,
Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Pacific
Islands. As Chair of the Congressional Ethiopia and Ethiopian American
Caucus, I am particularly interested in the efforts of the Peace Corps
to re-instate its post in Ethiopia. I am in total support of the
expansion of this worthy organization.
I fondly remember my time as a volunteer in El Salvador where I built
schools and health clinics. The experience meant much to me personally
and professionally, sparking a lifelong desire to serve in the public
sector. I returned with a passion for teaching, and quickly put my
skills, including fluency in Spanish, to use in Santa Clara County
schools. Most importantly, I returned to the United States with a
deeper understanding of humanity and a personal commitment to speak on
behalf of the marginalized and powerless.
With that said, allow me to call your attention to the President's
FY07 request for Peace Corps at $337 million. Though this is a modest
increase from the FY 06 enacted level of $318.8 million, it will allow
the Peace Corps to expand into two more countries. In addition, it will
also optimize the number of Volunteers and staff in existing countries,
strengthen and expand recruiting efforts, and maximize safety and
security training and compliance efforts. I encourage my colleagues in
the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to fulfill the President's request.
This week, I honor the Peace Corps and its brave Volunteers for their
service to our nation and to the international community. Volunteers
are providing expertise and development assistance to countries around
the world, finding common ways to address global challenges, and
forming bonds with people throughout the world. They make service a
cultural necessity. They set a universal standard for how we are to
embrace the realities of an ever-shrinking world.
The Peace Corps mission is more vital than ever, and I hope that each
one of you will join me in thanking the Volunteers and the Peace Corps
for their hard work in pursuit of an altruistic mission.
____________________
COMMEMORATING NATIONAL PEACE CORPS WEEK
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate National Peace
Corps Week, which runs from February 27th through March 5th.
Forty-five years ago, John F. Kennedy challenged the people of the
United States to serve their country: to travel to places they never
dreamed they'd visit, to help people they never thought they'd meet,
and to do this from the bottom of their hearts. The men and women of
the Peace Corps answered and have continued to answer that call,
volunteering two years out of their lives to the lives of others.
With 7,810 current volunteers, the Peace Corps has enlisted more than
182,000 men and woman and served in 138 countries to improve the lives
of the less fortunate. They've been teachers and mentors to countless
children. They've helped farmers grow crops, worked with small
businesses to market products, and helped teach new health care
practices. They've helped schools develop computer skills, and educated
entire communities about the threat of HIV/AIDS.
The United States was founded on the principle that human beings,
regardless of race, creed, or sex possess certain inalienable rights:
the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Peace Corps
volunteers are the ambassadors of these rights.
In the past half-century world events have brought many challenges to
Peace Corps volunteers. Yet they have always been able to adapt,
responding to those in need regardless of the situation. Volunteers
meet all challenges head on with innovation, determination, and
compassion. For their altruism, Peace Corps volunteers deserve to be
recognized for their work toward peace.
To date, the 6th District has produced over 350 Peace Corps
volunteers, including the following 27 current volunteers: Troy A.
Agron, who is working in Azerbaijan; Sarah W. Bartfeld, Albania; Carol
A. Batz, Tonga; Zachary Burt, Morocco; Lilian Chan, Eastern Caribbean;
Rustin P. Crandall, Guyana; Catherine A. Cvengros, Armenia; Ashley E.
Fine, Benin; Amil A. Gehrke, Georgia; Levi Hanzel-Sello, Moldova;
Sharon Kaiser, Eastern Caribbean; Connor J. Kamada, Senegal; Jenna Kay,
Uganda; Paul H. Kingsbury, Panama; Anna F. Kuhn, Tanzania; Ana Alecia
Lyman, Mozambique; Julia C. Miller, Burkina Faso; Priya N. Mishra,
Moldova; Jonathan G. Morris, Ukraine; Lanthy Nguyen, Macedonia;
Nickolette D. Patrick, Ukraine; Alyson L. Peel, Swaziland; Shaydra A.
Pflaum-Scott, Macedonia; Uriah S. Reisman, Panama; Christopher Shutt,
Bulgaria; Elicia F. Smith, Kenya; and Eric J. Tawney, Vanuatu.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commemorating National
Peace Corps Week and honoring the brave and selfless volunteers who
have sacrificed years of their lives to make our world a better place.
____________________
HONORING SERLIN'S CAFE ON THE OCCASION OF ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the
60th anniversary of Serlin's Cafe, located in St. Paul, Minnesota.
[[Page 2560]]
Tucked along Payne Avenue on St. Paul's East Side, Serlin's Cafe is
more than just a restaurant that serves incredible food. It is a
neighborhood gathering place for many residents of St. Paul's East
Side. Serlin's is a St. Paul landmark.
Serlin's Cafe first opened its doors for business on February 1,
1946--less than a year after the end of World War II. When Irv Serlin
passed away in 1994, his legacy continued. His step sons, Al and Gary
Halvorsen, along with their mother Doris Serlin-Johnson now own the
restaurant. They continue the same great tradition of great food and
outstanding service. The Halvorsens make meat loaf like how you
remembered it whiling growing up, and the very best pies from scratch.
The staff knows their customers by name. Serlin's unbeatable service
and friendly atmosphere has made local residents--myself included--come
back time and time again to Serlin's Cafe.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in honoring Serlin's Cafe for its 60
years of East Side hospitality. I commend the Halvorsens for continuing
their great service and remaining committed to the residents of St.
Paul.
____________________
BELLEVUE COMPANY, PACCAR, RECEIVED NATION'S HIGHEST HONOR FOR
INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
______
HON. DAVID G. REICHERT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in praise of PACCAR, Inc., a
Bellevue, Washington company that recently received the National Medal
of Technology from the President of the United States. Today PACCAR
celebrates the National Medal of Technology and last year PACCAR
celebrated its 100th year. It's not often a company can top the kind of
year that 2005 was for PACCAR, but somehow they've managed to, and in
only two months.
I was proud to witness our President bestow the highest honor in
technology and innovation upon PACCAR, ``For [their] pioneering efforts
and industry leadership in the development and commercialization of
aerodynamic, lightweight trucks that have dramatically reduced fuel
consumption and increased the productivity of U.S. freight
transportation.''
Washington's eighth Congressional District is home to many companies
that are industry leaders, and I am so pleased to see one recognized at
this level. PACCAR makes me proud, the State of Washington proud and
the United States of America proud. As it has moved forward in its
quest to increase productivity and reduce fuel consumption, PACCAR has
embodied the spirit of innovation that has put America on the forefront
of science and technology for most of the previous century.
Before the introduction of the Kenworth T600 model in 1985, the term
``aerodynamic truck'' would be considered an oxymoron. Today the legacy
and influence of the T600 is apparent in the design of virtually every
make of truck on the highway. The benefit to the truck buyer, the
consumer, the economy, and the environment has been a dramatic
reduction in fuel consumption, reduced CO2 emissions,
improved highway safety through reductions in splash and spray, and
lower cost of delivery for the goods that help fuel our Nation's
economy.
While much of the industry pondered the feasibility of ever breaking
the 10-mile-per-gallon barrier with a heavy-duty truck, Kenworth and
Peterbilt both achieved that goal with their most aerodynamic and fuel-
efficient tractor-trailer combinations in real-world, cross-country
tests. Achieving significant improvements in fuel economy was not
without market risk and required changing what a heavy-duty
``conventional'' truck was supposed to look like. Initial misgivings
about what some perceived as radical styling departures, were soon
muted as customers realized the economic benefits of the new designs.
In the last 5 years alone, PACCAR has been widely praised. PACCAR was
named one of the Top 50 Companies by Business Week magazine in 1999,
2000 and 2004 and Industry Week magazine named it one of the Top 50
Manufacturing Companies in the U.S.A. in 2005. The Wall Street Journal
listed it on its Shareholder Return Honor Roll in both 2003 and 2004.
PACCAR was designated the #1 International Company by the Stevie Awards
in 2003 and #1 in Enterprise Management by Computerworld in 2004.
I wish PACCAR well as they begin their next hundred years of
innovation and invention. PACCAR is a company that knows what it takes
to succeed, and also to make this world better. I am honored to stand
here today commending their achievements, and I am eager to see what
they do next. Congratulations to everyone on the PACCAR team. This
medal is an acknowledgment of all that you have done and worked for and
a belief that your best work is yet to come.
____________________
REMEMBERING CALVIN RICHIE OF FAUQUIER COUNTY, VIRGINIA
______
HON. FRANK R. WOLF
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor for Mrs. Jo Ann Davis of
Virginia and me to remember Calvin L. ``Boots'' Richie, a farmer and
activist deeply committed to agriculture and his fellow farmers in
Fauquier County, Virginia, who passed away on February 26.
Selected by the Fauquier Times-Democrat as ``Citizen of the Year'' in
1994, Boots will be remembered for his countless accomplishments,
including co-founding People Helping People of Fauquier County, Inc., a
local charity offering immediate help to residents of Fauquier
struggling against natural disaster, illness, or sudden financial
hardship.
We insert for the Record a Fauquier Times-Democrat obituary from
February 28. A Fauquier native, Boots will be deeply missed by the
people of the county, and at home by his family.
[From the Fauquier Times-Democrat, Feb. 28, 2006]
``Boots'' Succumbs to Cancer; Southern Fauquier Farmer Was Outspoken
Advocate for Agriculture, Education
Calvin L. ``Boots'' Ritchie, of Bealeton, one of Fauquier
County's leading citizens for the past two decades and an
active force behind a home-grown charitable organization,
died at home on Feb. 27 after a long and valiant fight
against cancer. He was 78.
A native son of Fauquier, Mr. Ritchie was born June 17,
1927 at Inglewood Farm, where he died.
He earned his unique nickname as a child, when he did his
chores around the farm ``wearing an adult-sized pair of
gumboots that reached to his hips,'' recalled his sister,
Hazel Bell, in a 1994 interview. ``He was about 5 or 6 years
old, and the name stuck.''
He spent his entire life working in agriculture, first on
the family farm and later, while engaged in custom farming.
In the mid-1970s, he founded the Fauquier Grain Company.
Mr. Ritchie came to the general public's attention in 1978,
when he was involved in the American Agriculture Movement.
The AAM sought 100 percent parity for farm products, and
made their point by staging a memorable ``Tractorcade''
demonstration that passed through Fauquier into Washington,
D.C.
``Our main agricultural export is grain, which is priced
lower now than it was five years ago,'' wrote Mr. Ritchie in
a 1979 column in the Democrat. ``No other industry could stay
in business under these circumstances, and farmers cannot be
expected to, either.''
In later years, Mr. Ritchie became a driving force behind
Fauquier County's purchase of development rights program.
However, it was a different crisis, far from Fauquier, that
put Mr. Ritchie on a new path that would make a lasting
difference for hundreds of people.
In the wake of the disaster in South Carolina caused by
Hurricane Hugo in 1989, Mr. Ritchie and several of his
friends founded People Helping People of Fauquier County,
Inc., a nonprofit corporation for the sole purpose of helping
people struggling against natural disasters, illness or
sudden financial hardship.
Education advocate
In the early 1990s--after a school bond referendum held to
provide funding for a second high school failed--Mr. Ritchie
became active in yet another arena.
Determined to see a second high school in southern
Fauquier, Mr. Ritchie persistently lobbied the School Board
and pushed for the needed school bond referendum. When
Liberty High School at Bealeton opened in 1994--without the
funding for a football stadium--he was at the forefront of
the campaign, soliciting donations and selling raffle tickets
to raise the money to get the stadium built.
After Mr. Ritchie and his friends on the Principal's
Advisory Committee at Liberty raised $100,000 for the stadium
lights, the Board of Supervisors, then under the late Dave
Mangum (Lee District), came up with the remaining $250,000 to
build it.
Due to Mr. Ritchie's efforts and his growing, positive
influence in Fauquier County, he was recognized as the
Fauquier Times-Democrat's Citizen of the Year for 1994.
His influence continued throughout his final years, and he
often spoke out on issues that were important to him. A
frequent contributor to the Democrat's opinion pages,
[[Page 2561]]
Mr. Ritchie's last letter was published here on Jan. 25,
2006.
In it, he urged the Board of Supervisors to consider giving
tax money to parents who wished to opt-out of the public
schools and send their children to private or Christian
schools.
``The movement would be so great that I doubt that we would
have to build any more new public schools,'' he said. ``The
good news is that everyone wins.''
Mr. Ritchie was a longtime, active member of Mount Carmel
Baptist Church near Morrisville, where he served on the
Building and Grounds Committee, as well as videographer for
worship services.
According to his family, one of the highlights of Boots'
life was being chosen to carry the Olympic Torch.
Mr. Ritchie is survived by his wife, Gail R. Ritchie; his
sons, and Glenn C. Ritchie, all of Bealeton; and his
daughters, Jennifer R. Krick of Bealeton and Helen R. Ritchie
of Strasburg.
Also surviving are his step-sons, Edward C. Lynskey of
Annandale and William E. Lynskey of Midland; and his
stepdaughters, Linda L. Ashby and Karen L. Hughes, both of
Bealeton; and his sisters, Hazel R. Bell of Drayden, Md.,
Jennalee R. McNally, Marie R. Lee and Peggy R. Dahany, all of
Fredericksburg; 11 grandchildren and four greatgrandchildren.
He was preceded in death by his parents, Wilbur Early
Ritchie and Ethel Barker Ritchie; a son, Jeff A. Ritchie; and
his brothers, C. Hunter Ritchie, Claude Ritchie, and Charles
Dwight Ritchie.
Funeral services and interment will be private. A public
memorial service will be held on Saturday, March 4 at 2 p.m.
at the Liberty High School auditorium.
Memorial contributions may be made to the American Cancer
Society, Relay for Life, P.O. Box 1095, Warrenton VA 20188;
People Helping People, PO Box 3108, Warrenton VA 20188; or to
Mount Carmel Baptist Church, 12714 Elk Run Road, Midland VA
22728.
____________________
THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOREST INSECT RESPONSE ENHANCEMENT AND SUPPORT ACT
(ROCKY MOUNTAIN FIRES ACT)
______
HON. JOHN T. SALAZAR
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure after working with my
friend and colleague, Representative Mark Udall, that today we will
introduce legislation to assist and help protect Rocky Mountain
communities. Over the past couple of years, our state has experienced
horrific wildfires caused by the ongoing insect epidemic in our
forests. It is time to action in order to reduce the risks and protect
both life and property.
The Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support
Act, or Rocky Mountain FIRES Act, will provide the Forest Service,
Interior Department and local communities with a better ability to
respond to this serious and growing problem of beetle infestation.
While the various species of bark beetle are native to our forests,
these insects create poor forest health conditions and are destroying
our forests. A healthy tree can normally defend itself through the
production of sap that creates a retardant against the insect, but
current drought conditions and density of forests have impacted the
production of these natural defenses and the overall health of the
forests.
In my district, I am concerned that deteriorating forest health
places many mountain communities at greater risk of fire. Our
legislation will allow these communities to treat increased fuel risks
caused by unhealthy trees and dense forest stands. In fact, we took
great care to address the concerns of local communities and have
crafted a bill that incorporated the input of diverse constituencies
across Colorado.
Finally, I would like to stress that our goal is to provide helpful
tools in the treatment of forests areas while still having the proper
sideboards in place to protect the environment. We understand the
insects play a role in the forest ecosystem and the goal is not
eliminate them, but to allow communities and the forest service to
respond quicker to catastrophically impacted areas.
This is good legislation that is needed to help protect and preserve
Colorado's mountain communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this important piece of legislation.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO CHRISTOPHER HOUSE OF CHICAGO
______
HON. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution
congratulating Christopher House of Chicago on the occasion of its
centennial celebration.
I believe Christopher House is a successful and absolutely essential
organization for the livelihood and well being of the great city of
Chicago. Let me explain why.
In 1906, the First Presbyterian Church of Evanston founded
Christopher House as a settlement house on Chicago's North Side. Over
the course of a century, it has grown in response to the needs of new
immigrants and others in our community.
Today, Christopher House is a seven-site resource center that helps
families overcome the consequences of poverty, enabling them to thrive.
Through early childhood and youth development, parent enrichment,
literacy, counseling, pregnant and parenting teen support, and the
meeting of basic human needs, Christopher House is a catalyst in a
family's journey towards stability, resiliency and self-sufficiency.
Christopher House is a premier human service organization that
provides assistance to all in need without regard to race, creed,
religion or national origin.
Shortly before his death, Cesar Chavez said, ``You are never strong
enough that you don't need help.'' I think he was speaking to all of
us.
Obviously, we are all touched by the 100 years of work of Christopher
House. We see the lives Christopher House changes--the children who
receive Head Start, the people who benefit from English as a Second
Language classes, the families who are enlightened by literacy
classes--and we are pleased that we can help in some small way.
So we volunteer. Or we write a check. Or we attend a fundraiser or a
rally or make a donation. Or support legislation and federal funding.
All of which are critically important, and we extend our gratitude to
all of those who have given time, money and resources to help
Christopher House.
But here is an important part of what I believe Cesar Chavez meant
when he said, ``You are never strong enough that you don't need help.''
Christopher House does more than serve 3,500 children and their
families in need. It does more than help teen moms who have nowhere
else to turn. It does more than help children who would have few
options for summer camps and tutoring programs. It does more than help
kids by providing comprehensive early childhood education to families
across our neediest neighborhoods.
Christopher House helps us. Christopher House helps all of us--
whether we are a CEO or a partner in a law firm or a member of
Congress. Because of the work that the organization's staff does every
day, the lives of all of us are enriched and improved--not just the
families who receive direct service.
Because Cesar Chavez was right--none of us are ever strong enough
that we don't need help.
Perhaps we don't need a literacy class. But we all benefit from an
educated and capable work force.
Perhaps we don't need to put our own children in Head Start. But we
need to know that every child with a desire to learn and grow and reach
toward their dreams has a place to go and people to help them.
Perhaps--if we're lucky--many of us will go through our lives and
never have a desperate need for emergency services--for food and
shelter and for clothing.
But we need to be part of a community where every person in need has
somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someone who cares.
And perhaps, if we are fortunate, few of us will have a need for the
day-to-day, make-or-break help that Christopher House routinely
provides. But that doesn't mean we don't rely on Christopher House.
Because it comes down to this--all of us rely on Christopher House to
answer this important question: Who can we count on? Who is there for
us? Who cares enough to do the hardest work for the people who need
help the most?
Every day, the people who devote their lives as staff and volunteers
and donors to Christopher House answer those questions through their
actions.
We can count on Christopher House. Christopher House is there for us.
And Christopher House has been doing this vital work for 100 years, and
with our support should continue for many more.
Christopher House's history means a lot to me--because it has always
served precisely the population that I work with every day as a member
of Congress. When it started a century ago as part of the settlement
house
[[Page 2562]]
movement, Christopher House focused closely on the population that has
always been the sustaining life of our city--the immigrant community.
Today, Christopher House still serves our immigrant population--now
largely Latino. It is a population whose steady influx breathes oxygen
into Chicago's lungs and reimagines our city every generation.
From the time it opened, Christopher House has been there for all of
us, because its leaders have understood that treating the newest
Americans well means that all of us are treated better.
So, Mr. Speaker, with this resolution, we recognize Christopher House
for its century of contributions to Chicago.
To the ``House with a Heart,'' I say from the bottom of my heart--
thank you very much. Thank you for enriching and improving the lives of
Chicagoans for the last 100 years and we look forward to many more
years of your services.
____________________
FREEDOM FOR JOSE DANIEL FERRER GARCIA AND LUIS ENRIQUE FERRER GARCIA
______
HON. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
remind my colleagues about Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia and his brother
Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, both political prisoners in totalitarian
Cuba.
Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia is the regional coordinator for the
Christian Liberation Movement and his brother Mr. Luis Enrique Ferrer
Garcia is also active in the same movement. They are peaceful pro-
democracy activists who believe in the cause of freedom for the people
of Cuba. Because of their steadfast belief in human liberty, and their
constant work to bring freedom to an island enslaved by the nightmare
that is the Castro regime, these courageous brothers have been a
constant target of the dictatorship.
According to Amnesty International, Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia has
been harassed and detained numerous times for his pro-democracy
activism. In January 2002, he was forced from a bus and beaten by the
tyrant's thugs because of his activities and ideals. Amnesty
International reports that Mr. Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, in December
1999, was sentenced to 6 months of ``restricted freedom.'' In March
2003, as part of Castro's heinous crackdown on peaceful pro-democracy
activists, both brothers were arrested. Subsequently, in two sham
trials, Mr. Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia was sentenced to 25 years in the
totalitarian gulag and Mr. Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia was sentenced to
28 years in the gulag.
While confined in the inhuman horror of Castro's gulag, both brothers
have been the constant target of abuse. According to the Department of
State's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004:
``On January 1, Jose Daniel Ferrer Garcia reported serving 45 days in
a punishment cell for protesting the suspension of correspondence and
the delivery of food and medical supplies from his family. He did not
receive food or water during the first 3 days of his confinement and
slept on a cement floor. Authorities confiscated his Bible and
prohibited any contact with other prisoners.''
According to Amnesty International, Mr. Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia
was transferred to a punishment cell for having bravely refused to
militarily salute a warden of the gulag. The Department of State
Country Report describes the true horrors of a punishment cell:
``Prisoners sometimes were held in `punishment cells,' which usually
were located in the basement of a prison, with continuous semi-dark
conditions, no available water, and a hole for a toilet.'' This is in
addition to the grotesque depravity of the gulag that also includes
beatings, isolation, denial of medical treatment to detainees, and
multiple forms of abuse.
These two brothers are brilliant examples of the heroism of the Cuban
people. No matter how intense the repression, no matter how
horrifically brutal the consequences of a dignified struggle for
liberty, the totalitarian gulags are full of men and women of all
backgrounds and ages who represent the best of the Cuban nation.
Mr. Speaker, it is as inconceivable as it is unacceptable that, while
the world stands by in silence and acquiescence, these two brothers are
systematically tortured because of their belief in freedom, democracy,
human rights and the rule of law. My Colleagues, we must demand the
immediate and unconditional release of Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, Jose
Daniel Ferrer Garcia and every political prisoner in totalitarian Cuba.
____________________
TEXAS INDEPENDENCE DAY
______
HON. GENE GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today marks Texas Independence
Day. 170 years ago today, the Texas Declaration of Independence was
ratified by the Convention of 1836 at Washington-on-the-Brazos.
Just as American patriots declared their independence from the
tyrannical British Empire's military domination and established the
first true democracy in the modern age, Texas declared its independence
from Mexico to restore their political rights.
After July 4th, 1776, democracy became a common goal for all people
of the New World, but one that we would have to fight for.
Texas declared its independence after many peaceful years as a part
of a Mexican federal republic because Texans lost their political
rights when Mexico became dominated by military dictatorships.
In 1824, a military dictatorship took over in Mexico that abolished
the Mexican constitution. Facing an even more oppressive regime than
the British Empire, the Texas Declaration of Independence states that
Texas's government had been ``forcibly changed, without their consent,
from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to
a consolidated central military despotism.''
The Texas Declaration of Independence was also fully justified
because this military dictatorship had ceased to protect the lives,
liberty, and property of the people of Texas--Anglos and Tejanos.
The new military dictatorship refused to provide for trial by jury,
freedom of religion, or public education for their citizens.
When Texans and Tejanos peacefully protested the undemocratic changes
to Mexico's government, they were imprisoned unjustly.
Failure to provide these basic rights violates the sacred contract
between a government and the people, and Texans did what we still do
today--stand up for our rights by declaring our independence to the
world.
In response, the Mexican army marched to Texas to wage a war on the
land and the people, enforcing the decrees of a military dictatorship
through brute force and without any democratic legitimacy.
The struggle for Texan independence was a political struggle, not an
ethnic conflict. In fact, many Texas Hispanics considered themselves
Tejanos--not Mexicans--and Tejanos from all walks of life served
bravely in the Texas War for Independence and sacrificed greatly.
Tejanos were in Texas before Mexico became a nation, and Tejanos
cherished the freedom to run their own affairs democratically just as
dearly as Anglos. When the Mexican government failed, it failed all
Texans and Tejanos equally.
For example, two Tejanos who distinguished themselves in the Texas
War for Independence were Captain Juan Seguin and Lorenzo de Zavala, a
future Republic of Texas Vice President. The historical records are
full of many other patriotic Tejanos as well.
As future President Sam Houston and other delegates signed the Texas
Declaration of Independence, Mexican General Santa Ana's army besieged
independence forces at the Alamo in San Antonio.
Four days after the signing, the Alamo fell with her commander Lt.
Colonel William Barrett Travis, Tennessee Congressman David Crockett,
and approximately 200 other Texan and Tejano defenders.
All these men were killed in action, a heroic sacrifice for Texan
freedom. If this tragedy were not enough, weeks later Santa Anna's army
massacred over 300 unarmed Texans at Goliad on March 27.
In a dramatic turnaround, Texans and Tejanos achieved their
independence several weeks later on April 21, 1836. Roughly 900 Texans
and Tejanos of the Texan army overpowered a much larger Mexican army in
a surprise attack at the Battle of San Jacinto.
That battle is memorialized along the San Jacinto River with the San
Jacinto Monument in Baytown, Texas in my district. The monument is
larger than the Washington Monument here in D.C.
Today is an important day for Texas identity, and patriotic Texans
are observing this occasion with great pride at the monument in Baytown
today. If it were not for our voting schedule here in Congress, I would
be at home with them for this event.
We give thanks to the many Texans from all backgrounds who sacrificed
for the freedom we now enjoy. God bless Texas and God bless America.
[[Page 2563]]
____________________
CONGRESS MUST REMAIN CONCERNED WITH THE POST-WAR LIVES AND TRAUMAS OF
AMERICA'S SOLDIERS RETURNING FROM IRAQ
______
HON. GEORGE MILLER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to bring to
the attention of my colleagues the personal and really tragic story of
one soldier's struggle to cope after returning from the war in Iraq.
The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported on the life of Blake
Miller, whom some Americans came to know through the media as the
``Marlboro Man'' of Iraq for his efforts in the battle of Fallujah, one
of the most intense battles of the Iraq War since the invasion itself.
As the war continues to rage on and the country continues to debate
how to bring it to an end, it is important to stop and look at the
consequences of the war on our soldiers. America's soldiers have done
everything asked of them. They and their families have endured great
hardship, and many, too many in my opinion, have paid the ultimate
sacrifice in this war.
I believe that we must not neglect the full experience of the
soldiers and their families from this war, the trauma and stress that
have severe consequences on their post-war lives. Blake Miller, a.k.a.
the Marlboro Man, now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder from
his experiences in Iraq, and specifically, his involvement in the siege
on Fallujah. He is really struggling, according to this news account
that I am enclosing for all of my colleagues to read. As the article
describes, he and those who fought with him, will forever be tormented
by their experiences in Iraq.
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, Blake Miller and his family are not
alone. According to an article in the Washington Post on March 1, 2006,
soldiers returning from Iraq consistently reported more psychic
distress than those returning from other conflicts. More than one in
three soldiers and Marines who served in Iraq have sought help for
mental health problems, according to Army experts.
Mr. Speaker, the President and Congress have chosen to send America's
soldiers into battle in Iraq. That was not a decision that I supported
because I believed then, as I do now, that the evidence of a real
threat to America did not exist. But whether one supported this
decision or not, every member of Congress and the President have an
obligation to be concerned with the well-being of our troops both in
battle and afterward. I hope that Blake Miller's story will help convey
to this Congress the human suffering that this war is likely to cause
for many years to come and help us to think long and hard about the
consequences of the decisions we make in Congress--before we make them.
We honor Blake Miller's sacrifice and service to our country by
making sure he and his family have every resource available to help
them recover from this trauma and to regain a sense of normalcy in
their lives and that they are not denied any needed service because of
a lack of funding from this Congress or this President for medical care
for veterans.
____________________
REMEMBERING RICHARD ``DICK'' QUATTRIN
______
HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY
of indiana
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, it is my distinct honor to take this time
to remember one of Northwest Indiana's most distinguished citizens,
Richard ``Dick'' Quattrin, of Whiting, Indiana. On Sunday, February 26,
2006, Dick passed away while in Washington, D.C. As he so often did,
Dick made the trip to Washington to take part in a national meeting of
the American Legion. Dick will be laid to rest on Saturday, February 4,
2006, at Saint Joseph Cemetery in Hammond, Indiana.
Dick Quattrin was born on August 18, 1932, to Angelo and Laura
Quattrin. He was born and raised in the Pullman-Roseland neighborhoods
of Chicago before relocating to Whiting, Indiana, which he called home
for over fifty years. These fifty years were spent with his beloved
wife, Dorothy, who survives him. Dick is also survived by his five
daughters, Lydia (Greg) Beer, Karen (Ed) Erminger, Ruth (Wayne) Rodda,
Marsha (John) Jerome, and Sharon Quattrin. Dick is also survived by his
brothers Norman (Laurie) Quattrin and Ron (Sandy) Quattrin, his sister-
in-law Rose (Bill) Tuskan, and his loving grandchildren, whom he truly
cherished: Andrew, Jason, Jennifer, Daniel, Jeffrey, Megan, Laura,
Allison, Emily, and Claire.
Dick's life of service to his community goes back to his days in the
United States Army, where he obtained the rank of Sergeant. Dick felt
tremendous pride for his country, and he was willing to endanger his
own life to protect the lives of his fellow Americans, as evidenced by
his service during the Korean Conflict. His courage and heroism will
always be remembered, and his sacrifice will forever live in the hearts
and minds of those for whom he battled. Throughout his professional
career, Dick continued to serve the community as a member of the fire
department for the City of Hammond, Indiana.
Since his discharge from the United States Army, Dick has become most
well known in the community for his commitment to veterans and his
involvement with the American Legion and other veterans' organizations.
Dick's dedication to the American Legion is evident in the many
prestigious positions he held. Dick was a past commander of American
Legion Post #80 in Whiting, where he remained a constant fixture until
his passing. Dick was even named to the revered post of Commander of
the Department of Indiana American Legion from 1997-1998. His efforts
in this position allowed him to spread his compassion and his
unwavering concern for veterans far beyond the borders of Northwest
Indiana. Along the way, I am sure Dick crossed paths with many more
veterans whose lives were touched, knowing that such a passionate
individual was fighting for them. In addition to his service to the
American Legion, Dick was also an active member of the 40/8, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars Walter Kleiber Post 2724, the Knights of
Columbus Council 1696, and the B.P.O.E. Whiting Lodge 68.
While Dick has dedicated considerable time and energy to veterans'
rights, he has always made an extra effort to give back to the
community. Dick, well known in Northwest Indiana for his talents as a
singer, was a member of his church choir and the ``Knight Sounds'' of
the Whiting Knights of Columbus. In addition, Dick was highly respected
in the community in the area of athletics, having coached the Whiting
Post #80 baseball team for the past 40 years. An accomplished athlete
in his own right, Dick played professional baseball as a member of the
Saint Louis Browns affiliated minor league ball club.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished
colleagues join me in honoring Mr. Richard ``Dick'' Quattrin for his
outstanding devotion to Indiana's First Congressional District. His
unselfish and lifelong dedication to veterans and the Northwest Indiana
community is worthy of the highest commendation. Dick's selflessness
was an inspiration to us all, and I am proud to have represented him in
Congress.
____________________
RECOGNIZING 87TH ANNIVERSARY OF LIBERATION OF KOREAN PENINSULA
______
HON. SCOTT GARRETT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the
87th anniversary of the March 1st Movement for the liberation of the
Korean peninsula from Japanese oppression. This was the day that Korea
regained its independence and since then it has continued to become a
major economic and cultural force on the world stage.
There is a flourishing and growing relationship between the United
States and Korea. Korea is a major economic partner and our 7th largest
trading partner. Whether in education, science, business, or the arts,
Korea has played and continues to play a vital role in shaping
communities throughout New Jersey and the entire United States.
Several years ago, I had the distinct pleasure of traveling to Korea.
While there I was able to meet with Korean government leaders, high-
level U.S. military officials, and top Korean business executives. In
addition, I shared a meal and conversed with troops from New Jersey's
5th Congressional District.
I was honored to take part in this informative diplomatic trip. The
opportunity contributed to my understanding of what issues affect the
economic, political, and military policies of Korea, and in turn, their
impact on United States interests.
During the visit, I met with opposition party leader Chairman Choe,
Korean cabinet members and members of the Korean Chamber of Commerce.
We discussed enhancing the visibility of the important United States-
Korea relationship and addressed the tensions in the region surrounding
the North Korean nuclear
[[Page 2564]]
issue. In addition, I was taken by the U.S. Army, led by General Leon
Porte, Chief in Command of the United States Forces in Korea, to the
Joint Security Area on the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).
Now more than ever there is a need to increase mutual understanding
between the United States and Korea. The 2 countries have become
increasingly important regional and global partners, as Korea has
become a stronger advocate for democracy and a free-market economy. It
is critical that the working relationship between the 2 countries
flourish for years to come.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE LIFE OF DR. LAWRENCE W. SCOTT
______
HON. DIANE E. WATSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to memorialize the life of a
distinguished American, Dr. Lawrence ``Bill'' W. Scott, who passed away
on December 20, 2005.
Throughout his illustrious life, Dr. Scott could claim many
``firsts.'' In 1944, he was the first black student body president of
Foshay Middle School. In 1947, he graduated with honors from
Polytechnic High School, where he participated in track and field and
also served as the first black student body president. In 1948, he
attended the University of California at Berkeley and later became the
student body ``representative at large.'' After receiving his degree
from Berkeley, in 1951, Dr. Scott was drafted into the U.S. Army and
stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, where he served for 2 years during
the Korean War. He eventually attained the rank of Captain.
After his discharge from the Army, Dr. Scott enrolled in the pre-med
program at the University of California at Los Angeles. In 1957, the
then new UCLA School of Medicine accepted Dr. Scott as its first
African American medical student. Upon graduation, Dr. Scott interned
at Harbor General Hospital, ultimately specializing in obstetrics and
gynecology. He subsequently opened 2 women's clinics in Los Angeles.
At the age of 52 and after 14 years of medical practice, Dr. Scott
returned to law school and received his J.D. from Southwestern
University School of Law in 1980. After passing the bar, he initially
thought he would pursue missionary work; however, he worked as a
forensic attorney and represented victims in malpractice suits.
Dr. Scott's achievements, honors, and awards are numerous. He was the
first African American resident at Queen of Angeles Hospital in Los
Angeles. At one time, he held the record for the most infants delivered
at Cedars-Sinai Medical center. He also served on the Board of
Governors of the UCLA Foundation in the mid 1980s.
His interest in people and his special affection for children were
evident. He enjoyed sports and was an avid tennis player. He also loved
music, from jazz to the classics. He will be remembered by many for his
wonderful humor and his black book of jokes.
Dr. Scott is survived by his devoted wife of 8 years, Maria; his
three children--Rebecca, Brian, and Onjale Scott; his sister, Darling
Scott Herod; his brother, Paul Richard Scott; mother-in-law, Loretta
Domer-Wilson; and other beloved family and friends.
Dr. Scott truly enjoyed this journey called life and lived it to its
fullest.
____________________
PEACE CORPS DAY
______
HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of National Peace
Corps Day, which was last Tuesday, February 28th.
In my travels to Africa, I have had the chance to meet with many
Peace Corps volunteers. The commitment these men and women have shown
is extremely impressive and is to be commended.
The work that Peace Corps volunteers have done to address the HIV/
AIDS pandemic is invaluable. Volunteers have worked hard to carry out
the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS relief, and are active in 9 of
the 15 Emergency Plan countries.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the valuable work the Peace Corps is doing
in Africa, and throughout the world. It deserves our recognition and
support. Under the leadership of Director Gaddi Vasquez, the Peace
Corps is well poised to address the rapidly evolving challenges of the
developing world.
____________________
HONORING HENRY TRAVIS HOLMAN
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay public
tribute to an exemplary public servant and citizen from my
congressional district. Henry Travis Holman recently retired from
Mammoth Cave National Park, drawing to a close a remarkable 32 year
career with the National Park Service in Kentucky.
Mr. Holman began his career with the National Park Service in 1971 as
a cave guide. Two years later, he was appointed as a Park Technician
for the Interpretation and Visitor Services Division. He was later
reassigned to the Ranger Division, becoming a fully commissioned law
enforcement officer for the National Park Service. In 1999, Mr. Holman
was installed as Management Assistant for the Office of the
Superintendent at Mammoth Cave National Park. In that capacity he
skillfully coordinated all park projects, managed environmental
compliance requirements, and developed important long-range planning
initiatives. For his efforts, he received the 2003 National Park
Service Honor Award for Superior Service, recognizing his many
accomplishments as a top administrator.
Henry Holman's three decades of service significantly enhanced park
operations and community relations at Mammoth Cave. His vast knowledge,
work ethic, and attention to detail exemplify true professionalism, a
legacy that will long endure among his colleagues and members of the
public.
It is my great privilege to recognize Henry Holman today, before the
entire U.S. House of Representatives, for his leadership and service.
His unique achievements and dedication to the National Park Service
mission make him an outstanding American worthy of our collective honor
and appreciation.
____________________
HAPPY 45TH ANNIVERSARY TO THE PEACE CORPS
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, the week of February 27 to March 3 is Peace
Corps week and on March 1st we celebrated the 45th Anniversary of the
founding of the Peace Corps. Over the last 45 years Peace Corps has
become one of our nation's premier international assistance programs
that has focused on helping communities and individuals help
themselves.
I served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Medellin, Colombia in the mid-
1960s and I can say definitively that it was a life changing
experience. During my two years in Colombia, I learned that the most
sustainable type of development was when locals were empowered to
create their own development. I therefore worked on educating and
assisting my Colombian colleagues, neighbors and friends on how to
petition their local governments and make positive changes in their own
lives.
In the years since I returned from Colombia thousands of Americans
have served as Peace Corps Volunteers. Each of these volunteers has
made a difference, large or small, in the lives of hundreds of people
across the globe. Person-to-person relationships like those built by
PCVs are key to greater understanding--greater American understanding
of other cultures, and greater understanding of Americans by other
cultures.
In this time of increasing tension between countries, now more than
ever, we need programs like the Peace Corps. I urge my colleagues to
support the President's FY 07 request for the Peace Corps at $337
million. We need to robustly fund Peace Corps so that during the next
45 years, Peace Corps Volunteers can continue to make a positive
difference in countries all over the world.
I wish the Peace Corps a very happy 45th anniversary.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO BISHOP WALTER EMILE BOGAN, SR.
______
HON. DALE E. KILDEE
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise before you today with a heavy heart,
as I ask my colleagues in the 109th Congress to join me in
[[Page 2565]]
honoring the life and accomplishments of a dear friend of mine, Bishop
Walter Emile Bogan, Sr. Bishop Bogan passed away at his residence on
Sunday, January 8, at the age of 57. I am deeply saddened by this great
loss, for Bishop Bogan was an inspiring and positive force for Genesee
County, the State, and Nation. He was a true friend, and I shall miss
him greatly.
Born to the union of Norma L. Bogan-Burrell and the late William
Bogan in my hometown of Flint, Michigan, Walter Bogan attended and
graduated from Flint Community Schools, and later went on to schools
such as Saints Academy College in Lexington, MS, Moody Bible College in
Chicago, and Moorhouse College in Atlanta. He also attended Flint's
C.S. Mott Community College, and the University of Michigan-Flint. On
July 25, 1980, he answered the Lord's call and succeeded his
grandfather and mentor, Rev. Theodore Harris, as Pastor of Harris
Memorial Church of God in Christ.
Over the years, Rev. Bogan became more than just a Pastor, but a
spiritual leader whose guidance, vision, and commitment to spreading
the Word of God helped make the Flint area a better place in which to
live. Pastor Bogan constantly and selflessly gave of himself, hosting
Christmas parties for neighborhood children and providing gifts for
them all. In recent years, he would offer college scholarships for
several young members of his congregation, in hopes of granting them
opportunities they otherwise may not have had the chance to take.
In 2000, Pastor Bogan became Bishop Bogan, as he was appointed Chief
Servant and Presiding Bishop of the Great Lakes Ecclesiastical
Jurisdiction of Michigan, Church of God In Christ. Bishop Bogan
admirably balanced his new leadership duties with powerful sermons each
Sunday, which for him was a labor of love.
Bishop Bogan leaves to cherish and carry on his legacy his beautiful
and devoted wife of 35 years, Dianne, sons Walter and Eric, daughter-
in-law Karleen, three grandchildren, and of course the many people whom
he loved and loved him in return.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House of Representatives to join me in
offering condolences to the family of Bishop Bogan, and in thanking
them for sharing him with our community. My message to his congregation
is as follows:
``Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble
in heart.'' [Matthew 11:29]
It takes a strong person to be meek, a strong person to be in charge
of his passions and emotions.
Bishop Walter Emile Bogan was such a person. He was strong in his
love of God. He was strong in his love of the Church. He was strong in
his love of family. He was strong in his pursuit of justice. He was
strong in his effort to eliminate injustice. And all this deep
strength, he exercised humbly, as an instrument of God's Holy Will.
Because of Bishop Bogan's strength, anchored in humility and
meekness, this community is a better community. This Church is a
stronger representation of the Mystical Body of Christ. All of us here
in this Church are better people because of that strength of faith and
action of Bishop Walter Bogan.
The greatest tribute we can render to Bishop Bogan is to emulate his
love, his dedication, his humility, and his Christ-centered strength.
Bishop Bogan, as a triumphant member of the Communion of Saints,
please ask Almighty God to shower His Blessings upon us that we might
use our strength to carry out God's Holy Will.
____________________
CHATTAHOOCHEE TRACE NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR STUDY ACT
______
HON. TERRY EVERETT
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the
Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage Corridor Study Act, a bill that
would direct the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and
feasibility of establishing the Chattahoochee Trace National Heritage
Corridor in Alabama and Georgia.
The Historic Chattahoochee Compact was signed into law in 1978, and
it established the Historic Chattahoochee Commission to promote
historic preservation and tourism in the Chattahoochee Valley. Since
this time, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission has been involved in a
heritage tourism program in eighteen Alabama and Georgia counties along
the lower Chattahoochee River. Because of their exemplary work, the
National Trust for Historic Preservation has cited the Historic
Chattahoochee Commission as a national model for heritage corridor
development.
The designation of this corridor is the final piece in the
commission's development plan. It would enable them to initiate new and
innovative projects to invigorate the economies of the member counties
since they would be eligible to receive funding for publications and
marketing for tourism, historic preservation, environmental education,
outdoor recreation, and small business development. In addition to
aiding historic preservation, this effort will also enhance economic
development in this region.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important
legislation.
____________________
HONORING COLONEL JAMES E. BEAN
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
remarkable soldier and citizen from my congressional district. Colonel
James E. Bean, a longtime resident of Bardstown, Kentucky, passed away
peacefully January 4th at age 82. Colonel Bean was a local hero,
remembered for his athletic achievements as a young man and military
heroism as a fighter pilot, flying combat missions in World War II, the
Korean War and the Vietnam War.
Colonel Bean was born in 1923 on a farm at Cox's Creek, KY. He
graduated from Bardstown High School in 1942. A football and basketball
All Star, Colonel Bean was especially remembered for being the signal
caller on offense and fullback of the legendary unbeaten 1941 Bardstown
High School football team. He matriculated to the University of
Kentucky on a football scholarship later that fall but cut short his
collegiate career soon thereafter to join the U.S. Army Air Corps. He
was called to active duty in early 1943, assigned to Foster Field,
Texas as an Advanced Flying School inspector. He was commissioned a
Second Lieutenant in January, 1944 and assigned to the European
Theater, where he flew 41 combat missions in Germany and France.
Upon his return to the United Sates, Colonel Bean completed numerous
assignments testing and flying Air Force fighter aircraft. He was
assigned to Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada in 1960 to establish and
operate the F-105 aircraft flight training program for all Air Force
units. He later carried out assignments in Japan with the 8th Tactical
Fighting Wing, completing several short tours in Southeast Asia, before
returning to the United States to serve as an Air Force duty officer at
the Pentagon. Colonel Bean volunteered and was assigned to the 388th
Tactical Fighting Wing, Korat Royal Thai Air Base, Thailand, in
October, 1967.
On January 3, 1968 while flying an F-105 combat mission over North
Vietnam, his aircraft was shot down near Hanoi. Colonel Bean was
captured by the North Vietnamese and held as a Prisoner of War until
his release March 14, 1973.
James Bean retired from the United States Air Force as a Colonel in
1974. He returned to Kentucky, where he enjoyed a peaceful retirement
with his wife until his death in January. He was a member of the
Bardstown High School Hall of Fame, State President of Future Farmers
of America, a Shriner, Mason, Kentucky Colonel, member of the American
Legion, Kentucky Pork Producers, and communicant at the Bardstown
Baptist Church.
James Bean's remarkable life is one of a true American hero. His
distinguished service and unique sacrifice for his country represent
the very best of what it means to be an American soldier. His
achievements as a citizen, especially his unwavering dedication to his
family and his community, are further marks of greatness worthy of our
collective respect and appreciation. It is my great privilege to honor
his memory today, before the entire U.S. House of Representatives. May
he rest in peace.
____________________
CONGRATULATIONS TO COLLEEN CROSBY FOR A LIFETIME OF ACTIVISM
______
HON. SAM FARR
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend one of my
constituents, Ms. Colleen Crosby, of Santa Cruz, California who, on
Sunday, March 5, will receive the ``Lifetime Achievement Award'' from
the International
[[Page 2566]]
Women in Coffee Alliance (IWCA). I cannot imagine another person more
deserving than Colleen to receive this award. Colleen is one of those
rare individuals that has combined a deep compassion for others with
the intelligence and drive to make a true difference in the world.
Colleen has been a true leader in raising awareness of, and offering
effective solutions to, the International Coffee Crisis--a crisis that
affected 25 million people in some of the poorest countries in the
world.
Colleen co-founded Santa Cruz Coffee Roasting Company in 1978 and in
1979 became the first Roastmistress on California's Central Coast. In
her travels to coffee producing countries in Central and South America
and Africa she encountered abject poverty and an economic system that
kept small coffee farmers in a vicious cycle of poverty. Being the
``active activist,'' Colleen jumped headfirst into finding ways to help
coffee farmers and cooperatives throughout the world. Colleen found
that fair trade certification--a certification process that guarantees
farmers a fair price for their coffee beans--was the most effective way
of improving the lives of coffee farmers.
Colleen's record for helping coffee farmers and promoting fair trade
coffee is extremely impressive. Colleen has worked with small farmers
and cooperatives around the world and helped them gain better market
access for their coffee, thus ensuring a better livelihood for
themselves and their children. I asked Colleen to testify before the
House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on
the coffee crisis, where she educated Members of Congress on the
importance of helping coffee farmers.
Besides the Lifetime Achievement Award from IWCA, Colleen has also
received a variety of commendations, including a letter of ``Special
Thanks and Commendation'' for ``the extraordinary warmth and spirit on
behalf of the people of Ethiopia,'' presented by His Excellency Teruheh
Zenna, Acting Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the United
Nations in October, 2005; being named Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce
Woman of the Year 2005; being presented with the Gold Medallion of
Brotherhood by the small coffee farmers of Nicaragua's Prodecoop; and
most recently, she is the recipient of the prestigious Lifetime
Achievement Award from the International Women in Coffee Alliance.
I congratulate Colleen on a lifetime of dedication to others. She
truly has made the world a better place and it has been an absolute
pleasure and honor to know her.
____________________
SILVIO BERLUSCONI'S APPEARANCE BEFORE CONGRESS
______
HON. JIM McDERMOTT
of washington
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a
letter that I delivered to your office today regarding an event that
took place on the House floor yesterday.
March 2, 2006.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House, Office of the Speaker,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Hastert, I am writing to express my dismay about
yesterday's appearance of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi of
the Republic of Italy on the floor of the House of
Representatives. I believe that Mr. Berlusconi's mode of
address was unprecedented.
I came to the House floor expecting to hear significant
words from the head of state of a major ally of our country.
Instead, I had the feeling that perhaps I and the other
Members in attendance were being used as extras in a campaign
appearance for Mr. Berlusconi's difficult upcoming election.
I can draw no other conclusion considering he addressed
Congress in Italian without an interpreter, a language that I
and most other Members do not speak. Though we were given the
text to read, who in the Chamber was able to correlate the
words delivered and lead the applause that burst forth from
the audience? The address was not even broadcast by C-SPAN,
presumably because it took place in a language in which most
C-SPAN viewers are not fluent. My discomfort increased this
morning when I read in the Financial Times that the
appearance was broadcasted by stations owned by Mr.
Berlusconi in Italy. This has raised concerns that the Prime
Minister was improperly bending Italian equal-airtime
regulations during election campaigns.
I would appreciate to hear your thoughts on this unusual
use of the House Chamber, and whether it is expected to
recur.
Sincerely,
Jim McDermott,
Member of Congress.
____________________
WELCOME HOME FORT KNOX 703RD EOD
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome home the
703rd Explosive Ordinance Disposal Detachment of Fort Knox, Kentucky,
and pay public tribute to their courageous service during their six-
month deployment in Iraq.
This was the second deployment to Operation Iraqi Freedom for the
703rd. As most of us know, EOD units have one of the most dangerous
jobs in Iraq. The 703rd worked with Army and Marine Brigades to recover
and dispose of explosive devices throughout a large portion of northern
Iraq. The entire unit returned safely home last week, reuniting with
family and comrades at a 3 a.m. welcome home ceremony held at Fort
Knox.
Tragically, two soldiers, Staff Sgt. Kimberly Voelz and Staff Sgt.
Richard Ramey, paid the ultimate sacrifice for freedom during the
unit's first deployment to Iraq.
I would like to take this opportunity to honor these returning
soldiers and the memory of those who have passed, all who have
selflessly stood in harm's way as the guardians of our freedom and way
of life. Their distinguished service epitomizes values--duty, honor,
country--that make our Nation an example of freedom and prosperity for
the rest of the world.
In the spirit of Fort Knox soldiers of generations past, their
courage and sacrifice significantly contributed to a supreme level of
safety and readiness during uncertain times. They were selfless in
their sacrifice, taking time away from their families to keep others
safe. For that they deserve the admiration and thanks of a grateful
nation.
It is my great privilege to recognize the 703rd EOD today, before the
entire U.S. House of Representatives, for their generous service and
unflinching duty to our great country. Welcome home!
____________________
TRIBUTE TO KATHRYN ELIZABETH ``BETH'' SHIELDS
______
HON. JIM DAVIS
of florida
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Kathryn
Elizabeth ``Beth'' Shields who dedicated her life to improving
opportunities for Hillsborough County's school children.
Beth spent 44 years in the Hillsborough County school system, working
both as a teacher and administrator. A graduate of Hillsborough High
School and the University of Tampa, with a Master's Degree from the
University of South Florida, Beth launched her career as a math teacher
at Memorial Junior High School, then at H.B. Plant High School.
Beth worked hard throughout her career, and as she rose through the
school district's ranks, she paved the way for other women working in
Hillsborough County schools. She served as dean and assistant principal
at Robinson High School, principal of Coleman Junior High School and
principal of H.B. Plant High School. Beth then served as district-wide
assistant superintendent of personnel and assistant superintendent of
instruction until she became the first female deputy superintendent in
Hillsborough County schools.
During her tenure, Beth pushed for more rigorous curriculum and
academic standards; she spearheaded a successful initiative to improve
school attendance and helped smooth the transition when magnet schools
were integrated into the school system. Beth will be remembered for her
commitment to helping young people, her impressive work ethic and the
many ways that she changed Hillsborough County School District for the
better. Beth Shields Middle School in Ruskin stands witness to her
lifetime of dedication.
At home, Beth was active in her church and in a number of community
and charitable organizations, including the Southwest Florida Blood
Bank, the United Way, the Tampa Coalition and the Hillsborough County
Anti-Drug Abuse Advisory Council, SERVE and Athena.
On behalf of the Hillsborough County community and the countless
young people she worked for, I would like to thank Beth for all her
work and extend my deepest sympathies to her family.
[[Page 2567]]
____________________
ON THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2829--OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
______
HON. DAVID DREIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House
for one minute for the purpose of making an announcement.
The Committee on Rules may meet the week of March 6th to grant a rule
which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R.
2829, the Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of
2005. The Committee on Government Reform filed its report with the
House on November 18, 2005. The Committee on the Judiciary ordered the
bill reported today and is expected to file its report with the House
tomorrow, March 3rd.
Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of
the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to
the Rules Committee in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on
Wednesday, March 8, 2006. Members should draft their amendments to the
bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary, which should be
available on the websites of the Committee on Rules, Government Reform,
and the Judiciary by tomorrow, March 3rd.
Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that
their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format and should
check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their
amendments comply with the rules of the House.
____________________
HONORING MICHAEL R. SMITH
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Thursday, March 2, 2006
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give well
deserved recognition to an extraordinary law enforcement professional
serving in my district. Officer Michael R. Smith, an honorable U.S.
Army Veteran, is continuing his spirit of public service as a civilian
police officer in Radcliff, Kentucky. Radcliff is home to the legendary
Fort Knox military installation.
Officer Smith's actions, on duty and off, demonstrate a genuine
concern and personal involvement in protecting safety and improving
quality of life in his community. His abiding friendship with many of
Radcliff's elderly citizens and attention to their needs is especially
noteworthy.
I would like to publicly thank Officer Smith, on behalf of his
colleagues and the citizens of Radcliff, for the example he sets in
performing his job far beyond the call of duty. His sense of public
service and altruistic spirit personify the term ``Peace Officer.''