Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 for June 25, 2008

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Issue]
[Pages 13708-13883]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 13708]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The House met at 10 a.m. and was called to order by the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. Davis of Alabama).

____________________

DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Speaker:

Washington, DC,

June 25, 2008.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Artur Davis to act as
Speaker pro tempore on this day.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

____________________

PRAYER

The Reverend Archie E. Barringer, Veterans Medical Clinic,
Fayetteville, North Carolina, offered the following prayer:
Our Father, we thank You for this grand and glorious occasion which
has brought us together. We thank You for the privilege of living in a
free country, for the right to assemble to represent the will of our
people, and to invoke the laws of this great land.
We ask now for Your divine direction, wisdom, and guidance in all the
issues that will come before this body of legislators today.
We know, O God, these are perilous times in which we live. We are
confronted and bombarded with opposition and evil that threaten our
very way of life, from within and from without.
Grant us the courage combined with commitment, pride, tempered by
humility and dedication driven by determination to be the best, to
stand in the gap, and to be all You would have us be in order to
protect, preserve, and defend those freedoms God has intended for all
mankind. And may we persevere until that day when we shall beat our
spears into pruning hooks, our swords into plowshares, and study war no
more.
For we ask this prayer, O Lord, in Your name. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wilson)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. WILSON of Ohio 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 ARCHIE E. BARRINGER

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hayes) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Reverend Archie
Barringer and to thank him for being here today to deliver this
morning's prayer.
Reverend Barringer has dedicated his life to serving his country as a
soldier, his fellow soldiers and veterans, his community, and most
importantly the Lord.
I would like to thank all of our military chaplains for the
exceptional service and spiritual guidance to our soldiers, veterans,
and their families.
Mr. Speaker, many of our veterans of Christian faith are complaining
that they are being religiously disenfranchised by the VA's effort to
neutralize chapels, services, and memorials. Reverend Barringer has
spoken out against what he feels are overly aggressive practices and
guidelines, in fact. He resigned rather than implement what he felt
were discriminatory policies.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that his presence here today will help
raise awareness of these issues so that we may preserve the tenets and
principles that have served as the religious foundation for so many of
our veterans for so many years.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 15 further
requests for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

____________________

JUSTICE REVIUS O. ORTIQUE

(Mr. JEFFERSON asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, the death of Justice Revius O. Ortique
this past Sunday marked the passing of a true public servant and a
selfless leader. A man of historic firsts, most notably the first
African American member of the Civil District Court of Louisiana and
the first African American member of Louisiana's Supreme Court, he
blazed a trail for others to follow. He was an outstanding lawyer,
winning landmark civil rights cases, and serving as president of the
National Bar Association. He served our community as a leader of our
Urban League and as chair of the New Orleans Aviation Board. He served
our Nation, as an army officer and as an appointee to significant
Federal posts by five different Presidents.
Justice Ortique was a man of community, faith, and family. He was a
man who loved justice, and he pursued it for himself and for others his
entire life. Our Nation is better for his service, his leadership, and
his commitment to his country. We pray God's comfort for his wife of
over 60 years, Miriam, his daughter, Rhesa, and her husband, Alden, and
his grandchildren Chip, Heidi, and Todd.

____________________

SUCCESS WE CAN BUILD UPON

(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 we approach
Independence Day, I am grateful for the success of our troops in Iraq
and in Afghanistan to protect American families by defeating terrorists
overseas. With two sons who have served in Iraq and my former National
Guard 218th Brigade in Afghanistan, I know firsthand our military's
accomplishments.
The Department of Defense reports violence in Iraq has declined
significantly. Security incidents have fallen to their lowest level in
4 years. Civilian deaths are down 75 percent from a year ago, with the
Iraqi military taking greater control over military operations against
al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias.
Increased security has led to increased political and economic
progress where Iraqis are sharing oil revenues, are developing and
implementing a budget, and are taking greater financial responsibility
for building their infrastructure. We should recognize these
achievements to eliminate terrorist safe havens so our decisions here
in Washington do not reverse this progress, which would threaten our
allies and American families.

[[Page 13709]]

In conclusion, God bless our troops, and we will never forget
September the 11th.

____________________

BIG OIL DOESN'T NEED MORE LAND TO DRILL; THEY SHOULD USE IT OR LOSE IT

(Mr. WILSON of Ohio asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, with gas prices reaching $4 a gallon
and rising, the American people are searching for real relief at the
pump. While Washington Republicans continue to advocate for the same
failed energy policies that got us where we are today, Democrats are
providing American consumers with real solutions.
We must increase drilling. I support a new piece of legislation that
says to oil companies: Use it or lose it. Use the leases you have on
land where we know there is oil or lose those leases to an oil company
that is willing to drill.
Oil companies that are raking in record profits are currently sitting
on 68 million acres of leased oil-rich Federal land that they are not
drilling. The amount of oil which could be produced from these reserves
would nearly double the total U.S. production. If oil companies drilled
those 68 million acres, the U.S. could produce an additional 4.8
million barrels a day.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we will have the opportunity to tell Big Oil
to either use the leases they have or to lose them.

____________________

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

(Mrs. CAPITO asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, calling for expanded domestic
energy exploration and for a truly comprehensive energy policy,
including renewables.
Access to oil and natural gas resources from Federal lands and waters
is critical to the energy supply of West Virginia consumers,
businesses, and homeowners. Specifically, the Outer Continental Shelf
will be increasingly important to our Nation's energy future.
Approximately 25 percent of U.S. oil and natural gas production comes
from offshore areas. Technology has allowed the industry to explore
deeper in the Gulf of Mexico and to make many new discoveries.
However, current policy unnecessarily keeps many promising prospects
off limits, restraining additional growth and supplies. Congress and
past Presidents have put a stop to offshore drilling and development.
This must end. With gas prices at more than $4 a gallon and filling up
the minivan at $70, we simply cannot afford to deliberately ignore our
abundant resources. It is time to use our resources and to use our
common sense.

____________________

IS DIPLOMACY MORE DANGEROUS?

(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KUCINICH. Yesterday, the value of shares on the Lisbon stock
market dropped amid rumors of a military attack on Iran's nuclear
research facilities.
The Bush administration has been mindlessly threatening the use of
nuclear bunker busters on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Physicians
for Social Responsibility have analyzed the effect of such an attack:
``Within 48 hours, fallout would cover much of Iran, most of
Afghanistan, and spread into Pakistan and India. Fallout from the use
of a burrowing weapon such as the B61-11 would be worse than from a
surface or air-burst weapon due to the extra radioactive dust and
debris ejected from the blast site. In the immediate area of the two
attacks, our calculations show that, within 48 hours, an estimated 2.6
million people would die; over 10.5 million people would be exposed to
significant radiation from fallout.''
Do we really believe the best way to deal with Iran's nuclear
facilities is to blow them up? Where are our spiritual values? our
moral sensibilities? Is diplomacy more dangerous?

____________________

BROADCASTER FREEDOM ACT

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. One year ago, over 300 Democrats and Republicans stood
together to oppose efforts to restore the so-called Fairness Doctrine
to the airwaves of this country for a single year. It was an
encouraging vote. But, following that vote, I introduced the
Broadcaster Freedom Act, which would permanently ban the Fairness
Doctrine from ever coming back, and so far, not one single House
Democrat has signed our position for an up-or-down vote on broadcast
freedom. Now we know why.
Asked yesterday if she supported reviving the Fairness Doctrine,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi replied, ``Yes.'' At a meeting at the Christian
Science Monitor, she said that the Broadcaster Freedom Act would not
receive a vote because ``the interest of my caucus is the reverse.''
I say to Speaker Pelosi, with respect, defending freedom is the
paramount interest of every Member of the American Congress.
I urge my Democrat colleagues to take a stand for freedom. Oppose the
Democrat leadership's plan to censure the airwaves of American talk
radio and American Christian radio. Sign the discharge petition for
broadcast freedom, and help us send the Fairness Doctrine to the ash
heap of broadcast history where it belongs.

____________________

BIG OIL DOESN'T NEED MORE LAND TO DRILL; THEY SHOULD USE IT OR LOSE IT

(Ms. SHEA-PORTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Speaker, every day, American consumers are being
squeezed at the pump. They can no longer afford for Congress to be
divided on this issue.
I urge every Member of Congress to support legislation on the floor
that would compel the oil industry to drill on the public lands it
already controls. Big Oil would either have to produce from these
lands, would have to show they are being diligent in their development
or would have to give up the right to control even more Federal energy
resources.
Simply put, we are telling Big Oil to either use it or lose it.
Experts estimate that 68 million acres of leased land could produce
4.8 million barrels of oil, which would nearly double the Nation's
total oil production.
Congressional Republicans and President Bush are calling for domestic
drilling, saying it is the only solution to control high prices.
Republicans should then be demanding that Big Oil drill on the 68
million acres where they already have leases.
Mr. Speaker, Americans have been deeply hurt by the prices at the
pump. Republicans should join with the Democrats and should tell Big
Oil companies to get to work now.

____________________

WHO DO WE FIGHT?

(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, who do we fight against? We have been at war in
Iraq and Afghanistan for years. We heard that we are fighting a war on
terror. But what does that mean? Who are the people at war with
America?
Now, after all this time, our government has decided we must have a
politically correct name for our enemy. No longer can we use the term
``Jihadist,'' the primary meaning being a holy war to subject the world
to Islam. After all, using that term might hurt our enemies' feelings.
And certainly the most accurate term, ``Islamo-Fascists,'' is
strictly taboo because it might further anger our enemies by
insinuating they are a bit radical when they murder in the name of
religion.
So the government insists that we call the bad guys ``extremists'' or
``terrorists.''

[[Page 13710]]

That vague term won't indicate the war against us is waged in the
name of radical Muslim religious doctrine. But isn't that the reason
for this war?
The term ``Jihadist'' is not a reflection on all Muslims. After all,
many Muslims are literally fighting these radical ideas.
In a war, we must specifically define our enemy. Otherwise, we don't
know who they are or why we fight.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

SUPPORTING THE DESIGNATION OF A NATIONAL TOURETTE SYNDROME DAY

(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to help raise awareness of
Tourette syndrome. This is a misunderstood disorder that affects an
unknown number of Americans. The experts think that maybe 200,000 of us
suffer from this neurological disorder; although no one really knows
because it is often misdiagnosed. That is why we need to increase
awareness and applaud those who work on a daily basis to make this one
of the issues that we must be aware of.
In my home State, the New Jersey Center for Tourette Syndrome and
Associated Disorders provides an innovative, multidisciplinary, multi-
institutional approach to the treatment for those in New Jersey who
have the Tourette syndrome and for their families. It is the first and
only program of its kind in the Nation, and it serves as a model for
other centers.
In concert with the State legislature, they declared every Wednesday
in New Jersey as Tourette Syndrome Day to call attention to this
disorder. In order to continue to bring awareness to this disorder,
today, I will introduce a resolution supporting the designation of a
National Tourette Syndrome Day.

____________________

{time} 1015
LIFT BAN ON OFFSHORE DRILLING

(Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last week, Senator John
McCain stated that we need to lift the Federal moratorium on offshore
drilling for oil and gas. President Bush also agreed that the U.S.
needs to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling so
we can increase our energy production here.
I agree. We need to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices
for American families. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has access to 112 billion
barrels of onshore and offshore oil and access to 1 to 2 trillion
barrels of recoverable oil shale. To ban exploration of these energy
sources is simply outdated.
The rise in gas prices has brought a daily increase in the cost of
consumer goods due to higher transportation costs, groceries and
airfare. American families are looking for relief, Mr. Speaker, and the
President is correct when he said Americans are turning to Washington
for solutions. The only way we can help these families is to lift the
ban on energy resources that we have here at home.

____________________

BIG OIL: USE IT OR LOSE IT

(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the two men most responsible for our
record prices at the pump today are President Bush and Vice President
Cheney. They came to the White House from the executive suites of Big
Oil, and their energy policies continue to mirror Big Oil's agenda.
President Bush has, once again, called for drilling in ANWR even
though his own Energy Department has said that opening up the Arctic
would only save pennies per gallon 10 years from now. Now the President
has suggested opening up the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling even
though 80 percent of the oil available there is already open to
leasing.
Why would we give Big Oil access to more of our land and waters if
they refuse to drill on the 68 million acres they have now? If
President Bush believes that drilling is the answer, why isn't he
demanding that Big Oil use the land they already have?
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have repeated the same domestic drilling
rhetoric for years. Tomorrow they have the chance to act on that
rhetoric and to tell Big Oil to either use it or lose it by joining us
in passing the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act of 2008.

____________________

CRITICAL ENERGY NEEDS

(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, the U.S. faces a critical need to encourage
domestic petroleum production. It seems as if the United States has
unilaterally disarmed itself in the competition for energy supplies by
imposing a host of unnecessary restrictions on domestic oil and energy
production. Indeed, in the past three decades, we've thwarted
construction of refineries and nuclear power plants that could have
helped to ease the competition for energy supply and that could have
secured greater energy independence for all of us.
Further, taxes on the major domestic oil producers lower incentives
for new investments, and they add more costs to finished products at
the pump. Furthermore, there is growing doubt that the recent rush to
develop corn-based ethanol and other alternative and renewable energy
sources will bring genuine relief or true energy security. By creating
a bonanza for corn growers and agribusiness giants, we have succeeded
in driving up food prices both in the United States and abroad.
American families deserve better from the Democrat-controlled
Congress.

____________________

PRESERVING HEALTH CARE ACCESS

(Ms. GIFFORDS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, with my enthusiastic support,
the House passed the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers
Act, H.R. 6331.
In Cochise County, which is a rural part of my southern Arizona
district, access to primary health care is a real challenge, but it is
a challenge that particularly impacts our seniors.
This legislation protects payments for community physicians, for
critical hospitals and for ambulances in rural areas. In southern
Arizona, these doctors and hospitals provide vital services to our
seniors throughout a very rural part of America, including areas like
Naco, Sierra Vista, Douglas, and Bisbee, Arizona.
I would like to take a moment to thank members of my senior advisory
council and my health care advisory council. They have worked
diligently to highlight the need for improving access to health care
for our seniors, especially in underserved and remote areas.
Yesterday was a good day in the House of Representatives. I urge my
colleagues in the Senate to take swift action this week to also pass
this legislation and to send it to the President.

____________________

CNN HOST SAYS MEDIA BIASED

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute.)
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Howard Kurtz, host of CNN's program
``Reliable Sources,'' has strongly criticized the media's coverage of
Senator Barack Obama's breaking his promise that he would accept public
campaign funds.
Last Sunday, Kurtz argued: ``All of these liberal commentators who
have always supported campaign finance reform, getting big money out of
politics, many of them are defending Obama. And I have to think the
press is cutting him a break here.''
Kurtz concluded the segment by saying, ``If George W. Bush had done
this, blown off public financing as he considered doing during the 2004
campaign,

[[Page 13711]]

there would be howls in the media about one candidate trying to buy an
election.''
A recent poll found that, by more than a 3-to-1 margin, voters
believe the media favors Senator Barack Obama over Senator John McCain.
The media should report the facts, not slant the news.

____________________

EXPLORING, ELIMINATING AND ENCOURAGING

(Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, there have been a lot of complaints by
the Republican side of the aisle as to the increase in gas prices, but
I would have to say: Is it any wonder that gas prices have increased
with two oil men in the White House? The question is what is being
done. I would say it is the three E's.
First, explore the 68 million acres that are under lease to the oil
companies today. Let's extract the oil that we have under lease and not
go explore ANWR or the Outer Continental Shelf.
Two, eliminate the gouging and the hoarding and the speculating that
is going on that is increasing the price of oil per barrel by $60 or
$70 per barrel.
The third E, encourage alternatives. We can no longer be hooked on
just one commodity. We have to have other approaches and other ways to
power this Nation or we will have to learn this lesson over and over
and over again. That is what the Democratic Congress is doing--
exploring what we have, eliminating the gouging and encouraging
alternatives.

____________________

BOY SCOUT TRAGEDY AT LITTLE SIOUX RANCH

(Mr. FORTENBERRY asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague
Congressman Lee Terry for introducing the resolution expressing
heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families following the tornado
that hit Little Sioux, Iowa.
On June 11, we were given a stark reminder of just how fragile life
is. In 1 minute, the Boy Scouts at the Little Sioux Scout Ranch were
attending a leadership camp, Boy Scouts undoubtedly filled with joy,
laughter and achievement, all of those wonderful things that make
scouting a core ideal of America. In the next minute, a tornado tore
through the camp, taking the lives of 4 Boy Scouts and injuring 40
others.
The four scouts who lost their lives--Aaron Eilerts from West Point,
Nebraska, and Josh Fennen, Sam Thomsen and Ben Petrzilka from Omaha--
were exemplary young men.
After the tornado struck, many other young men applied first aid to
the injured and worked to free those trapped in the rubble. Clearly,
the scouts lived up to their motto, ``Be prepared.''
Mr. Speaker, may God bring comfort to the families and friends of
those who lost loved ones that day.

____________________

HONORING OFFICER JOSE RIVERA

(Mr. CARDOZA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today
to honor the late Jose Rivera, a correctional officer at the Federal
penitentiary in Atwater, California.
Officer Rivera's life was taken by two inmates on Friday, June 20,
2008. He was 22 years old. He is survived by his mother, Terry, by his
sisters Teresa, Martha and Angelica and by his brother, Daniel.
After graduating from Le Grand High School, he served for 4 years in
the Navy, completing two tours of duty in Iraq, and he began his career
as a correctional officer on August 5, 2007. His life of service was
cut tragically short.
Mr. Speaker, I have long voiced my concerns, most recently in a
letter I sent in April to the director of the Bureau of Prisons, about
the lack of sufficient resources and staff to safely operate our
Federal prisons.
The fact is that staffing levels are decreasing while inmate
populations are increasing. The Atwater Penitentiary is operating at 85
percent of the staffing level and is at 25 percent overcapacity for
inmate levels.
As we honor Officer Rivera's legacy of commitment and service to our
country, his senseless death is a reminder that we must provide
adequate funds to keep our prisons and our communities safe.

____________________

REDUCE PRICE AT THE PUMP

(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, in middle Tennessee today, you are going
to pay about $3.93 for a gallon of gas. My constituent families know
that this price is outrageous, and they know that now they are being
faced with choices: How much are they going to put in the tank or how
much are they going to put in that grocery cart when they go to the
grocery store? This is unacceptable, and my constituents know that.
They also know that there are some things that we could and should be
doing. May I offer a suggestion to that, Mr. Speaker. Here is a simple
way to start:
To the Democrat leadership, admit you made a mistake, and repeal the
so-called Energy Independence and Security Act that you passed last
December that didn't produce one bit of oil or gas or move anything to
the marketplace. It put in place roadblocks, and we have far too many
roadblocks to putting gas into the pumps and into our cars.
Specifically, let's repeal section 526 of this so-called Energy
Policy Act, and let's get rid of a roadblock that makes it more
difficult for the U.S. Government to address the needs that we have
and, certainly, for our Air Force.
There are many things that we could and should be doing before we
leave for July 4. There are things that we could and should be doing to
make certain that our constituents have a safer July 4th celebration.
Let's reduce the price at the pump.

____________________

DEMOCRATS HELP REBUILD ECONOMY

(Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, with the price of groceries,
gasoline and health care rising every day, Americans everywhere are
feeling the economic squeeze. They worry about losing their jobs and
their homes, and they fear losing their standard of living.
The Democratic Congress has led the way in working to jump start the
American economic recovery by approving $107 billion in stimulus checks
that have already reached 76 million homes.
With job losses exceeding 324,000 this year, with 48,000 having been
lost in the month of May alone, we acted quickly last week to extend
unemployment benefits for millions of workers who are having a hard
time finding a job. These benefits will help struggling families put
food on the table and gas in their cars.
Congress has passed the most comprehensive legislation responding to
the devastating housing crisis. The package will help millions of
families avoid foreclosure, and it will rehabilitate properties in
areas hit hard by the housing crisis.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good beginning, but we must do more to
alleviate the economic hurt Americans are enduring, and we must work
together to turn the failed Bush-McCain economy around.

____________________

{time} 1030
DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS

(Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California asked and was given permission
to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page 13712]]

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I have been
informed that the rules of the House do not allow me to wear a lapel
pin or a lapel sign, so I had to take this off. I was going to use this
chart, but I thought, maybe, since the rules allow it, I would take
this pin off and put it here so people can see what it says. It says,
simply, ``Drill here. Drill now. Pay less.''
It is also symbolic of the smallness of the area that would be
affected if we went offshore or if we went to ANWR. It would have to be
about a pin dot here of this size to display what it would actually
represent in ANWR versus all of Alaska.
Drill here in the United States. American resources. Drill now, not
20 years from now, not 30 years from now. Now. Pay less. As the futures
market would look at the change in policy and would recognize that
we're no longer going to hamstring ourselves, they would begin to
understand that prices would not go up as fast as they have been going,
and we would begin to pay less.
Drill here. Drill now. Pay less for the American people.

____________________

HONORING SUPERINTENDENT DAN NERAD

(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, for those, like me, who believe in the
invaluable resource that is our public schools, it is a bittersweet
time in the Green Bay School District. Dan Nerad, the superintendent of
the largest public school system in my district for the past 7 years,
is leaving to assume a similar position in Madison, Wisconsin.
Dan began his career in Green Bay 33 years ago. He is known for his
intelligence, for his integrity and for his candor. He tackled the
toughest problems of our time in Wisconsin--school security and the
achievement gap between minority and Caucasian students--while at the
same time dealing with a shrinking financial resource.
While his leadership will be missed, he is to be congratulated for
taking the next step in an already distinguished career. Green Bay's
loss will almost certainly be Madison's gain. He leaves an indelible
mark on our children, on our educators and on our community. And I wish
him well.
Thank you, Superintendent Dan Nerad.

____________________

KOREAN WAR ANNIVERSARY

(Mr. ROYCE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ROYCE. On this day, on this very day 58 years ago, North Korea
invaded South Korea. Over the course of the next 3 years after that
invasion until July 27 of 1953, until that armistice brought a halt to
the fighting, more than 36,000 Americans died, and more than 1.5
million South Korean soldiers and civilians became casualties of that
act of aggression.
In the aftermath of this conflict, the Republic of Korea has
flourished, becoming the world's 11th largest economy and becoming the
United States' 7th largest trading partner. Seoul is a vibrant city
which has hosted the Olympic Games and the World Cup.
As cochairman of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Interparliamentary
Exchange, I have had the chance to see this miraculous growth up close
in South Korea.
Mr. Speaker, as is inscribed in the Korean War Memorial here in
Washington, D.C., it is important that we never forget those who nobly
sacrificed their lives for the cause of freedom and liberty.

____________________

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE NECESSARY FOR 3.8 MILLION JOBLESS AMERICANS

(Mr. PAYNE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, with the Bush economy losing 325 jobs so far
this year, it is important for the House to extend a financial lifeline
to millions of unemployed workers, many in my home State of New Jersey
and across the Nation, who are having trouble finding jobs. Today, 1.6
million Americans have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits.
The numbers are expected to grow to more than 3 million Americans by
the end of this year.
Last week, with strong support from both Democrats and Republicans,
this House passed legislation giving workers and their families an
extended 13 weeks of benefits so that they don't have to worry about
losing their homes and their cars while they're looking for work.
For weeks, despite continued bad economic news and huge job losses in
the airline and auto industries, the White House actually threatened to
veto the legislation. Fortunately, they have reconsidered, and they are
now supporting that the unemployment insurance will continue.

____________________

E-PRESCRIBING AND ITS POTENTIAL TO IMPROVE QUALITY AND HEALTH OUTCOMES
IN OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

(Ms. SCHWARTZ asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, under the Democratic-controlled Congress,
the country is moving in a new direction. Improvements in our health
care delivery system are key parts of this new direction.
I applaud my colleagues for an overwhelming bipartisan victory
yesterday in support of our Nation's seniors, disabled and health care
providers.
The Medicare bill we passed yesterday will not only prevent the
impending physician fee cut, but it will also strengthen Medicare and
will provide more accessible access to service and will promote
improved patient safety and health outcomes.
I'm proud to be a leader in Congress in promoting health technology.
The legislation I introduced last year, which was included in the
Medicare bill yesterday, promotes the use of E-prescribing by Medicare
providers. Electronic prescribing will eliminate injuries,
hospitalizations and mortalities that occur each year as a result of
1.5 million prescription errors annually.
The use of E-prescribing is smart; it is timely, and it is a major
step forward in expanding the use of electronic medical records. It has
the potential to improve quality, to improve health outcomes and to
reduce costs in our health care system.
I urge the Senate to pass and accept our legislation.

____________________

DEMOCRATS OFFER A NEW ENERGY POLICY THAT REJECTS THE FAILED POLICIES OF
THE PAST

(Mr. ELLISON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, with two former oil executives in the White
House, is it any wonder why gas prices are at a record high? President
Bush's energy policy, created in secret by Vice President Cheney and by
Big Oil, leaves us dangerously dependent on foreign oil, and it hurts
our economy and American families.
Washington Republicans only offer more drilling, even though 68
million acres of Federal oil reserves are already open and leased for
development. New drilling won't lower prices for years to come. In
fact, drilling in the pristine Alaskan Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield
oil for 10 years, and in 22 years, it would only save consumers about 2
cents a gallon.
Mr. Speaker, if congressional Republicans really are interested in
helping consumers at the pump today, they will join us this week in
passing legislation that forces Big Oil to either drill where they
already have leases or to lose those leases. It's time Big Oil uses it
or loses it.

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced

[[Page 13713]]

that the Senate has passed without amendment bills and a concurrent
resolution of the House of the following titles:

H.R. 430. An act to designate the United States bankruptcy
courthouse located at 271 Cadman Plaza East in Brooklyn, New
York, as the ``Conrad B. Duberstein United States Bankruptcy
Courthouse''.
H.R. 781. An act to redesignate Lock and Dam No. 5 of the
McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River Navigation System near
Redfield, Arkansas, authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act
approved July 24, 1946, as the ``Colonel Charles D. Maynard
Lock and Dam''.
H.R. 1019. An act to designate the United States
customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez Clemente Avenue
in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the `` Rafael Martinez Nadal
United States Customhouse Building''.
H.R. 2728. An act to designate the station of the United
States Border Patrol located at 25762 Madison Avenue in
Murrieta, California, as the ``Theodore L. Newton, Jr. and
George F. Azrak Border Patrol Station''.
H.R. 3712. An act to designate the United States courthouse
located at 1716 Spielbusch Avenue in Toledo, Ohio, as the
``James M. Ashley and Thomas W.L. Ashley United States
Courthouse''.
H.R. 4140. An act to designate the Port Angeles Federal
Building in Port Angeles, Washington, as the ``Richard B.
Anderson Federal Building''.
H. Con. Res. 32. Concurrent resolution honoring the members
of the United States Air Force who were killed in the June
25, 1996, terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers United
States military housing compound near Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

The message also announced that the Senate has passed bills of the
following titles in which the concurrence of the House is requested:

S. 2403. An act to designate the new Federal Courthouse,
located in the 700 block of East Broad Street, Richmond,
Virginia, as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R.
Merhige, Jr. Federal Courthouse''.
S. 2837. An act to designate the United States courthouse
located at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, as the
``Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse''.
S. 3009. An act to designate the Federal Bureau of
Investigation building under construction in Omaha, Nebraska,
as the ``J. James Exon Federal Bureau of Investigation
Building''.
S. 3145. An act to designate a portion of United States
Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, New York, as the
``Timothy J. Russert Highway''.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2176, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY
LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1298 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1298

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of certain
land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived except
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of
the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill,
the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
of the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Natural Resources and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 2176 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from
Washington, Representative Hastings.
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution
1298.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1298 provides
for consideration of H.R. 2176, a bill which provides for, and
approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian
Community.
In lieu of the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural
Resources, the rule makes in order the substitute printed in the Rules
Committee report. The Rules substitute consists of the text of H.R.
2176 with that same language and the text of H.R. 4115 as reported by
the Committee on Natural Resources. That bill provides for, and
approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Sault Sainte
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
This is a fair rule, and it gives the proponents and opponents of the
two Michigan Indian land claims bills a straight up-or-down vote on the
bills.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation seeks to settle a land claim
agreement which was reached in 2002 by the then-Republican Governor of
Michigan John Engler and the two tribes. The current Democratic
Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has also approved the deal.
Under these bills, both tribes have agreed to relinquish their claims
to land in Charlotte Beach, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, in
exchange for a parcel of land outside of Port Huron, Michigan. The
agreement reached between the tribes and the State allows the tribes to
conduct gaming on their new land.
If approved by Congress and the President, this agreement secures the
private ownership rights of the Charlotte Beach land in question and
will help to restore the fair market value of the land. It will also
provide the two tribes with an opportunity to help create jobs and
economic opportunities in Port Huron while further providing for their
membership.
The underlying bill conforms with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
and the land being given to the two tribes was selected by the State of
Michigan as appropriate places for economic development.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is nothing new. Under the
Constitution, only Congress--not the Department of the Interior or a
Federal court--holds the power to settle Indian land title and claims.
As such, Congress has taken similar action in at least 14 different
instances in recent years when there have been disputed land claim
settlements. Not once in those instances did Congress prohibit a tribe
from conducting gaming on the tribal lands. We also never forced a
tribe to jump through hoops to exercise its right to do what it wishes
on its own land. I see no reason why we should start now.
Mr. Speaker, I have little doubt that today's debate on this issue
will be both spirited and intense. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the
House will do the right thing and pass this rule and the underlying
legislation.

{time} 1045

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
and namesake from Florida, the other Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill deals specifically with Indian land claims
settlements in Michigan and designating new tribal trust lands that
will be used to open any new Indian casinos in two Michigan towns.
The Michigan delegation is split in their support and opposition to
this legislation, with the two Representatives whose districts will
become home to the new casinos being strongly in favor of this
proposal.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, it has been my long-held view that when it
comes

[[Page 13714]]

to matters that affect individual congressional districts that the
House should give great consideration and deference to the views of the
Representatives elected by the voters in those districts.
However, I know many of my colleagues join me in having various
serious concerns about our Nation's broken Indian gaming law, as well
as the troubling issue of Indian tribes seeking to acquire new, prime
locations to open casinos where no business or interest would be
allowed to do so otherwise, and doing this without the ability of the
local community to have a say in the expansion of gambling in their
community.
These aren't just matters affecting Michigan. They affect States
across the Nation. Yet, this House is not being permitted to debate
needed improvements to Federal Indian gaming law.
This totally closed rule blocks every single Member of this House
from coming to the floor and offering an amendment to this bill. The
House is being severely restricted and is spending its time refereeing
a parochial Michigan dispute instead of addressing the larger, more
serious matters confronting other States.
This violates the promises made by the liberal leaders of this House
to the American people to operate in an open manner. This is not an
open process, Mr. Speaker. It's a closed process. It's not open when
debate is restricted only to Michigan when, in fact, there are very
serious issues affecting many States all across this country.
Congress created the ability of Indian tribes to get special
treatment in opening casinos, and we've got a duty to police this
process.
The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is broken and needs
improvement. The simple fact the House is spending several hours today
debating this Michigan matter is evidence that the law is broken.
If the House is going to spend time debating this subject, we should
be fixing the larger problem. And if Congress is going to spend its
precious time resolving a Michigan dispute, then we could use some real
help in the State of Washington, my home State, where the citizens are
seeing a dramatic expansion of Indian gaming, more casinos, bigger
casinos, higher betting limits, with big profits being collected, and
yet our State doesn't get one dime in revenue sharing.
One of the reasons the proponents of this Michigan legislation,
including the State's Governor, argue in favor of creating this new
tribal land and two new casinos is because it will bring in millions of
dollars in more revenue to the government of Michigan.
Yet, in my home State of Washington, our State government gets
nothing from Indian casinos that generate over $1.3 billion a year in
revenue. In fact, there was a proposed revenue sharing of $140 million
a year that the Governor of Washington State rejected without input
from the citizens of the State or a vote of the State legislature. Some
would say, well, your Governor made a terrible deal, and I would, of
course, wholeheartedly agree. But there is something seriously wrong if
a law allows giveaways of this magnitude to Indian casinos.
But instead of allowing the House to discuss and consider amendment
on the larger issues of revenue sharing, compact negotiations, and off-
reservation gaming, today's debate is restricted just to Michigan.
Meanwhile, the liberal leaders of this House continue to refuse to
let Representatives consider and vote on solutions to lower the price
of gas in our country.
Prices are skyrocketing. In Florida, the average price for a gallon
of unleaded regular gasoline is $4.03. In Michigan, it's $4.07. In my
State of Washington, it's $4.33. That's 31 cents higher than just a
month ago and $1.20 higher than a year ago.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs to produce more American-made energy.
We have the resources and technology to do it now. Now we just need to
get the will of Congress here to allow it. For far too long, our
Nation's reserves have been off limits. We can't afford these policies
anymore, Mr. Speaker.
America has abundant reserves in Alaska, in the West and offshore.
Let's produce more oil and natural gas here in our country.
But of course, this isn't the only answer. We need to invest in more
nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, and other new energy sources.
But all of this needs to happen in addition to tapping our own oil and
gas reserves.
Gas prices just keep going up and the liberal leaders of this
Congress just can't say ``no'' to American-made energy anymore.
Let the House debate proposals to generate more energy here in
America. Stop blocking a House vote on tapping into America's oil and
gas reserves while the price of gasoline climbs higher and higher.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so that the House can right away debate solutions to
our higher gasoline prices.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friend from
Washington--I understand his passion and the need to stay on message
about gas prices, but we're here talking about House Resolution 1298,
which is the Bay Hills Indian Community, the land settlement matter
with the State of Michigan, and a bill that came out of Natural
Resources.
My friend is insistent that we do something about oil. Well, when the
Democrats on yesterday tried to pass price gouging, it was the
Republicans that categorically rejected it. It's kind of hard to do
something when people won't let you do nothing, particularly in the
other body.
I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my very good
friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2176.
I believe this bill will lead to an unprecedented expansion of off-
reservation Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe
that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to
build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.
And let me show you, Mr. Speaker, what I'm talking about. We are
looking at the two Indian reservations that have requested this special
interest legislation. The land they are talking about is hardly an
ancestral part of their reservation. It is 350 miles away from their
ancestral lands where they already have a casino.
As a Las Vegas Representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I
can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community.
I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las
Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in
gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do.
But the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, using a bogus land claim, a bogus land
claim that has already been tossed out of State court and Federal
court, and the result if this bill passes will be two new off-
reservation casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two
tribes.
Now, why are they coming to Congress? Because they have lost in State
court. They have lost in Federal court. They do not comply with the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. So what do you do if you want a casino
350 miles away from your reservation? You find a friendly Congressman
to introduce special interest legislation in Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. BERKLEY. How do we know this land claim is bogus? In his
testimony before Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Sault Saint
Marie Tribe called this land deal ``shady,'' ``suspicious'' and ``a
scam,'' until his tribe partnered up with the shady, suspicious land
deal, and all of a sudden switched his position.
But more than 60 tribes across this country have announced their
opposition to H.R. 2176, in which Congress for the first time would
allow a tribe to expand its reservation into the ancestral

[[Page 13715]]

lands of another tribe for the express purpose of gaming.
This bill is opposed by the Department of the Interior, the NAACP,
UNITE HERE, and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up the
issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation
benefiting two tribes, each of which already has gaming, based on a
suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of court, so they
can open casinos hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands, in
direct competition with existing facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today with Chairman Conyers and
Congresswoman Kilpatrick to share my opposition to H.R. 2176. I believe
this bill will result in an unprecedented expansion of off-reservation
Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe that wants to
circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to build a casino
outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.
As Las Vegas's representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I
can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community.
I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las
Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in
gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do. But
the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act using a bogus land claim that has already
been tossed out of both Federal and State court, and the result if the
bill passes will be two new off-reservation casinos more than 350 miles
from the lands of these two tribes. And beyond that, if this bill
becomes law, any one of the more than 500 recognized Native American
tribes can argue that they have the right to sue private landowners in
an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere else.
How do we know the land claim is bogus? In his testimony before
Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Soo Saint Marie tribe called it
``shady,'' ``suspicious,'' and ``a scam.'' Soon thereafter, his tribe
became a party to the deal and switched its position. But more than 60
tribes across the Nation have announced their opposition to H.R. 2176,
in which Congress for the first time would allow a tribe to expand its
reservation into the ancestral lands of another tribe for the express
purpose of gaming.
This bill is also opposed by the Department of the Interior; the
NAACP; UNITE HERE; and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up
the issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation
benefiting two tribes, each of which already has gaming, based on a
suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of State and
Federal court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from their
ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities that
have helped revitalize a major American city.
If this bill is brought to the floor, I will strongly urge my
colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman
yielding time to me.
This rule allows us to proceed, and I wish to speak in strong support
of the underlying bill, and I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2176,
which is sponsored by Mr. Bart Stupak of Michigan and cosponsored by
myself and also the companion bill, H.R. 4115, sponsored by Mr.
Dingell, because these bills impact only three congressional districts
in this House, only three, period. And those districts are Mr. Stupak's
and my district and Mr. Dingell's.
These bills are offered in the spirit of bipartisanship, and they are
offered to settle a land claim that has existed in our State of
Michigan, actually, for well over 100 years, about 150 years, when the
State literally stole land from the Indians.
And after the Indians spent decades seeking justice, the land claim
settlement was negotiated by former Governor John Engler, and here is
what he had to say about it, Mr. Speaker.
He said: ``As Governor of Michigan, it was my duty to negotiate the
land settlement agreements between the State of Michigan and Bay Mills
and the Sault Tribe in 2002 . . . In December of 2002, I signed the
agreement with the Sault Tribe. I am proud that every concerned party
involved in this settlement supports this agreement. This is a true
example of a State and the Tribes promoting cooperation rather than
conflict.''
I think it is important to note that these bills are supported by
every elected official who represents the City of Port Huron, including
the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, both United States Senators,
myself, the State senator there, the State representatives, all of the
county commissioners, the entire city council, and most importantly,
the citizens themselves who voted ``yes'' on a city-wide referendum.
It is supported by civic groups. It is supported by educational
leaders, by labor leaders like the UAW, by every law enforcement
officer in the county, including the county sheriff, the county
prosecutor, and the police chiefs.
It is about fairness and opportunity for one of the most economically
distressed areas in the Nation, where the current unemployment rate, by
best estimates, is somewhere between 14 to 16 percent.
And it has been very unfortunate, in my opinion, that the opponents
have been so untruthful about their opposition to these bills.
For instance, they say that it is precedent setting, and yet the
truth is in this bill. In section 3(b), the bill states the following:
``The provisions contained in the Settlement of Land Claim are unique
and shall not be considered precedent for any future agreement between
any tribe and State.''
The opponents also say that it allows for off-reservation gaming. Yet
the truth is in section 2(a)(2) of the bill. It states: ``The
alternative lands shall become part of the Community's reservation
immediately upon attaining trust status.''
And they also say it violates a 2004 Michigan referendum.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional
minute.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The truth is that it actually, the referendum--and as a former
Secretary of State, I understand what ballot language actually says--it
says, ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to
Indian Tribal gaming.''
So clearly, most of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to these bills comes
from those who already have theirs, and they don't want anybody else to
have it.

{time} 1100

They don't want competition. And I think that is un-American. This
bill is about fairness and opportunity for an area that desperately
needs it. It is about justice.
The city of Port Huron is home to the Blue Water Bridge, which is the
second busiest commercial artery on the Northern Tier. It is the only
international crossing where there is a gaming facility on the Canadian
side and there is not one on the U.S. side. And if you were a very good
golfer--maybe not me, but a good golfer--you could hit a golf ball and
hit that Canadian casino facility right now where 80 percent of the
revenues comes from America. Those are U.S. dollars and U.S. jobs that
are being sent right across the river.
I urge my colleagues to be fair.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Alcee Hastings, I salute you for bringing this bill
to the floor from the Rules Committee. I support the rule, without
qualification.
Ladies and gentlemen, why do so many people approve this bill if it
has so many problems? Well, because it's a bit like a wolf in sheep's
clothing; you don't know what's underneath it. And so reciting all of
these folks--starting with the Governor of my State--don't know what's
underneath this bill. When H.L. Mencken says it's not about the money,
you can bet it's about the money. And when I hear my colleagues say--
and I'm going to count the times that it will happen today--``It's not
about casinos. This is not about casinos, folks.''
Oh, no, that's what it's about. Okay?

[[Page 13716]]

Let's start off with something that we should try to get clear. The
assertion that this is about getting justice for two tribes who have
waited for all these many years to get justice and we finally were able
to get it to the Congress. How charming. How disingenuous.
This so-called land claim--and we spent a good amount of time on it--
to the extent there really was ever a land claim, arose in the 19th
century. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the tribe's
historical lands or any treaty with the U.S. Government. The Charlotte
Beach land in question apparently was a private gift to the tribe--and
in those days it was one tribe--by individual members of the tribe who
had brought it. And rather than deed the land directly over to the
tribe, the members evidently deeded it over to the Governor of
Michigan--neither of the two that have been mentioned--to hold in trust
for the tribe. That was back in the 1850s. It's not clear if the
previous owner tribal members or anyone else ever told the tribe or the
Governor about the gift. In any event, the lands were totally neglected
by the tribe. About 30 years later, they were sold off by the State for
a long-standing property tax delinquency.
The so-called land claim lay moribund and forgotten for 100 years, as
best we can tell. And in 1982 one of these tribes, the Sault, asked the
Interior Department to review and pursue a claim for the loss of the
Charlotte Beach land. The Interior Department declined, saying the case
had no merit. They renewed the request in 1983 and in 1992, getting the
same answer each time. The Interior closed the files on the matter, and
that was the end of it.
Then one day an enterprising lawyer, a member of the bar doing land
research, looking for an Indian land claim he could help engineer and
do the authorization to build a new casino outside the established
legal process, came across a record of the delinquency sale.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield my colleague an additional 1 minute.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank my colleague.
By that time, the tribe had divided.
There were two possible candidates for reasserting the claim. The
first tribe he contacted, the Sioux, was not interested. But the other
one, Bay Mills, was very interested. And so this wonderful lawyer began
preparing a case to file based on the delinquency sale he had uncovered
and its connection to the tribe he had interest in.
A bare week before the lawsuit was filed, another enterprising
gentleman purchased some land within the Charlotte Beach claim area.
Coincidental. And within a few months, he had entered into a so-called
settlement with the tribe regarding the so-called land claim in which
he agreed to give the tribe a parcel of land he already owned near
Detroit.
Now, all the other off-reservation casinos are 10 miles away, 20
miles away, not 350 miles away.
He also agreed to sell the tribe some additional land adjacent to the
parcel. Enough land for a new casino--and not too far from Detroit.
But the settlement was conditioned on the Interior Department taking
the land into trust, a necessary step to its being eligible for an
Indian casino.
That part didn't work out like they'd planned, so that settlement was
eventually scrapped in favor of Plan B, back to the courts in an
attempt to get a favorable court ruling to take to Interior.
As we know, Plan B also failed. So then came Plan C, which brings us
here today.
But the three plans are not that different. They all share the same
objective. The difference is just means to an end. Apparently, any
means.
And who was backing Mr. Golden? The details are still somewhat
shrouded in mystery.
But we do know that the principal stakeholders in this off-
reservation Indian casino venture are Michael Malik and Marian Illich,
wealthy casino developers from the State of Michigan, who have opened
casinos from coast to coast and in Hawaii, bankrolling legislation and
referenda as needed to open the way.
And they have also been quite active politically in Washington in
recent years as well. I won't go into the details of that now, but I
think you get the idea.
Many of the facts I have just recited are in the public record. The
essence of the rest were laid out in testimony by one of the two
tribes, the Sioux Tribe, the tribe that initially wouldn't take the
bait, back before they were persuaded to go after their own short-cut
to getting an off-reservation casino.
That statement can be found in the printed hearing of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, held on October 10, 2002, on the bill S.
2986, a precursor bill to the one we are considering today.
That was 5 long years ago, of course. And the chairman, or chief, of
that tribe at the time, Bernard Bouschor, who gave that testimony, who
had held that elected position for 17 years at the time he testified,
no longer holds that position.
And his tribe, who now stands to gain an off-reservation casino that
could take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is now busy doing
what they can to disown his testimony.
But if my colleagues find Chief Bouschor's testimony credible, as I
do, it certainly lays out the course of events in a way that some were
quite likely not aware of before. And any assertion that this is a
legitimate Indian land claim just won't stand up to those facts.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank my colleague and friend from
Washington for yielding.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the original intent of why we allow gambling
on Indian reservations was so that we could give some economic
opportunity to full-blooded Indians on their native tribal lands in
very remote areas in which hardly any economic opportunity existed.
So what do we have now? Now we see various Indian tribes that have
already achieved tremendous economic benefits that are now wanting to
put casinos in urban and suburban areas that are long distances from
their native tribal lands and where there is a lot of economic
opportunity, and to fill those, not even helping any of the people in
their tribe who are back on the reservation.
With a bill like this, we have strayed a long ways from the original
intent of Indian gambling. Now, this bill is about two tribes
specifically in Michigan. I am from California, but yet this trend,
this movement, is not limited to just Michigan. Throughout the country,
you see groups either trying to create new tribes in urban areas in
order to locate gambling operations or, like these in Michigan, to
extend from a remote area and set up new gambling in a new metropolitan
area. All of this has nothing to do with the original intent of the
Indian gambling laws.
If communities like Detroit, or anywhere, wish to have gambling, they
don't need this House; they don't need this Congress; they don't need
the Indian gambling laws to do it. Through their State and local
communities, they can allow people to gamble. They can set up various
gambling operations, if they want, within their community and within
their State. That's up to them. But let us not all here in this House,
in this Congress, set a trend. Let's not set a precedent. Let's not use
Indian tribes in order to dot the urban and suburban areas of this
country with monopoly gambling operations.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased
to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, my good friend, John
Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before us is a very simple responsibility.
It is a power that has been exercised exclusively by Congress since the
very first Congress in 1789, when in the Indian Nonintercourse Act of
that year, only Congress may extinguish Indian land claims. That has
been the law ever since.
So before us is simply the question of whether we're going to accept
or deny a settlement agreed upon by the tribes and by the State of
Michigan to resolve a serious problem in the Upper Peninsula, in the
district of our good friend and colleague, Mr. Stupak.
Having said that, what is going to happen is this legislation will
permit us to resolve those questions, to enable Indians to resolve the
land claims concerns that they have, and to allow the

[[Page 13717]]

State of Michigan to resolve its concerns and to allow its citizens to
remove clouds over the title on the lands which they own up there, and
which will enable the Indians to begin to live a more orderly and
proper life.
This legislation was opposed by my friend, Mr. Jack Abramoff, who
left a rather spectacular and smelly legacy. And it is a chance for us
now to undo some of the nastiness that he sought to do by preventing
the resolution of these questions.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge my colleagues to
support the settlement of these rights which were agreed upon between
two Governors of the State of Michigan--Governor Engler, a Republican,
and Governor Granholm, a Democrat.
And this legislation is not only supported by the affected tribes and
citizens of the Upper Peninsula but also by the AFL-CIO and the UAW and
a wide roster of other unions that are strongly supportive of this.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity--and to my
colleagues, in a bipartisan effort--to make sure we can maintain
restrictions on off-reservation casinos and gambling.
I want to point out five key areas, Mr. Speaker, that, I think, are
part of the argument.
First and foremost, I do support tribal gaming. I think it's been
very successful. As a matter of fact, a number of our properties from
Nevada are partners across the country with tribal gaming
establishments. So, when the rules are followed, I think it's a very
appropriate approach to revenues for the communities.
But first of all, Mr. Speaker, the bill authorizes an unprecedented
expansion of off-reservation gaming. Never before has the U.S. Congress
been in the business of deciding whether a community should and can
have a casino. I don't think it's the job of the U.S. Congress to make
decisions for local and State governments. Does that mean someone from
Iowa or from Illinois or from Arizona could come in and request to have
a casino in their back yard? I don't think that was the intent of the
Tribal Gaming Act. And this is a dangerous precedent. It permits
unlimited expansion across this country.
Number two, it overrides a careful review process. Currently, Mr.
Speaker, if a tribe wants to build a casino, there is a process in
place. All the rules must be followed; all inspections must be done. I
think that's an appropriate use of the process that's available
currently under U.S. law.
Number three, it also violates the 1993 Tribal Compact by the
Michigan tribes. I know there are arguments on both sides of that, but
there was an agreement made in 1993.
Number four, as a Member of Congress from the great State of Nevada,
one of my jobs is to make sure we can uphold the wishes of a particular
State. This legislation overrides the wishes of Michigan people. In
2004, there was a referendum that limited gaming to specific areas that
were approved by local and State governments. This has not happened in
this case.
Number five, I know my colleague from Nevada, Congresswoman Shelley
Berkley, talked about the validity of the land claims. There is a
question.
But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, should Members of Congress be
making a decision for local communities and for State governments on
whether there should be tribal gaming or whether there should be
expansion? I stand here today in a bipartisan effort with my colleagues
from across the aisle, asking for the balance of this Congress to vote
``no.'' It establishes a dangerous precedent expanding casinos across
our country without following the proper rules and regulations.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
be here, and I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which this debate is
conducted and why this is just a bad idea.
Many of us come to this microphone, to this well, through our
conclusions from a whole variety of backgrounds and interests. I think
back, not all that long ago, when I had a good friend in town, and we
had a great philosophical debate about organized gambling coming to his
town. And he was all for it. He had been, I think, the third generation
of a great restaurant in that town. It was very well known, well known
all over the State, and he said it would boost his business. Well,
about 2 years after that casino landed in that town, he closed his
doors. I think it was in his family for decades. It broke his heart.
There was trembling in his voice when we had a conversation over the
phone. Because, when organized gambling comes to your town, there are
very few who will make a whole bunch, and there are a whole bunch who
will lose a lot.
And it is not the economic tool that people profess. Study after
study after study clearly shows there is more net loss, that there is
more cannibalization of small businesses around these organized
gambling casinos than there is success and benefit that happens inside.
Certainly, the local governments that house them love it; it means
cash to them. That's great. But at what price? And we really need to
stop ourselves and ask, at what price?

{time} 1115

We already have more casinos in Michigan than we have public
universities. And this isn't about fairness for this tribe. This tribe
has seven casinos already, $400 million in revenue. And what they are
asking to do is something unprecedented. The Federal court ruled
against them. The State court ruled against them. But they said let's
go around all of those things, including a 2004 referendum by the State
of Michigan that said enough is enough, we're going to cap it right
here at what we have. They went around all of those things, and it's
like putting a casino from a tribe in Washington, DC in Cleveland and
saying, ``This is part of our heritage, you need to help us.'' That's
not what this is. This is about organized gambling and putting it in a
place where they think they can make more than the $400 million in
revenue they are already making.
I just plead with this House and this Congress don't set this
precedent. And I don't care if they say it in the bill or not, it is a
precedent. And every community in America will wake up one day and say
we can do this too. We can come to Congress. We can show up and go
around our States and our legislatures and our people and the courts,
and we'll go to Congress too and get special treatment to have an
organized gambling casino in a neighborhood near you.
A lot of people speak for both sides of this issue, but very few will
speak for the folks who will lose everything when these casinos come to
town.
I plead with this House not to do this. It's not the right thing to
do. We know it's not the right thing to do. I encourage all of us to
vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the subsequent legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Mr. Speaker, after I made my opening remarks, my friend from Florida
stood up and said that I was on message, and I thank him very, very
much for the compliment because I was talking about something that the
American people clearly, clearly are concerned about, and that is the
high energy costs and particularly the high prices of gasoline. So I
think, Mr. Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for
lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing price
of gasoline.
By defeating the previous question, the House will have that
opportunity. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend
the rule, not rewrite the rule, just amend the rule, to make in order
and allow the House to consider H.R. 5656, introduced by Representative
Hensarling of Texas.
If this House has time to spend several hours debating Indian land
claims and new casinos in Michigan, then it

[[Page 13718]]

certainly has time to debate the high price of gasoline. It's time we
start producing more American-made energy. Our country can't afford the
knee-jerk, no-to-any-drilling-in-America approach that the liberal
leaders of this House still cling to. The citizens of our country can't
afford a Congress that does nothing. It's time for this House to act,
and defeating the previous question will allow us to do so.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, then,
to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about
rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made gasoline
and energy.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of
my time.
I am forever amazed, Mr. Speaker, at my colleagues' way of going
about trying to assert something into measures that we are dealing
with, that, when all is said and done, don't have anything to do with
the measure that we're dealing with.
I agree with my colleague that we have a serious crisis in this
country having to do with energy policy. But I also would urge him to
understand that the President's energy policies have failed this
country and that when he and his party were in the majority and had an
opportunity to do all the things they are talking about, that many of
them were not done.
The fact is there are 68 million acres offshore and in the United
States that are leased by oil companies. They are open to drilling and
are actually under lease but are not developed. The fact is that if oil
companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could
generate additional oil, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak.
The fact is 80 percent of the oil available in the Outer Continental
Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil
companies haven't decided it's worth their time to drill there. And,
when they are saying it's not worth their time, they are saying they
don't have the equipment to do it. The fact is that drilling in the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for a considerable period
of time in the future, probably as many as 8 to 10 years, and then
would only save the consumer less than 2 cents per gallon in 2025.
All of us know all the things to say here. We know to say
``switchgrass'' and ``shale'' and ``geothermal'' and ``solar,'' and we
could go on and on and on with the number of potentials for alternative
energy. But yesterday, when we tried to do something about price
gouging, it was the minority party that defeated the measure, that was
on the floor of the House, under suspension.
Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. I support gaming in this country.
I support the MGMs and the Harrah'ses of the world and their right to
run a casino wherever legally they may be permitted to do so. I support
the Seminole Indians and the Miccosukee Tribes in Florida that I am
proud to represent. And I support and have supported continuously their
right to run a casino. I also support Jai Lai in my community and their
right to run a casino. I also support casinos in my community and their
right to run a casino, just like I support these two tribes in Michigan
as well. I also support competition and economic development and the
job creation it can spur. And I take full exception to my colleague
from Lansing, who is a dear friend of mine on the other side who spoke
earlier. I can attest to job creation in the Seminole and Miccosukee
Indian Tribe areas that were told that there would be no jobs created,
and literally thousands of people, mostly not Native Americans, are
working in those establishments.
Finally, I support all of us in this body coming to terms with what
happened to Native Americans, Africans, and people of Caribbean descent
and others after Columbus discovered America in 1492. I'm always
reminded of Flip Wilson's comedy routine that he did that, if Columbus
discovered America, then the Native Americans must have been running
down the shoreline, saying, ``Discover me.''
So, before Members of this body start talking about Indian tribes
unfairly swapping pieces of land, they should remember that the land
wasn't ours in the first place. We took it from the tribes and then
often relocated them to some far-off, remote, and undesirable place
that we could find for them to be placed.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an ideal situation for any of us in this
body. We all wish that a unanimous agreement would have materialized in
Michigan. Yet, despite a land claims compact being reached by the State
and the tribes, a Republican and Democratic governor, some just don't
want this agreement to go through, and that is their prerogative. Thus,
as it has done at least 14 times in the recent past, Congress must do
what is right and settle this dispute. When an injustice has been done
and there are efforts to perpetuate that injustice, something must be
done. Someone must step in and stop it from happening again.
I urge my colleagues to do just that and to support the previous
question, the rule, and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1298 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a
requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition
of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill
are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government
Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if
offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered
as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
lO9th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

[[Page 13719]]

Congressional Quarterly's ``American Congressional
Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is defeated, control
of debate shifts to the leading opposition member (usually
the minority Floor Manager) who then manages an hour of
debate and may offer a germane amendment to the pending
business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. 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.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6275, ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
RELIEF ACT OF 2008

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1297 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1297

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
6275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum
tax, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and
Means now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Ways and Means; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 6275 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is
for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Vermont?
There was no objection.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1297 provides for consideration of H.R. 6275,
the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, under a closed rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, controlled by the Committee on
Ways and Means.
As Americans know, the alternative minimum tax was enacted in 1969
with a very legitimate intent: to ensure fairness in our tax system by
avoiding the situation where very wealthy individuals don't pay taxes
and to close loopholes. It is in the same spirit of fairness that we
consider legislation today that will keep the middle class out of being
hit by the alternative minimum tax when it was never intended that they
would be caught up in its web and who have been because of inflation
and because of no adjustments in the Tax Code.
The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 will provide, one, 25
million Americans with over $61 billion in tax relief. Two, it offers
property tax relief to homeowners and expands the child and adoption
credits to parents. Nearly 50,000 families in my own State of Vermont,
Mr. Speaker, will see tax relief from this legislation.
However, in order for the tax relief to be fair, we have to ensure
that the cost of the tax relief is not simply passed on, the credit
card debt, to our children, and we have already saddled the next
generation with $9 trillion in debt, costing us $1 billion a day in
interest payments, money that could be spent on other, much more
productive things. Enacting an AMT patch today when we don't pay for it
would simply shift that $62 billion burden from the middle class on to
their children and their grandchildren. What we fail to pay today they
will be forced to pay tomorrow with interest.
Furthermore, we do pay for this tax relief by improving the Tax Code.
With the bill's offsets, we are closing two very large tax loopholes,
one that has benefited very wealthy hedge fund managers at the expense
of middle class taxpayers, and let me talk about that first.
The ``carried-interest'' loophole. It is a preferential rate of
capital gains tax, a 15 percent rate that gets applied to income earned
by many people who do financial work.

{time} 1130

Right now, under current law, the income earned by many investment
fund managers at a private equity firm, and hedge funds, are taxed at
the lower capital gains tax rate. So you have this very unjustified
situation where some of these folks who are making, in some cases,
billions of dollars, pay a tax rate lower than the secretaries who work
in their firms, and they do this when they don't actually put their
capital at risk but manage the capital of others.
A second loophole that is closed in this bill stops major oil
companies from receiving what is called a special domestic production
subsidy through the Tax Code. As we all know, record gas prices, the
record cost of a barrel of oil is resulting in oil company profits that
are unparalleled in the history of this country, in some cases, as high
as $11 billion in a single 3-month period. So it's clear that those
companies are doing very well and that they do not need continued
taxpayer assistance.
I commend Chairman Rangel and Chairman Neal and the Committee on Ways
and Means for their excellent work on this legislation, and I encourage
my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman
from Vermont, for not only yielding me this time to discuss the
proposed rule for consideration of the alternative minimum tax, but I
want to thank him for his friendship in the committee and the
professional nature of the way he conducts himself.
Mr. Speaker, today we are going to debate a tax increase on America.
No surprise. The American public has gotten used to this. The tax-and-
spend Democrat Congress, the new Congress, the new way to run
Washington, D.C. has resulted in not only economic failures here in
this country the last 18 months but also higher gas prices, the
inability that we have to control the flow in energy that comes into
this country and has made us now more than ever to where we have to go
get our energy overseas, send our money overseas, and not be able to be
energy sufficient here in this country.

[[Page 13720]]

But now I find out that the excuse for raising taxes on Americans
today is that there's a loophole in the tax law--a loophole--and
unintended consequences. The bottom line is that it's the tax law, it
was therefore reasoned, and the opportunity for us to grow our economy
and build jobs and have job creation and to protect the American
consumer is why these were parts of the tax law. It is not unintended
consequences, it is not a loophole, it is the law, the tax law of the
United States that I am very proud of, and I am disappointed to see
that the Congress today will be debating new tax increases on the
American people.
So I rise in strong opposition to this closed rule, yet another
closed rule by this new majority that we have here, and to the
underlying legislation, which takes the baffling approach, once again,
of raising taxes on Americans and on the American economy during a
downturn of our economy, rather than taking a way to prevent a tax
increase on hardworking and unsuspecting middle class taxpayers, which
sets the stage for even more job-killing tax increases in the very near
future just to prevent the current low-tax policies that Republicans in
Congress worked so hard to pass and to support on behalf of American
taxpayers.
I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when Republicans bring
tax bills to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are able to
tout how many jobs our tax bill will create, how many jobs the economy
will create. I have never, ever heard of a Democrat tax-and-spend bill
that then touts how many jobs will be created, because they don't. They
kill jobs. They kill jobs in America every time we do what we are doing
today with the new Democrat majority to raise taxes on America.
Under the Democrats' flawed policy of pay-as-you-go logic used to
defend this legislation, in just 2 short years--when a number of
critically important tax policies like the $1,000 Republican tax credit
and the Republican lower tax rate on income and capital gains and
dividends are set to expire, that created job growth--the new Democrat
majority pay-as-you-go rules will require more than $3.5 trillion in
tax increases, and that is what they stand for today, increasing taxes
on the American people, killing jobs all across the country, and yet
they want to blame President Bush. Just incredible.
It makes no sense to me why we are hamstringing our economy and
saddling working families with higher taxes when revenues aren't the
problem. Washington is already collecting more taxes as a percentage of
GDP than the historical average over the last 40 years.
We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. What
Washington really has is a spending problem that this new Democrat
majority can't fix and can't solve because they are all about taxing
and spending. Federal spending is higher by nearly $530 billion more
than the Congressional Budget Office's 2000 projection for the year
2007. So going back to 2000, and they projected how much money we would
need to spend, we are $530 billion more this year, thanks to a new
Democrat majority, making increased spending the main reason why 99
percent of our Nation's worsened budget picture over the last 7 years
is occurring. We have got a downturn in the economy because we are
raising taxes and spending to support a bloated government.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have known for a long time that
Republican Members of Congress support an economically responsible
solution to solving the alternative minimum tax problem. Just contrast
this year's Republican budget proposal, which prevented expansion of
the AMT for the next 3 years and achieved full repeal in 2013, with the
Democrat budget. If you compare them, the Democrat budget, which jammed
a $70 billion tax increase into our economy to pay for simply a
temporary 1-year fix, and did nothing about AMT for the next 5 years
after that. A 1-year fix, raising taxes $70 billion, rather than fixing
the problem.
Mr. Speaker, taxpayers are already aware that last month, House
Republicans unanimously supported a clean AMT patch without tax
increases to prevent more than 25 million families--including 21
million families who didn't owe AMT in 2007--from paying an additional
$61.5 billion that's going to come due this next April, just like we
did in December of last year and just like we will continue to do if
Republicans once again become the majority party in Congress.
What taxpayers may not realize is that House Democrats used to be for
the same thing--at least that was until they won the majority. And with
it came the opportunity to salivate, to get all this money, and to
couple what used to be a bipartisan, commonsense tax prevention policy
with massive, unnecessary tax hikes that burden this country, and for
18 months we have seen the promise of higher taxes, and it's killing
our economy. As recently as last December, the House passed a ``clean''
AMT patch, without crippling the economy with tax increases, by an
overwhelming majority of 352-64.
The only thing worse than House Democrats' tax-and-spend flip-flops
on this issue is the fact that their comrades in the other body--
including Finance Chairman Max Baucus--have already recognized the
reality that at the end of this day, the AMT patch will not be paid
for, and that this cynical exercise meant to provide political cover is
in fact dead-on-arrival the moment it passes this House. But let it be
said: It's another opportunity for the new Democrat majority to show
how much they want tax increases to ruin our economy.
The cost of this political gamesmanship is really quite simple: the
exposure of millions of middle class taxpayers to an average tax
increase of $2,400, and the increased likelihood of a repeat of last
year's mismanaged process in which the late enactment of the patch
prevented the IRS from processing AMT-affected returns until about 4
weeks into the filing season. It was a disaster this year as a result
of the new majority.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is how the Democrat Congress proposed to
raise the additional $61 billion of additional taxes just to prevent
this tax increase. That's right. We are going to have a tax increase on
the tax increase on middle class families who were never intended to
pay this.
First, and rather unsurprisingly, this Democrat ``Drill-Nothing''
Congress helps repeal a tax deduction that helps American companies to
produce energy for American consumers, but they are going to take that
advantage away from consumers. It will only hurt energy exploration in
this country, and now what we are going to see is that the American
consumer will pay more at the pump.
While this proposal is laughable at best for everyone tuning in on C-
SPAN across America today, it is about par for the course for the
Democrat Party that also thinks that suing OPEC, not increasing the
supply of American energy, will help bring down prices for consumers.
Second, this bill increases taxes on entrepreneurs that create jobs
and improve failing companies, and raises the long-term capital gains
rate on them from 15 to 35 percent, or even higher. So the people that
are the ``goose that are laying the golden egg'' are once again
slaughtered by this new Democrat proposal.
Once again, I know that most people around this country watching this
debate understand that raising taxes on job creators reduces jobs and
hurts our economy. But don't worry. You can blame President Bush for
that, for the actions of this Congress.
Unfortunately, this proposal is not a surprise, coming from a
Democrat Congress that believes when real estate and credit markets are
at their weakest, that is the optimal time to raise taxes and send our
economy over the edge.
Finally, the bill goes back on America's word by increasing taxes on
transactions with treaty countries by mandating a new reporting
requirement on private companies so that the IRS can know directly how
much is being paid to merchants every year, including the Social
Security or tax identification numbers associated with those
transactions.

[[Page 13721]]

Mr. Speaker, I have got to hand it to the new Democrat majority.
Every single week, they find out a new way to assault the taxpayer,
every single week they find a way to raise taxes, to increase spending,
and more rules and regulations. They did it again this week.
Congratulations to the new Democrat majority.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this tax increase, and I will tell you
that I will continue to stand up on the side of taxpayers and middle
class Americans who say enough is enough.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on our side.
I will reserve the balance of my time until the gentleman from Texas
has an opportunity to close.
Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you--you've already heard me say it--this
massive tax increase, once again, not only on the economy, but on
Americans, could be done a different way. It could be solved. It could
be solved by following through on promises that were made by both
parties to do something about the AMT.
We've got to do something. We continue to see middle class Americans
caught in the crossfire. Today, we see it's not just a crossfire with
inability to solve the problem, it's partially solved for 1 year by
raising $61 billion worth of new tax increases on Americans that they
will have to pay this next April.

{time} 1145

Mr. Speaker, since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat
Congress has totally neglected its responsibility to do anything
constructive to address the domestic supply issues that have created
skyrocketing gas, diesel and energy costs that American families are
facing today. As a matter of fact, gas rose 10 cents a gallon across
America just in the last few days.
So, today, I urge my colleagues once again to vote with me to defeat
the previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions
to the energy problems and the high costs that we are facing. If the
previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule to allow
for consideration of H.R. 5656, which would repeal the ban on acquiring
advanced alternative fuels, introduced by my good friend Jeb Hensarling
of Texas back in March, almost 3 full months ago.
This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the
Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from
diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands and coal-to-liquid
technology--in other words, marketplace answers--just by allowing the
government to do that.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary
restraints on the Department of Defense in getting its fuel from
friendly sources, like coal-to-liquid, oil shale and tar sands
resources that are all abundant in the United States and Canada.
Needless to say, it raises grave national and economic security
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, this new Democrat Congress wants us to spend hundreds of
billions of dollars to go build another Dubai. They want consumers in
this country to pay higher costs. By doing so, it is a national
security issue. We must do something. Adding alternatives to the supply
chain is what is important.
Mr. Speaker, Canada currently is the largest U.S. oil supplier. It
sent 1.8 million barrels per day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per
day of refined products to the United States in 2006. According to the
Canadian Government, about half of the Canadian crude is derived from
oil sands, with the oil sands production forecast to reach about 3
million barrels a day in 2015. Section 526, passed by this Democrat
House, choked this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's most reliable
allies and economic partners, and it increased our military's reliance
on fuels from unfriendly and unstable governments around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of that
amendment and the extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for our
military, for energy independence for Americans, and to help American
consumers in this time of need and to support our economy by increasing
the amount of oil we import and produce from friendly and reliable
sources like Canada and from our own American, buy-American proven
resources, these advanced alternative fuels, by voting to defeat the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas characterizes a bill that will
provide tax relief to 25 million Americans as a tax increase, and it is
just flat out wrong. There are 25 million Americans. These are folks
who earn between $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 a year, who, if we do not
pass this legislation, will find themselves essentially being the
target of legislation that was intended in 1969 to have millionaires
pay their fair share.
We are talking about soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who
get a job as a police officer or as a carpenter. We are talking about
some our school teachers all across the country. We are talking about
sanitation workers who are struggling hard on $40,000 or $50,000 a
year, oftentimes with two people in that family who are working,
raising three or four kids. We are saying in this legislation that we
are going to protect you, because we know you need to have that money
to pay your bills.
We also have to level with the American people. This is going to be
$61 billion in tax relief for those incredibly hard-working Americans
who are getting clobbered by these $4-plus gas prices. They can't fill
up their tank. They have got cars or SUVs or trucks that they have to
drive, and they don't have the money to get something that is a little
bit more fuel efficient. A lot of them have long commutes. This
legislation is going to give them the opportunity to keep a little bit
more money in their pocket so they can make it from one end of the week
to the other and can pay their bills.
Now, the question is for this Congress, do we pay for it, or do we
put it on the credit card? As to what my friend from Texas is
characterizing as a tax increase, let me go through it, because I think
Americans have a commitment to fairness, and I think Americans know a
very commonsense proposition, and that is we have all got to bear the
burden. We all have to pay our share of the load.
There are two very glaring situations in the Tax Code, and attention
should be paid to them, and it is overdue. One is this hedge fund
exemption, where folks who make an awful lot of money pay at a capital
gains rate. What is unfair about it? If you are a financial advisor, if
you or I ask someone to help us figure how to invest our money, we pay
them a fee, and of whatever earnings they get, they pay a regular tax
rate just like any other American. Whatever that rate is--15, 20, 35
percent--that is what they pay.
If you are a hedge fund executive and you make billions, because of
this provision in the Tax Code, which I am calling a loophole, they get
to pay at a 15 percent rate. That is costing the treasury billions of
dollars, and it is also a glaring unfairness, because you literally
have a situation where the hedge fund manager who is doing the same
work as another financial advisor down the street pays one rate, 15
percent, while the other person doing the same work, working just as
hard but who is perhaps making less money, pays 35 percent.
You also have this bizarre situation where the person making this
immense amount of money pays a much lower tax rate than the secretary,
than the back office help in that very same firm. I think most
Americans see a

[[Page 13722]]

basic fairness, and let's have the income tax rate apply to earned
income. That is what this provision does.
The second question is on the oil company exemption, and I am using
the word ``loophole.'' What is a ``loophole''? I think, commonly, you
know it when you see it. What a ``loophole'' is in this case is giving
taxpayer benefit to very successful companies that do very well in what
they do--explore for oil, sell it. We are taking money from the
taxpayers of America to give it to major American and foreign oil
companies. These are mature industries that are making hundreds of
billions of dollars, and they don't need taxpayer help.
So this legislation provides 25 million Americans with tax relief,
and it is the folks who need it. It asks other Americans, the hedge
fund executives, to pay at the income tax rate, and it has oil
companies foregoing what has been an incredibly good deal--tax credits
that they get at the expense of the American taxpayer.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1297 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information form Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. WELCH of Vermont. 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.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3195, ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1299 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1299

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
3195) to restore the intent and protections of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and
Labor now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions of the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate, with 40 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor and
20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 3195 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio is recognized for
1 hour.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 1299.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. SUTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1299 provides for consideration of H.R.
3195, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The rule makes in order as base
text the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and Labor that
was identical to the bill as reported by the Committee on the
Judiciary. The bill provides for 1 hour of debate, with 40 minutes
controlled by the Committee on Education and Labor and 20 minutes by
the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order
against consideration of the bill, except clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI.
Lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions.

[[Page 13723]]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 1299
and the underlying bill, H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act. It was
nearly 18 years ago that the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed
into law. It sent a resounding message that discrimination against
individuals with disabilities would not be tolerated, not in
employment, not in transportation, not in housing, not in services, or
in any other area of our daily lives. It was a law intended to tear
down the barriers, preventing individuals with disabilities from
reaching their full potential. It was a commitment from Congress that
discrimination in any form would not be tolerated.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was an historic civil rights law,
the most sweeping since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Yet, despite the
broad application of other civil rights statutes, a series of court
decisions has dramatically narrowed the scope of the ADA.
Unfortunately, this has denied millions of disabled Americans the
protections Congress had originally intended for them.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of Congress was to allow individuals with
disabilities to fully participate in society, free from the fear of
discrimination. Yet Supreme Court interpretations have shifted the
focus from whether an individual has experienced discrimination to
whether an individual could even be considered ``disabled enough'' to
qualify for the protections of the law.
In making this determination, the Court has implemented a standard
that excludes many individuals originally intended to be covered by the
ADA. They have held that the definition of ``disability'' must be
applied ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as
disabled.'' In addition, the Court has found that mitigating measures
that help address an impairment, such as medication, hearing aids or
other treatments, must be considered in determining whether an
impairment is disabling enough to qualify under the ADA.

{time} 1200

And so millions of Americans with disabilities have found themselves
in a Catch-22. They face employment discrimination because of their
disabilities, yet they may be denied relief under the ADA because they
are considered ``too functional'' to qualify for its protections. Mr.
Speaker, this is completely at odds with the original intent of
Congress and the original focus of the ADA.
Due to these narrow interpretations, individuals with serious
conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple
sclerosis, and developmental disabilities have found themselves
excluded from the protections afforded by the ADA.
Basic equality under the law has been denied to millions of disabled
Americans for too long. But today, after months of hard work on all
sides of this issue, we seek to fulfill the promise we made to
Americans with disabilities nearly two decades ago.
And let me be clear. The ADA Amendments Act does not expand the
original scope of the ADA. Rather, it restores the promise that
Congress made to every single American, a promise that everyone will
have an equal opportunity to succeed; that we will tear down the
barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential;
and that we will be judged on our abilities rather than on our
disabilities.
The ADA Amendments Act clarifies that the ADA's protections are
intended to be broad. It also restores the focus to wrongful
discrimination. Our bill clarifies that anyone who is discriminated
against because of an impairment, whether or not this impairment limits
the performance of any major life activities, is entitled to the ADA
protection.
And, finally, it states that mitigating measures will not disqualify
people with disabilities from the protections afforded by the ADA.
I am proud to join with over half of the Members of this body as a
cosponsor of this important bill. Today we are demonstrating our
commitment to every American that discrimination will not be tolerated.
This should be the case whether based on race, national origin, gender,
age, religion, sexual orientation or disability. By upholding this most
important of principles, our country will be richer for it.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman, my friend
from Ohio, for yielding me the time to discuss this proposed rule for
consideration of the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act of
2007. And a hearty congratulations to the new Democrat majority for
their openness as we celebrate the 58th closed rule, a new record for
the United States Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the underlying legislation, which
would amend and improve the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA as
it is called, that was enacted into law in 1990 by President George
Herbert Walker Bush with the strong bipartisan support of Congress.
The ADA--which was passed to, and I quote, provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities--protects individuals from
discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and other terms and conditions
of employment on the basis of a person's disability.
Often referred to as the world's first comprehensive disability anti-
discrimination law, the ADA specifies what employers, government
agencies, and the managers of public facilities must do to ensure that
persons with disabilities have the opportunity to fully participate in
our society.
The ADA consists of three major titles protecting Americans with
disabilities:
Title I prohibits discrimination in public or private employment;
Title II prohibits discrimination at public entities, like public
universities or hospitals;
And title III prohibits discrimination at places of public
accommodations like hotels and restaurants.
Mr. Speaker, this law has made a world of difference for millions of
Americans with disabilities. But, for all of the great results that
have come from this law, I believe it can still be improved. For far
too long, our Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have
wrestled with some of the contents of Congress' intent in defining the
ADA key concepts.
For example, the ADA requires employers to make reasonable
accommodations to facilitate employees with disabilities but not if
this causes undue hardship, leaving the courts to decide what is
reasonable and what is undue. Most of all, Federal courts have spent
years being puzzled over exactly who is considered disabled under the
law. But, today, we have the opportunity to pass this legislation and
to clarify Congress' intent, finally settling these outstanding
questions of law once and for all, or so we hope.
I want to be clear that these shortcomings do not in any way minimize
the great things that this legislation has achieved for disabled people
in America. Today, many public accommodations like hotels, restaurants,
and recreation facilities have opted for voluntary compliance. We have
cut curbs, the areas where sidewalks slope down, to be at a level of
the street to allow easy passage for wheelchairs and for other
mechanisms that aid the disabled, which were virtually unheard of
before ADA was passed and that now are in compliance in most major
cities.
Unfortunately, since 1999, several U.S. Supreme Court decisions have
narrowly provided the definition of disabilities so much so that
persons with serious conditions, such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy,
cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not have
impairments that meet the definition of ``disability'' under the ADA.
H.R. 3195 builds upon the ADA's original intent by clarifying what
disabilities qualify an individual for coverage, and they address a
number of the statute's further limitations that have been raised by
disability advocates.

[[Page 13724]]

Because of this ambiguity, today, I join with more than 250 of my
colleagues in supporting this legislation, which passed out of the
Judiciary Committee by unanimous consent and out of the Education and
Labor Committee by a vote of 43-1. Like my colleagues, I support
expanding the definition of ``disabled,'' which was the main goal of
this legislation, as well supporting to ensure that people with
disabilities do not lose their coverage under the ADA because their
condition is manageable and treatable with medication.
These policies have been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
the National Association of Manufacturers, the Society for Human
Resource Management, the Human Resources Policy Association, and many
other pro-business organizations.
From the disability community, this legislation was also supported by
the National Epilepsy Foundation, the American Diabetes Association,
the American Association of People with Disabilities, and other leading
advocacy groups.
Mr. Speaker, the ADA has transformed the American society since its
enactment, helping millions of Americans with disabilities to succeed
in the workplace and making transportation, housing, buildings,
services, and other elements of daily life more accessible to
individuals with disabilities.
I applaud my colleagues for bringing this legislation, an important
action, to the floor today, and I look forward to its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I am the last speaker on this side, so I
will reserve my time until the gentleman has closed for his side and
yielded back his time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Since taking control of Congress in 2007, this Democrat Congress has
totally neglected its responsibilities to do anything constructive to
address the domestic supply issues that have created skyrocketing gas,
diesel, and energy costs that American families are facing today,
including costs that are unacceptable for many disabled Americans who
are struggling to be able to get to work or to live their life.
So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the
previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to
the energy crisis. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to
amend the rule to allow for consideration of H.R. 5656, yet another
time this Republican party is on the floor to say we support consumers
and that we support American independence and security. This bill, H.R.
5656, would repeal the ban on acquiring advanced alternative fuels, and
this bill was introduced by my dear friend Jeb Hensarling of Texas way
back in March, 3 months ago.
This legislation would reduce the price of gasoline by allowing the
Federal Government to procure advanced alternative fuels derived from
diverse sources like oil shale, tar sands, and coal-to-liquid
technology, commonsense marketplace answers to make sure that the
American consumer and America is competitive with the world, rather
than sending billions of dollars overseas, funding American enemies and
providing the world with jobs and opportunities outside of what the
consumer intended in this country.
Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007,
which this Democrat Congress passed, places artificial and unnecessary
restraints on the Department of Defense. Perhaps it is no surprise that
this Democrat Congress places artificial and unnecessary restraints on
the Department of Defense in getting its own fuel from friendly
sources, like the coal-to-liquid, oil shale, and tar sands resources
that are abundant in the United States and in Canada, our friend to the
north. Needlessly raising grave national and economic security concerns
is what this Democrat Congress has done to our military.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is currently the largest U.S. oil supplier. It
sent 1.8 million barrels every day of crude oil and 500,000 barrels per
day of refined products to the United States in 2006. That is according
to the Canadian government. About half of the Canadian crude is derived
from oil sands, with the sands production forecast to reach almost 3
million barrels per day in 2015.
Section 526 is choking this flow of fuel from one of our Nation's
most reliable allies and economic partners, and is increasing the
military's reliance on fuels from unfriendly and unstable countries. On
top of that, it is causing the American consumer to pay more at the
pump. We saw a 10-cent rise in the price of each gallon of gasoline
just in the last week.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time for action. Now is not the time to be
suing OPEC and to be saying ``no'' to a balanced energy proposal.
I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and
extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. I urge my colleagues to vote for our military and for
our economy, including many disabled people who are having a tough time
paying for the high energy costs as a result of this Democrat Congress'
insensitive position to not allow Americans to have their own energy
independence. It is time that we produce more from America and from
friendly places, like reliable sources like Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Texas is trying to shift
the discussion away from this fantastic, fantastic bill, the Americans
With Disabilities Act Amendments, onto an issue of energy. But the
American people know that for the past 7 years this country under this
administration has been following an energy policy from the White House
written by the Vice President with the oil executives.
Truth be told, there are 68 million acres of leased land available
for drilling. And we believe that, of course, that drilling should be
taking place on that 68 million acres of leased land, but we also
believe that we should be looking diligently for alternative forms of
energy.
The reality of it is that this is a deflective tactic. This House has
passed under this new Congress landmark energy legislation that will
provide relief in years to come.

{time} 1215

We have also passed measure after measure after measure that would
provide relief to American consumers but only to have them blocked by
those on the other side of the aisle and by the administration.
But, today, we don't rise to dwell on that. We rise to support and to
celebrate this bill. The Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in
1999 with such a broad coalition of support that it was regarded as a
mandate, Mr. Speaker, and we have made progress in a number of areas to
ensure individuals with disabilities are fully able to participate in
society. But, in many ways, the ADA is a promise that remains
unfulfilled.
Today, through the ADA Amendments Act, we are unequivocally
demonstrating our commitment to the principle of equal opportunity for
all Americans. We will be removing the hurdles individuals with
disabilities have faced when trying to enjoy the freedoms that are the
right of every American.
The ADA Amendments Act has the full support of one of the most
diverse coalitions of groups I have ever seen, from the disability
community, the civil rights community, groups representing pro-business
interests, and from Members on both sides of the aisle from this, the
people's House.
It represents a balance between the interests of employers and
individuals with disabilities, and it demonstrates our resolve to
ensure that all Americans can work to reach their full potential.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the
rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

[[Page 13725]]

Amendment to H. Res. 1299 Offered by Mr. Sessions of Texas

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Ms. SUTTON. 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.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: Ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 1298; adopting House Resolution 1298, if
ordered; ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1297;
adopting House Resolution 1297, if ordered; ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 1299; and adopting House Resolution 1299,
if ordered.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2176, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY
LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1298, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 194, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 449]

YEAS--226

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner

[[Page 13726]]

Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Baca
Cannon
Cubin
Gillibrand
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Watson
Wexler

{time} 1243

Messrs. WHITFIELD of Kentucky, REICHERT, DONNELLY, and ENGLISH of
Pennsylvania changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 207,
nays 204, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 450]

YEAS--207

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)

NAYS--204

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Childers
Coble
Conaway
Courtney
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--23

Baca
Bilbray
Cannon
Cubin
Gillibrand
Honda
Kuhl (NY)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Neal (MA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Saxton
Snyder
Speier
Udall (NM)
Walsh (NY)
Watson
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1251

Mr. HILL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6275, ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
RELIEF ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1297, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.

[[Page 13727]]

This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225,
nays 194, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 451]

YEAS--225

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Baca
Barton (TX)
Cannon
Cubin
Gillibrand
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Watson
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1258

So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 193, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 452]

YEAS--224

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--193

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom

[[Page 13728]]

Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Baca
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Blunt
Cannon
Cubin
Dingell
King (NY)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Watson
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left
in this vote.

{time} 1304

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3195, ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 1299, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 194, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 453]

YEAS--221

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NAYS--194

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Andrews
Baca
Blunt
Burton (IN)
Cannon
Cubin
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McNerney
Miller, George
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ruppersberger
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Walberg
Watson
Wexler

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1312

So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2008

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 6275) to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals temporary relief
from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes, and ask for
its immediate consideration.

[[Page 13729]]

The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6275

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the
``Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008''.
(b) Reference.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other
provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a
section or other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption
amount.
Sec. 102. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable
personal credits.

TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Income of partners for performing investment management
services treated as ordinary income received for
performance of services.
Sec. 202. Limitation of deduction for income attributable to domestic
production of oil, gas, or primary products thereof.
Sec. 203. Limitation on treaty benefits for certain deductible
payments.
Sec. 204. Returns relating to payments made in settlement of payment
card and third party network transactions.
Sec. 205. Application of continuous levy to property sold or leased to
the Federal Government.
Sec. 206. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``($69,950 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)'',
and
(2) by striking ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years
beginning in 2007)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``($46,200 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2008)''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.

SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR
NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or 2007'' and inserting ``2007, or
2008'', and
(2) by striking ``2007'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2008''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.

TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INCOME OF PARTNERS FOR PERFORMING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TREATED AS ORDINARY INCOME
RECEIVED FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter K of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 710. SPECIAL RULES FOR PARTNERS PROVIDING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO PARTNERSHIP.

``(a) Treatment of Distributive Share of Partnership
Items.--For purposes of this title, in the case of an
investment services partnership interest--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 702(b)--
``(A) any net income with respect to such interest for any
partnership taxable year shall be treated as ordinary income
for the performance of services, and
``(B) any net loss with respect to such interest for such
year, to the extent not disallowed under paragraph (2) for
such year, shall be treated as an ordinary loss.
All items of income, gain, deduction, and loss which are
taken into account in computing net income or net loss shall
be treated as ordinary income or ordinary loss (as the case
may be).
``(2) Treatment of losses.--
``(A) Limitation.--Any net loss with respect to such
interest shall be allowed for any partnership taxable year
only to the extent that such loss does not exceed the excess
(if any) of--
``(i) the aggregate net income with respect to such
interest for all prior partnership taxable years, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
not disallowed under this subparagraph for all prior
partnership taxable years.
``(B) Carryforward.--Any net loss for any partnership
taxable year which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph
(A) shall be treated as an item of loss with respect to such
partnership interest for the succeeding partnership taxable
year.
``(C) Basis adjustment.--No adjustment to the basis of a
partnership interest shall be made on account of any net loss
which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph (A).
``(D) Exception for basis attributable to purchase of a
partnership interest.--In the case of an investment services
partnership interest acquired by purchase, paragraph (1)(B)
shall not apply to so much of any net loss with respect to
such interest for any taxable year as does not exceed the
excess of--
``(i) the basis of such interest immediately after such
purchase, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
to which paragraph (1)(B) did not apply by reason of this
subparagraph for all prior taxable years.

Subsection (b) of section 734 shall be applied without regard
to the preceding sentence.
``(5) Application of section 751.--In applying section
751(a), an investment services partnership interest shall be
treated as an inventory item.
``(c) Investment Services Partnership Interest.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `investment services
partnership interest' means any interest in a partnership
which is held by any person if such person provides (directly
or indirectly) a substantial quantity of any of the following
services with respect to the assets of the partnership in the
conduct of the trade or business of providing such services:
``(A) Advising as to the advisability of investing in,
purchasing, or selling any specified asset.
``(B) Managing, acquiring, or disposing of any specified
asset.
``(C) Arranging financing with respect to acquiring
specified assets.
``(D) Any activity in support of any service described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `specified asset'
means securities (as defined in section 475(c)(2) without
regard to the last

[[Page 13730]]

sentence thereof), real estate, commodities (as defined in
section 475(e)(2))), or options or derivative contracts with
respect to securities (as so defined), real estate, or
commodities (as so defined).
``(2) Exception for certain capital interests.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) a portion of an investment services partnership
interest is acquired on account of a contribution of invested
capital, and
``(ii) the partnership makes a reasonable allocation of
partnership items between the portion of the distributive
share that is with respect to invested capital and the
portion of such distributive share that is not with respect
to invested capital,
then subsection (a) shall not apply to the portion of the
distributive share that is with respect to invested capital.
An allocation will not be treated as reasonable for purposes
of this subparagraph if such allocation would result in the
partnership allocating a greater portion of income to
invested capital than any other partner not providing
services would have been allocated with respect to the same
amount of invested capital.
``(B) Special rule for dispositions.--In any case to which
subparagraph (A) applies, subsection (b) shall not apply to
any gain or loss allocable to invested capital. The portion
of any gain or loss attributable to invested capital is the
proportion of such gain or loss which is based on the
distributive share of gain or loss that would have been
allocable to invested capital under subparagraph (A) if the
partnership sold all of its assets immediately before the
disposition.
``(C) Invested capital.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `invested capital' means, the fair market value at
the time of contribution of any money or other property
contributed to the partnership.
``(D) Treatment of certain loans.--
``(i) Proceeds of partnership loans not treated as invested
capital of service providing partners.--For purposes of this
paragraph, an investment services partnership interest shall
not be treated as acquired on account of a contribution of
invested capital to the extent that such capital is
attributable to the proceeds of any loan or other advance
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by any partner or
the partnership.
``(ii) Loans from nonservice providing partners to the
partnership treated as invested capital.--For purposes of
this paragraph, any loan or other advance to the partnership
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by a partner not
providing services to the partnership shall be treated as
invested capital of such partner and amounts of income and
loss treated as allocable to invested capital shall be
adjusted accordingly.
``(d) Other Income and Gain in Connection With Investment
Management Services.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) a person performs (directly or indirectly) investment
management services for any entity,
``(B) such person holds a disqualified interest with
respect to such entity, and
``(C) the value of such interest (or payments thereunder)
is substantially related to the amount of income or gain
(whether or not realized) from the assets with respect to
which the investment management services are performed,

any income or gain with respect to such interest shall be
treated as ordinary income for the performance of services.
Rules similar to the rules of subsection (c)(2) shall apply
where such interest was acquired on account of invested
capital in such entity.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Disqualified interest.--The term `disqualified
interest' means, with respect to any entity--
``(i) any interest in such entity other than indebtedness,
``(ii) convertible or contingent debt of such entity,
``(iii) any option or other right to acquire property
described in clause (i) or (ii), and
``(iv) any derivative instrument entered into (directly or
indirectly) with such entity or any investor in such entity.
Such term shall not include a partnership interest and shall
not include stock in a taxable corporation.
``(B) Taxable corporation.--The term `taxable corporation'
means--
``(i) a domestic C corporation, or
``(ii) a foreign corporation subject to a comprehensive
foreign income tax.
``(C) Investment management services.--The term `investment
management services' means a substantial quantity of any of
the services described in subsection (c)(1) which are
provided in the conduct of the trade or business of providing
such services.
``(D) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term
`comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any
foreign corporation, the income tax of a foreign country if--
``(i) such corporation is eligible for the benefits of a
comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country
and the United States, or
``(ii) such corporation demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive
income tax.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section, including regulations to--
``(1) prevent the avoidance of the purposes of this
section, and
``(2) coordinate this section with the other provisions of
this subchapter.
``(f) Cross Reference.--For 40 percent no fault penalty on
certain underpayments due to the avoidance of this section,
see section 6662.''.
(b) Application to Real Estate Investment Trusts.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 856 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Exception from recharacterization of income from
investment services partnership interests.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) shall be
applied without regard to section 710 (relating to special
rules for partners providing investment management services
to partnership).
``(B) Special rule for partnerships owned by reits.--
Section 7704 shall be applied without regard to section 710
in the case of a partnership which meets each of the
following requirements:
``(i) Such partnership is treated as publicly traded under
section 7704 solely by reason of interests in such
partnership being convertible into interests in a real estate
investment trust which is publicly traded.
``(ii) 50 percent or more of the capital and profits
interests of such partnership are owned, directly or
indirectly, at all times during the taxable year by such real
estate investment trust (determined with the application of
section 267(c)).
``(iii) Such partnership meets the requirements of
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) (applied without regard to
section 710).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 7704(d)
is amended by inserting ``(determined without regard to
section 856(c)(8))'' after ``856(c)(2)''.
(c) Imposition of Penalty on Underpayments.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 6662 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) The application of subsection (d) of section 710 or
the regulations prescribed under section 710(e) to prevent
the avoidance of the purposes of section 710.''.
(2) Amount of penalty.--
(A) In general.--Section 6662 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Property Transferred
for Investment Management Services.--In the case of any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6), subsection (a) shall be applied
with respect to such portion by substituting `40 percent' for
`20 percent'.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraph (B) of section
6662A(e)(2) is amended--
(i) by striking ``section 6662(h)'' and inserting
``subsection (h) or (i) of section 6662'', and
(ii) by striking ``gross valuation misstatement penalty''
in the heading and inserting ``certain increased underpayment
penalties''.
(3) Reasonable cause exception not applicable.--Subsection
(c) of section 6664 is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively,
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (4), as so
redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)'', and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (d) of section 731 is amended by inserting
``section 710(b)(4) (relating to distributions of partnership
property),'' before ``section 736''.
(2) Section 741 is amended by inserting ``or section 710
(relating to special rules for partners providing investment
management services to partnership)'' before the period at
the end.
(3) Paragraph (13) of section 1402(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 received by an individual who provides investment
management services (as defined in section 710(d)(2));''.
(4) Paragraph (12) of section 211(a) of the Social Security
Act is amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 received by an
individual

[[Page 13731]]

who provides investment management services (as defined in
section 710(d)(2) of such Code);''.
(5) The table of sections for part I of subchapter K of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``Sec. 710. Special rules for partners providing investment management
services to partnership.''.

(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years ending after June 18, 2008.
(2) Partnership taxable years which include effective
date.--In applying section 710(a) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as added by this section) in the case of any
partnership taxable year which includes June 18, 2008, the
amount of the net income referred to in such section shall be
treated as being the lesser of the net income for the entire
partnership taxable year or the net income determined by only
taking into account items attributable to the portion of the
partnership taxable year which is after such date.
(3) Dispositions of partnership interests.--Section 710(b)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this
section) shall apply to dispositions and distributions after
June 18, 2008.
(4) Other income and gain in connection with investment
management services.--Section 710(d) of such Code (as added
by this section) shall take effect on June 18, 2008.
(5) Publicly traded partnerships.--For purposes of applying
section 7704, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2010.

SEC. 202. LIMITATION OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS, OR PRIMARY
PRODUCTS THEREOF.

``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has
the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in
effect before its repeal.''.
(b) Limitation on Oil Related Qualified Production
Activities Income for Taxpayers Other Than Major Integrated
Oil Companies.--
(1) In general.--Section 199(d) is amended by redesignating
paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and by inserting after
paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:
``(9) Special rule for taxpayers with oil related qualified
production activities income.--
``(A) In general.--If a taxpayer (other than a major
integrated oil company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)))
has oil related qualified production activities income for
any taxable year beginning after 2009, the amount of the
deduction under subsection (a) shall be reduced by 3 percent
of the least of--
``(i) the oil related qualified production activities
income of the taxpayer for the taxable year,
``(ii) the qualified production activities income of the
taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(iii) taxable income (determined without regard to this
section).
``(B) Oil related qualified production activities income.--
The term `oil related qualified production activities income'
means for any taxable year the qualified production
activities income which is attributable to the production,
refining, processing, transportation, or distribution of oil,
gas, or any primary product thereof during such taxable
year.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 199(d)(2) (relating to
application to individuals) is amended by striking
``subsection (a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``subsections
(a)(1)(B) and (d)(9)(A)(iii)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 203. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 894 (relating to income affected
by treaty) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Limitation on Treaty Benefits for Certain Deductible
Payments.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any deductible related-
party payment, any withholding tax imposed under chapter 3
(and any tax imposed under subpart A or B of this part) with
respect to such payment may not be reduced under any treaty
of the United States unless any such withholding tax would be
reduced under a treaty of the United States if such payment
were made directly to the foreign parent corporation.
``(2) Deductible related-party payment.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `deductible related-party payment'
means any payment made, directly or indirectly, by any person
to any other person if the payment is allowable as a
deduction under this chapter and both persons are members of
the same foreign controlled group of entities.
``(3) Foreign controlled group of entities.--For purposes
of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `foreign controlled group of
entities' means a controlled group of entities the common
parent of which is a foreign corporation.
``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled
group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations
as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation)
shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of
entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of
section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any
entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this
sentence).
``(4) Foreign parent corporation.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `foreign parent corporation' means, with
respect to any deductible related-party payment, the common
parent of the foreign controlled group of entities referred
to in paragraph (3)(A).
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as are necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including
regulations or other guidance which provide for--
``(A) the treatment of two or more persons as members of a
foreign controlled group of entities if such persons would be
the common parent of such group if treated as one
corporation, and
``(B) the treatment of any member of a foreign controlled
group of entities as the common parent of such group if such
treatment is appropriate taking into account the economic
relationships among such entities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 204. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE IN SETTLEMENT OF
PAYMENT CARD AND THIRD PARTY NETWORK
TRANSACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 6050W. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE IN SETTLEMENT
OF PAYMENT CARD AND THIRD PARTY NETWORK
TRANSACTIONS.

[[Page 13732]]

transactions on behalf of the payment settlement entity, the
return under subsection (a) shall be made by such electronic
payment facilitator or other third party in lieu of the
payment settlement entity.
``(c) Reportable Payment Transaction.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `reportable payment
transaction' means any payment card transaction and any third
party network transaction.
``(2) Payment card transaction.--The term `payment card
transaction' means any transaction in which a payment card is
accepted as payment.
``(3) Third party network transaction.--The term `third
party network transaction' means any transaction which is
settled through a third party payment network.
``(d) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Participating payee.--
``(A) In general.--The term `participating payee' `'
means--
``(i) in the case of a payment card transaction, any person
who accepts a payment card as payment, and
``(ii) in the case of a third party network transaction,
any person who accepts payment from a third party settlement
organization in settlement of such transaction.
``(B) Exclusion of foreign persons.--Except as provided by
the Secretary in regulations or other guidance, such term
shall not include any person with a foreign address.
``(C) Inclusion of governmental units.--The term `person'
includes any governmental unit (and any agency or
instrumentality thereof).
``(2) Payment card.--The term `payment card' means any card
which is issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which
provides for--
``(A) one or more issuers of such cards,
``(B) a network of persons unrelated to each other, and to
the issuer, who agree to accept such cards as payment, and
``(C) standards and mechanisms for settling the
transactions between the merchant acquiring banks and the
persons who agree to accept such cards as payment.

The acceptance as payment of any account number or other
indicia associated with a payment card shall be treated for
purposes of this section in the same manner as accepting such
payment card as payment.
``(3) Third party payment network.--The term `third party
payment network' means any agreement or arrangement--
``(A) which involves the establishment of accounts with a
central organization for the purpose of settling transactions
between persons who establish such accounts,
``(B) which provides for standards and mechanisms for
settling such transactions,
``(C) which involves a substantial number of persons
unrelated to such central organization who provide goods or
services and who have agreed to settle transactions for the
provision of such goods or services pursuant to such
agreement or arrangement, and
``(D) which guarantees persons providing goods or services
pursuant to such agreement or arrangement that such persons
will be paid for providing such goods or services.
Such term shall not include any agreement or arrangement
which provides for the issuance of payment cards.
``(e) Exception for De Minimis Payments by Third Party
Settlement Organizations.--A third party settlement
organization shall be required to report any information
under subsection (a) with respect to third party network
transactions of any participating payee only if--
``(1) the amount which would otherwise be reported under
subsection (a)(2) with respect to such transactions exceeds
$10,000, and
``(2) the aggregate number of such transactions exceeds
200.
``(f) Statements To Be Furnished to Persons With Respect to
Whom Information Is Required.--Every person required to make
a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each person
with respect to whom such a return is required a written
statement showing--
``(1) the name, address, and phone number of the
information contact of the person required to make such
return, and
``(2) the gross amount of the reportable payment
transactions with respect to the person required to be shown
on the return.
The written statement required under the preceding sentence
shall be furnished to the person on or before January 31 of
the year following the calendar year for which the return
under subsection (a) was required to be made. Such statement
may be furnished electronically.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out this section, including rules to
prevent the reporting of the same transaction more than
once.''.
(b) Penalty for Failure To File.--
(1) Return.--Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xx),
(B) by redesignating the clause (xix) that follows clause
(xx) as clause (xxi),
(C) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xxi), as
redesignated by subparagraph (B) and inserting ``or'', and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(xxii) section 6050W (relating to returns to payments
made in settlement of payment card transactions), and''.
(2) Statement.--Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) is amended
by inserting a comma at the end of subparagraph (BB), by
striking the period at the end of the subparagraph (CC) and
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (CC)
the following:
``(DD) section 6050W(c) (relating to returns relating to
payments made in settlement of payment card transactions).''.
(c) Application of Backup Withholding.--Paragraph (3) of
section 3406(b) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (E) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) section 6050W (relating to returns relating to
payments made in settlement of payment card transactions).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 6050V the
following:

``Sec. 6050W. Returns relating to payments made in settlement of
payment card and third party network transactions.''.

(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amendments made by this section shall apply
to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31,
2010.
(2) Application of backup withholding.--
(A) In general.--The amendment made by subsection (c) shall
apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011.
(B) Eligibility for tin matching program.--Solely for
purposes of carrying out any TIN matching program established
by the Secretary under section 3406(i) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986--
(i) the amendments made this section shall be treated as
taking effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and
(ii) each person responsible for setting the standards and
mechanisms referred to in section 6050W(d)(2)(C) of such
Code, as added by this section, for settling transactions
involving payment cards shall be treated in the same manner
as a payment settlement entity.

SEC. 205. APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS LEVY TO PROPERTY SOLD OR
LEASED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 6331(h) is
amended by striking ``goods'' and inserting ``property''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to levies approved after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 206. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

(a) Repeal of Adjustment for 2012.--Subparagraph (B) of
section 401(1) of the Tax Increase Prevention and
Reconciliation Act of 2005 is amended by striking the
percentage contained therein and inserting ``100 percent''.
(b) Modification of Adjustment for 2013.--The percentage
under subparagraph (C) of section 401(1) of the Tax Increase
Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 in effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act is increased by 59.5
percentage points.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1297, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill is adopted
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 6275

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption
amount.
Sec. 102. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable
personal credits.

TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

[[Page 13733]]

Sec. 205. Application of continuous levy to property sold or leased to
the Federal Government.
Sec. 206. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

TITLE I--INDIVIDUAL TAX RELIEF

SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR
NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

SEC. 201. INCOME OF PARTNERS FOR PERFORMING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TREATED AS ORDINARY INCOME
RECEIVED FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES.

(a) In General.--Part I of subchapter K of chapter 1 is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 710. SPECIAL RULES FOR PARTNERS PROVIDING INVESTMENT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO PARTNERSHIP.

All items of income, gain, deduction, and loss which are
taken into account in computing net income or net loss shall
be treated as ordinary income or ordinary loss (as the case
may be).
``(2) Treatment of losses.--
``(A) Limitation.--Any net loss with respect to such
interest shall be allowed for any partnership taxable year
only to the extent that such loss does not exceed the excess
(if any) of--
``(i) the aggregate net income with respect to such
interest for all prior partnership taxable years, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
not disallowed under this subparagraph for all prior
partnership taxable years.
``(B) Carryforward.--Any net loss for any partnership
taxable year which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph
(A) shall be treated as an item of loss with respect to such
partnership interest for the succeeding partnership taxable
year.
``(C) Basis adjustment.--No adjustment to the basis of a
partnership interest shall be made on account of any net loss
which is not allowed by reason of subparagraph (A).
``(D) Exception for basis attributable to purchase of a
partnership interest.--In the case of an investment services
partnership interest acquired by purchase, paragraph (1)(B)
shall not apply to so much of any net loss with respect to
such interest for any taxable year as does not exceed the
excess of--
``(i) the basis of such interest immediately after such
purchase, over
``(ii) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
to which paragraph (1)(B) did not apply by reason of this
subparagraph for all prior taxable years.

Any net loss to which paragraph (1)(B) does not apply by
reason of this subparagraph shall not be taken into account
under subparagraph (A).
``(E) Prior partnership years.--Any reference in this
paragraph to prior partnership taxable years shall only
include prior partnership taxable years to which this section
applies.
``(3) Net income and loss.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) Net income.--The term `net income' means, with
respect to any investment services partnership interest, for
any partnership taxable year, the excess (if any) of--
``(i) all items of income and gain taken into account by
the holder of such interest under section 702 with respect to
such interest for such year, over
``(ii) all items of deduction and loss so taken into
account.
``(B) Net loss.--The term `net loss' means with respect to
such interest for such year, the excess (if any) of the
amount described in subparagraph (A)(ii) over the amount
described in subparagraph (A)(i).
``(b) Dispositions of Partnership Interests.--
``(1) Gain.--Any gain on the disposition of an investment
services partnership interest shall be treated as ordinary
income for the performance of services.
``(2) Loss.--Any loss on the disposition of an investment
services partnership interest shall be treated as an ordinary
loss to the extent of the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the aggregate net income with respect to such
interest for all partnership taxable years, over
``(B) the aggregate net loss with respect to such interest
allowed under subsection (a)(2) for all partnership taxable
years.
``(3) Disposition of portion of interest.--In the case of
any disposition of an investment services partnership
interest, the amount of net loss which otherwise would have
(but for subsection (a)(2)(C)) applied to reduce the basis of
such interest shall be disregarded for purposes of this
section for all succeeding partnership taxable years.
``(4) Distributions of partnership property.--In the case
of any distribution of property by a partnership with respect
to any investment services partnership interest held by a
partner--
``(A) the excess (if any) of--
``(i) the fair market value of such property at the time of
such distribution, over
``(ii) the adjusted basis of such property in the hands of
the partnership,
shall be taken into account as an increase in such partner's
distributive share of the taxable income of the partnership
(except to the extent such excess is otherwise taken into
account in determining the taxable income of the
partnership),
``(B) such property shall be treated for purposes of
subpart B of part II as money distributed to such partner in
an amount equal to such fair market value, and
``(C) the basis of such property in the hands of such
partner shall be such fair market value.
Subsection (b) of section 734 shall be applied without regard
to the preceding sentence.
``(5) Application of section 751.--In applying section
751(a), an investment services partnership interest shall be
treated as an inventory item.
``(c) Investment Services Partnership Interest.--For
purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `investment services
partnership interest' means any interest in a partnership
which is held by any person if such person provides (directly
or indirectly) a substantial quantity of any of the following
services with respect to the assets of the partnership in the
conduct of the trade or business of providing such services:
``(A) Advising as to the advisability of investing in,
purchasing, or selling any specified asset.
``(B) Managing, acquiring, or disposing of any specified
asset.
``(C) Arranging financing with respect to acquiring
specified assets.
``(D) Any activity in support of any service described in
subparagraphs (A) through (C).
For purposes of this paragraph, the term `specified asset'
means securities (as defined in section 475(c)(2) without
regard to the last sentence thereof), real estate,
commodities (as defined in section 475(e)(2))), or options or
derivative contracts with respect to securities (as so
defined), real estate, or commodities (as so defined).
``(2) Exception for certain capital interests.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) a portion of an investment services partnership
interest is acquired on account of a contribution of invested
capital, and
``(ii) the partnership makes a reasonable allocation of
partnership items between the portion of the distributive
share that is with respect to invested capital and the
portion of such distributive share that is not with respect
to invested capital,

then subsection (a) shall not apply to the portion of the
distributive share that is with respect to invested capital.
An allocation will not be treated as reasonable for purposes
of this subparagraph if such allocation would result in the
partnership allocating a greater portion of income to
invested capital than any other partner not providing
services would have been allocated with respect to the same
amount of invested capital.
``(B) Special rule for dispositions.--In any case to which
subparagraph (A) applies, subsection (b) shall not apply to
any gain or loss allocable to invested capital. The portion
of any gain or loss attributable to invested capital is the
proportion of such gain or loss which is based on the
distributive share of gain or loss that would have been
allocable to invested capital under subparagraph (A) if the
partnership sold all of its assets immediately before the
disposition.
``(C) Invested capital.--For purposes of this paragraph,
the term `invested capital' means, the fair market value at
the time of contribution of any money or other property
contributed to the partnership.
``(D) Treatment of certain loans.--
``(i) Proceeds of partnership loans not treated as invested
capital of service providing partners.--For purposes of this
paragraph, an investment services partnership interest shall
not be treated as acquired on account of a contribution of
invested capital to the extent that such capital is
attributable to the proceeds of any loan or other advance
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by any partner or
the partnership.
``(ii) Loans from nonservice providing partners to the
partnership treated as invested capital.--For purposes of
this paragraph, any loan or other advance to the partnership
made or guaranteed, directly or indirectly, by a partner not
providing services to the

[[Page 13734]]

partnership shall be treated as invested capital of such
partner and amounts of income and loss treated as allocable
to invested capital shall be adjusted accordingly.
``(d) Other Income and Gain in Connection With Investment
Management Services.--
``(1) In general.--If--
``(A) a person performs (directly or indirectly) investment
management services for any entity,
``(B) such person holds a disqualified interest with
respect to such entity, and
``(C) the value of such interest (or payments thereunder)
is substantially related to the amount of income or gain
(whether or not realized) from the assets with respect to
which the investment management services are performed,
any income or gain with respect to such interest shall be
treated as ordinary income for the performance of services.
Rules similar to the rules of subsection (c)(2) shall apply
where such interest was acquired on account of invested
capital in such entity.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
``(A) Disqualified interest.--The term `disqualified
interest' means, with respect to any entity--
``(i) any interest in such entity other than indebtedness,
``(ii) convertible or contingent debt of such entity,
``(iii) any option or other right to acquire property
described in clause (i) or (ii), and
``(iv) any derivative instrument entered into (directly or
indirectly) with such entity or any investor in such entity.
Such term shall not include a partnership interest and shall
not include stock in a taxable corporation.
``(B) Taxable corporation.--The term `taxable corporation'
means--
``(i) a domestic C corporation, or
``(ii) a foreign corporation subject to a comprehensive
foreign income tax.
``(C) Investment management services.--The term `investment
management services' means a substantial quantity of any of
the services described in subsection (c)(1) which are
provided in the conduct of the trade or business of providing
such services.
``(D) Comprehensive foreign income tax.--The term
`comprehensive foreign income tax' means, with respect to any
foreign corporation, the income tax of a foreign country if--
``(i) such corporation is eligible for the benefits of a
comprehensive income tax treaty between such foreign country
and the United States, or
``(ii) such corporation demonstrates to the satisfaction of
the Secretary that such foreign country has a comprehensive
income tax.
``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary or appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section, including regulations to--
``(1) prevent the avoidance of the purposes of this
section, and
``(2) coordinate this section with the other provisions of
this subchapter.
``(f) Cross Reference.--For 40 percent no fault penalty on
certain underpayments due to the avoidance of this section,
see section 6662.''.
(b) Application to Real Estate Investment Trusts.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 856 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) Exception from recharacterization of income from
investment services partnership interests.--
``(A) In general.--Paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) shall be
applied without regard to section 710 (relating to special
rules for partners providing investment management services
to partnership).
``(B) Special rule for partnerships owned by reits.--
Section 7704 shall be applied without regard to section 710
in the case of a partnership which meets each of the
following requirements:
``(i) Such partnership is treated as publicly traded under
section 7704 solely by reason of interests in such
partnership being convertible into interests in a real estate
investment trust which is publicly traded.
``(ii) 50 percent or more of the capital and profits
interests of such partnership are owned, directly or
indirectly, at all times during the taxable year by such real
estate investment trust (determined with the application of
section 267(c)).
``(iii) Such partnership meets the requirements of
paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) (applied without regard to
section 710).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (4) of section 7704(d)
is amended by inserting ``(determined without regard to
section 856(c)(8))'' after ``856(c)(2)''.
(c) Imposition of Penalty on Underpayments.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (b) of section 6662 is amended
by inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
``(6) The application of subsection (d) of section 710 or
the regulations prescribed under section 710(e) to prevent
the avoidance of the purposes of section 710.''.
(2) Amount of penalty.--
(A) In general.--Section 6662 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(i) Increase in Penalty in Case of Property Transferred
for Investment Management Services.--In the case of any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6), subsection (a) shall be applied
with respect to such portion by substituting `40 percent' for
`20 percent'.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--Subparagraph (B) of section
6662A(e)(2) is amended--
(i) by striking ``section 6662(h)'' and inserting
``subsection (h) or (i) of section 6662'', and
(ii) by striking ``gross valuation misstatement penalty''
in the heading and inserting ``certain increased underpayment
penalties''.
(3) Reasonable cause exception not applicable.--Subsection
(c) of section 6664 is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(3) and (4), respectively,
(B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' in paragraph (4), as so
redesignated, and inserting ``paragraph (3)'', and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new
paragraph:
``(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any
portion of an underpayment to which this section applies by
reason of subsection (b)(6).''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (d) of section 731 is amended by inserting
``section 710(b)(4) (relating to distributions of partnership
property),'' before ``section 736''.
(2) Section 741 is amended by inserting ``or section 710
(relating to special rules for partners providing investment
management services to partnership)'' before the period at
the end.
(3) Paragraph (13) of section 1402(a) is amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 received by an individual who provides investment
management services (as defined in section 710(d)(2));''.
(4) Paragraph (12) of section 211(a) of the Social Security
Act is amended--
(A) by striking ``other than guaranteed'' and inserting
``other than--
``(A) guaranteed'',
(B) by striking the semicolon at the end and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) any income treated as ordinary income under section
710 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 received by an
individual who provides investment management services (as
defined in section 710(d)(2) of such Code);''.
(5) The table of sections for part I of subchapter K of
chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``Sec. 710. Special rules for partners providing investment management
services to partnership.''.

SEC. 202. LIMITATION OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO
DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, GAS, OR PRIMARY
PRODUCTS THEREOF.

(a) Denial of Deduction for Major Integrated Oil Companies
for Income Attributable to Domestic Production of Oil, Gas,
or Primary Products Thereof.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4)
(relating to exceptions) is amended by striking ``or'' at the
end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of
clause (iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after
clause (iii) the following new clause:
``(iv) in the case of any major integrated oil company (as
defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)), the production, refining,
processing, transportation, or distribution of oil, gas, or
any primary product thereof during any taxable year described
in section 167(h)(5)(B).''.
(2) Primary product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) is amended by
adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has
the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in
effect before its repeal.''.
(b) Limitation on Oil Related Qualified Production
Activities Income for Taxpayers Other Than Major Integrated
Oil Companies.--
(1) In general.--Section 199(d) is amended by redesignating
paragraph (9) as paragraph (10) and by inserting after
paragraph (8) the following new paragraph:

[[Page 13735]]

``(9) Special rule for taxpayers with oil related qualified
production activities income.--
``(A) In general.--If a taxpayer (other than a major
integrated oil company (as defined in section 167(h)(5)(B)))
has oil related qualified production activities income for
any taxable year beginning after 2009, the amount of the
deduction under subsection (a) shall be reduced by 3 percent
of the least of--
``(i) the oil related qualified production activities
income of the taxpayer for the taxable year,
``(ii) the qualified production activities income of the
taxpayer for the taxable year, or
``(iii) taxable income (determined without regard to this
section).
``(B) Oil related qualified production activities income.--
The term `oil related qualified production activities income'
means for any taxable year the qualified production
activities income which is attributable to the production,
refining, processing, transportation, or distribution of oil,
gas, or any primary product thereof during such taxable
year.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 199(d)(2) (relating to
application to individuals) is amended by striking
``subsection (a)(1)(B)'' and inserting ``subsections
(a)(1)(B) and (d)(9)(A)(iii)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 203. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.

SEC. 204. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE IN SETTLEMENT OF
PAYMENT CARD AND THIRD PARTY NETWORK
TRANSACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part III of subchapter A of
chapter 61 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 6050W. RETURNS RELATING TO PAYMENTS MADE IN SETTLEMENT
OF PAYMENT CARD AND THIRD PARTY NETWORK
TRANSACTIONS.

``(a) In General.--Each payment settlement entity shall
make a return for each calendar year setting forth--
``(1) the name, address, and TIN of each participating
payee to whom one or more payments in settlement of
reportable payment transactions are made, and
``(2) the gross amount of the reportable payment
transactions with respect to each such participating payee.
Such return shall be made at such time and in such form and
manner as the Secretary may require by regulations.
``(b) Payment Settlement Entity.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `payment settlement entity'
means--
``(A) in the case of a payment card transaction, the
merchant acquiring bank, and
``(B) in the case of a third party network transaction, the
third party settlement organization.
``(2) Merchant acquiring bank.--The term `merchant
acquiring bank' means the bank or other organization which
has the contractual obligation to make payment to
participating payees in settlement of payment card
transactions.
``(3) Third party settlement organization.--The term `third
party settlement organization' means the central organization
which has the contractual obligation to make payment to
participating payees of third party network transactions.
``(4) Special rules related to intermediaries.--For
purposes of this section--
``(A) Aggregated payees.--In any case where reportable
payment transactions of more than one participating payee are
settled through an intermediary--
``(i) such intermediary shall be treated as the
participating payee for purposes of determining the reporting
obligations of the payment settlement entity with respect to
such transactions, and
``(ii) such intermediary shall be treated as the payment
settlement entity with respect to the settlement of such
transactions with the participating payees.
``(B) Electronic payment facilitators.--In any case where
an electronic payment facilitator or other third party makes
payments in settlement of reportable payment transactions on
behalf of the payment settlement entity, the return under
subsection (a) shall be made by such electronic payment
facilitator or other third party in lieu of the payment
settlement entity.
``(c) Reportable Payment Transaction.--For purposes of this
section--
``(1) In general.--The term `reportable payment
transaction' means any payment card transaction and any third
party network transaction.
``(2) Payment card transaction.--The term `payment card
transaction' means any transaction in which a payment card is
accepted as payment.
``(3) Third party network transaction.--The term `third
party network transaction' means any transaction which is
settled through a third party payment network.
``(d) Other Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Participating payee.--
``(A) In general.--The term `participating payee' `'
means--
``(i) in the case of a payment card transaction, any person
who accepts a payment card as payment, and
``(ii) in the case of a third party network transaction,
any person who accepts payment from a third party settlement
organization in settlement of such transaction.
``(B) Exclusion of foreign persons.--Except as provided by
the Secretary in regulations or other guidance, such term
shall not include any person with a foreign address.
``(C) Inclusion of governmental units.--The term `person'
includes any governmental unit (and any agency or
instrumentality thereof).
``(2) Payment card.--The term `payment card' means any card
which is issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which
provides for--
``(A) one or more issuers of such cards,
``(B) a network of persons unrelated to each other, and to
the issuer, who agree to accept such cards as payment, and
``(C) standards and mechanisms for settling the
transactions between the merchant acquiring banks and the
persons who agree to accept such cards as payment.

[[Page 13736]]

``(f) Statements To Be Furnished to Persons With Respect to
Whom Information Is Required.--Every person required to make
a return under subsection (a) shall furnish to each person
with respect to whom such a return is required a written
statement showing--
``(1) the name, address, and phone number of the
information contact of the person required to make such
return, and
``(2) the gross amount of the reportable payment
transactions with respect to the person required to be shown
on the return.

The written statement required under the preceding sentence
shall be furnished to the person on or before January 31 of
the year following the calendar year for which the return
under subsection (a) was required to be made. Such statement
may be furnished electronically.
``(g) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as may be necessary or
appropriate to carry out this section, including rules to
prevent the reporting of the same transaction more than
once.''.
(b) Penalty for Failure To File.--
(1) Return.--Subparagraph (B) of section 6724(d)(1) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xx),
(B) by redesignating the clause (xix) that follows clause
(xx) as clause (xxi),
(C) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (xxi), as
redesignated by subparagraph (B) and inserting ``or'', and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(xxii) section 6050W (relating to returns to payments
made in settlement of payment card transactions), and''.
(2) Statement.--Paragraph (2) of section 6724(d) is amended
by inserting a comma at the end of subparagraph (BB), by
striking the period at the end of the subparagraph (CC) and
inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after subparagraph (CC)
the following:
``(DD) section 6050W(c) (relating to returns relating to
payments made in settlement of payment card transactions).''.
(c) Application of Backup Withholding.--Paragraph (3) of
section 3406(b) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (E) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding at the
end the following new subparagraph:
``(F) section 6050W (relating to returns relating to
payments made in settlement of payment card transactions).''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
B of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 6050V the
following:

``Sec. 6050W. Returns relating to payments made in settlement of
payment card and third party network transactions.''.

SEC. 205. APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS LEVY TO PROPERTY SOLD OR
LEASED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

SEC. 206. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

{time} 1315

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, some time ago, in an effort to make certain that 159
taxpayers who are very wealthy had some tax liability, the Congress at
that time passed the alternative minimum tax. What they neglected to do
was to index the tax structure for inflation, and as a result we find
people making 30, 40, $50,000 caught up as though they were wealthy
taxpayers trying to avoid or evade their tax liability.
Now, the President should know, as other Presidents, that this is a
very, very unfair tax. The truth of the matter is it should not even be
in this structure. But in the close to 7 years that the President has
been in office, he has not seen fit to give us a tax reform bill so
that we can do what everyone in this House would want done, and that is
to eliminate this fiscal threat from now some 25 million taxpayers.
So what do we have to do? Every year we have to come down and so-
called ``patch it'' because, politically speaking, no one is going to
go home and say that they did nothing about it.
So what is the difference between what we want to do in the majority
and the other side? Well, if you listen carefully, you would see that
the President has put this AMT in every budget except the one we have
this year, which means that in the budget he never intends to remove it
or have it removed. What does putting it in the budget mean? It means
that you expect the money that would be coming from the alternative
minimum tax to be there to spend. I can understand that, except that
Congress says that we're not going to collect that money. So what we
would believe is that if we're taking $61 billion out of the economy
that we shouldn't go to China and Japan and ask them once again to bail
us out but we should take a look at the Tax Code and to find out just
what things in the Tax Code, what preferential treatment, what
loopholes are there so that when we repair the AMT, at least for this
year, we will be able to say we didn't borrow the money and we didn't
put this burden on our children and our grandchildren.
So the four areas that we concentrated on to raise the money to get
this bill passed is the carried interest. What is that? All it says is
that if two groups of people, one a corporation and the other a
partnership, are managing someone else's money and if, indeed, they
don't put their own money in it, that the tax rate should be 35
percent. Somehow a group has manipulated the system, made themselves a
partnership, said they didn't put in their own money, but they still
consider it a capital investment, and they are now taxed at the rate of
15 percent. We think it's unequal, it's wrong, and we correct it.
The other area that we have a concern about is people who use tax
havens for money earned in the United States to avoid taxes. They put
it overseas. In the area of credit cards, we have the major credit card
holders that reimburse vendors, and all we ask the vendors to do is to
report the money they've had for reimbursement. And then, of course, we
have our oil industry that received tax credits that they were not
entitled to, and certainly at the obscene profits they're making, I
hate to believe that someone believes that the government should
further subsidize the moneys that they're making.
So, Mr. Speaker, it's going to be interesting to see how the other
side explains as to why they don't have to pay for this. Certainly, if
indeed we do nothing, $61 billion of tax burden is going to fall on 25
million good American taxpayers, and we want to fill that gap of the
$61 billion. The other side says it doesn't exist, and so I can't wait
to sit down so I can listen to their very interesting argument.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today's bill, Mr. Speaker, represents a clear difference between the
two parties in the House when it comes to tax policy. Republicans
believe that Congress should not raise taxes on one group of taxpayers
in order to prevent a tax increase on another set of taxpayers. To say
that another way, we don't believe we ought to have to raise taxes to
preserve something that's already in the Tax Code.
Now, we are certainly for continuing to patch the alternative minimum
tax. That's been the practice for the last

[[Page 13737]]

several years. The President, in his budget for the last several years,
has had an AMT patch in his budget without increasing taxes on somebody
else. So we are certainly for that. But we are not for imposing a tax
increase in a like amount on another set of taxpayers. That just
doesn't make sense to us.
Without this patch, another 21 million families would come under the
AMT, and their average tax increase would be about $2,400 per taxpayer.
So we certainly want to prevent that. But in 2007, we had the patch in
place; so we did not collect the AMT revenue from those 21 million
taxpayers. And yet we collected, last year, in revenues to the Federal
Government, about 18.7, 18.8 percent of gross domestic product. The
historic average of revenues coming into the Federal Government for the
last 40 years has been about 18.3 percent of GDP. So last year with the
AMT patch in place, those 21 million taxpayers protected from the AMT,
we brought in substantially more in revenues to the Federal Government
than we have historically.
So why, then, should we be so intent on increasing taxes to prevent
those 21 million taxpayers from paying $2,400 apiece more in taxes in
2008? The only explanation is somebody just wants to get more revenue
into the Federal Government. Now, they may say, well, we want to do
that because the deficit is really high and we want to get the deficit
down. Well, I wonder, if we took a poll across America, how many
Americans would say, ``Yes, I want to get the deficit down and I want
to do it by raising taxes'' and how many Americans would say, ``Yes, I
want to get the deficit down, but I want to do it by controlling
spending''? My guess is more Americans would say, ``I want to get the
deficit down by controlling spending.'' But the PAYGO rules that are in
effect, while they give us the opportunity to reduce spending to ``pay
for'' all of these things, not once have we seen a cut in spending
being offered by the majority to pay for any of these items. It's
always a tax increase.
So, yes, if you want to get the deficit down to zero, you can do it
by increasing taxes, and under the PAYGO baseline, if we were to follow
it, we would continue to increase the take of the Federal Government
from American taxpayers until at the end of a 10-year window we'd be
taking in 20.5 percent of GDP, an historic high, or pretty close to an
historic high, and certainly only a couple times in our Nation's
history have we even approached that level of revenues coming into the
Federal Government.
Now, I think it's a legitimate question as to what is the appropriate
level of GDP that we should bring in to the Federal Government, and
Chairman Rangel alluded to that in his statement by saying that, I
believe he said, the President hasn't offered a tax reform plan. That's
true, I guess, he hasn't. But you know what? Under the Constitution,
the President can't even introduce a bill, much less pass one. That's
the job of the Congress.
So if we want to do tax reform, which I think is appropriate, we
ought to have this discussion about what is the appropriate level of
revenue that we should bring in? What is the appropriate take of the
Federal Government of everything that Americans make? Is it 18.3
percent, the historic average? Is it 18.7 percent, what we took in last
year? Or is it 20.5 percent? I don't know what the magic number is, but
that's a legitimate debate, and we ought to have that debate in the
context of writing a new tax system for the United States that is more
modern, more efficient, and more competitive. So I hope that the
chairman will, in his constitutional prerogative as the chairman of the
Ways and Means Committee, undertake that task, have that debate, so
that we can solve this problem once and for all of the AMT, the
complexity of the code, and the continuing diminution of
competitiveness that we enjoy with our tax system, vis-a-vis our
competitors around the world.
This bill employs some pay-fors, some tax increases, that I believe
would be onerous and would add to the lack of competitiveness in our
Tax Code. For example, there is a provision that would, for the first
time, ignore tax treaties that we have entered into in good faith with
other countries around the world and would impose upon companies doing
business, foreign companies doing business, through a United States
subsidiary in this country, creating jobs in this country, a 30 percent
tax, despite the fact that we have a tax treaty that says that company
would get a deduction for that income and would not have to pay that 30
percent tax because they'd be paying taxes in the country where we have
a tax treaty.
Now, yes, they say, well, but the ultimate parent is somewhere where
there's not a tax treaty, but that still violates the spirit of the tax
treaty that we have with the country where the immediate parent of the
United States subsidiary resides. That change in our Tax Code would
discourage at the margin that capital from coming to this country,
being invested in this country, and creating jobs in this country.
Those companies that I'm talking about employ a substantial number of
Americans; 5.3 million Americans are employed by those kinds of
companies. Do we want to jeopardize those jobs? And 19 percent of all
United States exports, helping us a little bit to get the balance of
trade going our way, 19 percent of all exports come from companies like
that. And just last year they reinvested nearly $71 billion back into
their United States operations. That's capital, that's investment that
we should want here and not discourage through tax changes like the one
in this bill.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Members of this body that we
ought to reject the majority's offering that they put forward today to
save 21 million taxpayers from coming under the AMT because they would
impose a like amount of tax increase on another set of taxpayers. Let's
not increase taxes on any set of taxpayers, certainly not in this
fragile economy.
We will later offer a motion to recommit that corrects the error,
that strips the bill of the pay-fors, and it would allow this body to
vote on a clean AMT patch to save those 21 million taxpayers from the
increased tax burden but not increase taxes on somebody else.

{time} 1330

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RANGEL. I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.

General Leave

Mr. RANGEL. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 6275, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor to
this bill that will give Alternative Minimum Tax Relief to those
families in my district and the entire State of Florida who will be
unfairly hit with this tax in 2008.
While the AMT was not intended to burden our working families, now in
2008 it does. Initially, the AMT applied to fewer than 20,000
taxpayers. In 2007, it applied to 4.2 million taxpayers. By 2008, up to
26 million taxpayers are projected to be subject to the AMT. Moreover,
it is the middle- to upper-middle-income taxpayers who are the targets
of this tax. It is our married taxpayers and larger families that are
especially going to fall under this tax.
An astounding increase in the number of working families in Florida
will be hurt by the AMT in 2008 if something is not done. It is
projected that over six times the number of working families will be
hurt by the AMT in my State of Florida in 2008 than were hurt by this
tax in 2005. In 2005, there were 161,000 AMT returns filed in the State
of Florida. However, in 2008, it is estimated that 956,000 AMT returns
will be filed in Florida--a more than six times increase between 2005
and 2008.
In 2007, Florida ranked seventh in the number of returns that were
caught. with the Alternative Minimum Tax burden. However, in 2008,
Florida is projected to rank fifth in the number of returns caught with
the AMT. So even in the one year, 2007 to 2008, the number of working
families in Florida caught with the AMT has increased tremendously.
Originally, the AMT was intended to cover only America's high-income
taxpayers to ensure that they pay at least a minimum amount

[[Page 13738]]

of federal taxes. But now, it is not this group that will be the most
adversely affected by the AMT. It is our hard-working families--over
950,000 hard-working families in Florida alone that will be hit
unintentionally and unfairly with this tax. This is not what the AMT
was intended to do, and it is time for those families in Florida and
elsewhere to get badly needed relief from this tax.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the middle class is hurting. They are
facing tough decisions over rising gas, food, and health care prices.
Adding to their economic dilemma, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, may
reach many of them this coming year. Today, we will vote on H.R. 6275,
the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, which would provide
relief to middle class taxpayers by avoiding the AMT.
The original intent behind the AMT was to guarantee that the
wealthiest Americans paid their fair share of taxes. However, the AMT
was not adjusted for inflation and hard-working Americans were lumped
into this tax. Today, the Congress must act to prevent 25.6 million
middle income Americans being liable for paying thousands of dollars in
additional taxes.
Restructuring the tax code will more fairly distribute the tax
burden. H.R. 6275 will tax private equity managers, who actually pay
lower taxes on carried interest and repeal unnecessary Government
subsidies for the big five oil companies reaping record profits and on
multinational corporations who offshore their businesses for the
express purpose of tax avoidance. It is unconscionable that our tax
code allows these corporations to avoid taxes while hard-working
Americans get hit with a stern tax and pay extremely high gas prices at
the pump. This legislation closes these major tax loopholes.
H.R. 6275 restores America's tradition of giving a helping hand to
those in need. We need to stop the giveaways to Big Oil and Wall Street
brokers and begin to focus on the needs of average working Americans.
This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to
support the bill.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the AMT Relief
Act. Once again, we are considering a one-year ``patch'' for the AMT.
This bill will protect over 25 million families who would otherwise be
forced to pay higher taxes under the AMT through no fault of their own.
We all know that the AMT was never meant to apply to middle-class
families, and I think we all agree that we need to find a permanent fix
to this problem.
But once again, the minority wants to insist that we provide this tax
relief in a fiscally irresponsible manner. Patching the AMT for 2008
without offsets would increase the deficit by $61 billion. Our
colleagues in the minority will argue that because Congress never meant
for this to happen, or that because it maintains the status quo for
taxpayers, we don't have to pay for it.
The reality is that we pay for it one way or another. The minority
would have us borrow the money and make our children pay for it.
Let me say a word about the offsets we've used here, because this
bill is paid for with provisions that end basic inequities in our tax
code.
The Joint Committee on Taxation's revenue estimate for the carried
interest provision indicates that over $150 billion in income will be
taxed at capital gains rates rather than ordinary income rates if we do
not make this change. This is a lot of income, and according to the
Joint Committee, this is not going to ``mom and pop'' operations, a
common reference by those arguing against this provision.
For anyone who thinks there are ``mom and pop'' private equity funds,
or that this is essentially about ``mom and pop'' real estate
developers, let me quote the Joint Committee on Taxation. In a memo to
the Ways and Means Committee staff, the Joint Committee writes: ``We
assumed that nearly all recipients [of carried interest] would be at
the highest marginal tax rate.'' The top tax bracket for married
couples starts at $357,000 in taxable income. Claims made that the
carried interest issue is about ``mom and pop'' business owners just
are not credible.
More generally though, treating carried interest as ordinary income
is not about raising taxes, it's about fairness. Investment fund
managers should not pay a lower tax rate on their compensation for
services than other Americans. The only thing this does is say to the
fund managers, if you're providing a service, in this case managing
assets for your investors, you ought to be taxed on that compensation
at the same rates as everyone else.
If they have their own money in the funds they manage, they will
still get capital gains treatment on that portion of the profits. This
is no different in concept than options for corporate executives. They
are both incentive compensation to encourage performance, and carried
interest should be taxed at ordinary rates like stock options.
The argument that this proposal will hurt economic growth or even
pension plans is just disingenuous. If it will hurt growth, why have
senior economic advisers to the last three Republican Presidents
publicly supported this proposal? Real estate partnerships, including
those that don't use carried interest at all, earn less than 10 percent
of all income from real estate development and construction.
Regarding the oil and gas provisions, I think it's important to look
at the history of how these companies got these subsidies in the first
place. In 2004 we had to replace the FSC provisions of our tax code
because of a WTO ruling. We replaced them with a deduction to encourage
domestic manufacturing.
The minority, then in the majority, added the oil and gas industries
to what was supposd to be a deduction for manufacturers, even though
the FSC provisions we were replacing had nothing to do with oil and
gas. This was an unjustified giveaway then, and it is only fair that we
correct the situation, especially now that oil companies are earning
record profits. ExxonMobil alone earned $40.6 billion in 2007, a U.S.
corporate record.
So, Mr. Speaker, this bill protects middle-class families from the
AMT, it's fiscally responsible and it makes our tax code fairer. I urge
all my colleagues to support it.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6275,
Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.
H.R. 6275 is critical to easing the burden on middle-class taxpayers.
The Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, was originally intended to make sure
that the Nation's wealthiest citizens did not avoid paying taxes
altogether. However, it was not indexed for inflation and the AMT now
affects millions of middle income tax payers across the country. H.R.
6275 would extend for 1 year AMT relief for nonrefundable personal
credits and increases the AMT exemption amount to $69,950 for joint
filers and $46,200 for individuals. At a time of economic uncertainty
and rising gas and food prices, H.R. 6275 would provide over 25 million
families with tax relief. In my district alone, over 33,000 families
would be affected by the AMT this year.
As a member of the Budget Committee, I am also pleased that this bill
includes offsets and is budget-neutral. Instead of adding to our
national debt, H.R. 6275 responsibly pays for itself by closing a
loophole that allows hedge fund managers to pay less taxes, encouraging
tax compliance, repealing subsidies for the five biggest oil companies,
and tightening tax laws on foreign-owned companies. I support H.R.
6275, Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in voting for its passage.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of the Ways and Means
Committee is that fairness is always the order of the day. Fairness in
priorities. Fairness in legislation. H.R. 6275 exemplifies this fact.
Our bill will provide $62 billion in AMT relief to more than 25
million families nationwide.
In my district alone, almost 80,000 people are on track to endure the
significant tax increase of the AMT this year if we do not act now.
That's up from 20,000 people in 2005.
Many of the people affected would be firefighters, cops and
teachers--a far cry from the original intent of the AMT. Indeed, the
middle class is being more and more affected--your constituents and
mine. And it's only getting worse.
Unfortunately there are those on the other side of the aisle who will
not vote today for the best interests of their constituents.
Instead, they will choose to cast their vote for the Kings of Wall
Street who are already the richest people in the history of our Nation.
We pay for this bill, in part, by simply requiring that investment
fund managers are taxed at the same income rates as every other
American. After all, why should the very richest among us be taxed at
15 percent when a doctor or lawyer pays 35 percent? Or when a teacher
or plumber, et cetera, is taxed at 25?
Yet because of this provision, many Republicans will be unable to
vote for real tax relief for their constituents. I find this as
inexplicable as I do sad.
This legislation is wise and it is fair. It will give tax relief to
25 million hard-working Americans while ensuring fairness in the tax
code. So try to explain to the firefighters and cops in your district
that you wanted to take care of investment fund managers instead.
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. I am pleased to
see that once again you have presented a responsible solution to the
alternative minimum tax from a broad, policy-oriented perspective.
The alternative minimum tax is a critical issue for the American
middle class taxpayer

[[Page 13739]]

who does not get to take advantage of sophisticated tax planning and
legal loopholes in the tax code. It is time that we addressed this
issue once and for all to relieve the American taxpayer from the agony
of dealing with the AMT. A permanent patch is what we really need, but
today we have to plug the dike once again.
If you'll recall, in 1969 the public outcry was so loud about the
original 155 families who owed no Federal income taxes that Congress
received more letters from constituents about that than about the
Vietnam war.
It is particularly ironic that a tax that was meant for 155 wealthy
individuals has become the bane of existence for millions of American
taxpayers. Indeed the AMT has become a menace. Over 31,000 hardworking,
middle-class Ohioans in my district had the grim task of filing a
return with AMT implications in the 2005 tax year.
Without this legislation that number would surely grow. Those are
families with children, healthcare costs, unemployment issues, housing
costs and the other money matters with which American taxpayers must
cope, not to mention higher gas prices. Tax relief is due.
As I mentioned after the introduction of H.R. 2834, the carried
interest legislation sponsored by my colleague, Sander Levin, we must
continue to laud the efforts of American capitalists and the strides
that they make in enhancing and creating liquidity in our capital
markets, and helping our economy grow into the dynamic force that it is
today. I am also aware of the critical role that private equity firms
play in our economy. We must be aware that this change in taxation can
have a deleterious effect on some small venture capital and minority-
owned firms. The color of money is green, but if you are smaller than
Blackstone or Carlyle, your firm might be seeing red. But we must also
have responsible budget offsets.
The tenets of sound tax policy begin with the notions of equity,
efficiency and simplicity. Relying on that traditional framework I am
sure that we have come to a rational consensus that will ensure 25
million more Americans will not be hit with the AMT.
``Taxes are what we pay to live in civilized society,'' but dealing
with the AMT has become a bit uncivil.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Rangel for his leadership
and I am proud of our work to protect 25 million American taxpayers--
including half a million people in Southeastern Pennsylvania--from the
pain of the Alternative Minimum Tax. True to their record of increasing
debt, the Republicans continue to say, ``there's no need to offset AMT
relief because this tax was never intended to hit these people.''
But in 2001 they knew that the Bush tax cuts would increase--by
127%--the number of AMT taxpayers this year. And they consistently used
these taxpayers to mask the true cost of their failed fiscal policies.
We cannot ignore the consequences of these bad decisions. We are
committed to reversing the Bush Administration's policy and fiscal
failures. We are committed to enacting permanent--fiscally
responsible--AMT relief for middle income taxpayers. And we are
committed to act today to protect millions of Americans from the AMT
this year without adding to the Nation's exploding debt.
Mr. Speaker--given the economic downturn and financial challenges
facing our families and our Nation, our constituents have the right to
expect fair and responsible tax policy. Today's proposal to provide tax
relief to 25 million American families by closing loopholes that
benefit only the wealthiest individuals is fair, it is responsible, and
it deserves passage.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6275, the
Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008. As a member of the Ways and
Means Committee, I am proud to have helped craft this very important
tax bill that will give much needed relief to millions of American
taxpayers.
Unfortunately, over the last several years we have seen tax bills
pushed through Congress and signed by the President under the guise of
``relief'' for the middle class and the poorest in the country. I think
many in this chamber have now come to recognize that many of these
measures presented as tax relief for the middle class were in fact more
tax breaks for the richest in society. Today we finally have before us
a bill that will give real relief to millions of taxpayers, many of
whom are hardworking middle class families.
Specifically, H.R. 6275 provides for a 1-year patch for the
Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The AMT was developed in the 1970s to
ensure that America's wealthiest could not take advantage of the tax
code in a way that would allow them to avoid paying taxes altogether.
The AMT was not indexed for inflation, however, and without this
legislation it will reach into the pocketbooks of middle-class families
it was never intended to hit. In my district alone, the AMT could
affect 50,000 additional western Wisconsin families this year, many of
whom have no idea they face a tax increase. Without this legislation,
it is estimated that the AMT will hit an additional 538,970 taxpayers
in Wisconsin and 25 million nationally. It is hard for me to think of
something more important than protecting 25 million Americans from a
tax that was never intended for them.
Most importantly, this bill is fully offset and complies with pay-go
rules that the Democratic majority restored at the beginning of this
Congress. The legislation provides 1-year relief from the AMT without
adding to the deficit by closing loopholes in the tax code, encouraging
tax compliance, and repealing excessive government subsidies given to
oil companies. These changes establish fairness in the tax code and
show that we can provide tax relief without sending the debt on to our
children. After years of fiscal recklessness--deficit-financed tax cuts
for the wealthy and out-of-control government spending--this bill sets
a precedent of fiscally responsible tax reform.
Finally, I would like to thank Chairman Rangel for putting together
this common sense bill that is not only fair but does the right thing
by paying for the bill and fixing some inequities in the tax code. I
look forward to working with him to reform the tax code and for once
and for all put an end to the AMT and Congress having to do a yearly
patch.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support this sensible and fair tax
bill before us today. Protecting millions of taxpayers from being
caught by the AMT is of the utmost importance. I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 6275.
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, temporary tax relief should not be offset
with permanent tax increases that will stifle foreign direct investment
into this country.
The Alternative Minimum Tax is a mistaken tax policy. Originally
designed to tax the super-rich, it now covers many in the middle class,
particularly those with large families, because of inflation. Without
relief, 19 million Americans will see a tax increase of $2,000 next
year.
However, to temporarily correct this error by permanently raising
nearly $7 billion from foreigners who invest in the United States
simply makes a bad situation worse. We are finally attracting more
foreign investment into the United States. In 2007, foreign direct
investment rose to its highest levels in seven years, reaching over
$204 billion.
U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad now employ 5.3
million Americans, of which 30 percent work in the manufacturing
sector. Nineteen percent of all U.S. exports came from these firms and
they reinvested nearly $71 billion back into their U.S. operations.
In Illinois, U.S. subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad
employed over 226,000 workers, of which over 61,000 were in the
manufacturing sector. In fact, there are over 30 U.S. subsidiaries of
companies headquartered abroad that employ over 6,000 workers in the
northern Illinois district that I am proud to represent.
The offset used to ``pay for'' part of this AMT bill will strongly
discourage future foreign investment in the United States and will halt
any future progress on negotiating tax treaties with other countries.
For example, Nissan USA, which is owned by Nissan headquartered in
Japan, borrows money from their finance unit based in the Netherlands.
Under our current tax treaty with the Netherlands, no tax is applied.
However, under this bill a new 10 percent tax would be applied to this
transaction. The Netherlands will then most likely view this as an
abrogation of our tax treaty and will either seek renegotiation or
outright annulment, thus hurting our overall trade with the
Netherlands.
This is all a silly exercise. We all know how this will turn out
because the Senate will not agree to these offsets. However, this bill
sends a chilling message to our friends overseas that they will be
subject to a higher tax next year because this is the second time that
the Democratic Party has proposed this offset. Vote no on H.R. 6275 to
preserve jobs in your district and to send a signal that the U.S.
remains open to foreign direct investment.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, we all know this bill is purely a political
exercise. Congress will eventually pass an AMT patch that does not
contain permanent tax increases. All we are doing today is postponing
final action and risking a repeat of last year's delay that created
major headaches for taxpayers.
I believe we shouldn't be expanding the federal government's share of
the economy by pairing temporary extensions of tax relief with
permanent tax increases. I've heard a number of concerns from small
businesses about one of these offsets, a new reporting requirement for
credit card transactions. Last week, when the Ways and Means Committee
considered

[[Page 13740]]

this bill, we were told by the Treasury Department that they have not
done a cost-benefit analysis on this proposal. I fear we are going down
the same road as we did two years ago with the 3 percent withholding
requirement, which we've now learned will cost the government far more
than it will raise in revenue.
On top of that, this bill raises taxes on American energy producers.
This does nothing to reduce gas prices--in fact, it will only make them
higher. And there's simply no justification for a provision that
penalizes U.S. producers but doesn't affect subsidiaries of foreign-
owned firms. This legislation just doesn't make sense. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6275, the
Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008.
Forty years ago the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was originally
enacted to ensure that wealthiest Americans--like everyone else--paid
their fair share of taxes. Prior to the enactment of the AMT, the
wealthiest Americans were exploiting loopholes in the tax code to
circumvent their societal obligations. However this tax, which was
intended for a few hundred of the wealthiest Americans has never been
adjusted to account for inflation. Through inflation and tax-rate creep
the AMT has become a middle class tax hike.
We have been unable to pass a permanent fix to the AMT to prevent
middle class Americans from fearing that they will get hit by the AMT
every year. More families in Central New Jersey are affected by the AMT
than anywhere else in the country. Over 33,000 of my constituents
already pay the AMT, under the current law, and an additional 88,000 of
my constituents would be subject to the AMT if we do not act to prevent
the patch from expiring. American families are already suffering from
skyrocketing gas and food prices that they did not build into their
family budgets. Compounding this financial burden with an unexpected
and undeserved tax hike would hit New Jersey families hard. Yet, that
is what will happen if we do not take action today.
Mr. Speaker, I have long been concerned with the growing debt that we
are passing on to the next generation and have often called for a
revision of the AMT that will not increase our national debt. The
Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 makes good on our promise to
the American people that we will not spend money that Congress does not
have. This legislation will offer more than 25 million families relief
from the AMT without adding to the deficit. This will be achieved by
promoting tax compliance, removing inequities in the tax code, and
decreasing government subsidies to oil companies.
While I support this legislation, we need a permanent fix to ensure
that this tax intended for the wealthiest Americans is not passed down
to middle income Americans and do so in a fiscally responsible way.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this bill because
of the need to protect middle-income families from a massive tax
increase that will hit them if we do not act to adjust the Alternative
Minimum Tax, or AMT.
In technical terms, the bill would extend for one year AMT relief for
nonrefundable personal credits and increases the AMT exemption amount
to $69,950 for joint filers and $46,200 for individuals. In real-world
terms, that means it will prevent a tax increase for more than 28,000
Colorado households that otherwise would be required to pay more in
Federal income tax when returns are due next year. And so, Mr. Speaker,
the bill overall is properly focused on tax relief for middle class
families--a goal I strongly support.
Some of our colleagues say they will oppose the bill because it
includes provisions that would close loopholes and make other changes
in the tax laws in order to offset this tax relief. They evidently are
not concerned about the fact that the federal budget is deeply into
deficit spending.
I do have some reservations about how the bill seeks to provide AMT
tax relief without making our Federal deficit worse. But I do not take
a relaxed attitude to our fiscal problems, and think it is better to
avoid adding to them--and that is the purpose of the offset provisions
of the bill
One such provision would revise current law so investment fund
managers would no longer pay capital gains rates on the income they
receive for investment management services income that does not reflect
a reasonable return on their own invested capital. This change was
approved by the House last year in H.R. 3996, which I supported. In
addition, the bill would exclude from the domestic production deduction
the gross receipts derived from the sale, exchange or other disposition
of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof for large
integrated oil companies. And it would freeze at 6 percent--the rate
under current law--the domestic production deduction for income of
other taxpayers with respect to oil, natural gas or any primary product
thereof. This is also not new--it is a scaledback version of an
outright repeal of this deduction for all oil, natural gas or any
primary product thereof that passed the House last year.
And the bill would prevent foreign multinational corporations
incorporated in tax haven countries from avoiding tax on income earned
in the United States by routing their income through structures in
which a United States subsidiary corporation makes a deductible payment
to a country with which the United States has a tax treaty before
ultimately repatriating these earning in the tax haven country. This is
a scaled-back version of a previously approved by the House of
Representatives as part of H.R. 2419. Further, the bill includes a
proposal that was in the president's latest budget request that will
require institutions that make payments to merchants in settlement of
payment card transactions to file an information return with the IRS.
These provisions are not the only or perhaps even the best way to
offset the revenue costs of providing a temporary fix to the AMT--but
the bill's opponents have suggested no alternative except to cut
unspecified amounts of spending in unspecified parts of the budget or
to further add to the ``debt tax'' that has already been imposed on our
children (and their children) by the irresponsible policies of the last
seven years.
The Senate will have to consider the legislation further, and it is
possible that these provisions will be revised. But, in the meantime,
the bottom line is that today we have the opportunity to provide tax
relief to hundreds of thousands of middle-class families in Colorado. I
think that is something I think the House should do without delay, and
that is why I am voting for this bill.
Mr. RANGEL. I yield back the balance of my time, and ask for a vote
in favor of the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1297, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Mc Crery

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. McCRERY. I am opposed to the bill in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. McCrery of Louisiana moves to recommit the bill H.R.
6275 to the Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to
report the same back to the House promptly in the form to
which perfected at the time of this motion, with the
following amendments:
Page 4, after line 5, add the following new section:

SEC. 103. CHARITABLE MILEAGE RATE TREATED THE SAME AS MEDICAL
AND MOVING RATE.

(a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 170 (relating to
standard mileage rate for use of passenger automobile) is
amended by striking ``14 cents per mile'' and inserting ``the
rate determined for purposes of sections 213 and 217''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to miles driven on or after July 1, 2008.
Page 4, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 2
on page 37 (all of title II).

Mr. McCRERY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The majority's use of PAYGO has really twisted the logic of this
bumper-sticker-turned-budget-tool into a pretzel. In the last 2 weeks,
when PAYGO stood in the way of more government spending, it was ignored
or openly waived. But, today, the majority insists on new permanent tax
increases in exchange for a 1-year extension of needed tax relief. That
is not a good deal for anybody--a permanent tax increase to pay for a
temporary tax relief.
The motion that we have before us would save us from that fate. It
would

[[Page 13741]]

remove the tax increases in the bill, including the particularly
misguided higher taxes on energy production that would discourage
production here at home, that would further increase our energy
insecurity, that would reduce our energy supplies, and that would
increase prices.
Is that what we want to do? Do we want to increase the price of
gasoline? That is what the effect of this would be. This is a tax
increase on oil and gas companies--the companies that produce the oil,
the gasoline that we buy. Do we think that, if we increase taxes on
them, they are just going to absorb that? Of course not. They will pass
it through to the consumer, which will mean higher gasoline prices.
This is a terribly misguided part of this bill. The motion to
recommit would get rid of that ill-advised tax increase. So we get rid
of all the pay-fors in the bill. That's the first thing that the motion
to recommit does.
The second thing we do is we do provide some relief in this bill from
high gasoline prices to volunteers who use their vehicles to help
charities carry out their work. A lot of charities are telling us that
they are losing volunteers because of the high price of gasoline.
Now, the IRS has some authority to modify the tax deduction that
people can get from using gasoline in certain situations. So the IRS
did, this week in fact, implement a midyear increase in the standard
mileage deduction rates, increasing to 58\1/2\ cents the allowable
deduction for expenses incurred in operating a vehicle while carrying
on a trade or business, and raising to 27 cents per mile the deduction
for gasoline costs associated with transportation primarily for and
essential to receiving medical care and for travel while moving.
But the IRS could not raise the deduction that can be claimed by
individuals who use their car for charitable purposes, such as for
delivering Meals on Wheels. That has to be done legislatively. So our
motion to recommit would do just that. We would set the allowable
deduction for gasoline expenses for charitable purposes at the same
rate for medical care and for travel while moving, 27 cents per mile.
Meals on Wheels is one of those charities that has told us that they
are losing volunteers because of gas prices. Nearly half indicated that
increases in gas prices had forced them to eliminate meal delivery
routes or to consolidate their meal services.
Mr. Speaker, these high gasoline prices are, in fact, having a very
deleterious effect on charities and on Meals on Wheels in particular. I
won't go into some of the details that we have been given by Meals on
Wheels about the state of some of our seniors, but needless to say,
it's not a pretty picture.
So this would give those charities some relief, Mr. Speaker, and it
would allow them, we think, to get some of those volunteers back in
active service to relieve some of these problems that we have.
So, Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit does two things. It takes out
the tax increases in this bill, leaving in place the AMT patch to give
tax relief to those taxpayers who would otherwise be subjected to a
$2,400-apiece increase in taxes, and number two, it increases the
deduction, the mileage deduction, for vehicle use for charitable
purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. RANGEL. Certainly, the gentleman from Louisiana knows that we
would be willing to work on the charitable deduction as it relates to
the changes that were made by the administration, but basically, what
he is saying is that, as to the $61 billion in tax loopholes that we
have raised, they would rather borrow the money than fill the gap that
relieving the people of this tax burden would have.
So we both agree that 25 million people shouldn't suffer with this
$61 billion tax increase, but he would have you believe that, if you
take this out, you wouldn't have to put anything in. Well, what you're
putting in is the future of our children and of our grandchildren.
I ask that this motion to recommit be rejected.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6275, and the motion to suspend the
rules on H.R. 3546.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199,
nays 222, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 454]

YEAS--199

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--222

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen

[[Page 13742]]

Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Cannon
Cubin
Cummings
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Moore (WI)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Tsongas
Watson

{time} 1402

Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, THOMPSON of Mississippi, MELANCON, Ms.
SUTTON, Messrs. TIERNEY, COHEN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Messrs.
BAIRD, BERRY, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee, and Ms. ROS-
LEHTINEN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Messrs. ENGLISH of
Pennsylvania and BROUN of Georgia changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233,
noes 189, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 455]

AYES--233

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOES--189

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (NY)
Kingston
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Cannon
Cubin
King (IA)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Watson

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.

{time} 1409

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3546, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 3546, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 406,
nays 11, not voting 17, as follows:

[[Page 13743]]

[Roll No. 456]

YEAS--406

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--11

Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Flake
Franks (AZ)
Hensarling
Inglis (SC)
Marchant
Neugebauer
Paul
Poe
Tancredo

NOT VOTING--17

Boyda (KS)
Cannon
Cubin
Hall (TX)
Holt
Jefferson
Kind
Klein (FL)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Watson

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining.

{time} 1417

Messrs. TANCREDO and INGLIS of South Carolina changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1298, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of
certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2176

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Bay Mills
Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Community and
the Governor of the State of Michigan executed on August 23,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF
CLAIMS.

(a) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--Upon the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) the Secretary shall take the alternative lands into
trust for the benefit of the Community within 30 days of
receiving a title insurance policy for the alternative lands
which shows that the alternative lands are not subject to
mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options to purchase, or
other security interests; and
(2) the alternative lands shall become part of the
Community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust
status.
(b) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Community's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719; Public
Law 100-497).
(c) Extinguishment of Claims.--Upon the date of enactment
of this Act, any and all claims by the Community to the
Charlotte Beach lands or against the United States, the State
of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the Governor of the
State of Michigan, or any other person or entity by the
Community based on or relating to claims to the Charlotte
Beach lands (including without limitation, claims for
trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby extinguished. The
extinguishment of these claims is in consideration for the
benefits to the Community under this Act.

SEC. 3. EFFECTUATION AND RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.

[[Page 13744]]

(c) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
enforceable by either the Community or the Governor according
to its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement
action is vested in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Pursuant to House Resolution
1298, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Natural
Resources, printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in House Report 110-732 is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

TITLE I--BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this title, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Bay Mills
Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Community and
the Governor of the State of Michigan executed on August 23,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan, including the document titled ``Addendum
to Settlement of Land Claim'', executed by the parties on
November 13, 2007.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 102. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT
OF CLAIMS.

(a) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--
(1) Land into trust.--The Secretary shall take the
alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Community
not later than 30 days after both of the following have
occurred:
(A) The Secretary has received a title insurance policy for
the alternative lands that shows that the alternative lands
are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options
to purchase, or other security interests.
(B) The Secretary has confirmed that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with
regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
(2) Part of reservation.--The alternative lands shall
become part of the Community's reservation immediately upon
attaining trust status.
(b) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Community's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719; Public
Law 100-497).
(c) Extinguishment of Claims.--Concurrent with the
Secretary taking the alternative lands into trust under
subsection (a), any and all claims by the Community to the
Charlotte Beach lands or against the United States, the State
of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the Governor of the
State of Michigan, or any other person or entity by the
Community based on or relating to claims to the Charlotte
Beach lands (including without limitation, claims for
trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby extinguished. The
extinguishment of these claims is in consideration for the
benefits to the Community under this Act.

SEC. 103. EFFECTUATION AND RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.

(a) Ratification.--The United States approves and ratifies
the Settlement of Land Claim, except that the last sentence
in section 10 of the Settlement of Land Claim is hereby
deleted.
(b) Not Precedent.--The provisions contained in the
Settlement of Land Claim are unique and shall not be
considered precedent for any future agreement between any
tribe and State.
(c) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
enforceable by either the Community or the Governor according
to its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement
action is vested in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.

TITLE II--SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

SEC. 201. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT
OF CLAIMS.

(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Tribe and the
Governor of the State of Michigan executed on December 30,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan, including the document titled ``Addendum
to Settlement of Land Claim'', executed by the parties on
November 14, 2007.
(5) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Indian
tribe.
(b) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--
(1) Land into trust.--The Secretary shall take the
alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe not
later than 30 days after both of the following have occurred:
(A) The Secretary has received a title insurance policy for
the alternative lands that shows that the alternative lands
are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options
to purchase, or other security interests.
(B) The Secretary has confirmed that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with
regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
(2) Part of reservation.--The alternative lands shall
become part of the Tribe's reservation immediately upon
attaining trust status.
(c) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Tribe's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
2719(b)(1)(B)(i)).
(d) Extinguishment of Claims.--In consideration for the
benefits to the Tribe under this Act, any and all claims by
the Tribe to the Charlotte Beach lands or against the United
States, the State of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the
Governor of the State of Michigan, or any other person or
entity by the Tribe based on or relating to claims to the
Charlotte Beach lands (including without limitation, claims
for trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are extinguished upon
completion of the following:
(1) The Secretary having taken the alternative lands into
trust for the benefit of the Tribe under subsection (b).
(2) Congressional acceptance of the extinguishment of any
and all such claims to the Charlotte Beach lands by the Bay
Mills Indian Community.
(e) Effectuation and Ratification of Agreement.--
(1) Ratification.--The United States approves and ratifies
the Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Not precedent.--The provisions contained in the
Settlement of Land Claim are unique and shall not be
considered precedent for any future agreement between any
Indian tribe and State.
(3) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
enforceable by either the Tribe or the Governor according to
its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action
is vested in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) each will control 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

General Leave

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 2176.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is continuing our effort to
bring justice to Indian country. Last year, the committee brought to
the full House legislation to finally provide Federal recognition to
the long suffering Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina.

[[Page 13745]]

We also brought to the floor legislation to grant Federal recognition
to six Virginia tribes 400 years after the founding of the Jamestown
settlement. These were the very tribes that greeted the English
settlers when they landed on our shores.
Today, we are considering legislation to end a 153-year odyssey
involving two federally recognized tribes in the State of Michigan--the
Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians.
This bill seeks to settle legitimate land claims of these two Indian
tribes. I would note that the resolution of Indian land claims is
something that is vested with the Congress, and Congress has taken this
type of action on numerous occasions. No precedent is being set by
these bills.
The genesis of the pending legislation dates back to 1807 when the
Chippewa ceded much of what is now the State of Michigan in a treaty
with the Governor of the Michigan Territory. Subsequent treaties ensued
in 1817, 1820, 1836, and in 1855.
In the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie, the 1855
Treaty of Detroit set aside land, in what is now known as Charlotte
Beach, for their exclusive use. However, shortly after the treaty was
concluded, that very land was sold to non-Indian speculators.
This is hardly the first time something like this was done to Native
Americans, but it is another indictment in the long and sad chapter of
their past treatment by those with wealth and power.
At present, some 100 non-Indian landowners reside on the Charlotte
Beach land, under a clouded title, due to the legitimate land claims
filed by the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie. This makes it
impossible for the residents of Charlotte Beach to receive title
insurance--depressing land values and making it difficult to obtain
mortgages, among other issues.
The Interior Department has testified to the legitimacy of the land
claims in question. Their legitimacy has also been recognized by two
Governors of the State of Michigan--Republican John Engler and current
Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Indeed, Jennifer Granholm stated in a letter addressed to me: ``The
Federal courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe and the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa bands named
in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands and that both tribes,
accordingly, share in any potential claim based on those lands.''
To be clear then, that is what is at issue with the pending
legislation--the settlement of these land claims. There is no
administrative process available to accomplish this. It is something
that is solely vested with the Congress.
The pending measure would implement a settlement agreement entered
into by the Governor of Michigan, the Bay Mills and the Sault, and in
doing so, it would clear the land title cloud that has hung over the
residents of the Charlotte Beach area.
Under an agreement reached with the Bay Mills and with the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe, initially with Governor Engler and subsequently with
Governor Granholm, the tribes would relinquish their land claims at
Charlotte Beach, and instead, would be able to take into trust land at,
in the case of the Bay Mills, Port Huron, Michigan, and in the case of
the Sault Ste. Marie, either Flint, Monroe or Romulus, Michigan.
Under this settlement agreement, gaming is authorized on the new
reservation lands at Port Huron and at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus.
However, in my view, the primary concern of Congress is the
settlement of the land claims. What then occurs is a matter that is up
to the State of Michigan, its political subdivisions, and the affected
tribes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that all Representatives of the
House of Representatives whose congressional districts contain either
the lands where the existing land claims rest or the areas where the
new reservation lands would be created support these two bills--the
dean of our House, Chairman John Dingell; Representative Bart Stupak;
Representative Dale Kildee, and Representative Candice Miller. I would
also note that the municipalities involved support this settlement.
I have set out the facts, Mr. Speaker, the historical record
regarding these two tribes and their Charlotte Beach land claims. I do
believe that the deliverance of justice is on the side of these two
tribes and of the legislation we are considering today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rahall has summarized the settlement history of
the Bay Mills land claim as well as the related and commingled claim of
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Therefore, I will limit my remarks to why I
believe this amended bill, which is championed by my good friends from
Michigan, Chairman John Dingell, Chairman Bart Stupak, and Candice
Miller, deserves the support of the Members of this House.
Before the House today are two bills combined to resolve a problem
affecting two tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a number of
non-Indian landowners in an area of Michigan known as Charlotte Beach.
Let me point out the support for this bill in the districts that are
affected by them. The Members representing Bay Mills and the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribes support the bill. The two Members representing districts
where lands will be placed in trust support the bill.
Finally--and this is very important--this settlement deal was
negotiated by former Governor John Engler and is supported by Governor
Granholm.
It has been my practice--and I hope most of you understand--to defer
to the Members whose districts are affected by legislation because that
Member best represents the views of his constituents and knows his
district best. Of course, I can only wish that others would respect
this practice when it comes to Alaska. If so, we would be enjoying 42
million gallons of oil a day from ANWR. Instead, we have Members whose
districts are thousands of miles away and who are encasing this key to
American oil independence and lower gas prices in crystal by declaring
it a wilderness. That is something that even President Jimmy Carter, in
his cardigan sweaters, refused to do during the height of our gas
crisis.
Getting back to H.R. 2176, this bill settles two Indian land claims
without costing any Federal or State dollars and without imposing taxes
or fees on anyone. In fact, under the settlement deals, the tribes are
going to share revenues with the State of Michigan and with local
communities.
The bills are consistent with the compact agreed to by the tribes and
by the Governors pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
In this Congress, we have passed bills that recognize some tribes on
the condition that such tribes forego gaming. We made this condition a
part of their recognition of the bills. This breaks with long-standing
precedent and with treating Indian tribes on an equal footing with one
another. But we did it out of deference to the Members who represent
the tribes, out of deference to the Governors of the States affected,
and out of deference to the wishes of local communities.
If we want to remain consistent in this policy, then we should agree
to the request of the Members and of the Governors and of the local
communities of Port Huron and Romulus.
I understand there is opposition to this bill. By the way, Mr.
Speaker, I probably shouldn't say, but this bill should never have gone
to Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, it should never have gone to Judiciary. This
is not your jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction of Natural Resources
only, and for some reason, somebody tried to placate somebody and send
it over to Judiciary. Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this bill.
IGRA is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee.
I understand the opposition. On the one hand, we must defer to
Governors and to Members who don't want gaming, but on the other hand,
we are hearing we must not defer to Governors and to Members when they
want to permit

[[Page 13746]]

and to regulate gaming. This is confusing.
Most of the opponents of these bills don't live in the area affected
by the legislation. I note that none of the amendments filed to this
bill were from the Michigan delegation.
So why are they opposed? I believe it is fear of competition. The
tribes whose lands are settled by H.R. 2176, as amended, have every
right under the law to provide economically to their members. That they
choose to do so by operating casinos is their choice, as well as that
of the Governor of Michigan. These enterprises will supply jobs to the
area, will provide funds for health care, and will provide better
education for Native Americans, and they will do so by engaging the
oldest American economic policies--good old-fashioned, competitive
capitalism.

{time} 1430

This is not the first time that Congress has taken lands into trust
for tribes outside traditional reservation boundaries and has allowed
the tribes the full economic benefit of these lands. As one example, I
point to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act from the 106th Congress.
That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust
for two tribes--the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria--which
may not have been part of the tribes' historical ranges. In each case,
just like the bill being considered today, gaming was not barred.
Certainly, this is a common result whenever Congress or the
administration recognizes a landless tribe or restores land to a tribe.
In the meantime, the property owners in Charlotte Beach have watched
the value of their property plummet, something like 90 percent in some
cases. The cloud on the title to their land, resulting from the land
claims, has made it nearly impossible for them to sell or to secure a
mortgage. This isn't right, and it isn't right to leave them hanging
when the Governors of Michigan, the legislature, the affected
communities, and their Representatives want to move these settlements
forward.
This bill will end this ordeal that they're all facing.
Once again, I do urge support of H.R. 2176, as amended, and urge
passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I bring the temperature down somewhat
from the speakers by pointing out to my good friend from Alaska that
this matter is within the Judiciary Committee because the
Parliamentarian said so? So for the gentleman to make this assertion
that we have no claim of jurisdiction here is one of the errors that he
has made in his presentation.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm so proud that nobody has mentioned
casinos yet, because that means the casinos are not an issue, of
course, in this matter. Or you mentioned gaming. Okay. Chairman Rahall
concedes that he did mention gaming.
Well, let me tell you something. This is just like H.L. Mencken. When
they say this is not about money, Mencken says that means it's about
money.
Now, it just so happens that, on three occasions, these tribes have
tried to get the Department of Interior, which is where this goes--and
as for this business about its being in the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Congress, we don't sit around here, ruling on this business. We can
override the established procedures if we want to, and here, we want to
because the Department of Interior has turned down these claims three
different times--in 1982, 1983, and 1992. They said ``no.'' The reason
was they weren't meritorious.
And then an enterprising member of the bar--and I hate to tell you
that that was his profession--said, Ah, I've got an idea. Wait until
you see the charts that show how far Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills are
from where they want to locate the casinos.
I said it was 350 miles away. It's 348 miles away. I'm sorry. So
let's come clean, okay?
Now, the lady I supported for Governor, Governor Granholm, overrode
the State legislature to send you that letter, and it's not going by
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission rules or her own State's rules.
The people in Michigan have voted down casinos already. And, the former
Governor Engler, wow. He tried to stick it in bills coming over here.
He never would have done what we are doing here today but for the same
reasons of concern that those proponents of the bill have reason to be
concerned right now.
So that's the story, folks. If you want to start a run on forum
shopping for casinos, this is going to be the first bill that does it.
It is no joy for me to be before you opposing legislation reported by
the Natural Resources Committee and my friend Nick Rahall, and
supported so strongly by my friends John Dingell and Bart Stupak.
But this is bad legislation. I regret that the House is having to
consider it. And I must strongly oppose it.
Those pushing this legislation on the House do not always like to
emphasize the fact that it is about legalizing casino gambling where it
would not otherwise be legal--pure and simple.
And not just in two corners of Michigan. This is not a local Michigan
issue--leaving aside that the Michigan delegation is sharply divided
itself.
This would create a national blueprint for casino forum shopping,
where no corner of the country would be safe from the designs of any
developer or casino operator, working in league with any far-off Indian
tribe.
They say it does not set a precedent--says so right in the bill:
``don't look for a precedent here.'' Who are they trying to kid?
This legislation is highly controversial, and with good reason.
Earlier today I discussed the dubious origins of this supposed Indian
land claim. Let me now turn to other major flaws in this proposal.
To begin with, it spurns every single procedure Congress established
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to balance the sovereign rights
of Indian tribes to conduct their own affairs, on their own lands, with
the legitimate concerns many of our citizens have with the potential
spread of casino gaming into their communities.
It simply declares the process to be completed, and the two tribes to
have succeeded.
The bill's proponents will tell you that the bill complies fully with
the process set out in IGRA. But it does not; it simply jumps to the
finish line and arbitrarily deems the process to be satisfied.
Section 102(a)(1) orders the Interior Department to take the lands
into trust.
Section 102(a)(2) directs that the lands become part of the tribe's
reservation.
Section 102(b) declares that the process complies fully with all the
requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for purposes of
legalizing a casino on the new lands.
What could be simpler? Or more manipulative?
Let's not kid ourselves. That's not complying with process; that's
doing a preemptive end run around it.
This bill shows absolutely no regard for the established process.
No regard for the usual review in the Interior Department, who
opposes this bill.
Don't be fooled by rumors of some high-level private go-ahead. The
Interior Department has testified against this legislation--publicly--
twice in the last 5 months--before the Resources Committee, and before
the Judiciary Committee.
No regard for Michigan voters, who passed a referendum in 2004
restricting the expansion of casino gambling in their State. The bill
does an end run around that process as well.
The proponents claim that there is an exemption in the referendum for
casinos on Tribal lands.
Well, of course there is. That's required by tribal sovereignty under
Federal law. That would be the case whether the referendum said so or
not.
But no one in their wildest dreams ever imagined that someone would
try to twist the common-sense concept of ``Tribal lands'' to sweep in
lands 350 miles from the Tribe's ancestral homelands.
This bill does not honor the referendum. It blows a gaping hole
through it, and utterly violates the spirit of the voters' decision to
limit the spread of casinos in their State.
No regard for the other Indian tribes in Michigan, all of whom signed
compacts in 1994 solemnly pledging, as a means of curtailing the
impulse to build new casinos far and wide, that revenues from any off-
reservation casino any of them built would be shared among them all.
This bill simply blesses a superseding compact for these two tribes
that lets them off the hook, without going through any of the
established process for negotiating and approving a new compact.

[[Page 13747]]

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act rightly disfavors off-reservation
casino gaming.
And as set forth in greater detail in the Interior Department
guidelines, the greater the distance involved, the greater the risk of
harm to tribal welfare, and the more tenuous the benefits.
The distance involved here--350 miles from the reservation--is a
whole new order of magnitude. And the tribes involved have no known
historical connection whatsoever to the lands they would acquire.
The proponents say there is a precedent. But what they are referring
to is no precedent at all.
The Torres-Martinez case was brought by the Interior Department on
behalf of the tribe, for reservation land that an irrigation district
had placed under water.
Under the settlement, the tribe was allowed to acquire land in trust
within 10 miles of its existing reservation--that land also had to be
within its historical territory.
The tribe has not built a casino on that land, and has no plans to.
Furthermore, the land claims here being enlisted in the service of
obtaining these off-reservation casinos have already been rejected by
the courts.
And they are not even claims involving the United States. They are
strictly private claims, against the State of Michigan, bearing no
relation whatsoever to the kind of claims that could legally be settled
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
This legislation is supported by exactly two tribes in Michigan--the
two who expect to get off-reservation casinos they could not hope to
obtain under established legal process.
It is opposed by other Michigan tribes, who are joined by over 60
tribes across the country.
Not because they oppose Indian gaming. They all have their own
interest in preserving their rights to build casinos on their own
lands.
What they are opposed to is the free-for-all that would predictably
ensue if this unprecedented effort to circumvent the law--a law they
have all lived under for 20 years--were to pass.
This legislation is also opposed by the NAACP because of its lack of
basic procedural fairness, due process, or any respect for voters in
communities across the country who may understandably have concerns
about casinos being built in their neighborhoods.
Let me also say a word about the view of organized labor. And I say
this as someone who has a labor voting record in Congress, over almost
44 years, that is second to no one's.
This bill is supported by some in labor; it is opposed by others.
Labor is not united. And why would they be? If this legislation has
any direct effect on jobs, it will be only to move them from one casino
in Michigan to another.
For these and other reasons, the House Judiciary Committee, which
received a sequential referral of this legislation, voted unanimously
to oppose it.
By passing legislation favoring the narrow interests of the Bay Mills
and Sault Ste. Marie tribes and their private-sector allies, Congress
would set a dangerous precedent for side-stepping the established
review process for land claims, and create a shortcut for spreading
casino gambling into every corner of the country.
We should not start down that path. The tribes should pursue whatever
claims they may have through the normal procedures--and succeed or fail
on the merits.
And so I strongly oppose this bill, and urge everyone else in this
body to do likewise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2176. In
unanimity and purpose and philosophical intent with the chairman of the
full Judiciary Committee and, by the way, in consistency with all of
the folks who voted on this bill out of the Judiciary Committee,
regardless of the assertions of who had actual jurisdiction, that's
where it was directed.
I'm interested in this bill for a number of reasons. First of all,
when you have a reservation where they comply with regulations and go
through the Indian Gaming Act and get the authority to establish a
gaming facility, that's on the reservation. But I would submit, Mr.
Speaker, that 350 miles away is off the reservation. And I think the
motive of this thing is way off the reservation.
In fact, the precedent that would be set by this bill would be a
precedent, and I understand there's language in the bill that says it
doesn't set a precedent. My comment is, Yeah, right. Everything we do
around here sets a precedent. In fact, it sets a pattern for the rest
of the reservations in the country.
We've got to say ``no'' at this point. If not, we will be back here.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee's comment is well taken. It
sets a pattern that all of the reservations and the tribes in the
country will look at, and they will say how can we also go off the
reservation and establish a gaming facility.
For those reasons, I oppose this bill, H.R. 2176.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in strong opposition to
H.R. 2176. I believe this bill will lead to an unprecedented expansion
of off-reservation Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian
tribe that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in
order to build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign
territory.
This debate is not about the right of American communities and Indian
tribes to participate in gaming. I have no problem with other
communities trying to replicate Las Vegas' experience, which has been
so very successful, and I support the rights of tribes to participate
in gaming on their reservations as both of these tribes already do. But
the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by using a bogus land claim, a bogus land
claim that has already been tossed out of both Federal and State
courts.
Now, our proponents say that we are here because we want to improve a
legitimate land claim and want to have justice for our Indian friends.
Well, justice has already been served. This bogus claim has been thrown
out of Federal court and State court.
The result, if this bill passes, will be two new off-reservation
casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two tribes. And 350
miles is a very substantial amount. It is from Washington, D.C. to
Cleveland, Ohio. And beyond that, if this bill becomes law, any one of
the more than 500 recognized Native American tribes can argue that they
have the right to sue private landowners in an attempt to bargain for
gaming off their reservations. Let's circumvent the Indian gaming laws,
come directly to Congress, and Congress can end up spending all of our
time approving Indian gaming casinos on every street corner in every
American city.
How do we know this land claim is bogus? Because the chairman of the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe called it shady, suspicious, and a scam until he
joined with the other tribe and switched his position.
More than 660 tribes are opposed to this legislation in which
Congress, for the first time, will allow a tribe to expand its
reservation into the ancestral lands of another tribe for the express
purpose of gaming. This bill is opposed by the Department of the
Interior, the NAACP, UNITE HERE, more than 60 tribes across the United
States, and by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee.
To sum up this issue, Congress is being asked to pass special
interest legislation benefiting only two tribes, each of which already
has gaming.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 15 more seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. This, remember, is based on a suspect land claim that
has already been thrown out of the State and Federal courts so that
they can open up a casino hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands
and in direct competition with existing facilities.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this very bad piece of legislation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is left for
all Members.

[[Page 13748]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 15
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska, 14\1/2\; the gentleman
from Michigan, 3 minutes; and the gentleman from Iowa, 8\1/2\.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, a member of
my class as well, and from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dale Kildee.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the land claim settlement
legislation relating to the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Michigan. I have considered several factors that,
when taken together, would move me to speak strongly in favor of final
passage.
First, the legislation before us has bipartisan gubernatorial
support. In 2002, then-Republican Michigan Governor John Engler signed
two separate agreements between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Bay
Mills Indian Community in order to settle the disputed, and still
disputed, land claims in the Charlotte Beach area of Michigan. And, in
November of 2007, the present Democratic Governor, Jennifer Granholm,
amended and reaffirmed these agreements, and she strongly supports
those bills.
Second, my own hometown of Flint, Michigan, supports bringing an
Indian casino to the city. Flint Mayor Don Williamson gave testimony
through the Natural Resources Committee this year, expressing his
strong support for these proposals. And the City Council of Flint
passed a resolution supporting similar legislation that was followed by
the people of Flint voting in a citywide referendum in support of
bringing an Indian casino to Flint.
Mr. Speaker, faced with Flint's economic difficulties and the need to
settle these Indian land claims, I strongly support this bill.
Under the settlement agreement, the Bay Mills Indian Community would
acquire one parcel of land in Port Huron, Michigan, while the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe would acquire one parcel of land, the location to be
determined by the tribe with the approval of the local governing body.
That site would be limited to the County of Monroe or to the City of
Romulus or to the City of Flint.
Finally, as has been spoken before, only Congress has the legal
authority to extinguish the land claims of Indian tribes, and it has
done so on several occasions, and that is why this bill is before us
today. And that law dates back to the first Congress of the United
States.
To summarize, two Governors of Michigan have signed compacts with
these two tribes to accomplish this. The three cities that would be
affected have voted to welcome these tribes, and the three Members of
Congress representing those cities are strongly in support of this
bill. This bill will bring justice to these Indian tribes, and it will
help the economy of the cities involved.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to
this debate. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is about
competition. That's all it is. Let's face it. It's competition.

{time} 1445

I'm a little disturbed that the casinos in Detroit that are owned by
Indian tribes now are objecting to their brethren, because it's about
competition.
We have been over this time and time again. This is not a new bill.
This is an attempt to settle a land claim by those who own land and who
no longer have title of it because of a court ruling. This is not just
about casinos.
And by the way, to the chairman of the Judiciary, I did mention
``casinos'' in my statement. It's there, I want you people to
understand, and I did mention ``gaming,'' but I did say ``casinos,''
too. I'm not trying to hide anything. This is their prerogative under
IGRA to have the title to this land.
This land was not voluntarily given away. This land was taken. The
State of Michigan said it was taken. The courts have said it was taken.
These tribes have a legal title to this land. And, until they get that
land, the people who now have homes, who have stores that have been
inherited from their parents, that title is not theirs.
But we have those in Detroit and those interests from outside of
Michigan that don't want any more competition. Competition, apparently,
is bad for the American way. I think it's good.
Again, let's go back to those people who represent the area. And the
Governor and the community all support this bill.
I reserve my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
Can you ask that gentleman to sit down and to shut up up there? I
don't care who he is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Occupants of the galleries will be in order.
Mr. CONYERS. I'm pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks
Kilpatrick from Michigan, and I would yield her 1\1/2\ minutes and
would ask the ranking member of the Judiciary to do the same.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, as
well as the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me my time.
This is about the law. This is about the law. This is about
Michigan's law. In 1993, after 20 years of trying, the Michigan
legislature--I, a member at that time, and others--passed a law that,
after many referendums in the City of Detroit, a referenda would be
held throughout the State of Michigan that said who could have casinos.
We were allowed that after 20 years of working on that.
In 1994, back to the people of the State of Michigan, there was a
referenda that said if you are to have a casino you must come back to
the people. This law circumvents that. There are 18 Native American
tribes in Michigan. All but two who are getting this casino deal do not
support this legislation, mainly because, in the Michigan compact,
Native Americans share in the net profits. This bill would not allow
the other 16 tribes to share in the profits, thereby putting their own
reservation casinos in jeopardy, while at the same time rewarding 2 and
not the other 16 sharing the profits.
There's a way to fix this. Go back to the ballot box, which is what
the Michigan law says. Let the people of Michigan speak on this.
Casinos are regulated by States, as IGRA gives them that authority, not
by the Federal Government.
Much has already been said, and I will tell you who opposes this: The
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National
Indian Gaming Association, UNITE HERE, AFSCME, NAACP. We can fix this,
but go through what everybody else went through to get gaming and
casinos in their community.
The Native Americans asked for it. Over 60 tribes across this country
oppose this legislation. Why must we circumvent them and come here?
It's not about competition, as Americans love competition, and we
support that. Go through the process. Respect the law.
Native American tribes deserve better, and we want to see that
happen.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration and care when, in
December of 2007, you agreed with me that both of these bills should
not be brought to the floor without being considered under regular
order. The House Natural Resources Committee and the House Judiciary
Committee both had hearings on these bills, and while the Natural
Resources Committee reported the bill favorably by a 21 to 5 vote, the
House Judiciary Committee reported the bill unfavorably by a zero to 29
vote. Since that vote, both of these bills are opposed by 16 of the 18
tribes that are in the State of Michigan; and opposed by over 60 Native
American tribes across the country; by both Michigan's AFSCME and the
NAACP; and finally, the U.S. Department of Interior not only opposes
the bills but questions the validity of the land claim that they
purport to forward.
In essence, both of these bills will allow two Native American tribes
located in Michigan's

[[Page 13749]]

Upper Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from their reservations and
near the city of Detroit and in Port Huron, Michigan. I vehemently
oppose both of these bills.
My reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be
taken into trust for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed
land claims, are actually very simple. These bills set a dangerous
precedent for Congress; they contravene Michigan State law; they are
very controversial among the tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian
Country; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; and finally,
Congress has not had a comprehensive review of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, IGRA, in nearly two decades. Furthermore, it is
important to note that these land claims have never been validated by
the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact, the courts have ruled
against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on two separate occasions.
The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming
expansion in our State. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in
the city of Detroit. In 2004, the people voted to limit any more
expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In
addition, the Michigan Gaming Compact specifically prohibits off-
reservation gaming unless all of the tribes in Michigan agree to a
revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to
circumvent both the will of the people of Michigan and the compact the
Michigan State Legislature has made with the tribes in Michigan.
Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two
off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the
reservations of these tribes. Moreover, the disputed land is located
near the two tribes reservations in the Upper Peninsula but yet the
land they want for a ``settlement'' is located 350 miles away near the
city of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent
other tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States
for off-site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act?
It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources
Committee, on a bipartisan basis, passed legislation by an overwhelming
margin to restrict off-site reservation gaming. Yet today, it now seeks
to expand Native American gaming in an unprecedented manner.
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that allows
tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17, 1988. In
1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact with the
seven federally-recognized tribes in Michigan, including the Bay Mills
and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.
In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the
State, a provision was added to the compact that required any revenue
generated by off-reservation gaining be shared among the tribes who
signed the compact. This provision has worked well for over 15 years.
The two bills before Congress today would simply nullify this
critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact. Both of
these bills would allow the tribes to; (1) settle a land claim that has
never been validated and is located near their reservations in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan and (2) acquire lands 350 miles from their
reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually include
gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the Michigan State
Legislature who has approved every other gaming compact. It is
important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming compact in
the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that authority
to the States.
In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a statewide referendum
and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would restrict the
expansion of gaming in the State of Michigan. This referendum would
require local and statewide approvals for any private expansion of
gaming in Michigan.
The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a
solution to this matter--the ballot box. There is nothing in the
referendum that would prevent the two tribes and their non-Indian
developers from initiating a statewide referendum to get casinos in
Port Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already
passed local referendums. But the tribes and their developers decided
to short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress
to get a casino on a proposed land claim that is located near the
tribes' reservation lands in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent the House Natural
Resources Committee a letter supporting these bills. You should know
that there is no legal basis for the State to support these agreements
because, in fact, the State has already won this case in the Michigan
Court of Claims and the Bay Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the
case.
The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the
main victim of the State's largess in these casino deals. The city of
Detroit will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the
competition of these new casinos and that will cause irreparable harm.
Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the city
of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the
construction of the three casinos in the city of Detroit. Harm to the
thousands of jobs that have been created and the tax revenue that those
jobs generate for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan.
Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private
counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are sovereign
nations and must share their revenue with other Native American tribes,
do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors.
In the end, these two tribes are seeking to do an end-run around two
statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993. Rarely
have voters in any State in this country spoken so clearly on gaming
issues. In light of all of this, it would be a travesty for Congress to
mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos that would have such a
negative impact on the people in Michigan.
But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will
have on the city of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these
bills will set, allowing any Native American tribe to claim any piece
of land hundreds of miles away, as their native tribal land. Let us
ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in more than two
decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress.
What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity
of Congress is in jeopardy.
On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard
Boushor, said ``the Bay Mills case was a scam from the start.'' In
testimony and information provided to the House Natural Resources
Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu
cited Chairman Boushor's testimony, stating that the original lawsuit
on the land claim was a collusive lawsuit.
The proponents of this legislation have repeatedly stated that these
bills are simply to address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte
Beach. But according to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ``the Charlotte
Beach claim did not originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a
Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to
obtain an IGRA casino . . . the goal was never to recover the Charlotte
Beach lands.''
How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe sued
Mr. James Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement in
which he gave land to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their
reservation to build a casino in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That plan was
rejected by the Department of the Interior. The point is that Mr.
Hadley was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant in
what the Sault Tribe described as ``a collusive lawsuit'' and ``a
scam.''
I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former
Sault Ste. Marie chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, the testimony of the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and
review the documents Chief Cantu provided to the Committee, which was
provided to the House Natural Resources Committee at its hearing in
February and to the House Judiciary Committee at its subsequent
hearing.
There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe has requested that the U.S. Department of the Interior
investigate the land claims made by these tribes, and determine whether
they are valid claims, worthy of Federal resolution. It is my
understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the
validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until
this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation
that mandates off-reservation gaming.
Congress should not be in the business of handing out off-site
reservation gaming casinos. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress
is the rejection of both of these bills for the following reasons:
These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by approving a
compact which is a State, not a Federal, responsibility;
They contravene Michigan State law;
They are controversial among the Native American tribes in Michigan;
indeed, nine out of Michigan's 12 tribes oppose these bills;
The city of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of
millions of dollars in the investments made by the three casinos
currently operating in Detroit;

[[Page 13750]]

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a similar
application for gaming in Romulus, Michigan;
These bills would involve the removal of valuable land from the tax
rolls of the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential loss of even
more revenue;
It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate, possibly
jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. Congress;
The Committee should allow the Department of the Interior the time to
do their due diligence to determine if these are valid land claims; and
Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the IGRA, which has
not had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades.
Let me state for the record, once again, that I am not opposed to
more gaming in the State of Michigan. I am also not opposed to off-site
reservation gaming. I have been opposed, am currently opposed, and will
always be opposed to any measure, any bill, any regulation that says
that the will of the people does not matter. The will of the people is
tantamount. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails and that
the voice of the people matters in rejecting these bills on the floor
today.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I reserve.
Mr. CONYERS. I've got to reserve. I've only got 1 minute left,
Chairman Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to yield to the distinguished
dean of the House of Representatives--the gentleman from Michigan, a
dear friend to all of us regardless of our position on this issue--
Chairman John Dingell, 5 minutes.
Mr. DINGELL. I want to commend and thank my good friend from West
Virginia and my good friend from Alaska for their gracious kindness in
this matter.
This is a cry for justice from Indians who have had their land
unjustly and improperly taken from them. It is not a violation of
Indian gambling law, and this is the only place in which those Indians
can get justice. They asked for justice.
Now, you've just heard a lot of things, and there are a lot of people
on this floor who are entitled to their own view, but they are not
entitled to their own facts.
What are the facts? Under Michigan law, this is legal. Here's a copy
of the vote and the ballot that was put before the people of Michigan.
It specifically excludes this kind of transaction, and it says that it
will ``not apply to Indian tribal gaming'' and then goes on to say ``or
gambling in up to three casinos located in the City of Detroit.'' It
doesn't apply. That's hooey.
Now, let's take a look. The claim is legitimate. The land was stolen
from the Indians in an improper tax sale, and until this matter is
resolved, there will be no peace in the area. The Indians will be
denied justice, and land titles and land settlements in the northern
part of Michigan will be clouded for years to come.
This came out of the committee 22-5. It has been heard many times.
Now, the legislation follows--it does not set--congressional
precedent in dealing with Indian land claim settlements. In fact, the
Congress, as mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan, has the sole
power to extinguish land claims, since the very first of the Congress,
and it follows precedents set by Torres Martinez, the Timbisha
Shoshone, the Mohegan Tribe, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in 1983.
This is drastically different than off-reservation gambling. In that
scenario, the tribe purchases land and then the Secretary lets them go
down there and gamble. This is not so. As mentioned, it fully complies
with the requirements of the Indian gambling law.
The land was not selected by the Indians. It was selected by the
Governor of the State of Michigan, John Engler, and it was ratified by
the Michigan legislature and by our current Governor, with a change in
the law.
The votes of the people of the communities have supported the fact
that if gambling is to occur in these communities it will occur. The
people of the State of Michigan, the people of the cities involved have
come out and have said they want this to take place.
Let us give justice to the Indians. The bill does not, I repeat,
violate the will of the people of the State of Michigan.
And the legislation is going to bring desperately needed jobs to
southeast Michigan, some 4,000 in my district, some 1,000 in that of
the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). It is
supported by unions that believe that this will bring good union jobs
to Michigan and that it will help the Indians.
As repeated, there are two groups here who oppose this legislation.
One group is of those who legitimately oppose gambling. That's a matter
of concern to them, and I respect their judgment. The rest are those
good-hearted folk who seek an unfair advantage. They want to protect
and preserve their outrageous monopoly on gambling. That's what's at
stake. That's all that's involved here; a bunch of good-hearted people
are seeking special preference for themselves.
A Member came over to me, and he talked about Abramoff. I remember
Abramoff, a very unsavory individual, and the interesting thing is that
Abramoff was hired at a high price to oppose the legislation we are
discussing today. So, if you're concerned about voting with Jack
Abramoff, don't vote against the bill; vote for the bill. The Abramoff
vote is a ``no'' vote. The right vote is an ``aye'' vote.
Vote to give justice to the Native American people. The citizens of
the communities in which these facilities will be located legally,
legitimately and properly are, in my district, in one city, 100 percent
African American and, in the other, 50 percent African American. There
is no racial question here. If you are looking to do racial justice,
support the legislation. Take care of the Native Americans, and take
care of the African Americans who will benefit from these jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
legislation, H.R. 2176, which consolidates two bills that promote off-
reservation tribal gambling.
Why is a guy from Pennsylvania talking about this issue today? Well,
this bill sends a signal that reservation shopping, under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, is okay. Well, it's not okay, and it is
out of control.
The bill before us today would create Indian governmental entities,
tribal casinos, on lands that are more than 300 miles from the
homelands of these tribes. Creating a far-flung string of casinos on
lands with no connection to the tribe's heritage was not the intent of
IGRA.
Establishing these off-reservation casinos has absolutely nothing to
do with the preservation of Indian culture. It is about money, pure and
simple. Twenty years ago, before IGRA, there were no tribal casinos in
this country. Now there are more than 400, and tribal gambling is
currently a $19 billion a year business.
That is precisely the reason why I introduced H.R. 2562, the
Limitation of Tribal Gambling to Existing Tribal Lands Act of 2007,
which would preclude new casino development on lands that are taken
into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim. That bill was
inspired by efforts of a tribe, located more than 900 miles from
Pennsylvania, to force homeowners and business owners in my district
off their properties, just so yet another tribal casino could be built,
all based on a 1737 land conveyance, all designed to displace 25
homeowners, a crayon factory--Crayola crayon, we all know the product--
and many other businesses.
And, with respect to the Abramoff comments that I have heard, I'll be
the first to acknowledge that, as to Mr. Abramoff's actions, he did
take advantage of the tribes, but it was the tribal gambling issue that
was the source of the corruption.
And I think the proper vote is a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Again, for those of us who have had to deal with these off-
reservation shopping issues, it's very painful for the homeowners, as
much as when the Supreme Court went along. Defeat the bill.

[[Page 13751]]

Mr. RAHALL. May I have the time that is left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 7
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska has 13. The gentleman from
Michigan has 1\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a dear colleague of
ours from Michigan as well, to a gentleman who has been very tenacious
for many, many years in seeing this bill to its fruition, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

{time} 1500

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Much has been said about this legislation, my legislation. I want to
thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Young for their leadership in helping me
correct a grave injustice, not just for the Native Americans, but also
for the non-Native Americans, my constituents.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2176, which is a
commonsense fix of a very serious matter. The bill would provide for
the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
and of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe in Michigan.
I have been working on this problem for over 10 years, and I first
introduced legislation in 1999 in an effort to resolve this issue. I
became involved in this land claim dispute at the request of the
property owners at Charlotte Beach, not of the Native American tribes.
Tribal claims to the land have created a cloud on their title, owned by
my constituents in Charlotte Beach.
As a result, local assessors have reduced the property values of the
Charlotte Beach land owners by 90 percent because of the valid clouded
title created by the Indian land claim dispute.
The tribes' claim to the land in question dates back to 1855, when
the U.S. Government signed the Treaty of Detroit, deeding the land to
the tribes. However, the land was later sold to non-native land
speculators without the Native Americans' consent, eventually resulting
in an eviction of the tribal members.
In order to finally resolve this land claim dispute, a settlement
agreement was reached in 2002 between former Governor John Engler and
the tribes. The settlement agreement has been reaffirmed by Michigan's
current Governor, Governor Jennifer Granholm.
After years of extensive negotiations between the parties, this bill
represents a straightforward solution to this localized problem in my
district.
In order to implement this agreement, Congress must approve the
negotiated land settlement. Unfortunately, incumbent casino gaming
interests are opposed to this commonsense solution, and they have
circulated misleading information in an attempt to derail this
legislation. So let me take the opportunity to set the record straight
on my legislation.
First, this bill has nothing to do with ``off-reservation gaming
acquisitions.'' It is a land claim settlement. Off-reservation gaming
occurs when a tribe purchases private land and petitions the Secretary
of Interior to place the land into trust for gaming purposes. This
legislation ratifies a land claim settlement negotiated by the State of
Michigan. This was done under the authority granted in IGRA's land
claim exception clause.
Second. In regards to the argument against the location of these
lands, the selected lands were chosen by Governor John Engler in
consultation with local communities, not with the tribes. The sites
were selected for economic development. Local support had been
expressed through a local referendum and through unanimous resolutions
by the cities and counties, and it has an existing gaming market on the
Canadian side of the border where U.S. dollars are being spent.
Our legislation follows, rather than sets, congressional precedent
for settling land claim disputes. Congress has passed over a dozen
settlement acts on which replacement lands are eligible for gaming,
including two that specifically state that the land is eligible for
gaming, most recently that of the Torres Martinez Tribe of California
and that of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, in 2000.
Our legislation does not violate the wishes of Michigan voters.
Opponents have attempted to confuse Members about the wishes of
Michigan voters on this issue by citing passage of the 2004 referendum,
which seeks to limit the expansion of private gaming in our State. The
actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter approval requirement
does not apply to Indian tribal gaming.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman 15
seconds, too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska also recognizes
the gentleman from Michigan for 15 seconds, so the gentleman from
Michigan is now recognized for a total of 30 seconds, of which none
have been yet exhausted.
Mr. STUPAK. So the actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter
approval requirement does not apply to Indiana tribal gaming.''
By passing H.R. 2176, Congress will bring about a final resolution to
this land claim dispute that has been going on for more than 100 years.
Without congressional approval, the land exchange cannot be completed,
and the residents of Charlotte Beach, my constituents, will continue to
face clouded land titles and economic hardships.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ignore the
rhetoric from those attempting to protect casinos.
Support this land claim settlement. Support H.R. 2176.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I'm listening with great interest to this debate that we
have here on this floor, and it's interesting the unique way that the
Michigan delegation doesn't agree on this.
As I've listened to the presentation made by the gentleman, Mr.
Dingell, and to the intensity with which he speaks, certainly, I've
listened to the argument, but I'll say this: The situation with this
legislation is that the land in question becomes part of the
reservation, and when it becomes part of the reservation, we all know
it's going to be turned into a gaming casino. So to argue that this
only settles a land claim--the courts had their opportunity to settle
the land claim, both the State court of Michigan and the U.S. Federal
court, and that's why we're here.
The people who are pressing this claim on the floor of this Congress
didn't get the resolution that they had asked for. They weren't able to
prevail in court, so now they come to Congress and say, set a precedent
so that we can, essentially, confer this land title on the Native
Americans. When they take that title, it comes in trust. The Governor
then takes the land in trust, but as soon as it goes in trust, it says
that any and all claims are hereby extinguished to that land. So we're
abrogating decisions made by the Federal court here and by the State
court.
Mr. STUPAK. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield briefly.
Mr. STUPAK. On the Federal claim brought forth by Bay Mills, the
Sault tribe was not part of that action, and the Federal court said,
your cousins--the Chippewas of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe--must be
joined. Go back and get joined and come back later. In the meantime,
they started negotiations in the State court. The State court said, you
have a valid land claim, but we cannot give you economic damages
because the 6-year statute of limitations has run. This claim should
have been brought 100 years ago.
So that's the injustice we're trying to correct; they could not be
given money damages because more than 6 years had lapsed. The statute
of limitations had run.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, though, did not the two tribes

[[Page 13752]]

then join together and go back to Federal court?
Mr. STUPAK. No.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield to the gentleman if he could tell me
why not.
Mr. STUPAK. Because they began the negotiation under IGRA, as
required under section 20, to begin a negotiation with the Governor,
and they had to make a settlement with the Governor, who can do it. So,
instead of going back to court, they used the legislature and the
Governor's office to work out a settlement to avoid further litigation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I think
that does add clarity to this debate. The option to go to the Governor
and to the legislature and the option of the other things we've heard
about was better than going back to court under those circumstances.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
Mr. KING of Iowa. In any case, this legislation simply says that any
claims now would be resolved if this legislation passes, ``any and all
claims, whether based on aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby
extinguished.'' That's what this legislation does.
Then it says also ``these are unique claims and shall not be
considered precedent.'' We know, again, that everything that happens in
this Congress sets a precedent and creates an idea and an avenue.
I'm faced with a situation that, I think, could be multiplied in its
difficulty because of the actions this Congress may take today, Mr.
Speaker. Perhaps I'll take that up in my closing remarks.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has the
right to close.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time, I yield 8 minutes to the good lady
of the district that's represented, not from California, not from any
other area such as Nevada and California, again, that oppose this
legislation. She represents this area, and we ought to listen to her as
to why she is for this bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman, my distinguished
colleague from Alaska, for yielding and for his complimentary remarks.
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been waiting for a congressional vote for
many, many years but not for as long as our Nation's history of
sometimes mistreating Native Americans.
This case settles a land claim from over 100 years ago, at a time
when our country treated Native Americans terribly and at a time when
the State of Michigan, as has been said, literally stole this land from
the Indians.
Throughout the decades that followed, Native Americans sought
justice. Finally, former Michigan Governor John Engler negotiated a
settlement that was agreed to by everyone involved. Let me just read
briefly a section from his letter.
``As Governor of Michigan, it was my duty to negotiate the land
settlement agreements between the State of Michigan and Bay Mills and
the Sault Tribe in 2002 . . . I am proud that every concerned party
involved in this settlement supports this agreement. This is a true
example of a State and the tribes promoting cooperation rather than
conflict.''
This land claim settlement is unique to Michigan, and it does not
impact any other congressional district other than the three
congressional districts of the people who are supporting it here who
have spoken today, as have been mentioned. That is myself, Mr. Stupak,
and Mr. Dingell. I would point out that, in a time of hyper
partisanship, this is a wonderful example, I believe, of
bipartisanship.
I would note that much of the opposition to this bill comes from
Members of Congress who already have gaming in their districts,
districts like Las Vegas or like the city of Detroit, and that their
opposition is not based on ideology but on, rather, their not wanting
any honest competition. I reject this on its face because I believe in
the free market, and I believe in free market principles.
Some have said that this is stuffing a tribal land claim down the
throat of a community that doesn't welcome it. Actually, the opposite
is true. This legislation is supported by every elected official who
represents the city of Port Huron in any capacity and at any level of
government. As has been mentioned, there is the former Governor, John
Engler; the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm; both United States
Senators; myself, as a Member in the U.S. House here; the State
senator; the State representatives; the county commissioners, and the
entire city council.
Additionally, it has the support of civic groups, of business groups
like the Chamber of Commerce, of educational leaders, and of labor
unions like the UAW.
For those who might be concerned about what law enforcement thinks,
we have letters here of support from the county sheriff, from the
county prosecutor and from all of the police chiefs. Most importantly,
it has the support of the citizens of the city, as evidenced by a
citywide referendum vote in support.
The opponents of this legislation have said, first of all, that they
don't want any competition. Therefore, they hope this bill will die.
They have said, even though their communities and their districts have
economic development, they need to protect that and that the citizens--
the good Americans of a community like mine--cannot have fairness or
economic opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this is un-American, and I would hope that my fair-
minded colleagues would reject that out of hand.
The opponents of this have also stated several outright untruths
about this bill. They say that this bill will set a precedent, and that
is false. In fact, in section 3(b) of this bill, it states the
following: ``The provisions contained in the Settlement of Land Claim
are unique and shall not be considered precedent for any future
agreement between any tribe and State.''
The opponents also say that this bill will allow for off-reservation
gaming. This is also false. In fact, section 2(a)(2) of the bill states
the following: ``The alternative lands shall become part of the
community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.''
In fact, this site was not reservation shopping, as Mr. Stupak has
pointed out. It was specifically chosen because it is the only
community with an international border crossing where there is already
casino gaming on one side and not on the U.S. side.
They have also said that this legislation violates the process under
the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA. Yet the
legislation makes it very, very clear that the land cannot be taken
into trust until it is determined that the land complies with NEPA.
They also say that this bill would violate the will of the people of
Michigan because of a referendum that was passed in 2004, which
required statewide voter approval for any expansion of gaming. This is
completely false. As a former Secretary of State, I know a little bit
about ballot language, and this is what the ballot language actually
says: ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to
Indian tribal gaming,'' which is exactly what this bill does.
I would offer as proof of this that, since the referendum passed in
Michigan, several tribal casinos that are operated by some of the
richest tribal opponents of this bill have actually opened facilities.
Now, apparently, they didn't violate the will of the voters as long as
they could make money. Yet they want to stop our communities, again,
from fair competition. I would say please spare me the righteous
indignation.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my beautiful State of Michigan,
that our beautiful State of Michigan, is suffering terrible, terrible
economic challenges. We have the highest unemployment in the Nation. We
have the lowest personal income growth in the Nation. We have the
highest foreclosure rate in the Nation. We have the largest exodus

[[Page 13753]]

of our young people. Our population is moving to other States to seek
economic opportunity.
The city of Port Huron, that I represent, actually has one of the
highest unemployment rates, not only in the State but in the entire
Nation.

{time} 1515

By the best estimates right now, it's anywhere from 14 to 16 percent.
Some have said it could be even higher. And yet we try to pay our
taxes. We educate our children. We always legitimately think of
ourselves as patriotic Americans. We are proud, and we have never asked
for a handout, and today we are only asking for Congress to ratify the
compacts of our Governors so that we can help ourselves.
For those who think that a vote today against this bill will stop
gaming in this community, let me just point out this photo here behind
me, which is of a Canadian casino, which is about 282 yards away. Now,
a good golfer, not me, but a good golfer could hit this Canadian
casino. It's right across the St. Clair River, a short trip over the
Blue Water Bridge, and about 80 percent of all of their revenues comes
from American citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would say that those dollars
should be spent in an American facility to help Americans get jobs.
This bill is all about fairness and opportunity, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes''; ``yes'' for private property rights,
``yes'' for the rights of States to negotiate in good faith and for the
good of their State, and ``yes'' for Americans to have fairness and
opportunity to compete with our wonderful Canadian neighbors for jobs
in a community where the jobs are desperately needed.
And I would just close on a note: I have heard that there is a number
of family values-type groups who are opposed to this. Let me just show
you an example of a recent mailing ostensibly from a group called
Michigan Family Alert.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. This is a so-called Michigan Family Alert,
and, of course, it's saying that they are opposed to these casinos,
and, if you're a family values person, you had better to be opposed
too. And yet from Business Week what they have said is: ``As it turns
out, Gambling Watch is a tiny operation financed by MGM Mirage, one of
the world's largest gaming companies, locked in a bitter dispute with
two Native American Indian tribes that hope to open casinos in
Michigan. The Las Vegas company inaugurated a new $800 million casino
in downtown Detroit in October and is not in the mood for any
competition.''
And I close on that note.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to yield 45 seconds
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 additional
seconds.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank you all for this moment and this
minute.
I represent a great many tribes in California, none of whom will be
adversely affected if this casino goes in or doesn't go in. I come to
the floor as a supporter of tribal and historic rights and their gaming
rights. I have absolute support for Native Americans having gaming on
their tribal lands. I also have absolute support for private property.
As the gentlewoman from Michigan would like to have private property
respected, then the State of Michigan can license a casino on that site
to anyone they want, including those Indians on lands that are not in
trust.
We, as Federal officers, are being asked to put land in trust for
purposes of a casino which has no historic link to the tribes receiving
it. We should insist that tribal land be given appropriately in
Michigan as close to as possible their historic land or in areas that
are for some purpose other than manipulating and distorting the intent
of our laws to create a casino.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. I thank the chairman from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2176, legislation
that would ratify a longstanding tribal land claim in the State of
Michigan.
The Bay Mills Indian community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe have
worked for over a decade to achieve an agreement with the State of
Michigan that would reinstate land rights that these tribes lost
shortly after signing a treaty with the Federal Government in the
1850s.
In an effort to achieve justice for these tribes, who have sought to
reclaim their lands for over 100 years and to protect the homes of over
100 families who currently reside on the disputed land in Charlotte
Beach, the State of Michigan negotiated a land-swap settlement. That
agreement would give the Bay Mills Indian community 20 acres of land in
Port Huron and give the Sault Tribe up to 40 acres in Romulus or Flint.
Under Federal law, the new lands provided to the tribes would be
eligible for gambling casinos, just as the Charlotte Beach land would
be eligible. The purpose of the land claim agreement is to give
alternative land that has the same property rights as the land that was
stolen from these tribes.
Mr. Speaker, two Governors from the State of Michigan and those
Members of Congress whose districts are most affected have all endorsed
the land-swap agreement that would give these tribes new lands in
exchange for the 110 acres of land they lost in the 19th century.
There is no authentic argument against this bill. The legislation
before us does not expand gaming, as some opponents have erroneously
charged. This legislation simply restores justice to Native Americans
in the State of Michigan and provides these Indians there an
opportunity to raise badly needed revenues.
I urge adoption of the bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time is left totally, Mr. Speaker? How
much time does the Judiciary have, the majority and minority?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has \3/4\
of 1 minute remaining; the gentleman from Alaska has 4\1/4\ minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining;
and the gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman, not for
closing, but I will yield him 2 minutes of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia now has
2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I plan to close with that time; so I reserve
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West
Virginia will control 2\3/4\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I hope
everybody recognizes again that what this is about is competition.
That's all it is. In the meantime, there are two Native tribes,
American Indians, that have a right under IGRA to, in fact, have these
lands that they negotiated with the Governors, the State legislature,
the communities, and reached a deal; yet this is the last body that has
the ability and the responsibility of settling disputes on lands owned
by or not owned by American Natives. Not the courts, no one else. And
that's why we are here today.
It does disturb me, when I see other tribes that actually have the
backing of other institutions outside the State

[[Page 13754]]

of Michigan, the city of Detroit, that oppose their brethren from
achieving the same goals they did. I'm also disturbed because we have
those that are non-Native that have their title in question that will
never, in fact, unless we act, have that title cleared up. And that's
our responsibility in this body.
There is justice, there should be justice, for American Indians. And,
by the way, I believe I am the last one on that committee that voted
for the original gaming legislation for American Natives. Chairman
Udall and I passed that legislation. I believe Mr. Dingell probably
voted for it, and maybe Mr. Conyers voted for it at that time because
we thought there was an opportunity there to improve the economic base
of the American Indian, and we approved correctly.
Now, those that oppose gaming, I understand that. I don't gamble.
That's not my thing. But I also will tell you I don't disrespect those
who do gamble. And as the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) said,
I could even hit a golf ball across that river to that gaming place in
Canada, and I want some of that Canadian money to come down to America
instead of its going from America to Canada.
In the fairness of this bill, we should vote ``yes.'' In fairness to
the American Indians, we should vote ``yes.'' This legislation should
become a reality. The State of Michigan Senators support it. The
Governors support it. The legislature supports it. The communities
support it. The police officers support it. And only those that oppose
it have another interest.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate, and some things come to
mind that I don't believe have been adequately answered. I'm going to
ask the question and hope that someone answers it with the time they
have left rather than asking me to yield them time.
What is the claim the two tribes have on this land and the
distinction between it and all the rest of the State of Michigan? I
think that's a good question.
When I look at this situation, I apply it to the district that I
represent. And I have represented two reservations, two tribes, and two
gaming casinos for the last 11\1/2\ years. Now I have an outside tribe
that has just been created within the last generation that has come in
and bought land within my district in order to set up a health care
clinic, and now the bait and switch takes place and it's going to be a
casino instead. They get some of their problems cleared by this bill,
2176, if it passes today because, regardless of whether the bill says
it's a precedent, it's a precedent. If it's not about money, it's about
money, as we heard the chairman say. Where could a tribe not establish
a casino if they determine to do so? Any land that they could buy for
whatever purpose, whether it was a bait and switch or whatever, this
opens up the door. As the gentlewoman from Las Vegas said, we could end
up with casinos everywhere.
But we need to stand on some principle, and I don't see that the land
is a consistent principle that can be defended in this case, Mr.
Speaker. I oppose 2176. I urge that it be defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas
25 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to end this myth about competition.
How can anybody claim that the gaming casinos are afraid of
competition and the free market when the tribes are playing by a
different set of rules? Talk about unfair competition, the Indians
don't pay taxes on their casinos, and that's why they are so
successful. So I don't want to hear any nonsense about competition and
fear of competition. That's a lie.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, the only
reason we are here today, and I admire all of the devoted people to the
cause of our Native Americans, is that these two casinos are located
not 5 miles or 10 miles away but 345 miles and 348 miles away. That's
why we are here. And by rationalizing that, guess what's going to
happen? We are going to have the biggest casino forum shopping this
country has ever known because we will have done it here listening to
people explain to me about Abramoff's role and how important this is,
so compelling.
So, please, vote ``no.''

{time} 1530

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, I would like to
take this opportunity to implore the other body to act upon the Lumbee
and the Virginia Tribe bills that this body had sent over for its
consideration last year. The magnitude of injustice that has befallen
these Indian people is almost beyond comprehension.
To the matter at hand. One hundred fifty-three years ago, ladies and
gentlemen, that is when these tribes were robbed of their land. The
historic record shows they were swindled out of their promised land.
This has been their version, their own version of the Trail of Tears.
We must not continue to condone that.
We have a higher calling in this body. This is a matter about rising
above the petty differences, it's about making restitution and making
the tribes involved whole, making the tribes involved whole, and as
well clearing title to land where the good people of Charlotte Beach
reside.
So I would say to those of my colleagues with concerns over this
measure, look into your souls. There, it is my hope, that you will find
justice to this cause, to this land claim settlement. The pending
legislation, I might add, is supported by the United Auto Workers, the
International Union of Operating Engineers, and the International Union
of Machinists.
As I conclude, let me say again that it is time we move on so that we
can address other issues of importance to Indian country, such as the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, reported out of the Committee on
Natural Resources; self-governance issues; other land and economic
development issues, such as with the Catawba in South Carolina.
There are many other Indian tribes in Indian country around our
country that have many injustices yet to be addressed by the Congress
of the United States. We have to look into our souls and decide that it
is time to move above these petty differences, to realize that it is
incumbent upon us in the Congress to address these issues when others
will not.
So I implore my colleagues to support the pending legislation as well
as ending many other injustices to our first Americans, our native
Indians.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1298, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hensarling of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2176 to the Committee on Natural Resources, with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:

TITLE III--REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT FOR
FEDERAL AGENCIES

SEC. 301. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT
FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is repealed.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

[[Page 13755]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a
point of order.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I listened very carefully to this debate, it is clear that the
majority of the speakers feel very passionately that this is a debate
about economic development for the region, a distressed region of
Michigan. It's about economic development for a Native American tribe.
Someone would have to be totally out of touch with their constituency
not to realize that the number-one challenge to the economic well-being
of our citizens is the high cost of energy.
So, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It removes a
provision in last year's ``non-energy'' energy bill that would prevent
the government from using its purchasing power to spur the growth of
American energy resources, such as coal-to-liquids technology, oil
shale, and tar sands.
This is especially important since we know that right north of the
border, right north of Michigan, that our neighbor to the north,
Canada, is rich in these resources. Particularly, so much of their
energy and many of their exports come from tar sands.
The real estate that we are talking about in question could be
greatly impacted should the section 526 not be repealed. Because as
most people know who have studied the issue, Mr. Speaker, the United
States Air Force wishes to enter into long-term contracts in order to
help develop these promising new alternative energy alternatives. Yet
in the Democrat ``non-energy'' energy bill, they would be effectively
prevented from doing so. That will clearly have an adverse impact upon
the economic growth, the economic well-being of the Native American
tribe in question, not to mention the real estate in question as well.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, when we look at energy, energy now has become
a health care issue. It has become an education issue. It is certainly
a Native American issue. It is an economic growth issue as well. What
has happened is we have seen that the Democrat majority simply wants to
bring us bills that somehow believe that if we beg OPEC, we can bring
down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we sue OPEC, we can
bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we somehow berate
oil companies, that will cause prices to go down at the pump. Maybe we
should tax them. Well, they will take those taxes and put it right back
in their price.
But what the Democrat majority hasn't decided to do is to produce
American energy in America and bring down the cost of energy that way.
Not only have they decided not to do it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving
in the complete opposite direction with this section 526, which
prevents the Federal Government from contracting in order to spur the
growth of these promising alternative fuel sources, like coal-to-liquid
technology, like oil shale, like tar sands. They are moving in the
complete opposite direction.
Mr. Speaker, not unlike probably yourself and many of my other
colleagues on the floor on both sides of the aisle, we hear from our
constituents. I have heard from a constituent that says the high cost
of energy now is preventing them from having three meals a day. The
high cost of energy has caused them to have their adult children to
have to move back in with them. Yet our Democrat majority will not
bring a bill to the floor that actually produces American energy.
What Republicans want to do on this side of the aisle is, number one,
continue to develop our renewable energy resources. Mr. Speaker, before
coming to Congress I was an officer in a green energy company. Those
technologies are promising. But, Mr. Speaker, until they are
technologically and economically viable will be years to come. In the
meantime, people have to take their children to school every day.
People have to go to work every day. Many have to go and see their
physicians.
And so we need to bring down the cost of this energy now. We know
that we haven't built a refinery in America in almost 30 years. Our
capacity is down. We are having to import not just crude but we are
having to import refined gasoline as well. Yet, the Democrat majority
does nothing, does nothing to help build more refineries.
We need diversification. We need nuclear energy. We sit here and talk
to the American people about the threat of global warming, yet we know
nuclear energy has no greenhouse emissions whatsoever.
It's imperative that we pass this motion to recommit and get more
American energy today.

Point of Order

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, certainly after listening to the gentleman's
diatribe, or whatever it was he was talking about, it's certainly not
related to the pending legislation. Never once did I hear the word
``Indian.'' It's a further example of the petty politics the minority
is trying to play with the serious problems confronting the American
people.
I insist on my point of order, and I raise a point of order that the
motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions, in violation of
clause 7 of rule XVI. The instructions in the motion to recommit
address an unrelated matter to the pending legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how, when you can have speaker after
speaker come to the floor and say essentially this is a bill having to
do with the economic well-being of a distressed area of Michigan, the
economic well-being of a Native American tribe, and not believe that
somehow the cost of energy factors into the economic well-being.
We are talking also about a piece of real estate. We are talking
about the value of underlying minerals in this piece of real estate
that will be greatly impacted on whether or not this section 526 is
repealed or not.
I would just simply ask the Speaker, when is it germane to bring a
motion to produce American energy in America and bring down the high
cost of energy for the American people? If not now, when, Mr. Speaker?
When will the Democrat majority allow these motions to be voted on?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The bill, as amended, addresses settling certain land claims of two
tribal communities in the State of Michigan. The instructions in the
motion to recommit address an entirely different subject matter;
namely, alternative fuel procurement. Accordingly, the instructions are
not germane. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in
order.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
table will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the passage of the bill if
no further proceedings in recommittal intervene.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 189, not voting 19, as follows:

[[Page 13756]]

[Roll No. 457]

YEAS--226

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu

NAYS--189

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Cannon
Cantor
Cubin
Cummings
Delahunt
Fossella
Gohmert
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Peterson (PA)
Putnam
Rush
Salazar
Snyder
Speier
Sullivan
Sutton
Yarmuth

{time} 1605

Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. CROWLEY, UDALL of New Mexico, ABERCROMBIE, LYNCH, and ROTHMAN
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jones of Ohio). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 121,
nays 298, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 458]

YEAS--121

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor
Clay
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Cramer
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doyle
Ellsworth
Engel
English (PA)
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kuhl (NY)
LaTourette
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sires
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Stupak
Tanner
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Young (AK)

NAYS--298

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston

[[Page 13757]]

Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Cannon
Cubin
Cummings
Delahunt
Fossella
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Peterson (PA)
Putnam
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Sutton

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining on this vote.

{time} 1614

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BUTTERFIELD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

{time} 1615
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, pursuant to H. Res.
1299, I call up the bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the intent and
protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 3195

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 ``ADA Restoration Act of
2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``establish a clear and
comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
disability,'' and provide broad coverage and vigorous and
effective remedies without unnecessary and obstructive
defenses;
(2) decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly
narrowed the broad scope of protection afforded in the ADA,
eliminating protection for a broad range of individuals who
Congress intended to protect;
(3) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical
and mental impairments are natural parts of the human
experience that in no way diminish a person's right to fully
participate in all aspects of society, but Congress also
recognized that people with physical or mental impairments
having the talent, skills, abilities, and desire to
participate in society are frequently precluded from doing so
because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to
remove societal and institutional barriers;
(4) Congress modeled the ADA definition of disability on
that of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which,
through the time of the ADA's enactment, had been construed
broadly to encompass both actual and perceived limitations,
and limitations imposed by society;
(5) the broad conception of the definition had been
underscored by the Supreme Court's statement in its decision
in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 284
(1987), that the section 504 definition ``acknowledged that
society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and
disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations
that flow from actual impairment'';
(6) in adopting the section 504 concept of disability in
the ADA, Congress understood that adverse action based on a
person's physical or mental impairment is often unrelated to
the limitations caused by the impairment itself;
(7) instead of following congressional expectations that
disability would be interpreted broadly in the ADA, the
Supreme Court has ruled, in Toyota Motor Manufacturing,
Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 197 (2002), that
the elements of the definition ``need to be interpreted
strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as
disabled,'' and, consistent with that view, has narrowed the
application of the definition in various ways; and
(8) contrary to explicit congressional intent expressed in
the ADA committee reports, the Supreme Court has eliminated
from the Act's coverage individuals who have mitigated the
effects of their impairments through the use of such measures
as medication and assistive devices.
(b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to effect the ADA's objectives of providing ``a clear
and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent, enforceable
standards addressing discrimination'' by restoring the broad
scope of protection available under the ADA;
(2) to respond to certain decisions of the Supreme Court,
including Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471
(1999), Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516
(1999), Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555
(1999), and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that have narrowed the class
of people who can invoke the protection from discrimination
the ADA provides; and
(3) to reinstate original congressional intent regarding
the definition of disability by clarifying that ADA
protection is available for all individuals who are subjected
to adverse treatment based on actual or perceived impairment,
or record of impairment, or are adversely affected by
prejudiced attitudes, such as myths, fears, ignorance, or
stereotypes concerning disability or particular disabilities,
or by the failure to remove societal and institutional
barriers, including communication, transportation, and
architectural barriers, and the failure to provide reasonable
modifications to policies, practices, and procedures,
reasonable accommodations, and auxiliary aids and services.

SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) physical or mental disabilities are natural parts of
the human experience that in no way diminish a person's right
to fully participate in all aspects of society, yet people
with physical or mental disabilities having the talent,
skills, abilities, and desires to participate in society
frequently are precluded from doing so because of
discrimination; others who have a record of a disability or
are regarded as having a disability also have been subjected
to discrimination;''.
(2) by amending paragraph (7) to read as follows:
``(7) individuals with disabilities have been subject to a
history of purposeful unequal treatment, have had
restrictions and limitations imposed upon them because of
their disabilities, and have been relegated to positions of
political powerlessness in society; classifications and
selection criteria that exclude persons with disabilities
should be strongly disfavored, subjected to skeptical and
meticulous examination, and permitted only for highly
compelling reasons, and never on the basis of prejudice,
ignorance, myths, irrational fears, or stereotypes about
disability;''.

SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED.

Section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Disability.--
``(A) In general.--The term `disability' means, with
respect to an individual--
``(i) a physical or mental impairment;
``(ii) a record of a physical or mental impairment; or
``(iii) being regarded as having a physical or mental
impairment.
``(B) Rule of construction.--
``(i) The determination of whether an individual has a
physical or mental impairment shall be made without
considering the impact of any mitigating measures the
individual may or may not be using or whether or not any
manifestations of an impairment are episodic, in remission,
or latent.
``(ii) The term `mitigating measures' means any treatment,
medication, device, or other measure used to eliminate,
mitigate,

[[Page 13758]]

or compensate for the effect of an impairment, and includes
prescription and other medications, personal aids and devices
(including assistive technology devices and services),
reasonable accommodations, or auxiliary aids and services.
``(iii) Actions taken by a covered entity with respect to
an individual because of that individual's use of a
mitigating measure or because of a side effect or other
consequence of the use of such a measure shall be considered
actions taken on the basis of a disability under this Act.''.
(2) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (7) and
inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
``(3) Physical impairment.--The term `physical impairment'
means any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of
the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal;
special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs;
cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary;
hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine.
``(4) Mental impairment.--The term `mental impairment'
means any mental or psychological disorder such as mental
retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental
illness, or specific learning disabilities.
``(5) Record of physical or mental impairment.--The term
`record of physical or mental impairment' means having a
history of, or having been misclassified as having, a
physical or mental impairment.
``(6) Regarded as having a physical or mental impairment.--
The term `regarded as having a physical or mental impairment'
means being perceived or treated as having a physical or
mental impairment whether or not the individual has an
impairment.''.

SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

Section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12112) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability of
such individual'' and inserting ``against an individual on
the basis of disability''; and
(2) in subsection (b), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting
``discriminate against an individual on the basis of
disability''.

SEC. 6. QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL.

Section 103(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113(a)) is amended by striking ``that an
alleged application'' and inserting ``that--
``(1) the individual alleging discrimination under this
title is not a qualified individual with a disability; or
``(2) an alleged application''.

SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Section 501 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12201) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Broad Construction.--In order to ensure that this Act
achieves its purpose of providing a comprehensive prohibition
of discrimination on the basis of disability, the provisions
of this Act shall be broadly construed to advance their
remedial purpose.
``(f) Regulations.--In order to provide for consistent and
effective standards among the agencies responsible for
enforcing this Act, the Attorney General shall promulgate
regulations and guidance in alternate accessible formats
implementing the provisions herein. The Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and Secretary of Transportation shall
then issue appropriate implementing directives, whether in
the nature of regulations or policy guidance, consistent with
the requirements prescribed by the Attorney General.
``(g) Deference to Regulations and Guidance.--Duly issued
Federal regulations and guidance for the implementation of
this Act, including provisions implementing and interpreting
the definition of disability, shall be entitled to deference
by administrative bodies or officers and courts hearing any
action brought under this Act.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1299, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Education and Labor, printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 3195

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 ``ADA Amendments Act of
2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities'' and
provide broad coverage;
(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical
and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right
to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that
people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently
precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated
attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and
institutional barriers;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of
disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently
with how courts had applied the definition of handicap under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been
fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United
Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases,
and in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.
Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) have narrowed the broad scope
of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus
eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress
intended to protect; and
(5) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts
have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a
range of substantially limiting impairments are not people
with disabilities.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing ``a
clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent,
enforceable standards addressing discrimination'' by
reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under
the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme
Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)
and its companion cases that whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity is to be
determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of
mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v.
United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to
coverage under the third prong of the definition of
disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme
Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S.
273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of
the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of
1973;
(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court
in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,
534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ``substantially'' and
``major'' in the definition of disability under the ADA
``need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that to be
substantially limited in performing a major life activity
under the ADA ``an individual must have an impairment that
prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing
activities that are of central importance to most people's
daily lives''; and
(5) to provide a new definition of ``substantially limits''
to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict
and demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota
Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams and by
numerous lower courts.

SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.

Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a
person's right to fully participate in all aspects of
society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities
have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination;
others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as
having a disability also have been subjected to
discrimination;''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (7).

SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

(a) Definition of Disability.--Section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to
read as follows:

``SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.

``As used in this Act:
``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' means, with
respect to an individual--
``(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
``(B) a record of such an impairment; or
``(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as
described in paragraph (4)).
``(2) Substantially limits.--The term `substantially
limits' means materially restricts.
``(3) Major life activities.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), major
life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking,
breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking,
communicating and working.
``(B) Major bodily functions.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a
major bodily function, including but not limited to,
functions of the immune system, normal cell growth,
digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory,
circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
``(4) Regarded as having such an impairment.--For purposes
of paragraph (1)(C):
``(A) An individual meets the requirement of `being
regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual
establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action
prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived
physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment
limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that
are transitory and minor. A

[[Page 13759]]

transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or
expected duration of 6 months or less.
``(5) Rules of construction regarding the definition of
disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1)
shall be construed in accordance with the following:
``(A) To achieve the remedial purposes of this Act, the
definition of `disability' in paragraph (1) shall be
construed broadly.
``(B) An impairment that substantially limits one major
life activity need not limit other major life activities in
order to be considered a disability.
``(C) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a
disability if it would substantially limit a major life
activity when active.
``(D)(i) The determination of whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity shall be made
without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating
measures such as--
``(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or
appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary
eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs
and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other
implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen
therapy equipment and supplies;
``(II) use of assistive technology;
``(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or
services; or
``(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological
modifications.
``(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures
of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered
in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a
major life activity.
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses'
means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity
or eliminate refractive error; and
``(II) the term `low-vision devices' means devices that
magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended by
adding after section 3 the following:

``SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.

``As used in this Act:
``(1) Auxiliary aids and services.--The term `auxiliary
aids and services' includes--
``(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of
making aurally delivered materials available to individuals
with hearing impairments;
``(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective
methods of making visually delivered materials available to
individuals with visual impairments;
``(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices;
and
``(D) other similar services and actions.
``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands.''
(c) Amendment to the Table of Contents.--The table of
contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 3 and inserting the following items:

``Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
``Sec. 4. Additional definitions.''.

SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.

(a) On the Basis of Disability.--Section 102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with a disability
because of the disability of such individual'' and inserting
``on the basis of disability''; and
(2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting
``discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of
disability''.
(b) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Section 103 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by
redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and
(e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(5)(D)(ii), a
covered entity shall not use qualification standards,
employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an
individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or
other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is
shown to be job-related for the position in question and
consistent with business necessity.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 101(8) of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is
amended--
(1) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a
disability''; and
(2) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual''
both places it appears.

SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12201) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
``(e) Benefits Under State Worker's Compensation Laws.--
Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining
eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation
laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
``(f) Claims of No Disability.--Nothing in this Act shall
provide the basis for a claim by a person without a
disability that he or she was subject to discrimination
because of his or her lack of disability.
``(g) Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications.--A
covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II,
and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a
place of public accommodation under title III, need not
provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable
modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an
individual who meets the definition of disability in section
3(1) solely under subparagraph (C).'';
(2) by redesignating section 506 through 514 as sections
507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505
the following:

``SEC. 506. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY
AUTHORITY.

``The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and
the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the
authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions
contained in sections 3 and 4.''; and
(3) in the table of contents contained in section 1(b), by
redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514
as sections 507 through 515, respectively, and by inserting
after the item relating to section 505 the following new
item:

``Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority.''.

SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``a physical'' and all
that follows through ``major life activities'', and inserting
``the meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990''; and
(2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking ``any person who''
and all that follows through the period at the end, and
inserting ``any person who has a disability as defined in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.''.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on January 1, 2009.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour, with 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor, and 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman
from California (Mr. McKeon) each will control 20 minutes, and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).

General Leave

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent for all Members to have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3195.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Americans
with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.
Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has made it possible
for millions of productive, hardworking Americans to participate in our
Nation's economy. Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers
with disabilities would be judged on their merits, not on their
employer's prejudices.
But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have
dramatically reduced the number of workers with disabilities who are
protected from discrimination under the law. Workers with diabetes,
cancer, epilepsy, the very workers for whom the Americans with
Disabilities Act was intended to protect, can be legally fired or
passed over for promotion just because of their disability.
In January, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony from
Carey McClure. Although he was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy at age
15, Carey had been working as an electrician for more than 20 years.
Like so many other Americans with disabilities, Carey was able to find
his way to successfully perform his job and all of life's daily tasks
despite his disability.

[[Page 13760]]

Carey received an initial job offer from General Motors pending a
physical. During the physical, the doctor asked Carey to hold his arms
above his head. Carey could not. The doctor asked how he would perform
his job if it required reaching over his head. Carey gave a commonsense
answer: he would use a ladder. When General Motors learned that Carey
had a disability, it rescinded the job offer. Carey challenged General
Motors' decision because he thought the Americans with Disabilities Act
would protect him. He was wrong. The court ruled that, since Carey had
adapted to his condition by modifying the way he performed everyday
tasks, like washing his hair, he was not disabled; and, therefore, was
not protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Because of Supreme Court rulings, Carey and many others are now
caught in a legal Catch-22. The court has determined that, for
individuals whose disabilities do not ``prevent or severely restrict''
major life activities and for those who mitigate their impairments
through means such as hearings aids or with medications, they should
not be considered disabled.
In other words, an employer could fire or refuse to hire a fully
qualified worker simply on the basis of his or her disability, while
maintaining in court that the worker was not ``disabled enough'' to
qualify for protection under the law.
H.R. 3195, the legislation before us today, a bipartisan legislation,
was introduced by Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Jim
Sensenbrenner, and it remedies this problem. The bill reverses the
flawed court decision and restores the original congressional intent of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
H.R. 3195 clarifies the definition of a ``disability,'' ensuring that
anyone with a physical or with a mental impairment that materially
restricts a major life activity is covered under ADA.
In 2004, workers with disabilities lost 97 percent of the employment
cases that went to trial. There has been no balance in the courts,
putting workers at a distinct disadvantage. Too often, these cases have
turned solely on the question of whether someone is an individual with
a disability; too rarely have courts considered the merits of the
discrimination claim itself.
H.R. 3195 stops the erosion of civil rights protections for people
with disabilities while maintaining a reasonable solution supported by
the business community.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce states that H.R. 3195 ``represents a
balanced approach to ensure appropriate coverage under ADA.''
The Human Resource Policy Association, whose members employ 12
percent of the U.S. private-sector workforce, also supports the bill.
The organization says that the ADA amendment ``would maintain the
functionality of the workplace while providing important protections to
individuals with disabilities.''
H.R. 3195 makes it clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act
protects anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability and
that Congress intended the law to be constructed broadly.
Many of our Nation's injured veterans returning from the battlefield
will also need the protections guaranteed by the ADA. When injured
soldiers return to civilian life, whether they go back to a job or to
school, they should not be subject to discrimination. This legislation
will ensure that they will not have to fight another battle, this time
for their economic livelihood.
The Supreme Court rulings have also reduced protections for students
with disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act ensures that students with
physical and mental impairments will be free from discrimination and
that they will have access to the accommodations and to the
modifications they need to successfully pursue an education.
This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans,
businesses and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I am
pleased we were able to work together to get to this point.
It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and to ensure
that the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to
work and to attend school and to participate in our communities will
have the chance to do so. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Again, I would like to give a special thanks to Majority Leader Hoyer
of Maryland and to Representative Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin for
their outstanding efforts on behalf of the Members of this House during
these negotiations, to bring those negotiations between the civil
rights community, the disabilities community, and the employer
community to a successful conclusion, which is embodied in this
legislation today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to associate myself with the remarks that Chairman Miller just
made of thanking Leader Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner for the work that
they began in the last Congress and persevered to bring us to this
point today.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad
bipartisan support. Among the bill's most important purposes was the
protecting of individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the
workplace.
By many measures, the law has been a success. I firmly believe that
the employer community has taken the ADA to heart with businesses
adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful
opportunities to individuals with disabilities.
However, despite the law's many success stories, it is clear today
that, for some, the ADA is failing to live up to its promise. For
example, the Education and Labor Committee heard testimony earlier this
year from individuals who, I would stipulate, were intended to be
covered under the original ADA. But in a perverse fashion, someone who
was able to treat the effects of his or her disability through
medication or technology was left without protection because they
weren't ``disabled'' enough.
I don't think that is what the authors of the original ADA intended.
I don't believe it is what we intend today, and I am glad that the bill
before us addresses and corrects this issue.
Madam Speaker, we are here today because some individuals have been
left outside the scope of the act's protections by court cases and by
narrow interpretations of the law. Still, others have sought to
massively expand the law's protections, an equally dangerous
proposition.
Our task with this legislation is to focus relief where it is needed,
while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the original
ADA.
In the months since this bill was first introduced, I am pleased to
say we were able to do so. Because the ADA extends its protections to
so many facets of American life, there were four separate committees
with the responsibility for moving the process forward. Equally
important, this compromise was forged with representatives of many of
the stakeholders who will be affected by this bill. It was truly a
process of give-and-take.
For instance, even as we work to ensure the law's protections are
extended to some who are currently excluded, such as those I mentioned
earlier who were wrongly considered to be not ``disabled enough,'' we
define that expansion cautiously. Through the carefully crafted
language of the bill, we will ensure, for example, that someone is not
``disabled'' under the ADA simply because he or she wears eyeglasses or
contact lenses. That's an important limitation, and it is necessary to
maintaining the intent and integrity of the ADA.
Also importantly, this version of the legislation maintains a
requirement of the ADA, which is that, to be considered a disability, a
physical or a mental impairment must ``substantially limit'' an
individual.
As introduced, H.R. 3195 threatened to gut any meaningful limitation
on the ADA by simply calling any impairment, no matter how trivial or
minor, a disability. That was not the intent of

[[Page 13761]]

Congress in 1990, nor should it be today.
Madam Speaker, I support this bill, not because I think it is perfect
but because I think it represents our best efforts to ensure that
meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need, while the
ADA's careful balance is maintained as fully as possible.
In recognition of that achievement, let me simply thank my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle for honoring our shared commitment to work
together on this issue that has the potential to touch the lives of
millions of Americans. And I also want to thank all of the people who
worked so hard--the members of the community most affected by this--and
thank them for their efforts and patience in working with us.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the ADA
Amendments Act, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to
recognize the fact that this act is championed by my good friend and
colleague from Maryland, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

{time} 1630

This crucial legislation would not have been possible without his
leadership and that of Mr. Sensenbrenner and so many of my other
colleagues, and I thank all of them for their tireless efforts to
ensure the continued inclusion and protection of people with
disabilities in our society.
I would also like to extend my gratitude to all of the advocates of
disability and business communities who have united behind this
important cause and worked diligently with Members of Congress to
ensure a fair and strong compromise.
The American Disabilities Act, or ADA, was truly one of the most
significant pieces of civil rights legislation of the 20th century. As
someone who has lived with the challenges of a disability both before
and after the ADA's enactment in 1990, I have experienced firsthand the
profound transformation this law has created in our society.
I remember well what it was like before the passage of the ADA and
where accommodations were seen as personal courtesies or privileges as
opposed to a civil right. I can remember what it was like coming down
to Washington as a young intern for Senator Pell from Rhode Island and
how challenging it was to find good, reasonable public accommodations.
And I remember what it was like in Rhode Island before the ADA was
passed in terms of voting, and I was not able to vote independently on
my own. I had to have help in the voting machine. And it wasn't until
after the ADA was passed and I became Secretary of State and changed
our election system that it was truly possible to vote independently on
my own.
The ADA has broken down countless barriers and helped millions of
Americans to flourish in their personal and professional lives. It has
also served as a vital tool against discrimination in the workplace and
in public life. Unfortunately, a number of court decisions over the
years have diluted the definition of what constitutes a disability,
effectively limiting the ADA's coverage and excluding from its
protections people with diabetes, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, and
various developmental disabilities.
The bill before us today reaffirms the protections of the ADA and
renews our promise of equality for every American. The ADA has as its
fundamental goal the inclusion of people in all aspects of society, and
I am very pleased to say that the ADA Amendments Act brings us one step
closer to that goal.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a strong message
that discrimination in any form will never be tolerated in this great
Nation.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Woolsey).
Ms. WOOLSEY. I would like to thank the chairman for the time and for
this legislation that is bipartisan.
When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act nearly two
decades ago, we did so to ensure that persons with disabilities can
learn, work, and live their lives just like everyone else. People with
disabilities just want the same opportunities as everyone else. And if
their disabilities can be reasonably accommodated, we must make it
possible and make sure that they are given the chance to do so.
By saying that people with disabilities who use medication or
prosthetics to manage their disabilities are no longer considered
disabled under the ADA Act, the courts have prevented many with
disabilities from receiving the protections Congress intended for them.
H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act, would ensure that the ADA protects
all people with disabilities from workplace discrimination by
clarifying the definition of discrimination. This bill further
clarifies that individuals who are able to manage their disabilities
enough to participate in major life activities, like holding a job,
should still be entitled to protections from discrimination.
The ADA was passed to ensure that all people with disabilities have
equal access and opportunities, and it's time that we bring back its
original intent. Today we can do that. It's a matter of doing what is
right.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act of
2008.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my chairman for yielding.
I would like to thank and congratulate him and Mr. McKeon and Mr.
Sensenbrenner and others for their hard work on this. Mr. Hoyer in
particular.
Words have meaning. And when the original Americans with Disabilities
Act was enacted, the word ``disability'' had a commonsense meaning. It
meant if someone had a substantial impairment, mentally or physically,
that would interfere with their ability to do something important, that
was a disability. I think a hundred of Americans, if you stopped them
on the street and asked them if they agreed with that, they would say
``yes.'' Unfortunately, not enough of those Americans served on the
United States Supreme Court, and we wound up with a tortured rendition
of the definition of ``disability'' where people that we clearly would
think were disabled were excluded from the protections of this law.
The authors of this bill worked long and hard to clear up that
confusion and strike the right balance between the opportunities of
Americans with disabilities and a fair set of ground rules for
employers and other institutions in our society. I believe this
legislation clearly strikes the right balance.
Something else is very important, too. It liberates the talents of
people who have been heretofore kept out of the workplace and out of
other institutions: the person in a wheelchair who might be the best
computer programmer, the blind person who might be the best financial
analyst, the person with tuberculosis who might be the best financial
planner or health care technician. The talents of these individuals
have too often been kept out of the fray.
This bill will put them back in the fray, put them back on the
playing field and help not only Americans with a disability but all of
us who will benefit from the liberation of their talent.
I congratulate the authors and urge a ``yes'' vote on this necessary
and important piece of legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield at this time to the
Republican whip, who was so important in getting this bill here to the
floor, such time as he may consume, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Blunt).
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman for yielding
me the time and the hard work he and Mr. Sensenbrenner have done to
bring this bill to this point.
Certainly, this bill does a lot to restore the original intention of
the Congress as to what the Congress had

[[Page 13762]]

hoped at the time that the Americans with Disabilities Act would be. I
am pleased to be a cosponsor of the bill that's on the floor today. I
think it strikes the right balance between protection for individuals
with disabilities and the obligations of the requirements of employers
themselves.
Ultimately, that partnership is the partnership that makes the most
of people in the workplace and the skills they bring to the workplace.
This ensures that people with disabilities, whom the Congress intended
to cover by the original Americans with Disabilities Act long before I
came to Congress, are now covered, as I understand it, by these
changes, and that's important. It is better when there is a conflict
between the courts and the Congress for the Congress to come back and
say, ``No, that's not what we meant. This is what we meant, and this is
what we hope to happen in the country.''
This prohibits consideration of mitigating circumstances in the
determination of whether an individual has a disability. Of course, it
continues to allow the normal eyeglasses and contacts and things like
that as an exception in those circumstances.
Most of all, Madam Speaker, this bill puts people to work. This bill
creates opportunity. This bill creates a workplace where the skills
people can bring to the workplace are maximized, not minimized, where
what they add to the total product of America makes America a more
productive country and for them establishes a totally different set of
goals, a set of aspirations, a set of ways that they look at the world
every day and brings their skills in new ways to the workplace.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill. I urge my
colleagues to do the same and think that the approach we've taken here
of the Congress itself going back and trying to clarify what the
Congress meant is certainly better than letting the court determine
perpetually what the Congress intended to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Chairman, does the gentleman
from California have any further speakers?
Mr. McKEON. We have one more. They're not here yet. I reserve my
time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. If we can reserve our time and let
Judiciary go ahead and start using their time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon)
continues to reserve, and the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller) continues to reserve.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
It is a pleasure to join the Education and Labor Committee. I would
like to begin by recognizing the chairman of the Constitution Committee
on Judiciary which held the hearings on the bill in the Judiciary
Committee. I yield, therefore, to the gentleman from New York, Jerry
Nadler, for 3 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well as the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Education
and Labor Committee for their leadership on this important legislation.
This bill would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
This bill fixes the absurd Catch-22 created by the Supreme Court in
which an individual can face discrimination on the basis of an actual
past or perceived disability and yet not be considered sufficiently
disabled to be protected against that discrimination by the ADA. That
was never Congress' intent, and this bill cures this problem.
Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that
this bill might cover minor or trivial conditions. They worry about
covering stomachaches, the common cold, mild seasonal allergies, or
even a hangnail. I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an
individual with a hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the
ADA was construed not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy,
diabetes, severe intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and
multiple sclerosis.
These people have too often been excluded because their impairment,
however serious or debilitating, was mischaracterized by the courts as
temporary or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent
enough.
That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse with breast cancer
who challenged her employer's failure to rehire her into her position
when she returned from treatment. Ms. Pimental was told by the court
that her cancer was not a disability and that she was not covered by
the ADA. The court recognized that ``there is no question that her
cancer has dramatically affected her life, and that the associated
impairment has been real and extraordinarily difficult for her and her
family.'' Yet the court still denied her coverage because it
characterized the impact of her cancer ``short-lived''--meaning that it
``did not have a substantial lasting effect'' on her.
Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two
children disagreed with the court that her cancer was short-lived and
not sufficiently permanent.
This bill ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered
by the law when they need it. The bill requires the courts--and the
Federal agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for
obtaining coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new
standard is not onerous and is meant to reduce needless litigation over
the threshold question of coverage.
It is our sincere hope that, with the passage of this bill, we will
finally be able to focus on the important questions: Is an individual
qualified? Might a reasonable accommodation afford that person the same
opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy?
I therefore urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of
H.R. 3195 as reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee. I thank
everyone associated with its passage.
Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished majority leader
and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for their leadership
on this important legislation.
H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that
have created an absurd Catch-22 in which an individual can face
discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability
and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against
that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and
H.R. 3195 cures this problem.
H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to
qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the
definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights
legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which
was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard
for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her
impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life
activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important,
it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage
in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including
working.
Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a
material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her
job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need
to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of
jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the Federal agencies
providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and
adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to
qualify for coverage.

[[Page 13763]]

This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that
this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry
about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal
allergies, or even a hangnail.''
I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a
hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed
not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe
intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple
sclerosis.
These people have too often been excluded because their impairment,
however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as
temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent
enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.
That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed
with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a
mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She
suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty
concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath.
And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that
her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time,
with reduced benefits.
When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her
into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was
not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court
recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even
said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically
affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and
extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''
Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it
characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that
it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.
Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two
children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as
``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.
This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad
bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.
H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered
by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the
definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil
rights legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the Federal
agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining
coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not
onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold
question of coverage.
It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions--
is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195,
as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.

{time} 1645

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, 18 years have passed since President George H.W. Bush
signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. While that bill
struck down many barriers affecting disabled Americans, its potential
has yet to be realized. This is due to a number of Supreme Court
decisions that have restricted ADA coverage for people suffering from
illnesses such as diabetes, epilepsy, and cancer, to name a few. Today,
this House takes the first step to finally secure the full promise of
the original bill.
The bill that the House is voting on this afternoon has undergone a
number of changes since I first introduced it in the 109th Congress.
Today's ADA Amendments Act of 2008 is a compromise that has the support
of a broad and balanced coalition. Business groups such as the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the HR Policy Association, and the National
Association of Manufacturers all back this bill. In addition, advocates
for the disability community, including the American Association of
People with Disabilities, the Epilepsy Foundation, and the National
Disability Rights Network, join in support.
Majority Leader Hoyer and I introduced the ADA Restoration Act last
summer. We did so to enable disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to
focus on the discrimination that they have experienced rather than
having to first prove that they fall within the scope of the ADA's
protection. Today's bill makes it clear that Congress intended the
ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone who faces unfair
discrimination because of a disability. To that end, we are submitting
for the Record a statement outlining our legal intent and analysis of
the new definition, as changed by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
The ADA Amendments Act makes changes to the original ADA, the primary
one being that it will be easier for people with disabilities to
qualify for protection under the ADA. This is done by establishing that
the definition of disability is to be interpreted broadly. Another
important change clarifies that the ameliorative efforts of mitigating
measures are not to be considered in determining whether a person has a
disability. This provision eliminates the Catch-22 that currently
exists, as described by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), where
individuals subjected to discrimination on the basis of their
disabilities are unable to invoke the ADA's protections because they
are not considered people with disabilities when the effects of their
medication or other interventions are considered.
It is important to note that this bill is not one-sided. It is a fair
product that is workable for employers and businesses. The bill
contains the requirement that an impairment be defined as one that
substantially limits a major life activity in order to be considered a
disability. There is also an exception in the mitigating measures
provision for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses. Further, the bill
excludes from coverage impairments that are transitory and minor.
The ADA has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed
by Congress. Its continued effectiveness is paramount to ensuring that
the transformation that our Nation has undergone and continues in the
future and that the guarantees and promises on which this country was
established continue to be recognized on behalf of all of its citizens.
I appreciate Majority Leader Hoyer's efforts to bring the ADA
Amendments Act to the floor, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of it.
Finally, I'd like to pay tribute to my wife, Cheryl, who is the
national chairman of the board of the American Association for People
with Disabilities. Her tireless efforts have really spread the word
amongst many Members of this House and a few of the other body that
this legislation is necessary so that people like her do not have
barriers in terms of seeking employment. And I appreciate, also, my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle listening to her, even when they
didn't have a choice.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the
distinguished majority leader, who was an original sponsor of the bill
some 18 years ago, for 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee for yielding, and I thank him for his efforts.
I want to thank his staff, as well, who have been extraordinary.
Heather, in particular, has had her virtues regaled by Dr. Abouchar of
my staff, and I thank her.
I want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner. I want to thank Cheryl, as well,
who has been an extraordinary help on the Americans with Disabilities
Act and with this Restoration Act. She has been a giant in her
leadership. And I want to thank Jim Sensenbrenner, with whom I've
worked now for many years on this issue, and he has been, of

[[Page 13764]]

course, a giant, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee in years past
and one of the senior Members of this House, extraordinarily helpful
and a partner in this effort.
I also want to thank Buck McKeon, the ranking member. At the time we
testified, he said, you know, we want to see this pass but we want to
work together and make sure we can all be for it. And I assured him
that we would do that, and I was pleased today that he said, in fact,
we had done that. And I think the result that we will see in the vote
will show that clearly. And I thank him for his work and effort and
good faith in working towards a bill that we could all support.
I want to thank George Miller, the chairman of the Education and
Labor Committee, whose committee had primary jurisdiction over this
bill, for his efforts in assuring that this bill moves forward.
Madam Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a list of
people, particularly in the disabilities community and also in the
business community, who spent countless hours, days, weeks and, yes,
even months trying to come to an agreement on a bill that both the
business community and the disability community would feel comfortable
with. We have accomplished that, but it was the work of these people as
well who did that, and I would submit this at this time in the Record
to thank them for their efforts and their success which they are so
responsible for today.

People to Recognize

Chai Feldblum, Georgetown University; Former U.S. Rep. Tony
Coelho; Former U.S. Rep. Steve Bartlett; Sandy Finucane,
Epilepsy Foundation; Andy Imparato, American Association of
People with Disabilities; Randy Johnson, Mike Eastman, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; John Lancaster, National Council on
Independent Living; Mike Peterson, HR Policy Association;
Curt Decker, National Disability Rights Network;
Jeri Gillespie, Ryan Modlin, National Association of
Manufacturers; Nancy Zirkin, Lisa Borenstein, Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights; Mike Aitken, Mike Layman, Society
for Human Resource Management; Abby Bownas, American Diabetes
Association; Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law; Kevin Barry, Georgetown University; Jim Flug,
Georgetown University; Claudia Center, Employment Law Center;
Shereen Arent, American Diabetes Association; Brian East,
Advocacy Inc.

Madam Speaker, 18 years ago next month, the first President Bush
signed into law one of the most consequential pieces of civil rights
legislation in recent memory, in over a quarter of a century in fact.
In the ceremony on the south lawn of the White House President Bush
said this:
``With today's signing of the landmark Americans with Disabilities
Act, every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through
once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and
freedom.''
In large measure, President Bush was right. Those doors have, in
fact, come open. Tens of millions of Americans with disabilities now
enjoy rights the rest of us have long taken for granted: The right to
use the same streets, theaters, restrooms, or offices; the right to
prove themselves in the workplace, to succeed on their talent and drive
alone.
We all understand why there are cuts in the sidewalk at every street
corner, kneeling buses on our city streets, elevators on the Metro,
ramps at movie theaters, and accessible restrooms and handicapped
parking almost everywhere. By now, they have become part of our lives'
fabric. And we wouldn't have it, I think, any other way, because each
one is the sign of a pledge, the promise of an America that excludes
none of its people from our shared life and opportunities.
That was the promise of the ADA. That was the promise of the ADA that
President George Bush signed on July 26, 1990. But looking back 18
years, the hard truth is that we were, in some ways, perhaps too
optimistic.
The door President Bush spoke of is still not entirely open, and
every year, millions of us are caught on the wrong side. In
interpreting the law over these 18 years, the courts have consistently
chipped away at Congress' very clear intent, and I know what the intent
was because I was there as so many of you were.
I know that many of my colleagues were as well, and I know that they
share my disappointment in a series of narrow rulings that have had the
effect of excluding millions of Americans from the law's protection for
no good reason. We said we wanted broad coverage for people with
disabilities and people regarded as disabled, but the courts narrowed
that coverage with a ``strict and demanding standard,'' a severely
restrictive measure that virtually excluded entire classes of people,
even though we had specifically mentioned their impairments as objects
of the law's protections.
Civil rights acts have historically been urged to be interpreted
liberally to accomplish their objective of protecting the rights of
individuals. Unfortunately, in this instance, the courts did not follow
that premise.
We never expected that people with disabilities who worked to
mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them.
Imagine, somebody with epilepsy who takes medication to preclude
seizures would be told that we're not going to hire you because you
have epilepsy, but then be told by the court that that was not
discrimination because prescription drugs mitigated the ability or the
disability that you had. No one on this floor would have thought in
their wildest assertions that that would be an interpretation.
The courts did exactly that, however, throwing their cases out on the
grounds that they were no longer disabled enough to suffer
discrimination. The discrimination, of course, was determining that
somebody had epilepsy, and notwithstanding their ability to perform the
job in question, that they would not be hired. That is the essence of
discrimination.
That is what we sought to preclude, and I want to again congratulate
the business community and the disabilities community for coming
together on legislation that will right that misinterpretation because
none of what has been held was our intent.
We are here today because a truly wide coalition--members of the
disability community ready to claim their equal share, Members of both
parties who were tired of seeing constituents shut out, and business
groups eager to unlock new pools of talent--an alliance as broad as the
one that joined forces to pass the original ADA, has come together to
help the courts get this right. I know some of them are watching, and I
want to thank them, through my colleagues and through the Speaker, for
their efforts.
With the ADA Amendments Act, we make it clear today that a cramped
reading of disability rights will be replaced with a definition that is
broad and fair--fair to the disability community and fair to the
business community--that those who manage to mitigate their
disabilities are still subject to discrimination and still entitled to
redress, and that those regarded as having disability are equally at
risk and deserve to be equally protected.
I am proud, Madam Speaker, to have worked for so long with my
colleague Jim Sensenbrenner, as I said earlier. He has been a leader in
advancing this legislation, and we've joined together to submit for the
Record a legal analysis of the bill that we've worked so hard to bring
to fruition.
And I want to thank my good friend, former Congressman Tony Coelho
for originally enlisting me in this effort. Very frankly, Tony is one
of my very close friends, and when he left the Congress, the ADA had
not yet been accomplished. But it was his leadership that got it to the
point where, in fact, we could proceed, and he gave me the
responsibility of ensuring its passage. Working with George Miller and
John Conyers and Jim Oberstar and so many others, we were able to
accomplish that objective. But Tony Coelho was our leader on this
effort, and very frankly, Madam Speaker, our former whip remains our
leader today.
Finally, it is my honor to dedicate this bill to the late Justin
Dart, the pioneering disability advocate and inspiration behind the
ADA, as well as to his wife, Yoshiko Dart.
Madam Speaker, few kinds of discrimination, in all of our history,
have been more widespread than the exclusion of those with
disabilities. But it

[[Page 13765]]

was America, America that passed a pioneering law to help end that
exclusion. We were the first in the world to do so.

{time} 1700

We were the world's model on this central challenge to human rights.
Eighteen years later, we cannot afford to fall behind.
Let us pass this bill and bring us one step closer to the days when
the fruits of life in America are at last available to all.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I will yield to my friend.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding,
and certainly thank him for all his leadership on this bill. But I want
to thank him on behalf of the Chairs and the ranking members of the two
committees, you and Mr. Sensenbrenner, for the leadership that you both
provided throughout these difficult and visionary negotiations to
restore this act to the place that it should be. I just want to
publicly, on behalf, I think, of everybody in the Congress, thank you
and Mr. Sensenbrenner for your leadership on this.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman on behalf of Mr. Sensenbrenner and
myself, and for all those who have been involved in this effort.

Joint Statement of Representatives Hoyer and Sensenbrenner on the
Origins of the ADA Restoration Act of 2008, H.R. 3195

On September 29, 2006, we introduced H.R. 6258, entitled
the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act of 2006.
This bill was a response to decisions of the Supreme Court
and lower courts narrowing the group of people whom Congress
had intended to protect under the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA). The Supreme Court had interpreted the ADA to
impose a ``demanding'' standard for coverage. It had also
held that the ameliorative effects of ``mitigating measures''
that people use to control the effects of their disabilities
must be considered in determining whether a person has an
impairment that substantially limits a major life activity
and is protected by the ADA. This holding was contrary to
Congress's stated intent in several committee reports.
We introduced H.R. 6258, which was designed to reverse
these holdings, at the end of the 2006 legislative session.
We intended this bill to serve as a marker of our intent to
introduce future legislation to address this issue. On July
26, 2007, we introduced similar legislation, H.R. 3195, the
ADA Restoration Act of 2007, which ultimately garnered over
240 cosponsors. A nearly identical bill, S. 1881, was
introduced in the Senate on the same day by Senators Harkin
and Specter.
H.R. 3195 as introduced would have amended the ADA to
provide protection for any individual who had a physical or
mental impairment or a record of such an impairment, or who
was treated as having such an impairment. The purpose of this
legislation was to restore the intent of Congress to cover a
broad group of individuals with disabilities under the ADA
and to eliminate the problem of courts focusing too heavily
on whether individuals were covered by the law rather than on
whether discrimination occurred. The bill as introduced,
however, was seen by many as extending the protections of the
ADA beyond those that Congress originally intended to
provide.
In order to craft a more balanced bill with broad support,
we urged that representatives of the disability and business
communities enter into negotiations to try to reach an
acceptable compromise. We maintained contact with these
communities over the course of their negotiations and
supported them in their efforts to understand the needs and
concerns of each community. After several months of intensive
discussions, negotiators for the two communities reached
consensus on a set of protections for people with
disabilities that garnered broad support from both
communities. These protections would significantly expand the
group of individuals protected by the ADA beyond what the
courts have held, while at the same time ensuring that the
expansion does not extend beyond the original intent of the
ADA.
This compromise formed the basis of the amendment in the
nature of a substitute for H.R. 3195 that was voted out of
the House Education and Labor and Judiciary Committees with
overwhelming support on June 18, 2008. The substitute bill
was reported out of the Education and Labor Committee by a
vote of 43-1, and out of the Judiciary Committee by a vote of
27-0.

The Provisions of the Committee Substitute to H.R. 3195

The primary purpose of H.R. 3195, as amended by the
committee substitute, is to make it easier for people with
disabilities to qualify for protection under the ADA. The
bill does this in several ways. First, it establishes that
the definition of disability must be interpreted broadly to
achieve the remedial purposes of the ADA. The bill rejects
the Supreme Court's holdings that the ADA's definition of
disability must be read ``strictly to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that an individual
must have an impairment that ``prevents or severely restricts
the individual from doing activities that are of central
importance to most people's daily lives'' in order to qualify
for protection. The bill also provides a new definition of
``substantially limits'' to make clear Congress's intent to
depart from the standard applied by the Supreme Court in
Toyota Motor Mfg. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S.
184, 197 (2002), and to apply a lower standard.
Second, the bill provides that the ameliorative effects of
mitigating measures are not to be considered in determining
whether a person has a disability. This provision is intended
to eliminate the catch-22 that exists under current law,
where individuals who are subjected to discrimination on the
basis of their disabilities are frequently unable to invoke
the ADA's protections because they are not considered people
with disabilities when the effects of their medication,
medical supplies, behavioral adaptations, or other
interventions are considered. The one exception to the rule
about mitigating measures is that ordinary eyeglasses and
contact lenses are to be considered in determining whether a
person has a disability. The rationale behind this exclusion
is that the use of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses,
without more, is not significant enough to warrant protection
under the ADA.
Third, the bill provides that an impairment that is
episodic or in remission is a disability if it would
substantially limit a major life activity when active. This
provision is intended to reject the reasoning of court
decisions concluding that certain individuals with certain
conditions--such as epilepsy or post traumatic stress
disorder--were not protected by the ADA because their
conditions were episodic or intermittent.
Fourth, the bill provides for broad coverage under the
``regarded as'' prong of the definition of disability. It
clarifies that an individual can establish coverage under the
``regarded as'' prong by establishing that he or she was
subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA because of an
actual or perceived impairment, whether or not the impairment
limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. This
provision does not apply to impairments that are both
transitory (lasting six months or less) and minor.
The purpose of the broad ``regarded as'' provision is to
reject court decisions that had required an individual to
establish that a covered entity perceived him or her to have
an impairment that substantially limited a major life
activity. This provision is designed to restore Congress's
intent to allow individuals to establish coverage under the
``regarded as'' prong by showing that they were treated
adversely because of an impairment, without having to
establish the covered entity's beliefs concerning the
severity of the impairment.
Impairments that are transitory and minor are excluded from
coverage in order to provide some limit on the reach of the
``regarded as'' prong. The intent of this exception is to
prevent litigation over minor illnesses and injuries, such as
the common cold, that were never meant to be covered by the
ADA.
A similar exception is not necessary for the first two
prongs of the definition of disability as the functional
limitation requirement adequately prevents claims by
individuals with ailments that do not materially restrict a
major life activity. In other words, there is no need for the
transitory and minor exception under the first two prongs
because it is clear from the statute and the legislative
history that a person can only bring a claim if the
impairment substantially limits one or more major life
activities or the individual has a record of an impairment
that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
The bill also provides that a covered entity has no
obligation to provide reasonable accommodations, or
reasonable modifications to policies, practices or
procedures, for an individual who qualifies as a person with
a disability solely under the ``regarded as'' prong. Under
current law, a number of courts have required employers to
provide reasonable accommodations for individuals who are
covered solely under the ``regarded as'' prong.
Fifth, the bill modifies the ADA to conform to the
structure of Title VII and other civil rights laws by
requiring an individual to demonstrate discrimination ``on
the basis of disability'' rather than discrimination
``against an individual with a disability'' because of the
individual's disability. We hope this will be an important
signal to both lawyers and courts to spend less time and
energy on the minutia of an individual's impairment, and more
time and energy on the merits of the case--including whether
discrimination occurred because of the disability, whether an
individual was qualified for a job or eligible for a service,
and whether a reasonable accommodation or modification was
called for under the law.
In exchange for the enhanced coverage afforded by these
provisions, the bill contains important limitations that will
make the bill workable from the perspective of businesses
that are governed by the law. We have

[[Page 13766]]

already noted some of these limitations: there is an
exception in the mitigating measures provision for ordinary
eyeglasses and contact lenses, and the ``regarded as''
provision includes two important limitations, as described
above.
Of key importance, the bill retains the requirement that a
person's impairment must substantially limit a major life
activity in order to be considered a disability.
``Substantially limits'' has been defined as ``materially
restricts'' in order to communicate to the courts that we
believe that their interpretation of ``significantly limits''
was stricter than we had intended. On the severity spectrum,
``materially restricts'' is meant to be less than ``severely
restricts,'' and less than ``significantly restricts,'' but
more serious than a moderate impairment which would be in the
middle of the spectrum.
The key point in establishing this standard is that we
expect this prong of the definition to be used only by people
who are affirmatively seeking reasonable accommodations or
modifications. Any individual who has been discriminated
against because of an impairment--short of being granted a
reasonable accommodation or modification--should be bringing
a claim under the third prong of the definition which will
require no showing with regard to the severity of his or her
impairment. However, for an individual who is asking an
employer or a business to make a reasonable accommodation or
modification, the bill appropriately requires that the
individual demonstrate a level of seriousness of the
impairment--that is, that it materially restricts a major
life activity.
The bill also retains the requirement in Title I of the ADA
that an individual must be ``qualified'' for the position in
question. The original version of H.R. 3195 contained
language which could have been interpreted to alter the
burden-shifting analysis concerning whether an individual is
``qualified'' under the ADA. The substitute bill makes clear
that there was no intent to place a greater burden on the
employer and that the burdens remain the same as under
current law.

Additional Legal Issues

We would like to clarify the intent of the bill with
respect to particular legal issues. First, some higher
education trade associations have raised questions about
whether the bill will eviscerate academic standards. This
bill will have absolutely no effect on the ability of higher
education institutions to set academic standards. It
addresses only the standards for determining who qualifies as
an individual with disability, and not the standards for
determining whether an accommodation or modification is
required in a particular setting or context. It has always
been, and it remains the law today under this bill, that an
academic institution need not make modifications that would
fundamentally alter the essential requirements of a program
of study. The particular concerns of educational institutions
in ensuring that students meet appropriate academic standards
are, of course, relevant in determining whether a requested
modification is reasonable in an educational setting.
There have been particular concerns with the way that
specific learning disabilities have been treated in the
academic context, and that individuals are not receiving
appropriate accommodations. The Education and Labor Committee
Report's discussion of specific learning disabilities is
specifically targeted toward the academic setting and not the
employment sector.
Second, a concern has been raised about whether the bill
changes current law with respect to the duration that is
required for an impairment to substantially limit a major
life activity. The bill makes no change to current law with
respect to this issue. The duration of an impairment is one
factor that is relevant in determining whether the impairment
substantially limits a major life activity. Impairments that
last only for a short period of time are typically not
covered, although they may be covered if sufficiently severe.
Third, some have raised questions about whether the bill's
provisions relating to mitigating measures would require
employers to provide certain mitigating measures as
accommodations. This bill's provisions are intended to
clarify the definition of disability, not to alter current
rules on provision of reasonable accommodations.
Fourth, the bill's language requiring that qualification
standards, employment tests, or other selection criteria
based on uncorrected vision must be job related for the
position in question and consistent with business necessity
is not intended to change current interpretations of whether
a qualification standard based on a government requirement or
regulation is job related for the position in question and
consistent with business necessity.
Passage of the ADA Amendments Act is a great moment in this
country's history. We would like to thank all the individuals
who worked so hard on these negotiations, and to thank the
thousands of individuals and businesses who care about making
this country a fair and equitable place for people with
disabilities.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, might I inquire of the time that we each
have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon)
has 13 minutes. The gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) has 7
minutes. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 6 minutes. The
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
This measure raises some very interesting questions from the point of
view of the Judiciary Committee. I begin by noting that the chairman
emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, had always had
a very abiding interest in this matter. But we have a curious problem.
Somebody is going to ask, how could a United States Supreme Court--a
bill passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in 1990--and then in 1999
simultaneously give not one or two, but three decisions slamming some
very fundamental interests that we had when the bill was passed? There
wasn't anything complicated or ambiguous about the bill that was passed
in this Congress in 1990. And we are now here fixing the three problems
that these decisions brought forward.
``We prohibit the consideration of measures that might lessen the
impact of an impairment--medication, insulin, a hearing aid.''
What kind of persons are on the Supreme Court of the United States
that have some difficulty understanding that if you have to use a
hearing aid, that does not lessen the nature of the disability? That's
earlier than first year law school. I mean, what was going on in the
majority of the members' minds?
Second, ``substantially limits'' they've transferred to mean
``materially restricts'' and instructs the court that these words must
be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.
Now the history of civil rights and voter rights law in this Congress
in the 20th and 21st century deals with the understood directive that
the law in these cases is to be interpreted generally and liberally,
and here they did just the opposite. This disability law is essentially
a civil rights matter, and they chose to ignore that. And so we had to
correct it. We had to say, Supreme Court, your attention, please. This
is civil rights law, and so it's not to be interpreted as narrowly as
you can, but as liberally as you can.
And then the third thing we chose to correct was the entire notion
that the disability law covers anyone who either experiences
discrimination because someone believes them to be disabled, whether
they are not or whether they actually are. It doesn't make any
difference. In other words, it is to be liberally interpreted.
And so we go into a very challenging period of American history with
an election coming up, and we've got a Supreme Court that we have to
constantly remind how to interpret civil rights laws. This is not a
comforting circumstance for your chairman of Judiciary--I don't think
for the ranking member of Judiciary either, if I might add.
There are those writing about the Supreme Court these days, and one
such commentator, Professor Rosen of Georgetown--``Today, however,
there are no economic populists on the Court, even on the liberal wing.
Ever since John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice in 2005, the Court
has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of
the cases the Court heard last term involved business interests, up
from around 30 percent in recent years.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield the gentleman an additional
1 minute.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the chairman of Education and Labor.
The closing example:
``While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a
year on average, the Roberts Court has

[[Page 13767]]

heard seven antitrust cases in the first two terms, and all of them
were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.''
Now, look. They must know that some people over here read and review
their decisions. It means that we have to be even more alert on the
questions that have brought this measure before the House today for its
disposal.
I'm very proud of the bipartisan aspect. I don't want to give too
much praise to the chairman emeritus of the committee, but he did a
very good job in this regard.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield now to the gentleman
from Delaware, ranking member of the K-12 Education Subcommittee, such
time as he may consume, Mr. Castle.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for
yielding. I do rise today in support of the ADA Amendments Act entitled
H.R. 3195.
Since 1990, the landmark civil rights legislation, the Americans With
Disabilities Act--ADA as we know it--has provided numerous benefits.
Over the last decade, however, people with serious health conditions,
including diabetes, have faced serious difficulties meeting the
definition of ``disability'' following the Supreme Court's decision
that disability must be determined in light of the mitigating measures,
like insulin, that a person uses.
These decisions have created a situation where people with serious
health conditions who use medications and other devices in order to
work are not considered ``disabled enough'' to be protected by the ADA
even when they are explicitly denied employment opportunities because
of that health condition.
Just briefly, I would like to mention Stephen Orr, a pharmacist from
Rapid City, South Dakota, who was fired by his employer for taking
lunch breaks to eat and manage his diabetes. After Stephen lost his
job, he decided to file a claim under the ADA. The employer responded
that Stephen did not have a disability because he was able to manage
his diabetes with insulin and diet. The courts agreed. And this, I'm
afraid, is only one example.
H.R. 3195 will remedy this problem. Passage will secure the promise
of the original ADA and make clear that Congress intended the ADA's
coverage to be broad, to cover anyone who faces unfair discrimination
because of a disability. At the same time, it strikes an appropriate
balance between the needs of individuals with disabilities and those of
employers.
I am pleased that H.R. 3195 enjoys the backing of a broad coalition
of supporters from both the employer and the disability communities. I
am also proud it has bipartisan support here, and I thank and
congratulate all those that had anything to do with putting this
together.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the
measure.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I recognize now the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Moran) for such time as he may consume.
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. McKeon) for yielding me time today, and I rise in
support of H.R. 3195.
In my world, in the way I look at life, all human beings, because
we're created by the same God, are entitled to respect and dignity. In
our framework in our country, our Constitution provides that we are
entitled to certain rights. One of those, as I see it, is the right to
an opportunity to succeed.
So I'm pleased that our country, in 1990, this Congress and the
Senate came together with the passage of the Americans With
Disabilities Act. And I'm pleased today that we are here to restore
certain of those rights that were believed to be there under the ADA
passed in 1990. What this law will do is to require the courts to
interpret this law in a fair manner.
We know that all of us are entitled to an opportunity to succeed. And
I think all of us, as we look at our lives, look just for the chance to
be judged based upon our own performance. We don't want special rights.
We all just want to be gauged by people who judge us by what we do and
how we do it and how well we do it. And so the original law and the
Restoration Act today, as I see it, establishes that premise that we're
all entitled to be judged based upon how we perform our tasks.
I support this legislation and am pleased by what I've heard on the
floor this afternoon by the way it came about. And I appreciate being
here to hear the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority
leader, speak about his sponsorship and authorship of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
One of my predecessors, Bob Dole, served in that similar capacity.
I'd like to quote my predecessor when he spoke about the ADA and
indicate that I believe that what he said then should be the words of
today as well:
``This historic civil rights legislation seeks to end the unjustified
segregation and exclusion of persons with disabilities from the
mainstream of American life. The ADA is fair and balanced legislation
that carefully blends the rights of people with disabilities with the
legitimate needs of the American business community.''
Madam Speaker, I believe that's what the legislation before us does
today, and again confirms the right that we all have to be judged based
upon our ability to perform.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There are so many individuals who deserve credit for bringing us to
this point today. I want to recognize Chairman Miller, the leaders of
the Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce
Committees, and all of our staffs on all of those committees on both
sides of the aisle and the membership of the leadership on both sides
of the aisle, and again especially Leader Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner
for this open, inclusive process.

{time} 1715

The bill is better for it.
I also want to recognize the stakeholders who came to the negotiating
table and helped us to reach consensus. It's often said that true
compromise leaves no one with exactly what they wanted. I expect that
is the case today. There are those who fear we have expanded the reach
of the ADA too far, and there are others who would have preferred us to
go further. But on the whole, we have found common ground that will
allow us to extend strong, meaningful protection to individuals with
disabilities without dramatically expanding the law, increasing its
burdens, or diluting its effectiveness.
I urge passage of the ADA Amendments Act.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I want to certainly
thank the staffs of our committees on both sides of the aisle for all
of their work. They put in a tremendous amount of time and intellectual
power behind the amendments to the ADA and to put it back in the place
that it should have after the court decisions damaged the intent and
the purposes of this act. I certainly want to thank Sharon Lewis of the
Committee on Education and Labor and Brian Kennedy and Thomas Webb, who
is with us as an intern, for all of their work.
I am very proud to be a Member of Congress today and certainly of the
House of Representatives as we pass this legislation. I was brought to
the issues around the disability community when I first came to
Congress, or perhaps a little before that when I was working in the
State legislature in California by a hardy crew from California who
were deeply involved in pursuing the civil rights of those with
disabilities and the constitutional rights of those with disabilities
and their place in the legislative process, and I want to thank them.
And that is Judy Heuman from California and known to many; and Ed
Roberts, a great champion of disability rights, a magnificent person;
and Hale Zukor, who still resides in Berkeley and continues the battle;
and Jim Donald, who is a wonderful attorney on behalf of many in the
disability community; and so many others.
In my time in Congress, I have watched the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
and the battle over the 504 regulations;

[[Page 13768]]

IDEA, at that time Education for All Handicapped Children, now IDEA;
and the ADA; and today the restoration of the ADA to its proper
position and power within the law. And I think it's a tribute to this
Congress. While in many instances we have had very controversial fights
and there have been eruptions over the implementation of these laws, we
have continued to march forward and ensure the rights of the disabled,
for their participation in American society. I think so many Members
now and so many people in our society recognize all that the members of
the disability community have accomplished, all that they are
accomplishing, and all that they will accomplish.
So today when we look at a young child seeking to be enrolled in
school and to have an opportunity at the content and the curriculum
that others have and to have the chance to participate in that school
in a meaningful way and not be put off and sidestepped or in segregated
classes; when we look at individuals who want to pursue a career, an
activity, in our society and not be discriminated against; and when we
now see employers recognizing the talents and the abilities and the
contributions to be made by individuals with disabilities, we as a
Nation are far better off, far richer, and far more understanding than
we were prior to the struggles over these laws. And I hope that all
Members will share the pride that I do when later on we will be able to
vote to restore the ADA after the damage done by the court decisions.
And with that I thank all of my colleagues for their participation in
this debate.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, I think that we have seen in the last hour how the
framers of the Constitution intended this Congress to work.
There was a problem. There was a problem that was created by court
decisions misinterpreting the original intent of Congress when it
passed the ADA almost 18 years ago. And people who came from diverse
viewpoints, whether they were in the private sector, citizens with
disabilities and their advocacy groups, Members of Congress on both
sides of the aisle have proven in this legislation that they can work
together and come up with something that is acceptable and beneficial
to all of the stakeholders. I wish we could do more of that here, and
maybe this will set a good example to show that the system does work.
I am going to ask for a rollcall on this legislation, and I hope that
if this is not a unanimous vote in favor of the bill, it will be so
overwhelming that people not only on the other side of this Capitol
building but around the country and around the world will see that
American democracy and the American legislative process worked for the
benefit of people.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Majority Leader Hoyer and
Representative Sensenbrenner for introducing the ADA Restoration Act
last summer. ``I am a cosponsor of this bill and I am pleased that the
House is considering this important legislation.
This July will mark the 18th anniversary of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, ADA. Unfortunately, as testimony before the House
Committee on Education and Labor made clear in recent years, the
Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of this law and created a new set
of barriers for Americans with disabilities. Under this narrow
interpretation, individuals with diabetes, heart conditions, epilepsy,
mental retardation, cancer, and many other conditions have been denied
their rights under the ADA because they are labeled as ``too
functional'' to be considered ``disabled.''
This legislation would restore protections for disabled Americans
under the ADA and I am pleased that the bill we are considering today
is supported by the disability community as well as the business
community. This bill will reaffirm the ADA's mandate for the
elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability and allow the
ADA to reclaim its place among our Nation most important civil rights
laws.
I am proud that my home State of New Jersey has enacted our own
strong protections against employment discrimination or individuals
with disabilities. My State's experience belies the claims made by some
of the bill's opponents that this legislation is overprotective of
individuals with disabilities.
In March, I hosted a roundtable discussion in New Jersey with
representatives of disability organizations and individuals with
disabilities and with representatives from corporate human resources
departments. From that discussion, I drew information indicating that
the Federal legislation is needed and that it could be implemented
effectively.
At that discussion I heard from Jack, an employer in my district who
was hesitant when approached by the ARC of New Jersey about hiring
individuals with disabilities. Yet, today he now says they are some of
his best employees.
Our Nation has come a long way since the passage of the ADA, from
when the halls of Congress were not even accessible to disabled
members. But, we have much progress yet to make to ensure that the
American dream is truly accessible and available to all Americans.
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the passage of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and to express my support
for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
As a member of the 110th Congress, I am proud to be a cosponsor of
H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act and to continue the fight to ensure
equal rights for all disabled citizens. This vital legislation amends
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to restore the original
intent of the ADA by clarifying that anyone with impairment, regardless
of his or her successful use of treatments to manage the impairment,
has the right to seek reasonable accommodation in their place of work.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 amends the definition of disability so
that those who were originally intended to be protected from
discrimination are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This prevents courts from considering the use of treatment, or other
accommodations, when deciding whether an individual qualifies for
protection under the ADA and focuses on whether individuals can
demonstrate that they were treated less favorably on the basis of
disability.
I am proud of the continuing work that is being done for Americans
with Disabilities and of the strong support that Chicagoans have shown
for this issue. On July 26, the eighteenth anniversary of its passage,
the Americans with Disabilities Act is being commemorated by Chicago's
fifth annual Disability Pride Parade. This display of support
demonstrates that Chicagoans recognize that passage of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, will allow Americans with disabilities to enjoy
the freedom and equality that they are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to commemorate the passage of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and urge my colleagues to vote
in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3195, the
Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act.
In the early 1980's, 64 disability organizations formed a coalition
known as INVEST, Insure Virginians Equal Status Today, to pass a State
statute in Virginia to protect individuals with disabilities from
discrimination. The landmark ``Virginians with Disabilities Act'' was
the Commonwealth's commitment to encourage persons with disabilities to
participate fully in the social and economic life of the Commonwealth.
It preceded the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, by 5
years, and many of the key concepts in the Virginia statute formed the
basis of the ADA.
Signed in 1985 by former Governor Charles S. Robb, the Virginians
with Disabilities Act today protects nearly one million State
residents. This Act acknowledged that ``it is the policy of the
Commonwealth to encourage and enable persons with disabilities to
participate fully and equally in the social and economic life . . . ''
and it protects Virginians with disabilities from discrimination in
employment, education, housing, voting, and places of public
accommodation.
Five years later, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was
enacted to protect all Americans against discrimination on the basis of
disability. When Congress passed the ADA, Congress adopted the
definition of disability from section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, a statute that was well litigated and understood.
Congress expected that under the ADA--just as under the
Rehabilitation Act--individuals with health conditions that were
commonly understood to be disabilities would be entitled to protection
from discrimination. But a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions
interpreted the ADA in ways that Congress never intended, and over the
years these decisions have eroded the protections of the statute.

[[Page 13769]]

First, the Court held in 1999 that mitigating measures--including
prosthetics, medication, and other assistive devices--must be taken
into account when determining if a person is disabled. Then, in 2002,
the Court held that a ``demanding standard'' should be applied to
determining whether a person has a disability. As a result, millions of
people Congress intended to protect under the ADA--such as those with
diabetes, epilepsy, intellectual disabilities, multiple sclerosis,
muscular dystrophy, amputation, cancer and many other impairments--are
not protected as intended.
The ADA Amendments Act will restore the ADA to Congress' original
intent by clarifying that coverage under the ADA is broad and covers
anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability. The ADA
Amendments Act:
Retains the requirement that an individual's impairment substantially
limits a major life activity in order to be considered a disability,
and further that an individual must demonstrate that he or she is
qualified for the job.
Would overturn several court decisions to provide that people with
disabilities not lose their coverage under the ADA simply because their
condition is treatable with medication or can be addressed with the
help of assistive technology.
Includes a ``regarded as'' prong as part of the definition of
disability which covers situations where an employee is discriminated
against based on either an actual or perceived impairment. Moreover,
the proposal makes it clear that accommodations do not need to be made
to someone who is disabled solely because he or she is ``regarded as''
disabled.
Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is the direct result of
agreements between the business and disability communities to rectify
the problem created by the courts, and I applaud the determination and
hard work, that went into this compromise. The ADA Amendments Act will
enable individuals with disabilities to secure and maintain employment
without fear of being discriminated against because of their
disability. Congress clearly intended to prohibit discrimination
against all people with disabilities and we will do that by passing
H.R. 3195.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3195,
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which would restore the original intent
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA.
The ADA has transformed this country since its enactment in 1990,
helping millions of Americans with disabilities succeed in the
workplace, and making essential services such as transportation,
housing, buildings, and other daily needs more accessible to
individuals with disabilities. It has been one of the most defining and
effective civil rights laws passed by Congress.
Unfortunately, the Federal courts in recent years have slowly chipped
away at the broad protections of the ADA which has created a new set of
barriers for many Americans with disabilities. The court rulings have
narrowed the interpretation of disability by excluding people with
serious conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, muscular dystrophy,
cancer, and cerebral palsy from the protections of the ADA. The ADA
Amendments Act of 2008 will reestablish these protections and make it
absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to
protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability.
Madam Speaker, this bill is an important step towards restoring the
original intent of the ADA and helps ensure that all Americans with
disabilities live as independent, self-sufficient members of our
society. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 3195, ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.
The ADA Amendments Act is a needed step in addressing improper
judicial interpretation of the original Americans with Disabilities
Act. Courts interpreted the Act more narrowly than Congress had
intended resulting in decreased protection under the Act. It is
especially gratifying that in crafting the legislation before us today
the disability community was able to come to an agreement with private
industry on appropriate legislative language.
More specifically than the legislation at hand, I bring attention to
the lack of Americans with Disability Act, ADA, compliance in the
historic Capitol complex, specifically the use of door handles within
personal House offices.
The purpose the ADA is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with
disabilities including but not limited to public accommodations. The
ADA specifically states the use of lever operated mechanisms, push-type
mechanisms, or U-shaped handles are acceptable designs for all to
operate.
Enacted in 1990, I believe it is the responsibility of Congress to
every extent reasonable, to install appropriate usable hardware by all
those that wish to access the halls of Congress.
Beginning with my first term in office in 2000, I have made requests
to have my personal House office located in the Cannon building
outfitted with ADA appropriate door handles. It is unfortunate that 8
years after my initial request and 18 years following the enactment of
the ADA, Congress has chosen to remain out of compliance with the ADA.
Congress must lead by example by making these buildings accessible to
all Americans, regardless of disability. I urge you to read my attached
most recent correspondence requesting this appropriate and necessary
change.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Speaker: I wanted to make you aware of a request
that I submitted to the Committee on House Administration for
the installation of Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA,
compliant lever-style door handles in my office, room 211 in
the Cannon House Office Building, and throughout the House
campus.
I am concerned that nearly 18 years after the passage of
the Act, Congress remains significantly out of compliance. I
have attached a copy of my letter to Chairman Robert Brady
and Ranking Member Vern Ehlers for your review.
Thank you for your attention to this important request.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
______

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, May 20, 2008.
Hon. Robert A. Brady,
Chairman, Committee on House Administration, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Vernon J. Ehlers,
Ranking Member, Committee on House Administration, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Ehlers: I am writing
to request the installation of Americans with Disabilities
Act, ADA-compliant lever-style door handles throughout my
office, which is 211 Cannon House Office Building.
Furthermore, I respectfully request that the committee direct
that ADA compliant lever-style door handles be made available
to any Member or committee that requests their installation,
and that the committee develops a plan to complete the
installation of ADA compliant lever-style door handles
campus-wide as soon as practicable.
Enacted by Congress in 1990, and signed into law by
President George H.W. Bush, the ADA is historic legislation
whose purpose is to ensure nondiscrimination for persons with
disabilities in access to employment, public services, public
accommodations and telecommunications. According to the
Department of Justice publication, ADA Standards for
Accessible Design, CFR 28, Part 36, Appendix A, Section
4.13.2, ``Handles, pulls, latches, locks and other operable
devices on doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp
with one hand and does not require tight grasping, tight
pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate. Lever-operated
mechanisms, push-type mechanisms, and U-shaped handles are
acceptable designs.''
It is a travesty that nearly 18 years after its enactment,
the Congress remains significantly out of compliance with the
ADA. Door handles throughout the House campus remain
predominantly twisting; knob-style handles which clearly do
not meet the standards outlined by the Act. We set a terrible
example by exempting ourselves just because compliance is
inconvenient or expensive, when we have compelled the
American people by force of law to bear these same expenses
and comply with the Act.
The Capitol is the nation's most prominent public space,
with tens of thousands of Americans visiting, and many more
thousands working here each day. Making it accessible to all
Americans, regardless of disability, should be a priority. I
urge the committee to grant my request for the installation
of ADA compliant lever-style door handles in my congressional
office, to make them available to all Members and committees
upon request, and to act with all practicable speed to
install lever-style compliant door handles campus-wide.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Darrell Issa,
Member of Congress.

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, as co-chair of the Bipartisan
Disabilities Caucus, I rise in strong support of the bill before us,
the ADA Amendments Act.
It is a matter of basic justice for every American to have access to
public accommodations

[[Page 13770]]

and businesses. And every American deserves the opportunity to hold a
job, contribute their talents and live with dignity and independence.
That's what the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, of 1990 was all
about--creating access and equal opportunity for millions of Americans
with disabilities.
And that's why the recent court cases that have chipped away at the
protections of the ADA have been so alarming. This important bill will
stop the erosion and clarify that people who use adaptive technology to
cope with their disability still deserve the protection of the ADA.
People with disabilities have to overcome obstacles every day. It's
time to remove the legal obstacles to their basic civil rights.
It's time to tear down the barriers that keep people with
disabilities from fully participating and sharing their gifts. It's
time to restore basic justice.
I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly
support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The
changes embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of
1990, ``ADA'', to its original purpose, are long overdue. This is a
civil rights bill and the rights of the disabled must be restored.
H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition
of ``disability'' in the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow
interpretation of the definition, which has made it extremely difficult
for individuals with serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes,
cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual
impairments--to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA.
The Supreme Court has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by
ruling that mitigating measures that help control an impairment like
medicine, hearing aids, or any other treatment must be considered in
determining whether an impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a
disability; and (2) by ruling that the elements of the definition must
be interpreted ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying
as disabled.'' The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with
judicial treatment of other civil rights statutes, which usually are
interpreted broadly to achieve their remedial purposes. It is also
inconsistent with Congress's intent.
The committee will consider a substitute that represents the
consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community.
That substitute restores congressional intent by, among other things:
disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than corrective
lenses, ordinary eyeglasses or contacts, when determining whether an
impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a disability;
maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled
under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show
that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but
defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially
restricts; clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because
of an impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance
of any major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is
entitled to the ADA's protection.

Background on Legislation

Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming
bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The act
was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with
``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating
disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress
sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a
current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the
courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding
individuals with serious health conditions from protection; yet this is
exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to
restore congressional intent, and ensure broad protection against
disability-based discrimination.

Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion
of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect

Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of
``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways
never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same
day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability''
under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual
has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after
considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the
impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse
action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers
argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not
protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a
mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities
under the ADA.
Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of
``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.
Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her employer
discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities,
which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic
outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job
duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these
conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when
requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the
termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue
accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of
``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially
prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then
demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life
activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a
limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,''
the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to
create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court
then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an
individual has an impairment ``that prevents or, `` severely restricts
the individual; and ``major'' life activities, requires a showing that
the individual is restricted from performing tasks that are ``of
central importance to most people's daily lives.''
In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered
under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include
under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes,
cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either,
the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially
limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits
something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major
life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits
that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment,
allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too
disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the
law.
On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on H.R. 3195,
the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer; Cheryl Sensenbrenner, chair, American
Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr, pharmacist and
plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C. Collins,
executive director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence Z. Lorber,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, professor, Georgetown
University Law Center.
The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee
to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition
of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with
disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action.
Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and,
along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the
ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions
``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke
protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional
intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining Congress's choice to adopt the
definition of ``disability'' from the Rehabilitation Act because it had
been interpreted generously by the courts, Representative Hoyer
testified that Congress had never anticipated or intended that the
courts would interpret that definition so narrowly:

[W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes,
epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and
other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because
they would be considered too functional to meet the
definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a
situation where the individual may be considered too disabled
by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the
courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a
contradictory position that would have been for Congress to
take.

Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr.
Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195 to amend the
definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber, appearing on behalf of the
Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an overly broad

[[Page 13771]]

response to court decisions that accurately reflected statutory
language and congressional intent.
Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to
the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be
considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by-
section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and
business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of
Commerce.
Importantly, section 4 of the bill, amends the definition of
``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended
definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability
``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2
of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially
limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent
standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be
important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely
restricting the performance of major life activities in order to
qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of
life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that
an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled, and is entitled to
protection under the ADA, if discriminated against because of an
impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any
major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the
definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures, with the
exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses, in determining whether
an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to support it also.
Ms. HIRONO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R.
3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. I would like to thank the chief
sponsor of the bill, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and the chairman of
the Education and Labor Committee, George Miller, for their leadership
and work on disability rights.
Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, 18 years
ago with overwhelming support from both parties and President George
H.W. Bush. The intent of Congress was clear: to make this great
Nation's promise of equality and freedom a reality for Americans with
disabilities.
Standing together, leaders from both parties described the law as
``historic,'' ``landmark,'' an ``emancipation proclamation for people
with disabilities.'' These were not timid or hollow words. The
congressional mandate was ambitious: prohibit unfair discrimination and
require changes in workplaces, public transportation systems,
businesses, and other programs or services.
Through this broad mandate, Congress intended to protect anyone who
is treated less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived
disability. As with other civil rights laws, Congress wanted to focus
on whether an individual could prove that he or she had been treated
less favorably because of a physical or mental impairment. Congress
never intended for the courts to seize on the definition of
``disability'' as a means of excluding individuals with serious health
conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, HIV, muscular dystrophy,
and multiple sclerosis from protection under the law.
Yet this is exactly what has happened. Through a series of decisions
interpreting the definition of ``disability'' narrowly, the U.S.
Supreme Court has inappropriately shifted the focus away from an
employer's alleged misconduct onto whether an individual can first meet
a ``demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.''
Millions of Americans who experience disability-based discrimination
have been or will be denied protection under ADA and barred from
challenging discriminatory conduct. By passing H.R. 3195, the Congress
will be able to correct these decisions made by the courts.
H.R. 3195 would do this by: amending the definition of ``disability''
so that individuals who Congress originally intended to protect from
discrimination are covered under the ADA; preventing the courts from
considering ``mitigating measures'' when deciding whether an individual
qualifies for protection under the law; and keeping the focus in
employment cases on the reason for the adverse action. The appropriate
question is whether someone can show that he or she was treated less
favorably ``on the basis of disability'' and not whether an individual
has revealed enough private and highly personal facts about how he or
she is limited by an impairment. The bill reminds the courts that--as
with any other civil rights law--the ADA must be interpreted fairly,
and as Congress intended.
As an original cosponsor of H.R. 3195, I believe that it rightfully
will restore protections for disabled Americans under the landmark ADA,
one of our Nation's most important civil rights laws.
I would like to share with you just a few examples of how ADA has
made a positive impact for individuals with disabilities in my home
State of Hawaii:
An 85 year old Honolulu woman, who is both deaf and blind, is able to
access the public transportation system to visit her husband who
resides in a long-term care facility far from her home.
The first ``chirping'' traffic light on the island of Kauai was
installed at a busy intersection thanks to the work of an advocate for
the blind.
The annual Maui County Fair has a special day set aside for people
with disabilities to participate in the rides and games.
A Kauai bakery installed a blinking light system on their ovens so
that a hearing-impaired employee would be notified when her baking was
complete, thus allowing her to work independently.
Each year, the Hawaii State Vocational Rehabilitation and Services
for the Blind Division of the Department of Human Services recognizes
outstanding clients from the districts they serve. I would like to
recognize the following 2007 Rehabilitants of the Year: Deanna DeLeon
of the Big Island, Rogie Yasay Pagatpatan of Maui, Serafin Palomares of
Kauai, and Tauloa ``Mona'' Pouso`o of Oahu. I would like to include in
the Congressional Record their stories of success, as each of these
individuals leads a life of inspiration.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 3195 so we can
continue to build on the successes of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Mahalo (thank you).

Hawaii Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Ellen
Okimoto, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

Deanna DeLeon came to VR in March 2006 looking for a way to
change her life. Deanna faced many challenges in her life.
Her past history of abuse led her to the Big Island Drug
Court Program. Through this program and with the support of
the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Deanna set a goal
of becoming successfully employed.
The combination of her past work experience in the hotel
industry and as an administrative assistant qualified her for
a position as a tour receptionist with Wyndham Vacation
Resorts in June 2006. Deanna's supervisor, Patsy Mecca,
stated that Deanna brings positive energy and a bright smile
to the team. Deanna has since been promoted to a Gifting
Supervisor and continues to work in a job that she so loves.
Go Forward To Work. Congratulations, Deanna for a job well
done.
____

Maui Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Lydia Sheets,
Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

Having a disability never stopped Rogie Yasay Pagatpatan
from working for long periods of time. Rogie requires
assistance in completing applications and interviewing. Each
time he needs to look for a new job, he has enlisted the help
of his Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist, Lydia Sheets in
the Maui Branch Office. Rogie and Lydia have been a
successful team for many years. Lydia knows Rogie so well
that she has collaborated with employers to help Rogie find
and keep jobs.
Most recently, Lydia helped Rogie obtain a position with
the Maui Disposal Company, Inc. He was hired as a sorter at
the company's material Recover Facility--a processing plant
for recyclable products including plastic, glass, aluminum,
and mixed paper. Rogie works with other processors and
several supervisors. He has a job that requires teamwork,
cooperation, conscientiousness, and tolerance of waste
products, outdoor work, environmental factors, and working
around moving machinery. Rogie has proven that he can handle
the job. With the help of supervisors West Paul and Wendell
Parker, Rogie has become a valued employee.
Rogie's persistence is admirable, and his commitment has
impressed his supervisors. He was honored as the ``Employee
of the Month'' in June 2007. Rogie's success is due in part
to his supportive and patient supervisors, who look at his
abilities rather than his limitations.
____

Kauai Branch 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year, Nominated by Debra
Matsumoto, Employment Service Specialist

``Everyone is telling me what I cannot do'', stated Serafin
Palomares when we first met in 2001. This made him even more
determined to prove ``everyone'' wrong, and together, we
proceeded to do just that. After recovering from a stroke,
Serafin's goal was to return to his previous employment in
the Food & Beverage field. We realized that due to his
limitations, he would not be able to perform some of the
duties required in a restaurant setting. He could be
successful however, if the work environment was modified.
Serafin enrolled at Kauai Community College and worked
toward a degree in culinary arts. School became a lengthy
process, involving a lot of creative collaboration between
the Instructors, college counselor, and VR. The biggest
hurdle was finding an appropriate practicum site. It soon
became clear

[[Page 13772]]

that Serafin would do best working independently at his own
pace, building a workstation, and creating a system that
would meet his specific needs. When the Piikoi Building
Vending Stand in the County Civic Center became available as
a practicum site, Serafin leapt at the chance to give it a
try . . . and Serafin has never left.
Upon earning an AS degree in 2005, he decided to make the
leap to self-employment. Serafin has managed to create a
popular, thriving Vending Stand in the heart of Lihue town.
He is renowned for his specialty sandwiches and salads, and
the sky's the limit as far as how big he could build his
business. Yet, Serafin prefers to keep things small and
simple, because for him, it's not about the money as much as
it is having a joyful purpose for waking up each day. You can
see that he truly enjoys what he does by the bright smile he
wears when he greets his customers . . . and that's really
what keeps the regulars coming back day after day.
Congratulations to Serafin Palomares. Kauai's Outstanding
Rehabilitant of the Year.
____

Oahu Branch Deaf Services Section 2007 Rehabilitant of the Year,
Nominated by Amanda Christian, Vocational Rehabilitation Specialist

Deaf Services Section is proud to nominate known to his
friends and family as ``Mona'', as this year's Outstanding
Rehabilitant of the Year. Mona is a deaf person with
significant developmental delays and minimal language skills.
He is extremely shy; however, he has a heart of gold and a
terrific work ethic.
After graduating from the Hawaii Center for the Deaf and
Blind, Mona received kitchen training from Lanakila
Rehabilitation Center (LRC) from 2002 until 2006 where he
learned food preparation and dishwashing skills. At that
time, it was a common belief that Mona would need extended
support services in order to maintain competitive employment.
With the assistance of LRC, Mona was placed at Red Lobster in
November 2006. He received on-the-job training from November
2006 until February 2007 with specialized job coaches.
Mona eventually became comfortable with his work
environment and began to make friends with co-workers. He is
now confident with his tasks and will help others with their
work at any time he sees that they need help. Mona's job
duties initially were limited to cleaning the restrooms,
bagging linguini and rice, and washing dishes. Mona later
proved he was capable of much more and now helps staff with
tasks such as mopping the bar area, food prep work, and
helping in the storage room. He often arrives at work early
and at times, has to be persuaded to leave work at the end of
his shift. Upon leaving work, he makes sure to say
``goodbye'' to each one of his co-workers at least once;
sometimes twice. Mona's supervisors and co-workers report how
cherished Mona is and how well he is doing.
Deaf Services Section is honored and humbled to be able to
recognize Mona Pouso'o's hard work and outstanding
achievements. He has been an inspiration to us all and will
continue to stand out in our minds as the definition of a
successfully rehabilitated individual.

Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I want to commend the distinguished
majority leader and gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for
their leadership on this important legislation.
H.R. 3195 would help to restore the Americans with Disabilities Act
to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil rights laws.
This legislation is necessary to correct Supreme Court decisions that
have created an absurd catch-22 in which an individual can face
discrimination on the basis of an actual, past, or perceived disability
and yet not be considered sufficiently disabled to be protected against
that discrimination by the ADA. That was never Congress's intent, and
H.R. 3195 cures this problem.
H.R. 3195 lowers the burden of proving that one is disabled enough to
qualify for coverage. It does this by directing courts to read the
definition broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil rights
legislation. It also redefines the term ``substantially limits,'' which
was restrictively interpreted by the courts to set a demanding standard
for qualifying as disabled. An individual now must show that his or her
impairment ``materially restricts'' performance of major life
activities. While the impact of the impairment must still be important,
it need not severely or significantly restrict one's ability to engage
in those activities central to most people's daily lives, including
working.
Under this new standard, for example, it should be considered a
material restriction if an individual is disqualified from his or her
job of choice because of an impairment. An individual should not need
to prove that he or she is unable to perform a broad class or range of
jobs. We fully expect that the courts, and the federal agencies
providing expert guidance, will revisit prior rulings and guidance and
adjust the burden of proving the requisite ``material'' limitation to
qualify for coverage.
This legislation is long overdue. Countless Americans with
disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to prove
that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are qualified
for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford them an
opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
Some of my colleagues from across the aisle have raised concerns that
this bill would cover ``minor'' or ``trivial'' conditions. They worry
about covering ``stomach aches, the common cold, mild seasonal
allergies, or even a hangnail.''
I have yet to see a case where the ADA covered an individual with a
hangnail. But I have seen scores of cases where the ADA was construed
not to cover individuals with cancer, epilepsy, diabetes, severe
intellectual impairment, HIV, muscular dystrophy, and multiple
sclerosis.
These people have too often been excluded because their impairment,
however serious or debilitating, was mis-characterized by the courts as
temporary, or its impact considered too short-lived and not permanent
enough--although it was serious enough to cost them the job.
That's what happened to Mary Ann Pimental, a nurse who was diagnosed
with breast cancer after being promoted at her job. Mrs. Pimental had a
mastectomy and underwent chemotherapy and radiation therapy. She
suffered radiation burns and premature menopause. She had difficulty
concentrating, and experienced extreme fatigue and shortness of breath.
And when she felt well enough to return to work, she discovered that
her job was gone and the only position available for her was part-time,
with reduced benefits.
When Ms. Pimental challenged her employer's failure to rehire her
into a better position, the court told her that her breast cancer was
not a disability and that she was not covered by the ADA. The court
recognized the ``terrible effect the cancer had upon'' her and even
said that ``there is no question that her cancer has dramatically
affected her life, and that the associated impairment has been real and
extraordinarily difficult for her and her family.''
Yet the court still denied her coverage under the ADA because it
characterized the impact of her cancer as ``short-lived''--meaning that
it ``did not have a substantial and lasting effect'' on her.
Mary Ann Pimental died as a result of her breast cancer 4 months
after the court issued its decision. I am sure that her husband and two
children disagree with the court's characterization of her cancer as
``short-lived,'' and not sufficiently permanent.
This House should also disagree--and does--as is shown by the broad
bipartisan support for H.R. 3195.
H.R. 3195 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann Pimental are covered
by the law when they need it. It directs the courts to interpret the
definition of disability broadly, as is appropriate for remedial civil
rights to legislation. H.R. 3195 requires the courts--and the federal
agencies providing expert guidance--to lower the burden for obtaining
coverage under this landmark civil rights law. This new standard is not
onerous, and is meant to reduce needless litigation over the threshold
question of coverage.
It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions--
is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of H.R. 3195,
as reported unanimously by the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the Americans with Disabilities
Act, enacted almost 18 years ago, removed many physical barriers
disabled people faced in their daily lives. It also helped remove the
mental barriers that often prevented non-disabled Americans from
looking beyond wheel chairs and walking canes and seeing disabled
Americans as the friends and coworkers they are.
When the ADA was originally enacted in 1990, it was the result of
bipartisan efforts in Congress. So I am pleased that various interested
parties have been able to reach agreement on statutory language
amending the ADA.
I support the compromise and believe it was reached in good faith.
However, I do have some concerns regarding how the courts will
interpret the legislative language we will consider today.
So let me express what I believe to be the nature and import of this
legislation.
First, the common understanding in Congress is that this legislation
would simply restore the original intent of the ADA by bringing the
statutory text in line with the legislative history of the original
ADA.

[[Page 13773]]

That legislative history from both the House Education and Labor and
the Senate committee reports provided that ``[p]ersons with minor,
trivial impairments such as a simple infected finger are not impaired
in a major life activity,'' and consequently those who had such minor
and trivial impairments would not be covered by the ADA.
I believe that understanding is entirely appropriate, and I would
expect the courts to agree with and apply that interpretation. If that
interpretation were not to hold but were to be broadened improperly the
judiciary, an employer would be under a Federal obligation to
accommodate people with stomach aches, a common cold, mild seasonal
allergies, or even a hangnail.
So, I want to make clear that I believe that the drafters and
supporters of this legislation, including me, intend to exclude minor
and trivial impairments from coverage under the ADA, as they have
always been excluded.
Second, the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams
held that under the original ADA, ``[t]he impairment's impact must also
be permanent or long term.''
The findings in the language before us today state that the purpose
of the legislation is ``to provide a new definition of `substantially
limits' to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict and
demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor
Manufacturing.''
I understand that this finding is not meant to express disagreement
with or to overturn the Court's determination that the ADA apply only
to individuals with impairments that are permanent or long term in
impact.
If these understandings of the language before us today do not
prevail, the courts may be flooded with frivolous cases brought by
those who were not intended to be protected under the original ADA.
If that happens, those who would have been clearly covered under the
original ADA, such as paralyzed veterans or the blind, will be forced
to wait in line behind thousands of others filing cases regarding minor
or trivial impairments. I don't believe anyone supporting this new
language wants that to happen, and I want to make that clear for the
record.
With the understandings I have expressed, I support the Americans
with Disabilities Act Restoration Act.
Mr. HARE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3195,
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. I am very pleased that the House is
considering this important legislation, and I urge our friends in the
Senate to swiftly take action on it as well.
As it stands now, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) leaves
too many Americans at an unfair disadvantage. Many workers who suffer
from debilitating diseases such as epilepsy or cancer are being
discriminated against in the workplace but are denied redress by the
courts. No one should be denied employment or be fired from his or her
job because of a disability, but the Supreme Court has on multiple
occasions interpreted the law in a way that opens the door to this
possibility. In fact, plaintiffs lost 97 percent of ADA employment
discrimination claims in 2004 alone, often due to the interpretation of
the definition of ``disability.''
The starkest demonstration of this problem is found in Toyota Motor
Manufacturing v. Williams, which the Supreme Court considered in 2002.
The majority decision in this case held that the ADA's language
regarding the extent of disability must be strictly interpreted so that
legal protections from discrimination would apply only to those whose
disabilities are long-term or permanent, and substantially limit their
ability to perform routine tasks.
This was not the intent of the ADA. Congress passed the Americans
with Disabilities Act in 1990 to clearly and comprehensively eliminate
discrimination against all individuals with disabilities. Since that
time, the ADA has transformed our Nation, helping millions of Americans
with disabilities succeed in the workplace, and making transportation,
housing, buildings, and services more accessible to individuals with
disabilities.
The bill we are considering today restores the original intent of
Congress by rejecting the Supreme Court decisions that have reduced
protections for people with disabilities. Additionally, the legislation
clarifies the definition of ``disability'' to include what it means to
be ``substantially limited in a major life activity.'' The legislation
also prohibits the consideration of mitigating measures such as
medication, prosthetics, and assistive technology in determining
whether an individual has a disability, and provides coverage to people
who experience discrimination based on a perception of impairment
regardless of whether the individual does in fact have a disability.
The most important factor for a court to weigh in on a discrimination
case should be the allegation itself--not the extent or nature of a
worker's disability. This is not what every day Americans stand for,
and this is not what Congress meant when the law was originally
enacted.
By more clearly defining the term ``disabled,'' we will be able to
free up the courts in the future to focus on alleged acts of
discrimination and better protect the American workers for whom this
law was enacted.
I urge my colleagues to join the broad coalition of civil rights
groups, disability advocates, and employer trade organizations who
support this bill and vote with me to stop discrimination against
individuals with disabilities by restoring the original intent of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1299, the
previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair
will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules
on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or on which
the vote is objected to under clause 6 of rule XX.
Record votes on postponed questions will be taken later.

____________________

EXTENSION OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3180) to temporarily extend the
programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

S. 3180

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Extension of Programs.--Section 2(a) of the Higher
Education Extension Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-81; 20 U.S.C.
1001 note) is amended by striking ``June 30, 2008'' and
inserting ``July 31, 2008''.
(b) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section, or in
the Higher Education Extension Act of 2005 as amended by this
Act, shall be construed to limit or otherwise alter the
authorizations of appropriations for, or the durations of,
programs contained in the amendments made by the Higher
Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171), by
the College Cost Reduction and Access Act (Public Law 110-
84), or by the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act
of 2008 (Public Law 110-227) to the provisions of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 and the Taxpayer-Teacher Protection Act
of 2004.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. George
Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of
S. 3180, a bill to temporarily extend programs under the Higher
Education Act of 1965.
At the beginning of February, the House took steps to reauthorize the
Higher Education Act in passing H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act. We now find ourselves in the near final phase of
completing the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act as we work
toward a compromise bill with the Senate to ensure

[[Page 13774]]

that the doors of college are truly open to all qualified students.
It is our goal to ensure that a final bill encompasses the major
issues addressed in H.R. 4137, including skyrocketing college prices, a
needlessly complicated student aid application process, and predatory
tactics by student lenders.
The bill under consideration today, S. 3180, will extend the programs
under the Higher Education Act until July 31, 2008, to allow sufficient
time for final deliberations on the two bills reported out of the
respective Chambers.
It has been nearly 10 years since the Higher Education Act was last
reauthorized, and I believe the Members on both sides of the aisle and
in both Chambers are anxious to complete the work on this bill in this
Congress. We believe it can happen.
I look forward to joining my colleagues on the committees in both the
House and the Senate in completing our work on behalf of this Nation's
hardworking families and students.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S. 3180, a bill to temporarily extend the Higher
Education Act of 1965. This bill will provide a clean extension of the
Higher Education Act for 1 more month as we continue to work with our
Senate colleagues to hammer out a conference agreement.
The underlying reauthorization of the Higher Education Act is long
overdue. Since 2003 Congress has passed twelve extensions, two
reconciliation bills, an emergency student loan bill, and the House has
passed two reauthorization bills. In the reauthorization bill passed by
this Congress, we strengthened Pell Grants, improved the Perkins Loan
program, and expanded access to college for millions of American
students. The reauthorization bills also included important reforms
that will provide more transparency to American families on the cost of
college. A recent report found that since 1983, the cost of keeping
colleges running has outpaced the consumer price index by 48 percent.
The average total for tuition fees, room and board, for an in-State
student at a public 4-year college is $13,589. It jumps to $32,307 for
a student attending a private 4-year college. Tuition and fees have
increased by an average of 4.4 percent per year over the past decade,
and that's after adjusting for inflation. Students and families need to
be able to plan for these increases, and that's exactly what we are
proposing, through greater sunshine and transparency. We need to
complete the reauthorization process to make those proposals a reality.
Madam Speaker, this is a clean extension bill that will allow the
current programs of the Higher Education Act to continue past their
current June 30, 2008, expiration date until July 31, 2008. Programs
like Pell Grants and Perkins Loans are the passports out of poverty for
millions of American students. We must complete our work on the
conference agreement prior to the August recess.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 3180.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 3180.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

STOP CHILD ABUSE IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS ACT OF 2008

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6358) to require certain standards and
enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in
residential programs, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6358

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 ``Stop Child Abuse in
Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Assistant secretary.--The term ``Assistant Secretary''
means the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families of
the Department of Health and Human Services.
(2) Child.--The term ``child'' means an individual who has
not attained the age of 18.
(3) Child abuse and neglect.--The term ``child abuse and
neglect'' has the meaning given such term in section 111 of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106g).
(4) Covered program.--
(A) In general.--The term ``covered program'' means each
location of a program operated by a public or private entity
that, with respect to one or more children who are unrelated
to the owner or operator of the program--
(i) provides a residential environment, such as--

(I) a program with a wilderness or outdoor experience,
expedition, or intervention;
(II) a boot camp experience or other experience designed to
simulate characteristics of basic military training or
correctional regimes;
(III) a therapeutic boarding school; or
(IV) a behavioral modification program; and

(ii) operates with a focus on serving children with--

(I) emotional, behavioral, or mental health problems or
disorders; or
(II) problems with alcohol or substance abuse.

(B) Exclusion.--The term ``covered program'' does not
include--
(i) a hospital licensed by the State; or
(ii) a foster family home that provides 24-hour substitute
care for children placed away from their parents or guardians
and for whom the State child welfare services agency has
placement and care responsibility and that is licensed and
regulated by the State as a foster family home.
(5) Protection and advocacy system.--The term ``protection
and advocacy system'' means a protection and advocacy system
established under section 143 of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 15043).
(6) State.--The term ``State'' has the meaning given such
term in section 111 of the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act.

SEC. 3. STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Minimum Standards.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary for
Children and Families of the Department of Health and Human
Services shall require each location of a covered program
that individually or together with other locations has an
effect on interstate commerce, in order to provide for the
basic health and safety of children at such a program, to
meet the following minimum standards:
(A) Child abuse and neglect shall be prohibited.
(B) Disciplinary techniques or other practices that involve
the withholding of essential food, water, clothing, shelter,
or medical care necessary to maintain physical health, mental
health, and general safety, shall be prohibited.
(C) The protection and promotion of the right of each child
at such a program to be free from physical and mechanical
restraints and seclusion (as such terms are defined in
section 595 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290jj)) to the same extent and in the same manner as a non-
medical, community-based facility for children and youth is
required to protect and promote the right of its residents to
be free from such restraints and seclusion under such section
595, including the prohibitions and limitations described in
subsection (b)(3) of such section.
(D) Acts of physical or mental abuse designed to humiliate,
degrade, or undermine a child's self-respect shall be
prohibited.
(E) Each child at such a program shall have reasonable
access to a telephone, and be informed of their right to such
access, for making and receiving phone calls with as much
privacy as possible, and shall have access to the appropriate
State or local child abuse reporting hotline number, and the
national hotline number referred to in subsection (c)(2).
(F) Each staff member, including volunteers, at such a
program shall be required, as a condition of employment, to
become familiar with what constitutes child abuse and
neglect, as defined by State law.
(G) Each staff member, including volunteers, at such a
program shall be required, as a condition of employment, to
become familiar with the requirements, including with

[[Page 13775]]

State law relating to mandated reporters, and procedures for
reporting child abuse and neglect in the State in which such
a program is located.
(H) Full disclosure, in writing, of staff qualifications
and their roles and responsibilities at such program,
including medical, emergency response, and mental health
training, to parents or legal guardians of children at such a
program, including providing information on any staff
changes, including changes to any staff member's
qualifications, roles, or responsibilities, not later than 10
days after such changes occur.
(I) Each staff member at a covered program described in
subclause (I) or (II) of section 2(4)(A)(i) shall be
required, as a condition of employment, to be familiar with
the signs, symptoms, and appropriate responses associated
with heatstroke, dehydration, and hypothermia.
(J) Each staff member, including volunteers, shall be
required, as a condition of employment, to submit to a
criminal history check, including a name-based search of the
National Sex Offender Registry established pursuant to the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public
Law 109-248; 42 U.S.C. 16901 et seq.), a search of the State
criminal registry or repository in the State in which the
covered program is operating, and a Federal Bureau of
Investigation fingerprint check. An individual shall be
ineligible to serve in a position with any contact with
children at a covered program if any such record check
reveals a felony conviction for child abuse or neglect,
spousal abuse, a crime against children (including child
pornography), or a crime involving violence, including rape,
sexual assault, or homicide, but not including other physical
assault or battery.
(K) Policies and procedures for the provision of emergency
medical care, including policies for staff protocols for
implementing emergency responses.
(L) All promotional and informational materials produced by
such a program shall include a hyperlink to or the URL
address of the website created by the Assistant Secretary
pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A).
(M) Policies to require parents or legal guardians of a
child attending such a program--
(i) to notify, in writing, such program of any medication
the child is taking;
(ii) to be notified within 24 hours of any changes to the
child's medical treatment and the reason for such change; and
(iii) to be notified within 24 hours of any missed dosage
of prescribed medication.
(N) Procedures for notifying immediately, to the maximum
extent practicable, but not later than within 48 hours,
parents or legal guardians with children at such a program of
any--
(i) on-site investigation of a report of child abuse and
neglect;
(ii) violation of the health and safety standards described
in this paragraph; and
(iii) violation of State licensing standards developed
pursuant to section 114(b)(1) of the Child Abuse Prevention
and Treatment Act, as added by section 7 of this Act.
(O) Other standards the Assistant Secretary determines
appropriate to provide for the basic health and safety of
children at such a program.
(2) Regulations.--
(A) Interim regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary
shall promulgate and enforce interim regulations to carry out
paragraph (1).
(B) Public comment.--The Assistant Secretary shall, for a
90-day period beginning on the date of the promulgation of
interim regulations under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph,
solicit and accept public comment concerning such
regulations. Such public comment shall be submitted in
written form.
(C) Final regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the
conclusion of the 90-day period referred to in subparagraph
(B) of this paragraph, the Assistant Secretary shall
promulgate and enforce final regulations to carry out
paragraph (1).
(b) Monitoring and Enforcement.--
(1) On-going review process.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant
Secretary shall implement an on-going review process for
investigating and evaluating reports of child abuse and
neglect at covered programs received by the Assistant
Secretary from the appropriate State, in accordance with
section 114(b)(3) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment
Act, as added by section 7 of this Act. Such review process
shall--
(A) include an investigation to determine if a violation of
the standards required under subsection (a)(1) has occurred;
(B) include an assessment of the State's performance with
respect to appropriateness of response to and investigation
of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and
appropriateness of legal action against responsible parties
in such cases;
(C) be completed not later than 60 days after receipt by
the Assistant Secretary of such a report;
(D) not interfere with an investigation by the State or a
subdivision thereof; and
(E) be implemented in each State in which a covered program
operates until such time as each such State has satisfied the
requirements under section 114(c) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, as added by section 7 of this
Act, as determined by the Assistant Secretary, or two years
has elapsed from the date that such review process is
implemented, whichever is later.
(2) Civil penalties.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary
shall promulgate regulations establishing civil penalties for
violations of the standards required under subsection (a)(1).
The regulations establishing such penalties shall incorporate
the following:
(A) Any owner or operator of a covered program at which the
Assistant Secretary has found a violation of the standards
required under subsection (a)(1) may be assessed a civil
penalty not to exceed $50,000 per violation.
(B) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be
deposited in the appropriate account of the Treasury of the
United States.
(c) Dissemination of Information.--The Assistant Secretary
shall establish, maintain, and disseminate information about
the following:
(1) Websites made available to the public that contain, at
a minimum, the following:
(A) The name and each location of each covered program, and
the name of each owner and operator of each such program,
operating in each State, and information regarding--
(i) each such program's history of violations of--

(I) regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a); and
(II) section 114(b)(1) of the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act, as added by section 7 of this Act;

(ii) each such program's current status with the State
licensing requirements under section 114(b)(1) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as added by section 7 of
this Act;
(iii) any deaths that occurred to a child while under the
care of such a program, including any such deaths that
occurred in the five year period immediately preceding the
date of the enactment of this Act, and including the cause of
each such death;
(iv) owners or operators of a covered program that was
found to be in violation of the standards required under
subsection (a)(1), or a violation of the licensing standards
developed pursuant to section 114(b)(1) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act, as added by section 7 of this
Act, and who subsequently own or operate another covered
program; and
(v) any penalties levied under subsection (b)(2) and any
other penalties levied by the State, against each such
program.
(B) Information on best practices for helping adolescents
with mental health disorders, conditions, behavioral
challenges, or alcohol or substance abuse, including
information to help families access effective resources in
their communities.
(2) A national toll-free telephone hotline to receive
complaints of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and
violations of the standards required under subsection (a)(1).
(d) Action.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish a
process to--
(1) ensure complaints of child abuse and neglect received
by the hotline established pursuant to subsection (c)(2) are
promptly reviewed by persons with expertise in evaluating
such types of complaints;
(2) immediately notify the State, appropriate local law
enforcement, and the appropriate protection and advocacy
system of any credible complaint of child abuse and neglect
at a covered program received by the hotline;
(3) investigate any such credible complaint not later than
30 days after receiving such complaint to determine if a
violation of the standards required under subsection (a)(1)
has occurred; and
(4) ensure the collaboration and cooperation of the hotline
established pursuant to subsection (c)(2) with other
appropriate National, State, and regional hotlines, and, as
appropriate and practicable, with other hotlines that might
receive calls about child abuse and neglect at covered
programs.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

If the Assistant Secretary determines that a violation of
subsection (a)(1) of section 3 has not been remedied through
the enforcement process described in subsection (b)(2) of
such section, the Assistant Secretary shall refer such
violation to the Attorney General for appropriate action.
Regardless of whether such a referral has been made, the
Attorney General may, sua sponte, file a complaint in any
court of competent jurisdiction seeking equitable relief or
any other relief authorized by this Act for such violation.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of
this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, in coordination with the Attorney General
shall submit to the Committee on Education and Labor of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate, a report on the
activities carried out by the Assistant Secretary and the
Attorney General under this Act, including--

[[Page 13776]]

(1) a summary of findings from on-going reviews conducted
by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to section 3(b)(1),
including a description of the number and types of covered
programs investigated by the Assistant Secretary pursuant to
such section;
(2) a description of types of violations of health and
safety standards found by the Assistant Secretary and any
penalties assessed;
(3) a summary of State progress in meeting the requirements
of this Act, including the requirements under section 114 of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, as added by
section 7 of this Act;
(4) a summary of the Secretary's oversight activities and
findings conducted pursuant to subsection (d) of such section
114; and
(5) a description of the activities undertaken by the
national toll-free telephone hotline established pursuant to
section 3(c)(2).

SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services $15,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2013 to carry out this Act (excluding the
amendment made by section 7 of this Act and section 8 of this
Act).

SEC. 7. ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS TO
STATES TO PREVENT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AT
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--Title I of the Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 114. ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTS TO
STATES TO PREVENT CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT AT
RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Child.--The term `child' means an individual who has
not attained the age of 18.
``(2) Covered program.--
``(A) In general.--The term `covered program' means each
location of a program operated by a public or private entity
that, with respect to one or more children who are unrelated
to the owner or operator of the program--
``(i) provides a residential environment, such as--

``(I) a program with a wilderness or outdoor experience,
expedition, or intervention;
``(II) a boot camp experience or other experience designed
to simulate characteristics of basic military training or
correctional regimes;
``(III) a therapeutic boarding school; or
``(IV) a behavioral modification program; and

``(ii) operates with a focus on serving children with--

``(I) emotional, behavioral, or mental health problems or
disorders; or
``(II) problems with alcohol or substance abuse.

``(B) Exclusion.--The term `covered program' does not
include--
``(i) a hospital licensed by the State; or
``(ii) a foster family home that provides 24-hour
substitute care for children place away from their parents or
guardians and for whom the State child welfare services
agency has placement and care responsibility and that is
licensed and regulated by the State as a foster family home.
``(3) Protection and advocacy system.--The term `protection
and advocacy system' means a protection and advocacy system
established under section 143 of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 15043).
``(b) Eligibility Requirements.--To be eligible to receive
a grant under section 106, a State shall--
``(1) not later than three years after the date of the
enactment of this section, develop policies and procedures to
prevent child abuse and neglect at covered programs operating
in such State, including having in effect health and safety
licensing requirements applicable to and necessary for the
operation of each location of such covered programs that
include, at a minimum--
``(A) standards that meet or exceed the standards required
under section 3(a)(1) of the Stop Child Abuse in Residential
Programs for Teens Act of 2008;
``(B) the provision of essential food, water, clothing,
shelter, and medical care necessary to maintain physical
health, mental health, and general safety of children at such
programs;
``(C) policies for emergency medical care preparedness and
response, including minimum staff training and qualifications
for such responses; and
``(D) notification to appropriate staff at covered programs
if their position of employment meets the definition of
mandated reporter, as defined by the State;
``(2) develop policies and procedures to monitor and
enforce compliance with the licensing requirements developed
in accordance with paragraph (1), including--
``(A) designating an agency to be responsible, in
collaboration and consultation with State agencies providing
human services (including child protective services, and
services to children with emotional, psychological,
developmental, or behavioral dysfunctions, impairments,
disorders, or alcohol or substance abuse), State law
enforcement officials, the appropriate protection and
advocacy system, and courts of competent jurisdiction, for
monitoring and enforcing such compliance;
``(B) establishing a State licensing application process
through which any individual seeking to operate a covered
program would be required to disclose all previous
substantiated reports of child abuse and neglect and all
child deaths at any businesses previously or currently owned
or operated by such individual, except that substantiated
reports of child abuse and neglect may remain confidential
and all reports shall not contain any personally identifiable
information relating to the identity of individuals who were
the victims of such child abuse and neglect;
``(C) conducting unannounced site inspections not less
often than once every two years at each location of a covered
program;
``(D) creating a non-public database, to be integrated with
the annual State data reports required under section 106(d),
of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs
operating in the State, except that such reports shall not
contain any personally identifiable information relating to
the identity of individuals who were the victims of such
child abuse and neglect; and
``(E) implementing a policy of graduated sanctions,
including fines and suspension and revocation of licences,
against covered programs operating in the State that are out
of compliance with such health and safety licensing
requirements;
``(3) if the State is not yet satisfying the requirements
of this subsection, in accordance with a determination made
pursuant to subsection (c), develop policies and procedures
for notifying the Secretary and the appropriate protection
and advocacy system of any report of child abuse and neglect
at a covered program operating in the State not later than 30
days after the appropriate State entity, or subdivision
thereof, determines such report should be investigated and
not later than 48 hours in the event of a fatality;
``(4) if the Secretary determines that the State is
satisfying the requirements of this subsection, in accordance
with a determination made pursuant to subsection (c), develop
policies and procedures for notifying the Secretary if--
``(A) the State determines there is evidence of a pattern
of violations of the standards required under paragraph (1)
at a covered program operating in the State or by an owner or
operator of such a program; or
``(B) there is a child fatality at a covered program
operating in the State;
``(5) develop policies and procedures for establishing and
maintaining a publicly available database of all covered
programs operating in the State, including the name and each
location of each such program and the name of the owner and
operator of each such program, information on reports of
substantiated child abuse and neglect at such programs
(except that such reports shall not contain any personally
identifiable information relating to the identity of
individuals who were the victims of such child abuse and
neglect and that such database shall include and provide the
definition of `substantiated' used in compiling the data in
cases that have not been finally adjudicated), violations of
standards required under paragraph (1), and all penalties
levied against such programs;
``(6) annually submit to the Secretary a report that
includes--
``(A) the name and each location of all covered programs,
including the names of the owners and operators of such
programs, operating in the State, and any violations of State
licensing requirements developed pursuant to subsection
(b)(1); and
``(B) a description of State activities to monitor and
enforce such State licensing requirements, including the
names of owners and operators of each covered program that
underwent a site inspection by the State, and a summary of
the results and any actions taken; and
``(7) if the Secretary determines that the State is
satisfying the requirements of this subsection, in accordance
with a determination made pursuant to subsection (c), develop
policies and procedures to report to the appropriate
protection and advocacy system any case of the death of an
individual under the control or supervision of a covered
program not later than 48 hours after the State is informed
of such death.
``(c) Secretarial Determination.--The Secretary shall not
determine that a State's licensing requirements, monitoring,
and enforcement of covered programs operating in the State
satisfy the requirements of this subsection (b) unless--
``(1) the State implements licensing requirements for such
covered programs that meet or exceed the standards required
under subsection (b)(1);
``(2) the State designates an agency to be responsible for
monitoring and enforcing compliance with such licensing
requirements;
``(3) the State conducts unannounced site inspections of
each location of such covered programs not less often than
once every two years;

[[Page 13777]]

``(4) the State creates a non-public database of such
covered programs, to include information on reports of child
abuse and neglect at such programs (except that such reports
shall not contain any personally identifiable information
relating to the identity of individuals who were the victims
of such child abuse and neglect);
``(5) the State implements a policy of graduated sanctions,
including fines and suspension and revocation of licenses
against such covered programs that are out of compliance with
the health and safety licensing requirements under subsection
(b)(1); and
``(6) after a review of assessments conducted under section
3(b)(2)(B) of the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs
for Teens Act of 2008, the Secretary determines the State is
appropriately investigating and responding to allegations of
child abuse and neglect at such covered programs.
``(d) Oversight.--
``(1) In general.--Beginning two years after the date of
the enactment of the Stop Child Abuse in Residential Programs
for Teens Act of 2008, the Secretary shall implement a
process for continued monitoring of each State that is
determined to be satisfying the licensing, monitoring, and
enforcement requirements of subsection (b), in accordance
with a determination made pursuant to subsection (c), with
respect to the performance of each such State regarding--
``(A) preventing child abuse and neglect at covered
programs operating in each such State; and
``(B) enforcing the licensing standards described in
subsection (b)(1).
``(2) Evaluations.--The process required under paragraph
(1) shall include in each State, at a minimum--
``(A) an investigation not later than 60 days after receipt
by the Secretary of a report from a State, or a subdivision
thereof, of child abuse and neglect at a covered program
operating in the State, and submission of findings to
appropriate law enforcement or other local entity where
necessary, if the report indicates--
``(i) a child fatality at such program; or
``(ii) there is evidence of a pattern of violations of the
standards required under subsection (b)(1) at such program or
by an owner or operator of such program;
``(B) an annual review by the Secretary of cases of reports
of child abuse and neglect investigated at covered programs
operating in the State to assess the State's performance with
respect to the appropriateness of response to and
investigation of reports of child abuse and neglect at
covered programs and the appropriateness of legal actions
taken against responsible parties in such cases; and
``(C) unannounced site inspections of covered programs
operating in the State to monitor compliance with the
standards required under section 3(a) of the Stop Child Abuse
in Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008.
``(3) Enforcement.--If the Secretary determines, pursuant
to an evaluation under this subsection, that a State is not
adequately implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the
licensing requirements of subsection (b)(1), the Secretary
shall require, for a period of not less than one year, that--
``(A) the State shall inform the Secretary of each instance
there is a report to be investigated of child abuse and
neglect at a covered program operating in the State; and
``(B) the Secretary and the appropriate local agency shall
jointly investigate such report.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 112(a)(1) of
the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C.
5106h(a)(1)) is amended by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``, and $235,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 through 2013''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Coordination with available resources.--Section
103(c)(1)(D) of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(42 U.S.C. 5104(c)(1)(D)) is amended by inserting after
``specific'' the following: ``(including reports of child
abuse and neglect occurring at covered programs (except that
such reports shall not contain any personally identifiable
information relating to the identity of individuals who were
the victims of such child abuse and neglect), as such term is
defined in section 114)''.
(2) Further requirement.--Section 106(b)(1) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(b)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Further requirement.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, a State shall comply with the
requirements under section 114(b) and shall include in the
State plan submitted pursuant to subparagraph (A) a
description of the activities the State will carry out to
comply with the requirements under such section 114(b).''.
(3) Annual state data reports.--Section 106(d) of the Child
Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5106a(d)) is
amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``(including reports of child abuse and
neglect occurring at covered programs (except that such
reports shall not contain any personally identifiable
information relating to the identity of individuals who were
the victims of such child abuse and neglect), as such term is
defined in section 114)''; and
(B) in paragraph (6), by inserting before the period at the
end the following: ``or who were in the care of a covered
program, as such term is defined in section 114''.
(d) Clerical Amendment.--Section 1(b) of the Child Abuse
Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. 5101 note) is amended
by inserting after the item relating to section 113 the
following new item:

``Sec. 114. Additional eligibility requirements for grants to States to
prevent child abuse and neglect at residential
programs.''.

SEC. 8. STUDY AND REPORT ON OUTCOMES IN COVERED PROGRAMS.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a study, in consultation with relevant agencies
and experts, to examine the outcomes for children in both
private and public covered programs under this Act
encompassing a broad representation of treatment facilities
and geographic regions.
(b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Education and Labor of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the
Senate a report that contains the results of the study
conducted under subsection (a).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Platts) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 6358, the Stop Child Abuse in
Residential Programs for Teens Act of 2008.
This legislation incorporates the bipartisan compromise amendment to
H.R. 5876 that this House debated yesterday and supported by a vote of
422 in a recorded vote that was taken on the substitute amendments.
The ranking member, Mr. McKeon, and I worked together to develop this
compromise legislation because we both agree that children's health and
safety should never be a partisan issue.
The Government Accountability Office has found thousands of cases and
allegations of child abuse and neglect, stretching back decades, to
teen residential programs, including boot camps, wilderness camps, and
therapeutic boarding schools.
The Education and Labor Committee has closely reviewed dozens of
serious neglect and abuse cases, including cases that resulted in the
death of a child. We have heard from parents of children who died of
preventable causes at the hands of untrained, uncaring staff members.
We have heard from adults who attended these programs as teens. They
too were the victims of physical and emotional abuse and witnessed
other children being abused. These abuses have been allowed to go on
because of the weak State and Federal rules governing teen residential
programs.
An 18-month study by the Government Accountability Office showed that
State licensing may exclude certain types of teen residential programs
and thus place children at higher risk of abuse and neglect. In some
States inconsistent licensing enables programs to define themselves out
of the licensing altogether. According to GAO, in Texas a program that
calls itself a residential treatment center would be required to obtain
a license, but if that same program simply called itself a boarding
school, it would not be required to have that license, and that's why
this legislation is terribly important.

{time} 1730

Parents send their children to these programs because they feel they
have exhausted their alternatives. Their children may be abusing drugs
or alcohol, attempting to run away or physically harm themselves, or
otherwise acting out. They turn to these programs because the promise
of staff members that will help their children straighten out their
lives. And surely there are many cases in which programs do provide
families the help they need. These parents are desperate and their
children are in deep trouble.
But in far too many cases, when parents turn to those programs, they
find

[[Page 13778]]

they are getting conflicted information by people who have conflicts of
interest in recommending the care for their children, financial
conflicts of interest, ownership issues, and relationship issues that
conflict that kind of advice.
We also know that we see programs that violate the trust that must be
established between the parent and these programs and the programs and
the children. It's very difficult for these parents to find good
programs and to find accurate information, since the reporting
requirements are so thin or nonexistent in so many States.
This legislation requires the Department of Health and Human Services
to establish minimum standards for residential programs, and to enforce
them. Ultimately, however, the States will have primary responsibility
for carrying out the work of this bill.
The legislation calls upon the States within 3 years to take up the
role of setting standards and enforcing them at all programs, public
and private. The Health and Human Services and the State standards
would include prohibitions on physical, sexual, and mental abuse of
children. The standards would require the programs to provide children
with adequate food, water, and medical care.
They would require that programs have plans in place to handle
medical emergencies. They would also include new training requirements
for program staff, including the training on how to identify and report
child abuse.
The legislation requires Health and Human Services to set up a toll-
free hotline for people to call to report abuse in these programs. It
also requires Health and Human Services to create a Web site for
information about each program so that parents can look and see if
substantiated cases of child abuse or a child fatality has occurred at
the program that they are considering for their children.
Finally, the legislation requires programs to disclose to parents the
qualifications, roles, and responsibilities of all current staff
members, and requires programs to notify parents of substantiated child
abuse or violations of health and safety laws.
Madam Speaker, we have the responsibility to keep children safe, no
matter what setting they are in. Today, we are taking an important step
to finally ending the horrific abuses that have gone on in these
residential programs for teens.
I want to thank again Congresswoman McCarthy of New York for all of
her help and work on this legislation, and Congressman McKeon for all
of his work on this legislation. His suggestions as the bill left the
committee made this a better piece of legislation, and I encourage my
colleagues to support the bipartisan legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 6358, the Stop Child Abuse in
Residential Programs for Teens Act. H.R. 6358 puts protections in place
to guard against abuse, neglect, and death at residential treatment
programs. These residential treatment programs help seriously troubled
teens with drug addiction or behavioral or emotional problems. For many
parents, they are a last resort when no other treatments or
interventions have worked.
Members on both sides of the aisle share a commitment to protect
young people enrolled in residential treatment programs. Even one
instance of abuse, neglect, or death is one too many.
The bill we are considering today has been developed in an effort to
reach a bipartisan consensus. It's important to note that the
provisions in the version of this bill that the Education and Labor
Committee reported in May have been revised or edited, including the
requirement for the Department of Health and Human Services to
establish a new bureaucracy to inspect every private residential
treatment program in every State, and the requirement creating a new
private right of action for lawsuits.
This legislation ensures that the standards required in the bill
apply to both public and private residential treatment programs. The
language also contains strong background check requirements that ensure
that before coming into contact with children, potential employees are
thoroughly scrutinized with tools, including the National Sex Offender
Registry and an FBI fingerprint check.
Stopping child abuse is a necessary and essential function of State
and local government. It is clear to me that the most effective and
appropriate way to protect those enrolled in these programs is to
require States to establish a system of standards, licensure, and
regulation to ensure that States are working to stop instances of abuse
and neglect at residential treatment programs. The Federal role is to
ensure that States live up to their vital responsibilities in stopping
abuse in these facilities.
In this bill, the responsibility for licensing and inspecting these
programs rests with the States and is tied to their receipt of funds
under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. The role of the
Federal Government relates to establishing minimum standards and
investigating instances of abuse and neglect upon a referral from a
State.
I think Members on both sides of the aisle can agree that there's
still more work to be done. Just yesterday, Congresswoman Bachmann
offered a proposal to strengthen parental notification and consent
requirements regarding prescription medications given to teens at
residential treatment facilities. Hopefully, this important issue will
be further addressed as this legislation moves through the legislative
process.
In closing, it's important to acknowledge the great progress that has
already been made to strike a bipartisan consensus. I especially want
to commend Chairman Miller, Subcommittee Chairwoman McCarthy and
Ranking Member McKeon, along with their staffs, for working together to
strengthen this important effort to protect our nation's teens against
abuse and neglect in residential treatment facilities. I stand in
strong support of this important legislation and encourage my
colleagues to also support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I want to thank Congressman Platts
for his support of this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 6358, ``Stop the Child Abuse in Residential Programs
for Teens''. I would like to thank my colleagues on the Committee on
Education and Labor for bringing this very important legislation to the
floor.
On Capitol Hill we often debate matters that can address varying
viewpoints. I believe that this legislation can only be looked at from
two angles--right and wrong. I do believe that this bill must restore
the spot check visits by HHS which have been deleted--the agencies in
Texas are guilty of many abuses and these visits can save children's
lives.
They are everybody's children, and nobody's children. They are the
forgotten children in the Texas foster care and residential care
system. Black, White, Hispanic, and Asian--they all need the love of a
mother, the nurturing of a family, and the support of their community.
Some of them find homes with caring foster parents or in treatment
centers with experienced and caring providers. And some do not.
This legislation allows us to keep our children safe with:
New national standards for private and public residential programs:
Prohibit programs from physically, mentally, or sexually abusing
children in their care;
Prohibit programs from denying children essential water, food,
clothing, shelter, or medical care--whether as a form of punishment or
for any other reason;
Require that programs only physically restrain children if it is
necessary for their safety or the safety of others, and to do so in a
way that is consistent with existing Federal law on the use of
restraints;
Require programs to provide children with reasonable access to a
telephone and inform children of their right to use the phone;
Require programs to train staff in understanding what constitutes
child abuse and neglect and how to report it; and
Require programs to have plans in place to provide emergency medical
care.
Prevent deceptive marketing by residential programs for teens:
Require programs to disclose to parents the qualifications, roles,
and responsibilities of all current staff members;

[[Page 13779]]

Require programs to notify parents of substantiated reports of child
abuse or violations of health and safety laws; and
Require programs to include a link or Web address for the Web site of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which will carry
information on residential programs.
Hold teen residential programs accountable for violating the law:
Require States to inform the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services of reports of child abuse and neglect at covered programs and
require HHS to conduct investigations of such programs to determine if
a violation of the national standards has occurred; and
Give HHS the authority to assess civil penalties of up to $50,000
against programs for every violation of the law.
Ask States to step in to protect teens in residential programs: Three
years after enactment, the legislation would provide certain Federal
grant money to States only if they develop their own licensing
standards (that are at least as strong as national standards) for
public and private residential programs for teens and implement a
monitoring and enforcement system, including conducting unannounced
site inspections of all programs at least once every 2 years. The
Department of Health and Human Services would continue to inspect
programs where a child fatality has occurred or where a pattern of
violations has emerged.
This legislation seeks to protect the unprotected--our children--from
abuse, neglect and exploitation. Many of these children are not safe,
and their futures are uncertain. The groups serving children and
adolescents with mental health or substance use conditions need better
regulation. The youth boot camps and other ``alternative placement
facilities'' should be forced to provide greater transparency as to the
policies and practices of their programs.
This legislation is a welcomed and needed response to numerous
studies documenting the ineffectiveness of these programs and, in
several instances, the tragic deaths as a result of child abuse and
neglect as reported by the GAO in October 2007. Too many families
struggle mightily in nearly every State to find placements, when
appropriate, for their children that will address their complex mental
health needs.
These facilities flourish, in part, because parents lack the
necessary information about the operation and practices of these
programs. The promise of help cannot be allowed to obscure the fact
that these kinds of programs are not science-based and have not been
forthcoming about the incidence of neglect or abuse.
This addresses the challenges facing many families. It seeks relief
from these risks by (1) establishing standards for these programs that
are consistent with current child protection laws; (2) ensuring that
personnel are qualified; (3) shifting these programs to be family-
centered, as well as culturally and developmentally appropriate; (4)
creating mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of these goals;
(5) calling for greater transparency and accessibility to the
compliance of these standards; and (6) providing grants to States for
the prevention of child abuse and neglect and for the treatment of
children's mental health or substance use conditions.
Additionally, the annual report to Congress is an effective tool in
ensuring that these critical issues emerge from the shadows and see the
light of day. I share the vision and commitment of Chairman Miller and
the Education and Labor Committee in protecting our youth from such
predators.
I urge my colleagues to vote for our children, vote for our families,
and vote for H.R. 6358.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6358.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.

____________________

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6052, SAVING
ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008

Mr. McGOVERN, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-734) on the resolution (H. Res. 1304) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6052) to promote increased public
transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative fuels in
providing public transportation, and for other purposes, which was
referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on questions previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order: motion to suspend with
respect to H.R. 6358; passage of H.R. 3195; and motion to instruct on
H.R. 4040.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

STOP CHILD ABUSE IN RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS FOR TEENS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6358, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) that the House suspend
the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6358.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 318,
nays 103, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 459]

YEAS--318

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fortenberry
Foster
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Heller
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri

[[Page 13780]]

Pickering
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--103

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Thornberry
Turner
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf

NOT VOTING--13

Cannon
Cubin
Fossella
Gilchrest
Johnson (GA)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Putnam
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Weller

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that
less than 2 minutes remain on this vote.

{time} 1803

Messrs. EVERETT, WITTMAN of Virginia, BOOZMAN, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Messrs.
MICA and SMITH of Texas, and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. KUCINICH, BOUSTANY, GALLEGLY, CULBERSON, WALBERG, Ms. FALLIN,
Messrs. LEWIS of California, MORAN of Kansas, and Mr. ISSA changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
passage of the bill, H.R. 3195, on which the yeas and nays were
ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402,
nays 17, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 460]

YEAS--402

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--17

Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Doolittle
Duncan
Flake
Garrett (NJ)
Gohmert
Hensarling
Kingston
Linder
Marchant
Paul
Poe
Price (GA)
Tancredo
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland

NOT VOTING--15

Cannon
Cubin
Fossella
Gilchrest
Johnson (GA)
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Putnam
Rush
Slaughter
Snyder
Souder
Speier
Weller

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that

[[Page 13781]]

there are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

{time} 1811

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 459 and 460,
I was detained in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''

____________________

MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 4040, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
MODERNIZATION ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to instruct on H.R. 4040 offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Kirk) on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 415,
nays 0, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 461]

YEAS--415

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Cannon
Cubin
Fossella
Gilchrest
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Lampson
Loebsack
Mahoney (FL)
Marchant
McCotter
Putnam
Rush
Simpson
Snyder
Speier
Walsh (NY)
Weldon (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yarmuth) (during the vote). There are 2
minutes left in this vote.

{time} 1818

So the motion to instruct was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF THE ROTUNDA OF THE CAPITOL TO COMMEMORATE 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF THE INTEGRATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 377) authorizing
the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony commemorating the
60th Anniversary of the beginning of the integration of the United
States Armed Forces, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:

H. Con. Res. 377

Whereas African American men and women have served with
distinction, courage, and honor in the United States Armed
Forces throughout the history of the nation, even when they
were denied the basic constitutional freedoms promised to all
citizens;
Whereas the practice of racial segregation and
discrimination in the military prevented African Americans
from receiving the full recognition to which they were
entitled as a result of their service;
Whereas African Americans, in leading the effort to protest
discriminatory treatment in the armed forces, paved the way
for successful integration of women, Asians, Hispanics, and
other ethnic minorities;
Whereas the dedicated and heroic service of African
American men and women during World War II led to President
Truman's historic executive order 60 years ago that marked
the beginning of racial integration in the United States
Armed Forces;
Whereas as a result of President Truman's action, the
United States Armed Forces has become one of the nation's
best examples of an institution committed to equality,
opportunity, and advancement based on merit rather than race,
religion, or ethnicity; and
Whereas the heroic contributions of each member of the
United States Armed Forces should be honored and celebrated:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring),

[[Page 13782]]

SECTION 1. USE OF ROTUNDA FOR CEREMONY COMMEMORATING 60TH
ANNIVERSARY OF INTEGRATION OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Use of Rotunda.--The rotunda of the Capitol is
authorized to be used on July 23, 2008, for a ceremony
commemorating the 60th anniversary of President Truman's
Executive Order No. 9981, which states, ``It is hereby
declared to be the policy of the President that there shall
be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in
the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or
national origin.''.
(b) Preparations.--Physical preparations for the ceremony
referred to in subsection (a) shall be carried out in
accordance with such conditions as the Architect of the
Capitol may prescribe.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.

General Leave

Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 377.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this concurrent resolution provides for the use of the
Capitol rotunda to mark the 60th anniversary of the integration of the
United States Armed Forces. I support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago, President Harry Truman issued Executive
Order 9981, which established the President's Committee on Equality of
Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces. Determined to end
segregation in the Armed Forces, President Truman issued this historic
directive to end discrimination experienced by African American
soldiers.
Executive Order 9981 was successful in ending racial segregation in
the military and its effect is long-standing. As a result of the
directive, segregation based on creed, gender, and national origin was
also abolished. It is important we recognize such an historic victory
for civil rights and for our Armed Forces.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, while we wait to find out what we are going to do
tomorrow and whether there will be a real energy bill presented to this
floor, or some more energy fluff, I do rise today in support of H. Con.
Res. 377 which would authorize use of the rotunda of the Capitol to
commemorate the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the integration of
the United States Armed Forces.
On July 26, 1948, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981,
which provided for the equal treatment of blacks serving in the
military. We should remember that previous attempts had been made to
integrate the Armed Forces. In fact, during our Revolutionary War,
approximately 5,000 African Americans served in integrated units. They
served in many different capacities, including as artillerymen
infantrymen, laborers, and even entertainers. Each served our Nation
proudly, protecting the freedoms that they themselves had not yet come
to know.
With a new century, though, came political realities that would once
again segregated the military. Nearly 50 years passed until once again
blacks and whites were able to stand shoulder to shoulder, as a unit
defined not by color, but by a commitment to freedom and love of
country. President Truman's executive order to integrate the military
also laid the groundwork for other minorities to gain those same
rights, paving the way for the diverse group of men and women of all
backgrounds who today serve in our military.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Con. Res. 377, so we
may mark the historic occasion of the integration of our Nation's Armed
Forces with a ceremony here in our Nation's capital at the Capitol
rotunda in a manner that would truly honor the sacrifice that men and
women of all backgrounds have made to our Nation throughout history.
As I understand the gentlelady has no further speakers, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I just urge that Members support H. Con. Res. 377 which provides
for use of the Capitol rotunda marking the 60th anniversary of the
integration of the United States Armed Forces.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res.
377 to authorize the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony
commemorating the 60th anniversary of the beginning of the integration
of the United States Armed Forces. The historic document that began the
process of integration was Executive Order 9981 issued by President
Harry S. Truman, my fellow Missourian.
History has well documented that President Truman was a man of great
principle and courage. He was by all accounts a man that did not shrink
from responsibility even when the decisions were very difficult. The
employment of atomic weapons at the end of World War II, the Berlin
airlift at the beginning of the cold war, and the Korean war are but
few examples of his leadership during crisis.
However, I believe it is his decision to declare that each person in
the military is deserving of equal treatment and opportunity,
regardless of race, color, religion, and national origin that most
reflects his personal commitment to his core beliefs.
His July 26, 1948 Executive order was no weak-kneed statement
designed to fit the political expediency of the era. Executive Order
9981 was a bold statement that reflected his heartfelt commitment to
the civil rights of all Americans and the American style of freedom
that became a beacon of hope for so many people throughout the world
during World War II. This powerful statement of equality in treatment
and opportunity reflects the highest standards of democracy and lived
up to the American spirit that we all cherish.
President Truman saw much in the professional and heroic performance
of African Americans during World War II that demanded he issue his
Executive order. The exploits of African Americans that carried out the
Red Ball Express, flew with the 99th fighter squadron, and served as
Tuskegee Airmen are legendary. There were also stories of the many
individual heroes during World War II like the seven African Americans
who were finally awarded the Medal of Honor for their long-overlooked
World War II heroism in 1997. Like all the other wars that preceded
World War II, African Americans had played an important role during war
and Harry Truman was determined to set the record straight.
The 60th anniversary of President Truman's Executive order to begin
the integration of the Armed Forces is a pivotal event in United States
history that is deserving of a ceremony in the rotunda of the Capitol.
I thank Chairman Brady and the staff of the House Administration
Committee for helping to move this resolution so expeditiously and I
strongly encourage my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 377.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
this resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Rotunda for a
ceremony commemorating the 60th Anniversary of the beginning of the
integration of the United States Armed Forces.
And I thank the distinguish Chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
Mr. Skelton, for bringing this resolution to the floor.
Throughout the course of our Nation's history, the men and women of
our Armed Services have defended our liberties with bravery, honor, and
sacrifice. But because our Nation racially segregated its military
prior to 1948, generations of African Americans served our Nation with
the knowledge that they were fighting abroad for the very freedoms that
were frequently denied to them at home. Despite this injustice, not
only did African Americans serve honorably to fight for all our
freedoms, they did so with the dignity and bravery that earned many of
them our Nation's top military honors.
Of the many units to serve with distinction, I particularly want to
recognize the Tuskegee Airmen that organized at Moton Field in
Tuskegee, Alabama, many of whom I would hope could be a part of this
ceremony in the Rotunda. Over the course of World War II, the Tuskegee
Airmen became one of the most highly decorated units in the Armed
Forces. These brave pilots destroyed more than 1,000 German aircraft
while accumulating an unprecedented record of flying more than 200
bomber escort missions over central and southern Europe without the
loss of a single bomber to enemy aircraft. The Tuskegee Airmen returned

[[Page 13783]]

home with some of our Nation's highest military honors including 150
Distinguished Flying Crosses, 744 Air Medals, 8 Purple Hearts, and 14
Bronze Stars. But they also returned home to a racially segregated
America.
One of the many important milestones toward achieving an integrated
America occurred on July 26, 1948 when President Harry Truman signed
Executive Order 9981. This important order, which will be recognized
under this resolution, ordered there be equality of treatment with all
persons in the Armed Services without regard to race, color, religion,
or national origin. Even though it took many years to accomplish the
complete integration of the Armed Services, it was Executive Order 9981
that began the process and it is that event, among others, that I hope
we will honor in the Capitol Rotunda next month.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring the attention of this House
to House Concurrent Resolution 297, a resolution I introduced with my
friend and colleague Mr. Meek of Florida on February 14 of this year.
This resolution also recognizes the 60th anniversary of the beginning
of the integration of the United States Armed Forces. I look forward to
the consideration of this or any other similar resolution honoring this
important event in our history.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 377, as
amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________

CIVIL RIGHTS FOR THE DISABLED

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to enthusiastically
support the legislation that we just debated on the floor of the House.
Having been detained in my Committee on Transportation Security and
Critical Infrastructure during the debate, I wanted to come and support
H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. This is truly a civil
rights initiative, and it is important to restore the basic support and
rights of those who are disabled in America.
Unfortunately, through the Supreme Court's narrow decision and
definition of the word ``disability,'' it made it very difficult for
individuals with serious health conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes,
cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, and severe intellectual
impairments to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA.
The Supreme Court narrowed that definition in two ways: one by ruling
that mitigation measures that help control an impairment, like medicine
or hearing aids or other devices, must be considered a deserving
disability; and, two, ruling that the elements of the definition must
be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying
as disabled.
Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The civil rights of all Americans are
an important constitutional element. We hold these truths to be self-
evident that we are all created equal. This legislation, H.R. 3195,
restores those rights. And I would like to affirm that my vote in the
Judiciary Committee was a resounding ``yes.'' The fact that I was
detained, I want that to be reflected in the report.
This is an important bill. This bill is heavily supported, and I
throw my support to a new civil rights law in America.

____________________

GET WITH THE PROGRAM

(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the people of this country are
pretty smart. They watch television and they listen to all of the
political rhetoric and the hot air that comes out of this place, and
they listen to all the press conferences, but they know, they know gas
prices are too high and they know we ought to be energy independent and
they know that we ought to drill in the United States so we can be
energy independent. They know that it is affecting their prices at the
grocery store and everything that they buy. They want us to be energy
independent. They want us to drill in the ANWR and they want us to
drill offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf. They want us to do what
is right in this body. And we are not doing it.
I want to say to my colleagues who are giving all of this hot air out
about we shouldn't be doing it and about permits and everything else,
the American people know they want us drilling in America. They want
energy independence, and you guys had better get with the program.

____________________

STEER DRIVE ACT TO FLOOR

(Mr. KINGSTON asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, you know one thing that this Congress is
not doing is sitting down and really trying to figure out where the
Democrats and the Republicans agree on this energy challenge. Eliot
Engel and I 2 years ago sat down and wrote a bill called the DRIVE Act.
We left off drilling and we left off cafe standards; and we asked, what
is it that builds the most consensus?
That bill takes us off of Mid East oil by the year 2025. It is
something that should come to the floor. It makes sense. It has a lot
of commonsense things, like ending the tariff on imported Brazilian
surplus ethanol.
Think about that for a minute. Brazil has surplus ethanol that they
are ready to sell to us right now, and we have a tariff on it. It is
absurd. That is just one component of the DRIVE Act that makes sense.
And I request that we bring this bill to the floor of the House for a
good bipartisan debate and hopefully a good bipartisan passage.

____________________

{time} 1830
SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, and under a previous order of the House, the
following Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.

____________________

WAR POWERS COURT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, forget about the days of judicial restraint.
Those are the days when the Supreme Court thought their job was to
interpret the law and follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court now
has ushered in a new era power grab called judicial imperialism.
Recently, the deeply divided Supreme Court, or the war powers court,
as we shall call it, issued a ruling by Justice Kennedy that gave
terrorists the right to argue their cases in Federal courts. In this 5-
4 decision, the court held that terrorism detainees captured on the
battlefield engaged in war against America now held at Guantanamo Bay
prison and other prison facilities under U.S. control have the same
rights as American citizens.
When I was at Gitmo prison, which I doubt Justice Kennedy has ever
seen, I saw several detainees that had been captured, released, and
captured again on the battlefield trying to kill Americans. I'm sure
these enemy combatants are partying in Guantanamo prison tonight.
Under the current law, individuals captured as enemy combatants have
their cases reviewed by military commissions. It has always been the
law under our Constitution that the President is the Commander in Chief
of the military, and the President and Congress control war, not the
nine justices on the Supreme Court. But the imperialistic war powers
court ruled that these military commissions aren't fair enough for
enemy combatants trying to kill American troops. It's interesting.
These terrorists hate America,

[[Page 13784]]

hate freedom, hate our way of life but quickly run to American courts
to seek redress against Americans.
The five war power judges on the Supreme Court say these poor little
misfits should have access to American courts, even though it is the
first time in history we have given constitutional rights to combatants
against the United States. Even in the War between the States, captured
Confederate soldiers who were actually born in the United States were
not allowed access to U.S. courts. They were tried by military
tribunals. The same occurred in World War II when Nazis were tried by
military tribunals. During the Revolutionary War, British spy John
Andre was caught on U.S. soil spying with traitor Benedict Arnold.
Andre was hung by the Commander in Chief, George Washington, and a
military court without any judicial intervention.
So what is next? Are we going to make our boys read terrorists their
Miranda rights in the battlefield before they capture them? Justice
Scalia was right, Mr. Speaker. In his dissent he argued that this
ruling will make the war on terror harder on us and will ``almost
certainly cause more Americans to be killed.''
The Supreme Court is running roughshod over the Constitution of the
United States and changing 200 years of judicial precedent. In fact, at
the end of World War II, the Supreme Court explicitly determined in a
series of cases that the writ of habeas corpus--that's an action that
allows a person to seek relief from detention--does not apply to
foreign combatants held outside the United States.
It gets down to this question, Mr. Speaker: Who should be running our
wars? Should Congress and the executive branch be in charge of war, or
should the Supreme Court, in all of its supreme knowledge, be running
the war?
Well, according to the war powers court, they are the commanders in
chief of the war. Now what does the imperialist war court want us to do
with captured terrorists? Not capture them at all, or let them go so
they can kill again?
While terrorists continue to use innocent women and children as
shields, continue to bomb our troops, shoot our sons and daughters in
the battlefield and behead American civilians and our troops without
granting them any rights, the Supreme Court tells us these terrorists
ought to be treated like American citizens. The five imperialist judges
on the Supreme Court have asserted the power of the Constitution that
is reserved specifically to the executive branch and to the legislative
branch.
Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be, but that's just the way it is.

____________________

CIGARETTE SMUGGLING BETWEEN STATES SHOULD BE A FELONY, NOT A
MISDEMEANOR

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of
the House a problem that exists, frankly, in all 50 States and is
having a dramatic impact not only on individual States but having an
impact tragically on our national security--the problem that tobacco
excise taxes, which are levied State by State, have had the unwitting
result of having a great incentive for people to smuggle tobacco over
State lines. This is happening because of a weakness in the Federal law
that makes it a misdemeanor to do so.
Let me explain to you exactly what happens. In a State like New York,
for example, the New York State excise tax for each pack of cigarettes
is $2.75. New York City adds another $1.50 to that tax. So the base tax
on cigarettes in New York is the combination of $2.75 in the State,
$1.50 in the city.
If you go to, say, North Carolina or another State that has a lower
tax, there's an enormous amount of incentive for someone to buy the
tobacco in a State like North Carolina, sell it in New York on the
black market, or sell it on the Internet and wind up saving a great
deal of money on that float between the two tax rates.
Now this is illegal under the Jenkins Act. However, it's hardly ever
enforced, and when you ask folks at the ATF why it's not enforced, they
say quite simply, because the Jenkins Act is too weak. It only makes it
a misdemeanor to do these things.
What has become clear in recent months, though, and in recent years,
according to the Government Accountability Office, according to the
FBI, is that not only are people trying to make a couple of bucks doing
this, but terrorist organizations have been funded.
According to a GAO investigation, what has happened is that tobacco
is being bought in North Carolina where the tax is only five cents a
pack and being resold in Michigan where the tax is 75 cents a pack.
They're taking that extra 50 cents which, when you consider cases and
cases, truckloads and truckloads, and where do the profits go? $1.5
million was shipped overseas to Lebanon to fund Hezbollah. This is just
one example.
FBI Director Robert Mueller, when he testified about this problem
before the Senate, said the following:
``Terrorists now increasingly have to rely on criminal organizations
to travel from country to country for false identifications, for
smuggling, being smuggled in or out of a country. They have to rely on
other criminal organizations for money laundering. We have had a number
of cases where Hezbollah, for instance, has utilized cigarette
smuggling to generate revenues to support Hezbollah.''
In this GAO report that revealed this information, both DOJ--
Department of Justice--and ATF suggested that if violations of the
Jenkins Act were felonies instead of misdemeanors, U.S. Attorneys'
Offices might be less reluctant to prosecute.
Well, I'm standing here to recommend that we do just that. We in the
Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee recently had a hearing on
my legislation which would do just that. It would raise the stakes on
the Jenkins Act, and it would do something else. It would say that no
longer can you transfer tobacco through the mail. In order for this
selling to be done in a truly efficient way, you don't pack up a truck
and drive it across lines; you get an Internet Web site and you offer
to transport it over State lines using the mail service.
Now you can't use FedEx, you can't use UPS, and you can't use DHL.
Why? Well, because they have all signed a compact, essentially a
consent order saying they refuse to carry it. The only way to mail
tobacco is through the United States Postal Service. So an additional
thing the legislation would do would make that illegal.
This is a serious problem. As the tax goes up, as the difference
between the State taxes goes up, it's no longer nickels and dimes, it's
millions of dollars, millions of dollars that's going to black market
tobacco that's funding nefarious activities and funding terrorism, and
we should stop it.

____________________

IN DEFENSE OF LUNCHTIME PRAYER AT THE U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, America was built on Judeo-
Christian values. No one who knows the history of our nation can deny
that freedom of religion played a critical part in its development. Yet
there are those in our society who wish to threaten America's long
history of religious freedom by limiting public expressions of religion
by people of faith.
In 2001, the Virginia Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union
sued the Virginia Military Institute on behalf of two former cadets who
opposed the school's nondenominational pre-supper prayer. In 2003, a
three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided in
favor of the ACLU and stripped VMI of its right to prayer, a tradition
dating back to the school's founding in 1839. After the ACLU eliminated
prayer at this State-supported school, the group expressed interest in

[[Page 13785]]

locating Naval Academy graduates to file a suit similar against
lunchtime prayer at Annapolis.
In response to this threat, I introduced the Military Academy First
Amendment Protection Act, legislation to protect the ability of our
military service academies to include the offering of a voluntary,
nondenominational prayer as an element of their activities.
With the support of other Members of Congress, this legislation was
included as a provision of the fiscal year 2006 National Defense
Authorization Act which was signed by the President and became law on
January 6, 2006. I am so grateful to my colleagues in both parties who
stood with me and acted to protect prayer at the United States
Military, Naval, and Air Force Academies.
Since their founding, America's military academies have instilled in
our military leaders the principles of our Founding Fathers and the
traditions of our great military services. However, today, the American
Civil Liberties Union has threatened to sue Annapolis over its
tradition of lunchtime prayer.
Mr. Speaker, this is an example of why America is in trouble. Prayer
or devotional thought has taken place at meals for midshipmen since the
Naval Academy was founded in 1845. These prayers are nondenominational
and have been rotated among chaplains of different faiths, from the
Catholic to the Protestant to the Rabbi. Those who choose to attend the
United States Naval Academy know what the rules are from day one.
Legal threats by the ACLU are not made in the spirit of religious
tolerance but in a spirit of intolerance of any expression of faith at
all.
Congress has a legitimate role to play in ensuring that the first
amendment rights of American citizens are protected. By passing
legislation to ensure our service academies' right to offer a
voluntary, nondenominational prayer at an otherwise authorized activity
of the academy, Congress codifies its belief that decisions respecting
prayer should remain in the hands of each service academy's
superintendent.

{time} 1845

I am pleased that the law protects the right of the superintendent of
the Naval Academy to continue the long tradition of lunchtime prayer at
Annapolis.
As mission-crucial institutions, it should be the military
authorities, and not civilian courts, that decide what practices are
essential to fostering leadership and accomplishing the unique military
mission.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in Congress will continue to stand
with me to ensure the protection of our future military heroes and
their first amendment rights.
And I must say, Mr. Speaker, in closing, to those nine members of the
Naval Academy who joined the ACLU to sue Annapolis, all I can say is
shame on you because America will not survive unless it protects the
Judeo-Christian values of this great Nation.

____________________

A REVISION TO THE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS, AGGREGATES, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2008 AND 2009 AND THE PERIOD OF FISCAL YEARS
2009 THROUGH 2013

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, under section 207 of S. Con. Res. 70, the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2009, I hereby
submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the
budget allocations, aggregates, or other appropriate levels for certain
House committees for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the period of
fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This revision represents an adjustment
to certain House committee budget allocations, aggregates, and other
appropriate levels for the purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to
consideration of the bill H.R. 6275, Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act
of 2008. Corresponding tables are attached.
Under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70, this adjustment to the budget
allocations and aggregates applies while the measure is under
consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the
measure. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as
amended, a revised allocation under section 323 of S. Con. Res. 70 is
to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.
Any questions may be directed to Ellen Balis or Gail Millar.

BUDGET AGGREGATES
[On-budget amounts, in millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal years--
--------------------------------------------------
2008 \1\ 2009 1 2 2009-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Aggregates:
Budget Authority......................................... 2,454,256 2,455,920 n.a.
Outlays.................................................. 2,435,860 2,490,920 n.a.
Revenues................................................. 1,875,400 2,029,644 11,780,107
Change in Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act (H.R. 6275):
Budget Authority......................................... 0 0 n.a.
Outlays.................................................. 0 0 n.a.
Revenues................................................. 0 -2,924 158
Revised Aggregates:
Budget Authority......................................... 2,454,256 2,455,920 n.a.
Outlays.................................................. 2,435,860 2,490,920 n.a.
Revenues................................................. 1,875,400 2,026,720 11,780,265
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current aggregates do not include spending covered by section 301(b)(1) (overseas deployments and related
activities). The section has not been triggered to date in Appropriations action.
\2\ Current aggregates do not include Corps of Engineers emergency spending assumed in the budget resolution,
that will not be included in current level due to its emergency designation (section 301(b)(2)).

n.a. = Not applicable because annual appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2010 through 2013 will not be
considered until future sessions of Congress.

____________________

________________________________________

DUTY, HONOR AND COUNTRY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HUNTER. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to talk about duty, honor, and
country.
Many times, Members of this great body rise to talk about those who
wear the uniform of the United States who have fallen in the Iraq or
the Afghanistan theater and to recount their actions and to recount
their mission and to praise their motive and their patriotism and their
love of this great country.
I rise tonight, Mr. Speaker, to talk about an American who was killed
on the 24th of this month, not wearing the uniform of the United States
in the military service, even though he had served in the military for
some 31 years, but who was killed in a deadly area in Iraq as an
American contractor, an American who had worked as a contractor for the
Department of Defense and then the Department of State, Steven Farley.
Steven Farley represented the very best of this country, and I have a
picture here, Mr. Speaker, that I'd like to show the Members. This is
him in his Navy uniform. Before he donned this Navy uniform and
finished a career of 31 years in the U.S. military, he served in the
U.S. Army in Vietnam.
He was a man of service, and when he left his wonderful wife, Donna,
and his family to go to Iraq, he told them that he understood that this
was a difficult and dangerous mission. He worked on a provincial
reconstruction team, and I

[[Page 13786]]

think he represented a forgotten segment of this great effort, this
effort to bring the sunlight of freedom to Iraq.
He represented those people that don't wear the uniform in this
operation but who wear contractor uniforms, who go out into very
dangerous places in Iraq. And in this case, Steven Farley was with
three colleagues, working the provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq.
He was in Sadr City, that adjunct to Baghdad that has over 1 million
people in an area of great fighting and great turmoil and great danger.
And yet when he came home to see his loved ones, he told them he knew
that he was in danger. He knew that it might, at some point, cost him
his life, but he told them that he thought the cause was a worthwhile
cause.
His service to America represented all those wonderful aspects of
duty and honor and country and patriotism, even though he wasn't
wearing the uniform of the Army or the Marine Corps or the Air Force or
the Navy, because he was serving that same goal, that same ideal, that
same flag, and all of us.
Mr. Speaker, he came home a few weeks before, bringing some of the
members of the city council of Sadr City to the United States to let
them see what freedom was like, what this great experiment in freedom
called the United States of America was like, to inspire them, to give
them a model they could go back and use in this fledgling
representative government that is now taking place in Iraq.
He wanted to show them the American example, and Mr. Speaker, his
example and the example of his family and the example of his great
community, a guy from Guthrie, Oklahoma, it was the finest example that
anybody can watch if they indeed want to model their country, their
community, their town after a winning democracy, the United States of
America.
So here was a gentleman who served in a very, very crucial area for
the United States, and most of the work that we do here in the House of
Representatives, most of our work is air-conditioned. I'm so proud of
the members of the Armed Services Committee, most of whom have taken
multiple trips to see the troops and the operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. And we now and again go out and put our boots on the
ground in some tough places, but most of the time, we're in Washington,
D.C., or with our constituent cities and our wonderful communities.
These Americans, Americans like Steven Farley, are out there for years
on end in very difficult conditions, carrying the American flag.
So, Mr. Speaker, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee are
going to be visiting Iraq and Afghanistan in the coming months,
especially the summer months, when we take the district work period
break. I will tell you one thing I'm going to do. When I go to Baghdad
this time, I'm going to spend more time with those contractors, people
who haven't necessarily been given all of the credit that they should
be given by this body, by the House of Representatives. People talk
about the contractors as if they were somehow mercenaries.
Well, Steven Farley represented the very best of this very wonderful
force of Americans who help to establish freedom around the world. May
he rest in peace. God bless his family, and thank you, Steven Farley,
for your service to the United States.

____________________

AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR LOWER GAS PRICES

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, it's good to be here tonight, and I
wanted to come and talk about something that's concerning Americans all
over this country, and that's the price of gas and what we're doing
about it here in this body, this decisive body that's supposed to be
decisive, that takes action when we find our country in need.
I wanted to talk a little bit about something that happened to me
shortly a couple of weeks ago I guess, and I started having people, Mr.
Speaker, e-mail me and ask me questions about signing different types
of petitions on the Internet, drill here, drill now, lower prices,
several other ones on the Internet, so Americans could let their
Members of Congress, Mr. Speaker, know how they felt about these
skyrocketing gas prices that they had been promised by the new majority
that they would get control of.
So I was in a service station down home, and there was another
petition laying on the counter. I'm assuming that the proprietor of
that service station put that down to give people something to do
rather than beat him over the head, but it was a petition: Please sign
here if you want to see Congress lower gas prices.
So I came up with an idea, Mr. Speaker. I said, you know, the
American people are letting us know, as their representatives, how they
feel. We need to let them know how we feel. And so I came up with this
petition that's pretty simple. What it says is: American energy
solutions for lower gas prices; bring onshore oil on-line; bring
deepwater oil on-line; and bring new refineries on-line.
We have not produced in this country, Mr. Speaker, a refinery since
the late 1970s. We now import about 7 billion gallons of gas a year. We
also import about the same amount of diesel. So we don't even have the
refining capacity to refine what we import.
So I did this, and I made a little petition. You can see it over
here. It's got spots for 435 people plus the non-voting Delegates to
sign. So far I'm pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, we've got 188 people who
have signed this. We've got three Democrats, three brave Democrats that
have signed it: Neil Abercrombie, Patrick Murphy, and Mr. Speaker, I
believe Henry Cuellar was the last one from Texas. And so these are
brave people that understand that we have got to do something.
The majority says, well, it will be 10 years before we ever get oil.
We've got to start today. If President Clinton in 1995 had not vetoed
the drilling in ANWR, we would be producing 1 million gallons of crude
oil for this country every day.
So, Mr. Speaker, what this is about--and by the way, this is very
simple, because what it says is, I will vote to increase U.S. oil
production to lower the price of gas for Americans. And Mr. Speaker, if
anybody wanted to know if their Member was on the petition, they could
go to house.gov/westmoreland to see if their Member is on there. We've
had two Members that did not sign originally, and Mr. Speaker, they
were put on the would-not-sign list. They have heard from their
constituents and have come back and are now signed onto the petition.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is very important for people to understand where
their Members of Congress are at on the energy issue. You're going to
hear all kinds of excuses. You're going to hear all kinds of different
regulations they want to put in place, all kinds of different taxes
they want to put in place. This petition is too simple for most Members
of this body to understand because it only says, I will vote to
increase oil production in the United States, our own natural
resources, to lower gas prices for Americans. That's all it says.
And if somebody wanted to know, Mr. Speaker, they could go to
house.gov/westmoreland, and see exactly where their Member of Congress
was at because, listen, Mr. Speaker, we hear about change from just
about every candidate running, but we are going to have to be forced to
change by our constituents. Because as you've seen since the new
majority came in in January of 2007, there's been nothing done.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the American people if I could to help
us bring about change by notifying your Congressman and say get out of
the fetal position and let's be called to action.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mr. Mahoney of Florida (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today.

[[Page 13787]]

Mr. Putnam (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
attending a funeral.

____________________

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 Mr. Boyd of Florida) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Spratt, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Donnelly, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weiner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Payne, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Jones of North
Carolina) to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous
material:)
Mr. Paul, for 5 minutes, June 26 and 27.
Mr. Hunter, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Westmoreland, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

SENATE BILLS REFERRED

Bills of the Senate of the following titles were taken from the
Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as follows:

S. 2403. An act to designate the new Federal Courthouse,
located in the 700 block of East Broad Street, Richmond,
Virginia, as the ``Spottswood W. Robinson III and Robert R.
Merhige, Jr. Federal Courthouse''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 2837. An act to designate the United States courthouse
located at 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, New York, as the
``Theodore Roosevelt United States Courthouse''; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
S. 3009. An act to designate the Federal Bureau of
Investigation building under construction in Omaha, Nebraska,
as the ``J. James Exon Federal Bureau of Investigation
Building''; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
S. 3145. An act to designate a portion of United States
Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, New York, as the
``Timothy J. Russert Highway''; to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 58 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 26, 2008, at
10 a.m.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:

7314. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June
18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
7315. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 18,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7316. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 18,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7317. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 18,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7318. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Final Flood Elevation Determinations -- received June 18,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7319. A letter from the Chief Counsel, FEMA, Department of
Homeland Security, transmitting the Department's final rule
-- Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations [Docket No.
FEMA-B-7776] received June 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
7320. A letter from the Director, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, Department of the Treasury, transmitting
the Department's final rule -- Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; Amendment Regarding Financial Institutions Exempt
from Establishing Anti-Money Laundering Programs (RIN: 1506-
AA88) received June 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
7321. A letter from the Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
notification to Congress of any significant modifications to
the auction process for issuing United States Treasury
obligations, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, section 203; to
the Committee on Financial Services.
7322. A letter from the Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
report that no such exemptions to the prohibition against
favored treatment of a government securities broker or dealer
were granted during the period January 1, 2007 through
December 31, 2007, pursuant to Public Law 103-202, section
202; to the Committee on Financial Services.
7323. A letter from the Acting Fiscal Assistant Secretary,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
annual report on material violations or suspected material
violations of regulations relating to Treasury auctions and
other Treasury securities offerings during the period Janaury
1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, pursuant to Public Law
103-202, section 202; to the Committee on Financial Services.
7324. A letter from the Executive Director, Philadelphia
Housing Authority, transmitting the Authority's Annual Report
for 2007 entitled, ``A Dynamic Decade''; to the Committee on
Financial Services.
7325. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission,
Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule -- Definitions and Implementation Under the CAN-SPAM Act
[Project No. R411008] (RIN: 3084-AA96) received June 19,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
7326. A letter from the Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
Provisions; Fisheries of the Northeastern United States;
Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Allocation of Trips to Closed
Area II Yellowtail Flounder Special Access Program [Docket
No. 080428607-8689-02] (RIN: 0648-AW69) received June 19,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
7327. A letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works, Department of Defense, transmitting the
Department's position on the budgeting of the Chicagoland
Underflow Plan (CUP), Thornton Reservoir, Illinois; to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
7328. A letter from the Director of Regulations Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Prohibition of Interment or Memorialization in
National Cemeteries and Certain State Cemeteries Due to
Commission of Capital Crimes (RIN: 2900-AM86) received June
19, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
7329. A letter from the Chief, Border Security Regulations
Branch, Department of Homeland Security, transmitting the
Department's final rule -- TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO LIST OF
USER FEE AIRPORTS: ADDITIONS OF CAPITAL CITY AIRPORT,
LANSING, MICHIGAN AND KELLY FIELD ANNEX, SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS
[CBP Dec. 08-23] received June 19, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
7330. A letter from the Chairman, International Trade
Commission, transmitting the Commission's report entitled,
``Textiles and Apparel: Effects of Special Rules for Haiti on
Trade Markets and Industries,'' pursuant to Public Law 109-
432, section 5003; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
7331. A letter from the Commissioner, Social Security
Administration, transmitting the Administration's report
entitled, ``Plan to Eliminate the Hearing Backlog and Prevent
Its Recurrence: Semiannual Report for Fiscal Year 2008''; to
the Committee on 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:

Ms. CASTOR: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1304.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
6052) to promote increased public transportation use, to
promote increased use of alternative fuels in providing
public transportation, and for other purposes (Rept. 110-
734). Referred to the House Calendar.

[[Page 13788]]

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions were
introduced and severally referred, as follows:

By Mr. BERMAN (for himself, Mr. Coble, Mr. Conyers, and
Mr. Smith of Texas):
H.R. 6362. A bill to amend title 35, United States Code,
and the Trademark Act of 1946 to provide that the Secretary
of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office, shall appoint
administrative patent judges and administrative trademark
judges, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. RANGEL:
H.R. 6363. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to
add National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day to the list of
days on which the flag should especially be displayed; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. DICKS (for himself, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Larsen of
Washington, Mr. Baird, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Smith of
Washington, and Mr. Reichert):
H.R. 6364. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities
to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
By Mr. KIND (for himself and Mr. Ramstad):
H.R. 6365. A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act with respect to Medicare special needs
plans and the alignment of Medicare and Medicaid for dually
eligible individuals; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and
in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. BUYER (for himself, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Miller of
Florida, and Mr. Brown of South Carolina):
H.R. 6366. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish not
more than seven consolidated patient accounting centers, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. McCaul of
Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr.
Bilbray, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Rohrabacher,
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Poe, and Mr.
Culberson):
H.R. 6367. A bill to provide an exception to certain
mandatory minimum sentence requirements for a law enforcement
officer who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and
in relation to a crime of violence committed while pursuing
or apprehending a suspect; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. BRADY of Texas (for himself, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Porter, Mr. Herger, Mr. Putnam, Mr.
Boehner, and Mr. David Davis of Tennessee):
H.R. 6368. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to provide for an increase in the standard mileage rates
to reflect the increase in the cost of highway fuels, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. DAVIS of Virginia:
H.R. 6369. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
authorize the Secretary of Defense to make grants to
recognized science and technology secondary schools to
support research and development projects at such schools in
science, mathematics, engineering, and technology to
supplement the national security functions of the Department
of Defense; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. DeFAZIO:
H.R. 6370. A bill to transfer excess Federal property
administered by the Coast Guard to the Confederated Tribes of
the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
By Mr. EMANUEL (for himself, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Kind, Ms.
Schwartz, Mr. Levin, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Filner, and Mr.
Bishop of New York):
H.R. 6371. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to require employers to notify their employees of the
availability of the earned income credit; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. HILL:
H.R. 6372. A bill to reestablish standards from the
Commodity Exchange Act to provide for the regulation of
United States markets in energy commodity futures, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture.
By Mr. McCOTTER:
H.R. 6373. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals to establish Home Ownership
Mortgage Expense Accounts (HOME Accounts) which may be used
to purchase, remodel, or make mortgage payments on the
principal residence of the taxpayer; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania, and Ms. Schwartz):
H.R. 6374. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to repeal the shipping investment withdrawal rules in
section 955 and to provide an incentive to reinvest foreign
shipping earnings in the United States; to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
By Mr. STARK (for himself and Mr. George Miller of
California):
H.R. 6375. A bill to provide assistance to adolescents and
young adults with serious mental health disorders as they
transition to adulthood; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
By Ms. DeLAURO (for herself, Mr. Sires, Mr. Holt, Ms.
Lee, Ms. Matsui, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Lewis of Georgia,
Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Sutton, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Payne, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Rothman,
and Mr. Scott of Virginia):
H. Con. Res. 382. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
important social and labor contributions and accomplishments
of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton of New Jersey on the 70th
anniversary of the Fair Labor Standards Act; to the Committee
on Education and Labor.
By Mr. SIRES:
H. Res. 1305. A resolution supporting the designation of
National Tourette Syndrome Day; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.

____________________

MEMORIALS

Under clause 3 of rule XII,

326. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of
the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Concurrent
Resolution No. 51 memorializing the Congress of the United
States to establish a grant program to assist the seafood
industry in St. Tammany, St. Bernard, Orleans, and Plaque-
mines parishes; to the Committee on Financial Services.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:

H.R. 78: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 96: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 154: Mr. Towns, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Space, and Mr. Larson of Connecticut.
H.R. 158: Mr. Miller of Florida.
H.R. 688: Mr. Hayes.
H.R. 856: Mr. Arcuri.
H.R. 901: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 1063: Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
H.R. 1078: Ms. Kaptur.
H.R. 1223: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 1228: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 1295: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 1665: Mr. Feeney.
H.R. 1671: Ms. Sutton.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Hall of New York, Mr. Dicks, and Mr. Stark.
H.R. 1767: Mr. Kanjorski.
H.R. 1940: Mr. Sali.
H.R. 1992: Mr. Souder.
H.R. 2611: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 2712: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey and Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas.
H.R. 3132: Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 3174: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 3232: Mr. Wexler, Mr. Reyes, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of
Florida, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Ferguson,
Mr. Kagen, Mr. Ortiz, and Mr. Cuellar.
H.R. 3329: Mr. Bishop of New York and Mr. Kanjorski.
H.R. 3334: Mrs. Capps and Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 3366: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 3396: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 3406: Mr. Lewis of Georgia and Mr. Michaud.
H.R. 3438: Mr. Grijalva and Mr. Reyes.
H.R. 3439: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 3457: Mr. Broun of Georgia.
H.R. 3544: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 3622: Mr. Mack.
H.R. 3646: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 3650: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 3829: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 3834: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 3934: Mr. Pence.
H.R. 4089: Mr. Hare.
H.R. 4093: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 4138: Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 4498: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 4544: Mr. Bilbray and Mr. Space.
H.R. 4775: Mr. Carson and Ms. Woolsey.
H.R. 4789: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 4935: Mr. Edwards of Texas.
H.R. 4990: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 5236: Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 5244: Mrs. Jones of Ohio and Mr. Faleomavaega.
H.R. 5267: Mr. Jordan and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 5467: Mr. Langevin.
H.R. 5496: Mrs. Capps.
H.R. 5534: Mr. Saxton and Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 5552: Mr. Space.
H.R. 5575: Mr. Rangel.
H.R. 5673: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 5709: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 5748: Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 5752: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 5760: Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
H.R. 5774: Ms. Schakowsky and Mrs. Lowey.

[[Page 13789]]

H.R. 5793: Mr. Space.
H.R. 5842: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 5843: Ms. Lee.
H.R. 5846: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
H.R. 5874: Mr. Reichert.
H.R. 5892: Mr. Kildee and Mr. Clay.
H.R. 5913: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. DeFazio.
H.R. 5925: Mr. Smith of Washington.
H.R. 5935: Mr. Carney.
H.R. 5950: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 5984: Mrs. Capito.
H.R. 6045: Mr. Lynch, Mr. Souder, Mr. Space, Mrs. Maloney
of New York, Mr. Watt, Mr. Kind, Mr. Franks of Arizona, and
Mr. Poe.
H.R. 6083: Mr. Blumenauer.
H.R. 6107: Mr. Carter, Mr. Thornberry, and Mr. Garrett of
New Jersey.
H.R. 6123: Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 6126: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 6143: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 6168: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 6169: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 6172: Mr. Poe.
H.R. 6180: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
H.R. 6198: Mr. Clay, Mr. Akin, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Skelton,
Mr. Graves, Mr. Blunt, Mrs. Emerson, Mr. Hulshof, Mr.
Butterfield, and Mr. Towns.
H.R. 6199: Mr. McHugh.
H.R. 6203: Mr. Payne and Mr. Conyers.
H.R. 6208: Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 6209: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. Moran of
Virginia, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Sires,
Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Tierney, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Ryan of Ohio, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 6210: Mr. Kagen.
H.R. 6214: Mr. Arcuri and Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 6233: Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 6234: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6252: Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. LaTourette, Mr.
Campbell of California, Mr. Latham, and Mr. Carter.
H.R. 6264: Mr. LaTourette, Mr. Platts, Mr. Kildee, Mr.
McNulty, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Gilchrest.
H.R. 6287: Mr. Hall of New York and Mrs. Gillibrand.
H.R. 6321: Mrs. Gillibrand.
H.R. 6328: Ms. Waters, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr.
Blumenauer.
H.R. 6330: Mr. Israel, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Hare, Mr. Walz
of Minnesota, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Sires, and Mr.
Langevin.
H.R. 6355: Mr. Lipinski, Ms. Hirono, and Mr. Cohen.
H.J. Res. 22: Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn,
Ms. Foxx, Mr. Latta, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr. Barrett of South
Carolina, Mr. Price of Georgia, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Jordan, Mr.
Gingrey, and Mr. Wamp.
H.J. Res. 89: Mr. Childers.
H. Con. Res. 72: Mr. McNulty.
H. Con. Res. 214: Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Meeks of New
York, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Lee, Mr. Jefferson, Ms. Norton, and
Ms. Clarke.
H. Con. Res. 223: Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. Olver, and Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina.
H. Con. Res. 338: Mr. Hinchey.
H. Con. Res. 341: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H. Con. Res. 342: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H. Con. Res. 356: Mr. Pascrell, Mrs. Tauscher, Mr. Wolf,
Mr. Skelton, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Carson, and Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania.
H. Con. Res. 364: Mr. McGovern.
H. Con. Res. 378: Ms. Bordallo and Mr. Cohen.
H. Con. Res. 380: Mr. Murphy of Connecticut.
H. Con. Res. 381: Ms. Sutton, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California, Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez of California, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. McDermott, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Nadler, Mr.
Smith of Texas, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Clay, and Ms. Waters.
H. Res. 282: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H. Res. 373: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H. Res. 672: Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Miller of Florida,
and Mr. Berman.
H. Res. 758: Mr. Rothman.
H. Res. 883: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 1006: Mr. Holden, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Cohen, Mr. Tim
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Boucher, and Mr. Murtha.
H. Res. 1045: Mr. Markey, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr.
Crowley, Mr. Fortenberry, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Ferguson, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mrs. Bono Mack,
Ms. Lee, Mr. Kuhl of New York, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr.
English of Pennsylvania, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Shays, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Tierney,
Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Waxman, and Mr. Tiberi.
H. Res. 1191: Mr. Wolf.
H. Res. 1202: Mr. Castle.
H. Res. 1217: Mrs. Capps and Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 1245: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Honda, Mr. Inglis of South
Carolina, Mr. Michaud, and Mr. Sherman.
H. Res. 1248: Mr. Conaway, Mr. Taylor, Mrs. Boyda of
Kansas, Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Loebsack, and Ms. Giffords.
H. Res. 1254: Mr. Hastings of Florida.
H. Res. 1286: Ms. Clarke, Mr. McDermott, and Ms. Slaughter.
H. Res. 1290: Mr. Wexler, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of
California, and Mr. Delahunt.
H. Res. 1302: Mr. Boyd of Florida, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Melancon, Mr. Walberg, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Herger, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Feeney, Mr.
Campbell of California, Mr. Flake, Mr. Akin, and Mr. Broun of
Georgia.

____________________

PETITIONS, ETC.

Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the
clerk's desk and referred as follows:

283. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the City Council
of Compton, CA, relative to Resolution No. 22,564 supporting
the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act of 2007; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
284. Also, a petition of the California State Lands
Commission, relative to a Resolution regarding the taking of
marine mammals and sea turtles incidental to power plant
operations of once-through cooling power plants in
California; to the Committee on Natural Resources.

[[Page 13790]]

SENATE--Wednesday, June 25, 2008

The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
______

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
O Lord, who has been our dwelling place in all generations, keep us
under the canopy of Your care. Guide our Senators by the power of Your
wisdom and love. Lord, don't separate them from life's stresses and
strains or keep them from problems and pain but sustain them by Your
grace as each of life's seasons unfolds. Shelter them in their coming
in and their going out, using them as Your instruments to advance Your
kingdom. May all they say and do today be under Your control and for
Your glory. As You have guided people in the past, so lead our
lawmakers today.
We pray in Your sacred Name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 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. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

Mr. CARDIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following the remarks of the two leaders,
the Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany
H.R. 3221, which is the housing legislation. Yesterday, cloture was
invoked on the motion to concur in the House amendment with the Dodd-
Shelby substitute. We hope to dispose of the remaining amendments to
the bill at an early time so we can complete this legislation.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 3186 AND H.R. 6331

Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding there are two bills
now at the desk due for a second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bills by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 3186) to provide funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program.
A bill (H.R. 6331) to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the
Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive
and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit
programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas,
including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings
with respect to these bills en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will
be placed on the calendar.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
leadership time is reserved.

____________________

AMERICAN HOUSING RESCUE AND FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R.
3221, which the clerk will report.
The assistant clerk read as follows:

A message from the House of Representatives to accompany
H.R. 3221, an act to provide needed housing reform and for
other purposes.

Pending:

Reid (for Dodd/Shelby) amendment No. 4983, of a perfecting
nature.
Bond amendment No. 4987 (to amendment No. 4983), to enhance
mortgage loan disclosure requirements with additional
safeguards for adjustable rate mortgages with an initial
fixed rate and loans that contain prepayment penalty.
Dole amendment No. 4984 (to amendment No. 4983), to improve
the regulation of appraisal standards.
Sununu amendment No. 4999 (to amendment No. 4983), to amend
the United States Housing Act of 1937 to exempt qualified
public housing agencies from the requirement of preparing an
annual public housing agency plan.
Kohl amendment No. 4988 (to amendment No. 4983), to protect
the property and security of homeowners who are subject to
foreclosure proceedings.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The Senator is recognized.

Oversight

Mr. GRASSLEY. I am here today to discuss a very serious matter that
goes right to the heart of one of Congress's most important
responsibilities, the responsibility of constitutional oversight to see
that the laws are faithfully executed by the executive branch of
Government.
American taxpayers expect Congress to exercise oversight in order to
ensure that their hard-earned dollars are not wasted. To conduct more
effective oversight, Congress adopted the Inspector General Act in
1978, creating a system of inspectors general. I will probably refer to
them as everyone else does, as IGs.
We did this throughout many departments of Government. The IGs are
supposed to be watchdogs or, as I like to say, a junkyard dog. They are
our first line of defense against fraud, waste, and abuse. When it
happens, the IGs are supposed to report it to the agency head and to
Congress and to recommend appropriate corrective action.
IGs are the top cops inside of each agency in the executive branch of
Government. They police the Federal workforce. If rules are broken,
then they have to investigate allegations of misconduct and refer their
findings to proper authorities.
To be credible, IGs must be beyond reproach. Above all, they must
live by the rules they themselves enforce. They must set an example of
excellence in their personal conduct and

[[Page 13791]]

they must always do so; otherwise, they lack credibility. So I tend to,
as a Member of the Senate, watch the watchdogs. Over the years in doing
oversight work, I have found inspectors general who do not seem to meet
these standards. I am disappointed to have to report to the Senate
today about a new IG trouble spot.
There are allegations of misconduct in the upper echelons of the
Treasury's IG office. A tip from a whistleblower earlier this year
first alerted me to this problem. On February 12, 2008, I wrote a
letter to Acting Treasury IG Schindel asking for a copy of the
investigative report and all pertinent material bearing on the matter
that was reported to me.
I also asked Mr. Schindel to tell me how and when he intended to
address and resolve the issues raised in that report. Mr. Schindel
responded promptly, providing a redacted copy of the report on February
15. On February 29, he assured me that senior level officials involved
had been placed on paid administrative leave. They would remain on that
status, he told me, ``until all investigative matters have been
adjudicated,'' and ``one of them'' was reassigned to what appeared to
be a questionable post.
The report of investigation on this matter was prepared by the
Department of Labor IG. It is dated January 14, 2008. Since the
Treasury IG lacks an internal affairs unit, IG Schindel referred the
case to the Department of Labor IG for investigation. This was to
ensure maximum independence.
Acting IG Schindel made the referral on June 18, 2007. He was briefed
on the findings in the final report on September 26 of last year. The
Department of Labor report of investigations substantiated wrongdoing
on the part of senior Treasury IG officials. The allegations are very
serious. My staff has carefully reviewed all of the materials provided
by IG Schindel and interviewed a number of witnesses with knowledge on
the issue.
Based on the oversight investigation conducted by my staff, I wrote
to Treasury Secretary Paulson on February 28 this year. In that letter,
I expressed grave concern to Secretary Paulson about the way the Acting
IG Schindel appeared to be responding to the allegations that were
substantiated by the more independent review by the Labor Department
IG, as was reported in his writings.
This is what I said to my friend, Secretary Paulson:
Mr. Schindel stated that the report showed no corruption, criminal
activity, or serious wrongdoing on the part of the senior officials. I
am stunned that anyone with management responsibilities could make this
statement after reading the Labor IG report.
The Labor IG presented a compelling case of high-level IG misconduct
backed up with rock solid evidence. Mr. Schindel seemed unable to see
what the Labor inspector general sees. Is he turning a blind eye to an
obvious problem?
Secretary Paulson responded to my letter on March 10. He informed me
that he has been briefed on the Labor IG's report and ``communicated to
Acting IG Schindel'' his ``views'' on the matter.
The Labor IG report seems to leave little or no wiggle room. Based on
a continuous stream of information being provided to my staff, there is
growing concern about Acting IG Schindel's commitment to solving these
problems. I think of these as obvious problems.
Acting IG Schindel has known about the findings in this report for 9
months until now. To bring the issue into sharper focus, take a moment
to review the Labor IG's findings. This is what the Labor IG report
found:

Our investigation corroborated the allegation that senior
IG officials violated the Public Transit Subsidy program.

This program provides money in the form of fare cards to Government
employees to help cover the high cost of using public transportation to
get to work.
There is an added benefit to the public transit subsidy program. The
value of fare cards received in this program is not taxable. Subjects
of the Labor IG investigation signed applications to participate in the
public transit subsidy. In signing that document, they certified that
they would abide by the terms of the program. The public transit
subsidy program application forms, which these individuals sign, state:

Making a false, fictitious or fraudulent certification may
render the maker subject to criminal investigation under
title 18, United States Code, section 1001.

They allegedly took transit subsidies while accepting free rides to
work from fellow agents, sometimes in Government vehicles.
The findings of the Labor IG's report are of particular concern to me
for another reason, and this seems to be the most troubling part for
me. The senior Treasury IG officials involved in fare card abuse were
responsible for investigating and referring for criminal prosecution a
number of other Treasury Department employees who had allegedly
violated this same program called the Transit Subsidy Program.
As I said up front, the IGs must live by the rules they are sworn to
enforce. When they do not, then inspectors general lose credibility.
The Labor report also finds that the officials involved
``inappropriately intervened in closing [another] investigation'' of
alleged PTSP abuse. This one concerned an employee at another agency
who also allegedly violated the transit subsidy program. According to
the Labor IG's report, the senior Treasury IG officials ``escorted''
the agent in charge of this investigation to their office ``where they
discussed closing the case.'' They apparently ``instructed him to
cancel'' a key interview and ``told him the case would be closed.''
Since the investigation was essentially complete and there was
credible evidence to support the allegations, this meeting gave the
appearance of impropriety. The Labor IG's investigators interviewed the
Treasury IG officials about this meeting. The Treasury IG officials
reportedly cited high agent caseloads as an excuse for their attempt to
close it down. They also claimed the police at that agency ``were
capable of working the investigation'' and that ``there was no fraud or
loss.''
The Labor investigators make one point crystal clear: The claims put
forward by Treasury IG officials did not stand up to scrutiny. The
Labor IG's investigators determined that the Treasury IG's office had
worked similar cases involving this agency's employees in the past.
They found that special agents in the Treasury IG's office had a
typical caseload of 15 to 16 cases and not the usual 30 caseload
claimed by one of the subjects of this investigation.
I understand the employee involved in these allegations of public
transit subsidy program violations was given a proposed notice of
removal on June 18, 2008. This agency is trying hard to crack down on
such violations. This should be a wake-up call for Mr. Schindel. The
abuse of the public transit subsidy program alleged in the Labor IG's
report constitutes, at best, misuse or abuse of public moneys and, at
worst, outright theft.
There is one more very disturbing finding in the Labor IG's report I
should highlight. The Labor report ``questions the judgment'' of the
senior Treasury IG officials for their alleged involvement in the
reinvestigation of another employee misconduct case. This particular
investigation was originally conducted by the Treasury IG for Tax
Administration or TIGTA. Once again, this investigation was referred to
an outside agency to ensure greater independence.
According to the Labor report, the TIGTA investigation determined
that the Treasury IG agent ``misused his position, his issued vehicle,
and made false and misleading statements'' during the course of the
investigation. For a Federal law enforcement officer, making false
statements during an investigation, as alleged, could be a career-
ending mistake. As chronicled in the Labor IG's report, the senior
Treasury IG didn't like the TIGTA's findings and wanted them changed.
The Labor IG's report is very clear in stating that the only reason for
the reinvestigation

[[Page 13792]]

was to change the findings of the original Treasury IG for Tax
Administration investigation. The Labor IG report concluded:

The appearance is that the sole purpose of intervening in
the aftermath of [the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration's] investigation was to mitigate [the]
findings, particularly by undermining [the inspector
general's] apparently well supported finding that . . . [the
agent involved] . . . had made false statements.

The report goes on to say:

The evidence suggests that TIGTA's findings were correct.
It is clear that the only purpose of the reinvestigation . .
. was to change the findings of the investigation so [the
agent involved] would not have a Giglio issue.

The person involved in this case was suspended for 10 days 2 years
ago. The Labor IG also questioned the leniency of the agent's
punishment, noting that misuse of a Government vehicle alone normally
carries a 30-day suspension. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration also alleges that the legal counsel to the Treasury IG
may have been involved in an attempt to quash or alter TIGTA's final
report of investigation. TIGTA provided a document which indicates that
the Treasury IG's legal counsel ``disagreed with the results of the
investigation.'' He ``expected a draft ROI'' and ``asked if the Final
Report of Investigation could be changed.''
Fiddling with these kinds of reports ought to raise a lot of
questions among people in authority about whether things are being done
right.
He was informed by the agent in charge that TIGTA ``did not submit
draft ROIs and would not make any changes to the final ROI.'' The legal
counsel denies these allegations.
The Labor IG also found the legal counsel's ``advice to the DOT-OIG
questionable regarding the investigation.'' The Labor IG reached this
conclusion because the legal counsel had listened to the tape-recorded
interview, during which the subject allegedly ``made a false statement
under oath to the TIGTA agent.''
The three substantiated allegations I have laid out, which are
presented clearly in the Labor IG's report, are each disturbing in
their own right. But if you take them all together, they paint a truly
awful picture of what is going on in that office. This report is the
result of an independent investigation conducted by professional law
enforcement officers. The results of this investigation demand serious,
thorough, fair, and prompt action. I met with Acting Treasury IG
Schindel on March 13 to review this matter. He assured me he would take
decisive action to clean up this mess. More recently, I was told the
Acting Treasury IG is wrestling with new allegations. Addressing the
Department of Labor IG report must be a first priority to show us in
Congress that he is carrying out his responsibilities. He needs to sink
his teeth into that material and close it out once and for all. In a
letter on May 30, I asked the acting inspector general again to proceed
with his review of this matter ``as quickly as possible.'' I also
insisted it be done by the book, ``consistent with all applicable rules
and regulations.''
I call on Acting Treasury Inspector General Schindel to keep his
word. That is all I ask, just keep his word, do what he told me he was
going to do. I want him to stick to his repeated assurances--in his
letters of February 15 and February 29, at our March 13 meeting, and
again in a letter of June 2. I expect no more and no less.
Indecision is costing the taxpayers money. To date, these officials
have collected 3 months' worth of paid administrative leave. They are
senior executives earning top dollar. Their administrative leave has
already cost the taxpayers about $90,000, and the number is climbing.
Continuing mismanagement and indecision in the Treasury IG's office is
wasting precious taxpayer dollars. Acting IG Schindel has a
responsibility to show he runs a first-class inspector general's
office, one that is beyond reproach. He cannot operate effectively as
an IG until he gets his own house in order. His job is to deter, to
detect, and report waste but not to do it himself.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. ALEXANDER. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for
up to 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Supply and Demand

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I have received 600 e-mails and letters
from Tennesseans in response to a request I put out asking them to
share their personal stories about high gas prices. It has been my
practice each week to put a few of those into the Congressional Record
to remind my colleagues and to remind our country that we understand
that people are hurting. Tennesseans are hurting in their jobs, in
their families, and in their homes. Mr. President, $4-plus gasoline is
a big problem for Tennesseans.
Today, I wish to submit for the Congressional Record five more
letters from among the nearly 600 that I have received, and I ask
unanimous consent that following my remarks these letters be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. ALEXANDER. The first comes from Christy Long in Maynardville, TN.
She works at the East Tennessee Children's Hospital in Knoxville, but
she is worried about the cost of her commute. She is a diabetic. She is
having trouble paying for her insulin shots due to the rising gas
prices. She says:

Gas for work or insulin to live. That is the decision I
have had to make several times daily.

James Edwards from Charlotte, TN: James drives a rural route for the
Postal Service, and he uses his own car, but the $26-a-day allowance
doesn't cover the gas he uses anymore. He says that since the 10-
percent ethanol mandate, he gets less mileage and has to use more gas.
His wife's 40-mile commute to and from work every day is also cutting
into their budget.
Kaye Nolen in Dyer, TN: Kay used to drive across the country once a
year to see her family in Illinois, Utah, and New Mexico, but can't
afford to do that this year. She says she is afraid that she will not
be able to spend Thanksgiving with her family this year and that she
will not be able to afford gas to make it to work if the prices keep
going up.
Ruthann Booher of Crossville, TN: Ruthann and her husband have had to
make significant cuts in their driving and grocery buying because of
escalating costs. Her husband, who is 62, is now considering quitting
his job at Wal-Mart and drawing Social Security since driving to work
is so expensive. They can't afford the payment on a new car with better
mileage.
Brenda Northern in Walland, TN, which is in the same county in which
I live: Brenda is 60. She can barely afford to drive to visit her
mother, who is 79 now, and it is getting harder and harder to make all
of her payments. Her husband has to use diesel for his truck because he
moves mobile homes for a living and diesel prices keep going up too.
She says: I just do not know how we are going to make it.
I want Christy and James and Kaye and Ruthann and Brenda to know that
I believe Senators on both sides of the aisle care about this matter,
understand what is happening, and are ready to deal with it. I know on
the Republican side, here is what we believe: We believe the answer to
$4 gas prices is to find more and use less; that is, find more oil and
use less oil.
Economics 101 taught us the law of supply and demand. The problem
today fundamentally--and most Americans understand this; Americans know
this--our problem is our supplies worldwide are not growing as fast as
our demand worldwide for oil, and so the price of gasoline is going up.
So if we had more supplies, and if we used

[[Page 13793]]

less oil, the price of gasoline would go down. So we say on the
Republican side: Find more, use less.
There seems to be a lot of agreement on both sides of the aisle about
the using less part. For example, last year, the Senate did the most
important thing it could do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by
passing higher fuel efficiency standards that said that cars and trucks
had to be up to 35 miles a gallon by 2020. We did that together,
Republicans and Democrats.
We on the Republican side are ready to try to make plug-in electric
cars commonplace. I had a TVA Congressional Caucus hearing on that the
other day in Nashville. Major car companies such as General Motors,
Toyota, Nissan, and Ford are making plug-ins that are going to be
available next year. TVA and other utilities have plenty of extra
electricity at night to plug in, so literally you can plug your car in
at night for 60 cents and fill it up with fuel instead of $70 worth of
gasoline. I believe tens of thousands of Tennesseans and millions of
Americans are going to be doing that.
If we set as our goal and take all the steps we need to take in the
Senate to make plug-in electric cars and trucks commonplace, we could
use less. Many estimates from General Motors and others is that just
the plug-in electric vehicles would cut our imported oil by one-third,
which is now about 12 million barrels a day. That is a significant
reduction.
We can use less oil if we have a crash program in advanced biofuels.
There is a lot of concern about ethanol and its effect on food prices.
Well, we can grow a lot of crops that we don't eat such as switchgrass,
for example, and with more research on cellulosic ethanol we can use
less oil.
The other half our strategy to lower gas prices is finding more. That
is where we have a difference of opinion. It seems that the other side
of the aisle wants to repeal half the law of supply and demand. It is a
new form of economics. Maybe we could call it ``Obama-nomics'' or some
other name. But we say: All right, we agree on using less; now let's
talk about finding more. What about, for example, allowing other
States, such as Virginia, whose legislature says it wants to, to do
what Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama do, which is to explore
for oil offshore. We have a lot of it. We permitted an enlargement of
that in the Gulf of Mexico a couple of years ago. Already the money is
beginning to come in from the bids, and 37\1/2\ percent of the money
goes to the States for their use for education or to nourish their
beaches or whatever, and one-eighth goes to the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
The Presiding Officer and I both were Governors of our States.
Neither one of us was fortunate enough to have an ocean on our State,
so we don't have any potential for offshore drilling. I can't speak for
the former Governor of Nebraska, but I can for Tennessee. If we had the
opportunity in Tennessee to put oil and gas rigs 50 miles offshore
where we couldn't see them and explore for oil and gas, and keep 37\1/
2\ percent of the revenue and put it in a fund for our universities to
make them among the best in the world, and to keep taxes low, and to
use the money for greenways or to nourish the beaches or for other
purposes, we would do it in a minute. I would think sooner or later
Virginia will say they would like to do that. Maybe North Carolina
will. Maybe Florida will.
Our proposal is simply, if the State wants to do it, the State can do
it. No one is saying Virginia must do it or North Carolina must do it.
It simply gives them the option, and it gives us more American oil and
more supply to help stabilize and bring down the price of $4 gasoline.
But Senator Obama and most of the Democrats on the other side of the
aisle say: No, we can't. No, we can't to offshore drilling. No, we
can't to oil shale, which is in four Western States. There is,
conservatively speaking, according to the Department of the Interior, 1
million barrels a day that we could get from offshore exploration and 2
million barrels a day that we could get from oil shale. If we added 3
million barrels a day to our production in the United States, we would
increase by one-third the production that we have in the United States.
We would be making more of our contribution to the world supply of oil.
We are the third largest producer of oil in the world. Why should we
go begging the Saudis to drill more when we can produce more ourselves.
That is part of it: Find more, use less.
So we need to come to some conclusion. We want a bipartisan result.
We know in the Senate we have to get 60 votes to make anything happen.
But I would be hopeful that the Democratic leadership, which is in
charge of the agenda, would allow us in July to bring up these matters
and act like a Senate. Let's vote. Let's debate. Let's talk about ways
to use less. We could find substantial agreement, whether it is on
plug-in vehicles, research for advanced biofuels, or conservation.
Senator Warner has suggested that the Federal Government ought to use
less as a good example for the rest of the country. That is a good
idea. Senator McCain and others have lots of good ideas as well.
Let's talk about finding more, too, for gasoline in terms of offshore
drilling or in terms of oil shale. We can leave drilling in Alaska out
of the discussion if that keeps us from having a bipartisan agreement,
although it is the fastest way to get 1 million new barrels of oil a
day. Let's put it aside for just a moment and say we want to work
across the aisle to get a bipartisan agreement. We know we can't reach
that agreement with ANWR included, so we will put that aside for the
moment. But can we not as a Senate, in a bipartisan way, agree that we
should be finding more and using less and not be saying when it comes
to offshore exploration, no, we can't, and not be saying when it comes
to oil shale: No, we can't. When Senator McCain says we need to double
our number of nuclear plants, we can't say that we have enough clean,
carbon-free electricity to deal with clean air, global warming, and
plug-in cars, but from the other side comes: No, we can't. We cannot
say ``no, we can't'' to finding more if we want to bring down $4
gasoline prices.
So I say to Christy, James, Kaye, Ruthann, Brenda, and the 600
Tennesseans who have written me about $4 gasoline, over this Fourth of
July recess, a good thing to say to your Members of the Senate and
Members of Congress is: Find more and use less. Yes, we can find more.
Yes, we can use less. Yes, we can bring down the $4 price of gasoline.
Some have said it will take 10 years. Well, President Kennedy didn't
shy away from asking us to take 10 years to go to the Moon. President
Roosevelt didn't shy away from putting in the Manhattan Project to
split the atom and build a bomb to win the war even though he knew it
would take several years. What is wrong with it taking several years?
Are we supposed to sit here and let our 2-year-old grandchildren have
the same energy crisis to deal with 10 years from now that we have
today? Leadership is about looking ahead. It might take 1, 2, 5, or 10
years, but the time to start is today. The way to do it is working
across the aisle. The formula for it is economics 101: More supply,
less demand, find more, use less. Today, the Republicans are ready to
do that. We are ready to do both, find more and use less. But the
Democrats are not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

1. Christy Long, Maynardville, TN--Christy works at the
East TN Children's Hospital in Knoxville but is worried about
the cost of the commute. She is a diabetic and is having
trouble paying for her insulin shots due to the rising gas
prices: ``Gas for work or insulin to live . . . that is the
decision that I have had to make several times daily.''
2. James Edwards, Charlotte, TN--James drives a rural route
for the Postal Service and uses his own car, but the $26-a-
day allowance doesn't cover the gas he uses anymore. He says
that since the 10% ethanol mandate, he gets less mileage and
has to use more gas. His wife's 40-mile commute to and from
work everyday is also cutting into their budget.
3. Kaye Nolen, Dyer, TN--Kaye used to drive across country
once a year to see her family in Illinois, Utah and New
Mexico, but can't afford to do that this year. She says

[[Page 13794]]

she is afraid that she won't get to spend Thanksgiving with
her family this year and that she won't be able to afford gas
to make it to work if prices keep going up.
4. Ruthann Booher, Crossville, TN--Ruthann and her husband
have had to make significant cuts in their driving and
grocery buying because of escalating costs. Her husband, who
is 62, is now considering quitting his job at Wal-Mart and
drawing Social Security since driving to work is so
expensive. They can't afford the payment on a new car with
better mileage.
5. Brenda Northern, Walland, TN--Brenda is 60 and can
barely afford to drive to visit her mother (who is 79)
anymore, and its getting harder and harder to make all her
payments. Her husband has to use diesel for his truck because
he moves mobile homes for a living and diesel prices keep
going up too. She says, ``I just do not know how we are going
to make it!''
____

Hi my name is Christy Long, the gas prices are very hard to
deal with. I work 40 hrs a week at East TN Childrens Hospital
in Knoxville TN and make decent money. However, between my
health insurance, daycare, school fees, groceries, my
medicine because I am a diabetic on insulin, plus my house
payment, electric, water etc . . . Then buy gas for me to get
back in forth to work on . . . Humm lets just say that I
wished I could have government benefits for the other stuff
so that I could afford my gas. My husband and I whom he works
60 hrs a week at his job have considered me quitting work and
staying home due to the fact that we can not afford the gas
for me to get back and forth to work, plus eat, my medicine,
his medicine and just to live. It is really sad when you have
to pick do I want to buy my insulin prescription for $60 this
month or do I want to buy $60 worth of gas so that I can get
back and forth to work for a week. That has happened a couple
of times in the last 6 months to my family. Luckily I have
had a good doctor that has given me samples several times to
get me thru. Because as anybody would know without my insulin
I can not live.
You see my story is not my family can not go on vacation
this year or anything, my story is that I do not make enough
money to live and work. It is one or the other. . . Gas for
work or insulin to live . . . That is the decision that I
have had to make several times lately.
Sincerely,
Christy Long,
Maynardville, TN.
____

The high gas price is having a great impact on me and my
family. I work for the U.S. Postal Service. I have a rural
route, which means I use my own vehicle.
I am responsible for the maintenance, insurance and fuel
for my vehicle. Even though I receive a vehicle allowance to
operate my vehicle for the U. S. Postal Service, it is not
adequate.
My allowance is $26.60 per day. Since I am continuously
running, starting, stopping my vehicle, I go through about 5-
6 gallons of gas a day. At $3.87 a gallon (this what I paid
yesterday) and having to fill up my vehicle every other day,
it is costing me about $25.00 per day (that's $125.00 per
week or $500.00 per month.
That is only for the fuel. I also have to replace brakes,
tires and other items for frequently because of the nature of
the job I perform.
My wife works at Fort Campbell, Ky and we live about 40
miles from her work. The cost for gas for her runs about
$120.00 per week.
Since it was mandated to add 10% ethanol to gasoline, we
get less miles per gallon so this means we use more gas.
Since there is a greater price we pay for gas, everyday
life (food, utilities, etc.) is more expensive. I served over
21 years in the military and I am proud of this service.
America is noted for its compassion for helping other
nations, however, we are doing our own country a disservice
by not taking care of our own.
This my story and I hope with enough stories like this we
can convince the powers that be we need to take care of
business soon. By this, I mean do more drilling and build
more refineries in America and stop depending on other
countries for our own survival.
Thanks for your concern and taking your time to address
this issue.
Sincerely,
James R. Edwards, Sr.,
Charlotte, TN.
____

Dear Sir, You asked how the high gasoline prices are
hurting me?
I can't afford to drive to Moline, Illinois to see my three
daughters nor to see two granddaughters graduate from high
school. I can't drive to Utah to see my Dad and sister. I
can't drive to New Mexico to see my mother. I can't even make
the trip to Branson, MO to help my elderly Aunt and Uncle
every other month. I used to make the round trip drive from
TN to MO to NM to UT to MO to TN once a year. Not now! Can't
afford the gasoline!! I used to go to IL to spend
Thanksgiving with my daughters. I don't think I can afford
that trip this year.
I am barely affording the gasoline to go to work four days
a week, shopping once a week and to Church on Sunday. That
all costs me around $48 a week. Soon I will have to quit my
job because I can't afford the gasoline to drive the 28 miles
a day. If I quit my job, what do I have left?
Goodness sakes! When will this all end? I can't afford to
go to work and eat one meal a day!! I am willing to work, if
I have a way to get there!
Thanks for asking my opinion on this horrible state of
affairs.
Sincerely,
Kaye Nolen,
Dyer, TN.
____

Dear Senator Alexander: My husband and I have lived in
Crossville, TN for 19 years. Never before have we had the
problems making ends meet as we are having now. My husband
works full time at WalMart. He doesn't make a whole lot of
money, but we were getting by. With the gas prices
skyrocketing day by day and the trickle down effect on
everything else, we have had to really tighten our belts. I
used to be able to go to the store a few times a week for
groceries that we would run out of. Now I only go once a
week. If I have forgotten something, or we run out, we have
to do without until I can go the next week. The price of
groceries is another factor and I realize it is mostly
because of the cost of transporting the goods to the stores.
It is also the cost of harvesting the crops due to the
gasoline used for farm equipment. It's hurting all of us.
My husband is 62 and is now seriously considering drawing
his Social Security and working 3 days a week. We would have
more money, but he would have to take a reduced amount
instead of waiting until he's 66 and being able to draw the
full amount. We have also considered getting a more fuel
efficient vehicle, but can't afford to make the payments.
We're actually caught between a rock and a hard place. And
there will be no vacation for us this year, or any year the
fuel prices are this ridiculous. We will just have to stay
home.
Thank you for the opportunity to vent my frustration. I
think you are doing a great job for the people of Tennessee
and I think you would make a great president.
Sincerely,
Ruthann Booher,
Crossville, TN.
____

From: Northern, Brenda
Sent: Mon 6/16/2008 12:54 PM
To: Alexander, Senator (Alexander)
Subject: My family's Crisis!
Sen. Alexander, I appreciate the opportunity to address the
issue of increasing Gas & Diesel prices on my family in
particular, even though everyone is experiencing the same
problem.
I fill my car up each week and the price just keeps going
up, 2 weeks ago it was $53.00, the next week $61.00, and this
week $64.00 and my tank was not all the way empty either
time.
I drive to work the supermarket and stop by to check on my
Mother who is 79 now, and go to Church. I am 60 years old and
would love to have the opportunity to spend more time with my
Mother, my Husband, Children & Grandchildren, but Gasoline
keeps rising, which makes everything else more expensive, so
we have trouble meeting our payments, and no recreation at
all.
My Husband uses Diesel in his vehicle and also his Work
Trucks, and now that cuts down on his profit! He is just a
small business man who moves mobile homes, this is what he
has done for 44+ years, and makes less and less.
We are just simple Christian people with families trying to
make a living on two paychecks, we're a prime example of
those who are rapidly approaching retirement age and yet will
not be able to retire and have a few enjoyable years together
here on earth. I just do not know how we are going to make
it! I would love to spend time with my family, enjoy the few
years I figure I have left without having to struggle just to
buy gasoline to be able to get to work to get a payday that
buys less and less of the necessities of life.
One thing that would help save on gasoline would be, make
the work week 4 (10 hour shifts) instead of 5 (8 hour
shifts).
Since we are already there 2 more hours would not matter if
it would save us a day's supply of gasoline getting there and
back, also would save the companies in electricity etc.
Sincerely,
Brenda Northern,
Walland, TN.

Mr. ALEXANDER. 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. DODD. 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. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I will inform Senators as to where
we are on the housing bill. Most of my colleagues know that we voted
for cloture

[[Page 13795]]

yesterday with a substantial vote of 83 to 9--not something that occurs
with great frequency, getting that kind of strong, bipartisan support
for the housing bill, which Senator Shelby and I have spent weeks
crafting, with the support of our members on the Banking Committee. The
most recent vote was 19 to 2, on a committee with 21 members, where we
ended up with strong, bipartisan support to deal with the foreclosure
crisis in this country, to reform government-sponsored enterprises, and
to provide for an affordable housing program. That is not to mention
other provisions that came out of the Finance Committee, under the
leadership of Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, to deal with
mortgage revenue bonds, tax incentives, first-time home buyers, and
counseling services. As well, we have expanded the numbers to assist
individuals who are seeking to stay in their homes and are trying to
achieve workouts with lenders at a cost that is affordable for them.
There are many aspects of this important bill. There is no more
important issue before us today than dealing with our economy. One need
only look at the headlines of the major newspapers in the Nation this
morning saying that consumer confidence is the lowest it has been,
according to some, in 40 years. The prospects people see for themselves
and their families are very low. That in itself is a source of great
concern, and it ought to be to every Member of this body--that our
fellow citizens don't see a very bright future for themselves and that
we need to take some steps on energy and health care costs and housing.
We have 8,400 people every day filing for foreclosure. That ought to
alarm everybody. We need to take some steps to allow people to work
this out and stabilize this cascading housing problem.
When you have home values falling by the hour and you have problems
with the lack of new starts, unemployment rates occurring, with it
spreading to student loans and commercial lending, this problem has at
its center the housing crisis and foreclosure crisis all across our
country, and it is not localized in one or two areas.
The fact we have been able to put together a major proposal that
addresses this issue, and yet as we stand here, I am stymied because
one Senator has decided this bill is not going to go forward--one--
because it takes unanimous consent for us to move to the bill.
We already worked out a number of amendments on this bill. People
have ideas they want to bring to it, and I welcome those. We wish to
get to those ideas, even take the agreements we have reached with
Republican and Democratic Senators. One Senator is saying: You can't do
that. Again 8,000 more people are about to lose their homes today, but
one Senator has said: No, I am sorry, but my bill is more important
than the 8,000 of you yesterday or the 8,000 tomorrow who will come up.
We are trying to get this bill done. There are several other
Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who have ideas they wish to bring
to this debate. Some we can agree to, some we cannot. But they deserve
a debate and a vote on their idea. I welcome the opportunity to have
that conversation with them. In many cases, we will try to work them
out if we can. Where that is impossible, then this body has a right or
obligation to vote them up or down, whether or not to accept those
ideas.
We had very constructive conversations with the House of
Representatives. I am very grateful to Speaker Nancy Pelosi who has
welcomed our work here as we try to work out the differences between
the House-passed bill and our bill, which are not substantial, in my
view. We ought to come to some agreement on those differences.
Congressman Barney Frank from Massachusetts, chairman of the Financial
Services Committee in the House, has been working with us so we can
resolve these differences. I had hoped before we left for the
Independence Day recess we would have been able to send a bill to the
President for his signature. What greater signal could we send, as I
said yesterday, to the American people than this Congress--highly
divided, partisan beyond belief in too many cases--was able to come
together on an issue that affects so many of our fellow citizens. We
are this close to doing it. But I cannot offer an amendment today or
invite Members to resolve their differences because one Senator has
decided we should not do anything except his bill.
Unfortunately, that is how this institution works too often. As
people know, I have been sitting here patiently for the last day and a
half, along with Senator Shelby, trying to resolve these matters. We
have to wait until the end of this day. We will go another 5 or 6 hours
doing nothing, sitting around in quorum calls and listening to speeches
until we run out the clock and then have an opportunity to get to these
issues.
I know there are people who care about Medicare. They care about the
supplemental appropriations bill. People care about the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. The majority leader has laid this out in
clear, concise terms that we need to deal with these matters before we
leave, and we are going to do it the hard way or the easy way. But it
requires cooperation. It requires people being able to put aside their
differences and let us get to the matters before us.
No other issue is more important. I apologize for getting emotional
about this issue, but it is awfully difficult to go back home when
people are facing gasoline prices that have gone through the ceiling,
they are watching their fellow citizens lose their homes, the values of
theirs, if not losing them, are declining, joblessness rising in the
country, and they are wondering why we cannot manage to get anything
done on their behalf.
While we cannot solve every problem, here we have a collection of
bills worked out in one package, crafted by Democrats and Republicans
coming together, and we cannot even get to debate the issue or bring up
ideas other Members have on how we might improve this legislation.
I wanted to inform my colleagues as to why we have not been able to
get much done here. It is not for the lack of leadership by Harry Reid.
He has been leading and asking the other side to work with us to get
this job done. As he said last evening, there are moments, we all
understand, when partisan politics take over. There are other moments
when you have to set that aside, and this is one of those moments.
So my urging at this moment at 11:15 this morning is, would this one
Senator reconsider what he is objecting to and allow us to get to this
matter. That Senator has had four different opportunities to vote on
his bill. I happen to support his bill, by the way. I think I am a
cosponsor of it. If not a cosponsor, I certainly have been supportive
of it. I also understand there are other issues with which we have to
grapple, and the housing issue is a major one for us.
We are right on the brink. In a couple of hours, we can resolve this
matter, vote on it, send it to the House, and hopefully they will
agree, and send that bill to the President. We can do that literally in
the next 2 or 3 hours if I can only get an opportunity to raise these
matters on the floor of the Senate.
I am deeply grateful to the majority leader who has done everything
conceivable to make this happen. What we are lacking is the kind of
cooperation required to get this bill done. This is not a bill I would
have written on my money, nor would Senator Shelby. There are 100 of us
here. We all have our ideas on how we would frame these matters. But we
are elected to a body that includes 99 other Members, and you have to
sit down with each other and work to achieve anything. When you refuse
to do that, you make it impossible to step forward.
My urging at this hour of the morning is let us get to this bill,
allow these Members--Democrats and Republicans--to have their ideas
brought up, resolved, or voted on so we can conclude this work, send it
to the House, and hopefully to the President of the United States for
his signature.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time the Senate
spends in

[[Page 13796]]

quorum calls during today's session count toward the time postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. DODD. 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. CRAIG. 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. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I am filing at the desk today an amendment
to the emergency supplemental that will be coming over, or is already
here, from the House to reinsert a provision that the Senate put in our
version of the emergency supplemental before it went to the House for
their consideration. This amendment includes a 1-year funding for the
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. What that
simply means is timber-dependent communities and school districts
across the country would receive their level of funding for one more
year until such time as we can fully reauthorize the act.
The Senate Finance Committee, in the extender legislation, has a
reauthorization in it. But we don't know whether that will come
immediately following the Fourth of July recess or some time into the
summer. Here is the reality of the emergency funding about which we are
talking.
There are 775 counties and 4,400 school districts in 42 States that
is now making critical hiring decisions for the coming school year that
will start at the end of August. These school districts need this
money. It is quite simple. They have no other way of raising the
resource that is now terminated as a result of our inability to move in
the appropriate fashion.
What we are talking about is 9 million schoolchildren who will be
affected. In my State, numerous school districts and potentially
several hundred teachers are getting their termination notices because
there simply is no money to hire or to continue to hire them. What are
we talking about? A timber-dependent county, a county where 90 percent
of its landscape is owned by the Federal Government and 10 percent is
owned in fee simple and pays taxes into the school district, and they
have no possible way of raising enough revenue when a third or a half
of the revenue came from those public lands originally through timber
sales.
Senator Wyden and I some years ago created this legislation. It is
known as Craig-Wyden or Wyden-Craig. We have helped these school
districts, and we are fumbling here trying to accomplish that. We put
it in our version of the supplemental. Now the supplemental comes back.
It is not a pure document. It is not exclusively a military funding
document. It has veterans money in it. It has emergency money in it for
FEMA to handle the disastrous flooding going on in the State of Iowa.
In my State of Idaho, in Clearwater County, we have a disaster. It
isn't flooding. It isn't the Clearwater River over its banks. It is a
school district that is dramatically having to diminish the quality of
education because this Congress has not acted in a timely fashion, and
we simply roll over and say: Oh, well, we will probably get it done in
July, but then again it might be August.
It is now we must act because in August, that school will be back in
operation and that schoolteacher who was teaching some level of
academics in that high school or grade school will be gone because the
money has not been replenished. I call that an emergency. I call that a
need to address the supplemental.
I have talked with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I
have talked with the ranking member. They, too, view this as a crisis.
I know we all have our priorities, but in this case Senator Crapo,
Senator Smith, Senator Domenici, Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski,
Senator Bennett, and others agree with me. And there are numerous
Senators on the Democratic side of the aisle. I have spoken a few
moments ago with Senator Wyden. The State of Oregon will be in crisis
if we don't resolve this in a reasonable fashion.
This is simply a 1-year extension of funding at current levels. It is
not a new reauthorization. It represents about $400 million in the
chairman's mark that moved out of here before. So this amendment, as I
speak, will be filed at the desk, and I would hope, in our effort to
move legislation and finish the supplemental, the emergency
supplemental, that we also recognize there are some domestic
emergencies here at home, such as the flooding on the Mississippi, such
as tornado-ravaged areas, such as school districts having to fire
needed and necessary educators to provide for the quality of education
of their children because Congress did not responsibly fund public
land, Federal public land-dependent counties, and created the crisis by
our inaction.
With those comments, I yield the floor, and 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. DORGAN. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
presentation, if there is a Republican speaker on the floor, they be
recognized next, as has been the course, and that Senator Brown of Ohio
be recognized as the next Democratic speaker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Department of Defense Contracting

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, yesterday, there was a hearing in the
Congress, on the House side, dealing with someone I have spoken about
on the floor at some length, and I wish to talk about that hearing and
what it means. Then, following that, I wish to speak about the bill I
introduced yesterday dealing with the price of gas and oil and oil
speculation.
First, let me talk about the hearing yesterday and what we learned
about the Defense Department and the State Department and others
dealing with this man. This man's name is Efraim Diveroli. He is 22
years old and the president and chief executive officer of a firm that
was awarded $300 million in contracts by our Federal Government. So
this is a guy who took over a shell corporation that his dad had, and
he was awarded $300 million in Defense Department contracts. He was the
president of the company at age 22. He had a vice president, though. It
is not as if the company was understaffed. This is a photograph of his
25-year-old vice president, who is a massage therapist--David Packouz.
He was called a masseur, or massage therapist. So these two guys ran a
company in Florida that had an unmarked office door. At one point, Mr.
Diveroli, the CEO, says he was the only employee and at another point
it was he and his vice president, the massage therapist.
They got $300 million from the Federal Government, from the Defense
Department, and they were to provide weapons and ammunition to the
Afghan fighters because our Defense Department wanted to help the
Afghan fighters take on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well, here is what
these folks provided to the fighters in Afghanistan--40-year-old
Chinese cartridges which came in boxes that were all taped and falling
apart--this is an example. They were made in China in the mid-1960s. It
is pretty unbelievable. The fighters in Afghanistan said this was junk
coming from this company that got $300 million in contracts from the
Defense Department.
Now, I had the three-star general come to my office. I am on the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and we shovel a lot of money
out the door for a lot of these Defense needs, some legitimate, some
not, and I had a

[[Page 13797]]

lengthy meeting with the three-star general who was in charge of this.
I said: How on Earth could you have given a contract to a company run
by a 22-year-old, who had very little experience, running a shell
company his dad owned, a company where his vice president was a massage
therapist? This is a joke, except it is not a joke when the American
taxpayers are fleeced. He gave me a hundred excuses, this three-star
general did.
But all he would have had to do is go to MySpace. Pull this man up on
MySpace, the president of this company, and here is what he says on
MySpace.

I like to go clubbing, go to a movie. I have taken a really
liking towards fine Scotch whiskey. I have had problems in
high school, so I was forced to work most of my teen years.

He probably grew up a little fast.

Got a decent apartment. Am content for the moment.

Go to MySpace. Is this the CEO of a company you want to give $300
million in contracts to?
This is an outrage. So a hearing was held yesterday, and here is what
the hearing disclosed. There was a watch list at the State Department.
This company--these guys--had small contracts with the State
Department, and the State Department had compiled a watch list of
80,000 individuals and companies suspected of illegal arms
transgressions and other things, including this company. Well, the fact
is, the Defense Department never checked the State Department.
Contracts have been pulled from this little company, but the Defense
Department never checked, so they give them a $300 million contract, or
a series of contracts, worth $300 million.
The reason they say it didn't show up is because they don't check on
contractors that maybe are bad contractors if the contract is less than
$5 million. That is, apparently, an asterisk.
I mean, I don't understand this at all. Government officials failed
to review several of these contracts from this little company that had
been canceled or delayed. They never raised red flags because they fell
under the $5 million contract value that was the warning threshold. The
contracting officer with the Army Sustainment Command had overruled a
contracting team that raised concerns about this company. They said
there was substantial doubt, but nonetheless the company got the
contracts. Listen, this is shameful. We ought to do--and, yes, we in
the Senate as well--ought to do a detailed investigation. We should
bring people here under subpoena, if necessary, to find out who made
these judgments and why they are still working for the Federal
Government. Why aren't they long ago gone from the Federal payroll?
This is not the end of it or all of it. I have spoken about dozens and
dozens of contracts that are similar to this.
At any rate, yesterday, this hearing occurred in the House. I commend
Congressman Waxman, who has been doing some of the most significant
work in the Congress in investigating this. We need to investigate this
on the defense spending side as well, those who appropriate this
funding. This is shameful, and I think everybody involved in it ought
to be embarrassed. We are shoveling money out the door to support the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have shown pictures on the floor of the Senate of one-hundred
dollar bills wrapped in Saran Wrap the size of bricks, and the guy
distributing that cash in Iraq said he told contractors our motto was:
We pay in cash, you bring a bag. It was like the Wild West, he said.
You think money isn't wasted? You think there isn't stolen money over
there, when you are distributing money out of the back of a pickup
truck and we are airlifting one-hundred dollar bills on C-130s, flight
after flight, full of cash?
This is unbelievable what is happening with this contracting abuse,
and this is one, small example.
I think all those involved in it ought to be brought before
congressional committees and that we demand answers from them. Who is
responsible, who is accountable on behalf of the American taxpayer? If
they can't answer, they ought not be on the public payroll.
That takes care of my need for therapy to talk about this issue. It
is almost unbelievable that the American taxpayer, en masse, is not
gathering outside this Capitol saying, when we hear this kind of thing,
we are outraged. So let me be outraged on behalf of them and say this
cannot be allowed to continue.

Speculating on Oil and Gas

Mr. President, I came to the floor to talk about the issue of the
price of gasoline. I had a guy in my office the other day that was the
president of one of the larger corporations and this company was
engaged in trading and all these issues. He was a fast talker. I mean,
it was unbelievable to me. When he finished talking, I was out of
breath. He was one of these guys who talked and talked and talked. His
point was: Look, everything is working fine. The price of oil, the
price of gas, that is what the market says it is. I said: Well, it
appears to me there are substantial amounts of speculation. Over a
period of time in this world we have seen some dramatic growth in
speculation in certain areas. When it happens, the markets break and
you have to come back and herd the speculators out and have markets
available for the legitimate transactions.
This person said: Speculation, are you kidding me? These are normal
transactions on the commodities market, the futures market for oil, as
an example. There is supply, demand, and people are involved. I said:
Well, tell me this, if you would: What has happened in the last 15
months? Tell me what has happened with respect to supply and demand
that justifies doubling the price of oil in the futures market? Can you
tell me? Then he spoke for 45 minutes, almost uninterrupted, and had
not answered the question.
I said: That makes my point. At the end of this meeting, you can't
answer the question because nothing has happened in the last 15 months
that demonstrably alters the supply-and-demand relationship or that
justifies what has happened with the price of oil. Nothing justifies
doubling the price of oil in the last 15 months. The only conclusion
you can come to--and many have and I certainly have--is that we have a
carnival of speculation in the futures market by a lot of big-time
speculators interested in making money. They do not want to own oil or
take possession of oil. They do not want to use oil. They wouldn't be
able to recognize oil at first blush. They wouldn't even be able to
lift a 30-gallon drum of oil. They just want to make money speculating
on oil.
So if we have a bunch of speculators in this carnival of greed who
rush into these markets and drive up prices well beyond what the
fundamentals would justify, it breaks the market. If the market is
broken, we have a responsibility to set it right. When the commodities
market for oil was established in 1936 by legislation, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt said we have to be careful to have the tools to stop the
speculators from taking over these markets. There is a specific piece
in the 1936 act that talks about excessive speculation.
There is excessive speculation in the marketplace now, and it is
running up the price of oil and gas. It is hurting every single
American family, it is damaging this economy, it is dramatically
injuring industries--such as airlines, truckers, farming, and others.
The question is, What should we do about it?
Should we sit here somewhere in a crevasse between daydreaming and
thumbsucking and decide to do nothing? Or should we finally decide we
have to take some action when a market is broken?
Let me go through a couple charts. I have used them before so it is
repetitious, but it seems to me it is useful repetition in describing a
very serious problem.
Here is what has happened to the price of oil. There is no event in
here that suggests this should be the price of oil. You double the
price. There is nothing in here that justifies doubling the price. The
fact is, people are driving less in this period. There were 4.5 or 5
billion fewer miles driven in this country in a 6-month period; 4.5 to
5 billion fewer miles driven, less gasoline

[[Page 13798]]

used. That means lower demand. At the same time, in the first 4 or 5
months of this year, we saw crude inventory stocks rise, not fall. If
inventory is going up and demand is going down, what is happening to
the price of oil and gasoline? It is going up? That doesn't make any
sense. That is not logical. That is a market that is broken.
Let me analyze what all that means. This is what a commodity exchange
looks like. This is the New York Mercantile Exchange, called NYMEX.
There are a bunch of folks who trade. They come to work and do a
legitimate job. They are trained to do this job, and they are trading
on behalf of others. But what has changed is, instead of it being just
a legitimate market for hedging between those who produce and those who
consume, wanting to hedge a physical commodity, we have now people in
this market who have no relationship to this commodity.
Will Rogers described it a decade ago. He described people who buy
things they will never get from people who never had it, making money
on both sides. That is speculation.
Here is what some folks have said about these issues. Let me
describe, first, before I describe what some other folks have said
about it, the 1935 act. It says, this is the commodities act that
establishes this--

This bill authorizes the Commission . . . to fix
limitations upon purely speculative trades and commitments.
Hedging transactions are expressly exempted.

The point is the underlying bill authorizes the regulator, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to fix limitations on purely
speculative trades. That is exactly what the Commission is supposed to
do. But the Commission has largely taken a vacation from reality. It
seems to have no interest in regulating. I am talking especially about
the chairman and those who control the Commission.
Here is Fadel Gheit, 30 years as the top energy analyst for
Oppenheimer & Co. He testified before our committee. I have spoken to
him a couple times by phone. Here is what he says:

There is absolutely no shortage of oil. I'm convinced that
oil prices should not be a dime above $55 a barrel. I call it
the world's largest gambling hall. . . . It's open 24/7. . .
. Unfortunately, it's totally unregulated. . . . This is like
a highway with no cops on the beat and no speed limit and
everybody's going 120 miles an hour.

I encourage my colleagues, if you want to understand what is
happening in this market, call Mr. Gheit. He has been involved as an
energy trader with the large companies. He will give you an earful. I
have had the opportunity to hear him not only in committee, but I
called him as well and had a conversation about speculation.
The president of Marathon Oil Company: ``$100 oil isn't justified by
the physical demand of the market.''
I am going to have a hearing this afternoon with the head of the
Energy Information Administration, EIA. I fund this agency in my
appropriations subcommittee--Mr. Caruso heads it. I wish to show what
the EIA has projected on all these occasions for the price of oil and
gasoline.
In May of last year, they projected this yellow line. That is where
the price would go. In July of last year, they projected this yellow
line. In September, they projected this. Do you see what the momentum
is? In terms of what they are projecting, in every case they are
demonstrably wrong--not just wrong by a little, wrong by a lot.
We spend over $100 million for this agency to get the best and
brightest, to determine as best they can what is going to happen to the
price of oil. They have always believed the price is essentially going
to remain about the same or go down. The price, however, has gone way
up. Why? Because unbridled speculation exists in this market with
speculators driving up these prices.
Despite that, the EIA testifies and has testified repeatedly: They
see some speculation but not very much.
If they believe this represents the fundamentals in the marketplace,
how on Earth could the best estimators in an agency we spend $100
million a year on--how could they be this wrong? There is something
fundamentally wrong with that piece.
Finally, 2 days ago, the House released a report that was done by a
House subcommittee that talked about the explosion of speculation on
the futures market. It went from 37 percent speculative trades in 2000
to 71 percent of the trades now that are ``speculation.''
I describe all that to say I have introduced legislation. I am
talking to Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, hopeful of
garnering cosponsors to move this legislation that addresses this issue
by saying to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission: You have the
authority to do the following, and you should do the following, just
going back and reading the underlying law that created you. No. 1,
identify those trades that represent legitimate hedging trades between
a producer and a consumer with a physical product in which they wish to
hedge risk. That is precisely what the market was established for.
Distinguish that kind of trading from all other trading which
represents nonlegitimate hedging, or speculation.
Once you have determined what body of trading represents speculative
trading--and it has been a carnival of greed, in my judgment, rushing
and pushing up the amount of speculative trading, as I have shown--once
you have done that, I suggest we impose a 25-percent margin on the
speculative trading that is going on, in order to try to wring some of
that excess speculation out of this market.
No. 2, I suggest the regulator have the opportunity to use their
authority to either revoke or modify all their previous actions,
including their ``no action'' letters, in order to shine the light on
and see and regulate all the transactions that have to do with American
products or trading in this country.
Strangely enough, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission itself
said, for example, the Intercontinental Exchange, largely owned by
American interests, that trades in London--that you can come here, you
can set up an office in Atlanta, you can trade on computers in Atlanta,
and we will decide of our own volition that we will not regulate you
and you will be outside the purview of our sight. That is an
unbelievably bad decision, and it needs to be revoked--not just that
decision but so many others similar to it.
It would be nice if we would have a regulatory body that says our job
is to regulate. We pay for regulatory bodies for the purpose of wearing
the striped shirts; they are the referees, they call the fouls.
I think, having taught some economics in college, that the best
allocator of goods and services in this country that I know of is the
marketplace. Markets are wonderful. I am a big supporter of markets.
But when markets are broken, the Government has a responsibility to
act. We have a regulator that has been oblivious to open markets, in
fact has accelerated and actually helped break them. I believe our
responsibility at this point is to set this regulator straight and
decide here are the conditions by which we own up to the
responsibilities of the original act--allowing for legitimate trading
and hedging but trying to shut down the speculation that has driven up
the price of gasoline and that injures every family and every business
in this country and damages the American economy.
My hope is, in the coming couple days and weeks, that Congress, and
the Senate especially, will be able to consider the bill I have
authored. There are other good ideas as well. I welcome all of them.
But I think this is not a circumstance in which one of the options for
the Congress is to do nothing. The American people expect more and
deserve more and I think should get more from this Congress.
I have spoken to Senator Reid and many others, who are also very
interested in moving on these issues. I hope it will be bipartisan. I
am very interested in having Republicans and Democrats work on
perfecting these issues so we can take action very soon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

[[Page 13799]]

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
recognized as in morning business to be followed by the Senator from
Ohio, Mr. Brown, and he would be followed by the Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Gregg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask I be added after Senator Gregg.
Mr. INHOFE. And the Senator from Wisconsin be after Senator Gregg.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. First of all, it is my intention--which I will not do
right now because I know what would happen--to introduce an amendment
to the housing bill that makes eminent sense. But I know and I have
been told it would be objected to, so I will not do it, but I will
explain it in hopes that at a later time we will be able to get this
in.
The amendment I have is simply a one-page amendment. What it does, it
would prohibit individuals who annually make more than $75,000 and
couples making more than $150,000 from receiving taxpayer-backed
bailouts of troubled mortgages. The main provision of the housing
bailout bill is a program to allow troubled mortgage holders to
refinance their mortgage into a Government-insured loan through the
FHA. The bill allows the FHA to take on up to $300 billion in troubled
mortgages, into the taxpayer-backed program.
In this bill, as currently written, the value of an eligible loan
under the FHA is $550,000. The nationwide average value of a home is
roughly $200,000. The average value of a home in Oklahoma is just under
$150,000.
I believe it is bad policy to put taxpayers on the hook for borrowers
who took on more than they could afford and lenders who made bad loans
to begin with. It is entirely unacceptable to have the Government put
taxpayers on the hook for someone who qualified for a loan more than
two or three times what the average American can afford.
When Congress passed the economic stimulus package, Democrats
vehemently argued certain people make too much money to benefit from a
handout from the U.S. Government; specifically, eligibility for the
full-time stimulus was capped at $75,000 for an individual and $150,000
for couples. So this amendment says that if you are too rich to get a
full stimulus check, you are too rich to get a bailout.
Another provision of the housing bill provides an interest-free loan
of $8,000 for first-time home buyers and applies income limits of
$75,000--there it is again--for individuals and $150,000 for couples.
It is perfectly reasonable to apply those same income standards for
individuals who are getting a taxpayer-backed bailout on their
mortgages.
Someone with a $550,000 mortgage pays approximately $3,300 a month on
housing alone--that is assuming a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a 6.3-
percent interest rate. That comes to $39,600 a year in mortgage
payments alone. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, average
per capita income in the United States, in 2007, was $38,600;
therefore, someone with a $550,000 mortgage will be spending around
$1,000 more on their home alone than the average American makes in an
entire year.
The Congressional Budget Office came out and warned that 35 percent
of the loans refinanced through the program will eventually default
anyway. CBO also highlighted the perverse incentives in this bill,
noting that banks will use the program to offload their highest risk
loans to taxpayers. CBO said:

. . . the cumulative [default rate] for the program would
be about 35 percent and that recoveries on defaulted
mortgages would be about 60 percent of the outstanding loan
amount. Those rates reflect CBO's view that mortgage holders
would have an incentive to direct their highest risk loans to
the program.

Washington should not be holding folks who have been responsible for
their mortgage liability responsible for the irresponsible decisions of
others. We should not be putting taxpayers on the hook for bad loans
made by irresponsible lenders and borrowers. We most certainly should
not be putting taxpayers on the hook for individuals who can afford two
or three times what the average taxpayer can afford.
This is especially true when there is no guarantee the program would
not have to be bailed out after the additional taxpayer dollars. There
is a very good chance, in fact, that this program will require
additional tax dollars; that this is just the beginning.
On June 10, the New York Times reported that the FHA--the agency we
are mandating in this bill to take on the worst loans made during the
subprime housing crisis--currently faces $4.6 billion in losses, four
times the amount of losses than the previous year and over 20 percent
of its capital reserves.
The day before the New York Times story, Reuters reported that the
head of FHA, Brian Montgomery, has serious concerns about the housing
legislation we are now considering:

Some in Congress are advancing legislation . . . that could
be problematic for the economy and the country.

He further said:

FHA is designed to help stabilize the economy . . . it is
not designed to be a lender of last resort, a mega-agency to
subsidize bad loans.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported the FHA is having serious
trouble with the bad mortgages that are already on the books and will
likely require an appropriation of over 1 billion in Federal tax
dollars as soon as next year.
This would be the first instance of a government subsidy for the FHA
since it was created in 1934.
The Journal reported:

The FHA, which essentially is filling the void left by the
collapse of the subprime market, will request a Government
subsidy for the first time in its 74-year history. The agency
says it will need $1.4 billion next year.

The American taxpayer, the taxpayers in my State of Oklahoma, should
not be put in a position where they are ultimately responsible for the
irresponsible decisions of others, and they certainly should not be on
the hook for relatively well-off individuals, not to mention large
lending companies that made poor financial decisions.
Lastly, let me say we are using the same standard, this $75,000 per
individual or $150,000 for a joint return, that would be the same level
we are using in the rest of this bill and other programs, including the
economic stimulus program.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.

Minimum Wage

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, 70 years ago today President Roosevelt
signed the Fair Labor Standards Act into law. After two decades of
devastating Supreme Court opposition, a Supreme Court in those days
with a similar bias against workers that our Supreme Court has today--
think of Ledbetter and so many other cases they have made. But after
two decades of devastating Supreme Court opposition, and 3 years after
that Supreme Court declared the National Industrial Recovery Act
unconstitutional, Americans finally were assured of a minimum wage,
reasonable work hours, and an end to child exploitation.
Senator Hugo Black, who sat at this desk in the Senate in the 1920s
and 1930s, was fundamental in this historic achievement. Black, in the
early 1930s, prior to Roosevelt becoming President, had introduced
legislation calling for a 6-hour workday. It was considered so radical
and so controversial that the 8-hour workday signed into law by
President Roosevelt was considered more reasonable and more palatable,
and the Congress went along.
Black, by this time, by the time the minimum wage actually went into
effect, was a member of the Supreme Court appointed by President
Roosevelt. Black, in those years leading up, joined with President
Roosevelt, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and labor leader Sidney
Hillman to craft legislation that would withstand judicial challenge.
It was not an easy fight, but progressives stood firm for social
justice and for economic justice. They

[[Page 13800]]

said ``no'' to worker exploitation and they created a path to the
American dream for millions. As the minimum wage floor was established,
other wages went up also, and more and more workers joined the middle
class and as a result came out of poverty and joined the middle class.
For the first time in our Nation's history, people who worked hard were
assured of a reasonable standard of living and decent labor conditions.
Where is that commitment today? Today's low- and middle-income men
and women have been hit hard by the failed economic policies of the
last 7 years, bad trade policy, bad tax policy, all up and down. We see
what has happened to our economy in the Presiding Officer's home State
of Pennsylvania, my State of Ohio, from Lima to Zanesville, and
everywhere in between.
With gas at $4 a gallon, rising health care costs, skyrocketing food
prices, it is more and more difficult for hard-working Americans to
keep pace. Now 70 years of progress is eroding. Income inequality is
the worst it has been in this country since before Roosevelt, since the
Depression and the New Deal gave birth to the minimum wage.
Tim, from Cleveland Heights, OH, a suburb southeast of Cleveland,
used to donate to food banks, soup kitchens, and charities before his
family fell on hard times. He never thought he would need that help
from others. But as the cost of living went up, Tim, who has a full-
time job--his wages did not keep pace. It took 3 months of financial
strain before Tim and his family realized they needed to use the food
bank he had been contributing to in the past.
Tim used to consider himself middle class. He does not picture
himself that way anymore. But there is reason for hope. In 2007, this
Congress, the House and the Senate, passed the first minimum wage
increase in 10 years. Workers now earn $5.85 an hour, and will get a
raise of 70 cents next month. This is a positive step but just the
first. We must continue to push for a living wage for all of Ohio and
America's hard-working men and women.
Today someone earning a minimum wage and working full time makes only
$10,700 a year. That is $6,000 below the poverty line for a family of
three. That, put mildly, is unacceptable. Congress must work to index
the minimum wage to inflation to give workers relief in these hard
times.
Under current policy, wages stay low as prices go up. Wages in real
dollars are far below the minimum wage, and in real dollars are far
below what it was 40 years ago. Hard-working Americans are at the mercy
of politics and business lobbies for an increase in pay, while CEOs of
corporations such as Exxon are reporting record paydays. This is
unconscionable.
Franklin Roosevelt said:

A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead
no justification for the existence of child labor, no
economic reason for chiseling workers' wages or stretching
workers' hours.

Like Roosevelt, we must stand for social and economic justice. If
social justice and economic justice works for hard-working Ohio
families, hard-working American families, and social and economic
justice builds a better society, we must do our part to ensure that
those who want to work can make a living wage.
We must fight in this Chamber for families who are struggling to stay
above the poverty line, families who work full time and play by the
rules, pay their taxes, are involved in their communities, raising
their kids. We must ask ourselves what kind of country we want this
great country to be.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to speak on the bill, not in morning
business.
I am concerned we are not getting to a lot of the issues in this bill
we should get to. Although I am supportive of the underlying bill, one
of the issues we are not getting to, and I do not understand it, is the
need to extend the renewable tax credits.
Senator Ensign and Senator Cantwell have brought forward an amendment
to accomplish this. The renewable tax credits are those tax credits
which create an incentive for using things that are more energy
efficient: making your home more energy efficient, using solar, using
wind, using wood pellet stoves, things which are basically alternative
sources of energy, or doing additions to people's homes which make
their homes more energy efficient.
At a time when gas prices are extraordinarily high, and oil prices
are going through the roof, especially home heating oil--in fact, it is
estimated home heating oil will be about $4.77 this week--it is
essential that we do whatever we can as a government to encourage the
use of alternative sources and renewables and to encourage people to be
more energy efficient as they either build a new home or they refurbish
and renovate their old homes.
That seems to be common sense to me. It has such common sense that
this proposal, the extension of the renewable tax credits, passed this
body with 88 votes. However, for some reason it is not being allowed to
be brought up on this bill.
It is very appropriate for this bill, it is even germane to this
bill, as I understand it, which is a pretty heavy test to pass. But it
is not being allowed to be brought up for a vote. I cannot understand
that. This is such an important action from the standpoint of giving
consumers and people who are struggling with high energy cost options.
It is something we should rush to do. It is not something that should
be delayed by the leadership of the other side of the aisle. But that
is what is happening.
I join with Senator Ensign and Senator Cantwell and strongly
encourage the leadership of the Senate Democrats to allow a vote on
this amendment and let it pass. If the House does not want to take it,
that is their choice. But I suspect the House will, because, again, it
is common sense, and commonsense ideas usually lead to common ground,
which leads to something happening around here.
When you have got 88 votes for something, it should be done. In the
larger context of the energy crisis which we face, this type of step is
critical. It is not going to solve the whole problem, we know that, but
it is certainly part of the matrix of moving to a more positive result
and getting our energy costs under control.
People in New Hampshire--this is true across the country, but people
in New Hampshire are thinking about next winter and the cost of home
heating oil is going to be extraordinary. It looks as if this will add
tremendous stress, especially on people who live on a fixed income but
even those who were able to adjust their income through working are
going to find it difficult. They are going to find it difficult,
because at $4 a gallon, if they have to commute to work--and most
people in New Hampshire have to commute; it is a rural State from the
standpoint of moving around--they are going to find it much more
expensive to commute. Most people use oil to heat their homes, and with
home heating oil at over $4.50 a gallon, you are talking about a
doubling of the oil costs from last year. That is going to overwhelm
the pocketbooks and the economic situation for a lot of people in New
Hampshire. It is going to be a real hardship. We need to do something
which will relieve that.
This is one element of extending the renewable energy tax credits.
But another major element of it is for us to have an energy policy at
the national level which essentially promotes American production of
energy. We should produce more American energy and obviously we should
consume less. There is no question that conservation is a critical
element, as are renewables. But on the production side, there is no
reason that we as a nation have locked up our capacity to use our
resources in order to relieve the pressure on America's people who are
now having to pay these outrageous prices for energy, and with the
revenues from those purchases going overseas, in many instances to
nations which do not like us all that much.

[[Page 13801]]

In addition, obviously every time we send a dollar overseas, it is a
dollar that can't be invested here in more jobs, in more economic
activity, and the fact that we have now tripled what we are exporting
in the way of resources, in the way of dollars, again to countries in
some instances that do not have a great deal of admiration for us, in
many ways are antagonistic to us--the exportation of those huge amounts
of dollars, over $300 billion a year, is money which we need here in
America to make ourselves stronger.We are heading down a very dangerous
road here when we do not recognize that we need to produce American
energy and keep those dollars in the United States, rather than
shipping them overseas.
Now, from the other side of the aisle we heard these proposals, we
heard it from the Senator from North Dakota, that the way to address
this is to litigate; the way to address this is to regulate; the way to
address this is to tax.
Well, none of those initiatives add more resources to the mix. And
this is, in large part, an issue of supply and demand. The world is
expanding. India and China have a population base of almost 2.5 billion
people between them. We have 300 million people. They are growing
economically, and they are using a lot of energy to do that.
We have to recognize that if we are going to remain competitive and
productive and strong, we have got to produce energy here, we have got
to conserve it--we have to produce more of it, and we have to use less.
As part of that initiative, we need to look at ways and places that
we can produce more, areas such as oil shale, for example. We have more
reserves in oil shale, three times as much reserves in oil as Saudi
Arabia. The estimate is between 2 and 3 trillion barrels of reserves in
oil shale alone. We have huge reserves in Outer Continental Shelf oil
and gas. But both of those types of resources are being locked down by
opposition, again regrettably by the other side of the aisle, which
says we cannot drill in the Outer Continental Shelf except in the Gulf
of Mexico, and we cannot use the oil shale reserves which are
available.
In fact, 100 percent of the oil shale reserves have been put off
limits by policies of the other side of the aisle, supported by their
national Presidential candidate, Mr. Obama, and 85 percent of the oil
in the lower 49 that is potentially out there on the Outer Continental
Shelf has been put off limits, again, by the other side of the aisle
and, again, supported by Senator Obama. That is a huge amount of
reserves which we are leaving in the ground while we buy oil at
exorbitant prices from Venezuela, a country led by an individual who
hates America; oil from Iran, a country where the entire government
hates America and anything western.
Why do we do that? That makes no sense at all. Clearly, we have these
reserves here, and they can be recovered in an environmentally safe and
sound way. The example on the Outer Continental Shelf was shown when we
saw Katrina, a horrific disaster, a force 5 hurricane that came up the
Gulf of Mexico and wiped out one of our great cities, New Orleans.
Virtually no oil or gas was spilled as a result of Hurricane Katrina.
Yet it went right across the Gulf of Mexico where all the major oil and
gas rigs are. That proved beyond any question that gas and oil can be
produced on the Outer Continental Shelf with environmental safety.
There is a lot of it out there that has been locked down. Eighty-five
percent of the potential leaseholds are no longer available because of
the position taken by the other side. In the area of oil shale, these
huge reserves which may be available to us are recoverable by drilling
underground and by doing almost all the effort to recover that oil
underground so that what actually comes out of the ground is virtually
the product that is used. We could essentially get all the oil we need
in order to operate the armed services of the United States, the
biggest consumer of oil in this country, simply from oil shale because
it is a heavy oil which is diesel-like fuel. Yet that is locked down;
100 percent of that is locked down by the policies of the other side of
the aisle.
We can move on, of course, to another source that we need to use,
which is nuclear power. Nuclear power is essential if we are going to
produce the electricity necessary to make this country productive and
prosperous and to meet the need to reduce greenhouse gases which are
creating problems for us as a culture and for the world. The other side
of the aisle has resisted and stopped construction of new nuclear
powerplants. We are uniquely familiar with this in New Hampshire. We
had the last nuclear powerplant that went on line, Seabrook. It took us
an extra 10 to 15 years to build that plant beyond what it should have
required. It cost us almost $1 billion more than it should have cost,
and almost all of those costs and delays were a function of protests
undertaken by very activist elements led primarily by the Democratic
Party within the State of New Hampshire.
There has never been an apology for what they did to the people of
New Hampshire--over a billion dollars of extra energy costs put on the
people of New Hampshire, a direct tax, and yet Seabrook, once it was
turned on, has delivered power for almost 18 years and has delivered it
safely and at a fair price, to the point where New Hampshire actually
exports energy to surrounding States as a result.
We know nuclear power can be safe. Nobody has ever died from nuclear
power as compared with other types of power sources. We should not bar
its development; we should encourage its development. We need new
nuclear powerplants. We need new sources. We need to find and explore
for new sources of energy such as are available on the Outer
Continental Shelf and in oil shale.
Yet, regrettably, what we run into here is that everybody can agree
on the need for conservation, but it doesn't appear we are going to
agree on the need for renewables because that amendment is being
stopped. But the idea that we should go out and produce more American
energy so we are not buying energy from Venezuela and from Iran, that
is rejected, regrettably, by the other side of the aisle.
The policy presented in their energy plan was taxation, litigation,
and regulation. We heard it again today. We just regulate our way into
a surplus of supply. That is not going to happen. You can't take a
trial lawyer and stick him in your oil tank, in your house, and get
energy. The simple fact is, giving the trial lawyers the ability to sue
Venezuela isn't going to produce any more energy for the United States.
What it is probably going to do is create an atmosphere where
countries that dislike us within the OPEC group are going to say: The
heck with you. You want to create a lawsuit against us, we don't have
to sell you the energy or, when you send us your money, we don't have
to reinvest in the United States. It is cutting off our nose to spite
our face. It is a policy that is virtually absurd on its face because
it will have so little productive effect on the price of energy.
The same could be said for taxation. We are going to create a
confiscatory tax on companies that produce energy, American companies.
Those companies only control about 6 percent of the world's reserves.
The rest of the world's reserves are controlled by nations such as
Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran. They are not going to be subject to
that tax, their companies. So that puts our companies immediately at a
competitive disadvantage.
What do these companies which have been so vilified around here and
such easy targets for the online press release really do with those
profits? They do two things: They reinvest them in trying to find more
energy, which will hopefully be American-produced energy, which is good
because more supply reduces cost, or they distribute those profits to
shareholders. Who are the shareholders? Most Americans are
shareholders, and most American shareholdings are in these companies.
If you have a 401(k), if you are a member of a pension fund, if you
are a union employee and you have a pension fund, the odds are good
that pension fund is invested in one of these companies that are going
to be subject to this

[[Page 13802]]

brand new taxation coming from the other side of the aisle. There will
be less money to explore and less money to distribute back to working
Americans through their pension funds and dividends. That is not going
to produce any more energy; in fact, it will produce less. That, again,
accomplishes nothing except putting out a press release which has nice
cosmetics, but when you look behind it, it has no substance as to
addressing the fundamental issue.
The fundamental issue is this: We, as a country, need more American
energy production, and we need to consume a lot less. There are two
sides to the coin. We also need a renewable policy that works. That is
why this amendment offered by Senators Ensign and Cantwell, and which
has such broad support here, should be voted on. It is a no-brainer.
Let's at least move this part of the package of responsible energy
policy. I cannot understand why it is not being voted on, especially
since it is relevant to the housing bill. We should pass this in a
nanosecond because it will at least help in a small way toward moving
our energy policy in the right way, which is toward more renewables as
we address the issue of production and conservation along with it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). The Senator from Wisconsin.

FISA Amendments Act of 2008

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly oppose H.R. 6304, the FISA
Amendments Act of 2008. I will vote against cloture on the motion to
proceed. This legislation has been billed as a compromise between
Republicans and Democrats. We are asked to support it because it is
supposedly a reasonable accommodation of opposing views.
Let me respond to that as clearly as possible. This bill is not a
compromise; it is a capitulation. This bill will effectively and
unjustifiably grant immunity to companies that allegedly participated
in an illegal wiretapping program, a program that more than 70 Members
of this body still know virtually nothing about. This bill will grant
the Bush administration, the same administration that developed and
operated this illegal program for more than 5 years, expansive new
authorities to spy on Americans' international communications.
If you don't believe me, here is what Senator Bond had to say about
the bill:

I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to
get.

House minority whip Roy Blunt said:

The lawsuits will be dismissed.

There is simply no question that Democrats who had previously stood
strong against immunity and in support of civil liberties were on the
losing end of this backroom deal.
The railroading of Congress began last summer when the administration
rammed through the so-called Protect America Act, or PAA, vastly
expanding the Government's ability to eavesdrop without a court-
approved warrant. That legislation was rushed through this Chamber in a
climate of fear--fear of terrorist attacks and fear of not appearing
sufficiently strong on national security. There was very little
understanding of what the legislation actually did. But the silver
lining was that the law did have a 6-month sunset. So Congress quickly
started working to fix the legislation. The House passed a bill last
fall. The Senate passed its bill, one that I believed was deeply
flawed, in February.
As the PAA 6-month sunset approached in late February, the House
faced enormous political pressure simply to pass the Senate bill before
the sunset date, but the reality was that no orders under the PAA were
actually going to expire in February. Fortunately, to their great
credit, the House stood firm in its resolve not to pass the Senate bill
with its unjustified immunity provisions. The House deserves enormous
credit for not buckling in the face of the President's attempts to
intimidate them. Ultimately, the House passed new legislation in March,
setting up the negotiations that have led us here today.
I think it is safe to say that even many who voted for the Protect
America Act last year came to believe it was a mistake to pass that
legislation. While the House deserves credit for refusing to pass the
Senate bill in February and for securing the changes in this new bill,
the bill is still a very serious mistake.
The immunity provision is a key reason for that. It is a key reason
for my opposition to the legislation and for that of so many of my
colleagues and, frankly, so many Americans. No one should be fooled
about the effect of this bill. Under its terms the companies that
allegedly participated in the illegal wiretapping program will walk
away from these lawsuits with immunity. They will get immunity. There
is simply no question about it. Anyone who says this bill preserves a
meaningful role for the courts to play in deciding these cases is just
wrong.
I am a little concerned that the focus on immunity has diverted
attention away from the other very important issues at stake in this
legislation. In the long run, I don't believe this bill will be
actually remembered as the immunity bill. I think this bill is going to
be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the
executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international
communications with very few controls or oversight.
Here I am talking about title I of the bill, the title that makes
substantive changes to the FISA statute. I would like to explain why I
am so concerned about the new surveillance powers granted in this part
of the bill, and why the modest improvements made to this part of the
bill don't even come close to being sufficient.
This bill has been sold to us as necessary to ensure that the
Government can collect communications between persons overseas without
a warrant and to ensure that the Government can collect the
communications of terrorists, including their communications with
people in the United States. No one disagrees that the Government
should have this authority. But the bill goes much further, authorizing
widespread surveillance involving innocent Americans at home and
abroad.
First, the FISA Amendments Act, like the Protect America Act, will
authorize the Government to collect all communications between the
United States and the rest of the world.
That could mean millions upon millions of communications between
innocent Americans and their friends, families, or business associates
overseas could legally be collected. Parents calling their kids
studying abroad, e-mails to friends `` serving in Iraq--all of these
communications could be collected, with absolutely no suspicion of any
wrongdoing, under this legislation. In fact, the DNI even testified
that this type of ``bulk collection'' would be ``desirable.''
The bill's supporters like to say that the Government needs
additional powers to target terrorists overseas. But under this bill,
the Government is not limited to targeting foreigners outside the
United States who are terrorists, or who are suspected of some
wrongdoing, or who are members or agents of some foreign government or
organization. In fact, the Government does not even need a specific
purpose for wiretapping anyone overseas. All it needs to have is a
general ``foreign intelligence'' purpose, which is a standard so broad
that it basically covers all international communications.
That is not just my opinion. The DNI has testified that, under the
PAA, and presumably this bill, the Government could legally collect all
communications between the United States and overseas. Let me repeat
that. Under this bill, the Government can legally collect all
communications--every last one--between Americans here at home at home
and the rest of the world.
I should note that one of the few bright spots in this bill is the
inclusion of a provision from the Senate bill to prohibit the
intentional targeting of an American overseas without a warrant. That
is an important new protection. But that amendment does not prevent the
indiscriminate vacuuming up of all international communications, which
would allow the Government to collect the communications of Americans
overseas, including with friends and family back home, without a
warrant.

[[Page 13803]]

I tried to address this issue of ``bulk collection'' several times,
working in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and
ultimately on the Senate floor in February, when I offered an amendment
that would have required that there be some foreign intelligence
purpose for the collection of communications to or from particular
targets. The vast majority of Democrats supported this effort, but,
unfortunately, it was defeated. So the bill today we are considering
does not address this serious problem.
Second, like the earlier Senate version, this bill fails to
effectively prohibit the practice of reverse targeting and this is;
namely, wiretapping a person overseas when what the Government is
really interested in is listening to an American here at home with whom
the foreigner is communicating. The bill does have a provision that
purports to address this issue. The bill prohibits intentionally
targeting a person outside the United States without an individualized
court order if ``the purpose'' is to target someone reasonably believed
to be in the United States. But this language would permit intentional
and possibly unconstitutional warrantless surveillance of an American
so long as the Government has any interest in the person overseas with
whom the American is communicating. And, if there was any doubt, the
DNI has publicly said that the Senate bill--which contained identical
language as the current bill--merely ``codifies'' the administration's
position, which is that the Government can wiretap a person overseas
indefinitely without a warrant, no matter how interested it may really
be in the American with whom that person overseas is communicating.
Supporters of this bill also will argue that it requires the
executive branch to establish guidelines for implementing this new
reverse targeting requirement. But the guidelines are not subject to
any judicial review. And requiring guidelines to implement an
ineffective limitation is not a particularly comforting safeguard.
When the Senate considered the FISA bill earlier this year, I offered
an amendment--one that had actually been approved by the Senate
Judiciary Committee--to make this prohibition on reverse targeting
meaningful. My amendment, which again had the support of the vast
majority of the Democratic caucus and was included in the bill passed
by the House in March, would have required the Government to obtain a
court order whenever a significant purpose of the surveillance is
actually to acquire the communications of an American in the United
States. This would have done a far better job of protecting the privacy
of the international communications of innocent Americans.
Unfortunately, it is not in this bill.
Third, the bill before us imposes no meaningful consequences if the
Government initiates surveillance using procedures that have not been
approved by the FISA Court, and the FISA Court later finds that those
procedures were unlawful. Say, for example, that the FISA Court
determines that the procedures were not even reasonably designed to
wiretap foreigners rather than Americans. Under the bill, all of that
illegally obtained information on Americans can be retained and used
anyway. Once again, there are no consequences for illegal behavior.
Now, unlike the Senate bill, this new bill does generally provide for
FISA Court review of surveillance procedures before surveillance
begins. But it also says that if the Attorney General and the DNI
certify that they don't have time to get a court order and that
intelligence important to national security may be lost or not timely
acquired, then they can go forward without this judicial approval. This
is a far cry from allowing an exception to FISA Court review in a true
emergency because arguably all intelligence is important to national
security and any delay at all might cause some intelligence to be lost.
So I am really concerned that this so-called exigency exception could
very well swallow the rule and undermine any presumption of prior
judicial approval.
But whether the exception is applied broadly or narrowly, if the
Government invokes it and ultimately engages in illegal surveillance,
the court should be given at least some flexibility after the fact to
determine whether the government should be allowed to keep the results
of illegal surveillance if it involves Americans. That is what another
one of my amendments on the Senate floor would have done, an amendment
that actually garnered 40 votes. Yet this issue goes completely
unaddressed in the so-called compromise.
Fourth, this bill doesn't protect the privacy of Americans whose
communications will be collected in vast new quantities. The
administration's mantra has been: Don't worry, we have minimization
procedures. Minimization procedures are nothing more than unchecked
executive branch decisions about what information on Americans
constitutes ``foreign intelligence.'' As recently declassified
documents have again confirmed, the ability of Government officials to
find out the identity of Americans and use that information is
extremely broad. Moreover, even if the administration were correct that
minimization procedures have worked in the past, they are certainly
inadequate as a check against the vast amounts of Americans' private
information that could be collected under this bill. That is why on the
Senate floor joined with my colleagues, Senator Webb and Senator
Tester, to offer an amendment to provide real protections for the
privacy of Americans, j while also giving the Government the
flexibility it needs to wiretap terrorists overseas. But this bill,
like the Senate bill, relies solely on these inadequate minimization
procedures.
The broad surveillance powers involving international communications
that are contained in this legislation are particularly troubling
because we live in a world in which international communications are
increasingly commonplace. Thirty years ago it was very expensive, and
not very common, for most Americans to make an overseas call. Now,
particularly with e-mail, such communications happen all the time.
Millions of ordinary, and innocent, Americans communicate with people
overseas for entirely legitimate personal and business reasons. Parents
or children call family members overseas. Students e-mail friends they
have met while studying abroad. Business people communicate with
colleagues or clients overseas. Technological advancements combined
with the ever more interconnected world economy have led to an
explosion of international contacts.
Supporters of the bill like to say that we just have to bring FISA up
to date with new technology. But changes in technology should also
cause us to take a close look at the need for greater protections of
the privacy of our citizens. If we are going to give the Government
broad new powers that will lead to the collection of much more
information on innocent Americans, we have a duty to protect their
privacy as much as we possibly can. And we can do that without
sacrificing our ability to collect information that will help us
protect our national security. This supposed compromise, unfortunately,
fails that test.
I don't mean to suggest that this bill does not contain some
improvements over the bill that the Senate passed early this year.
Clearly it does, and I appreciate that. Certainly, it is a good thing
that this bill includes language making clear, once and for all, that
Congress considers FISA and the criminal wiretap laws to be the
exclusive means by which electronic surveillance can be conducted in
this country--a provision that Senator Feinstein fought so hard for.
And it is a good thing that Congress is directing the relevant
inspectors general to do a comprehensive report on the President's
illegal wiretapping program--a report whose contents I hope will be
made public to the greatest degree possible. And it is a good thing
that the bill no longer redefines the critical FISA term ``electronic
surveillance,'' which could have led to a lot of confusion and
unintended consequences.
All of those provisions are positive developments, and I am glad that
the ultimate product seemingly destined to

[[Page 13804]]

become law contains these improvements.
But I just can't pretend somehow that these improvements are enough.
They are nowhere close. When I offered my amendments on the Senate
floor in February, the vast majority of the Democratic caucus supported
me. While I did not have the votes to pass those amendments, I am
confident that more and more Members of Congress will agree that
changes to this legislation need to be made. If we can't make them this
year, then Congress must return to this issue--and it must do so as
soon as the new President takes office. These issues are far too
important to wait until the sunset date, especially now that it is set
in this bill for 2012, another presidential election year.
But let me now turn to the grant of retroactive immunity that is
contained in this bill because on that issue there is no question that
any differences between this bill and the Senate bill are only
cosmetic. Make no mistake: This bill will result in immunity.
Under the terms of this bill, a Federal district court would evaluate
whether there is substantial evidence that a company received ``a
written request or directive . . . from the Attorney General or the
head of an element of the intelligence community . . . indicating that
the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be
lawful.''
But we already know from Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's
committee report last fall that the companies received exactly these
materials. That is already public information. So under the exact terms
of this proposal, the court's evaluation would essentially be
predetermined.
Regardless of how much information the court is permitted to review,
what standard of review is employed, how open the proceedings are, and
what role the plaintiffs are permitted to play, the court will
essentially be required to grant immunity under this bill.
Now, proponents will argue that the plaintiffs in the lawsuits
against the companies can participate in briefing to the court. This is
true. But they are allowed to participate only to the extent it does
not necessitate the disclosure of classified information. The
administration has restricted information about this illegal program so
much that, again, more than 70 Members of this Chamber alone don't even
have access to the basic facts about what happened. So let's not
pretend that the plaintiffs will be able to participate in any
meaningful way. And even if they could participate fully, as I said
before, immunity is a foregone conclusion under the bill.
This result is extremely disappointing on many levels, perhaps most
of all because granting retroactive immunity is unnecessary and
unjustified. Doing this will profoundly undermine the rule of law in
this country.
For starters, current law already provides immunity from lawsuits for
companies that cooperate with the Government's request for assistance,
as long as they receive either a court order or a certification from
the Attorney General that no court order is needed and the request
meets all statutory requirements. But if requests are not properly
documented, FISA instructs the telephone companies to refuse the
Government's request, and subjects them to liability if they instead
still decide to cooperate. Now, there is a reason for this. This
framework, which has been in place for 30 years, protects companies
that act at the request of the Government while also protecting the
privacy of Americans' communications.
Some supporters of retroactively expanding this already existing
immunity provision argue that the telephone companies should not be
penalized if they relied on a high-level Government assurance that the
requested assistance was lawful. But as superficially appealing as that
argument may sound, it completely ignores the history of the FISA law.
Telephone companies have a long history of receiving requests for
assistance from the Government. That is because telephone companies
have access to a wealth of private information about Americans--
information that can be a very useful tool for law enforcement. But
that very same access to private communications means that telephone
companies are in a unique position of responsibility and public trust.
And yet, before FISA, there were basically no rules at all to help
these phone companies resolve the tension between the Government's
requests for assistance in foreign intelligence investigations and the
companies' responsibilities to their customers.
So this legal vacuum resulted in serious governmental abuse and
overreaching. The abuses that took place are well documented and quite
shocking. With the willing cooperation of the telephone companies, the
FBI conducted surveillance of peaceful antiwar protesters, journalists,
steel company executives, and even Martin Luther King, Jr.
So Congress decided to take action. Based on the history of, and
potential for, Government abuses, Congress decided that it was not
appropriate--not appropriate--for telephone companies to simply assume
that any Government request for assistance to conduct electronic
surveillance was legal. Let me repeat that: A primary purpose of FISA
was to make clear, once and for all, that the telephone companies
should not blindly cooperate with Government requests for assistance.
At the same time, however, Congress did not want to saddle telephone
companies with the responsibility of determining whether the
Government's request for assistance was a lawful one. That approach
would leave the companies in a permanent state of legal uncertainty
about their obligations.
So Congress devised a system that would take the guesswork out of it
completely. Under that system, which was in place in 2001, and is still
in place today, the companies' legal obligations and liability depend
entirely on whether the Government has presented the company with a
court order or a certification stating that certain basic requirements
have been met. If the proper documentation is submitted, the company
must cooperate with the request and will be immune from liability. If
the proper documentation has not been submitted, the company must
refuse the Government's request, or be subject to possible liability in
the courts.
The telephone companies and the Government have been operating under
this simple framework for 30 years. The companies have experienced,
highly trained, and highly compensated lawyers who know this law inside
and out.
In view of this history, it is inconceivable that any telephone
companies that allegedly cooperated with the administration's
warrantless wiretapping program did not know what their obligations
were. It is just as implausible that those companies believed they were
entitled to simply assume the lawfulness of a Government request for
assistance. This whole effort to obtain retroactive immunity is based
on an assumption that doesn't hold water.
That brings me to another issue. I have been discussing why
retroactive immunity is unnecessary and unjustified, but it goes beyond
that. Granting companies that allegedly cooperated with an illegal
program this new form of automatic, retroactive immunity undermines the
law that has been on the books for decades--a law that was designed to
prevent exactly the type of actions that allegedly occurred here.
Remember, telephone companies already have absolute immunity if they
complied with the applicable law. They have an affirmative defense if
they believed in good faith that they were complying with that law. So
the retroactive immunity provision we are debating here is necessary
only if we want to extend immunity to companies that did not comply
with the applicable law and did not even have a good faith belief that
they were complying with it. So much for the rule of law.
Even worse, granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances
will undermine any new laws that we pass regarding Government
surveillance. If we want companies to follow the law in the future, it
sends a terrible message, and sets a terrible precedent, to give them a
``get out of jail free'' card for allegedly ignoring the law in the
past.

[[Page 13805]]

I find it particularly troubling when some of my colleagues argue
that we should grant immunity in order to encourage the telephone
companies to cooperate with Government in the future. They want
Americans to think that not granting immunity will damage our national
security. But if you take a close look at the argument, it does not
hold up. The telephone companies are already legally obligated to
cooperate with a court order, and as I have mentioned, they already
have absolute immunity for cooperating with requests that are properly
certified. So the only thing we would be encouraging by granting
immunity here is cooperation with requests that violate the law. That
is exactly the kind of cooperation that FISA was supposed to prevent.
Let's remember why. These companies have access to our most private
conversations, and Americans depend on them to respect and defend the
privacy of these communications unless there is clear legal authority
for sharing them. They depend on us to make sure the companies are held
accountable for betrayals of that public trust. Instead, this immunity
provision would invite the telephone companies to betray that trust by
encouraging cooperation with illegal Government programs.
But this immunity provision does not just allow telephone companies
off the hook for breaking the law. It also will make it that much
harder to get to the core issue that I have been raising since December
2005, which is that the President ran an illegal program and should be
held accountable. When these lawsuits are dismissed, we will be that
much further away from an independent judicial review of this program.
Since 9/11, I have heard it said many times that what separates us
from our enemies is respect for the rule of law. Unfortunately, the
rule of law has taken it on the chin from this administration. Over and
over, the President and his advisers have claimed the right to ignore
the will of Congress and the laws on the books if and when they see
fit. Now they are claiming the same right for any entity that assists
them in that effort, no matter how unreasonable that assistance might
have been.
On top of all this, we are considering granting immunity when more
than 70 members of the Senate still--still--have not been briefed on
the President's wiretapping program. The majority of this body still
does not even know what we are being asked to grant immunity for.
In sum, I cannot support this legislation. I appreciate that changes
were made to the Senate bill, but they are not enough. Nowhere near
enough.
We have other alternatives. We have options. We do not have to pass
this law in the midst of a presidential election year, while George
Bush remains President, in the worst possible political climate for
constructive legislating in this area. If the concern is that orders
issued under the PAA could expire as early as August, we could extend
the PAA for another 6 months, 9 months, even a year. We could put a 1-
year sunset on this bill, rather than having it sunset in the next
Presidential election year when partisan politics will once again be at
their worst. Or we could extend the effect of any current PAA orders
for 6 months or a year. All of these options would address any
immediate national security concerns.
What we do not have to do and what we should not do is pass a law
that will immunize illegal behavior and fundamentally alter our
surveillance laws for years to come.
I have spent a great deal of time over the past year--in the Senate
Intelligence Committee, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on the
Senate floor--discussing my concerns, offering amendments, and debating
the possible effects of the fine print of various bills. But this is
not simply about fine print. In the end, my opposition to this bill
comes down to this: This bill is a tragic retreat from the principles
that have governed Government conduct in this sensitive area for 30
years. It needlessly sacrifices the protection of the privacy of
innocent Americans, and it is an abdication of this body's duty to
stand up for the rule of law. I will vote no.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and 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. REED. 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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, we are at a critical moment. According to
the Mortgage Bankers, the rate of foreclosures and the percentage of
loans in the process of foreclosure are at the highest recorded level
since 1979.
The delinquency rate for all mortgage loans on one- to four-unit
residential properties stood at 6.35 percent of all loans outstanding
at the end of the first quarter of 2008. This is an increase of 151
basis points from 1 year ago--a 1.5-percent increase--which is very
significant because it translates into thousands and thousands of
Americans who are facing foreclosure.
The percentage of loans in the foreclosure process was 2.47 percent
at the end of the first quarter, more than double what it was a year
prior.
In my own State of Rhode Island, 5.65 percent of all loans are past
due, and 2.75 percent are in foreclosure.
That is a staggering statistic. Rhode Island has the unfortunate
distinction of having the highest foreclosure rate in New England and
is fourth in the Nation for subprime foreclosures.
For many Rhode Islanders--in fact, the majority--their home is their
wealth, their nest egg. Unfortunately, with such a high foreclosure
rate, many Rhode Islanders are seeing their wealth erode as home prices
fall. Thousands more are in default because they are no longer able to
refinance or sell their homes since their mortgages are now worth more
than the appraised value of their homes.
This week, the latest Case-Schiller home price index was released.
Home prices in 20 U.S. metropolitan areas in April fell by 15.3 percent
from a year earlier, signaling that the housing recession is not over.
In fact, it continues unabated.
More foreclosures will further exacerbate the overall decline in
property values and have a dramatic and drastic effect on entire
communities. It is clear that this vicious cycle in the mortgage and
housing markets is negatively impacting the entire economy.
In addition, as a result of the credit crunch in the mortgage
markets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are now the largest player in the
secondary housing market. Combined, they are purchasing and
securitizing almost 70 percent of the mortgage market right now and
almost single-handedly are keeping mortgage credit flowing throughout
the country.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are at a critical juncture, and we need to
make sure they are well capitalized and overseen by a strong and
independent regulator with more bank-like regulatory authorities.
Finally, we do not just have a credit crunch and a mortgage meltdown,
we also have a continuing and persistent affordable housing crisis in
this country. The irony is, we had an affordable housing crisis when
prices were going up because people were being squeezed out of rental
properties. Rents were going up. People were being squeezed because
there was a real demand for upscale housing and not the same kind of
demand in the private market for affordable housing.
As the housing market declines, people are also squeezed. People lost
their homes and are moving into apartments. The activity to build and
develop affordable housing has not picked up at all. So we have the
situation where we also have to deal with affordable rental housing in
particular. In the wake of the foreclosure crisis, all of these factors
are compounding the plight of Americans across the board.

[[Page 13806]]

Homeowners are losing their homes, low-income Americans are struggling
to find properties to rent, and homeowners have seen the value of their
housing investment--which represented their plans for the future and
the future of their children--all being radically rewritten as we speak
because of a decline in the price of houses. We have seen for the first
time a reversal in what had been a positive trend in home ownership.
That is now declining.
So I think we are working hard to try to respond to all these issues.
How do we inhibit, prevent, as much as we can, this drumbeat of
foreclosures? How do we provide support for families who are looking
for affordable housing? How do we do it in a conscientious way and also
strengthen the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac? I think we have achieved that in this legislation, and now the
time is to move forward. That is why I am encouraging all of my
colleagues to support the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
This bill includes the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act,
which will allow us to create a world-class regulator for Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks, the housing
government-sponsored enterprises. This regulator will have broad, new
authorities to ensure the safe and sound operations of all these
institutions. These powers will include establishing capital standards,
setting prudential management standards, enforcing orders through
cease-and-desist authority, civil monetary penalties and also the
authority to remove officers and directors, restricting asset growth
and capital distribution for those institutions which are
undercapitalized. It can place a regulated entity into receivership,
and it can review and approve new product offers. All of these are the
powers which we have extended historically to bank regulators, and now
these powers are being extended to the regulator of three of the most
prominent financial institutions in the country, although their focus
is on housing exclusively, or generally.
This legislation expands the number of families Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae can serve by raising the loan limits in high-cost areas to
150 percent of the conforming loan limit. It also significantly
enhances the housing component of the GSEs' mission.
It includes provisions I authored that will dramatically expand
Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing mission by creating a
new housing trust fund and capital magnet fund, financed by annual
contributions from the enterprises, which will be used for the
construction and rehabilitation of affordable rental housing. We expect
these programs to eventually provide between $500 million to $1 billion
per year for the development of housing for low-income families. These
affordable housing contributions are obtained by requiring Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac to set aside less than half a cent on each dollar of
unpaid principal balance of the enterprises' total new business
purchases. Eventually, 75 percent of the funds collected will be used
for the affordable housing trust fund and 25 percent will be allocated
for the payment of Government bonds to keep the bill deficit neutral.
I was very pleased to have worked out a compromise with all my
colleagues, particularly Senators Dodd and Shelby, that would allow the
HOPE for Homeowners Program--the program Senator Dodd has taken the
lead in crafting which will resolve or attempt to resolve some of these
foreclosure difficulties--to be a mandatory program that is deficit
neutral and would not require any payments from the Federal taxpayers
because it would use the proceeds from the Federal housing fund in the
first 3 years to pay for this foreclosure program. I think this program
is a great way to accomplish many of the objectives we have. First, we
do want to help people facing foreclosure, but we also do not want to
necessarily engage taxpayer funds in that process. This arrangement
accomplishes those two objectives.
As many of my colleagues know, I introduced a bill in November to
improve the mission of the GSEs that would, in fact, allocate all the
money to affordable housing. The bill before us would help this
affordable housing mission, but it would also allow, as I have said,
for the first 3 years, to allocate some of the resources to Senator
Dodd's proposal to prevent and assist in the foreclosure process.
Once we have the foreclosure program up and running, then, after 3
years, all the resources will be devoted to affordable housing, with 65
percent being used to create a permanent housing trust fund. The
housing trust fund will be managed by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, and it would distribute these funds to States via a
formula. At least 75 percent of the funds distributed to the States
must be targeted to extremely low-income families.
Thirty-five percent of the affordable housing funds will be allocated
to a capital magnet fund and will be used by the Secretary of the
Treasury to run a competitive grant program to attract private capital
for and increase investment in affordable housing. Applicants for
funding will need to show they can leverage the funding by at least 10
to 1. We believe this will result in the creation of many more units of
affordable housing than could be done otherwise. What we are requiring
these applicants to do is to enlist private capital in a ratio of at
least 10 to 1 to match the public capital and increase significantly
the scope of these programs and to house many more Americans. I think
this is a great way to incentivize and challenge private capital to
come into the field of affordable housing and to put more Americans in
decent, affordable rental housing.
The mission improvement section of the bill also strengthens Fannie
Mae's and Freddie Mac's affordable housing goals. In particular, it
would align their goals regarding the purchase of affordable mortgages
with current Community Reinvestment Act income targeting definitions
and ensure that these enterprises provide liquidity to both ownership
and rental housing markets for low- and very low-income families. We
want to make sure we target these resources to those Americans
particularly struggling in a very difficult economy--low- and very low-
income Americans.
The legislation requires the enterprises to serve a variety of
underserved markets, such as rural areas, manufactured housing, and
affordable housing preservation. It improves reporting requirements for
affordable housing activities, including expansion of a public-use
database, and strengthens the new regulator's ability to enforce
compliance with these housing goals.
All of these affordable housing provisions are premised on the fact
that with Fannie and Freddie's Government benefits come many important
responsibilities to the public.
As I mentioned earlier, this legislation also contains a bill
authorized by Senator Dodd called the HOPE for Homeowners Act. I wish
to commend him for his hard work in crafting these provisions and also
commend him for the judicious way he has managed this legislation.
In the last several weeks, this legislation has called for very
critical judgments about procedures and timing and substance. On every
one of those occasions, Senator Dodd, working closely with Senator
Shelby, has made some remarkable, wise, and judicious judgments, and I
commend him for that--both of them, and for their stewardship of this
legislation.
Now, this legislation Senator Dodd is proposing, the HOPE for
Homeowners Act, would create a new temporary, voluntary program within
the Federal Housing Administration to back FHA-insured mortgages to
distressed borrowers. The program is vitally important and could not
come at a more important time.
Two weeks ago, the OCC--the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency--put out a report documenting the scope of the failure of the
Bush administration's efforts to stem the mortgage crisis. The
administration has been relying on a voluntary industry effort called
HOPE Now. HOPE Now has been reporting that it has produced in excess of
1 million loan modifications

[[Page 13807]]

through this program. They have had events to tout it in the public and
the press. They always mention this number.
The credibility of the HOPE Now numbers has been under attack for a
while, primarily because they are self-reported numbers and because
HOPE Now includes in its numbers ``payment plans,'' which are not loan
modifications but only delay troubled home borrowers. Apparently, the
regulators themselves have begun to feel a little uncomfortable, and
the OCC decided to do its own report with its own numbers. They
reported that voluntary mortgage industry efforts have resulted in only
52,000 loan modifications out of 3 million seriously delinquent loans.
In addition to the 3 million seriously delinquent loans--loans over
60 days or in bankruptcy or foreclosure--there are also 1.5 million
foreclosures in process, and new foreclosures initiated during the same
period total almost 300,000. In effect, foreclosures are running six
times ahead of loan-modification efforts. Looking at it another way,
loan modifications are less than 2 percent of seriously delinquent
loans and only about 3 percent of foreclosures.
It is clear that the administration's argument that no new action is
needed has been proven wrong. The OCC data also clearly demonstrates
that helping mitigate the effects of this mortgage mess cannot be left
completely up to the mortgage industry and voluntary efforts. ``Fuzzy
math'' and a lack of transparency are what got us into this mess. It
should not be used to try to cover up the fact that there is still a
major problem.
That is why Senator Dodd's HOPE for Homeowners Program is so
important. It is going to enable approximately 400,000 homeowners to
refinance into 30-year fixed mortgage products with FHA mortgage
insurance. Many of these homeowners have no other financing option
since their homes are now worth less than their mortgage. They are
``underwater.''
Any lender who participates in the HOPE Program Senator Dodd is
advancing will have to write down the value of the mortgage to 90
percent of the current appraised value of the home. They will write off
the loss, and then the new loan for the homeowner will have to be for
30 years at a fixed rate and with FHA mortgage insurance. In exchange
for getting a new loan with built-in equity, homeowners will have to
share future appreciation equally with the FHA.
The intent of the legislation is to set a floor on lender losses
while at the same time putting families into 30-year fixed rate
mortgages that will allow them to keep their homes. This legislation,
we hope, will help stabilize the housing markets in parts of the
country that need the help the most.
In addition, most of the provisions from the Foreclosure Prevention
Act of 2008 that passed the Senate by a vote of 88 to 8 on April 10 are
included in this legislation. This section of the bill contains the
Banking Committee's legislation to modernize, streamline, and expand
the reach of the FHA mortgage insurance program.
The FHA modernization section includes provisions I authored that
would expand access to home ownership counseling, provide for
technology and staffing improvements at FHA, and update the FHA Home
Equity Conversion Mortgage--HECM--Program, allowing seniors to safely
tap into the equity of their home for other necessary expenses.
The FHA loan limit is increased from 95 percent to 110 percent of
area median home price, with a cap at 150 percent of the GSE limit in
high-cost areas, which currently will be $625,000. This should allow
families in older areas of the country to access home ownership through
FHA. It also requires a downpayment of at least 3.5 percent for any FHA
loan.
In addition, the Foreclosure Prevention Act section of the bill
provides $3.92 billion in funding to communities hardest hit by
foreclosure and delinquencies to purchase foreclosed homes at a
discount and rehabilitate or redevelop the homes to stabilize
neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in house values of
neighboring homes. It also contains $150 million in additional funding
for housing counseling.
It contains some important provisions to help our returning soldiers
avoid foreclosure by lengthening the time a lender must wait before
starting the foreclosure process and providing the veterans--soldiers,
sailors, marines, airmen of the current conflict--with 1 year of relief
from increases in mortgage interest rates. In addition, the Department
of Defense is required to establish a counseling program to ensure
these veterans can access assistance if facing financial difficulties.
The legislation also increases the VA loan guarantee amount, so that
veterans have additional home ownership opportunity.
I am also pleased that the bill contains a provision I authored in my
bill, S. 2153, to amend the Truth in Lending Act to improve home loan
disclosures. This provision will ensure that consumers are provided
with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with not just home
purchases but also for loans that refinance a home or provide a home
equity line of credit. The bill requires that mortgage disclosures be
provided within 3 days of application and no later than 7 days prior to
closing. This should allow borrowers to shop for another mortgage if
they are not satisfied with the terms. If the terms of the loan change,
the consumer must be notified 3 days before closing of the changed
terms.
If consumers apply for adjustable rate or variable rate payment
loans, there will now be an explicit warning on the 1-page Truth in
Lending Act form that the payments will change depending on the
interest rate and an estimate of how those payments will change under
the terms of the contract based on the current interest rate. The bill
also provides a new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum
monthly payments possible under their loan. The bill provides the right
to waive the early disclosure requirements if the consumer has a bona
fide financial emergency that requires they close the loan quickly and
increases the range of statutory damages for TILA violations from the
current $200 to $2,000 to a range of $400 to $4,000.
Finally, it requires lenders to include a statement that the consumer
is not obligated on the mortgage loan just because they received the
disclosures. This will give consumers the opportunity to truly shop
around for the best mortgage terms for the first time ever. They will
be able to compare the payments and costs associated with a certain
loan product and decide not to sign on the dotted line if they do not
like the basic terms of the loan.
I believe that giving consumers the information they need regarding
the maximum payment is absolutely critical. Borrowers need to better
understand the full financial impact of entering into a particular loan
early in the process and before they actually consummate the loan.
There are many borrowers today who signed up for a loan with teaser
rates with a monthly payment they could well afford and then were
shocked 18 months later to get the adjusted rates that were staggering
to them and were, for many, unaffordable. Many in good faith relied on
what they thought would be the initial introductory loan. I do not
think they should be in that position. I think all the details, the
maximum loan amount under the current rate should be available upfront,
not hidden in a pile, literally a foot high, of closing documents.
They also have to have a chance to back out of the loan, if the terms
are not acceptable to them, before closing the loan at the conference
room table.
I am pleased my Republican colleagues have agreed with the need to
improve mortgage disclosures also.
Finally, this legislation includes some important tax provisions that
should enhance and strengthen the low-income housing tax credit program
and the mortgage revenue bond program. It also has a refundable first-
time home buyer credit of up to $8,000 to help reduce the stock of
existing unoccupied housing and a nonitemizer tax deduction for State
and local property taxes from Federal income tax.
It is my hope this legislation will help more families to refinance
out of

[[Page 13808]]

bad loans, help stabilize the housing market, and improve the laws and
regulations so this type of foreclosure crisis never happens again.
As a member of the Banking Committee, I wish to particularly thank
Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for including a number of bills and
initiatives that I have been working on in the Housing and Economic
Recovery Act that is before us today, and I hope we are going to be
able to pass this important legislation in very short order.
The American people need a lot more than the current HOPE Now
program, they need help now. I encourage all my colleagues, we should
move forward deliberately--today, I hope--on this important legislation
and send it to our colleagues in the House.
I know Chairman Frank and his colleagues have done a remarkable job
on their side to pass legislation that is very close to ours. Together,
we should be able to send something to the President that he will, I
hope, sign and will send a message to the American people that hope is
not just a fiction of rhetoric, but it is a reality--and not just hope,
but help is on the way.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. That was going to be my first unanimous consent request.
My second one would be I ask consent that I be recognized following the
remarks of the distinguished Senator from Idaho.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10
minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

County Payments Act

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the increasingly dire
need to reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-
Determination Act of 2000. It is commonly called the County Payments
Act. We also need to fully fund the payment in lieu of taxes
provisions, otherwise commonly called PILT funding.
One hundred years ago, legislation was enacted to provide for the
return of a percentage of the U.S. Forest Service gross receipts to the
States to assist counties that are home to our national forests with
school and road services. The reason for this legislation was that
these States, where there are very high percentages of Federal
ownership of property, have a much smaller property tax base for their
communities. Particularly, many of these rural communities exist in
counties where most of the county--in some counties in Idaho over 90
percent of the county--is owned by the Federal Government. They have
virtually no property base. Yet they have all the other issues that
come with the land base to deal with in their counties--schools, roads,
law enforcement, and the like. It was recognized that since the Federal
Government was immune from paying property taxes, the Federal
Government--which was the beneficiary from these counties and which had
such significant land holdings in these counties--should provide some
kind of compensation to the counties as an alternative to property
taxes, which they would pay if they were not the Federal Government and
exempt from paying those taxes. That is where you get the payment in
lieu of taxes, or PILT payment. The Secure Rural Schools and County
Self-Determination Act was something that followed up on the PILT
legislation. Without these funds, many rural communities that neighbor
national forests would be unable to fully meet school and road needs of
local communities. In recent years, however, timber receipts have
eroded to the point where the Federal obligation to local rural
communities is not met through these receipts alone.
To compensate for the shortfall and to prevent the loss of essential
county schools and roads infrastructure, Congress enacted the Secure
Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. This law has
provided assistance to communities whose regular Forest Service and
Bureau of Land Management receipt-sharing payments have declined
significantly. Unfortunately, it expired at the end of 2006. While
funding to continue the program for 2007 was thankfully included in
last year's emergency supplemental, this funding has run out.
I stood on the floor of this Senate almost 5 months ago asking my
colleagues to make this overdue extension and funding a top priority or
Congress. However, this extension has still not been achieved, and
counties and school districts that were facing job losses 5 months ago
are in an increasingly more difficult situation. People are losing
their jobs and families across the Nation are being impacted. The
education of children across this Nation is being affected. This is
unacceptable.
In April, I joined a bipartisan group of Senators who sent a letter
to the Senate Appropriations Committee seeking the inclusion of an
extension and funding for the Secure Rural Schools and Self-
Determination Act of 2000 in the Fiscal Year 2008 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act. The Emergency Supplemental that was
passed by the Senate last month contained $400 million to continue
county payments for another year. This funding would ensure the
continued assistance for rural communities struggling to provide
necessary services in areas with large amounts Federal land. This
bridge funding is essential to ensure the continuation of needed school
services in rural communities throughout the country while work
continues on a longer term extension. I understand that unfortunately
this funding was stripped out of the supplemental in negotiations
between the House and the administration.
I remind this body that a multiple year extension and funding for
county payments and PILT has the overwhelming support of a bipartisan
majority of the Senate. In fact, 74 Senators voted in favor of an
amendment to provide a mu1ti-year extension and funding in last year's
emergency supplemental appropriations bill. However, as previously
mentioned, this extension was pared back to one-year funding in the
version that came out of conference and was enacted into law. Now,
there is no funding and far less time.
What does a failure to extend the Secure Rural Schools and Community
Self-Determination Act mean? It means the loss of more than 20,000
county and school employee jobs across the Nation. It means nearly
7,000 teachers and educational staff are estimated to lose their jobs.
More than 100 teaching positions in Idaho alone will likely be
affected. It means that 600 counties and more than 4,000 school
districts in 42 States will not have the funds to fully provide needed
services. It means incredible uncertainty to rural communities,
counties, and families across the Nation during these difficult
economic times. It means more than 8,000 road miles will not be
maintained in Idaho alone. It means children in rural communities will
have decreased access to quality education.
To help visualize the impact on rural communities of a failure to
extend the program, I want to share some Idaho examples that were
shared with me from my constituents: Shoshone County, ID, with a
population of 15,000, expects 15 school instructional staff and as much
as 55 percent of the county's road department employees to be affected.
In Boise County, with a population of close to 7,000, the Road and
Bridge Department will have to lay off the majority of its employees--
one half to three-fourths of the employees--within 1 year and only
perform those activities that are necessary to public safety.
Clearwater County, with a population of approximately 8,000, faces the
loss of more than $500,000, which will greatly impact public safety
because of lost services for road maintenance and law enforcement. I am
told that Boundary County, with a population of 11,000, will not be
able to

[[Page 13809]]

blacktop roads and will have to let them deteriorate to gravel-based
roads. We simply cannot allow this to occur in any State in this
Nation.
Congress needs to demonstrate it is serious about getting this done.
Families in rural communities across this Nation deserve no less. It is
shameful that Congress may be recessing once again and Members will be
heading home to their home States without passing an extension. The
word disappointing is an understatement. This puts services in rural
communities across this Nation in jeopardy, and it is simply wrong. We
all need to work together to make this more of a priority. Over the
years, this has been a bipartisan effort, and that simply must
continue. This takes the commitment of all of us, including
administration, House and Senate leadership to get this done.
I understand that other domestic spending has been included in the
supplemental. I won't for a second diminish the need for those funds,
but I must point out that county payments are vitally important and
deserve to be included in the supplemental as well. I will continue to
work with my colleagues to press for the inclusion of county payment
funds. In December, Senators Craig, Smith, Murkowski, McCaskill, Dole,
Stevens and Bennett joined me in urging the Senate leadership to attach
a reauthorization of county payments and PILT funding to any
legislative vehicles expected to be enacted before Congress concluded
work for the year.
I continue to believe, as I did then, that we must pursue every
opportunity to achieve enactment and attach an extension to every
moving legislative vehicle. The counties of the United States which
host our Federal properties are not allowed by Federal law to impose
property tax on them for the services that those properties require.
This legislation honorably and fairly has met these responsibilities
over the years until the last few years when Congress has struggled so
hard to find its way through to extension and funding of these
important needs.
I encourage my colleagues to act quickly, to act now, and to assure
that we give the necessary priority to this county funding to get us
past this crisis.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have received a request that the
distinguished senior Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, wishes to be
recognized upon the conclusion of my remarks.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Bond be recognized upon the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

FISA

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we have an ongoing debate on the whole
question of FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Since the
beginning of this debate, I have opposed legislation that does not
provide some kind of accountability for the 6 years of illegal
warrantless wiretapping that was started and, in fact, approved by this
administration.
The bill that has been presented to the Senate, as it stands now,
absent any amendments, seems intended to result in the dismissal of
ongoing cases against the telecommunication carriers that participated
in the warrantless wiretapping program. It would lead to the dismissal
of the cases without allowing a court ever to review whether the
program itself was legal.
So the bill would have the effect of ensuring that this
administration, the administration that decided to carry out the
illegal wiretapping, is never called to answer for its actions, and
never held accountable in a court of law. I cannot support that result.
It is now almost 7 years since the President began an effort to
circumvent the law in violation of the provisions of the governing
statute, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
I have said I believe that the conduct was illegal. In running its
program of warrantless surveillance, the administration relied on
result-oriented legal opinions. These opinions were prepared in secret.
They were shown only to a tiny group of like-minded officials. This
ensured, of course, that the administration received not independent
legal advice, but the legal advice that it had predetermined it wanted.
A former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel
described this program as a ``legal mess.'' And this administration
wants to make sure no court ever reviews this legal mess.
The bill presented to the Senate seems designed to ensure that they
are going to get their wish. The administration worked very hard to
ensure that Congress could not effectively review the program or the
basis for its arguments for immunity.
Since the existence of the program became known through the press,
the Judiciary Committee has repeatedly tried to obtain access to
information its members needed so we could evaluate the
administration's legal arguments, which are squarely under the
jurisdiction of our committee.
Indeed, Senator Specter, when he was the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, prepared subpoenas to telecommunication carriers to obtain
this information. He wanted information from the telecommunications
carriers because the administration would not tell us directly what it
had done. But those subpoenas sought by a Republican chairman were
never issued.
As Senator Specter himself has explained publicly, Vice President
Cheney intervened with other Republican members of the Judiciary
Committee to undercut Senator Specter, and, of course, the Vice
President then succeeded in blocking the subpoenas.
It was only just before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees'
consideration of this bill that the Judiciary Committee members finally
obtained access to some of the documents we had sought. I remind you,
though, that most Members of this Chamber, most Senators called upon to
vote, have not seen those documents. I have seen them, and I would hope
that they would be made available to every Senator.
The Senators who have seen them have drawn very different
conclusions. But no matter what conclusion you reach, you ought to get
access to the documents so that you can make an informed judgment.
I will not discuss the documents that are still held in secret, but I
will talk about the public reports. There are public reports that at
least one telecommunications carrier refused to comply with the
administration's request to cooperate with the warrantless wiretapping.
All Senators should have had the opportunity to know those facts so
they can make informed judgments whether there were legal claims that
other carriers should have raised.
It is also clear that the Bush-Cheney administration did not want the
Senate to evaluate the evidence and be able to draw its own
conclusions. They wanted to avoid accountability.
Indeed, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with all of the
work it has done on this issue, has not conducted a review of the
legality of the warrantless wiretapping program.
Now, I am not here to try to get the telephone companies. According
to public reports, at least one company said no, presumably because it
feared that by complying it would break the law. Other phone companies,
according to the public statements, apparently believed they were doing
what was best for their country. I am not out to get them.
In fact, I would have supported legislation to have the Government
indemnify the telecommunications carriers for any liability incurred at
the behest of the Government. As I said, it is not a case of going
after the phone companies; I want accountability.
I supported alternative efforts by Senator Specter and Senator
Whitehouse to substitute the Government for the defendants in these
cases. In other words, take the phone companies out and substitute the
Government so the cases can proceed to a determination on the merits.
These alternatives would have allowed judicial review of the legality
of

[[Page 13810]]

the administration's acts--I think it is clear that the
administration's actions were illegal--then let a court determine who
was responsible for those actions.
This bill does not provide that accountability. As I read the
language of the bill, it is designed to have the courts dismiss the
pending cases if the Attorney General simply certifies to the court
that the alleged activity was the subject of a written request from the
Attorney General, and that request indicated the activity was
authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.
In other words, if the Attorney General said: Well, I do not care
what the law says, I have determined that the President does not have
to follow the law. If the Attorney General says, in effect,
notwithstanding the rule of law in this country, this President is
above the law, so, therefore, nothing he does is illegal. These kinds
of baseless legal conclusions could form the basis for immunity under
this scheme.
That is really what this bill provides. That concerns me, as it
should concern everybody. We should not be dismissing Americans' claims
that their fundamental rights were violated based on the mere assertion
of a party in interest that what it did was lawful.
Think about it: this would be like a police officer catching someone
committing a burglary and saying: I am going to arrest you for
burglary. And the burglar sitting there with a bag of burglary tools,
having broken in the door, saying: You cannot do that because I thought
about this breaking and entering. I decided that in my case it is not
illegal. And then the police officer has to say: Gee, I am sorry for
the inconvenience, sir, go on your merry way.
That is what we are saying. Or actually, it is even worse than that.
It is as if they actually arrested that burglar, they brought him into
court, and the burglar stands up and says: Your Honor, I determined all
by myself--disregarding you, Your Honor; disregarding the evidence, I
determined all by myself--that even though I was involved in a
burglary, I should not even be subject to the court's jurisdiction
because I say that what I did was legal. Goodbye, Your Honor. Have a
nice day. I am leaving.
That is what we are doing with this bill. In fact, there is not even
a determination by the current Attorney General that the wireless
wiretapping program was lawful, perhaps because he could not make such
a determination. But all he has to do to ensure immunity is to certify
that the phone company acted at the behest of the administration and
that the administration indicated that the activity was determined to
be lawful.
Regardless of whether or not it actually was lawful, all the Attorney
General has to say is that it was determined to be lawful. We are not
going to tell you when that determination was made. We are not even
going to tell you whether the people who made that determination went
to law school. It is lawful because the President is above the law;
therefore, we are off the hook.
I believe the rule of law is important. I do not believe any one of
us, the 100 of us in this body, is above the law. I have been here with
six Presidents. I do not believe any one of them, Republican or
Democratic Presidents, is above the law. I do not believe Congress
should try to put a President above the law and seek to take away the
only viable avenue for Americans to seek redress for harm to their
privacy and liberty, and the only viable avenue of accountability for
the administration's lawlessness.
Why should we, the United States Senate, the conscience of the
Nation, why should we sit here and say: We are going to condone
lawlessness, and even more importantly, we 100 people, acting on behalf
of 300 million other Americans, are saying: We are never even going to
let you know who committed the unlawful acts and why.
Now, I recognize this legislation also contains important
surveillance authority. I support this new authority. I worked for
years to craft legislation that provides that important authority along
with appropriate protections for privacy and civil liberties. I have
voted for dozens of changes in the FISA legislation to be able to help
our intelligence agencies.
In fact, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under my leadership,
reported such a bill last fall. So I commend House Majority Leader
Hoyer and Senator Rockefeller, who negotiated this legislation, for
incorporating several additional protections to bring it closer to the
bill we voted out of the Judiciary Committee.
I note, in particular, the requirement of an inspector general review
of this administration's warrantless wiretapping program. It is a
provision I have advocated at every single meeting we have had, open or
closed, through the course of the consideration of these matters. This
review will provide for a comprehensive examination of the relevant
facts about this program.
Actually, it should prove useful to the next President. I believe we
should have still more protections for privacy and civil liberties. If
this bill becomes law I will work with the next administration on
additional protections. Despite some improvements to the surveillance
authorities the bill authorizes, improvements I support, I will not
support this legislation. The administration broke the law. They
violated FISA by conducting warrantless surveillance for more than 5
years, and they got caught. Now they want us to cover their actions.
They want us to say: That's OK. Even though we don't know which one of
you decided to break the law, we are going to let you all off the hook.
The apparent purpose of title II of this bill is to ensure that they
will not be held to account. That is wrong. I will, therefore, oppose
cloture on the motion to proceed to the measure. If the Senate proceeds
to the bill, I will then support amendments to its unaccountability
provisions, including an amendment to strike the immunity provisions.
But if those are not successful, I will have to vote against it.
The bottom line is this: In America, nobody should be above the law.
One thing unites every single Senator. We want to keep our great and
good country safe. We all want to stop terrorists. We have spent
hundreds of billions of dollars to do that. We have procedures to do
that. But one of the principles of this country and something we have
always preached to other countries is, that in good times and bad
times, we follow the law. We did this during two world wars, in the
Revolutionary War and in the Civil War.
I am imploring the Senate not to turn its back on over 200 years of
history of following the law and saying, in this situation, we are
going to condone an administration that broke the law. I cannot vote
for that. I cannot in good conscience vote for that. I cannot be true
to my own oath of office and vote for that. Certainly, I would not want
to tell the people of Vermont I voted for that.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri is
recognized.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after my
remarks, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be recognized,
and that she be followed by the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, while my good friend from Vermont was on the
floor, I thought he raised some good questions. I believe we have good
answers for those questions. I know of his dedication and commitment to
the rule of law and accountability, his very distinguished service as
head of the Judiciary Committee. But there are several things I would
point out.
No. 1, we have been working on this entire issue of the President's
terrorist surveillance program for better than a year now. We have
reviewed all of the documents. We have had all of the people who
administered the program, who have given opinions on it, come in. I
dispute his statement that there were 6 years of unlawful activity of
the President. He said no court will be able to review the illegality;
no independent officials have reviewed it.

[[Page 13811]]

First, it is my understanding, although I was not one of them, that
the big eight at the time--that is, the Republican and Democratic
leaders of the House and the Senate and the leaders of their
Intelligence Committees--were briefed on this program before it
started. I don't know the substance of the briefing. I would imagine
that they told them the problems in the existing old FISA law would
make it difficult to implement that law, given the new technology
which, in fact, was the case. In any event, it went forward.
When the program was finally disclosed and briefed to the
Intelligence Committee, I spent a good bit of time reviewing that. I
have studied constitutional law and made constitutional law arguments
before. I believe if my friends who have questions about it will check
the Constitution and the appellate court's interpretation of article
II, they will find that they assume the President does have power to
collect foreign intelligence information as an adjunct to his
responsibility to conduct foreign affairs.
There is no question that Congress cannot pass a law abrogating that
constitutional right. As a matter of fact, in one of the released
cases, one of the cases made public by the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, or FISC, they noted that Congress could not
abrogate that constitutional right. It would be unconstitutional. For
those who raise the test of the steel cases, I don't necessarily accept
that test, that the enactments of Congress can affect the measure of
credibility and extent of the President's power. The Congress did pass
the authorization for the use of military force prior to the imposition
of the terrorist surveillance program. We had access to the documents.
Based on review of the documents, the Senate Intelligence Committee, by
a vote of 13 to 2, passed out the bill which is the essential framework
that is before us.
The courts can review to see that there are certifications by the
Attorney General, directives by the President, and only if they find no
substantial evidence to support that, then the suits will be dismissed.
My friend from Vermont said we ought to substitute the Government for
the phone company for judicial review. There is another provision in
the bill he should understand. If you want to sue the Government, there
is no ban in this bill on suing the Government or suing Government
officials. That can go forward. That is not affected by this bill.
There has been extensive discussion over the legality of it. For those
who wish to have a trial on the legality of the program, there are
other means still available. To penalize a phone company or other
carrier which, in good faith reliance on a representation of the
Attorney General and the President of the United States, carried out a
program that I believe is lawful to protect American citizens, I think
is totally unwarranted.
Let me describe today for my colleagues and for those who may be
interested this long and difficult process which I believe has finally
accomplished its goal. This week we have a chance to tell the American
people that the intelligence community on which our citizens, our
troops, and our allies rely to keep us safe from terrorists and other
forms of evil in the world can continue to do its job. We can tell
those companies that answered their Government's call for help in the
aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks that a grateful nation
stands behind them and that they will be given the civil liability
protection they rightly deserve.
I strongly support voting for cloture on the motion to proceed to
H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, this afternoon. I strongly
encourage my colleagues not only to do the same but also to oppose any
amendments offered to it. We have finally struck a deal with the House,
and the House honored the deal last Friday by allowing no amendments on
the House floor. I ask my colleagues to hold up our end of the bargain.
While it is in every Senator's right to offer an amendment, I urge my
colleagues to vote down all amendments no matter what they may be so
that we may send the bill immediately to the President for signature
and make sure we don't have further gaps in our intelligence system
which could appear once again if we do not pass this in a timely
fashion. If we send it back to the House, there is no telling when a
final bill could be back here for passage.
Let me describe briefly how we got here. Approximately a year ago,
Director of National Intelligence ADM Mike McConnell came to Congress
and asked that we update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Changes in technology resulted in court rulings or interpretations that
made it very difficult to use electronic surveillance effectively
against terrorist enemies overseas. The problem came to a head in May
2007, with a ruling that caused significant gaps in collection.
Although the DNI at the time pleaded to Congress to help, the
leadership of Congress did not move.
In the looming pressure of the August recess, the Republican leader,
Senator McConnell, and I cosponsored the Protect America Act which
Congress passed the first week of August last year. The act did exactly
what it was intended to. It closed the intelligence gaps that
threatened the security of our Nation and of our troops. But it was
lacking in one important aspect, as we were not able to include in it
the retroactive civil liability protection from ongoing frivolous
lawsuits against those partners who had assisted the intelligence
community in the President's program.
Following the passage of the Protect America Act, I am proud to say
that Senator Rockefeller and I worked on a bipartisan basis to come up
with a permanent solution to modernize FISA and give those private
partners the needed retroactive liability protection. We worked closely
for months with the DNI, Department of Justice, and their experts from
the intelligence community to ensure there would be no unintended
operational consequences from any of the provisions included in our
bipartisan product. In February of this year, after many hearings,
briefings, and a lot of debate on the Senate floor, the Senate passed
the FISA amendments by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to 29.
The bill coming out of the Senate reflected the Intelligence
Committee's conclusion that the electronic communication service
providers who assisted the President's TSP acted in good faith and
deserved civil liability protection from frivolous lawsuits. The Senate
bill also went farther than any legislation in history in protecting
the privacy interests of American citizens or U.S. persons whose
communications might be acquired through targeting overseas. It also
required the FISA approval to target U.S. persons overseas, if they are
going to have collection initiated against them.
At the end of the day, there were many difficult compromises. Both
sides gave, and we came up with a bill that was not only bipartisan but
the best piece of effort we could get out of this legislative process.
Although the Senate passed the bill before the Protect America Act
expired, in the House there was a clear majority. But the leadership
didn't let it come up. They went on recess. In the days following the
expiration, private partners refused to provide intelligence
information, frankly, in light of the ongoing litigation, the
tremendous threat to their business franchise, the fact that they and,
particularly their shareholders, who may be retired persons depending
on pensions and others, could be losing billions of dollars in the
marketplace because of the size of these outrageous lawsuits seeking
billions of dollars, when, in my view, there was no damage and no
grounds for recovery. Fortunately, after several days' negotiation, the
intelligence community was able to get the providers to resume
cooperation, but the intelligence lost in that time was gone, and we
will never know what we missed because the House leadership refused to
bring up the Senate bill.
Some have accused me and my colleagues of saying at the time,
falsely, that the sky was falling. For a few days the sky was falling
until a tenuous agreement was worked out between the executive branch
and the providers.

[[Page 13812]]

But the agreement was all predicated upon ongoing work to pass a FISA
modernization law in the near term. That is another reason why it is
vital the Senate move immediately to consider the FISA Amendments Act.
Once the House returned from the Easter recess, my good friend and
fellow Missourian, majority whip Roy Blunt, and I met with the House
majority leader, Steny Hoyer, asking him what he thought the House
needed in order to allow the Senate bill a vote on the House floor. We
and our staffs began discussions and sent proposals back and forth
attempting to come together. During that time, Roy Blunt and I
conferred repeatedly with Congressmen Hoekstra and Smith and, of
course, vetted our proposals with the intelligence community.
Finally, after four personal meetings over 2 months--and a tremendous
amount of staff work--between Majority Leader Hoyer, Minority Whip
Blunt, and me--Whip Blunt and I delivered a proposal to Mr. Hoyer
before Memorial Day, a deadline he had set.
This agreement was one that had been signed off on and fully
discussed with Mr. Hoekstra, the vice chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, and Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the
Judiciary Committee. We felt this was the best offer we could make on
behalf of the Republicans in the House and Senate, and it was agreed to
by the intelligence community.
The Memorial Day deadline, however, came and went, and again the
House went on recess. Finally, after more interaction among our staffs,
I received word 2 weeks ago that the House Democrats were ready to work
out final language. So Leader Hoyer and Whip Blunt and I met for a
fifth time, this time inviting my colleague, Jay Rockefeller, to join
us in the final negotiations. On June 12, the Democratic House leaders
gave up their idea of having a commission take a look at the
surveillance program, which we believe would have been political,
further interfering with the work of the Intelligence Committee and
perhaps community, and perhaps lead to increased leaks about the
program.
They agreed on a longer sunset than in previous bills. We abandoned
the idea that the FISA Court should be the one to assess compliance
with the minimization procedures used in foreign targeting. With the
concessions Republicans and the administration had already made, along
with some minor technical fixes, I am proud to say the intelligence
community was given the flexibility and tools it needs to keep us safe.
We had a compromise.
Now, I offer all that as background so the record is clear. That
brings us where we are today. Once we get on the bill, I will explain
what is before us, and I will explain how statements from some about
this legislation is nothing short of fear mongering, such as from those
who are saying all Americans who talk to anyone overseas will be
listened to by the Government. That is flat wrong.
Americans cannot be targeted without a court order, period. If
someone overseas is targeted and talks to an American, then the
American's end of the communication is what we call minimized, which
means it is hidden, protected, suppressed. I will elaborate further on
this. But at this time, I simply ask my colleagues to vote for cloture
so we may move immediately to the bill.
I note some of my colleagues from the Senate Intelligence Committee
are seeking recognition, and I appreciate the work all members of the
committee have done. I see my colleague from Georgia, who has been an
outstanding help, and the Senator from California, who has offered many
useful ideas. This has been truly a year's long work, and we are happy
to bring the final process before the Senate today.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is
recognized.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding I am next in
the order. I ask unanimous consent that following my presentation the
Senator from Vermont be recognized on our side. I know Senator
Chambliss is here on the Republican side and wishes to speak.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, can we
propose a unanimous consent request that following Senator Feinstein, I
be recognized to speak, and then Senator Sanders will be next?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe that was the Senator's
request.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That was the intent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I begin my remarks by thanking the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Senator Rockefeller, and the vice chairman of
the Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond, the House Speaker, and the
House leadership for their distinguished work on this piece of
legislation. This has not been easy. It is certainly not without
controversy. There are some major challenges to work through.
I want to begin by putting my remarks, at least, in context.
There is no more important requirement for national security than
obtaining accurate, actionable intelligence. At the same time, there
have to be strong safeguards in place to ensure that the Government
does not infringe on Americans' constitutional rights.
Yet if Congress does not act and pass this bill, as it was passed
overwhelmingly in the House, both of these goals, I believe, are in
jeopardy. Here is why. If this bill does not pass, our Nation would
likely be forced to either extend the Protect America Act or leave the
Nation bare until a new bill can be written. Neither of these are good
options.
As I will describe, the Protect America Act does not adequately
protect Americans' constitutional rights. It was written to be a
temporary measure for 6 months, and it expired on February 5.
What many people do not understand is that surveillance conducted
under the Protect America Act will cease by the middle of August. It
will be impossible to write a new bill, to get it past both Houses, to
have it signed by the President in time to meet this deadline.
If that bill expires without this Congress passing new legislation,
we will be unable to conduct electronic surveillance on a large number
of foreign targets. In other words, our intelligence apparatus will be
laid bare and the Nation will go into greater jeopardy. I truly believe
that.
The FISA legislation of 1978 cannot accommodate this number of
targets. It is simply inadequate for this new task due to changes in
technology and the communications industry. That is precisely why FISA
needs to be modernized.
So taking no action means we will be opening ourselves, in my view,
to the possibility of major attack. This is unacceptable.
So as I see it, our choice is a clear one: We either pass this
legislation or we extend the Protect America Act. For me, this
legislation is much the better option.
This bill, in some respects, improves even on the base bill, the 1978
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It provides clear protections
for U.S. persons both at home and abroad. It ensures that the
Government cannot conduct electronic surveillance on an American
anywhere in the world without a warrant. No legislation has done that
up to this point.
I think the improvements in this bill over the Protect America Act
and the 1978 legislation are important to understand, and I wish to
list a few.
First, prior court review. This bill ensures that there will be no
more warrantless surveillance. Now, why do I say this? Under the
Protect America Act--which is expiring, but we are still collecting
surveillance under it for now--the intelligence community was
authorized to conduct electronic surveillance for a period of 4 months
before submitting an application for a warrant to the FISA Court.
Surveillance could actually proceed for 6 months before there was a
warrant.

[[Page 13813]]

Under this bill, the Government must submit an application and
receive a warrant from the FISA Court before surveillance begins. No
more warrantless surveillance. This is, in fact, a major point.
In emergency cases, there can be a short period of collection--up to
7 days--as the application is prepared. There has been a provision for
emergency cases under FISA for some 30 years now. So that is prior
court review for a U.S. person anywhere in the world if content is
collected.
Meaningful court review. This bill strengthens court review. Under
the Protect America Act, the Government submitted to the FISA Court its
determination that procedures were in place to ensure that only people
outside the United States would be targeted. The court could only
reject an application for a warrant if it found that determination to
be ``clearly erroneous.'' This bill returns to the traditional FISA
standard, empowering the court to decide whether the Government's
determination is ``reasonable.'' This is a higher standard of review,
so the court review under this bill is meaningful.
Next, minimization. These first two improvements ensure that the
Government will only be targeting people outside the country. That is
good, but it is not enough. There is always the possibility of someone
outside the country talking to a U.S. person inside the country. The
bill addresses this with a process known as minimization.
In 1978, Congress said that the Government could do surveillance on
U.S. persons under a court warrant, but required the Government to
minimize the amount of information on those Americans who get included
in the intelligence reporting. In practice, this actually means that
the National Security Agency only includes information about a U.S.
person that is strictly necessary to convey the intelligence. Most of
the time, the person's name is not included in the report. That is the
minimization process.
If an American's communication is incidentally caught up in
electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else,
minimization protects that person's private information.
Now, the Protect America Act did not provide for court review over
this minimization process at all. But this bill requires the court in
advance to approve the Government's minimization procedures prior to
commencing with any minimization program. That is good. That is the
third improvement.
Fourth, reverse targeting. There is an explicit ban on reverse
targeting. Now, what is reverse targeting? That is the concern that the
National Security Agency could get around the warrant requirement. If
the NSA wanted to get my communications but did not want to go to the
FISA Court, they might try to figure out who I am talking with and
collect the content of their calls to get to me. This bill says you
cannot do that. You cannot reverse target. It is prohibited. This was a
concern with the Protect America Act, and it is fixed in this bill.
Those are four reasons--good reasons. Here is a fifth: U.S. person
privacy outside the United States. This bill does more than Congress
has ever done before to protect Americans' privacy regardless of where
they are, anywhere in the world. Under this bill, the executive branch
will be required to obtain a warrant any time it seeks to direct
surveillance at a U.S. person anywhere in the world. So any U.S. person
anywhere in the world is protected by the requirement that a warrant
must be received from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
before electronic surveillance can begin.
Previously, FISA only covered people inside the United States. The
Protect America Act did the same thing.
Now, also under this bill, there will be reviews of surveillance
authorities by the Director of National Intelligence, the Attorney
General, the heads of all relevant agencies, and the inspectors general
of all relevant agencies on a regular basis, and the FISA Court and the
Congress will receive the results of those reviews.
So there will be regular reporting from the professionals in the
arena on how this bill is being followed through on--how electronic
surveillance is being carried out worldwide. The Intelligence and
Judiciary Committees will receive those reports. That, too, is
important.
Also, under this bill, there will be a retrospective review of the
President's Terrorist Surveillance Program. That is the program that
has stirred the furor. The bill requires an unclassified report on the
facts of the program, including its limits, the legal justifications,
and the role played by the FISA Court and any private actors involved.
This will provide needed accountability.
In summary, all intelligence collection under the Terrorist
Surveillance Program will be brought under court review and court
orders.
Everything I have described brings this administration back under the
law. There is no more Terrorist Surveillance Program. There is only
court-approved, Congressionally reviewed collection.
But what is to keep this administration or any other administration
from going around the law again? The answer is one word, and it is
called exclusivity.
It means that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is the only,
the exclusive, means for conducting electronic surveillance inside the
United States for foreign intelligence purposes.
The exclusivity language in this bill is identical in substance to
the amendment I offered in February, which received 57 votes in this
Senate. It is section 102 of this bill.
This language reiterates what FISA said in 1978, and it goes further.
Here is what this bill says:
Never again will a President be able to say that his authority--or
her authority, one day, I hope--as Commander in Chief can be used to
violate a law duly enacted by Congress.
Never again can an Executive say that a law passed to do one thing--
such as use military force against our enemies--also overrides a ban on
warrantless surveillance. The administration has said that the
resolution to authorize the use of military force gave this President
the right to go around FISA.
Never again can the Government go to private companies for their
assistance in conducting surveillance that violates the law.
Now, this administration has a very broad view of Executive
authority. Quite simply, it believes that when it comes to these
matters, the President is above the law. I reject that notion in the
strongest terms.
I think it is important to review the recent history with this
administration to demonstrate why FISA exclusivity is so important.
At the very beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, John
Yoo, at the Office of Legal Counsel, wrote in a legal opinion that:

. . . [u]nless Congress made a clear statement in the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that it sought to
restrict presidential authority to conduct warrantless
searches in the national security area--which it has not--
then the statute must be construed to avoid [such] a reading.

That was the argument. I believe it is wrong. Congress wrote FISA in
1978 precisely in the field of national security; there are other,
separate laws that govern wiretapping in the criminal context. In fact,
the Department of Justice has repudiated Yoo's notion.
But if the Department admitted that FISA did apply, it found another
excuse not to take the Terrorist Surveillance Program to the FISA
Court.
The Department of Justice developed a new, convoluted argument that
Congress had authorized the President to go around FISA by passing the
authorization to use military force against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
This is as flimsy as the last argument.
There is nothing in the AUMF that talks about electronic surveillance
or FISA, and I know of not one Member who believed we were suspending
FISA when we authorized the President to go to war.
But that is another argument we lay to rest with this bill. Here is
how we do it. We say in the language in this bill

[[Page 13814]]

that FISA is exclusive. Now, here is the major part: Only a specific
statutory grant of authority in future legislation can provide
authority to the Chief Executive to conduct surveillance without a FISA
warrant.
So we go a step further in exclusivity. We cover what Yoo was trying
to argue and what others might argue on behalf of a Chief Executive in
the future, by closing the loophole and saying: You need specific
statutory authority by the Congress of the United States to go outside
the law and the Constitution.
The final argument the President has made is that even if FISA was
intended to apply, and even if the AUMF didn't override FISA's
procedures, he still had the authority as Commander in Chief to
disregard the law.
Now, I have spoken on the floor before about how the President
believes he is above the law and the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company
v. Sawyer case. In that case, Justice Jackson described how the
President's power is at the ``lowest ebb'' when he is acting in
contravention to the will of the Congress.
This bill, again, makes it clear that the will of Congress is that
there will be no electronic surveillance inside the United States
without a warrant, and it makes clear that any electronic surveillance
that is conducted outside of FISA or outside of another express
statutory authorization for surveillance is a criminal act. It is
criminalized. This is the strongest statement of exclusivity in
history.
The reason I am describing all this is to build a case of legislative
intent in case this is ever litigated, and I suspect it may well be.
So, finally, I wish to read into the Record the comments on
exclusivity from a June 19, 2008, letter that Attorney General Mukasey
and Director of National Intelligence McConnell wrote to the Congress.
The letter recognizes that the exclusivity provision in this bill
``goes beyond the exclusive means provision that was passed as part of
FISA [in 1978].''
So they essentially admit we are taking exclusivity to a new high.
Nevertheless, they acknowledge that the provision in this bill ``would
not restrict the authority of the government to conduct necessary
surveillance for intelligence and law enforcement purposes in a way
that would harm national security.''
I said in February I could not support a bill without exclusivity.
This is what keeps history from repeating itself and another President
from going outside the law. I believe that with this language we will
prevent it from ever happening again.
Now, a comment on title II of the bill, which is the telecom immunity
section. This bill also creates a legal process that may--and, in fact,
is likely to--result in immunity for telecommunications companies that
are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government.
I have spent a great deal of time reviewing this matter. I have read
the legal opinions written by the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Department of Justice. I have read the written requests to
telecommunications companies. I have spoken to officials inside and
outside the Government, including several meetings with the companies
alleged to have participated in the program.
The companies were told after 9/11 that their assistance was needed
to protect against further terrorist acts. This actually happened
within weeks of 9/11. I think we can all understand and remember what
the situation was in the 3 weeks following 9/11.
The companies were told the surveillance program was authorized and
that it was legal, and they were prevented from doing their due
diligence in reviewing the Government's request. In fact, very few
people in these companies--these big telecoms--are actually cleared to
receive this information and discuss it. So that creates a very limited
universe of people who can do their due diligence within the confines
of a given telecommunications company.
For the record, let me also address what I have heard some of my
colleagues say. At the beginning of the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
only four Senators were briefed. The Intelligence Committee was not,
other than the Chairman and Vice Chairman.
I am one who believes it is right for the public and the private
sector to support the Government at a time of need. When it is a matter
of national security, it is all the more important.
I think the lion's share of the fault rests with the administration,
not with the companies.
It was the administration who refused to go to the FISA Court to seek
warrants. They could have gone to the FISA Court to seek these warrants
on a program basis, and they have done so subsequently.
It was the administration who withheld this surveillance program from
the vast majority of Members of Congress, and it was the administration
who developed the legal theories to explain why it could, in fact, go
around the law.
So I am pleased this bill includes independent reviews of the
administration's actions to be conducted by the inspectors general of
the relevant departments.
All of that said, when the legislation was before the Senate in
February, I stated my belief that immunity should only be provided if
the defendant companies acted legally, or if they acted in good faith
with a reasonable belief that their actions were legal. That is what
the law calls for.
I moved an amendment to require the court to review the written
requests to companies to see whether they met the terms of the law.
That law requires that a specific person send a certification in
writing to a telecommunications company. That certification is required
to state that no court order is required for the surveillance, that all
statutory requirements have been met, and that the assistance is
required by the Government.
Unfortunately, my amendment was not adopted, but I continue to
believe it is the appropriate standard.
Now, the pending legislation does not assess whether the request made
by the Government was, in fact, legal, nor whether the companies had a
good-faith and objective belief that the requests were legal. What this
bill does provide is a limited measure of court review. It is not as
robust as my amendment would have provided, but it does provide an
opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard in court, and it provides an
opportunity for the court to review these request documents.
I believe the court should not grant immunity without looking into
the legality of the companies' actions. So if there is an amendment
that does support this, I would intend to vote for it.
But I believe the Record should be clear in noting that if this bill
does become law, in my view, it does not mean the Congress has passed
judgment on whether any companies' actions were or were not legal.
Rather, it should be interpreted as Congress recognizing the
circumstances under which the companies were acting and the reality
that we desperately need the voluntary assistance of the private sector
to keep the Nation secure in the future.
I believe this bill balances security and privacy without sacrificing
either. It is certainly better than the Protect America Act in that
regard, and makes improvements over the 1978 FISA law.
As I said, if a new bill is not in place by mid-August, the Nation
will be laid bare and unable to collect intelligence.
This bill provides for meaningful and repeated court review of
surveillance done for intelligence purposes. It ends, once and for all,
the practice of warrantless surveillance, and it protects Americans'
constitutional rights both at home and abroad. It provides the
Government with the flexibility it needs under the law to protect our
Nation. It makes it crystal clear that this is the law of the land and
that this law must be obeyed.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The Senator from Georgia is
recognized.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
unanimous consent agreement be amended, and that following my comments,
Senator Sanders be recognized, and that following Senator Sanders,
Senator Hatch be recognized.

[[Page 13815]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I wish to speak about H.R. 6304, the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act.
Before I do that, I wish to make a couple comments relative to the
comments made by my colleague from California regarding the TSP or
terrorist surveillance program implemented by the President within days
after September 11, and make sure Americans are very clear about two
points: First of all, Congress did know about this program. Members of
Congress were briefed throughout the duration of this program. Members
of Congress were briefed on a regular basis. That doesn't mean every
Member of Congress but the leadership knew exactly what was going on,
exactly what the President was doing. They were kept very informed.
Secondly, the targets of the terrorist surveillance program were not
Americans; the program targeted the communications of al-Qaida, that we
knew--not guessed but that the intelligence community knew were used by
al-Qaida. Today, al-Qaida gets up every morning, just as they did
before and after September 11, and they think of ways to kill and harm
Americans. Our intelligence community, without getting into the details
of it, suffice it to say, has done a magnanimous job since then in
protecting Americans.
The fact that we have not suffered another attack on domestic soil
since then indicates the terrific job that members of the intelligence
community have done. The terrorist surveillance program that was
implemented by the administration immediately after September 11 is a
major factor in why we have not suffered another act of terrorism on
domestic soil. Information gathered from the terrorist surveillance
program was used rightly to disrupt terrorist activity, both
domestically as well as abroad. Some of the instances where the
terrorist surveillance program has stopped attacks and saved lives are
very public right now.
Again, I rise to comment on H.R. 6304. This critical legislation has
been the subject of many negotiations and, although the legislation is
not perfect, I am pleased with the bipartisan nature of this compromise
bill. I commend Vice Chairman Bond, Congressman Hoyer, and Congressman
Blunt on their work.
I am satisfied that this legislation will provide our intelligence
agencies with the legal tools necessary to perform their jobs, the
flexibility they require, and the capability to protect Americans'
civil liberties. However, I am perplexed it has taken Congress this
long to adopt meaningful legislation necessary to protect our country;
legislation which Congress knew, at least since last August, needed to
be enacted expeditiously. Normally, Congress is accused of being guided
by expediency rather than principle but not usually in national
security matters. Intelligence is bipartisan. Securing our Nation is
bipartisan. It is in every American's interest that Congress act
quickly to protect our Nation from terrorist attack, espionage, or any
other harm. Yet the bill before us now is substantially the same as S.
2248, which was drafted in a bipartisan nature by Senators Rockefeller
and Bond and passed the Senate over 4 months ago, on February 12, 2008,
with a supermajority vote of 68 in favor and only 29 in opposition.
Last summer, our intelligence community officials informed us that,
as a result of a decision by the FISA Court and changes in technology,
they had lost the ability to collect intelligence on terrorists around
the world who wish to harm the United States. Congress responded to
these pleas from our intelligence community and passed the Protect
America Act, which temporarily fixed this problem, but we knew then we
had to have a more permanent solution. Despite this knowledge and
despite the hard work of the Senate Intelligence Committee for the
previous 10 months, Congress failed to fix FISA in February. The House
leadership refused to consider the Senate-passed bill, despite stated
support from a majority of that body's members. I can only surmise that
there were political, rather than substantive, reasons that prevented
this legislation from passing months ago. Some may say this is the
nature of one of the political branches of Government. What no one
talks about is the harm this has caused.
But, as a result of the Protect America Act's expiration, our
collection efforts have been degraded. The public likely is not aware,
nor may be many Members of this Chamber, but the members on the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence have heard regularly about the
disruptions and legal obstacles that have occurred as a result of our
inaction. The week after the Protect America Act expired, the Director
of National Intelligence told us that ``we have lost intelligence
information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty
created by Congress' failure to act.'' Gaps in our intelligence
collection began to resurface, and it has had a real and negative
impact on our national security.
Our intelligence collection relies on the assistance of U.S.
telecommunications carriers. These communication providers are facing
multimillion dollar lawsuits for their alleged assistance to the
Government after September 11, 2001. After the expiration of the
Protect America Act, many providers began to delay or refuse further
assistance. Losing the cooperation of just one provider could mean
losing thousands of pieces of intelligence on a daily basis. According
to the Director of National Intelligence, uncertainty about potential
liability caused many carriers to question whether they could continue
to provide assistance after the expiration of the Protect America Act.
In just 1 week after its expiration, we lost significant amounts of
intelligence forever. We will never be able to recover those lost
communications, nor will we ever know what we missed.
For this reason, it is crucial that any FISA legislation include
retrospective, as well as prospective, immunity for telecommunications
providers who assist the Government in securing our national security.
Title II of this bill, just as title II of S. 2248, provides the
minimum protections needed for our electronic service providers. In a
civil suit against a communications provider, the Government may submit
a certification that any assistance provided was pursuant to a
Presidential authorization and at the time determined to be lawful. The
district courts may review this certification, and if it finds that it
is supported by substantial evidence, the court must dismiss the case.
This is not a commentary on, or a court sanction of, the President's
alleged terrorist surveillance program. It is the right thing to do.
Unlike many countries which regularly suppress an individual's speech
or violate an individual's right to privacy, a cornerstone of our
democratic and free society is a limited Government--one that doesn't
sanction Government intrusion on an individual's private life. The
Government cannot infringe upon an individual's rights without due
process. But, in order to preserve those rights, Americans rely upon
the Government to provide that freedom and security to protect them
from harm, whether it be from a criminal on the streets or from an
international terrorist.
Under U.S. criminal law, the U.S. frequently requests the assistance
of private citizens and companies in order to combat crime. These
companies provide assistance, usually pursuant to a court order--but
not always--to help keep Americans safe. When assistance is needed to
combat terrorism overseas, patriotic U.S. companies step up to the
plate and help their country. At a minimum, these companies rely upon
Government assurances that their assistance is lawful. When sued in a
court, they are sometimes unable to supply a defense for their actions
without exposing Government secrets or jeopardizing Government
investigations. Instead, they rely on the Government to come to their
defense and assert Government sanction. In the case of the President's
terrorist surveillance program--which despite leaks in the press,
remains highly classified and secret--these companies are defenseless.

[[Page 13816]]

If the Government can show a court its assurances--still classified--
that the assistance was lawful, and the court determines upon
substantial evidence that the company acted pursuant to a Presidential
authorization or other lawful means, then our American companies should
not be liable.
If any constitutional or privacy violation occurred, an aggrieved
individual may still sue the Government. This bill, however, assures
America's corporations that their good-faith assistance will not
subject them to frivolous lawsuits from individuals who really are
alleging a claim against the Government, not those who assist it.
Ordinarily, Americans should be protected against Government intrusion,
but it should not be at the cost of higher phone and Internet access
bills for customers just so these corporations can defend themselves
against frivolous lawsuits.
This legislation preserves liability protection for Americans, and I
am pleased to see that our bipartisan, bicameral negotiators sustained
this provision. Title II of this legislation is largely the same as
what was in the Senate-passed bill. I commend the House for passing
legislation including this provision and the Senate for now taking
much-needed action.
One thing that came out of the debate on this particular aspect of
the bill within the Intelligence Committee was the fact that in this
situation it is pretty obvious that the Government was in a crisis
situation just following September 11. We had just been attacked by
terrorists. We needed the assistance of private corporations in
America. When we asked for their assistance, they stepped up to the
plate. We know it is going to happen again. It may not be a terrorist
attack next time; it may be some other crisis that is inflicted upon
America. At that point in time, we are going to need the assistance of
the private sector in America again. If we don't tell the private
sector, in this particular case, that we are going to protect them and
make sure they suffer no loss as a result of stepping up to help
protect Americans following September 11, then should we expect the
private sector to step up next time, whatever the crisis may be? The
answer to that is obvious, and, in a very bipartisan way within the
Intelligence Committee, there was general agreement that is the way we
should proceed.
The only real and meaningful differences between this bill and the
Senate-passed bill are more judicial involvement in the President's
constitutional duty to conduct foreign affairs and protect our Nation.
Our intelligence agencies will be allowed to collect intelligence
against individuals located outside the United States, without having
to first seek individual court orders in each instance.
Rather than having to seek numerous court orders and losing time and
valuable collection opportunities, this legislation will require a
reasonable belief that the target is outside the United States, so our
intelligence analysts have the ability to assess and task new
collection in real time; that is, before the bad guys get away, switch
phones, and continue their planning. Unlike the Senate-passed bill,
this legislation requires prior court review and approval of the
targeting and minimization procedures submitted by the Attorney
General, our chief law enforcement and legal advisor, and the Director
of National Intelligence, our primary national security adviser.
I wish to state in the record that the exigent circumstances
provision included in this legislation is not meant to be limited.
Rather, it is a provision necessary to allow the retention of
intelligence gathered in those situations where prior court approval
was not practical.
Under no circumstance is it acceptable for intelligence gathered
under an exigent circumstance, and later found to be acceptable by the
court, to be discharged. Intelligence does not wait for court orders,
and it must be collected timely. The intelligence community should not
have to wait for a court order to continue collection against those who
seek to harm America. If the court later determines that the targeting
and certifications were lawful, then our intelligence officials should
be allowed to review that which was collected.
It is now time for us to make more permanent changes to FISA to
ensure we have the ability to obtain intelligence on terrorists and our
adversaries. Although not a perfect bill, the FISA Amendments Act will
fill the gaps identified by our intelligence officials and provide them
with the tools and flexibility they need to collect intelligence from
targets overseas, while at the same time providing significant
safeguards for the civil liberties of Americans. This bill will ensure
that we do not miss opportunities to target and collect foreign
terrorist communications just because our operators had to get
permission from a U.S. court first.
Let me be clear, these amendments to FISA would only apply to
surveillance directed at individuals who are located outside of the
United States. This is not meant to intercept conversations between
Americans or even between two terrorists who are located within the
United States. The Government still would be required to seek the
permission of the FISA Court for any surveillance done against people
physically located within the United States, whether a citizen or not.
In fact, this legislation will provide new protections for U.S.
citizens under our law. Under this bill, for the first time, a court
order must be obtained to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign
intelligence purposes against an American who is located outside the
United States. It also includes a prohibition on reverse targeting;
that is, our intelligence agencies will not be allowed to target an
individual overseas with the intent and purpose of obtaining a U.S.
person's communications.
I am satisfied that the FISA Amendments Act will close gaps in our
intelligence collection as well as provide some legal certainty to
those patriotic companies that assist us. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill and give our professional intelligence officials the
confidence they need to secure our Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my
strong opposition to H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act, and my
opposition to invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to this
legislation.
Let me tell you what I think this debate is about and what it is not
about. What it is not about is whether anyone in the Senate or the
Congress is not going to do everything he or she can to protect the
American people from another terrorist attack. It is not about whether
we are going to be as vigorous as we can in hunting down terrorists. It
is not about whether we are going to be vigilant in the war against
terrorism. That is what it is not about. What it is about essentially
is whether we can be forceful and successful in fighting terrorism
while we protect the constitutional rights that make us a free country.
That is what this debate is about.
I happen to believe that with strong law enforcement, with a strong
and effective judiciary, with a Congress working diligently, we can be
vigorous and successful in protecting the American people against
terrorism and we can do it in a way that does not undermine the
constitutional rights which people have fought for hundreds of years to
protect--the Constitution, which today remains one of the greatest
documents ever written in the history of humanity.
We hear a whole lot about the word ``freedom.'' Everybody in the
Senate and the House is for freedom. But what do we mean by freedom?
What we mean by freedom is that we want our kids to be able to read any
book they want to read without worrying that the FBI is going to come
into a library or a bookstore to check on what they are reading. We
want people to be able to write letters to the editor critical of the
President, critical of their Congressmen or their Senator without
worrying that somebody is going to knock on their door. We want people
to have the freedom to assemble, to demonstrate without worrying that
someone has a

[[Page 13817]]

camera on them and is taking notes and later on there will be
retribution because they exercised their freedom of assembly and their
right to dissent.
That is really what the debate is about. It is not whether you are
for protecting the American people against a terrorist attack. That is
not what the debate is. The debate is whether we, as a great country,
will be capable of doing that within the context of our laws, within
the context of our Constitution, and understanding that we are a nation
of laws and not of men, regardless of who the President is.
Before I go into deeper concerns, I begin by recognizing the very
hard work done by members of both the Intelligence Committee and the
Judiciary Committee in the Senate and in the House. We all know these
are not issues resolved, and while I have strong disagreements with the
final product, I know that the intentions of all the Members on both
sides of the aisle were honorable.
Although there have been some improvements made to this bill that the
Senate passed earlier this year, including having the inspector general
review the so-called terrorist surveillance program and making it clear
that FISA and criminal law are the exclusive process by which the
electronic surveillance can take place rather than some broad power of
the President, this final legislation is something I simply cannot
support.
This legislation does not strike the right and appropriate balance
between ensuring that our intelligence community has the tools it needs
to protect our country against international terrorism and protecting
the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. Instead, it gives a get-
out-of-jail-free card to companies that may well have violated the
privacy and constitutional rights of millions of innocent Americans.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment that will be offered,
as I understand it, by Senators Dodd, Feingold, and Leahy to strike
title II of the Intelligence bill which deals with retroactive
immunity. This is a very important amendment, and I hope a majority of
the Members of the Senate will support it.
It is important in this debate to put the discussion of this FISA
legislation in a broader context. The context, sadly, in which we must
view this legislation has everything to do with the history of what
this administration currently in power has done since 9/11. Sadly, what
they have done is shown the people of our country and people all over
the world that they really do not understand what the Constitution of
the United States is about and, in fact, they do not understand, in
many instances, what international human rights agreements, such as the
Geneva Convention, are all about.
So when we enter this debate, we should not look at it that this is
the first time we are addressing the issue of fundamental attacks on
American civil liberties. This has been going on year after year. This
is more of the same from an administration which believes, to a
significant degree, that they are an imperial Presidency, that in the
guise of fighting terrorism, a President has the right to do anything
against anybody for any reason without understanding what our
Constitution is about or what our laws are about.
Let me give a few examples to remind my colleagues what kind of
credibility, or lack thereof, this administration has in the whole area
of civil liberties.
Among other things, this administration has pushed for, successfully,
the passage of the original PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act
reauthorization. Under that bill, among many things, an area I was
involved in when I was in the House was a provision that says, without
probable cause, the FBI can go into a library or bookstore and find out
the books you are reading, and if the librarian or bookstore owner were
to tell anybody, that person would be in violation of the law. Do we
want the kids of this country to be frightened about taking out a book
on Osama bin Laden because somebody may think they are sympathetic to
terrorism? I don't think so. What freedom is about is encouraging our
young people and all Americans to investigate any area they want. I
don't want the people of this country to be intimidated. That is not
what free people are about.
Further, under this administration, we have seen an illegal and
expanded use of national security letters by the FBI.
We have seen the NSA's warrantless wiretap program, which, in fact,
is what we are discussing today.
We have seen the President using signing statements to ignore the
intent of Congress's law in an unprecedented way. The President says:
Oh, yes, I am going to sign this bill, but, by the way, I am not going
to enforce section 387; I don't like that section. Mr. President, that
is not the way the law works. If you don't like it, you have the power
to veto. You cannot pick and choose what provisions you want. But that
is, to a large degree, what this President has done.
What we have seen in recent years is a profiling of citizens engaged
in constitutionally protected free speech and peaceful assembly. As I
mentioned earlier, the right to dissent, the right to protest is at the
heart of what this country is about. I do not want Americans to be
worried that there is a video camera filming them and they will be
punished somewhere down the line because they exercised their freedom
of speech.
We have seen data mining of personal records.
We have seen the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, which has embarrassed us
before the entire world.
We have seen a broad interpretation of congressional resolutions
regarding use of military force as justification for unauthorized
surveillance and other actions.
We have seen extraordinary renditions of detainees to countries that
allow torture. All over the world, people are looking at the United
States of America and saying: What is going on in that great Nation? We
tell them to be like us, to support democracy, to support human rights,
and then we engage in torture and we pick people up and we take them to
countries where they are treated in horrendous ways. This is certainly
one of the reasons respect for the United States has gone down all over
this world, which is a tragedy unto itself but obviously makes it
harder for us to bring countries together in the important fight
against international terrorism.
We have seen an administration that has gotten rid of the rights of
detainees to file habeas corpus petitions--simply put people away, deny
them access to a lawyer, deny them the right to defend themselves.
We have seen political firings in the Office of the U.S. Attorney.
We have seen destruction of CIA tapes.
The list goes on and on.
So the issue we are debating today has to be seen in the broader
context that for the last 7 years, there has been a systematic attack
on our Constitution by an administration which believes that, in the
guise of fighting terrorism, they can do anything they want against
anybody they want without getting court approval or without respecting
our Constitution and the rule of law.
I wish to touch on one point. I know Senator Feingold, Senator Leahy,
and Senator Dodd have touched on this bill at great length. I just want
to focus on one issue, and that is the retroactive immunity granted to
the telecommunications companies.
Why is it important that we support the amendment which does away
with that retroactive immunity? It is very simple. The argument is that
the President of the United States went to these companies and said:
Look, I need your help in doing something, and the companies obliged.
Then the issue is, well, why are we punishing them, even if they
broke the law? And the answer is pretty simple: It is precisely that we
are a nation of laws and not of men. If we grant them retroactive
immunity, what it says to future Presidents is, I am the law because I
am the President, and I will tell you what you can do. And because I
tell you what to do or ask you to do

[[Page 13818]]

something, that is, by definition, legal. Go and break into my
political opponent's office. Don't worry about it; I am the President.
I am saying it is for national security. Those guys are bad guys, just
do it. I am the President, and that is all that matters.
That is the precedent that we are setting today, and I think it is a
very bad precedent. Trust me, Verizon and these other large
telecommunications companies, multi, multibillion-dollar companies,
have a lot of lawyers. They have a lot of good lawyers. And what we
know, in fact, is that some of the telecommunications companies--at
least one that comes to mind--said: No, Mr. President, sorry, that is
unconstitutional. That is illegal, I ``ain't'' gonna do it. I applaud
them for that. But others said: Hey, the President is asking us, we are
going to do it.
The point is, the President is not the law. The law is the law. The
Constitution is the law. And I don't want to set a precedent today by
which any President can tell any company or any individual: You go out
and do it; don't worry about it; no problem at all. That is not what
this country is about.
So let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying this is a very important
issue which concerns millions and millions of Americans. Bottom line,
every American, every Member of the Senate understands we have to do
every single thing we can to protect the American people from terrorist
attacks. There is no debate about that. Some of us believe, however,
that we can be successful in doing that while we uphold the rule of
law, while we uphold the Constitution of this country, which has made
us the envy of the world and for which we owe the Founders of our
country and those who came after, fighting to protect those civil
liberties, so much.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Madam President, Congress has been working on FISA
modernization since April of 2007. That is over 425 days ago. It is
simply amazing to me that it would take this long. As I have often
said, the Constitution of the United States was written in about 115
days, and that included travel time on horseback for the Founding
Fathers. We have spent plenty of time on this issue.
So why is it taking so long? Should this issue be controversial? I
can only surmise that the delay is due to the ominous sounding
terrorist surveillance program. That is the program where the President
had the audacity to allow the intelligence community to listen to
international communications where at least one person was suspected to
be a member of al-Qaida--the same al-Qaida who killed nearly 3,000
innocent American civilians on September 11; the same al-Qaida who
since that day has committed attacks in Istanbul, Algiers, Karachi,
Islamabad, Casablanca, London, Madrid, Mombasa, the Gulf of Aden,
Riyadh, Tunisia, Amman, and Bali; the same al-Qaida whose mission
statement can be summed up in three words: ``Death to America.''
This is the group the President targeted. He wanted an early warning
system to help prevent future attacks--a terrorist smoke detector, if
you will. We often are reminded that we are fighting against an
unconventional enemy, one that has asymmetrical advantages against us.
Al-Qaida is not a nation state and adheres to no treaties or principles
on the conduct of war. They wear no uniforms. They hide in peace-loving
societies and deliberately conduct mass attacks against unarmed
civilians. But we also have asymmetrical advantages.
As the most technologically sophisticated Nation in history, we have
huge advantages that derive from this expertise. We are also--and I
certainly see this as an asymmetrical advantage over the barbarism that
is al-Qaida--a nation of laws. Finally, our surveillance laws are going
to be modernized so we can continue to use our own technological
superiority to help prevent future attacks against our public and the
public of nations that have joined us in our fight to liquidate al-
Qaida.
This is what the President was always intent on doing. So he
initiated the terrorist surveillance program, and the administration
provided appropriate briefings to the chairs and ranking members of the
Senate and House Intelligence Committees and to the leaders of both
parties in both Chambers. When a new Member of Congress assumed one of
those positions, they were given a similar briefing.
Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee and numerous staff
conducted a full review of the terrorist surveillance program and found
no wrongdoing.
So why has it taken us so long to get here, and what is the concern
that has caused the delay; that the President listened to the
international communications of al-Qaida after 9/11? No President would
ever engage in this type of activity, except of course President
Woodrow Wilson, who authorized interceptions of communications between
Europe and the United States, and President Franklin Roosevelt, who in
1940 authorized interception of all communications into and out of the
United States.
I guess the fourth amendment and the media's outrage were more
flexible under Democratic Presidents. But let's leave these situations
aside and continue to focus on the program one of my Democratic
colleagues previously called ``one of the worst abuses of executive
power in our history.''
With all due respect to my colleague, if listening to the
international communications of al-Qaida is one of the biggest power
grabs in the country's history, then our Nation has lived a charmed
existence, worthy of envy throughout the world.
We should never forget the reasons for the creation of this program.
It is no accident that America has not been attacked since September
11. Is it more than luck? Did al-Qaida take a hiatus from terrorist
attacks? Given al-Qaida's numerous foreign attacks during this same
timeframe, I think the answer is clearly no. So something must be
working. Perhaps the terrorist surveillance program has played a role.
But what about warrantless wiretapping? That phrase certainly means
something illegal, right? Not really. As often as that phrase is
repeated, what does it really mean? Does warrantless wiretapping
automatically mean unconstitutional? That is certainly what we are led
to believe by the hand-wringing blatteroons of the day. But this is
simply not true.
The fourth amendment does not proscribe warrantless searches or
surveillance. It proscribes unreasonable searches or surveillance. For
example, let's look at a few of the numerous warrantless searches that
are performed every day: Waiting for warrantless searches at the U.S.
Border Inspection Station. Look at that mess.
Look at this: Waiting for warrantless searches at the U.S. Supreme
Court. It is done every day that the court is in session, and even when
it isn't sometimes. Waiting for warrantless searches at the National
Archives. In other words, waiting to be searched before viewing the
fourth amendment. This happens every day. I see that there are members
of the public in the gallery above. Every last one of them went through
a warrantless search just to get into this building.
So the question becomes whether a warrantless search or surveillance
of international communications involving al-Qaida is reasonable or, to
put it another way, whether signals intelligence against a declared
enemy of the United States is reasonable. In my opinion, and I think in
the opinion of the vast majority of our body, it certainly is.
Let's also look at what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
of Review, the highest court that has considered this issue, has said:

The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have
decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent
authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign
intelligence information. We take for granted that the
President does have that authority and, assuming that is so,
FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional
power.

That is out of in re: Sealed, case 310 F3d, 717, the FISA Court of
Review, 2002.

[[Page 13819]]

While the phrase ``warrantless wiretapping'' has been cited
incessantly, there is another phrase mentioned nearly as often, and
that is ``domestic spying.'' In order to better evaluate this phrase,
let's look at what the President said in a December 17, 2005, radio
address that described the TSP.

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our Nation,
I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with
U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international
communications of people with known links to al-Qaida and
related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these
communications, the government must have information that
establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

I don't see anything in that statement about domestic spying. I
thought the definition of the word ``domestic'' was pretty clear. If
the program intercepted communications in which at least one party was
overseas, not to mention a member of al-Qaida, then it seems fairly
obvious that those calls were--and I will emphasize this--not domestic.
Is this a domestic call? A foreign terrorist calling a terrorist
within the United States? I hardly think so. Is this really such a hard
concept? The last time I flew overseas, I didn't fly on a domestic
flight. I flew on an international flight. My last phone bill showed
there is a big difference between domestic calls and international
calls.
Domestic spying may sound catchy and mysterious, but it is a
completely inaccurate, even misleading, way to describe the TSP
terrorist surveillance program--or FISA modernization. Why don't we
describe them as international spying, which is what they really are?
Isn't that a more accurate description? But I imagine international
spying wouldn't raise the same level of fear and distrust in our
Government that some on the left try to foster.
So while I regret the political machination that has turned this
seemingly straightforward issue on its head, I am hopeful the time for
debate is finally over. Yet some have suggested Congress should not
pass a bill modernizing FISA. Even after such a prolonged period and
extensive debate on the issue, they would prefer that we do nothing.
We are now hearing about efforts to strike or amend the immunity
provisions in the compromise bill so that Members may express their
views.
Is this really necessary? Did the multiple times the Senate has
considered and rejected similar efforts mean nothing?
Look at this: The Senate has affirmed telecom civil liability
protection in six separate votes. On October 18, 2007, the Senate
Intelligence Committee rejects the amendment to strike the immunity
provisions 12 to 3. That was bipartisan, by the way. On November 15,
2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee rejects amendment to strike
immunity provisions 12 to 7. Again, bipartisan. On 12/13/07, the Senate
Judiciary Committee rejects stand-alone Government substitution bill 13
to 5. On January 24, 2008, the full Senate tables the Judiciary's
substitute, which does not include immunity, 60 to 36. On February 12,
2008, the full Senate rejects the amendment to substitute the
Government for telecoms 68 to 30. On February 12, 2008, the full Senate
rejects amendment to strike immunity provisions 67 to 31.
The last time I saw that and looked at those numbers, those were all
bipartisan votes. The civil liability provision in the Senate bill,
which has been tweaked in this compromise, is supported by a bipartisan
majority of the House and Senate, after all this hullabaloo.
In addition, let us not forget the opinions of the State attorneys
general who previously wrote to Congress to express their support for
civil liability protection.
Look at all the State attorneys general who endorse immunity. State
attorney general of Wisconsin, the attorney general of Rhode Island,
the attorney general of Oklahoma, the attorney general of Colorado, the
attorney general of Florida, the attorney general of Alabama, the
attorney general of Arkansas, the attorney general of Georgia, the
attorney general of Kansas, the attorney general of my beloved home
State of Utah, the attorney general of Texas, the attorney general of
New Hampshire, the attorney general of Virginia, the attorney general
of North Dakota, the attorney general of North Carolina, the attorney
general of South Carolina, the attorney general of Pennsylvania,
attorney general of South Dakota, attorney general of Nebraska, the
attorney general of West Virginia, the attorney general of Washington.
These are all legal officers, by the way, attorneys general of those
very States.
Another complaint that has been mentioned is that this bill does not
have adequate oversight. We have heard allegations that:

. . . the government can still sweep up and keep the
international communications of innocent Americans in the
U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very
few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power.

We have heard other allegations that this bill does not provide
adequate protections for innocent Americans. Make no mistake. The role
of the Federal judiciary into the realm of foreign intelligence
gathering is greatly expanded by this legislation.
So when we hear the incessant claims that this legislation lacks
meaningful review, I want people to be absolutely crystal clear on the
staggering amount of oversight in this bill.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created by the 1978
FISA law for solely one purpose: This is Title 50 of the U.S. Code
1803(a): ``a court which shall have jurisdiction to hear applications
for and grant orders approving electronic surveillance.''
Let's think about this. It is America in 1978. The Church Committee
has published information about known abuses by the Government
involving surveillance against American citizens. The public wanted
action. So what did the 95th Congress do?
Did it create a Court with the authority to review and approve the
intelligence community's foreign targeting techniques? No.
Did it create a Court with the ability to review and approve the
techniques used to minimize incidental interceptions involving
Americans? No.
Did it mandate the intelligence community to get a warrant when
targeting United States persons overseas? No.
But the 110th Congress will mandate each and every one of those
things by passing this bill.
For the first time, the FISC will review and approve targeting
procedures to ensure that authorized acquisitions are limited to
persons outside of the United States.
For the first time, the FISC will review and approve minimization
techniques.
For the first time, the FISC will ensure that the foreign targeting
procedures are consistent with the fourth amendment.
So given the staggering amount of oversight, there must be some
sweeping new surveillance authority that would necessitate these
changes, right? Wrong.
The ``broad new surveillance authority'' that we hear so much about
is directed at one thing: the Government can target foreign citizens
overseas after the FISC reviews and approves the targeting and
minimization procedures. In layman's terms: the Government can listen
to foreign citizens overseas to collect foreign intelligence
information. That doesn't sound like broad sweeping authority to me. In
fact, it is less authority than the Government had before.
Let me enumerate some of the many restrictions on this authority:
No. 1, the Government can't intentionally target any person known to
be in the U.S.
No. 2, the Government can't intentionally target a person outside the
U.S. if the purpose is to target a known person in the U.S.--reverse
targeting.
No. 3, the Government can't acquire domestic communications in the
U.S.
No. 4, the targeting has to be consistent with the fourth amendment
to the Constitution.
And there is more: the Attorney General and the Director of National
Intelligence have to develop and adopt

[[Page 13820]]

guidelines to ensure compliance with these limitations. These
guidelines must be submitted to Congressional Intelligence and
Judiciary Committees as well as the FISC.
The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall
assess compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures at
least every 6 months. This assessment must be submitted to the FISC,
and the Intelligence and Judiciary committees of both chambers of
Congress.
The Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and each element
of the intelligence community may review compliance with the targeting
and minimization procedures.
Finally, this bill authorizes a horde of inspectors general to
conduct a full review of certain communications surveillance
activities--a review that the Senate Intelligence Committee has already
conducted on a bipartisan basis and found nothing wrong. Vice Chairman
Bond and the other negotiators agreed to narrow the scope of this
review so that there would be minimal or no operational impact on our
intelligence analysts. It should come as no surprise that we want
intelligence analysts to focus on analysis, not spend limited time and
resources digging up documents for redundant IG reviews.
So for those who criticize this bill as lacking oversight, I wonder
if any level would be enough? I have no doubt that some would only be
satisfied by specific individual warrants for each and every foreign
terrorist overseas. This would complete the twisted logic that somehow
giving complete constitutional protections to foreign terrorists leads
to more protections for Americans. Do we really need to remind people
that foreign citizens outside of our country, particularly members of
terrorist organizations, enjoy no--none--no protections from our
Constitution?
Make no mistake about the power the FISA Court will possess in
foreign intelligence gathering following passage of this bill. If the
Court finds any deficiency in the certification submitted by the
Attorney General or Director of National Intelligence, then the FISC
can direct the Government to cease or not initiate the foreign
targeting. In other words--our collection would go dark. Fortunately,
the Government will be able to rightly begin acquisitions pending an
appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
This is surely an intimidating environment for our intelligence
analysts. Essentially, any accident or mistake will be highlighted to
Congress. Unforgiving is not the word. I wonder how many private
citizens would enjoy having policies at their jobs where any
inadvertent error would result in notification to and review by
Congress?
I will suggest that the amount of oversight in this bill should be
revisited in the future; not to increase it, but rather to mandate more
realistic and appropriate levels of review.
The multiple oversight initiatives in this legislation are not
fulfilled by magic. It takes a tremendous amount of time and resources
by the very analysts whose primary job is to track terrorists. As great
as our analysts are, they can't be two places at once. There are only
so many of them, and they don't have unlimited resources. It is worth
noting what Director of National Intelligence McConnell said to
Congress last September:

Prior to the Protect America Act, we were devoting
substantial expert resources towards preparing applications
that needed FISA Court approval. This was an intolerable
situation, as substantive experts, particularly IC subject
matter and language experts, were diverted from the job of
analyzing collection results and finding new leads.

The leaders of our intelligence community have to make wise choices
when allocating the time and expertise of analysts, and their hands
should not be unnecessarily tied by Congress. Analytic expertise on
target is a finite resource; a finite resource which the public must
understand is rendered against an enemy whose resources and
capabilities remain obscured to us, while its intent remains deadly.
But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the inclusion of these
onerous oversight provisions, which no previous Congress felt the need
to add. How many times have we heard claims that the Protect America
Act would permit the Government to spy on innocent American families
overseas on their vacations? Or innocent American soldiers overseas
serving our country? Or innocent students who are simply studying
abroad?
Painting this type of picture only feeds the delusions of those who
wear tin foil hats around their house and think that 9/11 was an inside
job.
Do we think so little of the fine men and women of our intelligence
community that we assume they would rather target college kids in
Europe than foreign terrorists bent on nihilistic violence?
The absurdity of these accusations cannot be understated and we
should not tolerate them. We should never forget that our intelligence
analysts are not political appointees. They serve regardless of which
President is in office, or which political party is represented. They
take an oath to defend the Constitution. And rather than respect and
trust their judgment and integrity, we layer oversight mechanisms that
treat them like 16-year-olds who just got their first job and have to
be birdwatched for fear they are stealing money from the cash register.
Now I agree there are some instances in which we may want to target
individuals studying abroad. I am not necessarily talking about
institutions of higher learning like the Sorbonne, but rather terrorist
training camps spread through some hostile regions of foreign
countries. These are the type of schools that our intelligence
community is interested in. When it comes to these students, I want to
know what they are up to.
Here is a good illustration: Supposed ``Graduation'' of Taliban
Members on June 9, 2007. I want to know what they are about.
After addressing some of the critiques of this bill by others, let me
offer one of my own. This bill calls for prior court review and
approval of certifications presented to the FISC before foreign
intelligence collection can begin. As I have consistently stated
throughout these FISA modernization discussions, I believe this
principle is unjustified and unwise.
The idea that the executive branch of the Government needs the
explicit approval of the judiciary branch before collecting foreign
intelligence information from foreign citizens in foreign countries is
simply wrongheaded and is contrary to our Constitutional principles. I
don't care if the President represents the Democratic party, Republican
party, Green party, Independent party, or Whig party; he shouldn't need
permission to track foreign terrorists.
With that said, I am encouraged that the bill includes a provision
which would allow collection before court review of procedures if
``exigent circumstances'' exist. Even with this provision, I am
troubled that one of my Democratic colleagues in the House made the
following statement last week about this provision:

This is intended to be used rarely, if at all, and was
included upon assurances from the administration that agrees
that it shall not be used routinely.

This begs the question, is tracking terrorists not an ``exigent
circumstance''? I urge the executive branch to utilize this provision
appropriately and as often as necessary following the informed judgment
of those with the appropriate acumen to make such decisions. The phrase
``intelligence . . . may be lost'' means what it says: if the executive
branch determines that we may lose intelligence while waiting for the
Court to issue an order, then the Intelligence Community should do what
our Nation expects: it should act and act quickly. The executive branch
should not hesitate to utilize this authority because of fear of
reprisal from those who may seek to advance political agendas--which we
have seen plenty of, and some on this floor today.
Finally, I want to highlight the extensive efforts of the negotiators
of this bill in both chambers. I especially want to express my
appreciation and gratitude to my friend and colleague Kit Bond, the
dedicated vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, who

[[Page 13821]]

adeptly navigated and managed the tense and tedious negotiations to
bring about the opportunity for passage of this historic legislation,
the most extensive rewrite of foreign intelligence surveillance laws in
30 years.
As you can tell from the tone of my remarks, I am less than pleased
at some of the compromises made in these negotiations. I don't like the
expansion of the judiciary branch into what I believe are activities
rightly under the executive's prerogative. But I came to the Senate to
achieve improvements for the American people, not to be an ideologue.
My entire career as a legislator has been in recognition that
compromise gets more done for the public than obstruction. The people
of Utah didn't send me to the Senate to obstruct business, but to get
business done. Nowhere is this more important than on matters where the
Congress is enjoined by our citizens to improve the national security.
I am a pragmatist, and I am a realist. Part of being a realist, these
days, is to recognize that there is a disturbing backlash against the
national security policies of this administration. Fueled by
dissatisfaction over mistakes in Iraq, over frustration that the fight
there and in Afghanistan continues into its seventh year, and that Al
Qaeda remains a credible and deadly threat, many people in the majority
party have gone beyond criticism to denunciation, to condemnation and
obstruction. I am hoping that the general election before us will
provide the opportunity for a truly grand debate on what we consider
are threats, and how we believe we must continue to address them. But
so far the debate has not been joined, and the rhetoric is becoming
more poisonous. I have come to this floor and expressed my own
criticisms of this administration, but I have never had reason to
condemn them as operating in bad faith when it came to defending this
Nation.
I know this President. The President is a wonderfully good man. He
has done everything in his power to try to protect us. He is an honest
man. He has had untoward criticism from the media day in and day out.
He has been deliberately maligned by people who should know better.
Yes, this administration has made mistakes, but they have not been
made intentionally. It is pathetic the way the media and many have
treated this President. I think we have got to go back to where we
respect our President and we show some degree of tolerance for the
tough job that being President is.
It is regrettable for me that the rhetoric around the terrorism
surveillance program has devolved too often into fire but no light. So
while I am concerned about some of the compromises made in this bill, I
am grateful for all of the work done to bring it to a vote this week.
We have to have this bill to protect the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this monumental and historic
legislation. Our country continues to be both the envy of the world and
the target of those who seek to advance their warped, violent ideology.
We know the threats are out there. We do not have to live our lives in
fear, but we should acknowledge that the world changed on September 11
and we must remain vigilant.
Let's ensure that all of the dedicated and noble professionals who
play a part in ensuring our liberty and safety are not hampered by
partisan problems that we have the ability and responsibility to
correct.
The legislation before us makes an important and admirable attempt to
do just that. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and
support final passage. It is overdue. It has been delayed too long. We
have been playing around with this far too long. There have been so
many unjust criticisms, I am sick of them, to be honest with you. It is
almost as though politics has to rear its ugly head every time we turn
around here. A lot of it is driven by the fact that people resent the
President of the United States. They do so unjustly, without proper
sense, in ways that are detrimental to our country and future
presidencies that will come into office. This President has had very
difficult problems to handle.
I believe I am the longest serving person on the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence. I have been around a long time. I have seen
a lot of things. I have tried to help prior Presidents as I have played
a role on the Intelligence Committee. I have done so, I believe,
without resorting to partisan attacks. We have had too many partisan
attacks around here, and I think too many vicious attacks against the
President and, I might add, against these unnamed, highly classified
unknown, except by those in the intelligence community, telecom
companies that patriotically helped our country to protect us, that
have gone through untold expense, the deprivation and harm caused by
the zealousness of those who believe that only they can protect the
civil liberties of this country, when, in fact, that is what the
telecom companies were cooperating to do.
I thank all of the Intelligence Committee staffers who have played
such a big role in helping this bill to come to the floor. We have a
very dedicated staff on the Intelligence Committee. I have to say that
in this current Intelligence Committee I have seen more partisanship
than I have seen in the past. But, by and large, when we passed the
original bill out of the committee, it was passed 13 to 2, and we
worked together in a very good way on that committee.
So I thank those staffers who worked so hard to try and help us all
resolve this set of difficulties. I hope everybody in the Senate will
vote for this bill and send it out with resounding victory.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, soon the Senate will take up the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act. It, of course, is known as FISA. FISA
may not be a household word to most Americans, but a properly written
FISA reauthorization is exceptionally important to the well-being of
our country and it needs to meet a simple test: It must allow our
country to fight terrorism ferociously and still protect our individual
liberty.
I do not know how many Senators have traveled to the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue to personally read the legal opinions from the
Department of Justice on the warrantless wiretapping program that is at
the center of this debate. Someday these opinions are going to become
public. Someday the American people will see how flimsy the legal
reasoning is behind warrantless wiretapping. Someday the American
people will see the damage that is done to our Nation when the
executive branch tries to rewrite important national security law in
secret.
The warrantless wiretapping program is not the first of this
administration's counterterrorism programs that is built on legal
quicksand. We have seen the coercive interrogation program, and the
detention program at Guantanamo. Again and again on these vital
counterterrorism programs, the administration has overreached, it has
fallen short, and then it has come to the Congress and asked that the
Congress clean up these legal messes. I am especially troubled by the
provisions in this reauthorization of the FISA bill that grant blanket
retroactive immunity to any telecommunications company that
participated in the warrantless wiretapping program. I want to spend a
few minutes to unpack this issue and discuss why I think it is such a
significant mistake to reauthorize the program in this fashion and to
have what amounts to a blanket amnesty provision for those who may have
been involved in illegal activity.
Many have argued that companies that were asked to participate in the
warrantless wiretapping program should be treated leniently since they
acted during a state of national panic and confusion. I have given this
argument a lot of thought and, frankly, I think there is a valid
rationale behind that thinking if you are talking about a short period
of time. But that is not what is being discussed here. The warrantless
wiretapping program did not last for a few weeks or a few months as
America worried about the

[[Page 13822]]

prospect of another attack. It went on for nearly 6 years. At some
point during that nearly 6-year period, any company participating in
the program had an obligation to stop and to consider whether what they
were doing was legal.
Others have suggested that if you do not give amnesty to the
companies now, it is going to be impossible to get cooperation from
other companies in the future in the fight against terrorism. I do not
buy that argument. Our country is full of patriotic citizens and
businesses that are eager to do their part and to serve their Nation. I
will say, I think it is insulting to suggest that American businessmen
and women will be less patriotic if the Congress does not grant amnesty
to the phone companies. People of this country love our Nation, and I
believe they step up, they come forward whenever they can.
I hope, however, that they are not going to say: Well, okay, when the
Government breaks the law we will automatically step forward in those
instances. When American businesses are asked to participate in a
program that looks as if it could be illegal, we all say, that is the
time to hold on. I think it is important, particularly for our major
businesses, to follow the law and not just the words of the President.
I am disappointed that this legislation includes this amnesty
provision. I hope as colleagues continue to examine the bill, they
understand what is at issue.
If the legislation passes, the Attorney General will be able to stop
any of the lawsuits against the companies dead in their tracks. All the
Attorney General will have to do is tell the judges considering these
cases that any corporation that participated in the program was told by
the Government that what they were doing was legal. They will not have
to actually prove it was legal, they will not have to provide any
evidence, they will not have to cite any statutes, they will not have
to make any legal arguments whatsoever.
In my view, this amounts to self-certification. Self-certification
runs counter to the whole idea of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act in the first place. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is
based on the notion that the way to keep classified intelligence
activities from intruding on Americans' privacy is to make sure there
is a significant measure of independent judicial oversight. The judges
in this situation will be allowed to examine as many documents as they
like. But, in this instance, they will not actually be allowed to
exercise independent judgment at all. As long as they see a piece of
paper, a piece of paper that gets held up from a few years ago, a
Presidential permission slip, if you will, that claims the program is
legal, they will be required to grant immunity to the phone companies.
Even the distinguished leader in the House, the minority whip, has
acknowledged that this would be a mere ``formality.''
The concept of independent oversight that is so central to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and that has worked so well in
practice simply, in my view, should not be transformed into an approach
that effectively permits the administration to self-certify with
respect to these particular cases.
I want to be clear that I cannot begin to divine how various matters
in litigation will come out. In addition to the constitutional issues
that are at stake, there is a number of contentious matters regarding
standing, injury, a host of very difficult legal problems involved. I
think the judges in these cases will need to consider all of the issues
if the cases go forward. That is what makes the judicial process in the
original statute so important. It is independent. They look at all of
the factors that are relevant. But I will say that I did not think the
Congress or I should substitute our judgment for the judgment of the
courts, and that is, in effect, what happens if the legislation goes
forward as written and blanket immunity is granted to every company
that participated in the program.
It saddens me to have to oppose the legislation as written. I do so
knowing that the bill contains a number of very important provisions
and, with respect to individual liberty and the rights of our people,
contains some significant steps forward. I am especially grateful to
Senators Rockefeller and Bond for working very closely with me to
ensure that Americans who travel overseas don't lose their rights when
they leave America's shores. That is the status today, regrettably. In
this area, Senators Rockefeller, Bond, myself, Whitehouse, Feingold, a
number of us who serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
worked in a constructive, good-faith way with the Bush administration.
In this legislation, we have put into law that in the digital age, your
rights are going to travel with you. You don't lose your rights. If you
are a serviceman from the State of Missouri or a businessperson from
another part of the country, you won't lose your rights when you leave
American soil. That is as it should be. It is a significant expansion
of the individual liberties of our citizens. They should not give up
their rights when they travel. They ought to have rights that do travel
in a world with modern communications and modern transportation. That
provision is part of this reauthorization.
However, I feel so strongly about the ill-advised nature of the
provisions that provide for blanket amnesty that I must oppose this
bill as written. I think when history looks back at what happened, the
warrantless wiretapping program, they are going to say that this
program, along with several other flawed counterterrorism programs that
have come from this administration, was a mistake. We should not
compound those mistakes by reauthorizing this legislation that contains
a blanket grant of immunity at a time when Americans understand that it
is possible to fight terrorism relentlessly, fight terrorism
ferociously without trashing our rights and liberties simultaneously.
We can do better. The Senate will have an opportunity to do better. A
number of colleagues are going to be advocating proposals to strip the
legislation of the amnesty provision. I hope those provisions will be
successful.
I would like to pass this bill when we have an opportunity to strike
a better balance between fighting terrorism aggressively and protecting
the liberties of our citizens.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, before our colleague leaves the Chamber, I
commend him for his statement. I had a chance to listen to part of it
before coming to the floor of the Senate. This is a long-held view of
my colleague when it comes to civil liberties and the rule of law. I
commend him for remaining consistent in that insistence. He is
absolutely correct that this is not a choice between security or
liberty. In fact, I argue, as he has, that when we begin to retreat on
the rule of law, we become less secure as a people. We have learned
that lesson painfully throughout history. This is the time for us to be
vigilant, both in terms of our security and also when it comes to our
rights. This is an issue that ought not divide people based on our
determination to deal with terrorism or those who wish to do great harm
to our country but to recognize that historically, when we have been
motivated by fear and have failed to stand up for basic rights, we have
made horrendous mistakes. When we have stood up for our rights as well
as insisting on our security, we have done our job as a generation, as
previous ones have as well.
This is one of those moments history will look back upon. Why did we
say that 17 phone companies that relied on a letter and not much more
than that decided for over 5 years to invade the privacy of millions of
Americans and would still be doing it today but for a whistleblower who
revealed the program? Why did they not seek the FISA Court, as 18,748
other cases that been submitted and only 5 examples when they were
turned down seeking a warrant since 1978? Why in this case did the Bush
administration decide to avoid that normal process and go with a simple
letter, without any legal justification I can determine, and get that
kind of reaction? Why should we not

[[Page 13823]]

know that? Why should not the American people know that? What happened
here?
That is what the Senator is insisting upon. We will not know the
answers to those questions if we, as a legislative body, by a simple
vote here, declare that the courts have no business examining the
legality of this action. We will avoid that responsibility by casting a
vote to keep this immunity process in place. I will be joining him. In
fact, I will be offering the amendment to strike the immunity
provisions, to do our job when it comes to dealing with FISA, to
modernizing it, but not to grant immunity to 17 phone companies.
Quest, to their great credit, when they were given that letter, said:
We need more legal justification. They did not engage in this program.
Not all phone companies did. But the ones that did bear the
responsibility to determine whether what they did was legal. We will
never know the answer to that if the Senator from Oregon and I do not
prevail on our amendment.
I commend him immensely for his statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair.
Madam President, the Senate today--hopefully, tomorrow--returns to
debating the matter of modernizing FISA and, more specifically, the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008. After many
months of careful and often very difficult negotiations, we bring to
the Senate an agreement that many believed could actually never be
achieved, that is bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting the
Nation's security and civil liberties, supported by the House, by the
Senate, as well as both the Attorney General and the Director of
National Intelligence.
The bill before us reflects the fact that FISA, as it was created in
1978, has increasingly become outdated and hindered our Nation's
ability to collect intelligence on foreign targets in a timely manner.
It is the direct result of changing technologies, advances in
technology, in telecommunications, and the need to evolve and meet
today's threat facing our Nation; namely, global terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The fact is, as telecommunications technology has changed,
intelligence agencies have been presented with collection opportunities
inside the United States against targets overseas. Yet, because of the
way FISA was written in 1978, they could not take full advantage of
these new opportunities.
Finding a solution to this problem has not been easy. It was made
more complicated by the President's decision, in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001, disaster, to go completely outside of the FISA
rather than work with Congress to fix the situation. That decision was
complicated even further by the fact that the President put
telecommunication companies in a precarious position by not giving them
the legal security of the FISA Court, even when they were told their
efforts were legal and necessary to prevent another terrorist attack.
Early last year, at the start of our tenure as the new chairman and
vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Bond and I
agreed that our top priority was going to be to modernize FISA. It had
to be our top priority for the year. Even then, I don't think we
understood how complex and difficult this endeavor would be or even
just how important it would be to our intelligence efforts and to the
war against terrorism. It is a monumental bill, and it redoes, for the
first time in 30 years, proper handling of collection, which is why I
am so pleased to stand before you today and say that we have succeeded.
The laborious process of consultation with Members of both bodies and
both parties and legal and intelligence officials in the executive
branch has worked. We have produced a strong, smart policy that will
meet the needs of our intelligence community and protect America's
cherished civil liberties.
For procedural reasons, the bill now before the Senate is a new bill
which passed the House on Friday by a vote of 293 to 129. You can run
that out to a 70-percent vote. While formally a new bill, it is the
product of compromise between the FISA bills developed, debated, and
amended in both Houses in the course of the past year.
In the absence of a formal conference, there is no conference report
that describes this final bill. To help fill that void, I have
prepared, as manager of the bill, a section-by-section analysis which
builds on the analysis in our earlier Senate report and includes the
changes that have followed. I hope it will be of assistance to the
Senate in consideration of this final legislation as well as to the
public and all those who will have responsibility to implement the
bill.
Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the summary of the bill's legislative history and a description of its
four titles.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

H.R. 6304, FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

Section-by-Section Analysis and Explanation

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the Select Committee on
Intelligence

The consideration of legislation to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (``FISA'') in the 110th
Congress began with submission by the Director of National
Intelligence (``DNI'') on April 12, 2007 of a proposed
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Modernization Act of 2007,
as Title IV of the Administration's proposed Intelligence
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The DNI's proposal
was the subject of an open hearing on May 1, 2007 and
subsequent closed hearings by the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, but was not formally introduced. It is
available on the Committee's website: http://
intelligence.senate.gov/070501/bill.pdf. In the Senate, the
original legislative vehicle for the consideration of FISA
amendments in the 110th Congress was S. 2248. It was reported
by the Select Committee on Intelligence on October 26, 2007
(S. Rep. No. 110-209 (2007)), and then sequentially reported
by the Committee on the Judiciary on November 16, 2007 (S.
Rep. No. 110-258 (2008)). In the House, the original
legislative vehicle was H.R. 3773. It was reported by the
Committee on the Judiciary and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence on October 12, 2007 (H. Rep. No. 110-373
(Parts 1 and 2)(2007)). H.R. 3773 passed the House on
November 15, 2007. S. 2248 passed the Senate on February 12,
2008, and was sent to the House as an amendment to H.R. 3773.
On March 14, 2008, the House returned H.R. 3773 to the Senate
with an amendment.
No formal conference was convened to resolve the
differences between the two Houses on H.R. 3773. Instead,
following an agreement reached without a formal conference,
the House passed a new bill, H.R. 6304, which contains a
complete compromise of the differences on H.R. 3773.
H.R. 6304 is a direct descendant of H.R. 3773, as well as
of the original Senate bill, S. 2248, and the legislative
history of those measures constitutes the legislative history
of H.R. 6304. The section-by-section analysis and explanation
set forth below is based on the analysis and explanation in
the report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on S.
2248, at S. Rep. No. 110-209, pp. 12-25, as expanded and
edited to reflect the floor amendments to S. 2248 and the
negotiations that produced H.R. 6304.

Overall Organization of Act

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (``FISA Amendments Act'')
contains four titles.
Title I includes, in section 101, a new Title VII of FISA
entitled ``Additional Procedures Regarding Certain Persons
Outside the United States.'' This new title of FISA (which
will sunset in four and a half years) is a successor to the
Protect America Act of 2007, Pub. L. 110-55 (August 5, 2007)
(``Protect America Act''), with amendments. Sections 102
through 110 of the Act contain a number of amendments to FISA
apart from the collection issues addressed in the new Title
VII of FISA. These include a provision reaffirming and
strengthening the requirement that FISA is the exclusive
means for electronic surveillance, important streamlining
provisions, and a change in the definitions section of FISA
(in section 110 of the bill) to facilitate foreign
intelligence collection against proliferators of weapons of
mass destruction.
Title II establishes a new Title VIII of FISA which is
entitled ``Protection of Persons Assisting the Government.''
This new title establishes a long-term procedure, in new FISA
section 802, for the Government to implement statutory
defenses and obtain the dismissal of civil cases against
persons, principally electronic communication service
providers, who assist elements of the intelligence community
in accordance with defined legal documents, namely, orders of
the FISA Court or certifications or directives provided for
and defined by statute. Section 802 also incorporates a
procedure with precise boundaries for liability relief for
electronic communication service providers who

[[Page 13824]]

are defendants in civil cases involving an intelligence
activity authorized by the President between September 11,
2001, and January 17, 2007. In addition, Title II provides
for the protection, by way of preemption, of the federal
government's ability to conduct intelligence activities
without interference by state investigations.
Title III directs the Inspectors General of the Department
of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Office of National
Intelligence, the National Security Agency, and any other
element of the intelligence community that participated in
the President's Surveillance Program authorized by the
President between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007,
to conduct a comprehensive review of the program. The
Inspectors General are required to submit a report to the
appropriate committees of Congress, within one year, that
addresses, among other things, all of the facts necessary to
describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use
of the product of the President's Surveillance Program,
including the participation of individuals and entities in
the private sector related to the program.
Title IV contains important procedures for the transition
from the Protect America Act to the new Title VII of FISA.
Section 404(a)(7) directs the Attorney General and the DNI,
if they seek to replace an authorization under the Protect
America Act, to submit the certification and procedures
required in accordance with the new section 702 to the FISA
Court at least 30 days before the expiration of such
authorizations, to the extent practicable. Title IV
explicitly provides for the continued effect of orders,
authorizations, and directives issued under the Protect
America Act, and of the provisions pertaining to protection
from liability, FISA court jurisdiction, the use of
information acquired and Executive Branch reporting
requirements, past the statutory sunset of that act. Title IV
also contains provisions on the continuation of
authorizations, directives, and orders under Title VII that
are in effect at the time of the December 31, 2012 sunset,
until their expiration within the year following the sunset.

Title I. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Section 101. Targeting the Communications of Persons Outside
the United States
Section 101(a) of the FISA Amendments Act establishes a new
Title VII of FISA. Entitled ``Additional Procedures Regarding
Certain Persons Outside the United States,'' the new title
includes, with important modifications, an authority similar
to that granted by the Protect America Act as temporary
sections 105A, 105B, and 105C of FISA. Those Protect America
Act provisions had been placed within FISA's Title I on
electronic surveillance. Moving the amended authority to a
title of its own is appropriate because the authority
involves not only the acquisition of communications as they
are being carried but also while they are stored by
electronic communication service providers.
Section 701. Definitions
Section 701 incorporates into Title VII the definition of
nine terms that are defined in Title I of FISA and used in
Title VII: ``agent of a foreign power,'' ``Attorney
General,'' ``contents,'' ``electronic surveillance,''
``foreign intelligence information,'' ``foreign power,''
``person,'' ``United States,'' and ``United States person.''
It defines the congressional intelligence committees for the
purposes of Title VII. Section 701 defines the two courts
established in Title I that are assigned responsibilities
under Title VII: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(``FISA Court'') and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court of Review. Section 701 also defines ``intelligence
community'' as found in the National Security Act of 1947.
Finally, section 701 defines a term, not previously defined
in FISA, which has an important role in setting the
parameters of Title VII: ``electronic communication service
provider.'' This definition is connected to the objective
that the acquisition of foreign intelligence pursuant to this
title is meant to encompass the acquisition of stored
electronic communications and related data.
Section 702. Procedures for Targeting Certain Persons Outside
the United States Other than United States Persons
Section 702(a) sets forth the basic authorization in Title
VII, replacing section 105B of FISA, as added by the Protect
America Act. Unlike the Protect America Act, the collection
authority in section 702(a) is to be conducted pursuant to
the issuance of an order of the FISA Court, or pursuant to a
determination of the Attorney General and the DNI, acting
jointly, that exigent circumstances exist, as defined in
section 702(c)(2), subject to subsequent and expeditious
action by the FISA Court. Authorizations must contain an
effective date, and may be valid for a period of up to one
year from that date.
Subsequent provisions of the Act implement the prior order
and effective date provisions of section 702(a): in addition
to section 702(c)(2) which defines exigent circumstances,
section 702(i)(1)(B) provides that the court shall complete
its review of certifications and procedures within 30 days
(unless extended under section 702(j)(2)); section
702(i)(5)(A) provides for the submission of certifications
and procedures to the FISA Court at least 30 days before the
expiration of authorizations that are being replaced, to the
extent practicable; and section 702(i)(5)(B) provides for the
continued effectiveness of expiring certifications and
procedures until the court issues an order concerning their
replacements.
Section 105B and section 702(a) differ in other important
respects. Section 105B authorized the acquisition of foreign
intelligence information ``concerning'' persons reasonably
believed to be outside the United States. To make clear that
all collection under Title VII must be targeted at persons
who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States,
section 702(a) eliminates the word ``concerning'' and instead
authorizes ``the targeting of persons reasonably believed to
be located outside the United States to collect foreign
intelligence information.''
Section 702(b) establishes five related limitations on the
authorization in section 702(a). Overall, the limitations
ensure that the new authority is not used for surveillance
directed at persons within the United States or at United
States persons. The first is a specific prohibition on using
the new authority to target intentionally any person within
the United States. The second provides that the authority may
not be used to conduct ``reverse targeting,'' the intentional
targeting of a person reasonably believed to be outside the
United States if the purpose of the acquisition is to target
a person reasonably believed to be in the United States. If
the purpose of the acquisition is to target a person
reasonably believed to be in the United States, the
acquisition must be conducted in accordance with other titles
of FISA. The third bars the intentional targeting of a United
States person reasonably believed to be outside the United
States. In order to target such United States person,
acquisition must be conducted under three subsequent sections
of Title VII, which require individual FISA court orders for
United States persons: sections 703, 704, and 705. The fourth
limitation goes beyond targeting (the object of the first
three limitations) and prohibits the intentional acquisition
of any communication as to which the sender and all intended
recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be
located in the United States. The fifth is an overarching
mandate that an acquisition authorized in section 702(a)
shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides for ``the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures.''
Section 702(c) governs the conduct of acquisitions.
Pursuant to section 702(c)(1), acquisitions authorized under
section 702(a) may be conducted only in accordance with
targeting and minimization procedures approved at least
annually by the FISA Court and a certification of the
Attorney General and the DNI, upon its submission in
accordance with section 702(g). Section 702(c)(2) describes
the ``exigent circumstances'' in which the Attorney General
and Director of National Intelligence may authorize targeting
for a limited time without a prior court order for purposes
of subsection (a). Section 702(c)(2) provides that the
Attorney General and the DNI may make a determination that
exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate
implementation of an authorization under section 702(a),
intelligence important to the national security of the United
States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not
permit the issuance of an order pursuant to section 702(i)(3)
prior to the implementation of such authorization. Section
702(c)(3) provides that the Attorney General and the DNI may
make such a determination before the submission of a
certification or by amending a certification at any time
during which judicial review of such certification is pending
before the FISA Court.
Section 702(c)(4) addresses the concern, reflected in
section 105A of FISA as added by the Protect America Act,
that the definition of electronic surveillance in Title I
might prevent use of the new procedures. To address this
concern, section 105A redefined the term ``electronic
surveillance'' to exclude ``surveillance directed at a person
reasonably believed to be located outside of the United
States.'' This redefinition, however, broadly exempted
activities from the limitations of FISA's individual order
requirements. In contrast, section 702(c)(4) does not change
the definition of electronic surveillance, but clarifies the
intent of Congress to allow the targeting of foreign targets
outside the United States in accordance with section 702
without an application for a court order under Title I of
FISA. The addition of this construction paragraph, as well as
the language in section 702(a) that an authorization may
occur ``notwithstanding any other law,'' makes clear that
nothing in Title I of FISA shall be construed to require a
court order under that title for an acquisition that is
targeted in accordance with section 702 at a foreign person
outside the United States.
Section 702(d) provides, in a manner essentially identical
to the Protect America Act, for the adoption by the Attorney
General, in consultation with the DNI, of targeting
procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that
collection is limited to targeting

[[Page 13825]]

persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.
As provided in the Protect America Act, the targeting
procedures are subject to judicial review and approval. In
addition to the requirements of the Protect America Act,
however, section 702(d) provides that the targeting
procedures also must be reasonably designed to prevent the
intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the
sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of
the acquisition to be located in the United States. Section
702(d)(2) subjects these targeting procedures to judicial
review and approval.
Section 702(e) provides that the Attorney General, in
consultation with the DNI, shall adopt, for acquisitions
authorized by section 702(a), minimization procedures that
are consistent with section 101(h) or 301(4) of FISA, which
establish FISA's minimization requirements for electronic
surveillance and physical searches. Section 702(e)(2)
provides that the minimization procedures, which are
essential to the protection of United States citizens and
permanent residents, shall be subject to judicial review and
approval. This corrects an omission in the Protect America
Act which had not provided for judicial review of the
adherence of minimization procedures to statutory
requirements.
Section 702(f) provides that the Attorney General, in
consultation with the DNI, shall adopt guidelines to ensure
compliance with the limitations in section 702(b), including
the prohibitions on the acquisition of purely domestic
communications, on targeting persons within the United
States, on targeting United States persons located outside
the United States, and on reverse targeting. Such guidelines
shall also ensure that an application for a court order is
filed as required by FISA. It is intended that these
guidelines will be used for training intelligence community
personnel so that there are clear requirements and procedures
governing the appropriate implementation of the authority
under this title of FISA. The Attorney General is to provide
these guidelines to the congressional intelligence
committees, the judiciary committees of the House of
Representatives and the Senate, and the FISA Court.
Subsequent provisions implement the guidelines requirement.
See section 702(g)(2)(A)(iii)(certification requirements);
section 702(l)(1) and 702(l)(2) (assessment of compliance
with guidelines); and section 707(b)(1)(G)(ii) (reporting on
noncompliance with guidelines).
Section 702(g) requires that the Attorney General and the
DNI provide to the FISA Court, prior to implementation of an
authorization under subsection (a), a written certification,
with any supporting affidavits. In exigent circumstances, the
Attorney General and DNI may make a determination that,
without immediate implementation, intelligence important to
the national security will be lost or not timely acquired
prior to the implementation of an authorization. In exigent
circumstances, if time does not permit the submission of a
certification prior to the implementation of an
authorization, the certification must be submitted to the
FISA Court no later than seven days after the determination
is made. This seven-day time period for submission of a
certification in the case of exigent circumstances is
identical to the time period by which the Attorney General
must apply for a court order after authorizing an emergency
surveillance under other provisions of FISA, as amended by
this Act.
Section 702(g)(2) sets forth the requirements that must be
contained in the written certification. These elements
include: that the targeting and minimization procedures have
been approved by the FISA Court or will be submitted to the
court with the certification; that guidelines have been
adopted to ensure compliance with the limitations of
subsection (b) have been adopted; that those procedures and
guidelines are consistent with the Fourth Amendment; that the
acquisition is targeted at persons reasonably believed to be
outside the United States; that a significant purpose of the
acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
and an effective date for the authorization that in most
cases is at least 30 days after the submission of the written
certification. Additionally, as an overall limitation on the
method of acquisition. permitted under section 702, the
certification must attest that the acquisition involves
obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the
assistance of an electronic communication service provider.
Requiring an effective date in the certification serves to
identify the beginning of the period of authorization (which
is likely to be a year) for collection and to alert the FISA
Court of when the Attorney General and DNI are seeking to
begin collection. Section 702(g)(3) permits the Attorney
General and DNI to change the effective date in the
certification by amending the certification.
As with the Protect America Act, the certification under
section 702(g)(4) is not required to identify the specific
facilities, places, premises, or property at which the
acquisition under section 702(a) will be directed or
conducted. The certification shall be subject to review by
the FISA Court.
Section 702(h) authorizes the Attorney General and the DNI
to direct, in writing, an electronic communication service
provider to furnish the Government with all information,
facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the
acquisition authorized under subsection 702(a). It requires
compensation for this assistance and provides that no cause
of action shall lie in any court against an electronic
communication service provider for its assistance in
accordance with a directive. Section 702(h) also establishes
expedited procedures in the FISA Court for a provider to
challenge the legality of a directive or the Government to
enforce it. In either case, the question for the court is
whether the directive meets the requirements of section 702
and is otherwise lawful. Whether the proceeding begins as a
provider challenge or a Government enforcement petition, if
the court upholds the directive as issued or modified, the
court shall order the provider to comply. Failure to comply
may be punished as a contempt of court. The proceedings shall
be expedited and decided within 30 days, unless that time is
extended under section 702(j)(2).
Section 702(i) provides for judicial review of any
certification required by section 702(g) and the targeting
and minimization procedures adopted pursuant to sections
702(d) and 702(e). In accordance with section 702(i)(5), if
the Attorney General and the DNI seek to reauthorize or
replace an authorization in effect under the Act, they shall
submit, to the extent practicable, the certification and
procedures at least 30 days prior to the expiration of such
authorization.
The court shall review certifications to determine whether
they contain all the required elements. It shall review
targeting procedures to assess whether they are reasonably
designed to ensure that the acquisition activity is limited
to the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States and prevent the intentional
acquisition of any communication whose sender and intended
recipients are known to be located in the United States. The
Protect America Act had limited the review of targeting
procedures to a ``clearly erroneous'' standard; section
702(i) omits that limitation. For minimization procedures,
section 702(i) provides that the court shall review them to
assess whether they meet the statutory requirements. The
court is to review the certifications and procedures and
issue its order within 30 days after they were submitted
unless that time is extended under section 702(j)(2). The
Attorney General and the DNI may also amend the certification
or procedures at any time under section 702(i)(1)(C), but
those amended certifications or procedures must be submitted
to the court in no more than 7 days after amendment. The
amended procedures may be used pending the court's review.
If the FISA Court finds that the certification contains all
the required elements and that the targeting and minimization
procedures are consistent with the requirements of
subsections (d) and (e) and with the Fourth Amendment, the
court shall enter an order approving their use or continued
use for the acquisition authorized by section 702(a). If it
does not so find, the court shall order the Government, at
its election, to correct any deficiencies or cease, or not
begin, the acquisition. If acquisitions have begun, they may
continue during any rehearing en banc of an order requiring
the correction of deficiencies. If the Government appeals to
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, any
collection that has begun may continue at least until that
court enters an order, not later than 60 days after filing of
the petition for review, which determines whether all or any
part of the correction order shall be implemented during the
appeal
Section 702(j)(1) provides that judicial proceedings are to
be conducted as expeditiously as possible. Section 702(j)(2)
provides that the time limits for judicial review in section
702 (for judicial review of certifications and procedures or
in challenges or enforcement proceedings concerning
directives) shall apply unless extended, by written order, as
necessary for good cause in a manner consistent with national
security.
Section 702(k) requires that records of proceedings under
section 702 shall be maintained by the FISA Court under
security measures adopted by the Chief Justice in
consultation with the Attorney General and the DNI. In
addition, all petitions are to be filed under seal and the
FISA Court, upon the request of the Government, shall
consider ex parte and in camera any Government submission or
portions of a submission that may include classified
information. The Attorney General and the DNI are to retain
directives made or orders granted for not less than 10 years.
Section 702(l) provides for oversight of the implementation
of Title VII. It has three parts. First, the Attorney General
and the DNI shall assess semiannually under subsection (l)(1)
compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures,
and the Attorney General guidelines for compliance with
limitations under section 702(b), and submit the assessment
to the FISA Court and to the congressional intelligence and
judiciary committees, consistent with congressional rules.
Second, under subsection (l)(2)(A), the Inspector General
of the Department of Justice and the inspector general
(``IG'') of any intelligence community element authorized to

[[Page 13826]]

acquire foreign intelligence under section 702(a) are
authorized to review compliance of their agency or element
with the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in
accordance with subsections (d) and (e) and the guidelines
adopted in accordance with subsection (f). Subsections
(l)(2)(B) and (l)(2)(C) mandate several statistics that the
IGs shall review with respect to United States persons,
including the number of disseminated intelligence reports
that contain references to particular U.S. persons, the
number of U.S. persons whose identities were disseminated in
response to particular requests, and the number of targets
later determined to be located in the United States. Their
reports shall be submitted to the Attorney General, the DNI,
and the appropriate congressional committees. Section
702(l)(2) provides no statutory schedule for the completion
of these IG reviews; the IGs should coordinate with the heads
of their agencies about the timing for completion of the IG
reviews so that they are done at a time that would be useful
for the agency heads to complete their semiannual reviews.
Third, under subsection (l)(3), the head of an intelligence
community element that conducts an acquisition under section
702 shall review annually whether there is reason to believe
that foreign intelligence information has been or will be
obtained from the acquisition and provide an accounting of
information pertaining to United States persons similar to
that included in the IG report. Subsection (l)(3) also
encourages the head of the element to develop procedures to
assess the extent to which the new authority acquires the
communications of U.S. persons, and to report the results of
such assessment. The review is to be used by the head of the
element to evaluate the adequacy of minimization procedures.
The annual review is to be submitted to the FISA Court, the
Attorney General and the DNI, and to the appropriate
congressional committees.
Section 703. Certain Acquisition Inside the United States
Targeting United States Persons Outside the United States
Section 703 governs the targeting of United States persons
who are reasonably believed to be outside the United States
when the acquisition of foreign intelligence is conducted
inside the United States. The authority and procedures of
section 703 apply when the acquisition either constitutes
electronic surveillance, as defined in Title I of FISA, or is
of stored electronic communications or stored electronic
data. If the United States person returns to the United
States, acquisition under section 703 must cease. The
Government may always, however, obtain an order or
authorization under another title of FISA.
The application procedures and provisions for a FISA Court
order in sections 703(b) and 703(c) are drawn from Titles I
and III of FISA. Key among them is the requirement that the
FISA Court determine that there is probable cause to believe
that, for the United States person who is the target of the
surveillance, the person is reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States and is a foreign power or an agent,
officer or employee of a foreign power. The inclusion of
United States persons who are officers or employees of a
foreign power, as well as those who are agents of a foreign
power as that term is used in FISA, is intended to permit the
type of collection against United States persons outside the
United States that has been allowed under existing Executive
Branch guidelines. The FISA Court shall also review and
approve minimization procedures that will be applicable to
the acquisition, and shall order compliance with such
procedures.
As with FISA orders against persons in the United States,
FISA orders against United States persons outside of the
United States under section 703 may not exceed 90 days and
may be renewed for additional 90-day periods upon the
submission of renewal applications. Emergency authorizations
under section 703 are consistent with the requirements for
emergency authorizations in FISA against persons in the
United States, as amended by this Act; the Attorney General
may authorize an emergency acquisition if an application is
submitted to the FISA Court in not more than seven days.
Section 703(g) is a construction provision that clarifies
that, if the Government obtains an order and target a
particular United States person in accordance with section
703, FISA does not require the Government to seek a court
order under any other provision of FISA to target that United
States person while that person is reasonably believed to be
located outside the United States.
Section 704. Other Acquisitions Targeting United States
Persons Outside the United States
Section 704 governs other acquisitions that target United
States persons who are outside the United States. Sections
702 and 703 address acquisitions that constitute electronic
surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic
communications. In contrast, as provided in section
704(a)(2), section 704 addresses any targeting of a United
States person outside of the United States under
circumstances in which that person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the
acquisition occurred within the United States. It thus covers
not only communications intelligence, but, if it were to
occur, the physical search of a home, office, or business of
a United States person by an element of the United States
intelligence community, outside of the United States.
Pursuant to section 704(a)(3), if the targeted United
States person is reasonably believed to be in the United
States while an order under section 704 is in effect, the
acquisition against that person shall cease unless authority
is obtained under another applicable provision of FISA.
Likewise, the Government may not use section 704 to authorize
an acquisition of foreign intelligence inside the United
States.
Section 704(b) describes the application to the FISA Court
that is required. For an order under section 704(c), the FISA
Court must determine that there is probable cause to believe
that the United States person who is the target of the
acquisition is reasonably believed to be located outside the
United States and is a foreign power, or an agent, officer or
employee of a foreign power. An order is valid for a period
not to exceed 90 days, and may be renewed for additional 90-
day periods upon submission of renewal applications meeting
application requirements.
Because an acquisition under section 704 is conducted
outside the United States, or is otherwise not covered by
FISA, the FISA Court is expressly not given jurisdiction to
review the means by which an acquisition under this section
may be conducted. Although the FISA Court's review is limited
to determinations of probable cause, section 704 anticipates
that any acquisition conducted pursuant to a section 704
order will in all other respects be conducted in compliance
with relevant regulations and Executive Orders governing the
acquisition of foreign intelligence outside the United
States, including Executive Order 12333 or any successor
order.
Section 705. Joint Applications and Concurrent Authorizations
Section 705 provides that if an acquisition targeting a
United States person under section 703 or 704 is proposed to
be conducted both inside and outside the United States, a
judge of the FISA Court may issue simultaneously, upon the
request of the Government in a joint application meeting the
requirements of sections 703 and 704, orders under both
sections as appropriate. If an order authorizing electronic
surveillance or physical search has been obtained under
section 105 or section 304, and that order is still in
effect, the Attorney General may authorize, without an order
under section 703 or 704, the targeting of that United States
person for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence
information while such person is reasonably believed to be
located outside the United States.
Section 706. Use of Information Acquired Under Title VII
Section 706 fills a void that has existed under the Protect
America Act which had contained no provision governing the
use of acquired intelligence. Section 706(a) provides that
information acquired from an acquisition conducted under
section 702 shall be deemed to be information acquired from
an electronic surveillance pursuant to Title I of FISA for
the purposes of section 106 of FISA, which is the provision
of Title I of FISA that governs public disclosure or use in
criminal proceedings. The one exception is for subsection (j)
of section 106, as the notice provision in that subsection,
while manageable in individual Title I proceedings, would
present a difficult national security question when applied
to a Title VII acquisition. Section 706(b) also provides that
information acquired from an acquisition conducted under
section 703 shall be deemed to be information acquired from
an electronic surveillance pursuant to Title I of FISA for
the purposes of section 106 of FISA; however, the notice
provision of subsection (j) applies. Section 706 ensures that
a uniform standard for the types of information is acquired
under the new title.
Section 707. Congressional Oversight
Section 707 provides for additional congressional oversight
of the implementation of Title VII. The Attorney General is
to fully inform ``in a manner consistent with national
security'' the congressional intelligence and judiciary
committees about implementation of the Act at least
semiannually. Each report is to include any certifications
made under section 702, the reasons for any determinations
made under section 702(c)(2), any directives issued during
the reporting period, a description of the judicial review
during the reporting period to include a copy of any order or
pleading that contains a significant legal interpretation of
section 702, incidents of noncompliance and procedures to
implement the section. With respect to sections 703 and 704,
the report must contain the number of applications made for
orders under each section and the number of such orders
granted, modified and denied, as well as the number of
emergency authorizations made pursuant to each section and
the subsequent orders approving or denying the relevant
application. In keeping the congressional intelligence
committees fully informed, the Attorney General should
provide no less information than has been provided in the
past in keeping the committees fully and currently informed.

[[Page 13827]]

Section 708. Savings Provision
Section 708 provides that nothing in Title VII shall be
construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an
order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any
activity that is authorized under, any other title of FISA.
This language is designed to ensure that Title VII cannot be
interpreted to prevent the Government from submitting
applications and seeking orders under other titles of FISA.
Section 101(b). Table of Contents
Section 101(b) of the bill amends the table of contents in
the first section of FISA.
Subsection 101(c). Technical and Conforming Amendments
Section 101(c) of the bill provides for technical and
conforming amendments in Title 18 of the United States Code
and in FISA.
Section 102. Statement of Exclusive Means by which Electronic
Surveillance and Interception of Certain Communications
May Be Conducted
Section 102(a) amends Title I of FISA by adding a new
Section 112 of FISA. Under the heading of ``Statement of
Exclusive Means by which Electronic Surveillance and
Interception of Certain Communications May Be Conducted,''
the new section 112(a) states: ``Except as provided in
subsection (b), the procedures of chapters 119, 121 and 126
of Title 18, United States Code, and this Act shall be the
exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and the
interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic
communication may be conducted.'' New section 112(b) of FISA
provides that only an express statutory authorization for
electronic surveillance or the interception of domestic wire,
oral, or electronic communications, other than as an
amendment to FISA or chapters 119, 121, or 206 of Title 18
shall constitute an additional exclusive means for the
purpose of subsection (a). The new section 112 is based on a
provision which Congress enacted in 1978 as part of the
original FISA that is codified in section 2511(2)(f) of Title
18, United States Code, and which will remain in the U.S.
Code.
Section 102(a) strengthens the statutory provisions
pertaining to electronic surveillance and interception of
certain communications to clarify the express intent of
Congress that these statutory provisions are the exclusive
means for conducting electronic surveillance and interception
of certain communications. With the absence of reference to
the Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. 107-40,
(September 18, 2001) (``AUMF''), Congress makes clear that
this AUMF or any other existing statute cannot be used in the
future as the statutory basis for circumventing FISA. Section
102(a) is intended to ensure that additional exclusive means
for surveillance or interceptions shall be express statutory
authorizations.
In accord with section 102(b) of the bill, section 109 of
FISA that provides for criminal penalties for violations of
FISA, is amended to implement the exclusivity requirement
added in section 112 by making clear that the safe harbor to
FISA's criminal offense provision is limited to statutory
authorizations for electronic surveillance or the
interception of domestic wire, oral, or electronic
communications which are pursuant to a provision of FISA, one
of the enumerated chapters of the criminal code, or a
statutory authorization that expressly provides an additional
exclusive means for conducting the electronic surveillance.
By virtue of the cross-reference in section 110 of FISA to
section 109, that limitation on the safe harbor in section
109 applies equally to section 110 on civil liability for
conducting unlawful electronic surveillance.
Section 102(c) requires that when a certification for
assistance to obtain foreign intelligence is based on
statutory authority, the certification provided to an
electronic communication service provider is to include the
specific statutory authorization for the request for
assistance and certify that the statutory requirements have
been met. This provision is designed to assist electronic
communication service providers in understanding the legal
basis for any government requests for assistance.
In the section-by-section analysis of S. 2248, the report
of the Select Committee on Intelligence (S. Rep. No. 110-209,
at 18) described and incorporated the discussion of
exclusivity in the 1978 conference report on the original
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, in particular the
conferees' description of the Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co.
v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637 (1952) and the application of
the principles described there to the current legislation.
That full discussion should be deemed incorporated in this
section-by-section analysis.
Section 103. Submittal to Congress of Certain Court Orders
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
Section 6002 of the Intelligence Reform Act and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-458), added a Title VI to
FISA that augments the semiannual reporting obligations of
the Attorney General to the intelligence and judiciary
committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. Under
section 6002, the Attorney General shall report a summary of
significant legal interpretations of FISA in matters before
the FISA Court or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of
Review. The requirement extends to interpretations presented
in applications or pleadings filed with either court by the
Department of Justice. In addition to the semiannual summary,
the Department of Justice is required to provide copies of
court decisions, but not orders, which include significant
interpretations of FISA. The importance of the reporting
requirement is that, because the two courts conduct their
business in secret, Congress needs the reports to know how
the law it has enacted is being interpreted.
Section 103 improves the Title VI reporting requirements in
three ways. First, as significant legal interpretations may
be included in orders as well as opinions, section 103
requires that orders also be provided to the committees.
Second, as the semiannual report often takes many months
after the end of the semiannual period to prepare, section
103 accelerates provision of information about significant
legal interpretations by requiring the submission of such
decisions, orders, or opinions within 45 days. Finally,
section 103 requires that the Attorney General shall submit a
copy of any such decision, order, or opinion, and any
pleadings, applications, or memoranda of law associated with
such decision, order, or opinion, from the period five years
preceding enactment of the bill that has not previously been
submitted to the congressional intelligence and judiciary
committees.

Overview of Sections 104 through Section 109. FISA Streamlining

Sections 104 through 109 amend various sections of FISA for
such purposes as reducing a paperwork requirement, modifying
time requirements, or providing additional flexibility in
terms of the range of Government officials who may authorize
FISA actions. Collectively, these amendments are described as
streamlining amendments. In general, they are intended to
increase the efficiency of the FISA process without depriving
the FISA Court of the information it needs to make findings
required under FISA.
Section 104. Applications for Court Orders
Section 104 of the bill strikes two of the eleven
paragraphs on standard information in an application for a
surveillance order under section 104 of FISA, either because
the information is provided elsewhere in the application
process or is not needed.
In various places, FISA has required the submission of
``detailed'' information, as in section 104 of FISA, ``a
detailed description of the nature of the information sought
and the type of communications or activities to be subjected
to the surveillance.'' The DNI requested legislation that
asked that ``summary'' be substituted for ``detailed'' for
this and other application requirements, in order to reduce
the length of FISA applications. In general, the bill
approaches this by eliminating the mandate for ``detailed''
descriptions, leaving it to the FISA Court and the Government
to work out the level of specificity needed by the FISA Court
to perform its statutory responsibilities. With respect to
one item of information, ``a statement of the means by which
the surveillance will be effected,'' the bill modifies the
requirement by allowing for ``a summary statement.''
In aid of flexibility, section 104 increases the number of
individuals who may make FISA applications by allowing the
President to designate the Deputy Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'') as one of those
individuals. This should enable the Government to move more
expeditiously to obtain certifications when the Director of
the FBI is away from Washington or otherwise unavailable.
Subsection (b) of section 104 of FISA is eliminated as
obsolete in light of current applications. The Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency is added to the list of
officials who may make a written request to the Attorney
General to personally review a FISA application as the head
of the CIA had this authority prior to the establishment of
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Section 105. Issuance of an Order
Section 105 strikes from Section 105 of FISA several
unnecessary or obsolete provisions. Section 105 strikes
subsection (c)(1)(F) of Section 105 of FISA which requires
minimization procedures applicable to each surveillance
device employed because Section 105(c)(2)(A) requires each
order approving electronic surveillance to direct the
minimization procedures to be followed.
Subsection (a)(6) reorganizes, in more readable form, the
emergency surveillance provision of section 105(f), now
redesignated section 105(e), with a substantive change of
extending from 3 to 7 days the time by which the Attorney
General must apply for and obtain a court order after
authorizing an emergency surveillance. The purpose of the
change is to help make emergency authority a more practical
tool while keeping it within the parameters of FISA.
Subsection (a)(7) adds a new paragraph to section 105 of
FISA to require the FISA Court, on the Government's request,
when granting an application for electronic surveillance, to
authorize at the same time the installation and use of pen
registers and trap and trace devices. This will save the
paperwork that had been involved in making two applications.

[[Page 13828]]

Section 106. Use of Information
Section 106 amends section 106(i) of FISA with regard to
the limitations on the use of unintentionally acquired
information. Currently, section 106(i) of FISA provides that
unintentionally acquired radio communication between persons
located in the United States must be destroyed unless the
Attorney General determines that the contents of the
communications indicates a threat of death or serious bodily
harm to any person. Section 106 of the bill amends subsection
106(i) of FISA by making it technology neutral on the
principle that the same rule for the use of information
indicating threats of death or serious harm should apply no
matter how the communication is transmitted.
Section 107. Amendments for Physical Searches
Section 107 makes changes to Title III of FISA: changing
applications and orders for physical searches to correspond
to changes in sections 104 and 105 on reduction of some
application paperwork; providing the FBI with administrative
flexibility in enabling its Deputy Director to be a
certifying officer; and extending the time, from 3 days to 7
days, for applying for and obtaining a court order after
authorization of an emergency search.
Section 303(a)(4)(C), which will be redesignated section
303(a)(3)(C), requires that each application for physical
search authority state the applicant's belief that the
property is ``owned, used, possessed by, or is in transmit to
or from'' a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. In
order to provide needed flexibility and to make the provision
consistent with electronic surveillance provisions, section
107(a)(1)(D) of the bill allows the FBI to apply for
authority to search property that also is ``about to be''
owned, used, or possessed by a foreign power or agent of a
foreign power, or in transit to or from one.
Section 108. Amendments for Emergency Pen Registers and Trap
and Trace Devices
Section 108 amends section 403 of FISA to extend from 2
days to 7 days the time for applying for and obtaining a
court order after an emergency installation of a pen register
or trap and trace device. This change harmonizes among FISA's
provisions for electronic surveillance, search, and pen
register/ trap and trace authority the time requirements that
follow the Attorney General's decision to take emergency
action.
Section 109. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
Section 109 contains four amendments to section 103 of
FISA, which establishes the FISA Court and the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
Section 109(a) amends section 103 to provide that judges on
the FISA Court shall be drawn from ``at least seven'' of the
United States judicial circuits. The current requirement--
that the eleven judges be drawn from seven judicial circuits
(with the number appearing to be a ceiling rather than a
floor) has proven unnecessarily restrictive or complicated
for the designation of the judges to the FISA Court.
Section 109(b) amends section 103 to allow the FISA Court
to hold a hearing or rehearing of a matter en banc, which is
by all the judges who constitute the FISA Court sitting
together. The Court may determine to do this on its own
initiative, at the request of the Government in any
proceeding under FISA, or at the request of a party in the
few proceedings in which a private entity or person may be a
party, i.e., challenges to document production orders under
Title V, or proceedings on the legality or enforcement of
directives to electronic communication service providers
under Title VII.
Under section 109(b), en banc review may be ordered by a
majority of the judges who constitute the FISA Court upon a
determination that it is necessary to secure or maintain
uniformity of the court's decisions or that a particular
proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance. En
banc proceedings should be rare and in the interest of the
general objective of fostering expeditious consideration of
matters before the FISA Court.
Section 109(c) provides authority for the entry of stays,
or the entry of orders modifying orders entered by the FISA
Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of
Review, pending appeal or review in the Supreme Court. This
authority is supplemental to, and does not supersede, the
specific provision in section 702(i)(4)(B) that acquisitions
under Title VII may continue during the pendency of any
rehearing en banc and appeal to the Court of Review subject
to the requirement for a determination within 60 days under
section 702(i)(4)(C).
Section 109(d) provides that nothing in FISA shall be
construed to reduce or contravene the inherent authority of
the FISA Court to determine or enforce compliance with any
order of that court or with a procedure approved by it.
Section 110. Weapons of Mass Destruction
Section 110 amends the definitions in FISA of foreign power
and agent of a foreign power to include individuals who are
not United States persons and entities not substantially
composed of United States persons that are engaged in the
international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Section 110 also adds a definition of weapon of mass
destruction to the Act that defines weapons of mass
destruction to cover explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
devices that are designed, intended to, or have the
capability to cause a mass casualty incident or death, and
biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that are designed,
intended to, or have the capability to cause illness or
serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons.
Section 110 also makes corresponding, technical and
conforming changes to FISA.

Title II. Protections for Electronic Communication Service Providers

This title establishes a new Title VIII of FISA. The title
addresses liability relief for electronic communication
service providers who have been alleged in various civil
actions to have assisted the U.S. Government between
September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007, when the Attorney
General announced the termination of the Terrorist
Surveillance Program. In addition, Title VIII contains
provisions of law intended to implement statutory defenses
for electronic communication service providers and others who
assist the Government in accordance with precise, existing
legal requirements, and for providing for federal preemption
of state investigations. The liability protection provisions
of Title VIII are not subject to sunset.
Section 801. Definitions
Section 801 establishes definitions for Title VIII. Several
are of particular importance.
The term ``assistance'' is defined to mean the provision
of, or the provision of access to, information, facilities,
or another form of assistance. The word ``information'' is
itself described in a parenthetical to include communication
contents, communication records, or other information
relating to a customer or communications. ``Contents'' is
defined by reference to its meaning in Title I of FISA. By
that reference, it includes any information concerning the
identity of the parties to a communication or the existence,
substance, purport, or meaning of it.
The term ``civil action'' is defined to include a ``covered
civil action.'' Thus, ``covered civil actions'' are a subset
of civil actions, and everything in new Title VIII that is
applicable generally to civil actions is also applicable to
``covered civil actions.'' A ``covered civil action'' has two
key elements. It is defined as a civil action filed in a
federal or state court which (1) alleges that an electronic
communication service provider (a defined term) furnished
assistance to an element of the intelligence community and
(2) seeks monetary or other relief from the electronic
communication service provider related to the provision of
the assistance. Both elements must be present for the lawsuit
to be a covered civil action.
The term ``person'' (the full universe of those protected
by section 802) is necessarily broader than the definition of
electronic communication service provider. The aspects of
Title VIII that apply to those who assist the Government in
accordance with precise, existing legal requirements apply to
all who may be ordered to provide assistance under FISA, such
as custodians of records who may be directed to produce
records by the FISA Court under Title V of FISA or landlords
who may be required to provide access under Title I or III of
FISA, not just to electronic communication service providers.
Section 802. Procedures for Implementing Statutory Defenses
Section 802 establishes procedures for implementing
statutory defenses. Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no civil action may lie or be maintained in a federal or
state court against any person for providing assistance to an
element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly
dismissed, if the Attorney General makes a certification to
the district court in which the action is pending. (If an
action had been commenced in state court, it would have to be
removed, pursuant to section 802(g) to a district court,
where a certification under section 802 could be filed.) The
certification must state either that the assistance was not
provided (section 802(a)(5)) or, if furnished, that it was
provided pursuant to specific statutory requirements
(sections 802(a)(1-4)). Three of these underlying
requirements, which are specifically described in section 802
(sections 802(a)(1-3)), come from existing law. They include:
an order of the FISA Court directing assistance, a
certification in writing under sections 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or
2709(b) of Title 18, or directives to electronic
communication service providers under particular sections of
FISA or the Protect America Act.
The Attorney General may only make a certification under
the fourth statutory requirement, section 802(a)(4), if the
civil action is a covered civil action (as defined in section
801(5)). To satisfy the requirements of section 802(a)(4),
the Attorney General must certify first that the assistance
alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication
service provider was in connection with an intelligence
activity involving communications that was (1) authorized by
the President between September 11, 2001 and January 17, 2007
and (2) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack or
preparations for one against the United States. In addition,
the Attorney General must also certify that the assistance
was the subject of a written request or directive, or a
series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney

[[Page 13829]]

General or the head (or deputy to the head) of an element of
the intelligence community to the electronic communication
service provider indicating that the activity was (1)
authorized by the President and (2) determined to be lawful.
The report of the Select Committee on Intelligence contained
a description of the relevant correspondence provided to
electronic communication service providers (S. Rep. No. 110-
209, at 9).
The district court must give effect to the Attorney
General's certification unless the court finds it is not
supported by substantial evidence provided to the court
pursuant to this section. In its review, the court may
examine any relevant court order, certification, written
request or directive submitted by the Attorney General
pursuant to subsection (b)(2) or by the parties pursuant to
subsection (d). Section 802 is silent on the nature of any
additional materials that the Attorney General may submit
beyond those listed in subsection (b)(2) if the Attorney
General determines they are necessary to provide substantial
evidence to support the certification, such as if the
Attorney General certifies that a person did not provide the
alleged assistance.
If the Attorney General files a declaration that disclosure
of a certification or supplemental materials would harm
national security, the court shall review the certification
and supplemental materials in camera and ex parte, which
means with only the Government present. A public order
following that review shall be limited to a statement as to
whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal
standards that govern the order, without disclosing the basis
for the certification of the Attorney General. The purpose of
this requirement is to protect the classified national
security information involved in the identification of
providers who assist the Government. A public order shall not
disclose whether the certification was based on an order,
certification, or directive, or on the ground that the
electronic communication service provider furnished no
assistance. Because the district court must find that the
certification--including a certification that states that a
party did not provide the alleged assistance--is supported by
substantial evidence in order to dismiss a case, an order
failing to dismiss a case is only a conclusion that the
substantial evidence test has not been met. It does not
indicate whether a particular provider assisted the
government.
Subsection (d) makes clear that any plaintiff or defendant
in a civil action may submit any relevant court order,
certification, written request, or directive to the district
court for review and be permitted to participate in the
briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial
proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, to the extent
that such participation does not require the disclosure of
classified information to such party. The authorities of the
Attorney General under section 802 are to be performed only
by the Attorney General, the Acting Attorney General, or the
Deputy Attorney General.
In adopting the portions of section 802 that allow for
liability protection for those electronic communication
service providers who may have participated in the program of
intelligence activity involving communications authorized by
the President between September 11, 2001, and January 17,
2007, the Congress makes no statement on the legality of the
program. This is in accord with the statement in the report
of the Senate Intelligence Committee that ``Section 202 [as
the immunity provision was then numbered] makes no assessment
about the legality of the President's program.'' S. Rep. No.
110-209, at 9.
Section 803. Preemption of State Investigations
Section 803 addresses actions taken by a number of state
regulatory commissions to force disclosure of information
concerning cooperation by state regulated electronic
communication service providers with U.S. intelligence
agencies. Section 803 preempts these state actions and
authorizes the United States to bring suit to enforce the
prohibition.
Section 804. Reporting
Section 804 provides for oversight of the implementation of
Title VIII. On a semiannual basis, the Attorney General is to
provide to the appropriate congressional committees a report
on any certifications made under section 802, a description
of the judicial review of the certifications made under
section 802, and any actions taken to enforce the provisions
of section 803.
Section 202. Technical Amendments
Section 202 amends the table of contents of the first
section of FISA.

Title III. Review of Previous Actions

Title III directs the Inspectors General of the Department
of Justice, the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the National
Security Agency, and any other element of the intelligence
community that participated in the President's surveillance
program, defined in the title to mean the intelligence
activity involving communications that was authorized by the
President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001,
and ending on January 17, 2007, to complete a comprehensive
review of the program with respect to the oversight authority
and responsibility of each such inspector general.
The review is to include: all of the facts necessary to
describe the establishment, implementation, product, and use
of the product of the program; access to legal reviews of the
program and information about the program; communications
with, and participation of, individuals and entities in the
private sector related to the program; interaction with the
FISA Court and transition to court orders related to the
program; and any other matters identified by any such
inspector general that would enable that inspector general
complete a review of the program with respect to the
inspector general's department or element.
The inspectors general are directed to work in conjunction,
to the extent practicable, with other inspectors general
required to conduct a review, and not unnecessarily duplicate
or delay any reviews or audits that have already been
completed or are being undertaken with respect to the
program. In addition, the Counsel of the Office of
Professional Responsibility of the Department of Justice is
directed to provide the report of any investigation of that
office relating to the program, including any investigation
of the process through which the legal reviews of the program
were conducted and the substance of such reviews, to the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice, who shall
integrate the factual findings and conclusions of such
investigation into its review.
The inspectors general shall designate one of the Senate
confirmed inspectors general required to conduct a review to
coordinate the conduct of the reviews and the preparation of
the reports. The inspectors general are to submit an interim
report within sixty days to the appropriate congressional
committees on their planned scope of review. The final report
is to be completed no later than one year after enactment and
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
The Congress is aware that the Inspector General of the
Department of Justice has undertaken a review of the program.
This review should serve as a significant part of the basis
for meeting the requirements of this title. In no event is
this title intended to delay or duplicate the investigation
completed to date or the issuance of any report by the
Inspector General of the Department of Justice.

Title IV. Other Provisions

Section 401. Severability
Section 401 provides that if any provision of this bill or
its application is held invalid, the validity of the
remainder of the Act and its application to other persons or
circumstances is unaffected.
Section 402. Effective Date
Section 402 provides that except as provided in the
transition procedures (section 404 of the title), the
amendments made by the bill shall take effect immediately.
Section 403. Repeals
Section 403(a) provides for the repeal of those sections of
FISA enacted as amendments to FISA by the Protect America
Act, except as provided otherwise in the transition
procedures of section 404, and makes technical and conforming
amendments.
Section 403(b) provides for the sunset of the FISA
Amendments Act on December 31, 2012, except as provided in
section 404 of the bill. This date ensures that the
amendments by the Act will be reviewed during the next
presidential administration. The subsection also makes
technical and conforming amendments.
Section 404. Transition Procedures
Section 404 establishes transition procedures for the
Protect America Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act Amendments of 2008.
Subsection (a)(1) continues in effect orders,
authorizations, and directives issued under FISA, as amended
by section 2 of the Protect America Act, until the expiration
of such order, authorization or directive.
Subsection (a)(2) sets forth the provisions of FISA and the
Protect America Act that continue to apply to any acquisition
conducted under such Protect America Act order, authorization
or directive. In addition, subsection (a) clarifies the
following provisions of the Protect America Act: the
protection from liability provision of subsection (l) of
Section 105B of FISA as added by section 2 of the Protect
America Act; jurisdiction of the FISA Court with respect to a
directive issued pursuant to the Protect America Act, and the
Protect America Act reporting requirements of the Attorney
General and the DNI. Subsection (a) is made effective as of
the date of enactment of the Protect America Act (August 5,
2007). The purpose of these clarifications and the effective
date for them is to ensure that there are no gaps in the
legal protections contained in that act, including for
authorized collection following the sunset of the Protect
America Act, notwithstanding that its sunset provision was
only extended once until February 16, 2008. Additionally,
subsection (a)(3) fills a void in the Protect America Act and
applies the use provisions of section 106 of FISA to
collection under the Protect America Act, in the same manner
that section 706 does for collection under Title VII.

[[Page 13830]]

In addition, subsection (a)(7) makes clear that if the
Attorney General and the DNI seek to replace an authorization
made pursuant to the Protect America Act with an
authorization made under section 702, as added by this bill,
they are, to the extent practicable, to submit a
certification to the FISA Court at least 30 days in advance
of the expiration of such authorization. The authorizations,
and any directives issued pursuant to the authorization, are
to remain in effect until the FISA Court issues an order with
respect to that certification.
Subsection (b) provides similar treatment for any order of
the FISA Court issued under Title VII of this bill in effect
on December 31, 2012.
Subsection (c) provides transition procedures for the
authorizations in effect under section 2.5 of Executive Order
12333. Those authorizations shall continue in effect until
the earlier of the date that authorization expires or the
date that is 90 days after the enactment of this Act. This
transition provision is particularly applicable to the
transition to FISA Court orders that will occur as a result
of sections 703 and 704 of FISA, as added by this bill.

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Before laying out where this bill improves upon the
Senate-passed bill--and it does--let me first restate how proud I am of
our efforts in February that laid the foundation for the final action
we will soon take. Our Senate bill established the framework for a
judicial review of the targeting and minimization procedures which are
at the heart of the present compromise. It also established clear
authority and procedures for individual judicial orders where there is
probable cause for targeting Americans overseas. This may long be
regarded as the single most important innovation of the act we will
soon pass.
Additionally, during debate on our Senate bill, we identified other
needed improvements that have been addressed in this compromise,
including strengthening exclusivity, something Senator Feinstein was a
great advocate of, and also a shorter sunset, something Senator Cardin
wanted to see happen; that is, when the bill sunsets, and it will end
before the end of the next administration.
The bottom line is, we started with a good product in February and,
through hard work and compromise with all parties in both Houses, we
have made it even stronger. And we have. We have. We are all slightly
aghast at what we were able to do. So let me mention a few of the key
features in this new compromise.
First, the agreement makes changes in the provisions related to
targeting foreigners overseas to increase protections for Americans. It
requires the FISA Court to approve targeting and minimization
procedures before collections begin in virtually all instances. The
Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can move
forward without a court order only in what will be extremely rare
instances, if emergency circumstances exist. And there is a way that is
done which is time minimized, a total of 37 days, but it doesn't
happen.
It preserves the definition of ``electronic surveillance.'' That is
important. It doesn't sound very interesting, but it is important. It
preserves that definition found in title I of FISA to ensure that there
are no unintended consequences--that sounds like gobbledygook, but it
isn't--relating to when a warrant must be obtained under FISA or how
information obtained using FISA can be used. In other words, we leave
the definition of ``telecommunications'' exactly as it is. We do not
change it. If there is to be a change, then there must be legislative
action to expand or make that change.
But unintended consequences is when something you do in one bill
affects something that happened in another bill, and you just do not
know it at the time you are doing it. You have to be very careful about
that. So that is why we did that.
Second, the agreement contains additional measures compared to the
Senate bill to improve oversight and accountability--the two greatest
needs we have in the Congress and for the administration.
It shortens the sunset of the legislation to December 31, 2012, to
ensure the FISA modernization law we are going to pass is reviewed in
the next administration.
It requires a comprehensive review by multiple inspectors general of
the President's warrantless surveillance program to ensure Congress has
a complete set of facts about the program. We will have them. We will
be informed. The public will be informed about that.
Third, the agreement assures that no past or future congressional
authorization for the use of military force may be used to justify the
conduct of warrantless surveillance electronically, unless Congress
explicitly provides that can happen. That means the President cannot
ever do what he did again. No other President can ever do that. FISA
rules, and only the Congress can make the change.
With enactment of this agreement, there will be no question that
Congress intends that only an express statutory authorization for
electronic surveillance or interception may constitute an additional
exclusive means for that surveillance or interception. It is logical,
and it is necessary.
This is reinforced by the clarification that criminal and civil
penalties can be imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not
conducted in accordance with FISA or specifically listed provisions of
title XVIII. We are prepared to do criminal, civil fines. It is in the
bill. It will happen if somebody tries to do something.
Finally, with respect to the liability protection provisions of title
II, the new language is improved in a number of ways. The agreement
makes clear that the district court has the authority to review the
documents provided to the companies to determine whether the Attorney
General has met the statutory requirements for the certification under
the statute.
In addition, the plaintiffs are given their fair day in court in our
bill, as the parties to the litigation are explicitly provided the
opportunity to brief the legal and constitutional issues before the
court, to the court. And the district court, in deciding the question,
must go beyond whether the Attorney General abused his discretion in
preparing his certification to seek the dismissal of a lawsuit. Under
the agreement, the district court must decide whether the Attorney
General's certification is supported by ``substantial evidence.'' It is
a good bar.
These are important additions and clarifications, and I hope many of
my colleagues will recognize how far we have come. Remember, this is a
bill that the House would not even vote on a couple of months ago. They
would not even vote on it. So we just went over to them, to Steny
Hoyer, who deserves all praise for being an unbelievable moderator,
bringer-together of opinions and people and a lot of people who are
reluctant over there about doing anything, and gradually, through
compromise, through extensive consultation, worked it out so they could
agree on the bill. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi went to the floor of the
House and spoke as to why she was going to vote for the bill--which she
did.
Now, before I conclude, I must say a few words about all the people--
and spare me on this, I say to the Presiding Officer--who worked
together to make this happen.
House majority leader Steny Hoyer is--I have down here in my text ``a
near saint.'' I have decided that is in extremis. I think he is
extraordinary--extraordinary. He deserves tremendous credit for his
ability to bring people together with strongly divergent views and not
give up until a compromise is achieved. He has everything on his plate,
but he always seemed to have time for--he kept saying he was not really
schooled in this, but he knew everything that was going on.
Vice Chairman Bond and House Minority Whip Blunt also deserve our
thanks and our praise for their hard work and unending commitment. The
other leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence and Judiciary
Committees--Silvestre Reyes, Peter Hoekstra, John Conyers, Lamar Smith,
and on our side Pat Leahy and Arlen Specter--not all of whom have or
will support the final bill--also deserve thanks for their valuable
contributions for making the legislation a much better product.
My own leader, Harry Reid, deserves special credit for insisting that
we persevere on protecting national security

[[Page 13831]]

and civil liberties, even though at times he believed he himself could
not support our ultimate compromise. I do not know what that result
will be, but he has been terrific in pushing us.
In addition, we would not have reached this critical juncture without
the unlimited support of the Director of National Intelligence, Mike
McConnell, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and the dedicated staff of
the DNI, DOJ, and NSA counsel, in particular Ben Powell, Brett Gerry,
John Demers, Vito Potenza, and Chris Thuma. I did not think I would be
saying those words, but I am saying them, and I do believe them deeply.
All of those individuals worked with us for months on this issue,
putting in long hours, even at times when there was not light at the
end of the tunnel.
As we know all too well, the legislative efforts of the House and the
Senate would come to a screeching halt if we were forced to operate
without the seamless efforts of our staffs.
I would like to thank my exceptionally talented staff: Andy Johnson,
Mike Davidson, Alissa Starzak, Chris Healey, and Melvin Dubee--all of
whom brought an enormous amount of expertise, creativity, and
perseverance to the table.
I want to single out Mike Davidson. Mike Davidson is a very smart
lawyer. He has this way of when everything is collapsing all about
him--it is kind of a let's come and reason together. Let's be
practical. He is such a good person and so smart and so respected for
what he knows that people follow his lead. It was in many ways because
of him that a lot of our problems got solved. He would not quit on
them, and he would keep saying: Now, let's deal with this practically.
And he uses his hands just in that manner. It worked because we have a
bill.
I would also like to thank Mariah Sixkiller, Brian Diffel, Joe Onek,
Mike Sheehy, Jeremy Bash, Wyndee Parker, Eric Greenwald, Chris Donesa,
Lou DeBaca, Perry Apelbaum, Ted Kalo, and Caroline Lynch in the House
of Representatives; and in the Senate, Louis Tucker, Jack Livingston,
Kathleen Rice, Mary DeRosa, Zulima Espinel, Matt Solomon, Nick Rossi,
Ron Weich, Serena Hoy, and Marcel Lettre for their efforts.
I may have left somebody out. But I think the Presiding Officer
thinks I have probably done enough. It is heartfelt, and if you have
been through the process you really feel what people put into it and
what they give up.
Madam President, this is a very proud day for the Senate, for
national security and civil liberties, and for the Congress in general.
I would venture to say this may be the most important bill we will pass
this year. We have proven that compromise is not a lost virtue and that
good, sound policy is not only possible, it is achievable.
I thank the Presiding Officer and 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. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I see my good friend from West Virginia on
the floor. While I have some disagreement with him on the effort he has
made on the FISA bill, I commend my friend from West Virginia. He has
the thankless task of heading up the Intelligence Committee, which is a
difficult job. I wish to acknowledge that and recognize that. My
respect for him and the work he is doing and trying to do on this issue
is something I respect immensely. Unfortunately, we don't agree on one
aspect--at least one aspect--of this bill, but that in no way
diminishes my respect for the effort he has made to try to produce as
good a bill as he can under the circumstances. You only have to try and
manage a bill around here to understand how difficult that can be, as
someone who is engaged right now in this housing proposal.
Senator Shelby and I have spent weeks putting together a bill that
has enjoyed almost unanimous support in our committee--19 to 2--coming
out of the Banking Committee. We had the vote of 83 to 9 the other day
on a cloture motion to deal with a proposal we put together covering
everything from mortgage revenue bonds and tax incentives for people to
buy foreclosed properties, not to mention the GSE--the government
sponsored enterprises--reform, an affordable housing program in
perpetuity to assist rental housing opportunities in the Nation, as
well as the HOPE for Homeowners Act to deal with the foreclosure
crisis. Here we are now approaching the late afternoon of Wednesday. We
had the cloture vote yesterday morning, about 30 hours ago. We have yet
to have one amendment I can deal with because one Senator is insisting
that his bill be paramount, that we disregard the efforts we have made
to listen to ideas, to take additional suggestions that have come from
other Members to incorporate as part of this bill.
Senator Kohl of Wisconsin has a very good proposal which we have
worked out. Senator Sununu has made a proposal as well and we have been
able to modify it and work with him to be a part of it. Senator Isakson
has made a proposal we are working on to deal with a date in this bill
that could make a difference. Senator Bond has a proposal we are
working on dealing with disclosures. Senator Kohl and Senator Nelson
are working on a proposal dealing with 401(k)s. All of these ideas have
to be held in abeyance because one Senator won't even let us consider
these matters on the floor, to bring them up and to deal with them.
It is awfully difficult to understand, when you consider that between
8,000 and 9,000 people every day are filing for foreclosure in this
country. This is the center of our economic problems in the Nation.
The Wall Street Journal reported today in a banner headline that
consumer confidence in this Nation is at the lowest point it has been
since the late 1980s, early 1990s. A report yesterday actually takes it
back to 1967. We are also told that home values are declining by the
hour in this country. The Case-Schiller Index indicates that home
values may decline by as much as 30 percent over the next 2 or 3 years.
This is affecting student loans, it is affecting municipal finance, and
it is affecting commercial borrowing. We are literally in a stall with
the economy growing worse and the level of optimism and confidence of
the American people declining at a rapid rate.
There is nothing more important we could do before adjourning for the
next week to go home for Independence Day than to deal with this bill.
We could literally complete this housing bill in about an hour. That is
about all it would take to consider the amendments we can agree to, to
adopt the ones we have, and then move this bill off this floor, out of
this Chamber to the point that I think the House may accept what we
have done, and send the bill to the President for his signature.
What better message to send to those who are facing potential
foreclosure, of losing their most important and valuable asset that the
overwhelming majority of Americans will ever have, not just in
financial terms, but in the context of having a home for their
families. This is something most Americans wish for their children,
wish for their grandchildren, wish to have themselves, that idea of a
home where you grow up and live. The fact that between 8,000 and 9,000
people--not on a weekly basis, not on a monthly basis, but every single
day--every day we are home next week, every day we are gone from here,
remind yourselves that another 9,000 people are beginning to file
foreclosure and losing their homes. Neighborhoods collapse, values in
these neighborhoods go down, and we see the continued suffering that
goes on in our country, all because I can't even bring up and allow
consideration of some amendments on this bill.
We have been at this now since January, trying to put this together
and here we are in late June and still unable to get even consideration
of amendments or to vote on some we may disagree with. There are many
others of our colleagues here who have some ideas. I failed to mention
Senator Voinovich. We have proposals from

[[Page 13832]]

Senator Levin and Senator Stabenow involving important projects in
their State, not to mention Massachusetts as well. There are a number
of other things included in this legislation providing the kind of
support for those who are out there, including counseling to people
going through foreclosure or who could go through foreclosure. All of
these elements could make a difference; the community development block
grants to mayors, county supervisors, and Governors that could provide
some targeted help in neighborhoods that have foreclosed properties.
We learn from screaming headlines on a daily basis--you need not hear
my voice; just listen to what is going on in almost every State in the
country. Now the States of California and Nevada are particularly hard-
pressed, as well as Arizona, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio are seeing
these numbers at record levels. The State of Nevada, in fact, I think,
on a per capita basis has the worst foreclosure rate in the country,
what that State is going through and the people are suffering from in
that jurisdiction, with 10, I am told, centers around the State trying
to help people hang on to their homes if they can.
Here we have a proposal that would provide that kind of relief, a
system that would allow for workouts where people could have a new
mortgage they could afford to pay, as well as paying into the program
at some cost, and the lenders taking, of course, a significant cut in
what they would otherwise be getting. But it would allow us to keep
people in their homes.
So in those States that are feeling this particularly, I want them to
know there are those of us here--and they ought to know the majority
leader of this body, Senator Harry Reid, has been on the forefront of
trying to get this bill up, trying to allow us to vote on it to get the
job done. I wish to thank him for that, as the chairman of the Banking
Committee, to have a majority leader who understands this priority is
at the top of our list. I am deeply grateful to him for making it
possible for us to get as far as we have.
But to know we are down here with a few remaining hours before we
will be leaving for a week or 10 days; knowing that in that period of
time, unnecessarily, in my view, more Americans may end up paying that
awful price, watching their home value decline, watching them possibly
lose their homes; that idea of being able to build that equity and
provide for your children's education, to contribute to your
retirement, to deal with an unexpected illness in the family where that
equity could make a difference, all of that is eroding because we can't
get off the dime because we have a colleague who wants to insist that
his proposal be paramount, that we drop everything else and deal with
that bill. I say that respectfully. I have been here 27 years and this
happens periodically. But at this moment, at this time, facing the
worst crisis in housing since the Great Depression, this is not the
kind of reaction we ought to be getting.
I am going to come here periodically as long as we are here to talk
about this. I will make unanimous consent requests, or the leader will,
to try and let us move on this. When objection is heard, then that
Senator ought to have the courage, in my view, to stand up and express
that objection on why we can't deal with this housing bill. Even if you
disagree with the bill, allow us to vote. Allow your colleagues to
offer their amendments. They need to explain to the American people why
it is that after all of this effort, with an 83-to-9 vote yesterday,
that Democrats and Republicans want to do something about housing, but
we can't get a bill up and can't consider these outstanding amendments.
I apologize to my colleagues for this, but they ought to know what is
going on and why it is. Members have asked me: Why aren't we voting?
Why can't we bring up these matters? The reason is because I need
unanimous consent to do so and one Senator can object, and because they
object, none of these other amendments, Republican or Democratic
amendments, can be considered or modified, even, in this context. So
that is why we are here and where we are. If people are wondering why,
after this long time, despite the efforts of bringing people together,
we are not managing to get this bill done, that is the reason. My hope
is that common sense and reasonableness may prevail in the coming hour
or so that will allow us to get to this. But if we are unable to do so,
then that is the reason.
With that, I yield the floor and note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The clerk will call
the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I am hoping very shortly we will vote on
or act on or somehow pass an amendment that I have offered, offered on
the previous housing bill which, incidentally, I thought was a much
better bill than this one.
I ask unanimous consent to speak for--well, Madam President, I am
going to continue to tell you that.
The teaser rate problem is one which has afflicted many borrowers in
Missouri. They get these offers for loan rates. They are told,
verbally, that they can get a good rate when the time expires. The
problem is, it is not in writing. So we would require full disclosure
in advance, written down. If the people are going to make a
representation, it has to be a binding representation. My amendment is
designed to advise consumers, before they purchase a home, what they
are going to have to pay.
I understand there is a modification that will make this amendment
acceptable to all sides. I think it is terribly important to avoid
putting so many people, in the future, in the trap that they now find
themselves, that we require they disclose what the rates will be, and
if they want to offer good terms, they put them in writing.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment as modified.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time postcloture has expired.
Mr. BOND. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the pending amendments be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
The question is on the motion to concur, with an amendment.
Mr. McCONNELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, are we in a quorum call?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are not.
Mr. REID. 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the previous order which was
entered regarding the withdrawing of the amendments we vitiated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4987, As Modified, Amendment No. 4999, As Modified, and
Amendment No. 4988, As Modified

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments No.
4987,

[[Page 13833]]

Bond; No. 4999, Sununu; and No. 4988, Kohl, be agreed to, as modified,
with the changes at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments, as modified, were agreed to, as follows:

amendment no. 4987, as modified

On page 522, line 2, before the period insert the
following: ``,including the fact that the initial regular
payments are for a specific time period that will end on a
certain date, that payments will adjust afterwards
potentially to a higher amount, and that there is no
guarantee that the borrower will be able to refinance to a
lower amount''.

Amendment No. 4999, as modified

On page 538, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

TITLE VII--SMALL PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITIES PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

SEC. 2701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Small Public Housing
Authorities Paperwork Reduction Act''.

SEC. 2702. PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY PLANS FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCIES.

(a) In General.--Section 5A(b) of the United States Housing
Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c-1(b)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(3) Exemption of certain phas from filing requirement.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1) or any
other provision of this Act--
``(i) the requirement under paragraph (1) shall not apply
to any qualified public housing agency; and
``(ii) except as provided in subsection (e)(4)(B), any
reference in this section or any other provision of law to a
`public housing agency' shall not be considered to refer to
any qualified public housing agency, to the extent such
reference applies to the requirement to submit an annual
public housing agency plan under this subsection.
``(B) Civil rights certification.--Notwithstanding that
qualified public housing agencies are exempt under
subparagraph (A) from the requirement under this section to
prepare and submit an annual public housing plan, each
qualified public housing agency shall, on an annual basis,
make the certification described in paragraph (16) of
subsection (d), except that for purposes of such qualified
public housing agencies, such paragraph shall be applied by
substituting `the public housing program of the agency' for
`the public housing agency plan'.
``(C) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`qualified public housing agency' means a public housing
agency that meets the following requirements:
``(i) The sum of (I) the number of public housing dwelling
units administered by the agency, and (II) the number of
vouchers under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act
of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) administered by the agency, is
550 or fewer.
``(ii) The agency is not designated under section 6(j)(2)
as a troubled public housing agency, and does not have a
failing score under the section 8 Management Assessment
Program during the prior 12 months.''.
(b) Resident Participation.--Section 5A of the United
States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437c-1) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by inserting after paragraph (3) the
following:
``(4) Qualified public housing agencies.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
nothing in this section may be construed to exempt a
qualified public housing agency from the requirement under
paragraph (1) to establish 1 or more resident advisory
boards. Notwithstanding that qualified public housing
agencies are exempt under subsection (b)(3)(A) from the
requirement under this section to prepare and submit an
annual public housing plan, each qualified public housing
agency shall consult with, and consider the recommendations
of the resident advisory boards for the agency, at the annual
public hearing required under subsection (f)(5), regarding
any changes to the goals, objectives, and policies of that
agency.
``(B) Applicability of waiver authority.--Paragraph (3)
shall apply to qualified public housing agencies, except that
for purposes of such qualified public housing agencies,
subparagraph (B) of such paragraph shall be applied by
substituting `the functions described in the second sentence
of paragraph (4)(A)' for `the functions described in
paragraph (2)'.
``(f) Public Hearings.--''; and
(2) in subsection (f) (as so designated by the amendment
made by paragraph (1)), by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Qualified public housing agencies.--
``(A) Requirement.--Notwithstanding that qualified public
housing agencies are exempt under subsection (b)(3)(A) from
the requirement under this section to conduct a public
hearing regarding the annual public housing plan of the
agency, each qualified public housing agency shall annually
conduct a public hearing--
``(i) to discuss any changes to the goals, objectives, and
policies of the agency; and
``(ii) to invite public comment regarding such changes.
``(B) Availability of information and notice.--Not later
than 45 days before the date of any hearing described in
subparagraph (A), a qualified public housing agency shall--
``(i) make all information relevant to the hearing and any
determinations of the agency regarding changes to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the agency to be considered at
the hearing available for inspection by the public at the
principal office of the public housing agency during normal
business hours; and
``(ii) publish a notice informing the public that--

``(I) the information is available as required under clause
(i); and
``(II) a public hearing under subparagraph (A) will be
conducted.''.

Amendment No. 4988, as modified

On page 538, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:

TITLE VIII--FORECLOSURE RESCUE FRAUD PROTECTION

SEC. 2801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Foreclosure Rescue Fraud
Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2802. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal
Trade Commission.
(2) Foreclosure consultant.--The term ``foreclosure
consultant''--
(A) means a person who makes any solicitation,
representation, or offer to a homeowner facing foreclosure on
residential real property to perform, for gain, or who
performs, for gain, any service that such person represents
will prevent, postpone, or reverse the effect of such
foreclosure; and
(B) does not include--
(i) an attorney licensed to practice law in the State in
which the property is located who has established an
attorney-client relationship with the homeowner;
(ii) a person licensed as a real estate broker or
salesperson in the State where the property is located, and
such person engages in acts permitted under the licensure
laws of such State;
(iii) a housing counseling agency approved by the
Secretary;
(iv) a depository institution (as defined in section 3 of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813));
(v) a Federal credit union or a State credit union (as
defined in section 101 of the Federal Credit Union Act (12
U.S.C. 1752)); or
(vi) an insurance company organized under the laws of any
State.
(3) Homeowner.--The term ``homeowner'', with respect to
residential real property for which an action to foreclose on
the mortgage or deed of trust on such real property is filed,
means the person holding record title to such property as of
the date on which such action is filed.
(4) Loan servicer.--The term ``loan servicer'' has the same
meaning as the term ``servicer'' in section 6(i)(2) of the
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C.
2605(i)(2)).
(5) Residential mortgage loan.--The term ``residential
mortgage loan'' means any loan primarily for personal,
family, or household use that is secured by a mortgage, deed
of trust, or other equivalent consensual security interest on
a dwelling (as defined in section 103(v) of the Truth in
Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602)(v)) or residential real estate
upon which is constructed or intended to be constructed a
dwelling (as so defined).
(6) Residential real property.--The term ``residential real
property'' has the meaning given the term ``dwelling'' in
section 103 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act (15 U.S.C.
1602).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.

SEC. 2803. MORTGAGE RESCUE FRAUD PROTECTION.

(a) Limits on Foreclosure Consultants.--A foreclosure
consultant may not--
(1) claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any
compensation from a homeowner for services performed by such
foreclosure consultant with respect to residential real
property until such foreclosure consultant has fully
performed each service that such foreclosure consultant
contracted to perform or represented would be performed with
respect to such residential real property;
(2) hold any power of attorney from any homeowner, except
to inspect documents, as provided by applicable law;
(3) receive any consideration from a third party in
connection with services rendered to a homeowner by such
third party with respect to the foreclosure of residential
real property, unless such consideration is fully disclosed,
in a clear and conspicuous manner, to such homeowner in
writing before such services are rendered;
(4) accept any wage assignment, any lien of any type on
real or personal property, or other security to secure the
payment of compensation with respect to services provided by
such foreclosure consultant in connection with the
foreclosure of residential real property; or
(5) acquire any interest, directly or indirectly, in the
residence of a homeowner with whom the foreclosure consultant
has contracted.

[[Page 13834]]

(b) Contract Requirements.--
(1) Written contract required.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a foreclosure consultant may not provide to
a homeowner a service related to the foreclosure of
residential real property--
(A) unless--
(i) a written contract for the purchase of such service has
been signed and dated by the homeowner; and
(ii) such contract complies with the requirements described
in paragraph (2); and
(B) before the end of the 3-business-day period beginning
on the date on which the contract is signed.
(2) Terms and conditions of contract.--The requirements
described in this paragraph, with respect to a contract, are
as follows:
(A) The contract includes, in writing--
(i) a full and detailed description of the exact nature of
the contract and the total amount and terms of compensation;
(ii) the name, physical address, phone number, email
address, and facsimile number, if any, of the foreclosure
consultant to whom a notice of cancellation can be mailed or
sent under subsection (d); and
(iii) a conspicuous statement in at least 12 point bold
face type in immediate proximity to the space reserved for
the homeowner's signature on the contract that reads as
follows: ``You may cancel this contract without penalty or
obligation at any time before midnight of the 3rd business
day after the date on which you sign the contract. See the
attached notice of cancellation form for an explanation of
this right.''.
(B) The contract is written in the principal language used
to solicit or market the services to the homeowner.
(C) The contract is accompanied by the form required by
subsection (c)(2).
(c) Right To Cancel Contract.--
(1) In general.--With respect to a contract between a
homeowner and a foreclosure consultant regarding the
foreclosure on the residential real property of such
homeowner, such homeowner may cancel such contract without
penalty or obligation by mailing a notice of cancellation not
later than midnight of the 3rd business day after the date on
which such contract is executed or would become enforceable
against the parties to such contract.
(2) Cancellation form and other information.--Each contract
described in paragraph (1) shall be accompanied by a form, in
duplicate, that--
(A) has the heading ``Notice of Cancellation'' in boldface
type; and
(B) contains in boldface type the following statement:
``You may cancel this contract, without any penalty or
obligation, at any time before midnight of the 3rd day after
the date on which the contract is signed by you.
``To cancel this contract, mail or deliver a signed and
dated copy of this cancellation notice or any other
equivalent written notice to [insert name of foreclosure
consultant] at [insert address of foreclosure consultant]
before midnight on [insert date].
``I hereby cancel this transaction on [insert date] [insert
homeowner signature].''.
(d) Waiver of Rights and Protections Prohibited.--
(1) In general.--A waiver by a homeowner of any protection
provided by this section or any right of a homeowner under
this section--
(A) shall be treated as void; and
(B) may not be enforced by any Federal or State court or by
any person.
(2) Attempt to obtain a waiver.--Any attempt by any person
to obtain a waiver from any homeowner of any protection
provided by this section or any right of the homeowner under
this section shall be treated as a violation of this section.
(3) Contracts not in compliance.--Any contract that does
not comply with the applicable provisions of this title shall
be void and may not be enforceable by any party.

SEC. 2804. WARNINGS TO HOMEOWNERS OF FORECLOSURE RESCUE
SCAMS.

(a) In General.--If a loan servicer finds that a homeowner
has failed to make 2 consecutive payments on a residential
mortgage loan and such loan is at risk of being foreclosed
upon, the loan servicer shall notify such homeowner of the
dangers of fraudulent activities associated with foreclosure.
(b) Notice Requirements.--Each notice provided under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) be in writing;
(2) be included with a mailing of account information;
(3) have the heading ``Notice Required by Federal Law'' in
a 14-point boldface type in English and Spanish at the top of
such notice; and
(4) contain the following statement in English and Spanish:
``Mortgage foreclosure is a complex process. Some people may
approach you about saving your home. You should be careful
about any such promises. There are government and nonprofit
agencies you may contact for helpful information about the
foreclosure process. Contact your lender immediately at
[____], call the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Housing Counseling Line at (800) 569-4287 to find a housing
counseling agency certified by the Department to assist you
in avoiding foreclosure, or visit the Department's Tips for
Avoiding Foreclosure website at http://www.hud.gov/
foreclosure for additional assistance.'' (the blank space to
be filled in by the loan servicer and successor telephone
numbers and Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) for the
Department of Housing and Urban Development Housing
Counseling Line and Tips for Avoiding Foreclosure website,
respectively).

SEC. 2805. CIVIL LIABILITY.

(a) In General.--Any foreclosure consultant who fails to
comply with any provision of section 2803 or 2804 with
respect to any other person shall be liable to such person in
an amount equal to the greater of--
(1) the amount of any actual damage sustained by such
person as a result of such failure; or
(2) any amount paid by the person to the foreclosure
consultant.
(b) Class Actions Prohibited.--No Federal court may certify
a civil action under subsection (a) as a class action under
rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

SEC. 2806. ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Enforcement by Federal Trade Commission.--
(1) Unfair or deceptive act or practice.--A violation of a
prohibition described in section 2803 or a failure to comply
with any provision of section 2803 or 2804 shall be treated
as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act
or practice described under section 18(a)(1)(B) of the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a(a)(1)(B)).
(2) Actions by the federal trade commission.--The Federal
Trade Commission shall enforce the provisions of sections
2803 and 2804 in the same manner, by the same means, and with
the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as though all
applicable terms and provisions of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) were incorporated into
and made part of this title.
(b) State Action for Violations.--
(1) Authority of states.--In addition to such other
remedies as are provided under State law, whenever the chief
law enforcement officer of a State, or an official or agency
designated by a State, has reason to believe that any person
has violated or is violating the provisions of section 2803
or 2804, the State--
(A) may bring an action to enjoin such violation;
(B) may bring an action on behalf of its residents to
recover damages for which the person is liable to such
residents under section 2805 as a result of the violation;
and
(C) in the case of any successful action under subparagraph
(A) or (B), shall be awarded the costs of the action.
(2) Rights of federal trade commission.--
(A) Notice to commission.--The State shall serve prior
written notice of any civil action under paragraph (1) upon
the Commission and provide the Commission with a copy of its
complaint, except in any case in which such prior notice is
not feasible, in which case the State shall serve such notice
immediately upon instituting such action.
(B) Intervention.--The Commission shall have the right--
(i) to intervene in any action referred to in subparagraph
(A);
(ii) upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters
arising in the action; and
(iii) to file petitions for appeal in such actions.
(3) Investigatory powers.--For purposes of bringing any
action under this subsection, nothing in this subsection
shall prevent the chief law enforcement officer, or an
official or agency designated by a State, from exercising the
powers conferred on the chief law enforcement officer or such
official by the laws of such State to conduct investigations
or to administer oaths or affirmations, or to compel the
attendance of witnesses or the production of documentary and
other evidence.
(4) Limitation.--Whenever the Federal Trade Commission has
instituted a civil action for a violation of section 2803 or
2804, no State may, during the pendency of such action, bring
an action under this section against any defendant named in
the complaint of the Commission for any violation of section
2803 or 2804 that is alleged in that complaint.

SEC. 2807. LIMITATION.

No violation of a prohibition described in section 2803 or
a failure to comply with any provision of section 2803 or
2804 shall provide grounds for the halt, delay, or
modification of a foreclosure process or proceeding.

SEC. 2808. PREEMPTION.

Nothing in this title affects any provision of State or
local law respecting any foreclosure consultant, residential
mortgage loan, or residential real property that provides
equal or greater protection to homeowners than what is
provided under this title.

appraisal standards

Mr. SHELBY. Madam President, I rise to engage Senator Dodd in a
colloquy discussing the amendment offered by Senator Dole concerning
appraisal standards. I would like to acknowledge the distinguished
Senator from North Carolina for her efforts in crafting this amendment.
In December of last year, Attorney General Cuomo of New York, along

[[Page 13835]]

with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and OFHEO entered into an agreement to
create a mortgage appraiser code of conduct. I applaud the work of the
attorney general of New York for being proactive in trying to come up
with a code of conduct in order to deal with some of the problems in
the mortgage appraisal process.
While the ``code of conduct'' moves things in a positive direction,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are secondary market players, and the
attorney general of New York has authority to deal with the conduct
that touches upon the State of New York. In order to fully address the
issue and create a unified standard affecting all mortgage originators,
there must be a process involving all of the appropriate regulatory
authorities including the Federal banking regulators who participate in
the congressionally authorized Federal Financial Institutions
Examination Counsel, FFIEC, subcommittee on appraisals. This would also
provide regulated institutions with adequate opportunity to participate
in the process.
The National Bank Act authorizes national banks to engage in mortgage
lending, subject to OCC regulation. Since the early 1990s, each of the
Federal banking regulators has had standards in place that deal with
the conduct of mortgage appraisers. These standards were put in place
to address many of the safety and soundness concerns that we are
grappling with today. While I recognize the need to update and
strengthen these standards, I believe that we need to be mindful of
that structure, and rely upon it as part of the effort to reform the
appraisal process.
The appraisal is a key component in ensuring sound underwriting both
for banks and the consumer. I believe that the key concept of appraisal
independence is laudable and although incorporated into Federal banking
regulation, perhaps this construct needs to be strengthened.
Our goal should be to ensure that a standard exists that avoids
inconsistencies, provides stronger consumer protection, and protects
the safety and soundness of lending institutions. I believe that as a
wake-up call to the regulators that their standards must be revamped
and their enforcement stepped up.
Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague and agree with him on several fronts.
The first is that I commend Attorney General Cuomo for his aggressive
pursuit in ferreting out fraudulent appraisal practices. Law
enforcement has said repeatedly that unscrupulous appraisers are the
``enablers'' of mortgage fraud.
Appraisers, seeking new business, are eager to ``hit the number''
needed to make sure a mortgage is approved. If they fail to give the
lenders and brokers the appraisal needed to close the loan, they simply
don't get any more referrals from those lenders. As a result,
appraisers were inflating their estimates of house value, adding to the
frenzy that created the housing bubble.
The guidelines negotiated by Attorney General Cuomo with Fannie and
Freddie, and approved by OFHEO, seek to ensure that this kind of
pressure cannot be brought to bear on appraisers. They are designed to
ensure independence and address the significant evidence of collusion
between lenders and appraisers that Mr. Cuomo uncovered.
I understand there is great concern about the process for the reforms
the attorney general is demanding. I also understand that some people
don't like the new standards which will affect the practices of the
lenders that sell their mortgages to Fannie and Freddie.
As a result, I agree with my colleague that the Federal banking
agencies have a role in this process. These agencies already have
regulations in place that set forth appraisal standards for their
lenders. However, the appraisal fraud over the past couple of years,
and the attorney general's action, should serve as a wake-up call to
the regulators that their standards must be revamped and their
enforcement stepped up.

Amendment No. 4984 Withdrawn

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Dole amendment be
withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Vote on Motion to Concur

Mr. REID. Madam President, is the matter now the concurrence in the
substitute amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The question is on agreeing
to the motion to concur in the House amendment, with amendment No.
4983, as amended.
The yeas and nays have been previously ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the motion.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 79, nays 16, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

YEAS--79

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--16

Barrasso
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
Crapo
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Inhofe
Kyl
Thune
Vitter

NOT VOTING--5

Byrd
Clinton
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The motion was agreed to.

____________________

FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 827, H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments
Act of 2008.
Sheldon Whitehouse, Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Tim
Johnson, Ken Salazar, Barbara A. Mikulski, John D.
Rockefeller, IV, Herb Kohl, Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
Daniel K. Inouye, Mary Landrieu, Blanche L. Lincoln,
Mark L. Pryor, Dianne Feinstein, Thomas R. Carper,
Joseph Lieberman, Claire McCaskill.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, shall
be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Byrd), the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama)
are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

[[Page 13836]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 80, nays 15, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 158 Leg.]

YEAS--80

Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johnson
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker

NAYS--15

Biden
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Dodd
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kerry
Lautenberg
Leahy
Menendez
Sanders
Schumer
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Byrd
Clinton
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 80, the nays are
15. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The majority leader is recognized.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3221

Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
concur in the amendments of the House--this is on the housing bill--
striking titles VI through XI to the amendment of the Senate; and
finally that the Senate then disagree to the amendments of the House
adding a new title and inserting a new section to the amendment of the
Senate to H.R. 3221, notwithstanding rule XXII; further that a
managers' amendment which has been cleared by the managers and the
leaders also be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, I will object. I have been attempting,
with the Senator in the chair right now, to attach the Clean Energy Tax
Stimulus amendment to the housing bill and get a vote on it. This is an
amendment that passed on the housing bill a couple months ago by a vote
of 88 to 8 in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate.
People say: What does this have to do with housing? Well, it has
several things to do with housing. There is energy efficiency built in
for new home construction. If somebody wants to upgrade their home with
renewable energy products, they can do that with the help of tax
credits in this amendment. It is a good amendment because this country
is facing an energy crisis and gasoline prices are too high; home
heating oil is too high; and natural gas has gone up by 70 percent. We
need to have more renewable energy in the United States. All we have to
do is have a vote on this amendment, and we could proceed with the
housing bill.
Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. ENSIGN. In a moment. I would say in closing that people have
said--we can't do this. The House of Representatives would object
because it isn't ``paid for.'' Well, there is $2.4 billion in unoffset
tax provisions included in the Dodd/Shelby amendment and a large amount
of this does not even relate to housing. Why should the House of
Representatives accept $2.4 billion worth in tax incentives not paid
for and object to our clean energy tax provisions at the same time?
That is an example of why there is inconsistency in objecting to our
amendment being voted on.
I yield for a question.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I would like to ask, through the Chair,
the Senator from Nevada if he could tell me the name of the State that
has had 17 consecutive months leading the Nation in foreclosures.
Mr. ENSIGN. Madam President, there is no question that the whole
country is facing a housing crisis and it is not just housing; it
actually is leading to a liquidity problem, and my State like others
has experienced difficulties. I wish to solve this problem, and improve
this bill with the Clean Energy Tax Stimulus amendment----
Mr. REID. Madam President, regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. ENSIGN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I have been very patient while my dear
friend, the junior Senator from Nevada, has talked about this. Here is
the situation in which we find ourselves. Everyone knows we have an
extenders package. I have a letter on my desk that has been spread on
the Record previously--218 House Members have signed it--saying the
House will not accept anything that is not paid for on the extenders.
We have a letter that is now also a part of the Record, more than 400
companies, most of them Fortune 400 companies, say it is very important
to pass the extenders legislation paid for. We also had a statement in
The Hill newspaper yesterday, where the National Association of
Manufacturers said: Why can't they pass this bill? It is very important
to pass the extenders. It is the most important thing the manufacturers
need in the country.
We have a situation where there was an agreement made on this bill,
the housing bill. The agreement was that they would be related to
housing. With all due respect, everyone knows the matter relating to
the extenders that my dear friend from Nevada talks about has--you have
to stretch a lot to have it related to housing. Why would we want to
send something to the House and have them send it back to us? We have a
situation on the housing bill that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus
are going to take care of--the pay-fors. That is all part of the deal,
and everyone knows that.
This is a situation where Senator Shelby and Senator Dodd have worked
very hard, and not only have they been working with the House, but they
have been working with the White House on this housing bill.
Let's look at where we are. The Senate has turned this week to a
number of issues. We have had four main bills: Housing, FISA--the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act--Medicare fix, which is important
to do; and the supplemental appropriations bill. As of this minute, we
haven't passed any of those because there have been continued
objections from the minority.
Now, there is no need to whip out a Velcro chart about the number of
filibusters we have had, but that is the reason we are in the position
we are in today, because we have this great big funnel of legislation
that needs to get done and now we have the little spout and that spout
is the Fourth of July and it is hard to stuff everything into that. So
we have a situation now where there is no reason why housing, the
Medicare fix, the supplemental appropriations bill can't be passed in
the next couple days.
We have all talked about FISA. I voted on the motion to proceed, not
because I like the bill, but I think it is very important that there be
an opportunity to offer amendments on it. Senator Bond and Senator
Rockefeller recognize that and know they would also feel it appropriate
to have amendments on this legislation, but right now it appears we are
not going to have that opportunity. FISA enjoys support from both sides
of the aisle. It, too, could be easily dealt with before the Fourth of
July recess. All these bills are critical to the health, safety, and
well-being of the American people.
With thousands of American families losing their homes every day--
8,500 new foreclosures every day--and millions more facing the
shockwaves of abandoned properties and falling equity--and sometimes
rapidly falling equity--it is important we act quickly. This housing
legislation raises limits on Federal home loans; it creates a privately
funded program to help distressed homeowners; it modernizes the

[[Page 13837]]

Federal Housing Authority to keep pace with the current housing
conditions; and it provides foreclosure counseling moneys to families
in need.
This housing legislation enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support.
There is no reason we shouldn't pass this legislation.
On FISA, I recognize that Members of the House and Senate have worked
hard for 3 months to come up with these improvements. Some of my
Democratic colleagues will support a FISA compromise. I respect their
decision. Even though I may disagree with the majority of the Senate, I
have an obligation, as I said last night, to do everything I can to
move this forward. We should be able to do that this week.
The Medicare bill, also known as the doctors' fix, passed by a
stunning 355-to-59 vote in the House of Representatives--355 to 59.
Republican leaders in the House openly supported this legislation or
they wouldn't have gotten a vote such as that. This legislation will
both help Medicare beneficiaries and head off the looming cuts facing
doctors in many different ways. This bill was very similar to a bill
drafted by Senator Baucus and supported by every Senate Democrat and
nine Republicans in the Senate earlier this month. It represents the
only chance this body has to head off cuts to doctors before they take
effect at the end of the month. There is no reason we can't pass the
Medicare doctors' fix this week.
Who supports this legislation? AARP, the American Medical
Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Hospital
Association, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security, the
National Council on Aging, and dozens more--dozens more.
I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the scores of other
organizations be printed in the Record that support this Medicare fix--
fixing it now. It has to be done before the end of the month.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Alliance for Retired Americans, Alzheimer's Association,
American Academy of Audiology, American Academy of
Dermatology, American Academy of Otolaryngology, American
Academy of Ophthalmology, American Association for Geriatric
Psychiatry, American Association for Homecare, American
Association of Nurse Anesthetists, American College of
Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American College
of Radiology, American College of Osteopathic Internists,
American College of Surgeons, American Counseling
Association, American Clinical Laboratory Association,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
American Heart Association/American Stroke Association,
American Hospital Association, American Medical Association.
American Mental Health Counselors Association, American
Optometric Association, American Psychological Association,
American Society of Anesthesiologists, American Society of
Plastic Surgeons, Association for Community Affiliated Plans,
American Osteopathic Association, California Medical
Association, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Clinical Social
Work Association, Federation of American Hospitals, Food
Marketing Institute, Kidney Care Partners, Leadership Council
of Aging Organizations, Medical Group Management Association,
Medicare Rights Center, Mental Health America, National
Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders,
National Association of Chain Drug Stores, and National
Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and
Medicare, National Community Pharmacists Association,
National Council on Aging, National Rural Health Association,
Society of Gynecologic Oncologists, Society of Hospital
Medicine and Suicide Prevention Action Network USA (SPAN
USA).

Mr. REID. Madam President, it is legislation that every State in the
Union is calling us about, their Governors and other representatives,
to please take care of this. That is what we need to do. Are we doing
this to take care of the doctors? Partially, yes, but the other reason
we are doing it is we are doing it to preserve Medicare. If we do not
do this, there will be more doctors who drop out of taking care of
Medicare patients.
What does that mean? It also means there will be other people who are
reimbursed by insurance companies and other health care providers who
base their reimbursement on what Medicare pays. So we have to do this
fix. It is not only to take care of the doctors, it is to take care of
patients and Americans from one end of this country to the other.
Finally, we have a supplemental appropriations bill. I would hope we
could pass that before the Fourth of July recess. It is an emergency
supplemental. We know it funds the war fighting. No matter how people
feel about the money that has gone to pay for this war, costing us in
Iraq alone $5,000 every second, I would hope everyone understands we
are not going to vote on the war funding in this measure that is before
us now. But we have other things we have to vote on or the war funding
would not come forward, and that is important issues such as the GI
bill of rights and unemployment compensation extension which States are
drastically in need of.
It does other good things. There is money in here as a result of the
floods that have taken place. That is important. There are Medicaid
fixes. Out of the seven regulations that are causing a problem with
every Governor in America, six of them will be repealed by this
legislation. So there is no reason that we can't do this legislation.
I have said repeatedly we can pass all four of these bills this week.
We can do them tomorrow, as a matter of fact. But as with everything
else we try to accomplish around here in a closely divided Senate,
passing them will require the cooperation of Members from both sides of
the aisle.
The filibuster chart is now up to 78. Of course, this is an alltime
record for obstructionism. I have said our Republican colleagues, on
occasion, have acted Orwellian this year; they say one thing and do
another. I guess today is an appropriate day to say this because it is
George Orwell's birthday today. He would be 105 today.
So I would hope everyone understands there will be no going home
tomorrow unless we complete the things we are obligated to the American
people to complete. Now, some say, well, that may mean we are going to
have to be here Saturday. Yes, it may mean we have to be here Saturday
because that is the way it is, and if we can't complete our work by
Saturday, then we can continue our work. It wouldn't be the first time
in the history of this country that important legislation was worked on
during a holiday. Now, the Fourth of July doesn't come until next
Friday or Saturday, a week from the day after tomorrow. So we may have
to work here. Everyone should understand that. Everyone has
obligations. I do. I don't get to go home as much as a lot of people. I
would love to be able to go home on Friday, but we may not be able to.
We have to, in my opinion, complete the supplemental appropriations.
That is extremely important. We have to complete the Medicare
legislation before we go. If we can complete FISA, I am not going to
stand in the way of that. I think we should do that too. It appears
now, realistically, with this objection to the housing bill, it appears
very clear to me that is going to take more time, and we will not be
able to do it by the day after tomorrow, but we are going to complete
it. We have gone too far to do that. I tell all those people who are
objecting to our completing this housing legislation: We will complete
it. It may not be tomorrow, it may not be Friday, it may have to wait
until the first week we get back. I understand the procedural aspects
of that. It could require two more cloture votes, but two more cloture
votes would only bring us to 80. We have worked through more difficult
things than that. We have a relatively short work period in July, and
it is guaranteed that we will do--we will complete the work on the
housing bill the first week we get back.
So that is the best I can do. I am not upset with anyone. It has been
an interesting day, but it is a day that focuses attention on the work
we need to do. I haven't even mentioned the FAA extension. We have to
do that some way. We tried to do that, and that was objected to. We
have this global AIDS bill the President wants to do. I had a good
conversation with Senator Enzi a few minutes ago, and he said he had
three people who were objecting to that. He has taken care of two of
them

[[Page 13838]]

today. He is going to deal with the other one tomorrow. I hope, in
fact, that is the case. So there is a lot of work we need to do, and I
hope we can do it. But everyone should understand we are not walking
out of here at 2 o'clock tomorrow. If this means we have to stay until
after midnight to file cloture on various things, we will do that. We
have work we have to do for the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, let me brighten our day and lift the
mood of my good friend, the majority leader. I think by any standard
this is going to be a week of considerable bipartisan accomplishment
for the American people. We have a great likelihood of completing the
supplemental. As everyone knows, the war portion of the supplemental,
we don't even have to vote on again. The only thing we will be voting
on, again, on the supplemental are the domestic parts of it that are
widely supported on both sides of the aisle.
We all agree we need to do the so-called docs' fix. There is some
difference of opinion about exactly how to craft that. Senator Baucus
and Senator Grassley have a history of being able to come together and
work these things out in a way that makes sense for both sides.
The FISA bill enjoys almost, I assume, unanimous support on this side
of the aisle and more than half the votes on the other side of the
aisle. There is no reason we would not get there on that.
As the majority leader has pointed out, at some point along the way,
the cobwebs and trip wires and other problems the housing bill has run
into will be circumvented by the majority and we will get to final
passage on a piece of legislation that the vast majority of people on
both sides of the aisle think is important.
So I finish today with optimism about the chances of considerable
accomplishment for the American people before the week is out.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the business
before the Senate is the postcloture time on the FISA legislation; is
that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Yes, we are on the motion to
proceed to H.R. 6304.
Mr. REID. Yes, that is the FISA legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, briefly, I want to thank our colleagues. I
thank the majority leader for his tremendous help in getting us this
far on the housing bill. We have worked together, and we would not have
been this far without the cooperation of the minority leader as well.
So I thank Senator McConnell for that. I am grateful for my colleagues
to let us get cloture. Before we leave here--and the Presiding Officer
knows how important this legislation is to our States--if we can get
this done, I cannot think of a better message to send to the country
than having Democrats and Republicans come together to make a
difference to thousands of constituents who, over the next week and a
half, will be in foreclosure and in danger of losing their homes.
I am grateful for the vote we just had on the Dodd-Shelby substitute.
There are other hurdles to go because of the way this matter was sent
to us. Any individual Senator can drag this out further. Given the
overwhelming vote we have had, it seems to me it would be in our
interest to try to get to the other amendments that remain and make
this bill as supportive as we can in recognition of what the other body
has done, with the hopes that the President might even have this on his
desk for signature while we are back in our States during the
Independence Day holiday. I think we can do it if we really want to. It
is not that much of a difference that remains. As long as one or two
individuals insist that we go through all of the remaining procedural
hoops, they can delay the outcome. The outcome will happen.
Unfortunately, their delays will cause others who might otherwise have
been helped by this bill to possibly lose their homes. I think that is
tragic indeed.
I hope the leadership will prevail upon those Senators to allow us to
continue the amendment process, get through the hurdles, and complete
work on this bill before we leave.
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. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for a
few minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Corporate Responsibility in Iowa

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address an issue of corporate
responsibility, particularly as it relates to my hometown of New
Hartford, IA, and the flood that recently took place there, and whether
a large chain of convenient stores that is headquartered across
Wisconsin is going to take the corporate responsibility of continuing
to serve a small town that has been devastated by a flood.
It has been a tough and challenging time for Iowans over the past few
weeks. I have come to the floor on a few occasions already to update my
colleagues on the natural disasters that have hit Iowa so hard.
Tornadoes and floods have caused economic and emotional toil and pain
and have, sadly, taken 24 lives across the Midwest.
Just a mile from my farm is the town of New Hartford, where I have
lived my entire 74 years. It is a modest town of about 650 people. On
May 25, the north edge of the town suffered extensive damage from a
tornado.
That same tornado destroyed half the town of Parkersburg, IA, just 10
miles west of my hometown of New Hartford, and continued damaging towns
over a 43-mile range, including Dunkerton and Hazleton, as that tornado
traveled east.
Then came the floods. The town and residents of New Hartford were
devastated by the flood waters of what we call Beaver Creek. Much of
the town's homes and businesses suffered damages from the floods.
But Iowans are resilient people. The residents and the entire
community are pulling together to help their neighbors get back on
their feet.
But one resident is abandoning the people of New Hartford. Kwik Star
has announced that the only convenience gas store in town will not be
rebuilt. The decision by Kwik Star to not reopen their store is a
serious setback for the town of New Hartford.
These folks have endured a tornado and a damaging flood, but they are
working to rebuild, pull themselves together, and somehow get their
lives back to normal.
But the one gas station and convenience store will not be around to
help with that rebuilding. They view the damage to their facility as
too great, too daunting to overcome. This news has added another
devastation to the residents of the community. We get the story: Well,
we will not rebuild in New Hartford. We will put one double the size of
that one in Parkersburg, so then all the people in New Hartford can
drive 10 miles to get whatever they would get in their local community.
This is a large chain of convenience stores. I am begging for
corporate responsibility, to continue to serve the community. And,
particularly, don't ditch people when they are most in need.
Well, their decision doesn't sit well with the residents of New
Hartford. As you can tell, it doesn't sit well with me.
As the residents are cleaning up their homes, parks, and businesses,
Kwik Star has decided to abandon them. Kwik Star is hurting my
neighbors and friends emotionally and economically.
If they don't see the value in rebuilding in New Hartford, why should
the residents have any hope? These folks are doing everything they can
to bring

[[Page 13839]]

their properties back from this disaster, to rebuild our hometown, and
Kwik Star is leaving them high and dry during this time of devastation.
It is not just the emotional pain of their decision that hurts the
people of New Hartford, IA; it is also economic because Kwik Star
employed 15 people before the flood. Three full-time employees--Deana
Ackerson, Brenda Smith, and Barb Harper--have each worked for Kwik Star
for many years.
Twelve other employees--Cindy Huberg, John Mulder, John Anderson,
Matt Winkelman, Rich Moore, Teresa Peverill, Carol Grooms, Lauri and
Roger Palmersheim, Mitch Konken, Pam Hargema, and Heather Hugelucht--
depended on Kwik Star for employment as well.
The bottom line is that the residents of New Hartford are clinging to
their hope that the town will come back even stronger than before these
disasters. They are using that hope to get through this.
But Kwik Star is dashing that hope. Kwik Star is telling them that
their town no longer deserves a gas station and convenience store. One
flood is all that this big corporation can seem to handle. If you want
gas, milk, or bread, you will have to drive 10 miles to get it in a
new, refurbished store that is twice as large.
I can tell them that in another town, just 15 miles away, they had a
flood, and they had two stores in that town. One of the two stores in
Waverly was flooded, but they are going to rebuild that store. I don't
understand this. I am working for tax changes, which is the very same
thing we did for Katrina in New Orleans, and with the help of Senator
Baucus and Congressman Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee, we are working to enact tax relief for victims of natural
disasters similar to what was done to the victims of the hurricane. I
hope this will encourage Kwik Star to stay in New Hartford.
This includes expensing for demolition and cleanup of debris. Another
major provision would allow additional depreciation to greatly reduce
or eliminate the business tax liability for the current year, including
an operating loss carryback, as an example, for 5 years, which ought to
be plenty of incentive for these businesses to continue in the
communities where they work.
In the case of the floods, we are talking about 250 different
communities in eastern Iowa, just as an example; and, in addition,
Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana--and now it looks as though it is
going to cover Missouri as well.
I am pushing these provisions to help businesses such as Kwik Star
cope with the cost of damage and rebuilding.
Mr. President, I am here to appeal to this major convenience store
and corporation serving the Midwest, the Kwik Star Corporation, and
tell them that New Hartford is worthy of a convenience store. Our
residents deserve Kwik Star's commitment to the community. They need to
know that a company they have depended on and they have done business
with for over 20 years will reverse this decision and join them in
bringing New Hartford back from disaster.

Iowa Flooding

Mr. President, I want to take a moment to provide another update on
the flooding in Iowa. As you are aware, Iowa is in the middle of a
crisis. Across the State, floods have devastated homes, businesses,
farms, and communities, and that continues.
I have been traveling back and forth to Iowa to see the catastrophic
damage, and I have been anguished to see my fellow Iowans suffering.
People are hurting, and it will take a long time and a lot of hard work
just to get back to normal.
However, in the midst of this devastation, I have also witnessed
incredible examples of the spirit of Iowa. I have seen Iowans come
together in communities across the State sandbagging, consoling,
sharing, and providing a helping hand to neighbors and strangers alike.
This spirit of dedication, a natural inclination to put others before
self, is what makes me most proud to call myself an Iowan.
I cannot talk about the spirit of Iowa without talking about the
dedication and efforts of our police, fire, emergency medical services,
National Guard forces, and the Civil Air Patrol. These first responders
are the frontline of defense for all Iowans. These selfless individuals
come to the aid of all Iowans, putting duty first to help others defend
their homes, livelihoods, and lives. They do this without thinking
twice and put others' lives before their own. They have worked
tirelessly to build levees, to sandbag, to secure dangerous areas, and
to make water rescues. They have suffered loss, just as all Iowans
have; but they never waiver and they always continue to come to the aid
of others.
For instance, police and fire stations across the flood zone have
been damaged or destroyed. News reports have documented how the fire
station in Columbus Junction, IA, was under 10 feet of water. Other
reports point to devastation of police, fire, and EMS facilities across
the State, including the second largest city in our State, Cedar
Rapids. Despite this, first responders still continue to provide
security and to help communities in distress. Their efforts are nothing
short of heroic.
It is not just local police, fire, EMS personnel who are helping out.
Law enforcement officers with the Iowa State Patrol and from other
agencies across the State have come to the flood zone to lend a helping
hand.
Some have come from out of State. For instance, Coast Guard rescue
teams based out of St. Louis came to provide search and rescue. State
troopers and police officers from Nebraska and Minnesota have helped
the Cedar Rapids Police Department keep the city secure as the
floodwaters recede and cleanup begins.
I appreciate the sacrifice and dedication these folks have made to
help Iowa in its time of need.
But it does not stop there. The Iowa National Guard has deployed over
4,000 of their members across the State, providing vital manpower to
assist local communities. They have used their skills and training to
help meet numerous local needs. They have helped with sandbagging,
shoring up levees, saving homes and businesses, and they have secured
bridges and patrolled levees. They have been assisting local law
enforcement with security. They have distributed clean drinking water
to communities that have no running water and provided generators to
those without power.
The National Guard has also provided air support via helicopters to
support the assessment of damage and transportation of vital equipment.
The list of needs met by our Iowa Guardsmen goes on and on, and their
dedication knows no bounds.
In fact, one Iowa Guardsman, National Guard SPC Curtis L. White, had
to change his wedding plans when he was deployed in support of the
flood effort. He married his wife Daniele on Thursday, June 19, on the
viaduct on the corner of Highway 92 and 2nd Street in Columbus Junction
where he had been assisting with the flood operations. I thank him, his
new wife, and his fellow Iowa National Guard soldiers and airmen for
their sacrifices and compassion for their fellow Iowans.
I also thank those in the Iowa wing of the Civil Air Patrol who flew
Senator Harkin and this Senator around the State to view the impacted
areas. The Civil Air Patrol also flew photo missions to examine the
extent of flooding. I commend the Civil Air Patrol for their
dedication.
Finally, I thank the men and women across the State who are serving
in hospitals, emergency rooms, long-term care facilities, community
health centers, home health agencies, and hospices. Many of these
people lost their homes to flooding, and yet they still showed up at
work to do the right thing. They are to be commended for those efforts.
I know these folks were on the frontline working to evacuate patients
from places such as Mercy Medical Center in Cedar Rapids as floodwaters
rose. When this happened, facilities such as Saint Luke's Hospital in
the same city and others nearby jumped up without hesitation to take in
these displaced hospital patients.
We cannot forget the hard work and dedication of our health care
professionals during this crisis, and as they

[[Page 13840]]

are on the road to recovery. With people such as these, I have no doubt
that facilities such as Mercy Medical Center will be fully operational
in no time.
As the floodwaters start to recede and Iowa moves toward rebuilding,
the responsibility of public safety will still be on the shoulders of
our first responders. These capable men and women who serve in law
enforcement, fire departments, EMS, the National Guard, and in
hospitals across the State need all the resources we can provide them
in this time of need. We have a responsibility to make sure they are
equipped for the job and any future natural disasters we have.
That is why I led the Iowa congressional delegation in writing to
Federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the
Department of Justice, asking that deadlines for law enforcement and
first responder grant programs be extended for communities impacted by
the flooding.
Communities in Iowa should not be penalized from receiving grants
because they have not had the time to hurry up and beat a deadline that
does not take into consideration such natural disasters. These
communities should be given special consideration for applying for
grant moneys because of the extensive damage.
Programs such as the Assistance to Firefighters and the Staffing for
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters can provide vital
assistance to fire departments that were impacted by the flooding.
These departments may need new equipment, radios, computers, and
repairs to their fire stations. These grants can provide that
assistance.
Further, programs such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Program, called Byrne/JAG, as we all know it around here,
and the Community Oriented Policing Services, and we refer to that as
the COPS Program, can also provide these same types of resources to
police departments in need.
Iowans will soon be facing a long process toward rebuilding. It will
not be easy. However, I am proud to say that I know Iowans will be
helping others to rebuild in the Iowa spirit of hard work and
generosity. We in Congress are doing all we can on our end to ensure
that first responders in the field have the resources they need.
So I applaud, maybe now a third or fourth time but you cannot do it
too many times, these brave men and women who serve their communities
and carry on the spirit of Iowa.
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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed
to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for
up to 10 minutes each, with the time counting postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF GLORIA HUGHES

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Ms.
Gloria Hughes for her committed service to Nevada. Ms. Hughes will be
retiring on June 30, 2008, after over three decades of service in the
Mineral County Assessor's office.
Ms. Hughes began her service in 1973 as a deputy clerk. She then
served as deputy assessor, senior deputy assessor, and chief deputy
assessor. In 1994, she was elected to her first of four terms as
assessor.
As sssessor of Mineral County, Gloria has worked tirelessly to
improve the quality and efficiency of her office, never losing heart
when she encountered obstacles. For example, Gloria won a 12 year
battle to obtain an office vehicle, which helps the staff fulfill their
appraisal duties throughout rural Mineral County. Ms. Hughes'
realization of this goal and others like it ensured that her office was
consistently the best it could be. Indeed, the State department of
taxation repeatedly gave the Mineral County Assessor's office perfect
marks in every category of methods and procedures of tax assessment.
True to her nature, Ms. Hughes expresses regret that she will not be
able to see all of her goals for Mineral County realized, but is
optimistic that the dedicated employees she leaves behind will fulfill
them when the time is right.
Gloria will be missed by her employees--whose best interests she
worked for ceaselessly--and the citizens of Mineral County who were the
fortunate beneficiaries of her fervent commitment to her job, her
county, and her state.
I am grateful to Ms. Hughes for her service and proud to honor her
and her achievements.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE RETIREMENT OF BOB STOLDAL

Mr. REID. Mr President, I rise today to recognize Bob Stoldal, a
legend in Nevada news and the Las Vegas community for more than 40
years. Mr. Stoldal's first experience in a news office came in 1960,
working for the Las Vegas Review Journal--first as a janitor, then as a
typesetter. In the next year he was hired by KLAS radio as a graveyard-
shift radio disk jockey, where he was known to his listeners as Bob
Free.
Over the past five decades, Mr. Stoldal has worked as a reporter,
anchor, news director, and vice president of news for KLAS. He was the
first ever general manager of Las Vegas One and held that position for
the past 10 years.
Bob's dedication to accuracy in media content and high ethical
standards in broadcast journalism have defined his career. He demands
journalistic excellence and integrity from himself and those who work
for him. Bob's demand for excellence has earned KLAS countless national
and regional awards and recognitions.
Besides upping the ante for Nevada journalism, Bob Stoldal has
impacted the field on a national level. Mr. Stoldal has been a staunch
advocate for cameras in courtrooms and pioneered the charge to allow
cameras in southern Nevada's courtrooms, adding a degree of public
scrutiny to our legal system.
Mr. Stoldal's dedication to Las Vegas and his community extends far
beyond the realm of media. Bob Stoldal has donated countless hours to
the public good, working on State and local boards, commissions, and
museums. He currently serves as chairman of the Nevada State Museum and
Historical Society and the Las Vegas Historic Preservation Commission.
As a member of the Nevada Broadcasting Hall of Fame and the longest
serving employee of KLAS, Bob Stoldal is a legend in the field of
journalism; his insight, dedication, and integrity will be missed by
all. I wish him an enjoyable retirement and all the best in his future
endeavors.

____________________

HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES

Lance Corporal Layton Bradly Crass

Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the
life of the brave lance corporal from Richmond, IN. Layton Crass, 22
years old, died on June 14, 2008, in Farah Province, Afghanistan, from
injuries sustained while his unit was conducting combat operations. He
was a member of the U.S. Marine Corps, Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 7th
Marines from Twentynine Palms, CA.
Layton graduated from Richmond High School in 2005. Outgoing and
active in school, Layton also loved rollerblading, paintball, and
computers. Public service was a family tradition for Layton; his father
is a veteran and his brother, Donald, serves in the U.S. Marines, as
well. In high school, Layton was part of the Richmond Police Youth
Cadet Program and, according to his family, surprised no one when he
enlisted in the Marines. It had been his ambition since he was 16 years
old.

[[Page 13841]]

Before his deployment in Afghanistan, Layton served an 8-month tour
in Iraq. Layton never wavered in his commitment to his country or to
the Armed Services. His friend, Dustin Gibbs, told a local newspaper
that he joined the Marines because of Layton's inspiration. Gibbs had
this to say of his comrade: ``He was a true friend and an extremely
brave man. He had a huge heart and made quite an impact on my life and
my future to come.'' These words illustrate the great influence Layton
had on those lucky enough to know him. His memory will live on long
past his years through the many lives he touched.
Today, I join Layton's family and friends in mourning his death.
Layton will forever be remembered as a son, brother, and friend to
many. He is survived by his parents Donald and Lynne Shingledecker
Crass; his sister Dusty Nichole Throop and her husband Nicholas; his
brother Devin James Crass and his wife Megan Elizabeth; his nephew,
Brenton Isaiah Throop; and his grandparents, Mary Ann and Bob Coons,
Zeb and Darlene Crass and Virginia Shingledecker.
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 Layton. Today and always, Layton 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 Layton'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 Layton's actions will live on far longer that any
record of these words.
It is my sad duty to enter the name of Layton Bradly Crass in the
official record of the 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 pain that comes
with the loss of our heroes, I hope that Layton's family 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 Layton.

____________________

SOMALIA

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. Res. 541,
adopted on May 21, which is a resolution designed to support
humanitarian assistance in Somalia. As you know, Somalia has seen one
government after another fail to deliver for the Somali people for the
better part of two decades. At the same time, the situation in Somalia
and the broader Horn of Africa is of great strategic importance to the
United States and of deep concern to me personally, having traveled to
the region on several occasions.
I do not think that we can overestimate the scale of the humanitarian
challenges facing Somalia. At least a million people were uprooted
during fighting between the Transitional Federal Government and Islamic
insurgents last year, and their plight has become graver because of
record food prices, drought, and hyperinflation. The 250,000 Somalis in
a small corridor outside Mogadishu is now considered the largest camp
of internally displaced persons in the world.
The goal of the international community has been to support the
formation of a viable government of national unity in Somalia to help
stabilize the situation on the ground, and this resolution is designed
to support this goal. Nevertheless, we should recall that the country
recently faced the terrible prospect of rule by Islamic extremists and
that without Ethiopia's intervention, the TFG would not have had this
opportunity to bring some measure of stability to the country.
For its part, Ethiopia eliminated the threat of a Taliban-like state
taking root on its eastern border and scored a major victory in the war
on terrorism. And for our part, this accomplishment furthered U.S.
interests by helping ensure that the Somali government did not threaten
or seek to destabilize its neighbors or provide protection for
terrorists that threaten the United States and its allies.
While I support the broad goal of stability for Somalia and a
sustainable peace, let me be clear on an important point. No Somali
government should include factions with ties to al-Qaida or al-Shabaab.
Both groups seek to undermine the stability of the TFG, which is the
internationally recognized government of Somalia, through violence and
intimidation. While al-Qaida's status and animosity towards the United
States has been clear for a long time, we should also not underestimate
the threat that al-Shabaab also poses to stability in Somalia and the
entire region. Indeed, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice designated
the group as a foreign terrorist organization and as a specially
designated global terrorist on February 29.
In its assessment of the group's activities, the State Department
explains the organization scattered leaflets on the streets of
Mogadishu warning participants in last year's reconciliation conference
that they intended to bomb the conference venue. Al-Shabaab promised to
shoot anyone planning to attend the conference and to blow up
delegates' cars and hotels. The group has claimed responsibility for
shooting deputy district administrators, as well as several bombings
and shootings in Mogadishu targeting Ethiopian troops and Somali
government officials. In short, terrorist organizations such as al-
Qaida and al-Shabaab seek to undermine the hard-fought and tenuous
peace that has been achieved and their influence in Somalia must be
curbed.
In addition, while I support the resolution's call for Ethiopia to
develop a timeline for the ``responsible'' withdrawal of its troops
from Somalia, it is important to emphasize that this resolution does
not call for either an immediate withdrawal or a rigid timeline
irrespective of the availability of replacement peacekeeping forces.
Any such inflexible approach would be counterproductive, undermine the
TFG, and threaten the important gains that have already been achieved.
Just as the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia derives, in part,
from the intra-party Somali conflict, their departure should not occur
until African Union or other international troops have arrived to keep
the peace secure. To date, unfortunately, only 2,500 of 8,000 pledged
AU peacekeepers have arrived. While some have claimed the presence of
Ethiopian troops itself is destabilizing, there is no doubt in my mind
that the alternative would be far worse.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the impact that
Eritrea has had in terms of making the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops
more challenging. According to the United Nations, Eritrea is
supporting insurgent groups to undermine the TFG. Under these
circumstances, not only would it leave a vacuum for the Ethiopian
troops to be withdrawn early, but such a withdrawal would be seized
upon by Eritrean-backed insurgents to destabilize the situation in
Somalia. This is why this resolution calls on Eritrea to play a
productive--and not a destructive--role in Somalia.
The United States has a deep and profound interest in securing the
peace in Somalia and the broader Horn of Africa. There is no doubt that
serious challenges remain. Nevertheless, I look forward to our
continuing to work with our friend and ally Ethiopia, as well as the
African Union, United Nations, and other countries in the region to
secure a brighter future for all those people in

[[Page 13842]]

Somalia who yearn to live their lives in peace and with the opportunity
to provide for their families.

____________________

CHANGES TO S. CON. RES. 70

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, section 323(d) of S. Con. Res. 70, the
2009 budget resolution, permits the chairman of the Senate Budget
Committee to make appropriate adjustments in aggregates, allocations,
and other levels assumed in the resolution to reflect the budgetary
impact of certain legislation.
I am filing adjustments pursuant to section 323(d) for legislation
that Congress cleared prior to the adoption of S. Con. Res. 70 but for
which the necessary information to incorporate their budgetary effects
was not available at the time the conference report was filed. The
revisions are for public law 110-232, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Fill Suspension and Consumer Protection Act of 2008, and public law
110-245, the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008.
For the information of my colleagues, the combined effect of the
adjustments, including accompanying changes in debt service, is to
reduce the on-budget deficit assumed in S. Con. Res. 70 by $965 million
in 2008, while increasing it by $933 million in 2009 and by roughly $1
billion over the 2009 to 2013 period. On a unified basis, the
legislation is expected to lower deficits by $322 million over the 2008
to 2013 period. Because the revisions are being made for legislation
that has already cleared Congress, they will neither raise nor lower
the amount of room available to Congress under the budgetary aggregates
and committee allocations.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a set of tables
which show the revised allocations, aggregates, and other levels for S.
Con. Res. 70, the 2009 budget resolution.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009--S. CON. RES.
70; REVISIONS TO THE CONFERENCE AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 323(d)
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 101:
(1)(A) Federal Revenues:
FY 2008............................................ 1,875.400
FY 2009............................................ 2,029.644
FY 2010............................................ 2,204.668
FY 2011............................................ 2,413.246
FY 2012............................................ 2,506.023
FY 2013............................................ 2,626.530
(1)(B) Change in Federal Revenues:
FY 2008............................................ -4.000
FY 2009............................................ -67.755
FY 2010............................................ 21.270
FY 2011............................................ -14.824
FY 2012............................................ -151.572
FY 2013............................................ -123.689
(2) New Budget Authority:
FY 2008............................................ 2,562.305
FY 2009............................................ 2,531.668
FY 2010............................................ 2,562.869
FY 2011............................................ 2,693.847
FY 2012............................................ 2,736.860
FY 2013............................................ 2,868.805
(3) Budget Outlays:
FY 2008............................................ 2,464.754
FY 2009............................................ 2,566.868
FY 2010............................................ 2,621.952
FY 2011............................................ 2,712.799
FY 2012............................................ 2,722.051
FY 2013............................................ 2,860.217
(4) Deficits (On-Budget):
FY 2008............................................ 589.354
FY 2009............................................ 537.224
FY 2010............................................ 417.284
FY 2011............................................ 299.553
FY 2012............................................ 216.028
FY 2013............................................ 233.687
(5) Debt Subject to Limit:
FY 2008............................................ 9,574.025
FY 2009............................................ 10,206.896
FY 2010............................................ 10,731.823
FY 2011............................................ 11,136.758
FY 2012............................................ 11,483.707
FY 2013............................................ 11,831.678
(6) Debt Held by the Public:
FY 2008............................................ 5,403.025
FY 2009............................................ 5,760.896
FY 2010............................................ 5,988.823
FY 2011............................................ 6,079.758
FY 2012............................................ 6,074.707
FY 2013............................................ 6,080.678
Section 102:
(a) Social Security Revenues:
FY 2008............................................ 666.716
FY 2009............................................ 695.932
FY 2010............................................ 733.631
FY 2011............................................ 772.531
FY 2012............................................ 809.862
FY 2013............................................ 845.108
(b) Social Security Outlays:
FY 2008............................................ 463.746
FY 2009............................................ 493.602
FY 2010............................................ 520.149
FY 2011............................................ 540.478
FY 2012............................................ 566.241
FY 2013............................................ 595.535
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 104:
(18) Net Interest (900):
FY 2008
New budget authority........................... 349.344
Outlays........................................ 349.344
FY 2009
New budget authority........................... 334.396
Outlays........................................ 334.396
FY 2010
New budget authority........................... 370.799
Outlays........................................ 370.799
FY 2011
New budget authority........................... 407.907
Outlays........................................ 407.907
FY 2012
New budget authority........................... 433.182
Outlays........................................ 433.182
FY 2013
New budget authority........................... 448.797
Outlays........................................ 448.797
(19) Allowances (920):
FY 2008
New budget authority........................... 3.476
Outlays........................................ 1.125
FY 2009
New budget authority........................... -12.223
Outlays........................................ -5.484
FY 2010
New budget authority........................... -11.936
Outlays........................................ -9.366
FY 2011
New budget authority........................... -12.294
Outlays........................................ -11.756
FY 2012
New budget authority........................... -12.683
Outlays........................................ -13.758
FY 2013
New budget authority........................... -12.993
Outlays........................................ -13.389
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE COMMITTEE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
BUDGET YEAR TOTAL 2008
(In millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct spending legislation Entitlements funded in annual
------------------------------------ appropriations acts
Committee -----------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations:
General Purpose Discretionary....... 1,050,478 1,094,944
Memo:
Off-budget.......................... 5,260 5,181
On-budget........................... 1,045,218 1,089,763
Mandatory........................... 585,962 569,537
------------------------------------
Total........................... 1,636,440 1,664,481
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.... 14,910 15,413 74,287 58,027
Armed Services.......................... 119,050 118,842 105 101
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs..... 15,285 1,628 0 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation... 13,964 9,363 1,182 1,126
Energy and Natural Resources............ 3,850 4,264 62 61
Environment and Public Works............ 39,658 2,196 0 0
Finance................................. 1,100,859 1,102,857 442,523 442,584
Foreign Relations....................... 15,852 15,819 159 159
Homeland Security and Governmental 86,027 84,221 10,573 10,573
Affairs................................
Judiciary............................... 7,262 7,533 611 610
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.. 9,874 9,745 13,208 13,229
Rules and Administration................ 70 225 122 121
Intelligence............................ 0 0 263 263
Veterans' Affairs....................... 746 801 42,867 42,683
Indian Affairs.......................... 453 451 0 0

[[Page 13843]]

Small Business.......................... -333 -333 0 0
Unassigned to Committee................. -604,458 -596,472 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................... 2,459,509 2,441,034 585,962 569,537
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE COMMITTEE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT
BUDGET YEAR TOTAL 2009
(In millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct spending legislation Entitlements funded in annual
------------------------------------ appropriations acts
Committee -----------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
General Purpose Discretionary....... 1,011,718 1,106,112
Memo:
off-budget.......................... 5,491 5,418
on-budget........................... 1,006,227 1,100,694
Mandatory........................... 621,707 608,653
------------------------------------
Total........................... 1,633,425 1,714,765
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.... 15,688 14,530 76,307 63,526
Armed Services.......................... 126,030 125,863 105 100
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs..... 12,680 -1,239 0 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation... 14,432 10,250 1,149 1,145
Energy and Natural Resources............ 6,041 5,789 62 63
Environmental and Public Works.......... 34,528 2,291 0 0
Finance................................. 1,085,721 1,087,208 473,803 473,788
Foreign Relations....................... 15,966 15,955 149 149
Homeland Security and Governmental 89,749 87,732 10,599 10,599
Affairs................................
Judiciary............................... 9,749 8,414 624 627
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions... 9,349 8,088 14,129 14,116
Rules and Administration................ 69 19 127 127
Intelligence............................ 0 0 279 279
Veterans' Affairs....................... 1,166 1,247 44,374 44,134
Indian Affairs.......................... 529 542 0 0
Small Business.......................... 0 0 0 0
Unassigned to Committee................. -594,692 -586,021 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 2,460,430 2,495,433 621,707 608,653
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENATE COMMITTEE BUDGET AUTHORITY AND OUTLAY ALLOCATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
ACT 5-YEAR TOTAL: 2009-2013
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct spending legislation Entitlements funded in annual
------------------------------------ appropriations acts
Committee -----------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.... 76,466 69,479 387,350 329,869
Armed Services.......................... 668,567 667,908 456 458
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs..... 66,961 -10,748 0 0
Commerce, Science, and Transportation... 75,918 49,960 6,322 6,294
Energy and Natural Resources............ 26,349 25,971 302 303
Environment and Public Works............ 173,099 11,833 0 0
Finance................................. 6,165,556 6,172,365 2,703,905 2,703,728
Foreign Relatons........................ 73,053 73,024 660 660
Homeland Security and Governmental 484,637 472,579 51,467 51,467
Affairs................................
Judiciary............................... 40,735 41,031 3,207 3,241
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.. 62,263 60,084 79,175 78,944
Rules and Administration................ 341 343 685 685
Intelligence............................ 0 0 1,481 1,481
Veterans' Affairs....................... 5,595 6,208 236,997 235,550
Indian Affairs.......................... 2,158 2,216 0 0
Small Business.......................... 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

____________________

42ND ANNIVERSARY OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, on July 4, our Nation will celebrate the
42nd anniversary of the signing of the Freedom of Information Act,
FOIA. While we mark this important anniversary, the country also
celebrates the enactment earlier this year of the first major reforms
to FOIA in over a decade--the OPEN Government Act--which will
reinvigorate and strengthen this vital open government law for many
years to come.
Now in its fourth decade, the Freedom of Information Act remains an
indispensable tool for shedding light on bad policies and Government
abuses. The act has helped to guarantee the public's ``right to know''
for generations of Americans. Today, thanks to the reforms contained in
the OPEN Government Act, which was signed into law on December 31,
Americans who seek information under FIOA will experience a process
that is much more transparent and less burdened by delays than it has
been in the past. This is very good news. But there is still much more
to be done to ensure that FOIA remains an effective tool for keeping
our democracy open and free.
A key component of the OPEN Government Act is the creation of an
Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, within the National
Archives and Records Administration. The office would mediate FOIA
disputes, review agency compliance with FOIA, and house a newly created
FOIA ombudsman. Establishing a fully funded OGIS is essential to
reversing the troubling trend of the last 7 years towards lax FOIA
compliance and excessive Government secrecy.
I am pleased that the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies--a panel on which I
serve--last week rejected the President's budget proposal to move the
functions of OGIS to the Department of Justice. I will continue to work
very hard to

[[Page 13844]]

ensure that OGIS is fully funded within the National Archives--as
Congress intended--so that this important office has the necessary
resources to fully comply with the OPEN Government Act.
There is also more work to be done to further strengthen FOIA.
Earlier this year, I was pleased to join with Senator John Cornyn in
introducing the OPEN FOIA Act, S. 2746, a bill that requires Congress
to clearly and explicitly state its intention to create a statutory
exemption to FOIA when it provides for such an exemption in new
legislation. While there is a very real need to keep certain Government
information secret to ensure the public good and safety, excessive
Government secrecy is a constant temptation and the enemy of a vibrant
democracy.
The OPEN FOIA Act provides a safeguard against the growing trend
towards FOIA exemptions, and would make all FOIA exemptions clear and
unambiguous, and vigorously debated, before they are enacted into law.
The Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this bill at its business
meeting this week, and I urge all members to support this legislation
to further restore the public's trust in their Government.
As we reflect upon the celebration of another FOIA anniversary, we in
Congress must also reaffirm our commitment to open and transparent
government. As I have said many times, open government is not a
Democratic issue or a Republican issue. It is an American value and a
virtue that all Americans hold dear. It is in this bipartisan spirit
that I join Americans from across the political spectrum in celebrating
the 42nd anniversary of the birth of FOIA and all that this law has
come to symbolize about our vibrant democracy.

____________________

HONORING THE RESCUERS OF KEITH KENNEDY

Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the dedication of
all those involved in the safe and miraculous return of Keith Kennedy,
an autistic man from Shoreview, MN, who spent this past week alone,
without food or shelter, lost in the woods of northwestern Wisconsin.
His safe return has been called a miracle, but this miracle would not
have been possible without the commitment of the hundreds of
volunteers, law enforcement officers, firefighters and medics who
selflessly gave their time and continued to search for Keith, even when
all hope seemed lost.
Special recognition must go to Gary Ruiz and Jim Cotroneo, two St.
Paul firefighters who found Keith against all odds. Their efforts, and
the efforts of their colleagues who joined them in this search, ensured
a joyful ending to what could so easily have been another tragedy.
I cannot fail to mention Keith's parents, Bruce and Linda Kennedy,
whose spirit of hope was by all accounts an inspiration to those who
participated in bringing Keith home safely. Their bravery and the
bravery of their son are an inspiration to us all.
I believe this story shows once again the willingness of Minnesotans,
and of our friends in Wisconsin, to go beyond what is asked of them to
come together as a community and support those in need. My hope is that
the actions of all those who gave of themselves so that Keith could
return home, will inspire others to do the same.

____________________

IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES

Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, earlier this week, I asked Idahoans to
share with me how high energy prices are affecting their lives, and
they responded by the hundreds. The stories, numbering over 1,000, are
heartbreaking and touching. To respect their efforts, I am submitting
every e-mail sent to me through energy_prices@crapo .senate.gov to the
Congressional Record. This is not an issue that will be easily
resolved, but it is one that deserves immediate and serious attention,
and Idahoans deserve to be heard. Their stories not only detail their
struggles to meet everyday expenses, but also have suggestions and
recommendations as to what Congress can do now to tackle this problem
and find solutions that last beyond today. I ask unanimous consent to
have today's letters printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Senator Crapo, Thank you for the opportunity to tell my
story. I am nearly 70 years old and for 40 to 50 years have
dreamed of a vacation in Jasper National Park in Canada. This
year was to be the year to go. I had a new vehicle, a
competent driver to share the driving, and I had the money.
Well, I had the money until the price of gas began to rise so
sharply. I had to cancel this dream trip. I may never get to
Jasper.
My sister and I made weekly trips to Boise for religious
purposes. Because of the cost of gas, we had to cut that back
to twice a month.
I have a little patch of strawberries that produces more
than I can use. I have shared with friends, family and
neighbors nearby. There are many who I would love to share
with (and they would love to have them), but they live too
far to make it worth the trip with the high cost of gas.
My sister and I are on a limited budget (Social Security),
and the cost of gas has caused the prices of food and other
things we have to buy to skyrocket. We live at least 20 miles
from town, one way. It costs over three times for gas to go
to town than it used to. There are no buses in our area.
My personal opinion is that the environmentalists should
either donate their money to pay for foreign fuel or let us
produce that which we have in our own country. I think they
are being very selfish, and I wish a bunch of those
characters had to live on less than $1,000 per month.
Sincerely,
Delores, Melba.
____

With the gas prices the way they are, my family has to stay
home instead of camping, fishing and other family activities
we have done in the past. The grocery stores have had to
raise the prices because of the price of fuel. My wife
travels 55 miles a day for work in a car that is on its last
leg. I cannot replace it because of the money that we are
spending in fuel. I never worried about ``filling my tank''
before, but now I cannot fill my tank because of the price of
fuel. I feel like my government wants the fuel to keep going
up and up. Everybody says that the oil companies are making a
fortune, but they make 4 cents a gallon and taxes are 50
cents a gallon. So who is making the money, the oil companies
or the government? Please help us by lowering the fuel prices
even if we have to rely on the oil in the United States and
not buy from the Middle East.
Jason, Pocatello.
____

Dear Senator, I am concerned about your ignorance on why
prices not only at the pump but on anything we buy are up.
The Federal Reserve is most responsible for this inflation.
It is taught in economics 101. The Federal Reserve has
inflated our dollar 50 percent in the last 7 years, according
to their statistics. That means 7 years ago, if you had
$100,000 in the bank, it would only buy half as much today
``say $50,000''. This means if you made $10.00 an hour seven
years ago and your wages stayed the same, you only have the
buying power of $5.00/hour.
The Federal Reserve inflates our money supply. They will
not give the M3 numbers out because there's a conscious
effort not to let the public know what they are doing. You
must kick the can, do your research on how inflation really
works before you even talk about making changes. If you are
to fix the problem, go to the Congress and ask them to fire
the Federal Reserve.
Sure, energy prices are up, and these big companies are
making big profits. The big oil companies are only in the
right place at the right time. The Federal Reserve was voted
in wrongly Dec 24, 1913. This was when no one could vote
against the creation of the Federal Reserve. The Federal
Reserve is responsible for the Great Depression. They are
responsible now for our inflation. Please takes steps and ask
Congress to remove this private agency and go to gold
standard.
Kevin, Rathdrum.
____

Fortunately, I can live, work, and shop within a 2-mile
radius of home. However, we're reluctant to pull our RV down
the road, which causes a loss of business for those tourist
areas we would have visited.
I believe the best way to reduce gas prices is to increase
production--drill off the coasts (like China and Cuba are
doing now), and in Alaska; extract oil from coal and shale;
and exploit other known resources. A massive effort to build
nuclear plants would also be wise. It is time to tell the
environmentalists where to ``get off''. The planet is not
getting warmer, and certainly not at the hands of man.
Scott.
____

Senator Crapo, Thank you for your time and ears. I am
married with three children at home (two girls, ages 15 and
16; and one boy, 10 years old). Ten years ago, my wife and I
were receiving government assistance; now

[[Page 13845]]

we are both college graduates and working in professional
positions, yet we still feel the pain at the pump. I can only
imagine how hard it is affecting those who are still on
government assistance, or those less fortunate without a
higher education. I have personally bought relatives gas in
the last month, not because they asked but because I knew
they needed it.
Our family has felt the crunch with rising fuel prices.
Fuel costs have taken away money from other pertinent bills
in our household, especially our energy/power bill. Our
family has scaled back traveling and fun family activities
such as going to Mariners baseball games. After all, baseball
is as American as apple pie. I know these aren't priorities
in most households, but activities like these are ones which
my family enjoys our time together. When you are raising
teenagers you really appreciate these times because teens are
hard to convince that family time is truly important. My wife
and I bought two small import vehicles (4-cylinders) because
we saw this fuel crisis coming. Maybe there could be
incentives for using energy-efficient vehicles, not
specifically imports but fuel-efficient vehicles. We have a
large SUV, but we only drive it when we travel or have to
transport the entire family.
Please help contain the ever-rising fuel crisis. Families
are affected in more ways than we can imagine, especially the
poor.
Sincerely,
Richard, Lenore.
____

You asked for my story here it is.
As a retired person and gas prices so high, I do not go
anywhere. What bothers me more is the profit taking by oil
companies, record profit earning 300 percent and over. Now is
the time to own stock in oil. Is this not just greed, ripping
off of the American public? We have back-up supplies; we have
other sources of energy. We have a government that is not
doing its job of protecting the people from being taken
advantage of. Why are our government officials allowing this
to happen? OPEC does control a lot but are they not beholden
to us for some of our products? Can we not hold them over the
barrel--for some of the product we send them? OK, a head of
lettuce $4.00 each? What is happening with this country? All
I am seeing is greed.
We have oil in Alaska; we have oil in Texas. Drill more
here; supply ourselves. Why are we shipping oil out? Why not
keep our oil here so that OPEC can't hold us up at the bank?
Sincerely,
Claudia, Nampa.
____

Dear Senator Crapo, I am very pleased for the opportunity
to say something that will be heard. I bought a nice little
3-bedroom house in Caldwell, thinking the drive would be
long, but something I could handle because I have a car that
gets decent gas mileage. Well, with the high gas prices, I
have left my home in Caldwell and moved to Boise to be able
to keep my job and have something left to live on. Of course
with the housing market, it is not selling. I know a lot of
people like me who are sharing homes with others due to the
increase in gas, electricity, and food prices. Right now
living in Boise, it is still costing me 150.00 a month for
gas, and I live about 15 minutes from work. Living in
Caldwell it was three times the amount. That is one whole
paycheck for me. I learned to eat noodles and potatoes
instead of other things that would be better for me to eat.
Can you imagine the people who are living on that who do not
have a good job? I go to work, home and church. Now you may
think that is not much of a life. I used to go for drives and
visit friends, but that is not possible at this time due to
the high cost of everything. We in this country know how to
cut back and buckle down to do what needs to be done to help,
but our government has let things get way out of hand. We as
the voting public are supposed to have a say in things and
too many have sat back and said nothing. Something must be
done. We have far too long been dependent on others for our
fuel, when we have the resources right here in this great
country. I do not mean to sound negative, but there is
nothing left for us to give. It is time those who have been
elected begin giving back to those who support them!
I pray someone is listening.
Jeannie, Boise.
____

The amount of fuel that I use is as minimal as I can get. I
do not do anything except drive back and forth to work and to
the grocery store on weekends. I do very little, if any,
extra driving. I would love to go camping or up in our
wonderful mountains to go fishing, but I cannot afford the
gas that it would take to do this. I have been trying to find
a way to purchase a different automobile that would get
better mileage, but if you do not have extra money, it is
real hard to try to save. I use one tank of gas a month to do
what I do and, at today's price, that costs me $120.00; soon
it will be $150.00; then who knows. I understand price
increases, but this is ridiculous. We need to have relief
now. I do not understand how one group of people can put all
of our own oil in such problems by not allowing us to drill
for our own gas and oil. This problem stems from green people
who have no idea how anyone else lives. We do not now nor
will we ever have mass transit that will remove our cars from
the highway.
I feel that we need to drill and produce our own oil and
gas as much as we can; then we can tell all of these
countries that do not like us goodbye, and we can keep our
money here to help people in the U.S. that need help.
Thank you very much for the space to vent. I am not sure it
will come of anything, but we can hope.
God bless the USA.
Rick.
____

With fuel prices increasing so rapidly, we aren't
travelling as much or planning a vacation. We are making
cutbacks in many areas. However, I was recently visiting my
parents in Idaho Falls. They are retired and on a limited
income, so I have worried a bit about their finances with the
rising fuel prices that not only affect transportation but
everything. We stopped at a grocery store known to have the
lowest prices consistently. As I approached the check out I
saw a family and the mom's voice was starting to rise in
intensity and volume. She was under a lot of stress. Her
children were near and her husband was, too. She was adding
up the cost of the meager amount of groceries in their cart
and starting to put back basic items. The children and
husband looked at her. She said, ``I only have a half tank of
gas left. I only have a half tank of gas left,'' she
repeated. ``I just filled it up and I only have \1/2\ tank
left.'' She turned to her husband and asked him if he had
driven her car yesterday. He replied, ``No.'' Tears came to
my eyes as I realized what this young, small, responsible
family was going through. Tension was mounting, money was
very tight, without fuel, how would they get to work? With
fuel costing at least double what it recently was, how would
they have enough to stretch? I hadn't realized that people
were already having to make choices between fuel and food.
Many, many Idahoans are independent and hard-working. They do
not look for government hand-outs. They are resourceful. They
grow gardens, glean fields nearby, cook from scratch and
stretch their dollars in many ways. They make things work.
But there comes a point when dollars do not stretch farther,
salaries aren't increasing as rapidly as expenses, second
jobs are scarcer to find. I live in Boise, a city with more
transportation options. We are biking more; my husband has
the privilege of biking to work. This family did not! Rural
areas have few transportation options besides personal
vehicles, and the distance to almost anywhere is great.
I believe as we use and develop our own resources in our
great country that people will rise to the occasion and find
solutions before we run out of fuel. When we encourage
personal initiative and do not take a dependency attitude we,
the people, can accomplish amazing things.
Karla, Boise.
____

We must start drilling for domestic oil, start making
nuclear power plants and oil refineries. I will not support
anyone who does not and will be willing to help support those
leaders who do.
John.
____

My story is not special, but I think it is too common. I am
a 55-year-old woman. I am my sole support. I live in Emmett,
but there are no jobs there. I work in Boise, a 30-mile drive
one way. I do not make a lot of money and, with the mortgage
industry the way it is, I cannot afford to move. Homes are
not selling in Emmett. I wonder how much higher things are
going to go. Soon it will be a choice of food or gas. Which
would you choose?
I am disgusted with our government. They do nothing, and I
know they do not have to suffer the way we do. I feel our
government has forgotten they work for us, not that we are
supporting them.
Candace, Emmett.
____

Dear Senator Crapo, I am lucky enough to live within three
miles of where I work, so transporting myself has not
impacted me as much as most in my community. Where I am hit
hard, though, is the cost of the organic and healthy food I
buy. Since spending a lot of time trying to get myself
healthy and researching about pesticides and about
environmental toxins, I had to make the decision to vote with
my dollars. I have spent a much higher percentage on the
important organics such as tomatoes, berries, greens, and
some other staples that are most chemical-laden in the
conventional counterpart. And I am happy to do so to help a
growing sector of sustainable farmers. I always felt that, in
the long run, this would come back to benefit all as our
country turned to more sustainable and nutritious
agriculture.
After studying some of the recent documentaries about our
food supply, and the big corporate welfare, and how the farm
bill works, I realized that, for some reason, our system
prefers us eating the 2,000 mile irradiated, grown for shelf
life, nutrient void produce. Organic and sustainable farming
hasn't really been given the chance in the past, but I do
have hope that because of rising fuel costs that maybe our
officials will

[[Page 13846]]

wake up and support locally grown and sold agriculture (at
the expense of big agri and big oil). It will be cheaper with
less transportation costs, but to get off the ground we need
some government intervention that gives incentives for
farmers to take the risk. We subsidize all the corn out there
to make us obese with its crack of sweeteners and processed
puffed foods and to feed more farm animals than we really
have business eating, ($79 hamburgers???); why do we not give
nutrition a fair shake. Why do we not try to learn some of
Europe's successes and shape a healthy community-based food
system? So what I can do is look at my plate as half full on
this issue; that is how high fuel costs can benefit me most.
Thank you,
Ryan.
____

The high energy prices are affecting our family negatively.
Higher grocery prices. Gas prices were 1.46 when Bush took
office. Unfortunately, Senator Crapo's vote to support the
war in Iraq is one reason that gas prices are so high.
Brian.
____

I live in Jerome, Idaho, a rural community. We live between
Twin Falls and Jerome, my wife works in Twin Falls and I work
in Jerome. Since our area is rural and there is not any form
of mass transit like in larger cities the high gas prices are
killing us. My wife works for Twin Falls school district and
they got a 2 percent raise this year and I got a 3 percent
raise. The gas prices have taken all of our raises plus much
more. We do not take any long drives other than to work. Life
has changed in a big way and not to the positive side. The
following is an email I received and I did check it out on
the internet. Why are we not tapping into this oil field?
1. Ever heard of the Bakken Formation? Google it. I did,
and again, blew my mind. The U.S. Geological Service issued a
report in April ('08) that only scientists and oilmen/women
knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report
(hadn't been updated since '95) on how much oil was in this
area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota; western South
Dakota; and extreme eastern Montana . . . check this out:
``The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since
Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and has the potential to eliminate all
American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information
Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels.
Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable . . . at $107 a
barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5.3
trillion.
`` `When I first briefed legislators on this, you could
practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea,'
'' says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial
analyst.
`` `This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore
oil field found in the past 56 years,' reports The Pittsburgh
Post Gazette. It is a formation known as the Williston Basin,
but is more commonly referred to as the `Bakken.' And it
stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and
into Canada. For years, U.S. oil exploration has been
considered a dead end. Even the `Big Oil' companies gave up
searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent
technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive
reserves . . . and we now have access of up to 500 billion
barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions
of barrels will cost Americans just $16 per barrel!
``That is enough crude to fully fuel the American economy
for 41 years straight.''
2. [And if that didn't throw you on the floor, then this
next one should--because it is from two years ago, people!]
``U.S. Oil Discovery--Largest Reserve in the World!
Stansberry Report Online--4/20/2006 Hidden 1,000 feet beneath
the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped
oil reserve in the world is more than 2 trillion barrels. On
August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction.
``They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside
our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.
Here are the official estimates: 8 times as much oil as Saudi
Arabia; 18 times as much oil as Iraq; 21 times as much oil as
Kuwait; 22 times as much oil as Iran; 500 times as much oil
as Yemen--and it is all right here in the Western United
States.''
[How can this be!? How can we not be extracting this!?
Because we've not demanded legislation to come out of
Washington allowing its extraction; that is why!]
``James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've
got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle
East--more than 2 trillion barrels. Untapped. That is more
than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world
today, reports The Denver Post.
``Do not think `Big Oil' will drop its price--even with
this find? Think again! It is all about the competitive
marketplace, and if they can extract it (here) for less, they
can afford to sell it for less--and if they do not, others
will. It will come down--it has to.'' [Got your attention/ire
up yet? Hope so! Now, while you're thinking about it . . .
and hopefully P.O'd, do this:
Pat.
____

Senator Crapo, New drilling of oil reserves will not even
reduce the price of gas. All drilling more wells will do is
put more money into the hands of the big oil companies.
Nuclear costs far too much when accounting for the storage of
the waste it generates. It is time for a new approach!
We need incentives for mass transit and electric vehicles.
Idaho, in particular has an abundance of renewable energy
potential, just waiting to be exploited. Solar and wind
development needs to be a priority. It is time to fill our
gas tanks from the sun!
Why not take this opportunity to address carbon dioxide
generation from vehicles and gas prices at the same time?
My family has been affected by high energy prices just like
everyone else, but the solution is not poking our heads in
the sand.
Sincerely,
Chris, Boise.
____

1. Get all your fellow Senators to emphasize conservation
and to practice what they preach. The `historic' comment by
Vice President Dick Cheney that conservation is a `personal
virtue' came across as an inference that conservation is a
wimpy attitude and real cowboys do not do that.
2. Show me that the federal bureaucracy really can reduce
the waste of our energy and natural resources. Start with
your office and your staff. Hypocrisy is so yesterday!
3. Quit the whining that we must drill in the ANWR. The so-
called Naval Reserves established in the 1920s are now being
``developed'' for oil and gas exploitation; an area the size
of the State of Indiana.
4. Show us that oil and gas drilling can be done properly.
The massive operations in Wyoming are creating a gawd-awful
mess.
5. Encourage our nation's truck carriers to pay their
drivers by the hour and not by the mile. Then, the drivers
will have a decent incentive to drive at the speed limit and
conserve fuel.
6. Then, if you dare, encourage the USPS to eliminate
Saturday deliveries, and keep those 200,000 residential-
delivery jitneys off the road. (Besides, all they do is save
up the junk mail for Saturday delivery. When is the last time
you received anything important via US mail on a Saturday?)
Thanks for listening,
D.
____

Senator Crapo, Rather than solicit stories for the purpose
of political grandstanding, how about you take a moment to
understand the real reason why energy prices are where they
are.
High energy (and food) costs can be laid squarely at the
feet of the U.S. Congress and President, including you. This
is because of what has been done to the U.S. dollar during
the Bush/Republican years. Deficit spending and a disastrous
war in Iraq have frittered away a budget surplus and progress
toward reducing our national debt. Rather than act as the
party of fiscal responsibility, the Republican Party has
frittered our national financial health away.
Over the last few years, it was plainly obvious what was
being done to the dollar from a spendthrift Congress and
markets acted accordingly. And, if you believe that your
currency is going to become worthless, the only way to
preserve your net worth is to own tangible things,
particularly commodities. This is what has spurred this
massive commodity boom--lack of faith in the dollar. I have
been invested in a basket of commodities for over four years
now, one of the best investments I have ever made. My
decision was based heavily on the irresponsible Congress.
If you have any doubts about this relationship, look no
further than those bad unemployment numbers from June 6th.
Intuitively, you'd think that lots of unemployed people would
cause oil prices to drop on weaker demand. Yet oil had its
biggest one day rise in history, starting the minute those
unemployment numbers came out. Why? Because bad unemployment
numbers puts pressure on the Federal Reserve to hold rates
steady or lower them at a time when the Fed wants to raise
them before inflation gets any further out of control. This
is bad for the dollar; the dollar dropped as well that day.
Let me give you a quick example of the effect the weak
dollar has had on gas prices. Let's say the dollar magically
went back to par with the Euro, where it used to be not so
very long ago. Gasoline would be around $2.70 per gallon! A
strong dollar would also pop this balloon of commodity
speculation we are seeing and drive down prices even further.
So if you truly want to fix high gasoline prices, it is
time to face up to the giant elephant in the room that is the
irresponsible fiscal policy of the U.S. Congress and stop
this huffing and puffing about drilling on the continental
shelf and ANWR. Even a hint of real fiscal responsibility
would go a long way toward strengthening the dollar. We
cannot drill our way out of this problem, as much as the oil
companies would like to have you believe that. Because of the
very same weak dollar, U.S. oil reserves are extremely
profitable at this time, so it is no surprise they are
pushing hard for expanded drilling. I can't imagine a better
scenario for them--an outraged public and production costs
that keep dropping as the dollar weakens.

[[Page 13847]]

Of course we need to conserve and develop alternative forms
of energy, but to ignore the role of the dollar in all this
will just mean we continue down this road to disaster we've
been on the last few years.
This might not be the story of suffering you're looking for
(actually just the opposite in my case). But I think it might
be more constructive than an inbox full of moaning and
groaning about how much it costs to commute to work from
Nampa.
Regards,
Stan, Boise.

____________________

HMONG DETAINEES IN LAOS

Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I would like to submit for the Record a
statement given by Mrs. Sheng Xiong, a spokeswoman for her husband
Hakit Yang and other families of Hmong-American citizens from St. Paul,
MN, that are being detained by the the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic,
LPDR, regime. This statement was given by Mrs. Xiong at a congressional
forum on Laos on January 31, 2008, organized by the Center for Public
Policy Analysis.
I ask unanimous consent that the Statement to which I referred be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:

Statement by Mrs. Sheng Xiong

I want to thank Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Congressman
Frank Wolf, Congressman Patrick Kennedy, Congresswoman Tammy
Baldwin and other Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives for co-hosting today's U.S. Congressional
Forum on Laos in cooperation with Mr. Philip Smith, Executive
Director of the Center for Public Policy Analysis, Dr. Jane
Hamilton-Merritt, Lao Hmong scholar; Vaughn Vang of the Lao
Human Rights Council of Wisconsin and Minnesota; Khamphet
Moukdarath of the United League for Democracy in Laos and T.
Kumar, Advocacy Director of Amnesty International. I
appreciate their leadership on the current human rights
crisis in Laos, especially facing the Hmong people, and the
serious situation regarding the arrest and imprisonment in
Laos of my husband, Hakit Yang, and his two Hmong-American
colleagues from St. Paul, Minnesota last year.
The U.S. Government granted Normalized Trade Relations
(NTR) to Laos in 2005. Today, it encourages citizens to
consider foreign investments in the communist state despite
the country's atrocious human rights records and the
unjustified arrest, jailing and continued detention of three
Hmong-American citizens from St. Paul, Minnesota including my
husband Mr. Hakit Yang.
On July 10, 2007, Hakit Yang, Congshineng Yang and Trillion
Yuhaison departed the United States for Laos to pursue
business investment opportunities. The men were staying at
the #5 Guest House in Phousavan, Laos when they were arrested
by secret police forces. They were detained in Phonthong
Prison and later transferred to an unknown destination.
Several unofficial reports suggest they are being detained in
the North of Laos near the Vietnam border.
The last phone call and communication was received from
Yuhaison on August 26, 2007 at approximately 9:00 am (CST).
Yuhaison called Hakit's older brother Xai Yang, and stated
that he was calling from a security guard's cell phone and
confirmed that all three men had been arrested without
warrant. Yuhaison sounded very worried and wanted Xai to
contact the U.S. Embassy in Vientiane right away.
A U.S. Embassy staff confirmed with local Lao authorities
that three U.S. Citizens were arrested, however, the
authorities refused to release any names. According to the
U.S. Embassy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could not
confirm the situation over the phone, but it appeared they
knew about the cases.
The U.S. Embassy contacted the Lao government who denied
having any record of the men entering their country and any
U.S. Citizens being detained or arrested. Later, the Lao
government changed their previous denials and admitted that
the men did indeed enter Laos, but allegedly claimed that
they had allegedly departed Laos via the Lao-Thai Friendship
Bridge on August 29, 2007. Despite repeated requests from the
U.S. Embassy no departure cards have ever been produced as
evidence for their departure. Other documents produced are
clearly bogus and fabricated allegedly claiming to support
the Lao government's false claims that my husband and the
other two departed from Laos to Thailand, which is not
factual.
It has been many months since the arrest and disappearance
of Hakit Yang, Congshineng Yang and Trillion Yuhaison. To
this day, our family has not received any concrete answers
from the U.S. Embassy in Laos nor the State Department. I
have been in contact with the other men's families and they
also have not received any answers.
The U.S. Government and U.S. Embassy have a responsibility
to inform U.S. Citizens that there are no real protections in
place to safeguard their civil and legal rights. The U.S.
Government has failed to properly hold the Laos Government
accountable for the disappearance of these U.S. investors.
Hakit, Congshineng, and Trillion represent the first of
many U.S. investors and tourists to travel to Laos under the
new Normalised Trade Relations agreement but their
disappearance clearly proves that no U.S. Citizen is safe in
Laos and no U.S. citizen should invest in the current Lao
regime until proper protections can be put in place, to
safeguard the civil, legal and human rights of all U.S.
Citizens traveling to Laos.
I respectfully ask that the U.S. Government and U.S.
Embassy in Laos continue to investigate the arrest and
disappearance of Hakit, Congshineng, and Trillion and to
press the Lao government for humanitarian access to the three
U.S. citizens and their unconditional and immediate release.
The Lao government continues to jail my husband and the two
other Americans from St. Paul that he was traveling with in
clear violation and contempt of international law. Lao and
Hmong Americans should not invest in the current regime in
Laos, the Lao Peoples Democratic Republic. NTR Trade Status
to Laos should be revoked by the U.S. Congress; and, U.S.
foreign aid and assistance to the Lao regime should also be
cut by the U.S. Congress and U.S. Government completely,
including all de-mining funding, until at least such time as
my husband Hakit Yang, Congshineng and Trillion, as Hmong-
American citizens, are released from prison in Laos and
brought home safely to America and their homes and families
in St. Paul, Minnesota.
We will not forget and not give up fighting until we have
truthful answers and the Lao regime releases Hakit Yang,
Congshineng and Trillion. We appeal to the U.S. Congress, the
U.S. Government and international community for assistance in
pressing the Lao regime to release our family members and
restore human rights and freedom to them so that we can be
reunited and these American citizens can return home once
again from this terrible darkness.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

IN RECOGNITION OF JEANNA HENRY

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, today I recognize the outstanding
contributions of Jeanna Henry, whose dedication to the Environmental
Protection Agency earned her the Glen Witmer Award. Jeanna, noted for
her dedication, resourcefulness, and sheer joy in her work, is an
excellent example of the quality employees who serve us at the EPA.
The Glen Witmer Award is presented each year to the employee whose
service is distinguished by concern for our environment, enthusiasm for
environmental programs, a logical approach to problem solving,
attention to detail, resourcefulness and initiative, and an ability to
interact with people in a manner that fosters cooperation,
understanding, and resolution of environmental problems. It is the
highest award that may be presented to an employee by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Jeanna grew up in Delmar, MD--the town too big for one State--and
graduated from Salisbury State University in 1996 with a degree in
environmental health and minors in biology and chemistry. Following
through on a goal she set her freshman year of college, Jeanna went on
to work as an environmental scientist at the EPA upon winning a
National Network for Environmental Management Studies Fellowship.
Currently an enforcement officer at EPA's Waste and Chemical Management
Division in Wilmington, DE, she has managed a multitude of hazardous
waste and underground storage tank enforcement cases, all with
motivation, professionalism, and extraordinary attention to detail.
Beyond her achievements in her field, Jeanna is most noted for her
work ethic, exceptional communication skills, and for the passion that
she brings to all of her undertakings. New employees often gravitate
towards her because despite her heavy workload, she is never too busy
to take time out to help others. She has become a mentor for new
employees, a role model for her peers, and an absolute joy to her
supervisors.
Jeanna is not only an outstanding employee, but a remarkable person,
as well. Her lifelong passion for the environment has enabled her to
help shape and enrich the lives of many in her field and the lives of
those lucky enough to call her their friend. I rise

[[Page 13848]]

today to extend my sincere congratulations to Jeanna on her award. She
is a remarkable woman as well as a credit and testament to the
community that she represents so well.

____________________

REMEMBERING JUSTICE REVIUS ORTIQUE

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on June 22, our Nation lost a
great judge and lawyer, civil rights champion, and public servant.
Justice Revius Ortique, the first African-American justice elected to
the Louisiana Supreme Court, has died at 84.
I met Justice Ortique when we served together in the 1970s on the
board of the Legal Services Corporation, and much later in his career,
Justice Ortique was appointed by my husband to serve as alternate
delegate to the United Nations.
Justice Ortique had an illustrious career. In World War II, he served
as an officer in the Pacific Theater and after earning his law degree
in 1956, set up a legal practice at the vanguard of the civil rights
movement. He helped to successfully win equal pay for Black employees
in several cases, to integrate State labor unions, and served five
terms as president of the Urban League of Greater New Orleans. Justice
Ortique not only worked to achieve racial equality but also to achieve
racial harmony and served three terms as president of the New Orleans
Community Relations Council. He negotiated for the Black community with
White civic leaders helping to bring about the peaceful desegregation
of lunch counters, bathrooms, and other public facilities in New
Orleans before the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964
would guarantee these rights.
Justice Ortique was a courtly figure with a mild manner that belied
his courage, convictions, and ability to effect change. I am proud to
have known him, and my thoughts and prayers are with his wife Miriam,
his daughter Rhesa, and all those whose lives were made better because
of his leadership.

____________________

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF NEW SALEM, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased to honor a community
in North Dakota that is celebrating its 125th anniversary. On July 18
through 20, the residents of New Salem, ND, will celebrate their
community's history and founding.
New Salem began on an April day in 1882 when young John Christiansen
hopped off a westbound freight train. The only sign of civilization he
saw were the train tracks behind him and the belongings he brought.
Soon after his arrival a Colonization Bureau out of Chicago sent
settlers to the area and gave the colony its independence for $600. A
church, land office, lumber yard, drugstore, and general store were
soon built, and by the end of 1883, the town was ready for great plains
living.
Known nationally as the home of the world's largest Holstein cow, New
Salem is a community filled with pride and energy. ``Salem Sue'' stands
38 feet high, weighs over 6 tons, and was erected by the New Salem
Lions Club in 1974 to honor the dairymen of North Dakota. New Salem
also has a nine-hole golf course, public swimming pool, and numerous
parks to entertain residents and tourists.
To celebrate its 125th anniversary, the community of New Salem is
organizing a celebration that will include a parade, demolition derby,
mixed golf scramble, pitchfork fondue, and numerous outdoor activities.
A street dance down New Salem's Main Street will also be held. It
promises to be a wonderful event.
Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating New
Salem, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in wishing
them well in the future. By honoring New Salem and all the other
historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the pioneering frontier
spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as New Salem
that have helped to shape this country into what it is today, which is
why this fine community is deserving of our recognition.
New Salem has a proud past and a bright future.

____________________

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF RICHARDTON, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased today to recognize a
community in North Dakota that will be celebrating its 125th
anniversary. On July 11 through 13, the residents of Richardton will
gather to celebrate their community's history and founding.
Richardton is located in Stark County in the southwest part of the
State. Oscar L. Richard named the town in 1882 after his relative, C.B.
Richard, who was an agent for the Hamburg-American Steamship Co., which
promoted German-Russian settlement in this area. The post office was
established a year later by Adolph Norberg. In 1906, the village was
incorporated, and Richardton was officially recognized as a city in
1935.
Richardton has a prominent Roman Catholic monastery, which was
founded by Bishop Vincent DePaul Wehrle in 1899. Vincent was the first
Abbot of the monastery, which was named St. Mary's Priory, from 1903-
1910. Under his leadership, the great twin-tower cathedral was built in
1906.
St. Mary's faced significant challenges after its completion in 1910
which eventually led to its closure. Abbot Alcuin Deutsch of St. John's
Abbey in Minnesota wanted to revive the Richardton community because it
was still struggling financially. In 1926, Abbot Deutsch and other
monks around North Dakota helped reopen the monastery with the name
Assumption Abbey. Assumption Abbey remains in operation today.
Richardton's attractions also include a golf course, bed and
breakfasts, restaurants, motels and much more. Residents of Richardton
take great pride in their community. To celebrate their 125th
centennial anniversary, the community will be holding a 5k walk/run, a
parade, games, an antique car show, a Rough Rider Rodeo, a dance, and a
fireworks show.
Mr. President, I ask the U.S. Senate to join me in congratulating
Richardton, ND, and its residents on their first 125 years and in
wishing them well in the future. By honoring Richardton and all other
historic small towns of North Dakota, we keep the great pioneering
frontier spirit alive for future generations. It is places such as
Richardton that have helped shape this country into what it is today,
which is why this fine community is deserving of our recognition.
Richardton has a proud past and a bright future.

____________________

HONORING KENWAY CORPORATION

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I wish today to recognize the Kenway
Corporation, an outstanding small business from my home State of Maine
that recently earned the distinguished recognition of Manufacturer of
the Year by the Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or Maine
MEP. A fiberglass manufacturer located in Maine's capital city of
Augusta, the Kenway Corporation has for over 60 years been known for
its high-quality products. The MEP's Manufacturer of the Year award is
presented every year to a company that has achieved world-class status
and has applied the best manufacturing practices necessary to succeed
in the marketplace.
The Kenway Corporation formally began operations as Kenway Boats in
1947 in the rural community of Palermo, ME. Originally focused on
building wooden crafts, the firm switched its concentration to
composites in the 1960s and has since grown into a tremendously
successful manufacturing company. Today, Kenway manufactures corrosion-
resistant fiberglass for a variety of industries, including marine,
pulp and paper, and power. Notably, in 1991, Kenway moved its venture
to Augusta and increased its manufacturing facilities to more than
10,000 square feet. The firm is expanding again this year by doubling
its current size while consolidating its operations. Additionally,
since 2003, the company has increased its staff more than twofold, to
nearly 80 employees, and

[[Page 13849]]

Kenway is seeking to provide even more jobs in the near future. Kenway
has attracted a loyal customer base ranging from coast to coast and
even to Puerto Rico.
The Kenway Corporation's products are highly advanced and heavily
sought after by numerous companies. Kenway makes process piping that is
used in petrochemical and wastewater treatment facilities, as well as
in power plants and paper mills. In addition, the firm manufactures an
assortment of custom designed dampers, tanks, scrubbers, shower pipes,
and railcar drip pans to prevent corrosion and chemical leakage.
Kenway's employees engage in an array of intensive manufacturing
processes, including laminating, vacuum resin transfer molding, and
pultrusion.
Since its inception 61 years ago, the Kenway Corporation has wisely
taken advantage of tools available to small businesses. In 2007, the
Maine Department of Economic and Community Development designated
Kenway a Pine Tree Zone business, making it eligible for targeted tax
benefits to better compete in today's global economy. The company had
previously won a $100,000 grant from the Maine Technology Institute,
which allowed Kenway to install sensor systems in its piping to
transfer hazardous materials.
Early last year, Kenway returned to its historic roots of
shipbuilding by purchasing Maritime Skiff from its retiring
Massachusetts owners. Now operating under the name Maritime Marine, the
company makes small, fuel-efficient skiffs and family fishing boats
with fiberglass decks and hulls. Kenway received a $400,000 community
development block grant to properly incorporate Maritime Skiff into its
present operations, a transition that has thus far yielded positive
results. To generate additional interest in Maritime's line of vessels,
the company recently began offering a lifetime no-rot warranty on all
of its models.
A powerhouse and leader in fiberglass manufacturing for nearly a half
century, the Kenway Corporation's name is synonymous with quality
craftsmanship and innovative production. Through intelligent growth and
adjusting to economic conditions, Kenway has been successful at staying
ahead of the curve and maintaining its preeminent position. I commend
Ken Priest, company president, and everyone at the Kenway Corporation
for their accomplishment in garnering the respected Manufacturer of the
Year award from the Maine MEP and wish them well in their continuing
endeavors.

____________________

RECOGNIZING SHANE BRYAN

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Shane
Bryan, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work
he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the
past several months.
Originally from Oacoma-Chamberlain, SD, Shane is currently a
sophomore at the University of South Dakota and is majoring in
political science and communication studies. He is a hard worker who
has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship
experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Shane
for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in
the years to come.

____________________

RECOGNIZING JORDAN FEIST

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jordan
Feist, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work
he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the
past several months.
Originally from Sioux Falls, SD, Jordan is currently a sophomore at
the University of South Dakota and is majoring in political science and
philosophy. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the
most out of his internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jordan
for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in
the years to come.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CAMDEN HELDER

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Camden
Helder, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard
work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over
the past several months.
Originally from De Smet, SD, Camden is currently a senior at South
Dakota State University and is majoring in economics and political
science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most
out of his internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Camden
for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in
the years to come.

____________________

RECOGNIZING JONATHON REYNOLDS

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Jonathon
``Jonny'' Reynolds, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of
the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South
Dakota over the past several months.
Originally from Baltic, SD, Jonny recently graduated from the Air
Force Academy where he majored in economics. He is a hard worker who
has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship
experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jonny
for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in
the years to come.

____________________

RECOGNIZING KAYLA WOLFF

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Kayla
Wolff, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work
she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the
past several months.
Originally from Rapid City, SD, Kayla is currently a junior at the
University of Central Arkansas and is majoring in economics and
prepharmacy. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the
most out of her internship experience.
I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kayla
for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in
the years to come.

____________________

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF CANOVA, SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Canova,
SD. The town of Canova will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its
founding with celebrations July 4 to 5, 2008.
Located in Miner County, Canova was founded in 1883 and was named
after Italian sculptor Antonio Canova. Since its beginning 125 years
ago, the community of Canova has continued to serve as a strong example
of South Dakota traditions, especially in its outstanding amateur
baseball team, the Canova Gang.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Canova on
this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the
years to come.

____________________

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF HOVEN, SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize Hoven, SD.
The town of Hoven will commemorate the 125th anniversary of its
founding with celebrations July 4 to 6, 2008.
Located in Potter County, Hoven was founded in 1883 and was named
after a landowner with the last name of Hoven. Since its beginning 125
years ago, the community of Hoven has continued to serve as a strong
example of South Dakota values and traditions.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of Hoven on
this milestone anniversary and wish them continued prosperity in the
years to come.

____________________

125TH ANNIVERSARY OF WOONSOCKET, SOUTH DAKOTA

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize
Woonsocket, SD. The

[[Page 13850]]

town of Woonsocket will commemorate its 125th anniversary of its
founding with celebrations July 3 to 6, 2008.
Located in Sanborn County, Woonsocket was founded in 1883 and was
named after Woonsocket, RI. Since its beginning 125 years ago, the
community of Woonsocket has continued to serve as a strong example of
South Dakota values and traditions.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the citizens of
Woonsocket on this milestone anniversary and wish them continued
prosperity in the years to come.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to
the Senate by Mrs. Neiman, 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.)

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

At 2:47 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:

H.R. 2818. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for the establishment of epilepsy center of
excellence in the Veterans Health Administration of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
H.R. 4289. An act to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the
``Euripides Rubio Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient
Clinic''.
H.R. 5687. An act to amend the Federal Advisory Committee
Act to increase the transparency and accountability of
Federal advisory committees, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6307. An act to amend parts B and E of title IV of the
Social Security Act to assist children in foster care in
developing or maintaining connections to family, community,
support, health care, and school, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6312. An act to advance credit union efforts to
promote economic growth, modify credit union regulatory
standards and reduce burdens, to provide regulatory relief
and improve productivity for insured depository institutions,
and for other purposes.
____

At 6:40 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, without amendment:

S. 3180. An act to temporarily extend the programs under
the Higher Education Act of 1965.

____________________

MEASURES REFERRED

The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:

H.R. 4289. An act to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs outpatient clinic in Ponce, Puerto Rico, as the
``Euripides Rubio Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient
Clinic''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 5687. An act to amend the Federal Advisory Committee
Act to increase the transparency and accountability of
Federal advisory committees, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 6307. An act to amend parts B and E of title IV of the
Social Security Act to assist children in foster care in
developing or maintaining connections to family, community,
support, health care, and school, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
H.R. 6312. An act to advance credit union efforts to
promote economic growth, modify credit union regulatory
standards and reduce burdens, to provide regulatory relief
and improve productivity for insured depository institutions,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

The following bills were read the second time, and placed on the
calendar:

S. 3186. A bill to provide funding for the Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance Program.
H.R. 6331. An act to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the
Social Security Act to extend expiring provisions under the
Medicare Program, to improve beneficiary access to preventive
and mental health services, to enhance low-income benefit
programs, and to maintain access to care in rural areas,
including pharmacy access, and for other purposes.

The following bill was read the first and second times by unanimous
consent, and placed on the calendar:

H.R. 2818. To amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for the establishment of epilepsy centers of
excellence in the Veterans Health Administration of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

____________________

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and
were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

POM-401. A resolution adopted by the Council of the City of
Tehachapi, California, expressing its support for the
original and historic view of the Second Amendment; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
POM-402. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Legislature
of the State of Louisiana urging Congress to appropriate the
United States Army Corps of Engineers the total amount of
funds collected from the Harbor Maintenance Tax; to the
Committee on Appropriations.

House Concurrent Resolution No. 127

Whereas, Louisiana, more than most other states, is keenly
aware of the importance of maintaining waterway channels
clear for navigation with several major rivers, including the
Mississippi River, flowing through the state and is also
keenly aware that dredging navigation channels and letting
the dredge material merely flow out to the Gulf of Mexico is,
in essence, letting Louisiana merely flow out to the Gulf of
Mexico; and
Whereas, if the total amount of funds collected from the
Harbor Maintenance Tax is appropriated to the Corps of
Engineers, those funds could be used to help fund the
dredging necessary to maintain the navigation channels open
for commerce; and
Whereas, an ancillary use of dredging activity that has
become essential to the preservation of Louisiana's coastline
is beneficial use of dredge material whereby the material
dredged from waterways is then taken and ``planted'' where it
can be used to preserve and grow land in the coastal areas
where Louisiana is losing land at an alarming rate; and
Whereas, coastal Louisiana was formed by the depositional
processes of the Mississippi River over the past seven
thousand five hundred years; and
Whereas, the thick fluvial deposits that comprise the
Mississippi River Delta are naturally prone to compaction
under their own weight, but if sediment supplies are
sufficient, the delta can build and maintain its surfaces as
sea level rises; and
Whereas, the land building processes of the Mississippi
River have been halted in South Louisiana by a combination of
levees which prevent seasonal overbank flooding and sediment
deposition, dredged waterways which channel freshwater and
sediment to the Gulf of Mexico, and upstream dam construction
which prevent sediment from naturally reaching the Louisiana
coast; and
Whereas, over fifteen hundred square miles of Louisiana's
coastal wetlands and barrier islands have been lost to open
water since the early 1930s, and scientists project that
another five hundred square miles will be lost by 2050, if
current resource management practices continue; and
Whereas, more than one hundred twenty million tons of river
sediment that could be used to sustain the Mississippi Delta
will be lost to the Gulf of Mexico each year if nothing is
done to restore the natural hydrology of the Mississippi
River; and
Whereas, prevention of wetland loss in the Mississippi
River Deltaic Plain, which comprises most of the southeastern
Louisiana coastal zone, is dependent upon restoring flows of
fresh water and sediment to the delta; and
Whereas, an international team of scientists convened for
the express purpose of advising the state of Louisiana about
its coastal land loss problem in 2006 concluded that, ``The
most fundamental and essential action needed to achieve a
sustainable coast is to reduce, to the greatest extent
possible, the amount of Mississippi River sediment and
freshwater flowing directly into the deep waters of the Gulf.
These valuable resources, which originally built coastal
Louisiana, can only benefit the coast if they are redirected
to inshore and nearshore waters. This would occur naturally
if the river were not artificially maintained for navigation
along its present course into deep water''; and
Whereas, fully appropriating to the Corps of Engineers the
revenue received from the Harbor Maintenance Tax could
provide the funds essential to both dredge rivers for
navigation purposes as intended by the imposition of the tax
and, to go a step further, as authorized by the tax, to use
that dredge material for beneficial uses in restoring and

[[Page 13851]]

preserving coastal Louisiana. Therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to appropriate to the
United States Army Corps of Engineers the total amount of
funds collected from the Harbor Maintenance Tax so that those
funds can be used for dredging navigation channels and, where
possible, the beneficial use of dredged material to protect,
restore, and conserve wetlands along the coast of Louisiana.
Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the presiding officers of the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the Congress of the United States of
America and to each member of the Louisiana congressional
delegation.
____

POM-403. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of South Carolina urging
Congress to appoint an independent counsel to investigate
unresolved matters pertaining to U.S. personnel unaccounted
for from this Nation's wars and conflicts beginning with
World War II; to the Committee on Armed Services.

House Resolution

Whereas, the Prisoner of War--Missing in Action (POW/MIA)
issue has been a national dilemma since the end of World War
II; and
Whereas, there is a strong need for an independent
investigation into all unresolved matters relating to any
United States personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam War,
the Korean War, World War II, the Cold War, the Gulf Wars,
and other conflicts including MIAs and POWs; and
Whereas, it is the responsibility and the duty of the
United States government to bring home Americans missing in
action from these conflicts; and
Whereas, as of July 2005, the Government Accountability
Office listed over eighty-eight thousand service men and
women unaccounted for from World War II, the Korean War, the
Cold War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf Wars, and other
conflicts; and
Whereas, American POWs and their missing comrades have
demonstrated the true spirit of our nation and should never
be forgotten; and
Whereas, the families of these inspiring Americans deserve
to know what truly happened to their loved ones; and
Whereas, Americans from every generation have answered the
call to duty with dedication and valor. These brave Americans
deserve the respect and gratitude of our nation and all
efforts should be made to resolve the Prisoner of War-Missing
in Action issue in their honor. Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives, That the members
of the South Carolina House of Representatives, by this
resolution, urge the United States Congress to appoint an
independent counsel to investigate the Prisoner of War-
Missing in Action issue regarding unresolved matters
pertaining to United States personnel unaccounted for from
this nation's wars and conflicts beginning with World War II.
Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded to
the President of the United States, the United States Senate
and House of Representatives, and the members of the South
Carolina Congressional Delegation.
____

POM-404. A joint resolution adopted by the Senate of the
State of Tennessee urging the adoption of a Veterans
Remembered Flag; to the Committee on Armed Services.

Senate Joint Resolution, No. 901

Whereas, there are flags for all branches of the armed
services, as well as flags for POWs and MIAs, but there is no
flag to honor the millions of former military personnel who
have served our nation; and
Whereas, a flag is the symbol of recognition for a group or
an ideal; veterans compose a group and certainly represent an
ideal, and surely deserve their own symbol; and
Whereas, it is estimated that 20,400,000 veterans have
served in our nation's military, comprising a significant
portion of our country's population; and
Whereas, a Veterans Remembered Flag would memorialize and
honor all past, present, and future veterans and provide an
enduring symbol to support tomorrow's veterans today; and
Whereas, displaying and flying this flag would honor the
lives of millions of men and women who have served our
country in times of war, peace, and national crisis; and
Whereas, the symbolism of this unique flag's design would
be all-inclusive and would pay respect to the history of our
nation, to all branches of the military, and would serve to
honor those who have served or died in the service of our
nation; and
Whereas, in memorializing America's veterans, the Veterans
Remembered Flag includes specific symbolism and should be
designed in substantially the following form:
(a) It depicts the founding of our nation through the
thirteen stars that emanate from the hoist of the flag and
march to the large red star, representing our nation and the
five branches of our country's military that defend her: the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard.
(b) The white star indicates a veteran's dedication to
service.
(c) The blue star honors all men and women who have ever
served in our country's military.
(d) The gold star memorializes those who fell defending our
nation.
(e) The blue stripe which bears the title of the flag
honors the loyalty of veterans to our nation, flag, and
government.
(f) The green field represents the hallowed ground where
all rest eternally; and
Whereas, the Veterans Remembered Flag would serve to honor
all veterans who have served in our country's Armed Forces;
now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the senate of the One Hundred Fifth General
Assembly of the State of Tennessee, the House of
Representatives Concurring, That this General Assembly hereby
urges the Congress of the United States to act expeditiously
to adopt a Veterans Remembered Flag as described herein. Be
it further
Resolved, That an enrolled copy of this resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
Speaker and the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives,
the President and the Secretary of the U.S. Senate, and each
member of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation.
____

POM-405. A resolution adopted by the California State Lands
Commission addressing the incidental taking of marine animals
by once-through cooling power plants; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.

Resolution

Whereas, a cornerstone of the value and uniqueness of
California's 1,100 mile coastline and adjacent coastal waters
is the richness and diversity of marine life, including fish,
marine mammals, birds and plants; and
Whereas, the California State Lands Commission has
jurisdiction over the state-owned tide and submerged lands
from the shoreline out three nautical miles into the Pacific
Ocean, as well as the lands underlying California's bays, and
navigable lakes and rivers; and
Whereas, the Commission is charged with managing these
lands pursuant to the Public Trust Doctrine, a common law
precept that requires these lands be protected for public use
and needs including commerce, navigation, fisheries, water
related recreation and ecological preservation; and
Whereas, the Commission has aggressively sought correction
of adverse impacts on the biological productivity of its
lands including litigation over contamination off the Palos
Verdes Peninsula and at Iron Mountain, the adoption of best
management practices for marinas, and litigation to restore
flows to the Owens River; and
Whereas, California has a significant number of power
plants that use once-through cooling (OTC), the majority of
which are located on bays and estuaries where sensitive fish
nurseries for many important species are located; and
Whereas, the environmental costs of persistent entrainment
and impingement from once-through cooling to marine and
coastal life and ecosystems are high; and
Whereas, OTC harms the environment by killing large numbers
of wildlife, including fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles,
as well as larvae and eggs, as they are drawn through fish
screens and other parts of the power plant cooling system;
and
Whereas, regulations adopted under Section 316(b) of the
federal Clean Water Act recognize the adverse impacts of OTC
by effectively prohibiting new power plants from using such
systems and requiring existing power plants to reduce OTC
impacts; and
Whereas, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled
that restoration measures do not minimize the impacts of
once-through cooling and cannot be used to comply with Clean
Water section 316(b); and
Whereas, the California State Water Resources Control Board
is currently developing a state policy to implement Clean
Water Act Section 316(b), which, in the draft released for
public comment, will require the phase out of OTC technology
at coastal power plants; and
Whereas, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is
evaluating applications, necessitated by the pernicious
impacts of OTC, from thirteen power generating stations
located in California requesting authority for incidental
take of marine mammals and seven applications from power
generating stations in California requesting permits for
incidental take of sea turtles; and
Whereas, the Commission has imposed conditions on its
leases to reduce the impact of OTC and is seriously concerned
about the environmental consequences of the proposed
incidental take of marine animals as a result of OTC; and
Whereas, alternative cooling methods such as repowering
older power plants are readily available and used nationwide,
and can eliminate OTC and its attendant environmental impacts
and reduce the greenhouse gas emissions currently associated
with fossil fuel power generation: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the California State Lands Commission, That it
urges the NMFS to: (1) make any incidental take permit
consistent with phasing out OTC, and at the minimum, include
a clause requiring expiration of the permit if OTC is no
longer permitted at the requesting facility or generally
within the

[[Page 13852]]

state; (2) deny any incidental take permit for power plants
that have discontinued use of OTC; (3) require that
information regarding historical and anticipated take be
substantiated and made available to the Commission and the
public prior to the issuance of any incidental take permit,
and referenced in any draft and/or final permit; and (4)
require, if an incidental take permit is issued, that
stringent controls be implemented to eliminate or prevent to
the maximum extent possible the take or harassment of marine
wildlife; and be it further
Resolved, That the State Lands Commission supports OTC
alternatives, such as repowering projects, that eliminate
OTC, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental
impacts, and are part of an overall plan that moves the state
towards increased use of renewables and energy conservation;
and be it further
Resolved, That the Commission's Executive Officer transmit
copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President
of the United States, to the Governor of California, to the
Majority and Minority Leaders of the United States Senate, to
the Speaker and Minority Leader of the United States House of
Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from
California in the Congress of the United States, to the
National Marine Fisheries Service, to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, to the United States Supreme
Court, to the Chairs of the State Water Resources Control
Board, to the California Energy Commission, to the Public
Utilities Commission, to the California Coastal Commission,
to the California Air Resources Board, to the California
Independent Systems Operator, and to the California Ocean
Protection Council, all grantees, and all current lessees of
public trust lands that utilize OTC.
____

POM-406. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Hawaii approving the
establishment of a state-province affiliation between the
State of Hawaii and the Province of Negros Oriental of the
Republic of the Philippines; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.

House of Resolution No. 85

Whereas, the State of Hawaii is actively seeking to expand
its international ties and has an abiding interest in
developing goodwill, friendship, and economic relations
between the people of Hawaii and the people of Asian and
Pacific countries; and
Whereas, as part of its effort to achieve this goal, Hawaii
has established a number of sister-state agreements with
provinces in the Pacific region; and
Whereas, because of the historical relationship between the
United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines,
there continue to exist valid reasons to promote
international friendship and understanding for the mutual
benefit of both countries to achieve lasting peace and
prosperity as it serves the common interests of both
countries; and
Whereas, there are historical precedents exemplifying the
common desire to maintain a close cultural, commercial, and
financial bridge between ethnic Filipinos living in Hawaii
with their relatives, friends, and business counterparts in
the Philippines, such as the previously established sister-
city relationship between the City and County of Honolulu and
the City of Cebu in the Province of Cebu; and
Whereas, similar state-province relationships exist between
the State of Hawaii and the Provinces of Cebu, Ilocos Norte,
Ilocos Sur, and Pangasinan, whereby cooperation and
communication have served to establish exchanges in the areas
of business, trade, agriculture and industry, tourism,
sports, health care, social welfare, and other fields of
human endeavor; and
Whereas, a similar state-province relationship would
reinforce and cement this common bridge for understanding and
mutual assistance between ethnic Filipinos of both the State
of Hawaii and the Province of Negros Oriental; and
Whereas, with its vast fertile land resources, Negros
Oriental's major industry is agriculture and lists its
primary crops as sugarcane, corn, coconut, and rice, but the
province is emerging as a technological center in the Central
Philippines with its growing business process outsourcing and
other technology-related industries, and is also becoming a
notable tourist destination in the Visayas, making the
province much like Hawaii; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
fourth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2008, That Governor Linda Lingle of the State of Hawaii, or
her designee, be authorized and is requested to take all
necessary actions to establish a state-province affiliation
with the Province of Negros Oriental in the Republic of the
Philippines; and be it further
Resolved, That the Governor or her designee is requested to
keep the Legislature of the State of Hawaii fully informed of
the process in establishing the affiliation and involved in
its formalization to the extent practicable; and be it
further
Resolved, That the Province of Negros Oriental be afforded
the privileges and honors that Hawaii extends to its sister
states and provinces; and be it further
Resolved, That if by June 30, 2013, the state-province
affiliation with the Province of Negros Oriental has not
reached a sustainable basis by providing mutual economic
benefits through local community support, the state-province
affiliation shall be withdrawn; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, Hawaii's
Congressional delegation, the Governor of the State of
Hawaii, the President of the Republic of the Philippines
through its Honolulu Consulate General, and the Governor and
Provincial Board of the Province of Negros Oriental, Republic
of the Philippines.
____

POM-407. A resolution adopted by the House of
Representatives of the State of Hawaii urging Congress to
enact legislation to waive single state agency requirements
with regard to the administration of funds under the Homeland
Security Grant Program; to the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs.

House Resolution No. 209

Whereas, on March 12, 1987, the President of the United
States directed all affected agencies to issue a grants
management common rule to adopt government-wide terms and
conditions for grants to state and local governments; and
Whereas, consistent with their legal obligations, all
federal agencies administering programs that involve grants
and cooperative agreements with state governments must follow
the policies outlined in the federal Office of Management and
Budget Circular A-102, as revised and amended; and
Whereas, the Office of Management and Budget is authorized
to grant deviations from the requirements when permissible
under existing law, however deviations are permitted only in
exceptional circumstances; and
Whereas, according to a guidance document from the
Department of Homeland Security, the governor of each state
must designate a State Administrative Agency to apply for and
administer the funds under the Homeland Security Grant
Program; and
Whereas, Hawaii State Civil Defense is the State
Administrative Agency for these purposes in Hawaii; and
Whereas, according to the Office for Domestic Preparedness
Information Bulletin No. 112 (May 26, 2004), the State
Administrative Agency is obligated to pass through no less
than eighty per cent of its total grant award to local units
of government within the State; and
Whereas, according to the Office for Domestic Preparedness
Information Bulletin No. 120 (June 16, 2004), the remaining
twenty per cent can be retained at the state level; and
Whereas, qualifying state and local government agencies in
Hawaii can apply to Hawaii State Civil Defense for State
Homeland Security Grant Program funds, and Hawaii State Civil
Defense allocates funds based on investments and how well the
program capabilities of the various state agencies tie
together; and
Whereas, a single state agency requirement in the
application and allocation of funds under the Homeland
Security Grant Program is misplaced because it grants
considerable discretion to one state agency for the
allocation of funds, with no oversight by the state
legislature; and
Whereas, it is traditionally the role of the state
legislature as the policy making branch of the government to
determine how financial resources should be allocated; and
Whereas, state legislatures should have greater input and
oversight regarding the allocation of funds under the
Homeland Security Grant Program, now: Therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-
fourth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of
2008, That the United States Congress is requested to enact
legislation to waive the single state agency requirement with
regard to the administration of funds under the Homeland
Security Grant Program and to provide state legislatures with
authority to approve the allocation of funds under the
Homeland Security Grant Program; and it be it further
Resolved That certified copies of this Resolution be
transmitted to the President of the United States, the
President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the
United States House of Representatives, the Hawaii
congressional delegation, and the State Adjutant General.
____

POM-408. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of
the State of Louisiana urging Congress to take the actions
necessary to expedite the reopening of the Arabi Branch of
the United States Postal Service located in St. Bernard
Parish; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 76

Whereas, it has been almost three years since hurricanes
Katrina and Rita devastated this community, flooding the
Arabi branch of the United States Postal Service; and
Whereas, the effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita
continue to effect the operations of

[[Page 13853]]

government inclusive of operations of branches of the United
States Postal Service in St. Bernard Parish; and
Whereas, one essential to the continued recovery of the
citizens of Arabi, Louisiana, along with the full restoration
of governmental services, is the reopening of the Arabi
branch of the United States Postal Service; and
Whereas, this branch will be well used by the individuals
in this community, particularly by the elderly, the disabled,
and parents with young children who need a convenient
location to conduct business with the postal service.
Therefore, be it further
Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby
memorialize the United States Congress to take such actions
as are necessary to expedite the reopening of the Arabi
branch of the United States Postal Service in St. Bernard
Parish. Be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to
the secretary of the United States Senate and the clerk of
the United States House of Representatives and to each member
of the Louisiana delegation to the United States Congress.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following reports of committees were submitted:

By Mr. BINGAMAN, from the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute:
S. 27. A bill to authorize the implementation of the San
Joaquin River Restoration Settlement (Rept. No. 110-400).
S. 1171. A bill to amend the Colorado River Storage Project
Act and Public Law 87-483 to authorize the construction and
rehabilitation of water infrastructure in Northwestern New
Mexico, to authorize the use of the reclamation fund to fund
the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, to authorize the
conveyance of certain Reclamation land and infrastructure, to
authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide for the
delivery of water, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 110-
401).
By Mr. BYRD, from the Committee on Appropriations:
Special Report entitled ``Revised Allocation to
Subcommittees of Budget Totals From the Concurrent
Resolution, Fiscal Year 2009'' (Rept. No. 110-402).
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
H.R. 3721. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1190 Lorena Road in Lorena,
Texas, as the ``Marine Gunnery Sgt. John D. Fry Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 4185. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 11151 Valley Boulevard in El
Monte, California, as the ``Marisol Heredia Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5168. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 19101 Cortez Boulevard in
Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Cody Grater Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5395. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 11001 Dunklin Drive in St.
Louis, Missouri, as the ``William `Bill' Clay Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5479. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 117 North Kidd Street in
Ionia, Michigan, as the ``Alonzo Woodruff Post Office
Building''.
H.R. 5517. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 7231 FM 1960 in Humble,
Texas, as the ``Texas Military Veterans Post Office''.
H.R. 5528. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 120 Commercial Street in
Brockton, Massachusetts, as the ``Rocky Marciano Post Office
Building''.
S. 2622. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 11001 Dunklin Road in St.
Louis, Missouri, as the ``William `Bill' Clay Post Office''.
S. 3015. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 18 S. G Street, Lakeview,
Oregon, as the ``Dr. Bernard Daly Post Office Building''.
S. 3082. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1700 Cleveland Avenue in
Kansas City, Missouri, as the ``Reverend Earl Abel Post
Office Building''.

____________________

EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

By Mr. DODD for the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
*Elisse Walter, of Maryland, to be a Member of the
Securities and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June
5, 2012.
*Troy A. Paredes, of Missouri, to be a Member of the
Securities and Exchange Commission for a term expiring June
5, 2013.
*Luis Aguilar, of Georgia, to be a Member of the Securities
and Exchange Commission for the remainder of the term
expiring June 5, 2010.
*Michael E. Fryzel, of Illinois, to be a Member of the
National Credit Union Administration Board for a term
expiring August 2, 2013.
*Susan D. Peppler, of California, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
*Sheila McNamara Greenwood, of Louisiana, to be an
Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
*Neel T. Kashkari, of California, to be an Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury.
*Donald B. Marron, of Maryland, to be a Member of the
Council of Economic Advisers.
*Joseph J. Murin, of Pennsylvania, to be President,
Government National Mortgage Association.
*Christopher R. Wall, of Virginia, to be an Assistant
Secretary of Commerce.
By Mr. LIEBERMAN for the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
*Elaine C. Duke, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary for
Management, Department of Homeland Security.

*Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.

____________________

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. HAGEL (for himself and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3187. A bill to establish a comprehensive interagency
response to reduce lung cancer mortality in a timely manner;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. DODD:
S. 3188. A bill for the liquidation or reliquidation of
certain entries of top-of-the-stove stainless steel cooking
ware from the Republic of Korea, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
S. 3189. A bill to amend Public Law 106-392 to require the
Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration and
the Commissioner of Reclamation to maintain sufficient
revenues in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 3190. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to require employers to notify their employees of the
availability of the earned income credit; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Voinovich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Cardin, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 3191. A bill to develop and promote a comprehensive plan
for a national strategy to address harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia through baseline research, forecasting and
monitoring, and mitigation and control while helping
communities detect, control, and mitigate coastal and Great
Lakes harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 3192. A bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1955, to
authorize the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the
Coquille Indian Tribe, and the Confederated Tribes of the
Siletz Indians of Oregon to obtain 99-year lease authority
for trust land; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 3193. A bill to restrict nuclear cooperation with the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; to the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3194. A bill to transfer surplus Federal land
administered by the Coast Guard in the State of Oregon; to
the Committee on Indian Affairs.
By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3195. A bill to provide assistance to adolescents and
young adults with serious mental health disorders as they
transition to adulthood; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Ms. CANTWELL (for herself and Mrs. Murray):
S. 3196. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to provide assistance for programs and activities
to protect the water quality of Puget Sound, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3197. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to
exempt for a limited period, from the application of the
means-test presumption of abuse under chapter 7, qualifying
members of reserve components of the Armed Forces and members
of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001, are

[[Page 13854]]

called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense
activity for not less than 90 days; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Smith, Ms.
Cantwell, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 3198. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, with
respect to the navigation of submersible or semi-submersible
vessels without nationality; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Smith, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Stabenow, and
Mr. Vitter):
S. 3199. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to exempt certain shipping from the harbor maintenance tax;
to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. WICKER (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Allard, Mr.
Thune, and Mr. Shelby):
S.J. Res. 43. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:

By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Conrad):
S. Res. 601. A resolution designating October 19 through
October 25, 2008, as ``National Save for Retirement Week'';
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Chambliss,
Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Smith):
S. Res. 602. A bill supporting the goals and ideals of
``National Life Insurance Awareness Month''; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 186

At the request of Mr. Specter, the names of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) and the Senator from Missouri (Mrs. McCaskill) were added as
cosponsors of S. 186, a bill to provide appropriate protection to
attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work product.

S. 901

At the request of Mr. Graham, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
901, a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
additional authorizations of appropriations for the health centers
program under section 330 of such Act.

S. 991

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. 991, a bill to
establish the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation under the
authorities of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961.

S. 1069

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Ms. Mikulski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1069, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act regarding early detection, diagnosis, and
treatment of hearing loss.

S. 1183

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Ms. Stabenow) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1183, a bill to enhance
and further research into paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and
the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other
physical disabilities, and for other purposes.

S. 1232

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the names of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) were added
as cosponsors of S. 1232, a bill to direct the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to
develop a voluntary policy for managing the risk of food allergy and
anaphylaxis in schools, to establish school-based food allergy
management grants, and for other purposes.

S. 1924

At the request of Mr. Carper, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1924, a bill to amend
chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to create a presumption that
a disability or death of a Federal employee in fire protection
activities caused by any of certain diseases is the result of the
performance of such employee's duty.

S. 1977

At the request of Mr. Kerry, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1977, a bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in a
cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global
nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related
material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use
of nuclear technology.

S. 2059

At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Virginia
(Mr. Webb) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2059, a bill to amend the
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to clarify the eligibility
requirements with respect to airline flight crews.

S. 2505

At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2505, a bill to allow
employees of a commercial passenger airline carrier who receive
payments in a bankruptcy proceeding to roll over such payments into an
individual retirement plan, and for other purposes.

S. 2565

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2565, a bill to establish
an awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the line of
duty by Federal law enforcement officers.

S. 2579

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Smith) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) were added
as cosponsors of S. 2579, a bill to require the Secretary of the
Treasury to mint coins in recognition and celebration of the
establishment of the United States Army in 1775, to honor the American
soldier of both today and yesterday, in wartime and in peace, and to
commemorate the traditions, history, and heritage of the United States
Army and its role in American society, from the colonial period to
today.

S. 2668

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2668, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove cell phones from listed
property under section 280F.

S. 2669

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2669, a bill to provide for the
implementation of a Green Chemistry Research and Development Program,
and for other purposes.

S. 2672

At the request of Mr. Conrad, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2672, a bill to provide incentives to
physicians to practice in rural and medically underserved communities.

S. 2799

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2799, a bill to amend
title 38, United States Code, to expand and improve health care
services available to women veterans, especially those serving in
Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, from the
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.

S. 2902

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2902, a bill to ensure the
independent operation of the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration, ensure complete analysis of potential impacts on small
entities of rules, and for other purposes.

S. 2920

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) were
added as cosponsors of S. 2920, a bill to reauthorize and improve the
financing and entrepreneurial development programs

[[Page 13855]]

of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.

S. 2931

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2931, a bill to amend title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to exempt complex rehabilitation products and
assistive technology products from the Medicare competitive acquisition
program.

S. 2952

At the request of Mr. Menendez, the name of the Senator from Vermont
(Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2952, a bill to improve
food safety through mandatory meat, meat product, poultry, and poultry
product recall authority, to require the Secretary of Agriculture to
improve communication about recalls with schools participating in the
school lunch and breakfast programs, and for other purposes.

S. 2955

At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the names of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran)
and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) were added as cosponsors
of S. 2955, a bill to authorize funds to the Local Initiatives Support
Corporation to carry out its Community Safety Initiative.

S. 2979

At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Ms. Landrieu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2979, a bill to exempt
the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist
organization, and for other purposes.

S. 3038

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Texas
(Mrs. Hutchison) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3038, a bill to amend
part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend the adoption
incentives program, to authorize States to establish a relative
guardianship program, to promote the adoption of children with special
needs, and for other purposes.

S. 3061

At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3061, a bill to authorize
appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2011 for the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act of 2000, to enhance measures to combat
trafficking in persons, and for other purposes.

S. 3093

At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3093, a bill to extend and
improve the effectiveness of the employment eligibility confirmation
program.

S. 3134

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3134, a bill to
amend the Commodity Exchange Act to require energy commodities to be
traded only on regulated markets, and for other purposes.

S. 3141

At the request of Mrs. Murray, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3141, a bill to provide
for nondiscrimination by eligible lenders in the Federal Family
Education Loan Program.

S. 3143

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3143, a bill to assist law
enforcement agencies in locating, arresting, and prosecuting fugitives
from justice.

S. 3166

At the request of Mr. Sessions, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3166, a bill
to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to impose criminal
penalties on individuals who assist aliens who have engaged in
genocide, torture, or extrajudicial killings to enter the United
States.

S. 3167

At the request of Mr. Burr, the names of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) were added as
cosponsors of S. 3167, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
clarify the conditions under which veterans, their surviving spouses,
and their children may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent
for certain purposes.

S. 3170

At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3170, a bill to amend
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to modify the conditions for the
release of products from the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve
Account, and for other purposes.

S. RES. 580

At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) and the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 580, a resolution expressing the sense of the
Senate on preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

AMENDMENT NO. 4995

At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Voinovich) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 4995 intended to
be proposed to H.R. 3221, a bill to provide needed housing reform and
for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 5005

At the request of Mr. Isakson, the name of the Senator from Tennessee
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5005 intended
to be proposed to H.R. 3221, a bill to provide needed housing reform
and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 5020

At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5020
intended to be proposed to H.R. 3221, a bill to provide needed housing
reform and for other purposes.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 3190. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require
employers to notify their employees of the availability of the earned
income credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today, along
with my colleague from the House, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, an important and
noncontroversial bill designed to increase the percentage of eligible
families that claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, or EITC, every year.
The bill is endorsed by the Service Employees International Union,
SEIU, Wal-Mart, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the
Citizens for Tax Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
Corporate Voices for Working Families, the College and University
Professional Association for Human Resources, TJ Maxx, Kindred
Healthcare, and Cintas.
Even in these tough economic times, Wal-Mart is still the nation's
top private employer, and they place a huge emphasis on keeping their
business costs low. If they are taking such a lead role on this bill,
it should send a strong signal to the business community and to
Republicans that it is a good idea and that the cost burden on business
is next to nothing.
The EITC is a hugely important and popular program for working
families. Started under President Ford after President Nixon advanced a
similar program, and expanded under virtually every President since,
the EITC sends a message that if you work hard and play by the rules,
you shouldn't live in poverty.
I know the program isn't perfect, but it's the best tax tool we have
for helping working families make ends meet. Combined with the recent
increase in the minimum wage that Democrats pushed through the
Congress, the EITC is improving the lives of million of families.
For tax year 2006, more than $44 billion in benefits were distributed
to more than 22.4 million American families. That shows what a success
the program is.
As one of the most populous states, with millions of working families
of

[[Page 13856]]

modest means, the numbers for New York State by itself are impressive.
In 2006, nearly 1.5 million New York families took advantage of the
EITC, claiming $2.8 billion in benefits. That's an average of $1,867
per family. But if the estimates from the Government Accountability
Office are right and 25 percent of eligible families do not file for
the credit, that's almost 500,000 families in my state who are missing
out.
At an average EITC benefit of nearly $1,900, that means that more
than $900 million could be going back into the pockets of New Yorkers--
without a single change in the law--if we could find a way to reach
these families. It could represent a second stimulus package for
500,000 working families as large as the one we passed earlier this
year--and all eligible families have to do is ask for it.
With gasoline costing over $4 a gallon, and health care and tuition
costs on the rise, if we can get an average of $1,900 into the pockets
of 500,000 New York families, or 7.5 million people nationally--that's
an opportunity we can't pass up.
Since these families are eligible for the credit under current law,
it's not a policy that has to be scored or ``paid for'' under the PAYGO
rules, because current law assumes these benefits will be paid. I can't
imagine anyone objecting to this bill.
The Emanuel/Schumer legislation simply requires that employers notify
their workers of their potential eligibility for the EITC when they
send out the annual W-2 wage notice. To satisfy the notice requirement,
employers would provide either a copy of IRS Notice 797, which explains
how one qualifies for the EITC, or a separate written notice that is
described in the language of the bill.
For those that might be concerned about the cost to business, our
bill exempts firms with less than 25 employees.
This is a bill that is such common-sense, and represents such little
cost to business, and offers such a large potential benefit to so many
families, that it's something that we ought to be able to pass
unanimously before the end of the year.
Rep. Emanuel and I sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
today about the bill. Even though the Bush Administration is nearing
its end, the goals of this legislation could be accomplished via
regulation or executive order, and I urge the Administration to take
such action and render the bill moot. Rep. Emanuel and I would be happy
not to have to pass this bill. Otherwise, we will push it and hope to
pass it with broad bipartisan support by year's end. With unions and
major employers both supporting the bill, there really should be no
objection.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a letter of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 3190

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 ``Earned Income Credit
Information Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--The Congress hereby finds:
(1) President Gerald Ford and Congress created the earned
income credit (EIC) in 1975 to offset the adverse effects of
Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes on working poor
families and to encourage low-income workers to seek
employment rather than welfare.
(2) President Ronald Reagan described the earned income
credit as ``the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the
best job-creation measure to come out of Congress.''
(3) Over the last 30 years, the EIC program has grown into
the largest Federal anti-poverty program in the United
States. In 2005, 22.8 million tax filers received $42.4
billion in tax credits through the EIC program.
(4) In 2007, the EIC provided a maximum Federal benefit of
$4,716 for families with 2 or more children, $2,853 for
families with a single child, and $428 for a taxpayer with no
qualifying children.
(5) Based on analysis conducted by the General
Accountability Office, 25 percent of those eligible to
receive the EIC do not take advantage of the tax benefit.
(6) Based on analysis conducted by the Joint Economic
Committee, working Americans may have lost out on
approximately $8 billion in unclaimed earned income credits
in 2004.
(7) In response to a study by the California Franchise Tax
Board that found that there were approximately 460,000
California families that qualified, but did not file, for the
EIC, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly
Bill 650, the Earned Income Tax Credit Information Act, on
October 13, 2007. The law requires that California employers
notify employees of their potential eligibility for the EIC.
(8) In order to ensure that tax benefits designed to assist
working Americans reach the maximum number of people, the
Federal Government should enact a similar law.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to inform the
greatest possible number of Americans about their potential
eligibility for the earned income credit in a way that is
neither costly nor burdensome for employers or the
Government.

SEC. 3. EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF EARNED
INCOME CREDIT.

(a) In General.--Chapter 77 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to miscellaneous provisions) is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 7529. EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION OF AVAILABILITY OF EARNED
INCOME CREDIT.

``(a) In General.--Every employer required to provide a
statement under section 6051 (relating to W-2 statements) to
a potential EIC-eligible employee shall provide to such
employee the notice described in subsection (c).
``(b) Potential EIC-Eligible Employee.--For purposes of
this section, the term `potential EIC-eligible employee'
means any individual whose annual wages from the employer are
less than the amount of earned income (as defined in section
32(c)(2)) at which the credit under section 32(a) phases out
for an individual described in section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii) (or
such other amount as may be prescribed by the Secretary).
``(c) Contents of Notice.--
``(1) In general.--The notice required by subsection (a)
shall be--
``(A) a copy of Internal Revenue Service Notice 797 or any
successor notice, or
``(B) a notice stating: `Based on your annual earnings, you
may be eligible to receive the earned income credit from the
Federal Government. The earned income credit is a tax credit
for certain working individuals and families. In 2008, earned
income credit benefits are available for taxpayers with
earnings up to $38,646 ($41,646 if married filing jointly).
Eligibility and benefit amounts vary according to filing
status (single or married), number of qualifying children,
and other sources of income. For example, in 2008, earned
income credit benefits are available for childless taxpayers
earning less than $15,880, taxpayers with 1 child earning
less than $36,995, and taxpayers with 2 or more children
earning less than $41,646. In most cases, earned income
credit payments will not be used to determine eligibility for
Medicaid, supplemental security income, food stamps, low-
income housing or most temporary assistance for needy
families programs. Even if you do not owe Federal taxes, you
may qualify, but must file a tax return to receive the earned
income credit. For information regarding your eligibility to
receive the earned income credit, contact the Internal
Revenue Service by calling 1-800-829-1040 or through its web
site at www.irs.gov. The Volunteer Income Tax Assistance
(VITA) program provides free tax preparation assistance to
individuals under the above income limits. Call the IRS at 1-
800-906-9887 to find sites in your area.'.
``(2) Years after 2008.--In the case of the notice in
paragraph (1)(B) for taxable years beginning in a calendar
year after 2008--
``(A) such calendar year shall be substituted for `2008',
``(B) the lowest amount of earned income for a taxpayer
with no qualifying children at which the credit phases out
under section 32(a)(2)(B) for taxable years beginning in such
calendar year shall be substituted for `$15,880',
``(C) the lowest amount of earned income for a taxpayer
with 1 qualifying child at which the credit phases out under
section 32(a)(2)(B) for such taxable years shall be
substituted for `$36,995', and
``(D) the lowest amount of earned income for a taxpayer
with 2 or more qualifying children at which the credit phases
out under section 32(a)(2)(B) for such taxable years shall be
substituted for `$41,646'.
``(d) Exemption for Small Employers.--
``(1) In general.--An employer shall not be required to
provide notices under this section during any calendar year
if the employer employed an average of 25 or fewer employees
on business days during the preceding calendar year. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, a preceding calendar year
may be taken into account only if the employer was in
existence throughout such year.
``(2) Employers not in existence in preceding year.--In the
case of an employer which was not in existence throughout the
preceding calendar year, the determination

[[Page 13857]]

under paragraph (1) shall be based on the average number of
employees that it is reasonably expected such employer will
employ on business days in the current calendar year.
``(3) Special rules.--
``(A) Controlled groups.--For purposes of this subsection,
all persons treated as a single employer under subsection
(b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as 1
employer.
``(B) Predecessors.--Any reference in this subsection to an
employer shall include a reference to any predecessor of such
employer.
``(e) Timing of Notice.--The notice required by subsection
(a) shall be provided to each employee at the same time the
employer statement is furnished to each such employee under
section 6051.
``(f) Manner of Providing Notice.--The notice required by
subsection (a) shall be provided either by hand or by mail to
the address used to provide the statement under section 6051
to the employee.''.
(b) Penalty for Failure To Provide Notice.--Section
6724(d)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ``or'' at the
end of subparagraph (BB), by striking the period at the end
of subparagraph (CC) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting
after subparagraph (CC) the following new subparagraph:
``(DD) section 7529 (relating to employer notification of
availability of earned income credit).''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter 77 is amended by adding at the end the following new
item:

``Sec. 7529. Employer notification of availability of earned income
credit.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to statements required to be
provided under section 6051 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 more than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
____

June 25, 2008.
Hon. Henry Paulson,
Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Paulson: Over the last 30 years, the Earned
Income Tax Credit (EITC) has grown into the largest Federal
anti-poverty program in the United States. In 2006, over 22
million taxpayers received almost $44 billion through the
EITC. During its history, the program has been supported by
both Democrats and Republicans. President Ronald Reagan
described the earned income credit as ``the best anti-
poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure
to come out of Congress.''
As you know, millions of eligible Americans fail to take
advantage of this critical program, costing themselves
billions in tax benefits. Based on an analysis conducted by
the General Accountability Office, 25 percent of those
eligible to receive the EITC do not take advantage of it. The
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that between 20 and
25 percent of taxpayers who are eligible don't claim the
credit. While this issue has been a persistent source of
concern, it is particularly troubling now when Americans are
contending with record high gas prices and surging costs for
other consumer goods.
On October 13, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed
into law Assembly Bill 650, the Earned Income Tax Credit
Information Act. The legislation seeks to reduce the number
of eligible taxpayers who fail to take advantage of the EITC
by requiring California employers to notify their employees
of their potential eligibility for the EITC. We believe that
the California law should serve as a model for federal
action, and will shortly introduce legislation to accomplish
this goal.
We bring this to your attention because we believe that the
goal of increasing awareness of the EITC, and thus expanding
the number of taxpayers who access it, can also be
accomplished through administrative rule-making.
Earlier in the year, you played a critical role in
providing needed economic stimulus to working Americans that
is now helping to soften the brunt of our current economic
downturn. By increasing the number of eligible taxpayers who
take advantage of the EITC program, you can build on this
accomplishment and add further stimulus by providing, in some
cases, thousands of dollars of assistance that can be used to
buy gas or groceries, or pay the mortgage.
For this reason, we ask you to explore what the
Administration can do to improve EITC outreach efforts, and
specifically ask that you examine the possibility of
requiring employers to provide information to their employees
about the EITC at the same time that they provide W-2
statements. Earlier this year, at an EITC Awareness Day
event, you noted: ``Ensuring that more eligible families
receive their EITC is important this year, as it is every
year. I encourage people all across America to check to see
if you are eligible for the Earned Income Credit.'' We
couldn't agree more, but believe we should also look to
employers to help taxpayers take advantage of critical
federal tax programs like the EITC.
Finally, we are aware that the Administration instructed
federal agencies on May 9, 2008 to not undertake any new
rulemaking procedures after June 1, 2008. We sincerely hope
that this policy will not prevent the Administration from
helping hardworking Americans who need it the most.
We look forward to your response and thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Rahm Emanuel,
House Democratic Caucus Chair.
Charles Schumer,
Senate Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Kerry, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Levin, Mr. Voinovich, Mrs Boxer, Mr.
Cardin, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 3191. A bill to develop and promote a comprehensive plan for a
national strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia through
baseline research, forecasting and monitoring, and mitigation and
control while helping communities detect, control, and mitigate coastal
and Great Lakes harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal
Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008. This bill would enhance the
research programs established in the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998 and reauthorized in 2004, which have
greatly enhanced our ability to predict outbreaks of harmful algal
blooms and the extent of hypoxic zones. But knowing when outbreaks will
occur is only half the battle. By funding additional research into
mitigation and prevention of HABs and hypoxia, and by enabling
communities to develop response strategies to more effectively reduce
their effects on our coastal communities, this legislation would take
the next critical steps to reducing the social and economic impacts of
these potentially disastrous outbreaks.
I am proud to continue my leadership on this important issue and I
particularly want to thank my counterpart on this key piece of
legislation, Senator Bill Nelson. My partnership with Senator Breaux on
the first two harmful algal bloom bills proved extremely fruitful, and
I am pleased that the Gulf of Mexico--whose coastal residents are
severely impacted by both harmful algal blooms, also known as HABs, and
hypoxia--will continue to be so well represented as this program moves
into the future. I also want to thank the bill's additional co-
sponsors, Senators Cantwell, Kerry, Vitter, Voinovich, Boxer and Levin
for their vital contributions. We all represent coastal States directly
affected by harmful algal blooms and hypoxia, and we see first hand the
ecological and economic damage caused by these events.
In New England blooms of Alexandrium algae, more commonly known as
``red tide'', can cause shellfish to accumulate toxins that when
consumed by humans lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP), a
potentially fatal neurological disorder. Therefore, when levels of
Alexandrium reach dangerous levels, our fishery managers are forced to
close shellfish beds that provide hundreds of jobs and add millions of
dollars to our regional economy. Red tide outbreaks--which occur in
various forms not just in the northeast, but along thousands of miles
of U.S. coastline--have increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in
the last 20 years, with major blooms occurring almost every year.
In 2005, the most severe red tide since 1972 blanketed the New
England coast from Martha's Vineyard to Downeast Maine, resulting in
extensive commercial and recreational shellfish harvesting closures
lasting several months at the peak of the seafood harvesting season. In
a peer-reviewed study, economists found that the 2005 event caused over
$2.4 million in lost landings of shellfish in the State of Maine alone,
and more than $10 million throughout New England.
In May of this year, scientists once more predicted an abundance of
Alexandrium off the New England coast, marking the onset of yet another
severe harmful algal bloom in

[[Page 13858]]

the area. Just yesterday, Maine's Department of Marine Resources
announced the closure of additional shellfish beds covering many areas
from Cutler east to the Canadian border, and today the Food and Drug
Administration asked the National Marine Fisheries Service to issue a
closure of a section of Federal waters near George's Bank to the
harvest of ocean quahogs and surf clams.
Still, while this year's bloom has tracked the pattern of the 2005
event, thanks to previous investments in HAB programs, localized
testing has led to fewer closures. Unlike 2005 when nearly the entire
coast of Massachusetts and much of Maine was declared off-limits to
shell fishermen, in this year's bloom, some unaffected areas remain
open despite being directly adjacent to contaminated beds. These
detailed forecasting and testing measures will greatly reduce the
economic impact such outbreaks impose on our coastal communities, and
is directly attributable to the efforts authorized in previous HAB
legislation.
Mr. President, while we have made great strides in bloom prediction
and monitoring, it is clear that these problems have not gone away, but
rather increased in magnitude. Harmful algal blooms remain prevalent
nationwide, and areas of hypoxia, also known as ``dead zones'', are now
occurring with increasing frequency. Within a dead zone, oxygen levels
plummet to the point at which they can no longer sustain life, driving
out animals that can move, and killing those that cannot. The most
infamous dead zone occurs annually in the Gulf of Mexico, off the
shores of Louisiana. In 2007, researchers there predicted the biggest
hypoxic zone ever recorded, covering more than 8,500 square miles. Dead
zones are also occurring with increasing frequency in more areas than
ever before, including off the coasts of Oregon and Texas.
The amendments contained in this legislation would enhance the
Nation's ability to predict, monitor, and ultimately control harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia. Understanding when these blooms will occur is
vital, but the time has come to take this program to the next level--to
determine not just when an outbreak will occur, but how to reduce its
intensity or prevent its occurrence all together. This bill would build
on NOAA's successes in research and forecasting by creating a program
to mitigate and control HAB outbreaks.
This bill also recognizes the need to enhance coordination among
State and local resource managers--those on the front lines who must
make the decisions to close beaches or shellfish beds. Their decisions
are critical to protecting human health, but can also impose
significant economic impacts. The bill would mandate creation of
Regional Research and Action Plans that would identify baseline
research, possible State and local government actions to prepare for
and mitigate the impacts of HABs, and establish outreach strategies to
ensure the public is informed of the dangers these events can present.
A regional focus on these issues will ensure a more effective and
efficient response to future events.
Mr. President, if enacted, this critical reauthorization would
greatly enhance our Nation's ability to predict, monitor, mitigate, and
control outbreaks of HABs and hypoxia. Over half the U.S. population
resides in coastal regions, and we must do all in our power to
safeguard their health and the health of the marine environment. The
existing Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program has done a laudable
job to date, and this authorization will allow them to expand their
scope and provide greater benefits to the Nation as a whole. I thank my
cosponsors again for their efforts in developing this vital
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3191

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Harmful
Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Amendment of Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and
Control Act of 1998.
Sec. 3. Findings.
Sec. 4. Purpose.
Sec. 5. Interagency task force on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
Sec. 6. National harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program.
Sec. 7. Regional research and action plans.
Sec. 8. Reporting.
Sec. 9. Pilot program for freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia.
Sec. 10. Interagency financing.
Sec. 11. Application with other laws.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
Sec. 13. Authorization of appropriations.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA RESEARCH
AND CONTROL ACT OF 1998.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
title an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 1451 note).

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

Section 602 is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (8) and inserting the following:
``(8) harmful algal blooms and hypoxia can be triggered and
exacerbated by increases in nutrient loading from point and
non-point sources, much of which originates in upland areas
and is delivered to marine and freshwater bodies via river
discharge, thereby requiring integrated and landscape-level
research and control strategies;'';
(2) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon in paragraph
(11);
(3) by striking ``hypoxia.'' in paragraph (12) and
inserting ``hypoxia;''; and
(4) by adding at the end thereof the following:
``(13) harmful algal blooms and hypoxia affect many sectors
of the coastal economy, including tourism, public health, and
recreational and commercial fisheries; and according to a
recent report produced by NOAA, the United States seafood and
tourism industries suffer annual losses of $82 million due to
economic impacts of harmful algal blooms;
``(14) global climate change and its effect on oceans and
the Great Lakes may ultimately play a role in the increase or
decrease of harmful algal bloom and hypoxic events;
``(15) proliferations of harmful and nuisance algae can
occur in all United States waters, including coastal areas
and estuaries, the Great Lakes, and inland waterways,
crossing political boundaries and necessitating regional
coordination for research, monitoring, mitigation, response,
and prevention efforts; and
``(16) following passage of the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, Federally-funded
and other research has led to several technological advances,
including remote sensing, molecular and optical tools,
satellite imagery, and coastal and ocean observing systems,
that provide data for forecast models, improve the monitoring
and prediction of these events, and provide essential
decision making tools for managers and stakeholders.''.

SEC. 4. PURPOSE.

The Act is amended by inserting after section 602 the
following:

``SEC. 602A. PURPOSES.

``The purposes of this Act are--
``(1) to provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated national program to address
harmful algal blooms, hypoxia, and nuisance algae through
baseline research, monitoring, prevention, mitigation, and
control;
``(2) to provide for the assessment and consideration of
regional and national ecosystem, socio-economic, and human
health impacts of harmful and nuisance algal blooms and
hypoxia, and integration of that assessment into marine and
freshwater resource decisions; and
``(3) to facilitate regional, State, and local efforts to
develop and implement appropriate harmful algal bloom and
hypoxia event response plans, strategies, and tools including
outreach programs and information dissemination
mechanisms.''.

SEC. 5. INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE ON HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND
HYPOXIA.

(a) Federal Representatives.--Section 603(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Task Force shall consist of the
following representatives from--'' and inserting ``The Task
Force shall consist of representatives of the Office of the
Secretary from each of the following departments and of the
office of the head of each of the following Federal
agencies:'';
(2) by striking ``the'' in paragraphs (1) through (11) and
inserting ``The'';
(3) by striking the semicolon in paragraphs (1) through
(10) and inserting a period.
(4) by striking ``Quality; and'' in paragraph (11) and
inserting ``Quality.''; and

[[Page 13859]]

(5) by striking ``such other'' in paragraph (12) and
inserting ``Other''.
(b) State Representatives.--Section 603 is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (b) through (i) as
subsections (c) through (j), respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) State Representatives.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for determining appropriate States to serve on the
Task Force and establish and implement a nominations process
to select representatives from 2 appropriate States in
different regions, on a rotating basis, to serve 2-year terms
on the Task Force.'';
(3) in subsection (h), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``Not less than once every 5 years the'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``The'';
(B) by striking ``The first such'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``The'';
(C) by striking ``assessments'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``assessment''; and
(4) in subsection (i), as redesignated--
(A) by striking ``Not less than once every 5 years the'' in
paragraph (1) and inserting ``The'';
(B) by striking ``The first such'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``The'';
(C) by striking ``All subsequent assessments'' in paragraph
(1) and inserting ``The assessment''; and
(D) by striking ``assessments'' in paragraph (2) and
inserting ``assessment''.

SEC. 6. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA PROGRAM.

The Act is amended by inserting after section 603 the
following:

``SEC. 603A. NATIONAL HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOM AND HYPOXIA
PROGRAM.

``(a) Establishment.--The President, acting through NOAA,
shall establish and maintain a national program for
integrating efforts to address harmful algal bloom and
hypoxia research, monitoring, prediction, control,
mitigation, prevention, and outreach.
``(b) Task Force Functions.--The Task Force shall be the
oversight body for the development and implementation of the
national harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program and shall--
``(1) coordinate interagency review of plans and policies
of the Program;
``(2) assess interagency work and spending plans for
implementing the activities of the Program;
``(3) assess the Program's distribution of Federal grants
and funding to address research priorities;
``(4) support implementation of the actions and strategies
identified in the regional research and action plans under
subsection (d);
``(5) support the development of institutional mechanisms
and financial instruments to further the goals of the
program;
``(6) expedite the interagency review process and ensure
timely review and dispersal of required reports and
assessments under this Act; and
``(7) promote the development of new technologies for
predicting, monitoring, and mitigating harmful algal blooms
and hypoxia conditions.
``(c) Lead Federal Agency.--NOAA shall be the lead Federal
agency for implementing and administering the National
Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program.
``(d) Responsibilities.--The Program shall--
``(1) promote a national strategy to help communities
understand, detect, predict, control, and mitigate freshwater
and marine harmful algal bloom and hypoxia events;
``(2) plan, coordinate, and implement the National Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Program; and
``(3) report to the Task Force via the Administrator.
``(e) Duties.--
``(1) Administrative duties.--The Program shall--
``(A) prepare work and spending plans for implementing the
activities of the Program and developing and implementing the
Regional Research and Action Plans and coordinate the
preparation of related work and spending plans for the
activities of other participating Federal agencies;
``(B) administer merit-based, competitive grant funding to
support the projects maintained and established by the
Program, and to address the research and management needs and
priorities identified in the Regional Research and Action
Plans;
``(C) coordinate NOAA programs that address harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia and other ocean and Great Lakes science
and management programs and centers that address the
chemical, biological, and physical components of harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(D) coordinate and work cooperatively with other Federal,
State, and local government agencies and programs that
address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(E) coordinate with the State Department to support
international efforts on harmful algal bloom and hypoxia
information sharing, research, mitigation, and control.''.
``(F) coordinate an outreach, education, and training
program that integrates and augments existing programs to
improve public education about and awareness of the causes,
impacts, and mitigation efforts for harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia;
``(G) facilitate and provide resources for training of
State and local coastal and water resource managers in the
methods and technologies for monitoring, controlling, and
mitigating harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(H) support regional efforts to control and mitigate
outbreaks through--
``(i) communication of the contents of the Regional
Research and Action Plans and maintenance of online data
portals for other information about harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia to State and local stakeholders within the region for
which each plan is developed; and
``(ii) overseeing the development, review, and periodic
updating of Regional Research and Action Plans established
under section 603B;
``(I) convene an annual meeting of the Task Force; and
``(J) perform such other tasks as may be delegated by the
Task Force.
``(2) Program duties.--The Program shall--
``(A) maintain and enhance--
``(i) the Ecology and Oceanography of Harmful Algal Blooms
Program;
``(ii) the Monitoring and Event Response for Harmful Algal
Blooms Program;
``(iii) the Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecosystems and Hypoxia
Assessment Program; and
``(iv) the Coastal Hypoxia Research Program;
``(B) establish--
``(i) a Mitigation and Control of Harmful Algal Blooms
Program--

``(I) to develop and promote strategies for the prevention,
mitigation, and control of harmful algal blooms; and
``(II) to fund research that may facilitate the prevention,
mitigation, and control of harmful algal blooms; and
``(III) to develop and demonstrate technology that may
mitigate and control harmful algal blooms; and

``(ii) other programs as necessary; and
``(C) work cooperatively with other offices, centers, and
programs within NOAA and other agencies represented on the
Task Force, States, and nongovernmental organizations
concerned with marine and aquatic issues to manage data,
products, and infractructure, including--
``(i) compiling, managing, and archiving data from relevant
programs in Task Force member agencies;
``(ii) creating data portals for general education and data
dissemination on centralized, publicly available databases;
and
``(iii) establishing communication routes for data,
predictions, and management tools both to and from the
regions, states, and local communities.''.

SEC. 7. REGIONAL RESEARCH AND ACTION PLANS.

The Act, as amended by section 6, is amended by inserting
after section 603A the following:

``SEC. 603B. REGIONAL RESEARCH AND ACTION PLANS.

``(a) In General.--The Program shall--
``(1) oversee the development and implementation of
Regional Research and Action Plans; and
``(2) identify appropriate regions and sub-regions to be
addressed by each Regional Research and Action Plan.
``(b) Regional Panels of Experts.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of the Harmful Algal Blooms and
Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008, and every 5 years thereafter,
the Program shall convene a panel of experts for each region
identified under subsection (a)(2) from among--
``(1) State coastal management and planning officials;
``(2) water management and watershed officials from both
coastal states and noncoastal states with water sources that
drain into water bodies affected by harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia;
``(3) public health officials;
``(4) emergency management officials;
``(5) nongovernmental organizations concerned with marine
and aquatic issues;
``(6) science and technology development institutions;
``(7) economists;
``(8) industries and businesses affected by coastal and
freshwater harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(9) scientists, with expertise concerning harmful algal
blooms or hypoxia, from academic or research institutions;
and
``(10) other stakeholders as appropriate.
``(c) Plan Development.--Each regional panel of experts
shall develop a Regional Research and Action Plan for its
respective region and submit it to the Program for approval
and to the Task Force. The Plan shall identify appropriate
elements for the region, including--
``(1) baseline ecological, social, and economic research
needed to understand the biological, physical, and chemical
conditions that cause, exacerbate, and result from harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(2) regional priorities for ecological and socio-economic
research on issues related to, and impacts of, harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia;
``(3) research needed to develop and advance technologies
for improving capabilities to predict, monitor, prevent,
control,

[[Page 13860]]

and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
``(4) State and local government actions that may be
implemented--
``(A) to support long-term monitoring efforts and emergency
monitoring as needed;
``(B) to minimize the occurrence of harmful algal blooms
and hypoxia;
``(C) to reduce the duration and intensity of harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia in times of emergency;
``(D) to address human health dimensions of harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia; and
``(E) to identify and protect vulnerable ecosystems that
could be, or have been, affected by harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia;
``(5) mechanisms by which data and products are transferred
between the Program and State and local governments and
research entities;
``(6) communication, outreach and information dissemination
efforts that State and local governments and nongovernmental
organizations can undertake to educate and inform the public
concerning harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and alternative
coastal resource-utilization opportunities that are
available; and
``(7) pilot projects, if appropriate, that may be
implemented on local, State, and regional scales to address
the research priorities and response actions identified in
the Plan.
``(d) Plan Timelines; Updates.--The Program shall ensure
that--
``(1) not less than 50 percent of the Regional Research and
Action Plans developed under this section are completed and
approved by the Program within 12 months after the date of
enactment of the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Amendments
Act of 2008;
``(2) the remaining Regional Research and Action Plans are
completed and approved by the Program within 24 months after
such date of enactment; and
``(3) each Regional Research and Action Plan is updated no
less frequently than once every 5 years.
``(e) Funding.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to available appropriations, the
Program shall make funding available to eligible
organizations to implement the research, monitoring,
forecasting, modeling, and response actions included under
each approved Regional Research and Action Plan. The Program
shall select recipients through a merit-based, competitive
process and seek to fund research proposals that most
effectively align with the research priorities identified in
the relevant Regional Research and Action Plan.
``(2) Application; assurances.--Any organization seeking
funding under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Program at such time, in such form and manner, and
containing such information and assurances as the Program may
require. The Program shall require any organization receiving
funds under this subsection to utilize the mechanisms
described in subsection (c)(5) to ensure the transfer of data
and products developed under the Plan.
``(3) Eligible organization.--In this subsection, the term
`eligible organization' means--
``(A) a nongovernmental researcher or organization; or
``(B) any other entity that applies for funding to
implement the State, local, and non-governmental control,
mitigation, and prevention strategies identified in the
relevant Regional Research and Action Plan.
``(f) Emergency Reviews.--If the Program determines that an
intermediate review is necessary to address emergent needs in
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia under a Regional Research
and Action Plan, it shall notify the Task Force and reconvene
the relevant regional panel of experts for the purpose of
revising the Regional Research and Action Plan so as to
address the emergent threat or need.''.

SEC. 8. REPORTING.

Section 603, as amended by section 5, is amended by adding
at the end thereof the following:
``(k) Biannual Reports.--The Program shall prepare biannual
reports for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committees on
Science and Technology and on Natural Resources that
describe--
``(1) activities, budgets, and progress on implementing the
national harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program;
``(2) the proceedings of the annual Task Force meeting; and
``(3) the status, activities, and funding for
implementation of the Regional Research and Action Plans,
including a description of research funded under the program
and actions and outcomes of Plan response strategies carried
out by States.
``(l) Quinquennial Reports.--
``(1) Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Assessments.--Not
less than once every 5 years after the date of enactment of
the Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2008,
the Task Force shall prepare a report to the Senate Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of
Representatives Committees on Science and Technology and on
Natural Resources that--
``(A) describes the state of knowledge on harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia in marine and freshwater systems,
including the causes and ecological consequences;
``(B) describes the social and economic impacts of harmful
algal blooms and hypoxia and strategies for their
minimization and mitigation;
``(C) describes the human health impacts of harmful algal
blooms and hypoxia, including any gaps in existing research;
``(D) describes progress on developing technologies and
advancing capabilities for monitoring, forecasting, modeling,
control, mitigation, and prevention of harmful algal blooms
and hypoxia and implementation of strategies for achieving
these goals;
``(E) describes progress on, and techniques for,
integrating landscape- and watershed-level water quality
information into marine and freshwater harmful algal bloom
and hypoxia prevention and mitigation strategies, including
projects at the Federal and regional levels;
``(F) describes communication, outreach, and education
efforts to raise public awareness of harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia, their impacts, and the methods for mitigation and
prevention;
``(G) includes recommendations for integrating and
improving future national, regional, State, and local
policies and strategies for preventing and mitigating the
occurrence and impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia;
and
``(H) describes impacts of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia
on coastal communities and a review of those communities'
efforts and associated economic costs related to event
forecasting, planning, mitigation, response, and public
outreach and education.
``(2) Public Comment.--At least 90 days before submitting
the report to Congress, the Secretary shall publish the draft
report in the Federal Register for a comment period of not
less than 60 days.''.

SEC. 9. PILOT PROGRAM FOR FRESHWATER HARMFUL ALGAL BLOOMS AND
HYPOXIA.

The Act, as amended by section 7, is amended by inserting
after section 603B the following:

``SEC. 603C. PILOT PROGRAM FOR FRESHWATER HARMFUL ALGAL
BLOOMS AND HYPOXIA.

``(a) Pilot Program.--The Secretary shall establish a
collaborative pilot program with the Environmental Protection
Agency and other appropriate Federal agencies to examine
harmful algal blooms and hypoxia occurring in freshwater
systems. The pilot program shall--
``(1) be established in the Mississippi River Basin
watershed;
``(2) assess the issues associated with, and impacts of,
harful algal blooms and hypoxia in freshwater ecosystems;
``(3) research the efficacy of mitigation measures,
including measures to reduce nutrient loading; and
``(4) recommend potential management solutions.
``(b) Report.--The Secretary of Commerce, in consultation
with other participating Federal agencies, shall conduct an
assessment of the effectiveness of the pilot program in
improving freshwater habitat quality and publish a report,
available to the public, of the results of the assessment.''.

SEC. 10. INTERAGENCY FINANCING.

The Act is amended by inserting after section 604 the
following:

``SEC. 604A. INTERAGENCY FINANCING.

``The departments and agencies represented on the Task
Force are authorized to participate in interagency financing
and share, transfer, receive, obligate, and expend funds
appropriated to any member of the Task Force for the purposes
of carrying out any administrative or programmatic project or
activity under this Act, including support for the Program, a
common infrastructure, information sharing, and system
integration for harmful algal bloom and hypoxia research,
monitoring, forecasting, prevention, and control. Funds may
be transferred among such departments and agencies through an
appropriate instrument that specifies the goods, services, or
space being acquired from another Task Force member and the
costs of the same.''.

SEC. 11. APPLICATION WITH OTHER LAWS.

The Act is amended by inserting after section 606 the
following:

``SEC. 607. EFFECT ON OTHER FEDERAL AUTHORITY.

``Nothing in this title supersedes or limits the authority
of any agency to carry out its responsibilities and missions
under other laws.''.

SEC. 12. DEFINITIONS.

(a) In General.--The Act is amended by inserting after
section 605 the following:

``SEC. 605A. DEFINITIONS.

``In this Act:
``(1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the
Administrator of the NOAA.
``(2) Harmful algal bloom.--The term `harmful algal bloom'
means marine and freshwater phytoplankton that proliferate to
high concentrations, resulting in nuisance conditions or
harmful impacts on marine and aquatic ecosystems, coastal
communities, and human health through the production of toxic
compounds or other biological, chemical, and physical impacts
of the algae outbreak.

[[Page 13861]]

``(3) Hypoxia.--The term `hypoxia' means a condition where
low dissolved oxygen in aquatic systems causes stress or
death to resident organisms.
``(4) NOAA.--The term `NOAA' means the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
``(5) Program.--The term `Program' means the integrated
harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program established under
section 603B.
``(6) Regional Research and Action Plan.--The term
`Regional Research and Action Plan' means a plan established
under section 603B.
``(7) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Commerce, acting through NOAA.''.
``(8) Task force.--The term `Task Force' means the
Interagency Task Force established by section 603(a).
``(9) United states coastal waters.--The term `United
States coastal waters' includes the Great Lakes.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 603(a) is amended by
striking ``Hypoxia (hereinafter referred to as the `Task
force').'' and inserting ``Hypoxia.''.

SEC. 13. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 605 is amended to read as follows:--

``SEC. 605. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to NOAA to implement the Program under this title--
``(1) $30,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010;
and
``(2) $70,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2011, 2012, and
2013.The Secretary shall ensure that a substantial portion of
funds appropriated pursuant to this subsection that are used
for research purposes are allocated to extramural research
activities.
``(b) Regional Research and Action Plans.--In addition to
any amounts appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), there
are authorized to be appropriated to NOAA to develop and
revise the Regional Research and Action Plans, $40,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2009 and 2010, such sums to remain
available until expended.
``(c) Pilot Program.--In addition to any amounts
appropriated pursuant to subsection (a), there are authorized
to be appropriated to NOAA such sums as may be necessary to
carry out the pilot program established under section
603C.''.

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce
legislation that will address an ongoing problem that adversely affects
local communities and coastal areas around my home State of Florida and
across coastal States nationwide.
Today, Senator Snowe and I, along with Senators Cantwell, Kerry,
Vitter, Levin, Voinovich, Boxer, Cardin, and Mikulski, are introducing
a bill that would reauthorize and enhance the Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act, HABHRCA, which was enacted in 1998
and reauthorized 4 years ago. This act has enabled critical monitoring,
forecasting, and research activities that have greatly improved our
understanding and prediction of harmful algal blooms, nuisance blooms
like red drift, and low-oxygen or hypoxia events that plague our
estuaries and coastal waters.
While the accomplishments made to date through HABHRCA are certainly
valuable and to be commended, more work lies ahead. In Florida, harmful
algal blooms, including red tides, and frequent red drift events
continue to occur along our coasts.
According to experts from Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, most of
Florida's red tides are caused by a microscopic algae called Karenia
brevis, which creates blooms that can last for months and cover
hundreds of square miles. What makes this organism so harmful are the
toxins it produces. These toxins can kill fish, birds, and other marine
animals. For humans, the toxins trigger respiratory problems, eye and
skin irritation, and shellfish poisoning when the toxins accumulate in
oysters and clams. When these blooms die, the decomposing algae strip
oxygen from the water column. These hypoxic conditions deprive fish,
manatees, and other animal species of the oxygen they need to survive.
A particularly devastating and intense red tide struck the Florida
gulf coast in the summer of 2005, causing widespread animal deaths and
public health and economic problems. The St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area
Convention and Visitors Bureau estimated upwards of $240 million in
losses for the Tampa region as a result of this bloom.
Scientists have told us that red tides are a lot like hurricanes
complex but natural phenomena that can have profound impacts on our
environment and society. Although we may not be able to stop this
natural process, we can do more to predict it and take actions to
minimize its impacts on our citizens and natural resources.
While red drift algae lack the toxins associated with red tide, they
can nonetheless cause enormous problems along Florida's beaches. We
have had numerous red drift events in Florida over the last few years.
In March 2007, some witnesses described clumps of red drift algae the
size of hay bales floating on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, and
washing onshore from Fort Myers to Anna Maria Island. Scientists have
also been looking into whether nutrients from the decomposing algae may
feed subsequent blooms, keeping local waters in a terrible cycle.
Other algal blooms are impairing waterways and causing social and
economic problems in my state. Earlier this month, a water treatment
plant on the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County had to be closed
temporarily due to a bloom of blue-green algae.
It is clear that harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events can have
devastating impacts on water and air quality, aquatic species,
wildlife, and beach conditions, which in turn affect public health,
commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and related businesses in
our coastal communities. The question becomes, what can we do to stop
this? If we can't stop these events, how can we better plan for them
and take steps to minimize the impacts?
We have learned from scientists and researchers, many of whom were
funded by HABHRCA-authorized programs, that some harmful algal blooms
and red drift events can be triggered by excess nutrients from upland
areas that wash into rivers and are delivered to the coast. Because
this problem often crosses political and geographic boundaries, we must
pursue solutions that are regional in nature and bring together
expertise from all levels of government, from academia, and from other
outside groups who have a stake in keeping our coastal waters healthy,
clean, and productive.
Senator Snowe and I have worked together to craft a bill that will
not only continue critical research on harmful algal blooms and
hypoxia, but help address some of these pressing needs that exist on
every coast--from the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, to the Pacific and
the Great Lakes. Our bill will help integrate and improve coordination
among the government's programs that study and monitor these events.
The bill would also improve how regional, state, and local needs are
considered when prioritizing research grants and developing related
products. Most importantly, this bill would focus new resources on
translating research results into tools and products that state and
local governments can use to help prevent, respond to, and mitigate the
impacts of these events.
Although we have made significant progress in identifying some of the
causes and consequences of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia since 1998,
much work remains to find solutions that minimize the occurrence of
these events and that enable our coastal communities to become
resilient to the impacts. This legislation to amend and reauthorize the
Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia Act represents an important step
toward realizing those goals.
In closing, I would like to recognize Senator Snowe for her
leadership on this issue. As the sponsor of both the original
legislation in 1998 and the 2004 amendments, her expertise on harmful
algal blooms and the impacts of these events on her constituents has
proved invaluable as we developed the measure before us today. I look
forward to working with Senator Snowe, in her role as ranking member of
the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, as well as with
Chairman Cantwell and the other members of our subcommittee, to debate
this important legislation.
______

By Mr. DURBIN:
S. 3197. A bill to amend title 11, United States Code, to exempt for
a limited period, from the application of the means-test presumption of
abuse under chapter 7, qualifying members of reserve components of the
Armed

[[Page 13862]]

Forces and members of the National Guard who, after September 11, 2001,
are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for
not less than 90 days; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when our National Guard and Reserve
members return from active duty, the last thing they should have to
worry about is struggling to catch up on the bills. Sadly, acute
financial challenges are often exactly what greet our bravest men and
women when they come home.
For those families who are struggling to make ends meet after serving
our country, today I am introducing a bill, the National Guard and
Reservists Debt Relief Act, that would give these families a little
breathing room. My bill would waive the means test for entering into
Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection for National Guard and Reserve members
who have served since September 11, 2001. The bill would give these
families a little more time to reorganize their finances so that they
can get their lives back in order after serving.
The 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
changed the U.S. bankruptcy code to make it significantly harder for
individuals to receive protection from their creditors via bankruptcy,
by requiring filers to pass a means test based on an individual's
income and expenses for the 6 month period preceding a bankruptcy
filing.
My bill would exempt returning Guard and Reserve members from this
means test, both because our finest men and women deserve greater
financial protection and because they are uniquely disadvantaged by the
means test criteria. Despite receiving much-deserved active duty pay
for their service, National Guard and Reserve members often take a pay
cut when they leave their jobs for a deployment. But because the means
test includes the past 6 months of income in its calculation, men and
women with little current income may not qualify for bankruptcy
protection.
This is an issue that will become increasingly important in my home
state of Illinois. The Illinois National Guard is preparing for the
largest deployment of soldiers since World War II, with more than 2,700
currently training for deployment to Afghanistan. For the men and women
in this group who find themselves in unfortunate financial
circumstances when they return home, particularly if our economy
continues to slow, this bill would help by allowing these men and women
to file for bankruptcy if they desperately need that help.
I am pleased that the House version of this legislation, championed
by my good friend Representative Jan Schakowsky, passed the House by
voice vote earlier this week. I urge my Senate colleagues to support
this bill just as strongly.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3197

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 ``National Guard and
Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS.

Section 707(b)(2)(D) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in each of clauses (i) and (ii)--
(A) by indenting the left margins of such clauses 2 ems to
the right; and
(B) by redesignating such clauses as subclauses (I) and
(II), respectively;
(2) by striking ``if the debtor is a disabled veteran'' and
inserting the following:

``if--
``(i) the debtor is a disabled veteran'';
(3) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) while--
``(I) the debtor is--
``(aa) on, and during the 540-day period beginning
immediately after the debtor is released from, a period of
active duty (as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10) of
not less than 90 days; or
``(bb) performing, and during the 540-day period beginning
immediately after the debtor is no longer performing, a
homeland defense activity (as defined in section 901(1) of
title 32) performed for a period of not less than 90 days;
and
``(II) if, after September 11, 2001, the debtor while a
member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces or a member
of the National Guard, was called to such active duty or
performed such homeland defense activity.''.

SEC. 3. GAO STUDY.

(a) Comptroller General Study.--Not later than 2 years
after the effective date of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall complete and transmit to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate,
a study of the use and the effects of the provisions of law
amended (and as amended) by this Act. Such study shall
address, at a minimum--
(1) whether and to what degree members of reserve
components of the Armed Forces and members of the National
Guard avail themselves of the benefits of such provisions,
(2) whether and to what degree such members are debtors in
cases under title 11 of the United States Code that are
substantially related to service that qualifies such members
for the benefits of such provisions,
(3) whether and to what degree such members are debtors in
cases under such title that are materially related to such
service, and
(4) the effects that the use by such members of section
707(b)(2)(D) of such title, as amended by this Act, has on
the bankruptcy system, creditors, and the debt-incurrence
practices of such members.
(b) Factors.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
(1) a case shall be considered to be substantially related
to the service of a member of a reserve component of the
Armed Forces or a member of the National Guard that qualifies
such member for the benefits of the provisions of law amended
(and as amended) by this Act if more than 33 percent of the
aggregate amount of the debts in such case is incurred as a
direct or indirect result of such service,
(2) a case shall be considered to be materially related to
the service of a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces or a member of the National Guard that qualifies such
member for the benefits of such provisions if more than 10
percent of the aggregate amount of the debts in such case is
incurred as a direct or indirect result of such service, and
(3) the term ``effects'' means--
(A) with respect to the bankruptcy system and creditors--
(i) the number of cases under title 11 of the United States
Code in which members of reserve components of the Armed
Forces and members of the National Guard avail themselves of
the benefits of such provisions,
(ii) the aggregate amount of debt in such cases,
(iii) the aggregate amount of debt of such members
discharged in cases under chapter 7 of such title,
(iv) the aggregate amount of debt of such members in cases
under chapter 7 of such title as of the time such cases are
converted to cases under chapter 13 of such title,
(v) the amount of resources expended by the bankruptcy
courts and by the bankruptcy trustees, stated separately, in
cases under title 11 of the United States Code in which such
members avail themselves of the benefits of such provisions,
and
(vi) whether and to what extent there is any indicia of
abuse or potential abuse of such provisions, and
(B) with respect to debt-incurrence practices--
(i) any increase in the average levels of debt incurred by
such members before, during, or after such service,
(ii) any indicia of changes in debt-incurrence practices
adopted by such members in anticipation of benefitting from
such provisions in any potential case under such title; and
(iii) any indicia of abuse or potential abuse of such
provisions reflected in the debt-incurrence of such members.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this
Act shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under
title 11 of the United States Code in the 3-year period
beginning on the effective date of this Act.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3195. A bill to provide assistance to adolescents and young adults
with serious mental health disorders as they transition to adulthood;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Dodd
to introduce a bill that will have a tremendous impact on millions of
young adults in America who will suffer from mental illness in their
lifetime. The

[[Page 13863]]

Healthy Transition Act of 2008 is an important bill and I look forward
to its passage.
Senator Dodd has been an ardent champion for children, and as the
Sponsor of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act in 2004 and the bill to
reauthorize the successful grant program again last year, it has been
an honor to work with him to ensure our Nation's youth and their mental
health needs are not forgotten.
I want to begin by thanking my colleague Representative Pete Stark
for working with me on this important issue and for joining me in
requesting a report by the Government Accountability Office,GAO last
year on the barriers facing youth with serious mental health disorders
as they age into adulthood. It has been a pleasure to work with him on
drafting legislation that we will introduce today as I know he shares a
passion for improving the lives of our children and young adults.
This time in a young person's life is so difficult with the pressures
of being independent, finding a first job, going to college and really
discovering who you are. For so many of our Nation's youth this time is
made so much more difficult by their struggle with mental illness. My
son Garrett struggled with his transition to adulthood and in his
ability to access the help he needed during this critical time. These
young adults deserve our attention, our support and our compassion.
Finally, I want to thank the many stakeholders and advocates that
have put so much time and dedication into working with us to introduce
this bill, the Healthy Transition Act of 2008. They include the
National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Children's Defense Fund, the
National Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, the
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and the American Psychological
Association, just to name a few.
The findings of the GAO report that Congressman Stark and I
requested, tells us that at least 2.4 million young adults aged 18-26
had a mental illness in 2006. We know that this number could be greatly
understated as it does not count young adults who are
institutionalized, incarcerated or homeless--all of which are groups
that are known to have higher rates of mental illness.
These young people have such tremendous challenges that cause them to
demonstrate lower rates of high school graduation and college
attendance than their peers who do not suffer from mental illness. They
also have lower propensity to find employment and remain stable in
their communities. In my home State of Oregon, this transition-age
population was found to be 80 percent less likely than any other
population in the State with mental health needs to receive services.
However, from this report, and the work innovative States are doing
to support our young people, we know that we can do a better job of
helping these youth. We can do better at ensuring they can remain
stable in their communities, that they can live healthy lives, and that
they can prosper as adults.
The bill that Senator Dodd, Representative Stark and I are
introducing today will support States that want to do better for our
Nation's young adults with mental illness. As the GAO found, too often
services are not directed at this population or young adults are shoved
into a system that was designed for a different age group with
different needs.
Our bill, the Healthy Transition Act of 2008, will provide grants to
States to first develop statewide coordination plans to assist
adolescents and young adults with a serious mental health disorder to
acquire the skills and resources they need to make a healthy transition
to adulthood. After this plan has been submitted and evaluated by
SAMHSA, States may then compete for a second round of grants to help
them implement the plan that they have made.
Lastly, this bill will develop a Committee of Federal Partners that
will coordinate service programs that assist adolescents and young
adults with mental illness at the federal level and provide technical
assistance to States as they implement their plans. They also will
report to Congress on their activities so that we can ensure they are
doing their best to make sure these vulnerable young adults get the
help and support they need.
This is such a critical time in a person's life and I look forward to
continuing to work with my colleagues to make sure it is as healthy and
positive an experience as it can be. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to ensure its passage. I urge my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to support the bill.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 3195

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 ``Healthy Transition Act of
2008''.

SEC. 2. HEALTHY TRANSITIONING FOR YOUTH.

Subpart 3 of part B of title V of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-31 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:

``SEC. 520K. HEALTHY TRANSITIONING FOR YOUTH.

``(a) Planning Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
agencies described in subsection (c)(3), shall award grants
or cooperative agreements to States to develop plans for the
statewide coordination of services to assist adolescents and
young adults with a serious mental health disorder in
acquiring the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to
ensure their healthy transition to successful adult roles and
responsibilities.
``(2) Application.--To be eligible for a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection, a State shall
submit to the Secretary an application, at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(3) Plan.--Not later than 18 months after the receipt of
a grant or cooperative agreement under this subsection, a
State shall submit to the Secretary a State plan that shall
include--
``(A) reliable estimates on the number of adolescents and
young adults with serious mental health disorders in the
State;
``(B) information on the youth targeted under this Act,
including--
``(i) the number of adolescents and young adults with
serious mental health disorders in the State and the number
of such individuals who are currently being served in the
State;
``(ii) the number of such individuals who are receiving
mental health services provided by State agencies other than
the agency responsible for mental health services in the
State;
``(iii) the number of youth with serious mental health
disorders who are involved in the juvenile justice system in
the State;
``(iv) the number of youth with serious mental health
disorders who are involved in the child protection system in
the State;
``(v) the number of youth with serious mental health
disorders who have plans in effect under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act in the State;
``(vi) the number of youth with serious mental health
disorders who are involved in vocational rehabilitation in
the State;
``(vii) the range of ages served by the programs described
in clauses (i) through (vi);
``(viii) a description of the overall transition
coordination that is currently provided by the State or local
authorities and programs in the State;
``(C) an identification of the skills, knowledge, and
resources that adolescents and young adults with serious
mental health disorders in the State will need to ensure
their successful and healthy transition into adult roles and
responsibilities;
``(D) an identification of the obstacles that adolescents
and young adults with serious mental health disorders in the
State encounter while transitioning into adult roles and
responsibilities, including breaks in service or programs
caused by eligibility and program criteria differences
between the child and adult mental health systems and the
lack of local access to mental health and transition
services;
``(E) an identification of the current level, type,
quality, effectiveness, and availability of services,
including evidence-based practices, available in the State
that are uniquely designed for adolescents and young adults
with a serious mental health disorder to ensure a healthy
transition to successful adult roles and responsibilities;
``(F) an identification of adolescents and young adults
with a serious emotional disorder who have a low likelihood
of a healthy and successful transition due to the severity of
their illness, and an identification of how the State will
provide treatment and other support services to this
population;
``(G) an analyses of the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps of
the current system in the

[[Page 13864]]

State, including the availability of lack of mental health
professionals trained to treat adolescents and young adults
with a serious mental health disorder, as well as barriers,
to address the needs of adolescents and young adults with a
serious mental health disorder with an appropriate array of
effective services and supports;
``(H) a description of how the State will improve the
system of care to ensure successful and healthy transitions;
``(I) a description of how the State will coordinate the
services of State and non-State agencies that serve
adolescents and young adults with a serious mental health
disorder;
``(J) a description of how the State will provide a system
of coordinated service delivery under the grant or
cooperative agreement that will address the effective
services, supports, and unique needs of adolescents and young
adults with a serious mental disorder, including those who
have been placed in out of home settings such as the juvenile
justice system or those who are or were involved in the child
protection systems;
``(K) a description of how the State will coordinate
efforts under the grant or cooperative agreement with
existing services and systems in the State that focus on life
skills necessary for a healthy transition including health,
employment and pre-employment training, transportation,
housing, recreation, mental health services, substance abuse,
vocational rehabilitation services for persons with
disabilities, and training for adolescents, young adults and
adults, consumers and their families;
``(L) a description of how the State will work to build
workforce capacity to serve the population described in
subparagraph (J);
``(M) a description of how the State will reach out to the
target population pre-transition, during transition, and
post-transition;
``(N) a description of how the State is currently utilizing
and leveraging (and how the State will use and leverage)
Federal funding streams to care for the target population,
including funding through Medicaid, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development, the Department of Labor though
supported employment, the Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis, and Treatment Program, and other programs, and
including an outline of the barriers the State faces in
making Federal funding flow to the targeted population in a
coordinated manner;
``(O) a description of how the State will involve
adolescents and young adults with serious mental health
disorders and their families and guardians in the service
design, planning, and implementation of the plan under the
grant or cooperative agreement;
``(P) an implementation subplan that shall be designed to
recognize the challenges of implementing a program between
communities at a statewide level and how the State will
overcome those challenges;
``(Q) a description of how the State plans to evaluate
outcomes under the program funded under the grant or
cooperative agreement;
``(R) a designation of the State office that will be the
lead agency responsible for administering the program under
the grant or cooperative agreement;
``(S) a description of how the State will ensure that the
activities planned under the grant or cooperative agreement
will remain sustainable at the end of the cycle of Federal
funding under this section; and
``(T) any other information determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
``(4) Duration of support.--The duration of a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection shall not exceed
2 fiscal years.
``(5) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance and training in the development of the
plan under paragraph (3), including convening a meeting of
potential applicants for grants or cooperative agreement
under this subsection.
``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--
``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subsection, $6,000,000 for fiscal year
2009, and such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal
years 2010 through 2013.
``(B) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall make
available 15 percent of the amount appropriated under
subparagraph (A) in each fiscal year for technical assistance
under paragraph (5)
``(b) Implementation Grants.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants or
cooperative agreement to eligible States for the coordination
of services to assist adolescents and young adults with
serious mental health disorders in acquiring the services,
skills, and knowledge necessary to ensure their healthy
transition to successful adult roles and responsibilities.
``(2) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant or
cooperative agreement under paragraph (1), a State shall--
``(A) be a State that has received a grant or cooperative
agreement under subsection (a) and submitted a plan that
meets the requirements of paragraph (3) of such subsection;
or
``(B) be a State that has not received such a grant or
cooperative agreement but that has a plan that is equivalent
to the plan required under subsection (a)(3).
``(3) Application.--To be eligible for a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection, a State shall
submit to the Secretary an application, at such time, in such
manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
requires, including--
``(A) a copy of the plan submitted under subsection (a)(3),
or in the case of a State described in paragraph (2)(B), a
plan that is equivalent to the plan required under subsection
(a)(3);
``(B) a list of the State agencies that will participate in
the program to be funded under the grant or cooperative
agreement along with written verification as to the
commitment of such agencies to the program;
``(C) an assurance that the State will develop a
coordinating committee composed of representatives of the
participating State agencies, as well as consumers and
families of consumers;
``(D) a description of the role of such coordinating
committee; and
``(E) the names of at least two local communities that will
implement the program at the local level and how those
communities will implement the State plan.
``(4) Use of funds.--Funds provided under a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection shall be used to
implement the State plan, including--
``(A) facilitating a youth ombudsman or other advocacy
program;
``(B) facilitating peer support programs and networks
within the State;
``(C) facilitating access to independent living and life
skills supports;
``(D) developing infrastructure to support access to
necessary health, mental health, employment, education, and
housing supports; and
``(E) facilitating the training of support providers and
workforce capacity to serve the target population.
``(5) Duration of support.--The duration of a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection shall not exceed
5 fiscal years.
``(6) Matching requirement.--
``(A) In general.--To be eligible for a grant or
cooperative agreement under this subsection, the State shall
agree that, with respect to the costs to be incurred by the
State in carrying out activities under the grant or
cooperative agreement, the State will make available
(directly or through donations from public or private
entities) non-Federal contributions toward such costs in an
amount that--
``(i) for the first fiscal year for which the State
receives payments under the grant or cooperative agreement,
is not less than $1 for each $3 of Federal funds provided
under the grant or cooperative agreement;
``(ii) for any second or third such fiscal year, is not
less than $1 for each $2 of Federal funds provided under the
grant or cooperative agreement;
``(iii) for any fourth such fiscal year, is not less than
$1 for each $1 of Federal funds provided under the grant or
cooperative agreement; and
``(iv) for any fifth such fiscal year, is not less than $2
for each $1 of Federal funds provided under the grant or
cooperative agreement.
``(B) Determination of amount contributed.--
``(i) In general.--Non-Federal contributions required under
subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
including plant, equipment, or services. Amounts provided by
the Federal Government, or services assisted or subsidized to
any significant extent by the Federal Government, may not be
included in determining the amount of such non-Federal
contributions.
``(ii) Non-federal contributions.--In making a
determination of the amount of non-Federal contributions for
purposes of clause (i), the Secretary may include only non-
Federal contributions in excess of the average amount of non-
Federal contributions made by the State involved toward the
purpose of the grant or cooperative agreement under this
subsection for the 2-year period preceding the first fiscal
year for which the State receives a grant or cooperative
agreement under such subsection.
``(7) Technical assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance and training to recipients of grants or
cooperative agreements under this subsection, including
convening meetings each year to identify ways of improving
State programs. Such meetings shall include the members of
the Federal Partners Committee under subsection (c).
``(8) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall carry out a cross-
site evaluation that--
``(A) reports on current State efforts to transition the
population involved prior to the implementation of the State
plans under this section; and
``(B) evaluates the program carried out by the State under
this section to determine the effectiveness of such program
in meeting its goals and objectives as compared with current
approaches.
``(9) Authorization of appropriations.--
``(A) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this subsection, $6,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2009 and 2010, $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2011,
$20,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, and $25,000,000 for fiscal
year 2013.
``(B) Technical assistance and evaluation.--The Secretary
shall make available 15

[[Page 13865]]

percent of the amount appropriated under subparagraph (A), or
$2,000,000 whichever is greater, in each fiscal year for
technical assistance under paragraph (7) and the evaluation
under paragraph (8).
``(c) Federal Partners.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall designate an
existing Federal entity, or establish a Committee of Federal
Partners, to coordinate service programs to assist
adolescents and young adults with serious mental health
disorders in acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary for
them to transition into adult roles and responsibilities.
``(2) Existing federal entity.--If the Secretary elects to
utilize an existing Federal entity under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall ensure that--
``(A) such entity is comprised of representatives of at
least the agencies described in paragraph (3); and
``(B) such entity shall give special attention to the
knowledge and skills needed by adolescents and young adults
with mental health disorders in coordinating the programs
funded under this section.
``(3) Membership.--A Federal entity utilized under this
subsection, or a committee established under paragraph (1),
shall include representatives of--
``(A) the Department of Education (or any subagency of the
Department);
``(B) the Department of Health and Human Services (or any
subagency of the Department);
``(C) the Department of Labor (or any subagency of the
Department);
``(D) the Department of Transportation (or any subagency of
the Department);
``(E) the Department of Housing and Urban Development (or
any subagency of the Department);
``(F) the Department of Interior (or any subagency of the
Department);
``(G) the Department of Justice (or any subagency of the
Department);
``(H) the Social Security Administration;
``(I) an organization representing consumers and families
of consumers as designated by the Secretary; and
``(J) an organization representing mental health and
behavioral health professionals as designated by the
Secretary.
``(4) Role of entity or committee.--The Federal entity or
committee designated or established under paragraph (1) shall
review how Federal programs and efforts that address issues
related to the transition of adolescents and young adults
with serious mental health disorders may be coordinated to
ensure the maximum benefit for the individuals being served
and to provide technical assistance to the States who are
planning or implementing programs under this section.
``(5) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal entity or committee
designated or established under paragraph (1) shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress, and make available to
the general public, a report concerning the participation of
Federal agencies and stakeholders in the planning and
operations of the entity or committee. Such report shall also
contain a description of the status of the efforts of such
entity or committee in coordinating Federal efforts on behalf
of the target population.
``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection,
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and such sums as may be
necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `serious
mental health disorder' has the meaning given the term
`serious mental illness' by the Administrator for purposes of
this title.''.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 601--DESIGNATING OCTOBER 19 THROUGH OCTOBER 25, 2008,
AS ``NATIONAL SAVE FOR RETIREMENT WEEK''

Mr. SMITH (for himself and Mr. Conrad) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res 601

Whereas Americans are living longer and the cost of
retirement continues to rise, in part because the number of
employers providing retiree health coverage continues to
decline, and retiree health care costs continue to increase
at a rapid pace;
Whereas Social Security remains the bedrock of retirement
income for the great majority of the people of the United
States, but was never intended by Congress to be the sole
source of retirement income for families;
Whereas recent data from the Employee Benefit Research
Institute indicates that, in the United States, less than \2/
3\ of workers or their spouses are currently saving for
retirement, and that the actual amount of retirement savings
of workers lags far behind the amount that will be needed to
adequately fund their retirement years;
Whereas many workers may not be aware of their options for
saving for retirement or may not have focused on the
importance of, and need for, saving for their own retirement;
Whereas many employees have available to them through their
employers access to defined benefit and defined contribution
plans to assist them in preparing for retirement, yet many of
them may not be taking advantage of employer-sponsored
defined contribution plans at all or to the full extent
allowed by the plans as prescribed by Federal law; and
Whereas all workers, including public- and private-sector
employees, employees of tax-exempt organizations, and self-
employed individuals, can benefit from increased awareness of
the need to save adequate funds for retirement and the
availability of preferred savings vehicles to assist them in
saving for retirement: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates October 19 through October 25, 2008, as
``National Save for Retirement Week'';
(2) supports the goals and ideals of National Save for
Retirement Week;
(3) supports the need to raise public awareness of
efficiently utilizing substantial tax revenues that currently
subsidize retirement savings, revenues in excess of
$170,000,000,000 for the fiscal year 2007 budget;
(4) supports the need to raise public awareness of the
importance of saving adequately for retirement and the
availability of tax-preferred employer-sponsored retirement
savings vehicles; and
(5) calls on States, localities, schools, universities,
nonprofit organizations, businesses, other entities, and the
people of the United States to observe this week with
appropriate programs and activities with the goal of
increasing retirement savings for all the people of the
United States.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 602--A BILL SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF
``NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE AWARENESS MONTH''

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Whitehouse,
Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Smith) submitted the following resolution; which
was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs:

S. Res. 602

Whereas life insurance is an essential part of a sound
financial plan;
Whereas life insurance provides financial security for
families by helping surviving members meet immediate and
long-term financial obligations and objectives in the event
of a premature death in their family;
Whereas approximately 68,000,000 United States citizens
lack the adequate level of life insurance coverage needed to
ensure a secure financial future for their loved ones;
Whereas life insurance products protect against the
uncertainties of life by enabling individuals and families to
manage the financial risks of premature death, disability,
and long-term care; and
Whereas numerous groups supporting life insurance have
designated September 2008 as ``National Life Insurance
Awareness Month'' to encourage consumers to take the actions
necessary to achieve financial security for their loved ones:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of ``National Life
Insurance Awareness Month''; and
(2) calls on the Federal Government, States, localities,
schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and the
citizens of the United States to observe the month with
appropriate programs and activities.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 5057. Mr. CRAIG (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Domenici, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Bennett, and Mr.
Wyden) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military
construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and
for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5058. Mr. CARDIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6304, to amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table.
SA 5059. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill H.R. 6304, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

[[Page 13866]]

ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes; which was ordered to
lie on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. ___. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SECURE RURAL SCHOOLS
PROGRAM.

The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination
Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393; 16 U.S.C. 500 note) is
amended--
(1) in section 208--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2008''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``2008'' and
inserting ``2009''; and
(2) in section 303--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``2007'' and
inserting ``2008''; and
(B) in the second sentence, by striking ``2008'' and
inserting ``2009''.
______

SA 5058. Mr. CARDIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill H.R. 6304, to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing
certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 103, strike lines 19 through 24, and insert the
following:
(1) In general.--Except as provided in section 404,
effective December 31, 2011, title VII of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by section
101(a), is repealed.
(2) Technical and conforming amendments.--Effective
December 31, 2011--
______

SA 5059. Mr. SPECTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
by him to the bill H.R. 6304, to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing
certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 90, strike lines 17 through 21 and insert the
following:
``(1) Review of certifications.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
a certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect
unless the court finds that such certification is not
supported by substantial evidence provided to the court
pursuant to this section.
``(B) Covered civil actions.--In a covered civil action
relating to assistance alleged to have been provided in
connection with an intelligence activity involving
communications that was authorized by the President during
the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on
January 17, 2007, a certification under subsection (a) shall
be given effect unless the court--
``(i) finds that such certification is not supported by
substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this
section; or
``(ii) determines that the assistance provided by the
applicable electronic communication service provider was
provided in connection with an intelligence activity that
violated the Constitution of the United States.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

committee on armed services

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. DODD. 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 June 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, June
25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

comittee on environment and public works

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 10 a.m., in room
406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled
''Future Federal Role for Surface Transportation.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on foreign relations

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, at 10
a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, beginning at 10
a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on the constitution

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, be
authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct a
hearing entitled ``Laptop Searches and Other Violations of Privacy
Faced by Americans Returning from Overseas Travel'' on Wednesday, June
25, 2008, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
staff of the Finance Committee be granted the privilege of the floor
for the duration of the debate on the Housing and Economic Recovery Act
of 2008: Bridget Mallon, Damian Kudelka, Jeremiah Langston, Mike Unden,
Thea Murray, Matt Smith, Tom Louthan, and Mary Baker.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

AMENDING THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 6040.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 6040) to amend the Water Resources Development
Act of 2007 to clarify the authority of the Secretary of the
Army to provide reimbursement for travel expenses incurred by
members of the Committee on Levee Safety.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read three times and
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no
intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6040) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.

____________________

PROGRAM

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to come in tomorrow and see
what we can get accomplished. I believe we can get a few things done. I

[[Page 13867]]

have already outlined what we need to do before we leave. With some
cooperation we can get that done. If not--as I said here about a half
hour ago, 45 minutes ago--if people want to play out this clock, people
will have to be here Friday and Saturday. I hope that would be it, but
we will have to wait and see. In that the Fourth of July doesn't occur
until a week after we leave here anyway, people should keep in mind
that there may be a need for us to work the next few days. I hope that
is not necessary. We will have to see what happens. It is a shame.
I know we talked about the fact that we need to complete the housing
bill, but we will complete that the first week we get back. By then
Senators Dodd and Shelby maybe will have more things worked out with
the House.

____________________

ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2008

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m.
tomorrow, Thursday, June 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed
expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use
later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the
motion to proceed to H.R. 6304, the FISA legislation, and the time
during the adjournment count postcloture. I further ask that Senator
Murkowski, or designee, control the time from 1:30 to 2:15 p.m.
tomorrow, and that the time count postcloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. REID. If there is no further business to come before the Senate,
I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the
previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:42 p.m., adjourned until
Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MICHAEL BRUCE DONLEY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE SECRETARY OF THE
AIR FORCE, VICE MICHAEL W. WYNNE, RESIGNED.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

JASON J. FICHTNER, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF SOCIAL SECURITY FOR THE TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 19, 2013,
VICE ANDREW G. BIGGS, RESIGNED.

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

JAMES A. WILLIAMS, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF
GENERAL SERVICES, VICE LURITA ALEXIS DOAN, RESIGNED.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

SANTANU K. BARUAH, OF OREGON, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, VICE STEVEN C. PRESTON,
RESIGNED.

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., SECTIONS 12203 AND
12211:

To be major general

BRIG. GEN. MATTHEW L. KAMBIC

THE FOLLOWING NAMED ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THE UNITED
STATES OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE INDICATED IN THE
RESERVE OF THE ARMY UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTIONS 12203
AND 12211:

To be colonel

JOHN D. MUTHER

[[Page 13868]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

TRIBUTE TO PATRICIA FROUNFELKER

______

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Patricia Frounfelker, recently nominated for the 2008 Service to
America Call to Service Medal. Ms. Frounfelker is being nominated for
her studies of potential hazards and risks associated with U.S. combat
vehicles. Ms. Frounfelker's research on these hazards has led to safety
improvements that are minimizing risks for our Nation's soldiers on the
front line.
In her three years of government service with the Army Research
Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, Patricia
Frounfelker has become a leading expert in analyzing and characterizing
the survivability of U.S. Army soldiers to a wide variety of potential
risks. Most recently, she examined the potential for reactive armor to
cause collateral injuries to troops who are near a tactical vehicle
that is under attack. Ms. Frounfelker developed a detailed test plan to
characterize reactive armor tiles being sent to Iraq for use on the
Abrams tank. She collected and analyzed the data following each test
and determined the collateral injuries likely to be suffered by
dismounted U.S. troops within proximity to the tank. Ms. Frounfelker
conducted her analysis using a novel methodology that she had
previously developed to characterize the collateral damage to
dismounted troops within proximity of the Stryker and Bradley vehicles.
Her results identified areas of concern regarding hazards from each
version of reactive armor and have led the Army to change how
dismounted troops operate around these vehicles.
During the same period, Ms. Frounfelker served as the lead assessor
of crew casualties for 25 U.S. Army developmental systems, including 11
that were fielded in Iraq or Afghanistan. These systems included three
variants of the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) and
several tactical wheeled vehicles. She collected and analyzed fragment
data for every live-fire test of these systems, and her assessments
provided the data needed to assess the lethality of U.S. munitions and
the survivability of combat vehicles.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Patricia
Frounfelker in her nomination for the 2008 Service to America Call to
Service Medal. Patricia Frounfelker's efforts in this time of war have
directly benefited soldiers and Marines by identifying and assessing
potential injuries they might suffer in or near U.S. combat vehicles.
This has allowed the Army to modify the vehicles or the tactics,
techniques and procedures before the vehicles are fielded to better
protect U.S. military personnel. Her efforts have resulted in better
equipped, better protected warfighters, who are better able to protect
and defend our Nation. It is with great pride that I congratulate
Patricia Frounfelker on her exemplary efforts to increase safety for
our armed forces overseas.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO TECHNICAL SERGEANT MICHAEL CMELIK

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a Nashua, Iowa
native and TSgt Michael P. Cmelik as a recipient of a Bronze Star Medal
for his heroic achievements during combat operations in support of
Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Bronze Star, the Department of Defense's
fourth highest award given, is awarded to individuals for bravery,
heroism, and meritorious service.
Technical Sergeant Cmelik earned the Bronze Star as an elite member
of the 15th Expeditionary Air Support Operations Squadron while
operating in Kalsu, Iraq during his third tour of duty in Iraq. As
stated by the military in a press release related to his award, ``Sgt.
Cmelik's leadership and professionalism ensured his Brigade Commander's
intent for airpower was always met, and more often than not, exceeded.
His actions are in keeping with the finest traditions of military
service and reflect distinct credit upon himself, this command, the
United States Army and the United States Air Force.''
Technical Sergeant Cmelik's bravery goes above and beyond what we are
asked of as citizens of this country, and his heroism and hard work
illustrates the compassion and professionalism of America's troops. I
commend TSgt Michael P. Cmelik's courageousness and service to our
great Nation and consider it an honor to represent Sergeant Cmelik and
his family in the United States Congress. I know my colleagues join me
in wishing him the best in his future service to our country.

____________________

IN RECOGNITION OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CREDIT MANAGEMENT
SOUTHWEST

______

HON. PETE SESSIONS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the
National Association of Credit Management Southwest (NACMSW) who will
celebrate its 100th birthday on July 18, 2008.
Since its founding in 1908, NACMSW has served as a primary learning,
knowledge, and information source for its members. They provide
valuable education and research programs to address the ever changing
and growing needs of its members. NACMSW remains a vocal advocate for
business credit and financial management professionals and pushes for
the highest ethical and professional standards. I know NACMSW will
continue to be a valuable resource for the local community and remain
on the forefront of the credit industry.
Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing
our heartiest birthday wishes to the National Association of Credit
Management Southwest.

____________________

JULY 4, 2008, NATURALIZATION CEREMONY

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure and sincerity
that I take this time to congratulate the individuals who will take
their oath of citizenship on July 4, 2008. In true patriotic fashion,
on the day of our great Nation's celebration of independence, a
naturalization ceremony will take place, welcoming new citizens of the
United States of America. This memorable occasion, coordinated by the
Hammond Public Library and presided over by Magistrate Judge Paul R.
Cherry, will be held at Harrison Park in Hammond, Indiana.
America is a country founded by immigrants. From its beginning,
settlers have come from countries around the globe to the United States
in search of better lives for their families. The upcoming oath
ceremony will be a shining example of what is so great about the United
States of America, that people from all over the world can come
together and unite as members of a free, democratic nation. These
individuals realize the great things America has to offer. They realize
that nowhere else in the world is the opportunity for success and a
better life available to them than here in America.
On July 4, 2008, the following people will take their oath of
citizenship in Hammond, Indiana: Mindi Thi Bul, Lidia Quinonez, Claudia
Rodriguez, Maria de la Luz Godinez, Venkat Santhosh Reddy Poddutur,
Juanita Martinez, Chu-Mei Peng, Pantelis George Baramantas, Teresa
Fernandez, Jose Cruz Alvarez Martinez, Iris Xiomara Sierra, Nada
Jerkovic, Juan Tellez Rangel, Sarp Kocak, Juana Ramirez de Pantoja,
Aurelio Jimenez, Michal Armatys, Rosy Oliva Arreaga, Stevanda
Vukicevic, Tanuja Reddy Poddutur, Genoveva Atilano, Lelis Estella
Lizama, Arel Cherry, Dejan

[[Page 13869]]

Lukich, Silvia Vazquez, Monica Leticia Dominguez, Rodolfo Macias,
Snezana Krkobabic, Mario Gonzalez Salgado, Victor Manuel Garcia Garcia,
Maria Carmen Avina, Cristina Varzoaba, Filiberto Corona, Ma Melorie
Villagracia Rodriguez, Hilda Gonzalez, Gregorio Martinez Sanchez, Maria
de Jesus Alvarez, Orlando Jiminez Serna, Diana Lewis, Jose Antonio
Saldana, Ivanja Corak, Farida Begum, Elva Miriam Reyna, Fidelina
Rodriguez, Beatriz Anaya Vargas, Efren Carranza, Arturo Cantero
Paredes, Carlos Nicolas Perez Aranda, Maria Stoneburner, and Alma Della
Rangel.
Though each individual has sought to become a citizen of the United
States for his or her own reasons, be it for educational or
occupational opportunities or for the opportunity to offer their
families a better life, each is inspired by the fact that the United
States of America is, as Abraham Lincoln described it, a country ``. .
. of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' They realize that
the United States is truly a free nation, and by seeking American
citizenship, they have made the decision that they want to live in a
place where, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of
Rights, they can practice whatever religion they choose to practice,
speak their minds without fear of punishment, and assemble in peaceful
protest should they choose to do so.
On July 4, 2008, we will welcome these newly naturalized citizens to
enjoy the same freedoms and liberties that all Americans take pride in
and cherish. They, too, will be American citizens, and they, too, will
be guaranteed the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness. These individuals, representing many nations throughout
the world, will be called upon to declare their allegiance to the
United States of America.
Madam Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to
join me in congratulating these individuals, who will become citizens
of the United States of America on July 4, 2008, the day of our
Nation's independence. We, as a free and democratic nation,
congratulate them and welcome them.

____________________

HONORING MR. BLACKSTONE DILWORTH

______

HON. HENRY CUELLAR

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. CUELLAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Blackstone
Dilworth in recognition of his being named the 2008 Laredo Business
Person of the Year by the Laredo Chamber of Commerce on June 26, 2008.
This award recognizes his remarkable dedication to the city of Laredo
as a business entrepreneur.
McMullen County is where it all began for Mr. Dilworth, where he was
called upon to oversee his family's ranching, oil, and gas operations
in the mid 1970s. He managed over 50,000 acres spread over four south
Texas counties, and his land was often used for commercial hunting
operations. In 1983, Mr. Dilworth went on to found Towers of Texas, a
communication tower leasing company. He focused his communication
business on the digital cell phone tower market in the late 1990s,
enabling the construction of over 500 tower sites across Oklahoma,
Texas, Kansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
Along with the expansion of his tower business, Mr. Dilworth planned
and executed the development of a family ranch in north Laredo. The
relatively new addition to Laredo has already created a solid
reputation for itself, boasting of industrial, commercial, and
residential development. From the beginning of Mr. Dilworth's ownership
of the San Isidro ranch, he has tried to develop a quality place to
live and work for Laredoans. Toward that end, he donated over 120 acres
of land for Loop 20 as well as for the extension of McPherson Road to
connect to the Loop. In the years following, the land for the United
Day School was donated by the Dilworth family. The land for the fire
station north of the Loop on McPherson was also donated to the city.
Mr. Dilworth's newest venture in the business world is in the
hospitality industry, with addition of the new Best Western Motel on
the corner of Sandia Drive and Loop 20.
Madam Speaker, I am honored to have had this time to recognize the
hard work and dedication of Mr. Blackstone Dilworth to the city of
Laredo, to his wife, Frances, and to his family. He is a truly
deserving recipient of the 2008 Laredo Business Person of the Year by
the Laredo Chamber of Commerce.

____________________

HONORING DR. ALVIN R. LEONARD

______

HON. BARBARA LEE

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life
of Dr. Alvin R. Leonard. We lost this kind spirit and community leader
on April 20, 2008. A remarkable trailblazer and humanitarian, Dr.
Leonard lived a full and vibrant 90 years, during which he transformed
our community immeasurably. Although his presence will be sorely
missed, there is no doubt that his legacy will continue far into the
future.
Dr. Alvin R. Leonard was a respected physician and community activist
who used his talents and intelligence to serve those most in need in
our community. Nearly 40 years ago, he helped found the Berkeley Free
Clinic in my congressional district. Dr. Leonard then dedicated the
remainder of his life to making sure people were given the opportunity
to achieve and maintain good health. For Dr. Leonard, this was
especially important for those who faced economic hardships or
strenuous life circumstances.
During the 1950s and 1960s, Dr. Leonard served as the director of
public health for the City of Berkeley, California. Dr. Leonard truly
fulfilled his role as a public servant, introducing initiatives which
championed those most in need regardless of the opposition or
skepticism he faced from contemporaries. An example of his foresight is
the seat-belt campaign he launched to encourage people to buy the
safety devices and install them in their cars--long before national
legislation mandated that auto manufacturers build cars equipped with
them.
One of his greatest characteristics, noted by his family and friends,
was his sense of humor. Dr. Leonard clearly knew the importance of
love, camaraderie, community building, and maintaining a youthful
spirit in the pursuit of both health and social justice. During his
tenure as public health director, Dr. Leonard succeeded in persuading
department employees to run up and down the stairs for exercise,
convinced many to quit smoking, and always urged people to take their
health both seriously and personally by giving up bad habits and
encouraging lifestyle changes.
Dr. Alvin Leonard was an exceptionally vibrant and creative person
whose accomplishments spanned decades where he personally impacted the
lives of those around him. He documented pesticide poisoning among farm
workers in the 1940s, created statewide programs to control high-blood
pressure among specific ethnic groups and examined the health effects
of electromagnetic fields. Perhaps most notably, in 1969 Dr. Leonard
helped to establish the Berkeley Free Clinic.
Dr. Leonard was a pioneer and champion of our most vulnerable
community members. Although the Greater Bay Area is one of the most
diverse and innovative regions in the Nation, it also faces many
challenges including homelessness, poverty, and health inequities. Dr.
Leonard's compassion for those less fortunate motivated him to create a
``street medicine'' clinic.
The Berkeley Free Clinic found a permanent home in the Berkeley
community, one of the Nation's epicenters for social justice advocacy.
The clinic services our neighbors who are in the most dire economic
need by providing them with a right that should be universal--the right
to health care. Essential to Dr. Leonard's personal convictions and
vision are the compassion and personal care shown to residents of my
district who seek assistance from the clinic.
In its 40-year tenure, the clinic has served thousands of people, and
today it is a strong pillar of hope for many in my district.
Although Dr. Leonard formally retired in 1984, he continued public
health consulting until his own health no longer permitted it during
this past year.
Dr. Leonard's legacy will certainly live on through the lives of all
who were fortunate enough to know him. His contributions to our society
were so great that his positive influence will continue on even through
those who were never able to meet him.
Today, California's Ninth Congressional District salutes and honors
Dr. Alvin R. Leonard. We extend our deepest condolences to his family,
especially his wife of 65 years, Pearl, and his daughters Barbara and
Cathy. May his soul rest in peace.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO THE LIFE OF RICHARD DARMANIAN

______

HON. JIM COSTA

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of
Richard Darmanian of

[[Page 13870]]

Fresno, California, who recently passed away at 81 years of age. He
leaves behind his best friend and loving wife of 59 years, Armon, six
children, and several grandchildren.
Mr. Darmanian was born on November 21, 1926, in Sacramento,
California, but was raised in the Central Valley. As a youngster, he
lived on a farm where his passion for farming came to life.
Upon graduation from Caruthers High School he attended Fresno State
College and earned his B.A. degree in history and a master's degree in
guidance and counseling.
Upon graduating from Fresno State in 1952, Mr. Darmanian began his
teaching career at Roosevelt High School, where he taught mathematics,
history and government. Mr. Darmanian was also counselor and dean of
the boys at Roosevelt High School. In 1959 he purchased a small farm in
the Sunnyside area, where he built a home and raised a family for many
years.
In 1969 he became the assistant principal at Edison High School and
then moved on to become the principal in 1972. He was also the
principal at Hoover High School, and he served as district
administrator in the Instruction Division from 1984 until 1988, where
he was responsible for all the Fresno Unified School District's high
schools.
Mr. Darmanian not only had a passion for education but also for his
Armenian community where he was both very active and an influential
member. In 1950, he became a member of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, ARF, in which he served several terms as a member of the
Regional Executive Committee and the Central Executive Committee. From
1952 to 1970 he served as regional secretary of the American Committee
for the Independence of Armenia, Armenian National Committee. Also, as
one of the founding members of the Armenian Community School that
opened its doors in 1976, he served as chairman of the board of
education for 6 years.
His strong values and community ties led him to serve as a long-time
member of the Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic Church Board of Trustees,
as well as a member of the Executive Council of the Western Prelacy of
the Armenian Apostolic Church of North America, where he was appointed
to the Education Council of the Armenian Schools under the jurisdiction
of Western Prelacy during the period of 1990 and 1994. He was also a
member of the California State University Fresno Armenian Studies
Advisory Board.
Richard enjoyed the simple things in life and loved to be surrounded
by his family, friends and colleagues from the Armenian community. He
was especially proud to see the younger Armenian generation alongside
with him engaged in activities that were dear to his heart. Those who
were close to him are better people today thanks to his influence on
their lives.
It goes without saying that Mr. Richard Darmanian was an honorable
man with a commitment to family, friends and the Armenian community
that will forever live in the lives of the people he so graciously
touched. His passion for family, education, and the Armenian culture
will be remembered by all who knew him. I am honored and humbled to
join his family in celebrating the life of this amazing man who will
never be forgotten.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. NEIL ABERCROMBIE

of hawaii

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was delayed in
reaching the floor and missed rollcall vote No. 441. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

____________________

STATEMENT HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE MINDORO ``CUT''

______

HON. RON KIND

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the
centennial anniversary of the completion of the Mindoro ``Cut'' and its
addition to the National Register of HIstoric Places.
The Mindoro Cut is a perfect example of the ingenuity of rural
Wisconsin residents. When the need arose to market perishable dairy
products from the countryside to the local creamery, neighbors and
families came together and surveyed a route through the region's rugged
terrain.
From 1907 and into 1908, workers dug and hacked through hard rock
with little technology outside of wheelbarrows and hand tools and a
good strong back. Digging 74 feet deep, 25 feet wide and 86 feet long,
the Mindoro Cut is the deepest of its kind still remaining in America.
Eventually, about 14,000 cubic feet of rock would be removed.
Although they initially assumed that the hilltop ridge was made of
sandstone and dirt, cutters found hard rock just under the surface.
The Mindoro Cut is still in use today. From its creation in 1908, the
``Cut'' has more than served its original purpose. Today, tourists and
visitors travel from across the country to marvel at the scenic views
while they drive the winding highway through this man-made historical
landmark.
Today I pay tribute to the workers who undertook this great endeavor
and to the community of Mindoro for honoring their efforts. With its
natural beauty and continued usefulness, the Mindoro Cut is a link to
our region's history and people.

____________________

EXPRESSING THE SUPPORT OF THE TITLE IX

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support of the
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, introduced by
Congresswoman Patsy T. Mink.
``No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subject to discrimination under any programs or activity receiving
federal financial assistance,'' states the Title IX Law of 1972. Passed
by Congress, the act prohibits discrimination against girls and women
in federally funded education, including athletic programs. Many
controversies arose trom the bill. It was protested that boy's sports
would suffer if women's sports became equally funded. Despite all the
difficulties, the newly enacted law created numerous opportunities for
girls and women in many fields, such as science or math, health care,
school bands, cheerleaders, clubs and athletics. Because of Title IX,
many young women gained a chance to receive scholarships and
opportunity for higher education.
The Title IX Law greatly improved the lives of females and will
continue to affect women for years to come. Title IX has influenced
many areas of education, giving the possibility for women to become
lawyers, scientists, economists, politicians, doctors. Even at the
present time gender equity is still an issue. By protecting and
supporting Title IX, we can ensure full and equal educational
opportunities for all people pursuing their education.

____________________

CONGRATULATING MEGHAN VITTRUP FOR HER APPOINTMENT AS UNIVERSITY OF
NORTH TEXAS SYSTEM STUDENT REGENT

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Meghan
Vittrup, who will be sworn in today as the Student Regent for the
University of North Texas System. Appointed by the governor of Texas,
the student regent serves as a member of the University's Board of
Regents, which governs the University of North Texas, the UNT Health
Science Center at Fort Worth, and the UNT Dallas Campus. Meghan will
hold a one-year term, and she is charged with representing the
interests of students as well as the interests of the State of Texas
and the university system. The student regent is a very important
position within the UNT system, and I am honored to recognize such an
outstanding individual.
At UNT, Meghan is pursuing a degree in journalism, with a double
minor in political science and Spanish. Additionally, she has been
director of internal operations for the Student Government Association,
and vice president of Eagle Angels, an on-campus organization. This
summer, Meghan is working at the Pentagon as an intern writer for
American Foreign Press Services, (AFPS), in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense. AFPS provides the news content for the official
Department of Defense website.
As an alumnus of UNT, it makes me especially proud to see a leader
from within the student body involved in such an important role as a
Member of the Board of Regents. It is encouraging to see current
students taking such an active role in governing the school. It is
because of dedicated individuals like

[[Page 13871]]

Meghan that the University of North Texas continues to shine as one of
the leading universities of Texas.
Again, I commend Meghan for her outstanding accomplishment. Her
appointment is well deserved, and I am confident that the UNT system
will benefit from her involvement. I am proud to represent Meghan in
the 26th District of Texas.

____________________

HONORING THE INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CA ON JULY 1, 2008

______

HON. DARRELL E. ISSA

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of
the City of Wildomar on their official incorporation as a city on July
1, 2008. Located in southwest Riverside County within the 49th
Congressional District, Wildomar stands to be the 456th city in the
great state of California. I commend the citizens of Wildomar for their
decision to take the responsibility of self governance by utilizing the
fundamental principles of democracy, a tradition that goes back to the
founding days of our nation.
Established as a community in 1891, Wildomar has a long and rich
history in California. The three founders constructed the name
``Wildomar'' from their first names, ``Wil'' from William Collier,
``Do'' from Donald Graham and ``Mar'' from Margaret Collier. Once a
common stop for the Pony Express on the Butterfield Stage route,
Wildomar provided a much needed break for the express riders. Thanks to
the establishment of a rail line and stop at Wildomar, the village has
continued to grow throughout the last century.
Today, the area of Wildomar consists of many custom built homes set
on large ranches and communities along the hillsides with sweeping
views of the valley. Wildomar remains a relaxing and naturally
beautiful area of California. Wildomar is home to 27,000 people, many
of them first time home buyers and long time residents.
On February 2, 2008, the citizens of Wildomar voted to incorporate
the city, while at the same time electing the leaders that will set the
standards for future growth and stability in a rich area of California.
It is my honor to recognize the first city council of Wildomar: Council
Members Ms. Sheryl Ade, Mr. Bob Cashman, Mr. Scott Farnam, Ms.
Bridgette Moore, and Ms. Marsha Swanson. I look forward to working with
the new council on issues important to their new and growing community.
As the Representative of the 49th Congressional District of
California in the United States House of Representatives, I wish the
new city of Wildomar great success as it begins the next chapter of
Wildomar's storied history.

____________________

COMMENDING THE UNITED STATE'S LONGSTANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH SWAZILAND

______

HON. DAN BURTON

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, as a proud co-chair of the
Congressional Caucus on Swaziland, I rise today to educate my
colleagues about the history of Swaziland and strong but unfortunately
too often overlooked relationship between the United States and the
Kingdom of Swaziland.
The Swazi nation has a long and rich history going back to the 16th
century when, according to tradition, the Swazi people migrated south
from what is now Mozambique. Following a series of conflicts with
people living in the area around modern day Maputo, Mozambique, the
Swazi people settled in northern Zululand--part of present day South
Africa--in about 1750. Unable to resist the growing power of the Zulu
nation in the region, the Swazis moved gradually northward in the 1800s
and established themselves in the area of modern Swaziland. From 1894
to 1902 South Africa administered Swazi interests with the British
assuming control of the country in 1902. On September 6, 1968, the
Kingdom of Swaziland became officially independent from the British
crown.
Today, Swaziland is a full fledged member of the United Nations, the
African Union, Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA),
and Southern African Development Community (SADC). Ten accredited
ambassadors or honorary consuls are resident in the country and
Swaziland maintains diplomatic missions in Brussels, Copenhagen, Kuala
Lumpur, London, Maputo, Nairobi, Pretoria, Taipei, the United Nations,
and Washington, D.C.
The United States has maintained good bilateral relations since the
kingdom became independent in 1968 and these good ties have developed
substantially over the years through talks of trade and assistance to
fight the HIV/AIDS epidemic that plagues the Kingdom.
Approximately five years ago, the United States began negotiations to
launch a Free Trade Agreement with the Southern African Customs Union
(SACU) made up of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and
Swaziland. While the negotiations are currently on hold, the United
States is still engaged in cooperative efforts to launch a program to
intensify the trade and investment relationship in preparation for a
Free Trade Agreement that would eventually eliminate tariffs, reduce
non-tariff barriers, liberalize service trade, protect intellectual
property rights, and provide technical assistance to help the five
African nations, including Swaziland. To compound these future goals,
the U.S. supports small enterprise development, education, military
training, and development of institutions and human resources, and
agricultural.
In addition to promoting economic reform and improved industrial
relations, the United States has worked closely with many organizations
within Swaziland, and through U.S. agencies, to develop HIV/AIDS
initiatives and programs. The U.S. is also the largest bilateral donor
to the Global Fund, Swaziland's principal HIV/AIDS funding source.
Through this source, many Swaziland groups such as the Hope House,
Anglican United Against HIV/AIDS, World Teach, Salvation Army etc, have
received funds to help in the scourge against AIDS. As exhibited in
this year's large reauthorization amount for Presidential Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the United States is committed in the
fight against AIDS, and will stand alongside any country willing to
join us in this serious fight.
The Peace Corps has made substantial contributions to this common
fight as well. In 2003, Peace Corps volunteers returned to Swaziland
after a nine-year absence. The current Peace Corps program in Swaziland
focuses on HIV/AIDS and provides assistance in the execution of two
components of the HIV/AIDS national strategy--risk reduction and
mitigation of the impact of the disease. Volunteers encourage youth to
engage in appropriate behaviors that will reduce the spread of HIV;
they work with children orphaned by the HIV/AIDS pandemic; and they
assist in capacity building for nongovernmental organizations and
community-based organizations.
I was also pleased to learn that the U.S. Government sends, on
average, four Swazi professionals to the United States each year, from
both the public and private sectors, primarily for master's degrees,
and about five others for three- to four-week International Visitor
programs. Such programs are vital to continuing substantial progress
between our two countries' common goals. Given the great potential for
progress and development between the United States and Swaziland as
outlined above, I am excited to co-chair the Congressional Swaziland
Caucus with my friend and colleague Representative Edolphus Towns of
New York. I urge my colleagues to learn more about the Kingdom of
Swaziland and to consider joining the Congressional Swaziland Caucus to
help us bolster the long standing ties of friendship between our two
great countries.

____________________

IN REMEMBRANCE OF JUSTICE REVIUS ORTIQUE, JR.

______

HON. WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON

of louisiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. JEFFERSON. Madam Speaker, the death of Justice Revius O. Ortique,
Jr. this past Sunday marked the passing of a true public servant and a
selfless leader. A man of historic firsts, most notably the first
African-American member of the Civil District Court in Louisiana, and
the first African-American member of Louisiana's Supreme Court, he
blazed a trail for others to follow.
He was an outstanding lawyer, winning landmark civil rights cases,
and serving as President of the National Bar Association. He served our
community as a leader of our Urban League and chair of the New Orleans
Aviation Board. He served our Nation, as an army officer and as an
appointee to significant federal posts by five different Presidents.

[[Page 13872]]

Justice Ortique was a man of community, of faith and of family. He
was a man who loved justice and pursued it for himself and others his
entire life. Our Nation is better for his service, his leadership and
his commitment to his country. We pray God's comfort for his wife of
over 60 years, Miriam; his daughter, Rhesa; and her husband, Alden; and
his grandchildren, Chip, Heidi, and Todd.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH

_____

HON. MICHAEL K. SIMPSON

of idaho

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SIMPSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the
National Institutes of Health, NIH, and call attention to one example
of important NIH-supported research being conducted through the
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders,
NIDCD.
Of the five standard senses--sight, hearing, taste, smell, and
touch--hearing is the one that people are most likely to lose.
Approximately 32 million American adults have some form of hearing
loss, ranging from mild to profound. Loss of hearing can occur at any
age. Between two to three out of every 1,000 infants in this country
are born deaf or hard of hearing. This impairment can make it difficult
for a child to learn and adversely affect his or her social and
emotional development. Older adults can experience social isolation and
depression. Needed supportive care and services can be very costly. The
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the average
lifetime costs for one individual with hearing loss is $417,000. These
costs include direct medical costs such as doctor visits, direct
nonmedical expenses such as special education, and indirect costs such
as lost wages when a person cannot work due to hearing loss.
With NIH funding, scientists have made tremendous strides during the
past decade in understanding the basic biology that underlies hearing
loss. Research has already led to the development of the cochlear
implant which helps people with certain types of hearing loss
understand speech and other sounds. Researchers are also exploring the
possibility of regenerating cochlear hair cells in humans; the
destruction of these hair cells is the primary factor in most cases of
hearing loss. Before, it was assumed that damaged cochlear hair cells
could not regenerate in people and other mammals. However, in 2005,
NIH-funded research has enabled scientists to identify a gene that may
one day enable hair cells to regenerate in mammals.
These findings indicate exciting new possibilities for hearing loss
treatments by regenerating the hair cells that transform and send sound
waves as electrical signals to the brain, thus making it possible to
hear better. In addition, there are new technologies on the horizon for
diagnosing hearing loss in infants, thus enabling hearing-impaired
children to receive early intervention that can help them develop
language skills similar to that of their peers. For example, scientists
and clinicians working collaboratively at the Boys Town National
Research Hospital with the support of NIDCD developed an approach for
testing the hearing mechanism of infants in a matter of minutes in the
first days of life. This technology is now in widespread use in many
birthing hospitals in the U.S. as part of their universal newborn
hearing screening programs.
This is but a few examples of how the research funded with taxpayer
dollars at the NIH is improving the health and well-being of all
Americans.

____________________

CONGRATULATING JAKE MILLER, RECIPIENT OF THE 2008 HOUSE FELLOWS PROGRAM
FROM THE 11TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_____

HON. PAUL E. KANJORSKI

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. KANJORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask you and my esteemed
colleagues in the House of Representatives to congratulate Jake Miller,
on his acceptance of the 2008 House Fellows Program from the 11th
Congressional District of Pennsylvania.
The House Fellows Program, an initiative created three years ago by
the Office of the Historian, extends the opportunity for high school
Social Studies teachers to visit Washington, D.C. in order to learn,
first hand, the intricate structure and proceedings of the U.S. House
of Representatives. The program brings together twelve teachers during
this week-long workshop, from June 23-27, 2008, selected from
Congressional Districts throughout the country.
The purpose of this program is to advance the knowledge of the
history and practices of ``The People's Branch'' so that the selected
teachers can bring back an enriched understanding of the legislative
process. While the focus of the program is Congress, the Fellows will
also participate in conferences at the National Archives, the
Smithsonian Institution, and the Library of Congress. These teachers
will then be able to take these details they learn back to their
students.
Jake Miller is recipient of this honor from our 11th Congressional
District of Pennsylvania. He is a resident of Summit Hill and is a
teacher at Panther Valley High School located in Lansford. As a teacher
at the high school, Jake instructs freshman in U.S government and
seniors in economics. To help aid his professional development as a
teacher, Jake tutored students in biology, algebra, and literature and
co-founded an organization that assisted in registering and counseling
individuals on the voting process. When he is not supporting students
in the classroom, he is the faculty advisor for numerous student
activities including student council and yearbook.
Additionally, Jake worked for Pennsylvania State Senator John Gordner
where Jake coordinated various activities in Senator Gordner's office
including issues pertaining to schools within the state. The knowledge
gained by this professional experience undoubtedly has a positively
impacted on the lessons he passes on to his students in the classroom.
Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Jake Miller on his
acceptance to the competitive House Fellows Program. His commitment to
education, the government and his community greatly benefits his own
students and those throughout the Pennsylvania educational system.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO MAURICE CALDERON, A TRUE CIVIC LEADER

______

HON. JERRY LEWIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LEWIS of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute
to a beloved community leader in San Bernardino and Riverside counties,
and one of the most caring individuals I have ever known, Maurice
Calderon of Banning, California.
The son of a laborer, Maurice Calderon is a shining example of living
the American dream to the fullest. He began with night classes at the
local community college and an entry-level job as a teller at Redlands
Savings and Loan. His long career led him to become the senior vice
president for governmental affairs and community development with
Arrowhead Credit Union, which he helped to become a community
institution.
Even as he was beginning his career, Maurice became the first
Hispanic elected official in the city when he won a seat on the Banning
Unified School District board in 1967. He served for nine years,
becoming a champion of educational opportunities for the large Hispanic
community. He later was elected as a trustee of the Mt. San Jacinto
Community College District, serving for another nine years.
His community involvement has been legendary. He has served on the
foundation boards for the University of California, Riverside and
California State University, San Bernardino. He was a leading member of
the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Inland Empire
African American Chamber of Commerce and the Inland Empire Economic
Partnership. He served as president of Sinfonia Mexicana and Chairman
of the Inland Empire Hispanic Leadership Council.
The list of his commitments to his community is impressive, but it
does not do justice to the depth of Maurice's involvement. When he
takes an interest in an organization, he brings a warmth and dedication
that quickly make Maurice one of the most valued members. He has been a
civic-minded connection tying all these groups together and making them
all more effective.
He has also helped Arrowhead Credit Union become a force for bringing
the American dream to minority and working class neighborhoods
throughout the Inland Empire. He led the drive to open the first
banking office in the African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods in
west San Bernardino. The credit union has been honored for its minority
outreach programs.
For his efforts, Maurice has received accolades from numerous cities
and the two counties. He has had Banning street named in

[[Page 13873]]

honor of his family. In 2004, he received the Ohtli Award, the highest
recognition granted by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
members of the Mexican American Community. He is in the Southern
California Native American and Latino Hall of Fame.
His devotion to his children and grandchildren has earned him honors
as the Father of the Year. He and wife Dorothy--a community spirit in
her own right--have spent 47 years together and in service to the
Inland Empire.
Madam Speaker, Maurice Calderon is retiring from his position with
the credit union, but wIll most certamly remam active in his many other
roles. I ask you and my colleagues to please join me in thanking him
for his decades as a community leader, and wish him and Dorothy well in
all their future endeavors.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, unfortunately yesterday, June
24, 2008, I was unable to cast my votes on the Motion to Adjourn, the
Motion to Adjourn, and H.R. 6331. Had I been present for rollcall No.
441 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have voted ``aye.'' Had I been
present for rollcall No. 442 on the Motion to Adjourn, I would have
voted ``aye.'' Had I been present for rollcall No. 443 on suspending
the rules and passing H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients
and Providers Act, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________

IN MEMORY OF LANCE CORPORAL ANDREW FRANCIS WHITACRE

______

HON. MIKE PENCE

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a fallen hero who
served his country bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan. I was deeply
saddened to learn of the loss of Lance Corporal Andrew Whitacre of
Bryant, Indiana, one of two Marines who perished while conducting
combat operations in southwestern Afghanistan's Farah Province on
Thursday, June 19, 2008.
Lance Cpl. Whitacre was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st
Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, based in Twentynine
Palms, California. He was serving in support of Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan, where his unit was helping to train the Afghan
national police.
The three Marine Corps values are honor, courage and commitment. They
make up the bedrock of the character of each individual Marine. These
values, handed down from generation to generation, have made the U.S.
Marine Corps the most respected and revered fighting force on earth.
Lance Cpl. Whitacre personified these values and continued that proud
tradition as a Marine who served his country bravely in combat.
An Infantry Assaultman, part of a gun team attached to his infantry
unit, Lance Cpl. Whitacre's stock and trade was demolitions, breaching,
and firing shoulder-launched assault weapons. As I'm sure his fellow 2/
7 Marines who trusted their lives to his special explosives training
would tell you, Lance Cpl. Whitacre was an asset to the Marine Corps,
the United States and the American way of life. He will be sorely
missed by all.
In addition to any posthumous commendations that he might receive
because he died in the line of duty, Lance Cpl. Whitacre was the
recipient of six awards since he left for Marine Corps boot camp in
July 2005. He earned ribbons for combat action and overseas service,
including campaign medals for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Madam Speaker, I extend my deepest condolences to the family and
friends of Lance Cpl. Whitacre. And I wish to express my profound
sadness to the community of Bryant, especially his father and
stepmother, Ernie and Norma Whitacre; his mother and her fiancee, Susan
Nunly and Michael Perry of Dunkirk; his fiancee, Casey McGuire of
Parker, Arizona; two brothers, Ryan Murphy of Lancaster, Indiana and
Justin Miller of Huntington; one sister, Ashley Williams of Lancaster,
Indiana; four grandmothers, Mildred Whitacre of Berne, Caroline Huffman
of Kendallville, Beulah Murphy of Bluffton and Mary Scott of Portland;
and, many nieces and nephews.
We are all struggling to cope with the tragic loss of this young man,
no less because his death follows hard on the heels of another fallen
Marine from the Sixth District who was lost less than a week before.
Just as Lance Cpl. Whitacre embodied the Marine motto--Semper Fidelis,
``Always Faithful''--let us also be faithful to extend a helping hand
to his family, friends and community, and remember them in our thoughts
and prayers.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, yesterday I missed one
vote, and on Rollcall No. 447 on suspending the rules and passing H.R.
6327, the Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2008, I
would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

TRIBUTE TO SANDI WHITE

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of
Sandi White, Secretary of the Greene County, Iowa Sheriff's Office, and
to express my appreciation for her nearly 25 years of public service to
her community.
In 1984, Sandi took a part time dispatcher position before taking
over the full time graveyard shift in 1987. When the secretary's
position opened, she jumped at the opportunity and has served in that
position until her retirement in February. During her years at the
Greene County Sheriff's office, Sandi's hard work has earned her the
respect and appreciation of her community.
I commend Sandi White for her many years of loyalty and service to
her fellow Iowans. It is an honor to represent Sandi in Congress, and I
know my colleagues join me in wishing her a happy and healthy
retirement.

____________________

EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE SERVICE OF MR. EUGENE BROWN AND THE
NAVY ARMED GUARD DURING WORLD WAR II

______

HON. DOUG LAMBORN

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to more than
144,000 members of the Navy Armed Guard who served during World War II.
Their service protecting merchant ships from enemy attack and ensuring
needed supplies, ammunition, and troops made it across the world's
oceans was an effort that helped lead America and her allies to
victory. In 1998, Congress enacted Public Law 105-261, Section 534,
stating Congress' ``appreciation for service during World War I and
World War II by members of the Navy assigned onboard merchant ships as
the Naval Armed Guard Service.'' Today, I would also like to
specifically mention one of my constituents, Mr. Eugene George Brown,
and thank him for his service in the Navy Armed Guard. Following his
entry into the Navy from Queens, New York, Mr. Brown served more than 3
years in the Navy Armed Guard, protecting the SS ROBIN LOCKSLEY, SS
FLOMAR, and SS MILL SPRING in the American, Pacific, Asiatic, European,
African, and Middle East theaters of World War II. But most
importantly, then Seaman First Class George earned the Victory Medal,
with its inscription on the obverse--Freedom From Fear and Want;
Freedom of Religion and Speech. Mister Speaker, on behalf of the
Congress, I wish to thank Mr. Brown and his more than 144,000 shipmates
of the Navy Armed Guard during World War II, and pay tribute to the
1,810 who were killed in action. Their service and sacrifice is
recognized and appreciated by a grateful Nation.

____________________

HONORING THE VETERANS OF HONOR FLIGHT CHICAGO

______

HON. RAHM EMANUEL

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the Chicago-area
veterans of World War II who have arrived today on Honor Flight Chicago
to visit the memorial that is dedicated to them, and to celebrate the
country that they helped define.

[[Page 13874]]

These are the men who proudly wore the uniform of this country,
endured the rigors of the war, and fought for our liberty and the
freedom of future generations of Americans. While their wartime
experiences are as varied as the paths they took following the war,
they all remain united in defense of the values that shape our identity
as a Nation: love of freedom and respect for human dignity.
Few members of the ``greatest generation'' spoke about their wartime
experiences without evoking painful and emotional recollections of
their experiences in World War II, and fewer still asked for
recognition. I urge my colleagues to join me in welcoming these
veterans to our Nation's Capital on this day. It is my privilege to
honor each one.
Charles S. Affolter, Fredric S. Appelman, Francis Bailey, Edward
Bednarczyk, Larry Black, Delmar Bond, Kenneth J. Chelmowski, John J.,
Sr. Cooney, Gilbert R. Dumdie, Bernard Edelman, Stanley Ewasiuk, Tom
Flanagan, Henry W. Flora, Alfred Galvan, Robert E. Georgen, Melvin R.
Gerberding, Lloyd Getz, Joseph Virgil Gray, Donald Harner.
Mark Hashimoto, Loyde A. Henry, Jesse Hidalgo, John Howard, Richard
P. Hyland, Raymond Janus, Alvin S. Johnson, Phillip J. Joseph, Harold
E. Kalbas, Merritt A. King, Kyrl (Carl) Kirk, Norman F. Kosman, Robert
P. Krautstrunk, Joseph K. Kulinski, Keith F. Lawler, Sr., John S.
Manasse, Dominic Martinucci, Elroy E. Meyer, Robert W. Mitchler, Samuel
Mizra.
Nicholas Moorad, Amos Nicholson, Joseph A. Oruzco, Robert L. Palis,
James W. Reilly, Melvin Rosenfeld, Gordon R. Schnulle, John I.
Shumaker, James R. Taff, Lincoln S. Tamraz, Donald L. Thompson, Peter
C. Urbane, Merrill S. Urbane, Sr., Raymond C. Wagner, Edward G. Wagner,
John A. Weber, Ernest Westman, Stanley R. Williams, Jr., Armand E.
Wormley, John H. Zeilstra.

____________________

SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE CITY OF RIPON, WISCONSIN

______

HON. THOMAS E. PETRI

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. PETRI. Madam Speaker, on March 20, 2008, the City of Ripon,
Wisconsin, celebrated the 150th anniversary of its being granted a city
charter by the State of Wisconsin in 1858. The sesquicentennial of
Ripon's chartering will be officially observed this summer at an annual
community celebration called ``Riponfest,'' which attracts thousands of
visitors to the city to participate in a weekend of events recognizing
everything that is best about this outstanding community in the heart
of Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District.
Ripon, of course, is best known as ``the Birthplace of the Republican
Party.'' According to the Wisconsin State Historical Society, ``the
first mass meeting in this country that definitely and positively cut
loose from old parties and advocated a new party under the name
Republican'' took place on March 20, 1854, in the ``Little White School
House'' in Ripon.
I am pleased that a number of my colleagues have had the opportunity
over the years to visit the Little White School House in Ripon. This
site, which is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, was
recently restored thanks to the generosity of the Jeffris Family
Foundation of Janesville, Wisconsin, which provided a challenge grant
matched by funds raised by the dedicated and hardworking citizens of
Ripon. They recognize the historical significance of this important
site and the value of maintaining it so that it may be visited and
enjoyed by future generations.
Ripon always has maintained a heritage of active citizenship and has
been the home of a number of nationally recognized leaders, including
George Peck, nationally beloved author of the Peck's Bad Boy books and
Governor of Wisconsin; Harry Selfridge, founder of Selfridge's
Department Store in London and the man who revolutionized retail
commerce through the creation of the modern department store; Carrie
Chapman Catt, a leader of the women's suffrage movement who organized
the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution and founded the
League of Women Voters; Winifred Edgerton, the first woman in the
country to earn a PhD in mathematics; Ben Marcus, whose nationwide
empire of cinema complexes, hotels, and restaurants began with the
Campus Cinema in Ripon; and Mark Conrad who, when elected mayor of
Ripon in 1972 while still attending college, became the youngest mayor
in the Nation.
For one hundred and fifty-seven years, Ripon has been the home of
Ripon College, a nationally recognized quality liberal arts
institution. For over one hundred and fifty years, Ripon has also
valued its citizens with entrepreneurial spirit and vision who have
given rise to the many businesses that continue to thrive there.
Given its rich history and regional significance, Ripon has been a
leader among Wisconsin communities in the preservation of the historic
architecture, artifacts, and documentary records related to the city's
character and development.
I hope you will all join me in congratulating Ripon, Wisconsin, on
the 150th anniversary of its chartering as a city by the State of
Wisconsin.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO JILL PRUETZ

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Iowa State
University primatologist Jill Pruetz on winning a National Geographic
Society Emerging Explorer Award for her research on primates in
Senegal, Africa.
Jill, who is also an associate professor of anthropology at Iowa
State University, received international recognition for performing a
study which recorded habitual hunting by Savannah chimpanzees in
Senegal, Africa. She found that apes made spears from twigs and caught
prey with them. Jill is currently focused on the chimps' reactions to
fire, use of water and general movements and behaviors. During her 7
years of researching in Senegal, Jill has suffered from malaria and
avoided hazards such as poisonous snakes.
Jill's work and research is important to widening the scope of
knowledge of different areas and species around the world. Without
Jill's individual efforts, science would be left behind in
understanding the environment's role in the adaptations of Earth's
species.
I commend Jill Pruetz for all her hard work and contributions to
scientific exploration. I consider it an honor to represent Jill in
Congress, and I know my colleagues join me in wishing her future
success and happiness as she continues her work in primatology.

____________________

COMMENDING THE WOOLUM FAMILY OF KNOX COUNTY, KENTUCKY, FOR ITS
TRADITION OF SERVICE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

______

HON. HAROLD ROGERS

of kentucky

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, during this time of conflict
overseas, the United States has called on her brave men and women in
uniform to serve and to sacrifice. And they have answered this call--
with honor, with immeasurable courage and with distinction. I rise
today to recognize the Woolum Family, hailing from my region of
southern and eastern Kentucky, for their dedication and decorated
service to our great Nation.
David and Ruby Woolum, of Artemus, Kentucky, devoted their lives to
imparting in their 12 children love of God, love of family, and love of
country. Today, I am incredibly honored to share with you that seven of
their nine sons, and four of their grandchildren, have taken these
valuable lessons to heart and in turn dedicated their lives to military
service. Their representation of both Kentucky and the United States is
exemplary.
David and Ruby's sons David and Robert served valiantly in the Marine
Corps; in fact, David returned from his second tour in Vietnam a
decorated veteran and a recipient of a Purple Heart. Their brothers--
Charles, Richard and Keith--spent their military careers in the Air
Force, while Joseph and Terry Woolum served bravely in the Army. Terry
is currently in his 33rd year of military service, as a member of the
National Guard. The support of their siblings Priscilla, Ellen, Eric,
and James never wavered.
Even more impressive is that their collective spirit of patriotism
has trickled down to a younger generation of Woolums, who continue to
represent southeast Kentucky with pride: David and Ruby's grandchildren
Joseph, Robert, Jason and Jolene are currently serving in the Marine
Corps, Army, National Guard and Air Force, respectively.
Thankfully these 11 closely knit men and young woman have returned
safely from their many overseas tours of duty, including multiple
deployments to such destinations as Vietnam, Germany, France, and
recently, Iraq. I believe we have a special duty to honor these

[[Page 13875]]

brave soldiers, airmen, marines and guardsmen for their outstanding
service to our country and, in particular, to recognize the important
role of David and Ruby Woolum in raising their children with a desire
to serve our country and support one another in this noble endeavor.
When David Woolum passed away in November 2002, he and Ruby had been
married for 64 years. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating and
honoring the patriotism of this couple, which should serve as an
example to American families for centuries to come.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO NEW HAMPTON TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Trinity
Lutheran Church of New Hampton, Iowa, on celebrating their 50th
anniversary as a congregation.
On July 31, 1958, the German parishioners of St. Paul's Lutheran
Church and the Norwegian parishioners of St. Olaf's Lutheran Church
joined together as Trinity Lutheran Church. St. John Lutheran Church of
Lawler, Iowa became the third church to join Trinity Lutheran in 1964.
The St. John Lutheran Churches in Ionia and Boyd are also now a part of
the Trinity family.
The original St. Paul church cost $19,000 to build. While growing as
a congregation, the Trinity family has also faced adversity in dealing
with damaging fires at the church in 1973 and 2001. Both times the
congregation came together and built their faith community even
stronger. Through new contemporary services, Trinity's methods of
conducting their services have changed with society, but its message
has remained steadfast.
Trinity Lutheran Church of New Hampton is dedicated to benefiting the
lives of those in New Hampton and the surrounding rural areas, and for
this I offer Trinity my utmost congratulations and thanks on a
prosperous history. It is an honor to represent all the parishioners of
Trinity Lutheran and the current pastor Reverend Kevin Frey in the
United States Congress, and I wish them continued success, grace, peace
and celebration as a community.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO IOWA CENTRAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE TRITONS WRESTLING TEAM

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a great achievement
by the Iowa Central Community College Tritons wrestling team. This year
Iowa Central won their third straight National Junior College Athletic
Association, NJCAA, national championship.
Iowa Central is only the third junior college to ever win three
straight national titles. At 125 pounds, Terrance Young earned an
individual national title. David Greenwald and Brad Lower were runner-
ups in their respective weight classes. Matt Burns, Joe Johnson,
Carrington Banks and Kevin Kelly placed third, fourth, eighth and
eighth in their respective weight classes. Carrington Banks, Brian
Drake, David Greenwald, Kevin Kelly, Joe Johnson and Terrance Young
were all named academic All-Americans as well.
The example set by these young men and their coach, Luke Moffitt,
demonstrates the rewards of hard work, dedication and determination.
They scored victories on the mat as well as in the classroom. Their
triumph in both arenas is an honor that we all can admire and be proud
of.
I am honored to represent Iowa Central Community College and their
students, staff, faculty, wrestling team and their coaches in the
United States Congress. I know that all of my colleagues join me in
congratulating the Tritons on their third straight national
championship and wishing all the young men continued success in their
future endeavors.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CAPTAIN LEE VANDEWATER

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize CPT Lee J.
Vandewater of Winterset, Iowa who was honored by the Central Iowa
Chapter of the American Red Cross for his heroic efforts serving in the
Iowa National Guard overseas, earning him a Bronze Star.
Captain Vandewater served as the 1st Platoon Leader, Company B, 168th
Infantry of the Iowa National Guard. While serving overseas, he
commanded a nine-vehicle convoy carrying 30 soldiers along the
Afghanistan and Pakistan borders. Insurgents ambushed the battalion and
Captain Vandewater commanded his team to safety and returned with three
other men to successfully rescue four stranded soldiers. For his
efforts, Captain Vandewater was awarded the Bronze Star Medal with
Valor and the Combat Infantryman's Badge. The Bronze Star is the fourth
highest award that the Department of Defense gives for bravery,
heroism, and meritorious service. For his service he earned a promotion
to Captain and was assigned as Commander, Company A 1st Battalion,
168th Infantry of the Iowa National Guard.
The bravery and sacrifice displayed by Captain Vandewater goes above
and beyond what we are asked of as citizens of this country. I commend
CPT Lee J. Vandewater's courageousness and service to our great Nation.
It is an honor to represent him in the United States Congress, and I
know my colleagues join me in wishing Captain Vandewater safety and
success in his future service.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE PUGET SOUND RECOVERY ACT OF 2008

______

HON. NORMAN D. DICKS

of washington

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. DICKS. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Puget Sound
Recovery Act of 2008.
With 2,500 miles of shoreline and 2,800 square miles of inland marine
waters, Puget Sound is the Nation's second largest estuary. The Sound
is a cornerstone of the Pacific Northwest's identity and at the heart
of the region's prosperity, supporting a thriving marine and natural
resource industry. And it is truly one of America's most spectacular
bodies of water, home to more than 200 species of fish, 25 kinds of
marine mammals, 100 species of sea birds as well as clams, oysters and
shrimp.
But beneath the water's surface and despite its breathtaking natural
beauty, Puget Sound is sick. Scientists have detected low levels of
oxygen and increasing concentrations of toxic substances in aquatic
animals that live in the Sound. Some of its most iconic resident
species--including salmon and orcas--are on the brink of extinction. Up
to 70 percent of all its original estuaries and wetlands have
disappeared and about 8,700 acres at the bottom of the Sound are
dangerously contaminated.
The declining health of Puget Sound threatens the economic and
environmental vitality of the Pacific Northwest. Washington State's
Governor Chris Gregoire has taken steps at the State Government level
to combat this decline by setting up a Puget Sound Partnership. Now it
is time for the U.S. Government to match these efforts, with the
Environmental Protection Agency taking the lead to create, with the
State of Washington, a comprehensive recovery package for Puget Sound.
Already, we have launched a cooperative effort involving all of the
local government entities, as well as the State and Federal
Governments, to curtail any harmful substances from being introduced
into its waters, to change unwise industrial and agricultural practices
and to continue our aggressive research into the causes of pollution in
the Sound. The Fiscal Year 2008 Interior Appropriations bill included
$20 million for the EPA geographic program to ramp up the Puget Sound
work, and earlier this month the Interior Subcommittee which I chair
passed a spending bill for fiscal year 2009 that includes an additional
$20 million to implement the program.
The Puget Sound Recovery Act that I am joined by all of my colleagues
from around the Puget Sound area in introducing today furthers these
efforts by establishing an EPA Puget Sound Office in Washington State
that will coordinate action among the many Federal agencies involved in
the cleanup, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park Service,
the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
within the Department of Agriculture, the United States Geological
Survey, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Departments of Commerce,
Defense, Homeland Security and Transportation. In addition, this bill
authorizes grants to study the causes

[[Page 13876]]

of the Sound's declining water quality and ways to counter these
threats, as well as grants for sewer and stormwater discharge projects.
Madam Speaker, the Federal Government must continue to play a leading
role in restoring the health of Puget Sound, and I believe the Puget
Sound Recovery Act is fundamental to this effort.

Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2008

Section-by-Section

Sec. 1. Short Title.
Sec. 2. Findings. Congress finds that Puget Sound is
important to the Pacific Northwest's regional identity and
industry. Puget Sound's water quality is in decline, which
threatens the region's economy. Washington State has taken
steps to address the problem. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) should create a comprehensive recovery package
for Puget Sound and should establish a ``Puget Sound Office''
in Washington State. Other federal agencies should be
involved, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Park
Service, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service within the Department of Agriculture,
the United States Geological Survey, the Corps of Engineers,
the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense, and
Transportation. The Puget Sound recovery efforts should be
included in the President's annual budget. Canada should join
in this enhanced effort.
Sec. 3. Puget Sound. This section amends Title I of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)
by adding at the end a new section (``Sec. 123. Puget
Sound.''). The Puget Sound Recovery Act creates the following
provisions within the new Sec. 123 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act:
(a) Program Office.
(1) Establishes an EPA Puget Sound Program Office
(``Office'').
(2) States that the Office is to be headed by a Director
and located in the State of Washington.
(3) Provides the Office with additional staff as needed.
(b) Duties of Director.
(1) Directs the Director to assist the Puget Sound
Partnership in carrying out its goals.
(2) Specifically, the Director should:
(A) Assist and support the implementation of the
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(``Comprehensive Plan'');
(B) Coordinate the major functions of the Federal
government related to the implementation of the Comprehensive
Plan;
(C) Conduct or commission studies and research necessary
for implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan;
(D) Coordinate and manage environmental data;
(E) Coordinate Puget Sound grant, research, and planning
programs;
(F) Coordinate efforts in Puget Sound and the Georgia
Straits with Canada;
(G) Coordinate efforts, including activities under species
recovery plans, with other Federal agencies with jurisdiction
in the Puget Sound watershed;
(H) Collect and make available to the public information
relating to the environmental quality of Puget Sound; and
(I) Biennially issue a report to Congress that--
(i) Summarizes the progress made;
(ii) Summarizes any modifications to the Puget Sound Water
Quality Management Plan; and
(iii) Incorporates specific recommendations concerning the
implementation of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management
Plan.
(3) Specifies that the studies and research mandated under
(2) (C) should include:
(A) Population growth and the adequacy of wastewater
treatment facilities and on-site septic systems;
(B) The use of physical, chemical and biological methods
for nutrient removal in sewage treatment plants;
(C) Contaminated sediments and dredging activities;
(D) Nonpoint source pollutant abatement;
(E) Wetland, riparian, and near shore protection and
restoration;
(F) Flood abatement and floodplain restoration techniques;
(G) Impacts of forest and agricultural practices;
(H) Atmospheric deposition of pollutants;
(I) Water quality requirements to sustain fish, shellfish,
and wildlife populations;
(J) State water quality programs;
(K) Options for long-term financing of wastewater treatment
projects and water pollutant control programs;
(L) Water usage and efficiency;
(M) Toxic pollutants; and
(N) Such other areas as the Director considers appropriate.
(4) Grants the Director authority to enter into interagency
agreements, make intergovernmental personnel appointments
(IPAs), and utilize other methods to carry out the Director's
duties.
(c) Grants to Implement Management Plan.
(1) Authorizes the EPA Administrator to award grants to
eligible recipients for projects and studies to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Specifies that projects and studies eligible for grants
include planning, research, modeling, construction,
monitoring, implementation, citizen involvement and
education.
(3) Specifies that the Federal share of the cost of the
grant projects or studies should not exceed 50 percent.
(4) Defines ``eligible recipient'' for grants as a State,
interstate, Tribal, regional, or local water pollution
control agency or other public or nonprofit private agency,
institution, or organization.
(d) Grants for Projects to Address Sewage and Stormwater
Discharges.
(1) Authorizes the EPA Administrator to award grants to
eligible recipients for projects to address sewage and storm
water discharges.
(2) Specifies that projects eligible for grants include
demonstration and research projects that provide treatment
for, or that minimize, sewage or stormwater discharges.
(3) Regarding the awarding of sewage and storm water
grants--
(A) Grants should be awarded on a competitive basis; and
(B) The EPA Administrator may give priority to a project
located in a distressed community.
(4) Regarding the Federal share of the cost of a project
receiving assistance--
(A) Specifies that the Federal share of the cost of the
grant projects should not exceed 75 percent; and
(B) Specifies that, in distressed communities, the Federal
share should not exceed 100 percent.
(5) Defines the following terms--
(A) Eligible Recipient: a State, interstate, Tribal,
regional, or local water pollution control agency.
(B) Distressed Community: a community that meets
affordability criteria established by the community's State.
(e) Annual Budget Plan.
(1) The President should include the Puget Sound Program in
the annual budget of the U.S. Government, and related
information, including:
(A) An interagency crosscut budget that displays for each
Federal agency involved in Puget Sound activities--
(i) Amounts obligated in the preceding fiscal year;
(ii) The estimated budget for the current fiscal year;
(iii) The proposed budget; and
(B) A description of the Federal role in the Puget Sound
Program and the specific role of each agency.
(2) The President should coordinate reporting, data
collection, and planning activities with the Puget Sound
Partnership.
(f) Authorizations.
Authorizes such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to carry out the Puget Sound
Program.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE CAPITAL CAMPAIGN FOR HOWARD
UNIVERSITY

______

HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support and
pride in the outstanding achievements of the historical $275 million
Capital Campaign for Howard University.
The president of the Howard University Pat Swygert and his Howard
University Trustee Team achieved remarkable results by raising $275
million in a 5 year fund-raising campaign. The plan broke several
records, including the most amount of money raised by an African-
American institution and a record for Howard. These results were
unthinkable without strong support of the alumnae, trustees and the
involvement of the Congress. This year Congress contributed $204.3
million to Howard University and $28.9 million to Howard University
Hospital.
The money raised through the Capital Campaign greatly improved Howard
University by establishing modern equipped computer labs, glass walled
conference rooms, exhibition galleries and other necessary facilities
for successful student education. Hundreds of scholarships helped many
students to complete their education reducing the burden of student
loans. Growing number of alumni donate to Howard, seeing the success
and achievements of the University. President Pat Swygert and his
campaign did the terrific work not only raising the impressive amount
of money, but also improving Howard as well as raising the reputation
and the respect of the school.

(By Kathryn Masterson)

Washington.--As a dental student 35 years ago, Leo E. Rouse
and his Howard University classmates learned to fill cavities
and cap teeth by crowding around one faculty member and
angling for a clear view of the day's demonstration.
Today students at Howard's College of Dentistry, where Dr.
Rouse is now the dean,

[[Page 13877]]

get an unobstructed view of dental procedures from computer
monitors mounted on 45 workstations in the school's new
simulation laboratory. If they miss something, they can go
back and review by watching DVDs in the lab or on their
laptops.
The $1.3-million lab, which was built with money from the
university's recently completed capital campaign, does more
than enhance the students' experience, Dr. Rouse says. It has
helped bring in donations from alumni and almost doubled the
number of applications for the school's 85 seat class, from
about 1,400 before the lab was built to 2,710 last year.
``Word gets around,'' Dr. Rouse said. ``A school that has
new stuff is attractive. ``
After raising $275 million in its 5 year fund-raising
campaign, the 11,000-student university has plenty of new
stuff to show off. There's a simulated trading room in the
School of Business, a van that travels around Washington to
screen men for prostate cancer, an exhibition gallery in the
architecture school, computer labs and glass-walled
conference rooms in the health-science library, and almost
300 named scholarships.
The campaign broke a record for Howard, whose trustees and
officers first considered a more modest $100 million goal
that the university president, H. Patrick Swygert, thought
was too small. The effort also broke a record for the amount
of money raised by an African-American institution.
Thanks in part to those gifts, the university's endowment,
which was $144 million when Mr. Swygert came in 1995, has
swelled to $510 million, an amount that put Howard among the
136 wealthy institutions asked to tell the U.S. Senate
Finance Committee how they spend their endowments.
William F.L. Moses, a senior program director at the Kresge
Foundation, says the ``path-breaking, benchmark-setting''
Howard campaign sets new expectations for how much money
historically black institutions can raise. Kresge has
supported programs to strengthen fund raising at historically
black colleges and universities, giving $18 million in grants
over 5 years to five institutions (Howard was not among them)
and $8 million to the institutional-advancement program at
the United Negro College Fund.
``It sets the bar, that this kind of success is possible
and HBCU's can compete with mainstream institutions,'' Mr.
Moses said. ``HBCU's can compete with the best.''

Alumni Make a Difference

Howard's success was especially notable for how the
university involved its alumni.
Alumni giving has been a challenge for historically black
colleges, said Elfred Anthony Pinkard, executive director for
UNCF's Institute for Capacity Building, which helps member
colleges with fund raising, enrollment, and other management
challenges. (Howard is not a member of the UNCF.) The
Institute for Capacity Building has given grants to
historically black colleges to hire consultants and buy
software programs to help advancement efforts.
Alumni-affairs offices at the smaller institutions often
have just one or two employees and giving rates for the
colleges who work with the institute range from 7 percent to
as high as 38 percent, Mr. Pinkard said. The national average
is 12 percent, according to the Council for Advancement and
Support of Education's 2007 Voluntary Support of Education
survey.
Ann E. Kaplan, director of the Council for Aid to
Education's survey on giving, said historically black
colleges tend to have less mature fund-raising operations
that rely more on money from foundations and corporations
than from alumni. When she spoke at a UNCF conference, Ms.
Kaplan said, she heard from college leaders who were more
focused on raising money for current operations than on long-
term planning and faced challenges such as poorly kept alumni
records or understaffed advancement offices.
Though tithing to churches and giving to religious
organizations are strong traditions among many African-
Americans, the 19 historically black colleges that responded
to the council's survey (a number Ms. Kaplan said was too
small to be representative) had an average alumni-giving rate
of 6 percent, half the overall national average.
``There's no reason to think HBCU's can't be as successful
in raising money from their alumni, but they need to ask,''
Ms. Kaplan said. ``Asking is the No. 1 reason why people
give.''
Mr. Swygert knew Howard wouldn't make its $250 million goal
without significant alumni participation, but he also knew
that the university needed to do some work before it
approached them for money. A previous capital campaign had
been started in the 1980s with a goal of $100 million but was
never completed. At the start of Mr. Swygert's presidency,
annual giving by alumni was at about 4 percent.
As one of only two federally chartered universities, Howard
receives direct appropriations from the federal government
each year. Congress had noted the low alumni giving rate, and
one of the first things lawmakers asked Mr. Swygert to do as
university president was to increase it. A higher giving rate
would provide evidence that Howard graduates valued the
education they received and that Congress should continue to
maintain its level of financial support for the institution.
This year Congress gave Howard University $204.3 million and
its hospital $28.9 million, according to the Department of
Education.
During the campaign, Howard's annual alumni-giving rate
went as high as 20 percent, and it is now at 17 percent.
The key to getting more alumni to give, Mr. Swygert said,
was to re-engage them with Howard by showing them the
university's key asset: its students. Howard ran ads in local
and national newspapers featuring students and sent postcards
to alumni introducing them to Howard's Rhodes, Marshall, and
Fulbright scholars, as well as distinguished alumni.
``People give to students, they give to ideas, they give to
memory,'' Mr. Swygert said. ``The idea of enabling a young
person to go forth and do well is a very powerful notion.''
Howard hired Virgil E. Ecton, who raised more than $1.6
billion for UNCF in his 31-year career there, to run the
campaign. As vice president for university advancement, Mr.
Ecton oversaw upgrades to Howard's Web site, alumni magazine,
and advancement office. Alumni records were improved, and the
database of Howard graduates grew from 30,000 entries to more
than 60,000.

Backing a Winner

Early on, trustees helped create momentum for the campaign
with several large gifts. Frank Savage, an alumnus, chairman
emeritus of the board, and chief executive of Savage Holdings
LLC, an international financial-services company, announced
he was giving $5 million to the campaign. Richard D. Parsons,
a trustee who led the campaign and is chairman of Time
Warner, gave more than $1 million. James E. Silcott, a Los
Angeles architect, alumnus, and trustee, gave $3 million. Mr.
Swygert, an alumnus, donated more than $2 million.
``That sent a clear signal to trustees, the giving
community, and the community [at large] that we were serious
about this campaign,'' Mr. Ecton said.
Mr. Ecton, Mr. Swygert, and trustees went on the road,
appearing at a series of alumni events around the country. At
the events, which drew up to 1,000 people in New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Miami, Houston, and other cities,
alumni would get up and pledge their support to the
university, and the events began to take on a competitive
spirit, Mr. Ecton said. One alumnus in Philadelphia pledged
$1 million, the Miami event raised $8 million, and the New
York event, held at the new headquarters of Time Warner,
resulted in between $25 million and $30 million in pledges,
he said.
``People like to be associated with a winner,'' Mr. Ecton
said. ``It was clear we were winning.''
At the end of the campaign, 33 percent of the money raised
was from Howard alumni. Nationally, in 2007, alumni giving
was 27.8 percent of total private giving, according to the
Voluntary Support of Education survey.
One student who benefited directly from the money raised
was Raquel SK Thompson, who graduated from Howard in May with
a degree in architecture and received a trustees' scholarship
during her last two years. The scholarship, which was backed
by money raised during the campaign, covered half her
tuition.
The money was a great help, said Ms. Thompson, who is from
Barbados and wanted to attend a historically black college.
The financial pressures of tuition, an unfavorable exchange
rate, the cost of materials for her architecture classes, and
restrictions on working off the campus were difficult for her
and her parents, Ms. Thompson said, and without assistance
she may have had to cut back on classes and work more on the
campus in order to save money.
``It helped me finish school,'' said Ms. Thompson, who is
now looking for a job in Washington or New York. Without the
money, ``I definitely think I would have been there another
year,'' she said.
Both Mr. Swygert and Mr. Ecton say Howard should tap more
alumni for larger donations in its next campaign. Fifty-one
alumni gave more than $1 million, and both officials think
there is potential there to raise more. Mr. Swygert, who is
retiring at the end of June, believes Howard's next campaign
should have a goal of at least $1 billion. The top
institutions have campaigns that size, and Mr. Swygert says
Howard should be in that group.
``I think it's a necessity,'' Mr. Swygert said. ``It's a
stretch, but $250 million was a stretch.''

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DR. RENATE REIMSCHUESSEL

______

HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER

of maryland

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Dr. Renate Reimschuessel, recently nominated for the 2008 Service to
America Homeland Security Medal. By honoring excellence in the Federal
workforce, the Service to America Medal

[[Page 13878]]

sends a compelling message to the American people about the importance
of a strong civil service and inspires a new generation of Americans to
public service.
The Homeland Security Medal recognizes a federal employee for a
significant contribution to the nation in activities related to
homeland security. Dr. Reimschuessel has been nominated for her
scientific breakthrough that identified the cause of the largest pet
food recall in history and is currently conducting critical research to
guarantee the safety of imported foods.
In 2007, the FDA issued the largest pet food recall in history due to
the significant number of pet fatalities. As a research biologist for
the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine in
Maryland, Dr. Reimschuessel was asked by the FDA to help investigate
the cause of the hundreds of pet deaths and illnesses. Just weeks after
she began her investigation, Dr. Reimschuessel discovered exactly why
so many animals were getting sick, a discovery that is improving the
safety of imported foods for both animals and humans.
Due to Dr. Reimschuessel's discovery, the United States has increased
surveillance for melamine and related compounds in food ingredients. In
an effort to identify potential risks to humans, she is continuing to
test the effects of melamine in chickens, pigs, and fish. Dr.
Reimschuessel's research helped improve the way our government
preserves scientific specimens and identified the ability of nontoxic
compounds to become toxic when combined. These discoveries helped
resolve an immediate crisis, and her continued efforts are helping
protect the U.S. food supply from tainted imports and toxic chemical
combinations.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today to honor Dr. Renate
Reimschuessel in her nomination for the 2008 Service to America
Homeland Security Medal. Her tireless investigation into the cause of
the mass illness of pets in 2007 not only resolved a nationwide crisis,
but initiated a series of scientific improvements, both in the
veterinary world and the in safety of our imported food supply. It is
with great pride that I congratulate Dr. Reimschuessel on her exemplary
efforts to help guard against ongoing threats to the safety of the U.S.
food supply.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO FRED ZELLER

______

HON. TOM LATHAM

of iowa

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate
West Marshall Iowa's girls' basketball head coach, Fred Zeller, for
reaching the milestone of 500 career victories during this past 2008
season.
On January 22nd, the West Marshall Trojans defeated Woodward-Granger
to give Coach Zeller his 500th career win during his 744th consecutive
game coached. The road to this milestone began 37 years ago in Vinton,
Iowa, where Coach Zeller began coaching junior high and freshman girls'
basketball. He then moved on to coach LaPorte City for 14 years,
Southeast Polk for two years, and in 1990 became head coach at West
Marshall where he remains today.
Coach Zeller led four teams to the girls' state basketball
tournament; LaPorte City in 1986 and West Marshall in 1998, 1999 and
2000. He was inducted into the Iowa Girls Coaches Association Hall of
Fame in 2003. He also served as the West Marshall baseball coach until
a couple of years ago.
I know that my colleagues in the United States Congress join me in
congratulating Coach Fred Zeller on his coaching success and this
milestone achievement. It is an honor to represent Coach Zeller in
Congress, and I wish him the best as he continues to provide a positive
impact as a role model and educator.

____________________

JELLYSTONE PARK 30TH ANNIVERSARY-

______

HON. PETER J. VISCLOSKY

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor and pleasure
that I stand before you today to recognize the 30th Anniversary of Yogi
Bear's Jellystone Park Camp-Resort in Portage, Indiana. To commemorate
this special occasion, Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park will be holding an
anniversary celebration on Saturday, July 5, 2008, at Jellystone Park
in Portage, Indiana.
Jellystone Park was established in 1978 in order to provide camping
and entertainment to vacationing families from across America. The
Portage, Indiana, Jellystone Park is one of over 70 parks in the Yogi
Bear's Jellystone Park Camp-Resort Franchise System. The Jellystone
Park Board of Directors are: President Rochelle Carmichael, Vice
President Don Butler, Secretary Connie Williams, Treasurer George Hill,
Park Director Carolyn Julovich, and members: Marlene Jacobs, Tina
Green, and Charles Taylor.
Every year, thousands of families vacation at the Portage Jellystone
Park to share time together and enjoy its amenities. The Park offers a
fulltime recreation program, a private lake, beaches, fishing, rentals,
arcade room, and several pools.
In addition to the weekly activities, the 30th Anniversary will
feature a special commemorative ceremony, followed by live music at the
Yogi Bear Stage and a fireworks display over the lake at dusk.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I ask that you and my other
distinguished colleagues join me in honoring and congratulating Yogi
Bear's Jellystone Camp-Resort on their 30th Anniversary. Their many
great accomplishments and hard work throughout the years are worthy of
commendation.

____________________

A PROCLAMATION HONORING BELMONT, OHIO FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THEIR
BICENTENNIAL

______

HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Belmont, Ohio was founded in August of 1808 by Joseph
Wright; and
Whereas, the residents of Belmont, Ohio are active, dedicated members
of their Ohio community; and
Whereas, all citizens of Belmont, both past and present, will be
honored with a multiple day bicentennial celebration that will include
a pig roast, barn dance, antique car show, and old-fashioned games for
children; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with the residents of the 18th Congressional
District, I commend and thank Belmont, Ohio and its residents for their
contributions to our community and country.

____________________

THE DAILY 45: ERIC KEITH WALTON

______

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, every day, 45 people, on average, are
fatally shot in the United States. My heart goes out to the family in
Grand Rapids, Michigan who lost a dear loved one.
Thirty-eight-year-old Eric Keith Walton, slain in his home Monday,
couldn't have put up much of a fight because he had been receiving
dialysis treatments for kidney failure and was weakened, his family
said.
Eric was apparently the victim of a home invasion. According to
newspaper reports, Walton was shot twice, in the stomach and chest.
I was terribly impacted as I read this statement from a family
member: ``They really hurt us on this one. Everybody comes up and says,
`We love him to death.' He raised kids that weren't even his. I can't
believe this.''
Americans of conscience must come together to stop the senseless
death of ``The Daily 45.'' When will Americans say ``enough is enough,
stop the killing!''

____________________

IN HONOR OF JERRY PRIETO, RETIRING FRESNO COUNTY AGRICULTURAL
COMMISSIONER

_____

HON. JIM COSTA

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. COSTA. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a
man who has been a tireless voice for agriculture in my home district
of Fresno County, California. On June 29, 2008, Jerry Prieto will be
retiring as the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner after

[[Page 13879]]

over 35 years of dedicated service to Fresno County.
Agriculture continues to be California's number one industry with
Fresno County ranking as the number one agricultural producing county
in California and the nation. The fertile soils of Fresno County
support over 300 different crops, valued at near $5 billion annually to
the economy of California. Many things contribute to California's
bountiful crops, but one significant underlying factor in Fresno
County's agricultural success has been the presence of Jerry Prieto as
its lead advocate.
Jerry has never been a stranger to agriculture. The son of a migrant
farm worker, Jerry was raised on a small family farm near Corcoran,
California. Jerry attended California State University, Fresno, where
he earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Plant Science. In 1974, Jerry
began working for the Fresno County Department of Agriculture advancing
to the position of Deputy Agricultural Commissioner in 1980. In 1999,
he was appointed to the position of Agricultural Commissioner/Sealer of
Weights and Measures. In this position, Jerry has been responsible for
promoting and regulating the Nation's number one agricultural producing
county, and protecting the county's environment and the public's
health, safety, and welfare.
Among Jerry's varied accomplishments is serving on then Governor
Davis' State Committee on Terrorism. Jerry has also been active on many
boards and for 4 years served as chairman of the Fresno County
Department Heads Council. Mr. Prieto is a member of the Fresno County
Farm Bureau, the Fresno County Council of Governments Farmland
Conservation Steering Committee, chairman of the Fresno County Council
of Governments Farmland Preservation Advisory Committee, and the Fresno
County Land Conservation Committee. He is the immediate president of
the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association and
was the first Agricultural Commissioner to serve two terms as
President.
Jerry Prieto recently was quoted as saying, ``All I ever wanted to do
was to be a farmer.'' Part of what Jerry will now be able to focus on
more is the acreage he owns. He plans to spend time with wife Cindy,
his two children and two grandchildren. He also hopes to catch up on a
little fishing. Though only days away from retirement, Jerry is still
found diligently carrying out his responsibilities. His prompt and
earnest action concerning the drought now facing California, mobilized
Fresno County resources to quickly produce valuable data necessary for
the Governor's office to declare an official drought emergency. I know
that Jerry will continue to energetically advocate for Fresno County's
Agriculture needs, not only up to, but well beyond his retirement date.
It is only fitting that I recognize Jerry Prieto today before this
Chamber and the country for unflinching service to his community, State
and Nation.

____________________

RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF GRIFOLS USA TO LOS ANGELES AND THE
UNITED STATES

_____

HON. HILDA L. SOLIS

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions
of Grifols USA to my community and other communities across the
country.
This Friday will mark 5 years since Grifols USA began operating its
facility in East Los Angeles. That is 5 years of over 600 jobs for
residents of East Los Angeles and the surrounding area. Furthermore,
Grifols' steady growth and expansion will continue to present
additional opportunities to my constituents for years to come, and well
into the future.
Grifols' prosperity has positively impacted many communities, not
just my district. Currently, Grifols operates 78 plasma donor
facilities, in 27 States across the country, which provide skilled and
entry-level employment opportunities to over 3,000 Americans.
Perhaps more praiseworthy than Grifols' economic contributions
though, is the company's mission. I would like to honor Grifols for its
commitment to producing unique, lifesaving medicines to treat small,
chronically ill patient populations. The company's unwavering
dedication to the development of safer, more effective plasma
therapies, and progressing methods, has been a benefit to countless
patients around the world who suffer from a number of disorders.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Grifols
for the company's positive presence in many of our Nation's communities
and tireless commitment to improve the lives of patients with chronic
illnesses.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, on June 24, 2008, I was unavoidably
detained and was not able to record my vote for rollcall No. 442. Had I
been present I would have voted: rollcall No. 442--``no''--On Motion to
Adjourn.

____________________

HONORING CONGRESSWOMAN MARY T. NORTON ON THE 70TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT

______

HON. ROSA L. DeLAURO

of connecticut

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to honor Congresswoman Mary T. Norton of New Jersey on the 70th
anniversary of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Congresswoman Norton was
instrumental in passing the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938,
legislation which has greatly impacted our labor history and our
history as a Nation.
Growing up, I attended an all-girls Catholic school called Lauralton
Hall in Connecticut. Last year, I spoke with Lauralton's current
president Barbara Griffin and discussed her research for a master's
dissertation she wrote 25 years ago about Mary Norton--the first
Democratic woman to serve in Congress and the first woman to chair a
major committee in the House. A few weeks later, the dissertation
showed up in my mailbox and I sat down with it over the holidays. After
reading Barbara's dissertation, I was thoroughly impressed by Mary
Norton. Her work laid the foundation that we are building on here
today. And she did it all with a skillful blend of strength and
compassion.
Mary T. Norton led an extraordinary life. She began her social
activism in Jersey City and quickly became the first woman member of
the New Jersey Democratic State Committee. She was elected to the House
of Representatives for the 12th Congressional District of New Jersey in
1924, where she was the only woman in the House at that time who was
not filling her husband's unexpired term and one of the first women to
be elected to and serve in Congress. Norton served in the House until
1951, for a total of 13 terms. During her time in Congress, Norton
became the first woman to chair a major committee. In fact, she was
head of three committees during her time in the House: Veterans'
Affairs, District of Columbia, and Labor.
One of the Congresswoman's most accomplished moments came while she
was chair of the Labor Committee in 1938 when the House passed the Fair
Labor Standards Act. Despite much opposition to what was at the time a
controversial bill and despite the first version of the legislation
being rejected, the House passed the final version of the legislation
by a vote of 314 to 97. The Fair Labor Standards Act was later signed
into law by President Roosevelt on June 25, 1938.
The Fair Labor Standards Act plays a significant role in our labor
history and our history as a Nation. It is the formative legislation
for the labor rights that we today take for granted--minimum wage,
overtime pay, and child labor laws--and greatly improved the quality of
life for so many workers in our country. Congresswoman Norton was a
champion for the American worker and played in integral role in passing
this critical legislation that would shape our Nation for years to
come.
I urge my colleagues to stand with me to celebrate and honor the life
and work of Congresswoman Mary T. Norton on the 70th anniversary of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TIMOTHY J. WALZ

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 439, H. Con.
Res. 372, Supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music

[[Page 13880]]

Month and to honor the contributions to our Nation made by African
American singers and musicians, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT INFORMATION ACT OF 2008

______

HON. RAHM EMANUEL

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Earned Income
Tax Credit Information Act of 2008, legislation that will make it
easier for millions of Americans to receive the Earned Income Tax
Credit, (EITC).
Every year I host tax clinics in my district in order to help my
constituents get a fair deal when they file their taxes. Hundreds of my
constituents come to these clinics and with the help of volunteers
receive thousands of dollars in tax refunds.
But millions of Americans and thousands in my district still don't
get the tax credits they deserve, like the EITC. The EITC is the single
most important tool we have to encourage work and reduce poverty in our
country.
Nationally, over 22 million working Americans benefit from this
program and receive $43 billion in Federal assistance. That's an
average amount of over $1900 per taxpayer. At $4 a gallon, an average
EITC check can now pay for 32 trips to the gas station to fill your
tank.
In my district, over 38,000 taxpayers received $64 million through
the EITC. But because one-quarter of those eligible to receive EITC
don't claim it, there are also nearly 13,000 of my constituents who
should receive EITC but don't and they're losing out on $25 million in
benefits.
Nationally, there are 7 million Americans who are eligible to receive
this benefit but don't. This amounts to a loss of $14 billion to
eligible working Americans.
American families are struggling to get by. The cost of gas, food,
education, and health care are skyrocketing. How can we stand by and
let the American people leave $14 billion on the table?
A Republican Governor working with a Democratic legislature has given
us a model for addressing this problem. Last year, Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger signed into law Assembly Bill 650, the Earned Income Tax
Credit Information Act. The bill was simple and straightforward. The
law requires that California employers notify employees of their
potential eligibility for the EITC when they send employees their W-2
forms.
Employers are uniquely positioned to help because they are already
providing their employees with their W-2 forms that tell them their
earnings for this year. This law simply piggy-backs on that requirement
to help employees understand that they may be eligible to receive the
EITC.
Our legislation takes the California law and expands it to the rest
of the country. Under our bill, employees throughout the country who
earn enough to be eligible for the EITC will receive a notice from
their employer with their W-2 form telling them about the program and
how to learn more about it. Small businesses will not be affected by
the bill and the proposal won't cost American taxpayers one single
dime. It's a common sense way to ensure families who need it most get
the benefits they deserve.
I am hopeful that this legislation will be unnecessary. Today, Sen.
Schumer and I will send a letter asking the Administration to
accomplish this goal by executive order. Secretary Paulson is a
supporter of EITC and I'm hopeful that he will build on his role during
the economic stimulus debate and embrace this common-sense, fiscally
responsible approach to providing hardworking Americans with additional
fiscal relief.
Finally, Wal-Mart, the Nation's largest employer, and the SEIU, one
of the Nation's leading labor unions, are supporting the bill. They
understand the importance of the EITC to their workers and members. In
addition, the bill is supported by the Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the College and
University Professional Association of Human Resources, TJ Maxx,
Kindred Healthcare, and Cintas.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE VETERANS REVENUE ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2008, H.R. 6366

______

HON. STEVE BUYER

of indiana

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. BUYER. Madam Speaker, I am introducing the Veterans Revenue
Enhancement Act of 2008, which would direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to establish today not more than seven consolidated patient
accounting centers.
The concept of the Consolidated Patient Accounting Center, also known
as CPAC, was included as a demonstration project in the Conference
Report, House Report 109-95 and Conference Report 109-305, in 2005
accompanying H.R. 2528, requiring the Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA, to initiate a revenue improvement demonstration project within 60
days after enactment of the bill, Public Law 109-114. The VA followed
the recommendations in the report, and created the Mid-Atlantic
Consolidated Patient Accounting Center demonstration project located in
Asheville, North Carolina.
A recent GAO report reiterates previous findings that third party
billing and collection processes at the Department continue to be
ineffective and limit the revenue received by VA from third party
insurance companies. Hundreds of millions of dollars continue to go
uncollected, dollars that could be used to further improve the quality
and quantity of veterans' health care.
With the establishment by VA of the Mid-Atlantic Consolidated Patient
Accounting Center in Asheville, North Carolina, the collection of third
party revenues has improved significantly at the medical centers in
VISN 6. By implementing best practices, a standardized revenue cycle
for business processes and training of personnel, the majority of the
GAO report recommendations on maximizing third party revenue
collections have been met.
The demonstration project has proven to be very successful in
enhancing the revenue of the department by more than $12.5 million in
increased collections in FY 2007 and $6.5 million so far in FY 2008 to
an overall $19 million total. Building on this success, my legislation
would permit the VA to continue this successful venture at the Mid-
Atlantic project in Asheville, North Carolina, and direct the Secretary
to establish an additional six centers throughout the country in the
next five years.
I urge my colleagues to support the Veterans Revenue Enhancement Act
of 2008.

____________________

INTRODUCING THE HEALTHY TRANSITION ACT OF 2008

______

HON. FORTNEY PETE STARK

of california

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation aimed at
addressing the unique needs of young people with serious mental illness
as they transition from adolescence into adulthood. Senator Gordon
Smith and Senator Chris Dodd are introducing identical legislation in
the Senate. We have an obligation to provide appropriate and effective
mental health treatment and supports to young adults so that they can
transition to healthy and successful adults.
Young adults suffering from mental illness fall through the cracks
far too often. Senator Smith and I requested that the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, examine this issue. The GAO recently issued
their report and the findings should disturb us all. At least 2.4
million young adults age 18-26 suffer from serious mental illness.
Another 9.3 million have mild or moderate mental illness. Currently,
there is no specific federal program aimed at these youth. Instead, we
are left with a fragmented and ad hoc system that does not meet their
unique needs. Not surprisingly, many of these youth are adrift without
services, support, or guidance. They have lower education and
employment rates than their peers and they are more likely to end up in
jail or homeless. For youth who are aging out of foster care with no
family supports the situation is particularly dire. One recent study
found that these youth suffer from post traumatic stress disorder at
rates similar to Iraq War veterans.
The GAO has clearly laid out the problem. But it is not enough to
simply describe the current situation and become angry. Our outrage
must lead to action. This legislation aims to change the tragic and
unnecessary status quo and bring real support to millions of young
people.
Some States are making strides to connect young adults with mental
illness to systems that can assist them. The GAO documented 4 states--
Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Mississippi--that are doing
good work in this area. My home State of California

[[Page 13881]]

is using dedicated mental health funding to specifically target
adolescents and young adults with mental illness. I am pleased that
states are undertaking this important work, but the Federal Government
should and must play a role. There needs to be improved coordination
among the many Federal agencies that provide services to these youth.
Most critically, there needs to be Federal support and assistance to
states committed to doing the right thing and creating innovative
approaches to serve these youth. The Healthy Transition Act will to do
just that.
This bill builds on the successful Partnership for Youth in
Transition Demonstration Program. It will provide grant funding to
states to develop statewide coordination plans to assist adolescents
and young adults with serious mental health disorders to acquire the
skills and resources they need to make a healthy transition into
adulthood. The state must specifically plan for youth who are in the
juvenile justice system, the child welfare system, and those who have
an education plan under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. The bill will also provide grant funding for states to
successfully implement their plans and create sustainability and
comprehensive systems of care. Finally, the legislation will create a
Committee of Federal Partners. The Committee will include
representatives from all agencies that serve young adults as well as
representatives from consumer and family advocacy organizations. The
Federal Partners will evaluate the programs, provide technical
assistance, and report to Congress on the progress being made.
As a Nation, our children are our greatest and most precious
resource. We should measure ourselves by how well we equip them to
succeed and lead healthy and fulfilling lives. For young people with
mental health disorders, we have an obligation to provide the supports
and resources they need to make a healthy transition. This bill is a
crucial step toward fulfilling that obligation.

____________________

A PROCLAMATION HONORING 190TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SCROGGSFIELD UNITED
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

______

HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, the dedicated people of Scroggsfield United Presbyterian
Church celebrate their 190th anniversary; and
Whereas, Scroggsfield United Presbyterian Church was founded in 1818
under the leadership of Rev. Elijah Newton Scroggs; and
Whereas, Scroggsfield United Presbyterian Church still opens its
doors for weekly services today; now, therefore, be it
Resolved that along with the residents of the 18th Congressional
District, I commend the congregation of Scroggsfield United
Presbyterian Church for their unwavering commitment, dedication and
contributions to their community.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO JAMES ARTHUR JOHNSON

______

HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

of pennsylvania

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor a man who
exemplified the ideal husband, father, and human being to all whose
lives he touched. James Arthur Johnson was born and raised in
Philadelphia, where he lived his entire life. He graduated from Bok
Vocational High School and went on to the Marine Corps, where he
honorably served our country.
After serving in the Marine Corps, Officer Johnson continued his
life's work in public service with the United States Post Office,
followed by an appointment to the All Philadelphia Police Department in
September 1957. As a police officer, his detail included the Highway
Patrol, 19th Police District, and Narcotics Unit. During his career in
the Philadelphia Police Department, Officer Johnson earned the respect
of all who knew him. His strong moral fiber, wise counsel, fatherly
ways made him a pleasure to encounter.
In 1971, Officer Johnson suffered an injury in the line of duty. Yet,
he continued to serve our city from within the Mayor's Office of
Information and Complaints. With 23 years of service on the Police
Force under his belt, Officer Johnson retired in 1980. He then went on
to become the housing site manager for the Philadelphia Housing
Authority until he retired in 1990. Even though Officer Johnson entered
his second round of retirement, he never gave up his cherished role as
a public servant. He was a well-known member of the Cobbs Creek
community, where he was a baseball coach for the Cobbs Creek Cubs, as
well as a mentor, Scout leader and surrogate father to many of the
community's youth.
Madam Speaker, Officer Johnson's light was extinguished on June 13th,
but the light he has shared with others bums ever so brightly. His
loving family, friends, and community will miss him very much. I ask my
colleagues to join me in expressing the condolences of the House to his
family. I hope that they find comfort in the knowledge that his time on
Earth was well spent and that he left the world a better place than the
one he found.

____________________

HONORING THE LIFE OF GENE OCHSENREITER

______

HON. HEATH SHULER

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Gene
Ochsenreiter, a friend, athlete, and community leader. Mr. Ochsenreiter
passed away in February of this year, and was honored at the 50th
anniversary of the Western North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame Banquet
recently.
Western North Carolina lost a sports giant in February. Mr.
Ochsenreiter was the captain of the University of Maryland men's
basketball team in 1941, and also ran with the University's track team.
He was also the \1/2\ mile champion in the Southern Conference and
Junior National AAU Championships. In Asheville, he won numerous golf
championships at the Country Club of Asheville. In 1988, he was
inducted into the Western North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame.
Mr. Ochsenreiter was a leader on and off the court. In 1958, Mr.
Ochsenreiter founded the Mountain Amateur Athletic Club in Western
North Carolina. Twenty years later in 1978 Mr. Ochsenreiter helped to
found the Western North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame to honor western
North Carolina high school and college athletes and teams. During his
tenure with the WNC Hall, Mr. Ochsenreiter expanded the scope of the
Hall to include all sports, as well as the Special Olympics and
academics. He was a firm believer that students should put their
academics before their sports career, and this was reflected during his
time with the WNC Hall of Fame.
Serving on the Asheville City Council and as a one-time mayor of
Asheville, Mr. Ochsenreiter's contributions to Western North Carolina
are endless.
As a member of the WNC Hall of Fame, I thank Mr. Ochsenreiter for his
dedication and commitment to the Hall during his fifty years of
service. He will be missed. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring
the life of Gene Ochsenreiter.

____________________

REMEMBERING THE KOREAN WAR AND THE U.S.-KOREA FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

______

HON. VITO FOSSELLA

of new york

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker. Today marked the 58th anniversary of the
outbreak of the Korean War. Five years after the Second World War ended
in the Pacific, a new conflict erupted, the first major engagement of
the forces of communism and the forces of freedom in the Cold War
period.
By the time the armistice was signed almost 3 years later, millions
of Koreans had been killed, wounded or displaced from their homes,
whole towns and villages had been destroyed, and the entire peninsula
was plunged into poverty. More than 36,000 American soldiers, sailors,
Marines, and airmen who served in the Korean War lost their lives.
It has been my privilege to represent hundreds of Korean War veterans
who live in my district in Brooklyn and Staten Island. I have come to
know personally many of these brave and heroic constituents.
Although many of these Korean War veterans are reaching old age, they
live vibrant lives, contributing to our community in countless ways.
The sacrifices they made across an ocean helped form their characters,
which guided them through college and careers, as they raised their
families and built their businesses, indeed, as many of them became
political and community leaders themselves.
In the years since the Korean War came to a close, South Korean
soldiers have fought

[[Page 13882]]

alongside Americans not only in Korea but in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and
Iraq. In fact, South Korea sent the third-largest contingent of armed
forces to Iraq among all the countries that have participated in that
conflict.
Korea has often been described as an ``economic miracle.'' Fifty
years ago, South Korea was an impoverished, Third World country
perceived as having few prospects for survival, much less potential for
affluence. Today it has the world's 11th-largest economy, known for its
high-technology industries. It is the 7th-largest trading partner of
the United States.
It is no wonder, therefore, that almost exactly a year ago, on June
30, 2007, negotiators for the United States and the Republic of Korea
concluded a Free Trade Agreement that now awaits approval by Congress
and the South Korean National Assembly before it is fully implemented.
In a recent report, the U.S. International Trade Commission has
forecast that the elimination of tariffs on U.S. goods under the U.S.-
Korea Free Trade Agreement would increase the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) of the United States by over $10 billion annually. The agreement
will also eliminate regulatory and other non-tariff barriers that have
historically restricted access by American farmers, manufacturers, and
service providers to the South Korean market.
In the past week, the United States and South Korea signed a protocol
regarding the importation of U.S.-originating beef to Korean markets.
As anyone who reads the newspaper knows, this issue has been
politically volatile in South Korea. U.S. and South Korean trade
negotiators deserve a great deal of credit for their delicate handling
of this situation. It is my understanding that American beef exports to
Korea will recommence within the next few days.
While the beef import issue seemed to be an obstacle to approval of
the Free Trade Agreement, the overall advantages to both our countries
that will ensue from the agreement have prevailed. And this is a good
thing, a healthy thing for American workers and American consumers, and
for Koreans, too.
With growing uncertainty about the health of our economy, it is
critically important that we make every effort to spur U.S. economic
growth and create new American jobs through securing access to markets
in which U.S. farmers and businesses can compete and succeed. The
proposed U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement stands to further increase
U.S. exports to Korea and will generate new jobs for Americans.
Madam Speaker, it has been nearly six decades since the outbreak of
the Korean War and we must ``never forget'' the sacrifices of our
Korean War veterans. As we commemorate this somber occasion, let us
look forward to the opportunities the future will bring as the U.S.-
Korean friendship and economic partnership is broadened, deepened, and
strengthened. The U.S.-Korea relationship deserves to be celebrated,
and I ask my colleagues to join in offering their own expressions of
support.

____________________

SUNSET MEMORIAL

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I stand once again before this
House with yet another Sunset Memorial.
It is June 25, 2008, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, and before the sun set today in America, almost 4,000 more
defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on demand. That's
just today, Madam Speaker. That's more than the number of innocent
lives lost on September 11 in this country, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,937 days since the tragedy called Roe v.
Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of its own
children. Some of them, Madam Speaker, cried and screamed as they died,
but because it was amniotic fluid passing over the vocal cords instead
of air, we couldn't hear them.
All of them had at least four things in common. First, they were each
just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone, and each one
of them died a nameless and lonely death. And each one of their
mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never be quite the same.
And all the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity
are now lost forever. Yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this
generation still clings to a blind, invincible ignorance while history
repeats itself and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the
most helpless of all victims, those yet unborn.
Madam Speaker, perhaps it's time for those of us in this Chamber to
remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said,
``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is
the chief and only object of good government.'' The phrase in the 14th
Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says, ``No State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.'' Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here.
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the clarion declaration of
the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has
ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core, self-evident
truth.
It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. Madam
Speaker, it is who we are.
And yet today another day has passed, and we in this body have failed
again to honor that foundational commitment. We have failed our sworn
oath and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly
4,000 more innocent American babies who died today without the
protection we should have given them. And it seems so sad to me, Madam
Speaker, that this Sunset Memorial may be the only acknowledgement or
remembrance these children who died today will ever have in this
Chamber.
So as a small gesture, I would ask those in the Chamber who are
inclined to join me for a moment of silent memorial to these lost
little Americans.
So Madam Speaker, let me conclude this Sunset Memorial in the hope
that perhaps someone new who heard it tonight will finally embrace the
truth that abortion really does kill little babies; that it hurts
mothers in ways that we can never express; and that 12,937 days spent
killing nearly 50 million unborn children in America is enough; and
that it is time that we stood up together again, and remembered that we
are the same America that rejected human slavery and marched into
Europe to arrest the Nazi holocaust; and we are still courageous and
compassionate enough to find a better way for mothers and their unborn
babies than abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, as we consider the plight of unborn America tonight,
may we each remind ourselves that our own days in this sunshine of life
are also numbered and that all too soon each one of us will walk from
these Chambers for the very last time.
And if it should be that this Congress is allowed to convene on yet
another day to come, may that be the day when we finally hear the cries
of innocent unborn children. May that be the day when we find the
humanity, the courage, and the will to embrace together our human and
our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our tiny, little
American brothers and sisters from this murderous scourge upon our
Nation called abortion on demand.
It is June 25, 2008--12,937 days since Roe versus Wade first stained
the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own children; this
in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

____________________

A PROCLAMATION HONORING JEFFERY A. SPENCER FOR HIS 14 YEARS SERVING AS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE OHIO VALLEY REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

______

HON. ZACHARY T. SPACE

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. SPACE. Madam Speaker:
Whereas, Jeffery A. Spencer has served as Executive Director of Ohio
Valley Regional Development Commission for over 14 years; and
Whereas, Mr. Spencer has tirelessly assisted scores of communities in
acquiring over $50 million in critically needed development projects;
and
Whereas, he continues to support many regional initiatives that bring
more development funds and assistance to Southern Ohio; now, therefore,
be it
Resolved that along with his friends, family, and the residents of
the 18th Congressional District, I commend and thank Jeffery A. Spencer
for his contributions to his community and country.

[[Page 13883]]

____________________

HONORING THE VILLAGE OF MANITO, ILLINOIS ON THE OCCASION OF ITS 150TH
ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. RAY LaHOOD

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Village of
Manito, Illinois on the occasion of its 150th Anniversary.
The Village of Manito, located in Mason County, Illinois, was first
inhabited by William Herron and his sister in 1838. In 1858, with the
news that the Illinois River Railroad was to develop through their
land, James Cox, his son Robert Cox, and William Langston divided 110
acres of their land into streets, lots and alleys, establishing a new
village, named Manito.
Manito is located in the heart of Illinois in an area known for its
hardworking people, outstanding farmers and respected traditions.
Manito always has been, and primarily remains, an agricultural
community. The diverse soil in the area promotes the growth of a broad
range of crops and farming methods. This area has been shown to
effectively produce corn, soybeans, vegetables and other harvest. The
citizens of Manito continue to add to the world agricultural community
by being stewards of their land and setting the precedent for how a
farming community should operate.
Today, Manito is a progressive village with a population of over
1,700, and while Manito remains proud of its past, it looks willingly
toward the future. The original ``Main Street'' continues to serve as
the commercial center of Manito; however, the surrounding marketing
areas continue to thrive and develop.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to represent the Village of Manito in the
United States House of Representatives and I extend my best wishes to
the village and its citizens for another 150 years of prosperity.

____________________

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Title IV of Senate Resolution 4, agreed to by the Senate on February
4, 1977, calls for establishment of a system for a computerized
schedule of all meetings and hearings of Senate committees,
subcommittees, joint committees, and committees of conference. This
title requires all such committees to notify the Office of the Senate
Daily Digest--designated by the Rules Committee--of the time, place,
and purpose of the meetings, when scheduled, and any cancellations or
changes in the meetings as they occur.
As an additional procedure along with the computerization of this
information, the Office of the Senate Daily Digest will prepare this
information for printing in the Extensions of Remarks section of the
Congressional Record on Monday and Wednesday of each week.
Meetings scheduled for Thursday, June 26, 2008 may be found in the
Daily Digest of today's Record.

MEETINGS SCHEDULED

JULY 9
10 a.m.
Rules and Administration
To hold hearings to examine administrative and management
operations of the United States Capitol Police.
SR-301
2:30 p.m.
Energy and Natural Resources
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee
To hold hearings to examine S. 2443 and H.R. 2246, bills
to provide for the release of any revisionary interest
of the United States in and to certain lands in Reno,
Nevada, S. 2779, to amend the Surface Mining Control
and Reclamation Act of 1977 to clarify that uncertified
States and Indian tribes have the authority to use
certain payments for certain noncoal reclamation
projects, S. 2875, to authorize the Secretary of the
Interior to provide grants to designated States and
tribes to carry out programs to reduce the risk of
livestock loss due to predation by gray wolves and
other predator species or to compensate landowners for
livestock loss due to predation, S. 2898 and H.R. 816,
bills to provide for the release of certain land from
the Sunrise Mountain Instant Study Area in the State of
Nevada, S. 3088, to designate certain land in the State
of Oregon as wilderness, S. 3089, to designate certain
land in the State of Oregon as wilderness, to provide
for the exchange of certain Federal land and non-
Federal land, and S. 3157, to provide for the exchange
and conveyance of certain National Forest System land
and other land in southeast Arizona.
SD-366