[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 10]
[Issue]
[Pages 13884-14142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




[[Page 13884]]

            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, June 26, 2008


  The House met at 10 a.m.
  The Chaplain, the Reverend Daniel P. Coughlin, offered the following 
prayer:
  Lord, by Your power and graceful ways that touch us humanly, create a 
future of promise for this country. In Congress, create new settings of 
hope where Your kingdom of realized truth and promised justice may 
become more apparent in all its saving power.
  May the Members of the House of Representatives face the challenges 
of the present and the future with confidence in You and in the people. 
Help them, Lord, never to lose heart in the face of resistance, 
adversity, and scandal. Enable them to overcome every separation 
between faith and life and reject every false dichotomy of faith and 
expediency. Thus may they extend Your reign of peace and love and give 
You glory now and forever. Amen.

                          ____________________




                              THE JOURNAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The Chair has examined the 
Journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House her 
approval thereof.
  Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Miller) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan 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.

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 6040. An act 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.

                          ____________________




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will entertain up to 10 requests 
for 1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.

                          ____________________




                NO NEED TO OPEN NEW AREAS AND NEW LEASES

  (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. DeFAZIO. We are going to hear a lot today about the need for new 
leases. There is no need to open new areas and new leases. Here is 
Alaska. The former Naval Petroleum Reserve leased by Bill Clinton, 
authorized by the Republican Congress, has more than 10 billion barrels 
of oil under it. It is known to exist. The oil industry has the leases; 
they have drilled 25 wells; they have capped them. They have no plans 
to connect it to the existing pipeline and bring that oil here to 
consumers.
  But they are saying, no, we want to go over here, we want more leases 
over here in ANWR. We don't even know if there is any oil under ANWR. 
How about they deal with the known 10 billion barrels here and provide 
us some relief at the pump? Then we can talk about other places they 
might want to go in the future.

                          ____________________




                       NO MORE EXCUSES ENERGY ACT

  (Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, as we approach the Fourth of 
July holiday, many Americans who would use this long weekend to 
vacation or to perhaps spend time with their family will have to weigh 
their options as they struggle with gas prices that have risen to over 
$4 a gallon. As the worldwide demand for oil has contributed to the 
rise in prices that affects families all across America, we have 
actually restricted our supply here at home. America, unfortunately, 
has become more dependent than ever on more expensive foreign sources 
of energy, and not taking advantage of our own energy sources is 
economic suicide.
  That is why I am cosponsoring the No More Excuses Energy Act. It 
would lift the moratorium on exploring for oil on the Outer Continental 
Shelf, open up the ANWR in Alaska for natural gas exploration and oil 
exploration, and it would also provide incentives to build more 
refineries right here at home.
  This legislation would provide incentives and tax credits to assist 
in researching and in using alternative forms of energy like wind power 
and nuclear energies. This commonsense approach to energy can help our 
Nation meet the challenges that we face in the future and can hold down 
the costs to consumers.
  It is time to get to work.

                          ____________________




                       BUSH-CHENEY ADMINISTRATION

  (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, Members of the House, 
as American families struggle with the rising cost of energy, as it 
makes their commute to work even more expensive, as they think about 
buying home heating oil for this winter, think how it could have been.
  Think how their lives would have been different if, for the last 7 
years, instead of defending the subsidies for big oil companies, the 
tax breaks for big oil companies and the royalty holidays for big oil 
companies, the Bush administration and the Cheney administration had 
put their heads together and had thought about the future as opposed to 
the past. But when you have two oil men together in the Oval Office in 
the White House, they think about the past, and that is protecting the 
oil companies; it is not about the future.
  Think if President Bush had come out for any increase in the mileage 
standards 7 years ago where we would have been, instead of defending 
for 32 years the right of the automobile companies to keep us away from 
more efficient automobiles.
  But that would have been the future. The Bush-Cheney administration 
has never thought about the future; they have only thought about the 
past, and that has turned out to be terribly, terribly costly to the 
American consumer.

                          ____________________




                         HEALTHY HOSPITALS ACT

  (Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I know much of our 
concern is on energy and gas prices, but I want to remind Members of 
some grim statistics on other issues.
  If an airplane crashed today and 250 people died, we would send the 
FAA and every other Federal agency to investigate. If the same thing 
happened tomorrow, our concerns would escalate, too. If it happened a 
third day, we would shut down the airline industry. We don't seem to do 
that same thing,

[[Page 13885]]

and we have that many deaths each day from infections in hospitals.
  In April of 2005, when I first started talking about infections in 
hospitals, we have had since that time over 6 million cases, over 
320,000 deaths, and have wasted $162 billion. Just in 2008 alone, 
969,000 cases, 47,000 deaths, and $24 billion.
  When I introduced my Healthy Hospitals Act, H.R. 1174, the aim was to 
have hospitals declare their infection rates so people could compare 
hospitals so we could do something about it.
  Hospitals can clean up their act. They can reduce their infections, 
and Congress needs to make sure there is a law of the land requiring 
them. People have a right to know if they are going to leave a hospital 
at all.

                          ____________________




                               IRAQI OIL

  (Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. In March of 2001, when the Bush administration began to 
have secret meetings with the oil company executives from Exxon, Shell, 
and BP, spreading maps of Iraqi oil fields on the desk, the price of 
oil was $23.96 per barrel, and then there were 63 companies in 30 
countries, the U.S. not included, competing for oil contracts with 
Iraq. Today, the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel; the U.S. Army is 
occupying Iraq, and the first Iraq oil contracts will go without 
competitive bidding--surprise--to Exxon, Shell, and BP.
  Iraq has between 200 billion and 300 billion barrels of oil with a 
market value in the tens of trillions, and our government is trying to 
force Iraq not only to privatize its oil but to accept a long-term U.S. 
military presence to guard the oil and to protect the profits of the 
oil companies while they charge Americans $4 and $5 a gallon and while 
our troops continue dying.
  We found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We found the 
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it is oil. As long as oil 
companies control our government, Americans will continue to pay, and 
they will pay with our lives, our fortune, our sacred honor.

                          ____________________




                           MEDICARE ADVANTAGE

  (Mr. PITTS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. PITTS. Madam Speaker, the House voted this week on Medicare.
  First, let me make one thing clear: We need to pay our doctors. We 
cannot continue to make it more difficult for doctors to make the 
decisions to see Medicare patients. A permanent fix is absolutely 
necessary.
  Having said that, the bill we voted on this week took a very short-
sighted approach. By cutting the successful and innovative Medicare 
Advantage program in order to pay for the doctors' payment fix, there 
will be cuts to Medicare Advantage plans that will reduce access, 
benefits, and choices for millions of our senior citizens, especially 
low income seniors and those in rural areas.
  We can take care of our doctors without cutting benefits for our 
seniors, our Nation's senior citizens. The cuts to Medicare Advantage 
were $47.5 billion. This would do great damage to an effective aspect 
of Medicare that serves our senior citizens. We can do better than 
that.

                          ____________________




                  OPPOSITION TO NEW OFFSHORE DRILLING

  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I rise in response to recent calls for new 
offshore drilling. These arguments for new drilling hit a dry hole for 
several reasons.
  First, we are already drilling offshore. Eighty percent of the known 
offshore reserves are in areas where leasing and drilling is allowed. 
Today, the oil companies have nearly 6,000 untapped leases in the Gulf 
of Mexico alone.
  Second, with 3 percent of the world's resources and 25 percent of the 
world's demand, there is no way we are going to just drill our way out 
of this problem.
  Third, even the Bush administration admits consumers would see little 
savings at the pump from new drilling.
  Yesterday, Guy Caruso, head of the Energy Information Agency, said 
this about the impact of new drilling: ``It would be a relatively small 
effect, because it would take such a long time to bring those supplies 
on. It doesn't affect prices that much.''
  Democrats have a better plan. Let's pass legislation that moves 
America in a new direction on energy by closing the Enron loophole on 
Wall Street speculators who are driving up prices. Let's reduce mass 
transit fares and build the infrastructure there, and let's force Big 
Oil to use it or lose it on drilling permits.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in bringing America to a new, 
more affordable energy future.

                          ____________________




       INCREASING AMERICAN JOBS AND ENERGY PRODUCTION RESPONSIBLY

  (Mr. BOUSTANY asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BOUSTANY. My constituents in southwest Louisiana want solutions 
to the energy crisis.
  On Monday, the Lake Charles American Press summed up what is needed 
in their editorial, something I have advocated for a long time.
  They said, ``The energy campaign should include more exploration, 
more refining capacity, more alternative energy sources, more renewable 
energy, retirement of society's dependency on the internal combustion 
engine, and an increase in conservation.
  ``It should not be demagogued, for this is not a Republican or 
Democrat issue. It is a national issue that will require solutions, not 
insults hurled across the aisles of Congress and back and forth from 
Capitol Hill to the White House.
  Those that feel the pain of higher energy prices and accompanying 
higher prices throughout the marketplace--the poor, those on fixed 
income, even the middle class--are being squeezed.''
  Increasing responsible energy production is one part of the solution. 
We must accompany that with conservation, with greater refining 
capacity and, most importantly, with unleashing individual American 
genius.
  A magic bullet will not lower the price at the pump for American 
families, but increasing American energy production responsibly will 
help, and it will create jobs here at home.

                          ____________________




    RECOGNIZING THE ARMY'S 4TH BRIGADE--2ND INFANTRY DIVISION, THE 
                          ``DRAGOON RAIDERS''

  (Mr. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute 
to the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division from Fort Lewis.
  By June 30 of this month, the last of the, roughly, 4,000 men and 
women of the 4th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division will have returned home 
to Fort Lewis after completing a 15-month deployment in Iraq. The 
Dragoon Raiders, as the Brigade is known, deployed in Iraq in April 
2007, a month earlier than expected.
  During their deployment, the 4-2 supported operations in Baghdad, 
Baghdad's Northern Security Belt, and the Diyala Province. The Brigade 
cleared 2,216 IEDs from more than 87,000 kilometers of routes, ensuring 
safe travel for civilians and security forces. Soldiers from the 4-2 
also captured more than 1,700 detainees and 220 high-value targets 
during combat operations.
  In tribute to their brave service, three members of the Brigade were 
awarded the Silver Star, the United States' third highest award for 
combat valor. Their valorous service was not

[[Page 13886]]

without cost, however. In the course of their deployment, the Dragoon 
Raiders lost 54 of their comrades, with another 424 wounded.
  I want to express my deep condolences to the 4-2 Brigade and to the 
families of those fallen soldiers. Their contributions and sacrifices 
will not be forgotten.
  The men and women of the 4-2 have done everything their country has 
asked of them and more. We all should have the utmost respect and 
admiration for their service and sacrifice.

                          ____________________




                              FAIR OR FREE

  (Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, the speech police are at it again. This time 
they want to police and control the radio airwaves. I'm not talking 
about the former Soviet Union that controlled what Russians listened to 
on the radio, I'm talking about the American speech police.
  Radio shows that air conservative ideas in the free enterprise market 
seem to be listened to by more Americans than those that listen to 
liberal ideas. I don't know why that is, but it happens. So some don't 
like that. They say it's just not fair. So they want to force the 
private radio stations, with the use of the government speech police, 
to air ideas that are liberal as well as conservative. They call this 
nonsense the ``fairness doctrine.''
  It is actually totalitarian state control of speech. And what does 
``fair'' mean? Fair means different things to different folks. In some 
places in the country like Texas, fair is where you take your chickens 
to. That's why the word ``fair'' is not in the Constitution. The 
Constitution protects free speech, not fair speech. It says Congress--
that's us, folks--shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. 
And the Constitution applies to the thieves of free speech and the 
government's speech police whether they like it or not.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                           USE IT OR LOSE IT

  (Mr. WALZ of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, Americans continue to suffer 
the pain at the pump due to 7 years of missed opportunities and 
outdated policies. President Bush's energy plan was literally written 
by the oil companies, giving more public resources and billions in 
subsidies to the same companies that are raking in record billions in 
profits while Americans are reeling. That was the plan then; that's the 
plan now.
  Every day, we hear our friends on the other side of the aisle 
demanding that we need to drill more holes. What we don't hear is 
anyone demanding that they drill on the 68 million acres they have. 
Legislation on the floor today will force those companies to produce 
oil and gas diligently on the 68 million acres of the public land, your 
land, that they already have. Experts say there are 4.8 million barrels 
of oil which would nearly double total U.S. production.
  Madam Speaker, drilling has been the Republican slogan for years, and 
it will be so today. Today is finally their chance to put that slogan 
to the test, to tell Big Oil to drill now and to use it, or lose it.

                          ____________________




                            JOURNEY FOR 9/11

  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise to say ``thank you'' 
to the retired New York Giants' co-captain and Super Bowl champion, 
George Martin, for finishing his 3,200-mile trek across America to 
raise money and awareness for the sick men and women, heroes and 
heroines of 9/11 who are still suffering.
  His cross-country journey started in New York just after the sixth 
anniversary of 9/11. It continued through Washington, DC, in early 
October where he met with Members of Congress about legislation that is 
pending here. We met, and he continued on his journey.
  He finished in California last Saturday, and is now having a well-
deserved rest. George is an inspiration to those of us in Congress who 
are working hard to pass H.R. 3543. We have over 115 cosponsors. It is 
the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, and it is for the heroes and 
heroines of 9/11. It would treat and monitor all of those who were 
exposed to the deadly toxins, and it would treat those who are sick. It 
is the least we can do for these heroes and heroines. We should pass it 
before the seventh anniversary of 9/11.

                          ____________________




                          DOMESTIC EXPLORATION

  (Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I got a call yesterday 
from a constituent in my district who said he saw me speaking on the 
floor about domestic energy, and he was relieved. He was relieved 
because someone in Congress understood the effects that high gas prices 
are having on real families all over this country, because he didn't 
think anybody was paying attention. Well, guess what? Some people are 
paying attention.
  We need to be looking at resources here at home to solve our energy 
problems. The United States Minerals Management Service found out that, 
out of our 1.76-billion-acre Outer Continental Shelf, only 3 percent is 
leased to oil and gas exploration, and nearly 85 percent of the lower 
48 OCS remains untapped.
  Madam Speaker, we can explore our domestic resources safely and 
effectively so we will not harm our environment.
  I and my Republican colleagues will continue to talk about domestic 
exploration because we do have solutions, and somebody is listening.

                          ____________________




                        HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

  (Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to 
address the House for 1 minute.)
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
discuss human rights in Vietnam and the Vietnamese Prime Minister 
Nguyen Tan Dung's visit to the United States.
  I understand that, when President Bush and Prime Minister Dung met, 
they discussed the importance of promoting human rights in Vietnam and 
that Prime Minister Dung told President Bush that the Vietnamese 
Government has made efforts and is committed to further promoting and 
improving human rights in Vietnam.
  Now, as a long-time advocate of human rights in Vietnam and as a 
representative of one of the largest Vietnamese-American communities, 
we know that human rights in Vietnam have only been getting worse. The 
Government of Vietnam has continued to harass, arrest and to sentence 
peaceful democracy advocates to prison--oh, and by the way, also United 
States citizens of Vietnamese descent.
  If there is any evidence of Prime Minister Dung's claim that human 
rights in Vietnam are improving, I urge him to show it to this 
Congress, but I doubt that he is telling the truth.

                          ____________________




                        EXPANDING ENERGY HORIZON

  (Mr. SMITH of Nebraska asked and was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, recently, I took part in a 
House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing concerning hydropower and 
exploring its role as a continued source of clean, renewable energy for 
the future.
  In Nebraska, we have benefited from clean, inexpensive and renewable 
hydropower. These projects in Nebraska's third district serve 
irrigation, flood control, and recreation activities. Demand for fuel 
and power continues to grow, giving all sources of domestic resources, 
including offshore oil fields and ANWR, solar, nuclear, wind, and 
hydropower, an increasingly important role for the future.
  Unfortunately, so many special interest groups have said ``no'' to 
virtually

[[Page 13887]]

every solution, including clean, renewable hydropower, non-emitting 
nuclear power, clean coal technology, wind power, and certainly 
responsible domestic exploration.
  Madam Speaker, we can do better. We must do better.

                          ____________________




                          NEW ENERGY SOLUTIONS

  (Mr. YARMUTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute.)
  Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, the Democratic-led Congress is working 
for consumers to lower gas prices and to launch a cleaner and more 
cost-effective energy future that creates new green jobs and that 
reduces global warming.
  For 7 years, Washington Republicans allowed Big Oil to run our 
Nation's energy policy. The result, high gas prices and continued 
dependence on oil.
  Democrats believe we must diversify our energy sources with bold 
investments in renewable energy and more efficient technology. Last 
year, for the first time in three decades, this Congress passed a 
landmark law that increases fuel efficiency to 35 miles per gallon and 
that will save American families at least $700 a year when it takes 
effect.
  We have also passed legislation that repeals billions of dollars in 
corporate welfare to big oil companies that are currently seeing record 
profits. Instead, we invest these funds in the renewable energy 
solutions of the future.
  Madam Speaker, the energy policies of the past are not working. It is 
time that we look for new solutions.

                          ____________________




                        DEVELOP AMERICAN ENERGY

  (Mr. AKIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. AKIN. Madam Speaker, America has a problem because we have not 
been developing our American energy. The tip of the iceberg is 
particularly obvious now at $4 a gallon, but there were warning signs--
nuclear reactors, 1960s vintage technology, no new refineries sited in 
30 years. That's going back to the Vietnam era. We have not been 
developing American energy. Why? It is not because we don't have 
American energy. We have plenty of varieties of American energy that we 
could be developing, and it is not because we don't have the technology 
or the innovation to be able to develop American energy.
  No. Unfortunately, this is strictly a matter of will. It is a 
decision, and it is strictly a party-line decision.
  Over the last 8 years, Democrats on all kinds of votes on energy have 
voted 90 percent of the time not to develop American energy. 
Republicans have voted 90 percent too. Whether it is recycling nuclear 
fuel, drilling in ANWR or in the Outer Continental Shelf, we need to 
agree that the time has come to develop American energy.

                          ____________________




                           END OIL'S MONOPOLY

  (Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute.)
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, if I had a monopoly on 
apple pies because the law said that my backyard was the only place in 
town where you could grow apple trees, I would charge whatever I wanted 
for those apple pies. I would be even more excited when I would start 
jacking the price way, way up for those apple pies and would make huge, 
record apple pie profits.
  If the government decided that the way to fix that problem would be 
to give me, and only me, permission to grow one more apple tree in my 
backyard 10 years from now, well, it would sound pretty ridiculous, 
right?
  Unfortunately, even though the analogy is a little bit simple, that 
is basically the Republican's plan for high gas prices. Instead of 
actually creating competition for the oil industry by concentrating on 
growing renewable energy sources, they just call for a little bit more 
drilling, giving their friends in the oil industry even more profit.
  Well, we shouldn't fall for it. With 2 percent of the world's oil 
reserves here in the United States, the only way to bring gas prices 
down is to end oil's monopoly and to start growing apple trees in other 
people's backyards.

                          ____________________




                     CONGRATULATING FRESNO BULLDOGS

  (Mr. RADANOVICH asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.)
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Madam Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate Fresno 
State University men's baseball team as the national champions of the 
College World Series.
  This is the first college baseball national championship win for 
Fresno State University, and it is, indeed, a Cinderella story for the 
Bulldogs. Their record was 47 wins and 31 losses. No other college 
baseball team in the Nation has had 31 losses in the season and has 
still been able to overcome the odds and win the college baseball 
national championship.
  The outstanding leadership of coach Mike Batesole and the hard work 
and determination of all of the players, including the College World 
Series' Most Outstanding Player, Tommy Mendonca, led to this unlikely 
but well-deserved victory.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in congratulating the Fresno State 
Bulldogs who went from underdogs to wonder dogs. Go Dogs.

                          ____________________




                       MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

  A message in writing from the President of the United States was 
communicated to the House by Ms. Evans, one of his secretaries.

                          ____________________




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

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1304 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1304

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6052) to promote increased public 
     transportation use, to promote increased use of alternative 
     fuels in providing public transportation, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration in the House of H.R. 6052 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of Thursday, June 26, 2008, for the Speaker 
     to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     relating to:
        (a) a measure concerning the Commodity Exchange Act and 
     energy markets; and
       (b) a measure concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases 
     on Federal lands or waters.


[[Page 13888]]

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Diaz-Balart of 
Florida. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for 
debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CASTOR. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to 
insert extraneous material into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1304 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act of 2008. The resolution provides for 1 hour of 
general debate controlled by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and makes in order five amendments submitted for 
consideration.
  The rule also permits the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the 
rules relating to two important measures: one, a measure concerning the 
Commodity Exchange Act and energy markets; and two, a measure 
concerning the issuance of oil and gas leases on Federal lands or 
waters. This authority is needed because House rules allow for bills to 
be considered under suspension only on Mondays, Tuesdays, and 
Wednesdays. In order for the House to consider the bill today on 
Thursday or on any other day, the House must adopt a rule granting 
specific permission.
  Madam Speaker, hardworking Americans all across this great country 
are being squeezed by this painful Bush economy that has brought on 
increased costs for housing and for health care. My colleague from 
Florida can attest to the rising costs of property insurance for 
Floridians and other Americans, and of course, gas prices are socking 
it to our neighbors back home.
  Now, many of the reformers here in Congress have been standing up to 
the White House and have been urging them for years to change direction 
and to focus on long-term solutions to our energy challenges. But the 
oil men at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and their Big Oil 
allies have had a stranglehold over our country's energy policy, and 
unfortunately, families and businesses across America are paying the 
price.
  Now, some bipartisan progress has been made here in our new-direction 
Congress over the past year and a half. One of Speaker  Nancy Pelosi's 
first initiatives was to establish a new bipartisan Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Climate Change, which has been extremely 
productive. Democratic reformers also pushed through a historic 
increase in the required gas mileage of 35 miles per gallon for our 
cars. Now, better gas mileage for our cars alone should save families 
from $700 to $1,000 per year at the pump and should slash consumption 
in America by 4 million gallons per day, but it cannot happen soon 
enough. The sad thing is this technology has existed for years. Cars in 
Japan travel almost twice as far on a gallon of gas.
  What has been missing here in our country is the political leadership 
to make these necessary changes. So many of the changes we have been 
fighting for have been blocked by the White House and by their Big Oil 
allies.
  Remember, just 7 years ago, the administration's Energy Task Force 
met behind closed doors, and it consisted of former oil company 
executives and of other oil executives, like Ken Lay of Enron. The 
administration also fought to keep the other identities secret. Saving 
American families money through innovation was not a priority. 
Conservation was not a priority--the Vice President made that clear--
and public transit and public transportation were not priorities. They 
were stuck in the past then, and they still are today because what has 
been their answer to high gas prices? Their recommendations today are 
the same as they were 7 years ago: More drilling; more of the same.
  Now, as the reformers in this Congress continue to fight for a new 
direction in energy policy, inexplicably, the White House announced 
yesterday that it opposes today's public transit bill, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act. What a shame on the White 
House, because expanding public transportation use is one of the most 
promising ways to reduce energy consumption and reliance on foreign 
oil.
  Now, with the White House's $4-per-gallon premium, even more 
commuters are choosing to ride the train and to bus to work rather than 
to ride alone in their cars. According to two recent studies, America 
already saves up to 1\1/2\ to 4 billion gallons of gasoline annually. 
That's more than 11 million gallons of gasoline per day due to public 
transit.
  Ridership across America is way up. 2007 was the highest ridership in 
public transportation in 50 years. Light rail riders are way up in 
Denver, Seattle, Portland, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Francisco, 
Charlotte, and in many other communities. And my colleague from Miami 
will be pleased to hear that South Florida posted a 20 percent increase 
over last year in ridership in March and April. Transit agencies are 
also using more alternative fuels and clean energy technologies that 
improve the air we breathe and that aid America's energy independence.
  Our transit bill on the floor today and under this rule will lower 
fares and will expand routes and frequency so public transit is an even 
more attractive alternative during this time of high gas prices.
  So I urge my colleagues to continue to stand up to the White House, 
to support this rule and our first bill today, the Saving Energy 
Through Public Transportation Act.
  Madam Speaker, our second bill today under this rule is entitled 
``Use It or Lose It.'' In the bill, we are calling the bluff of the 
White House, of Big Oil, and of other prominent Republicans who claim 
that oil companies are being blocked from drilling for oil and gas and 
that that is somehow related to gas prices. Well, after the White House 
announced that policy last week, one commentator called it a massive 
fraudulent and pathetic excuse for an energy policy.
  You see, 68 million acres are already leased and have the potential 
to produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 4.7 billion 
cubic feet of natural gas each day. Now, if 68 million acres are 
already open to drilling, please do not insult the intelligence of the 
American people by claiming that the oil companies need more.
  The truth about America's energy policy and the White House policy is 
that Big Oil has stockpiled supplies and has pocketed profits. A report 
has been generated by the Committee on Natural Resources, entitled 
``The Truth About America's Energy: Big Oil Stockpiles Supplies and 
Pockets Profits'' of June 2008. If American families and businesses are 
interested, they can obtain this report on the Internet at 
resourcescommittee.house.gov.
  The chairman of the Natural Resources Committee is Nick Rahall of 
West Virginia. It's his bill. The bill forces oil and gas companies to 
either produce, to use it or to release the leases, to lose them, the 
leases they've been stockpiling. These companies can't obtain new ones 
unless they can demonstrate that they are diligently using the ones 
that they already have.
  Now, what was particularly interesting, Madam Speaker, is that, last 
year, the administration's own energy department, the Energy 
Information Administration, issued a report that determined that 
opening more areas would not have a significant impact on gas prices. 
The 2007 report of the administration's Energy Information 
Administration, titled ``Annual Energy Outlook 2007, with Projections 
to 2030'' can be found at www.eia.doe.gov/oaif/aeo/.
  In fact, Madam Speaker, just yesterday, the director of the EIA 
reconfirmed the 2007 report and noted that

[[Page 13889]]

expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. will not affect oil and natural 
gas prices very much at all.
  I would like to submit yesterday's reconfirmation by the EIA director 
of the 2007 report.

                  [From Bloomberg.com, June 25, 2008]

          Offshore Drilling Won't Affect Prices Much, EIA Says

                            (By Tina Seeley)

       Expanded offshore drilling in the U.S. won't affect oil and 
     natural-gas prices much, the head of the Energy Information 
     Administration said.
       Guy Caruso, speaking today at a press conference in 
     Washington, said his agency had considered the effect of more 
     drilling in a 2007 report. Higher energy prices this year 
     might change the results, although the time needed for 
     resource development would damp any outcome, he said.
       ``It does take a long time to develop those resources,'' 
     Caruso said. ``Therefore the price impact is muted by that.''
       President George W. Bush last week proposed expanded 
     drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf and development of 
     energy sources in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as 
     a response to record prices. Crude-oil futures hit a record 
     $139.89 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange on June 
     16.
       Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican 
     presidential nominee, has expressed support for more 
     drilling. His potential Democratic opponent, Senator Barack 
     Obama of Illinois, opposes more drilling.
       ``The projections in the OCS access case indicate that 
     access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions 
     would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and 
     natural gas production or prices before 2030,'' the agency 
     said in its 2007 report.
       The Energy Information Administration is the statistical 
     arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

  Madam Speaker, this sounds all too familiar: the Bush administration 
ignoring information generated by its own agencies. They've been 
downplaying, ignoring climate change, possibly intelligence, and now it 
comes as no surprise that they're playing games on energy policy as 
well. Thanks to the administration's years of inaction and 
incompetence, America is left with record prices for consumers and with 
record profits for oil companies with disastrous national security 
consequences.
  Now, the third bill we will consider today as part of our energy 
package is a direction to the administration, encouragement, as we 
continue to stand up to the misguided policies of this White House.
  Our third bill today encourages the White House to take more 
aggressive action in regulating the energy futures market. This is our 
first step in tackling the outrageous speculation that is occurring 
that many experts have noted could help reduce the price of gas at the 
pump.
  This is our package today. We look forward to the debate.
  At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would like to thank my friend 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) for the time, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  With gas prices averaging over $4 a gallon, more and more Americans 
are using public transportation for their commuting needs. Reports from 
Metropolitan transit systems throughout the country are showing a 
significant increase in ridership, in some cases as much as 15 
percent--and perhaps even higher--over last year's figures. At the same 
time, highway vehicle miles traveled declined by 2 percent.

                              {time}  1045

  Meeting this increased demand for public transportation is causing a 
burden on local transit agencies which, just like commuters, must pay 
record fuel prices to pay for buses and subway trains and light rail.
  To help meet this increased demand for public transportation, the 
underlying legislation, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation 
Act, would provide $1.7 billion in funding to increase public 
transportation use across the United States. Transit agencies would be 
able to use those funds to reduce transit fares or expand transit 
services.
  I think this funding is important for communities throughout the 
country, certainly the community I'm honored to represent. Recently, 
Miami-Dade County, the 12th largest public transit agency in the 
country, announced that bus routes would be cut and others adjusted due 
to the rising cost of fuel. So this at a time when more and more 
commuters are looking to use public transportation, but public 
transportation systems are definitely being affected by the rise in 
energy costs. So it is my hope that the $36 million this legislation 
would provide South Florida would help reestablish some of the routes 
that were cut and would expand others so that commuters would have a 
more reliable public transportation system.
  To further promote the use of public transportation, the legislation 
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and 
requires all Federal agencies to offer transit passes to Federal 
employees working in urbanized areas with fixed route transit systems.
  To help alleviate the reliance on gasoline to power our transit 
systems, the bill will increase the Federal share for clean and 
alternative fuel transit projects. This will also have the beneficial 
effect of reducing transportation-related emissions.
  I would like to congratulate Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member 
Mica for working together to draft a bipartisan bill that both sides of 
the aisle can support. This legislation, the underlying legislation, 
will be a great benefit to transit systems throughout the country at a 
time when they are needing additional funding.
  Madam Speaker, once again, the bipartisan spirit of the bill, the 
underlying legislation, never made it past the doors of the Rules 
Committee. Yesterday, the majority in the Rules Committee only allowed 
one minority amendment to be debated today, while allowing three 
amendments from the majority.
  Before the new majority took control of the House in January of 2007, 
they published a document called ``A New Direction for America,'' which 
set out their promises to the American people. Page 24 of that document 
says, ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that 
allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment 
process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternative, 
including a substitute.''
  Yet here we are today with a process that, contrary to their promise 
to the American people, blocks a full and fair debate and allows only 
one minority amendment. Actually, this one minority amendment is the 
only one the majority has allowed the minority to offer all week. Four 
bills, one amendment.
  Actually, it is more like six bills, one amendment, because this rule 
will allow the House to debate two additional bills under suspension of 
the rules, one against speculation in the oil market, and we have to 
speculate on what it says because we haven't seen it. And the 
majority's bringing those bills to floor without allowing the minority 
to offer any amendments or a motion to recommit.
  So, at a time when gas prices are hitting almost daily records, the 
majority should be offering a ``full and fair debate'' on this critical 
issue, a debate that considers ideas from both sides of the aisle, of 
all Members of this House, to help reduce gasoline prices.
  Polls across the country are consistent with a recent poll that I saw 
that said 71 percent want their elected leaders in Washington to focus 
on ``increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering 
the cost of gasoline and electricity.'' But instead, the majority is 
offering no-new-energy legislation, obstructing debate, and impeding 
solutions to the energy crisis, contrary to what the American people 
wish.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule, which 
continues to block the minority from offering more than one amendment 
and blocks a thorough debate on the critical energy situation facing 
the Nation.
  At this time, I reserve.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, at this time, I'm very happy to yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's 
courtesy in permitting me to speak on this

[[Page 13890]]

rule as I rise in support of this integral part of a comprehensive 
approach that has been offered by the majority party to deal with the 
energy challenges we face today.
  It is important that we think of this in a comprehensive fashion 
because there isn't one silver bullet that's going to solve America's 
energy challenges, especially when it has taken years to paint us into 
this corner.
  It should be made clear that, first and foremost, this is not just 
more about increasing supply, not just more drilling. Some of my 
Republican friends are talking about draining America dry and turning 
the rest of our energy future over to large oil companies who already, 
as the gentlewoman from Florida points out, control 68 million acres of 
land that is available for exploitation. Just ExxonMobil alone had $40 
billion of profit. Were they spending it on existing leases to increase 
supply? They spent $36 billion buying back their stock and found, what 
was it, $10 million to invest in alternative energy. Significant irony 
here, I think.
  One of the items that we've been involved with in the last 18 months 
is to work to give Americans more choices for their energy, to beef up 
opportunities for wind, solar, and tidal, in addition to those 68 
million acres already available.
  We're working on new technology. Three times the House has passed 
legislation, I'm pleased to say, that has included my provision to 
close the Hummer loophole that actually subsidizes the purchase of the 
largest, most energy inefficient, expensive vehicles like the Hummer 
and, instead, would spend that money to encourage alternatives like 
hybrid technology.
  We need to be serious about not wasting more oil than any country in 
the world. You know, it's ironic, after the Democrats seized control of 
Congress we had to fight with this administration and our friends on 
the other side of the aisle to just increase fuel efficiency standards 
to 35 miles a gallon, that basically remained unchanged for 35 years. 
Our Republican friends, when they were in control, actually made it 
illegal to even study increasing fuel efficiency standards. It is 
stunning when we think today of the price Americans are paying at $4 a 
gallon that they refused to allow us to even study making cars more 
gasoline efficient.
  Well, we broke through that. The irony is now George Bush is claiming 
credit for something that he resisted, but even if we give George Bush 
credit for what we forced him to do, it took George Bush longer to get 
to 35 miles to a gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to 
the moon.
  We hear about now, all of the sudden, they're flip-flopping and 
interested in more offshore drilling. This is interesting. George Bush, 
the first, put in place an executive order that prohibited it. George 
Bush, the second, reaffirmed it at the insistence of his brother, Jeb 
Bush, as my friend from Florida well knows. The President could now 
overturn that executive order if he wished. The Governor of Florida, 
since Florida controls the first three miles of State land, could start 
drilling 3 miles off the Florida coast if they were really excited 
about doing it.
  Well, it's important that we've got this legislation today about 
using or losing oil leases. I strongly support the part of the puzzle 
that deals with conservation, because with less than 3 percent of the 
world's oil reserves we'll never be able to drill our way out of this. 
The irony is that even if we started drilling more today, every expert, 
every expert agrees that it will take 7 to 10 years for any of this oil 
to trickle into the system.
  In this legislation, we are putting more resources to help mass 
transit, putting more resources to give consumers choices.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is part of a comprehensive approach. Democrats 
have been working since we returned to power to increase fuel 
efficiency and with other alternatives for energy.
  I welcome a broad, far-ranging debate about what Republicans did when 
they were in control for a dozen years in the House, especially the 6 
years of the Bush administration, they were in complete control, their 
energy bill of 2005 when they were running the show, in contrast with 
what we've already been able to accomplish with just the last 18 months 
and what we propose to do in the future.
  Support the rule. Support the underlying bill. I look forward to that 
debate.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my good friend from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. I thank the gentleman from Florida.


                Congratulating the Fresno State Bulldogs

  I'd like to rise in opposition to this rule, but before I do that, 
I'd like to take just a moment to recognize the accomplishments of the 
Diamond Dogs of Fresno State. The Central Valley's own Fresno State 
Bulldogs entered the College World Series and left as world champions.
  The Bulldogs, who barreled into the College World Series with nothing 
more than the burden of proof on their side, showed not only that they 
belonged in the series but that they were nothing less than the best 
team in the Nation.
  The Fresno State Bulldogs have triumphed in the face of adversity and 
have achieved the greatest victory in College World Series history. 
Their achievement has spoken louder than words and will become a 
testament to all those who seek to be better, to reach further, and to 
soar higher than ever before.
  I share this, not only because of the great sense of pride I feel 
from the Fresno State Bulldogs' outstanding accomplishment, but because 
I believe their story is truly an inspiration for all. Our Fresno State 
Bulldogs' story is not one of miracles. It is a testimony of the 
strength of the human spirit. It is a force that can overcome any 
obstacle, even when faced with seemingly insurmountable odds.
  Congratulations to the Fresno State Bulldogs.
  Now, Madam Speaker, I was sitting here, waiting to congratulate the 
Fresno State Bulldogs, and unfortunately, we ran out of time on that. 
But I had the opportunity to be able to listen to the other side of the 
aisle's arguments, and I can't help but think back to 2006, because 
there's a lot of hot air here in Washington, as we know, but in 2006 
the Democrats said, if you put us in power, we're going to get our 
troops out of Iraq, we're going to surrender in Iraq, and we're going 
to just turn it over to the terrorists in Iraq.
  Two years later, we're still in Iraq, Madam Speaker, because the 
Republicans stood up to the Democrat majority and said we're going to 
try to win and achieve victory in Iraq. We're still trying to do that, 
and it's very difficult.
  The other thing that the Democrats also promised in 2006 is that they 
had a real plan to lower gas prices. Well, in 2 years, we have managed 
to double the price of gasoline, and in California, we're getting close 
to paying $5 a gallon. So I'm assuming that today's rule is the 
unveiling of this plan to lower gas prices.
  However, the plan that you have before us and all that we continue to 
hear is that we blame the Texas oil men in the White House. Give me a 
break. You must have better legislation than that today. If this is 
your plan, to blame the White House, to blame oil speculators, to blame 
oil companies, American oil companies don't control the world's oil 
supply. The world's oil supply is controlled by foreign governments 
that, for the most part, are hostile towards us.

                              {time}  1100

  So if you have a plan to deal with these foreign governments, 
hopefully, we can see it today. If you have a plan that's going to 
somehow miraculously lower oil prices, maybe we're going to see that 
today because, right now, your plan is not working real well.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.

[[Page 13891]]

  The time of the gentleman from California has expired.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the gentleman 2 
additional minutes.
  Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, today, the price of gas is $5 a gallon, and 
we would like to see the plan today, Madam Speaker. I hope that this 
rule will unveil this plan, but unfortunately, the legislation that's 
before us today is a scam. It's a complete and total scam.
  The longer that we continue to blame the White House, the longer that 
we continue to blame the oil companies, the longer that we continue to 
blame everyone else but ourselves--we ourselves are to blame; we should 
look in the mirror. This Congress should take dramatic steps to open up 
supply that would bridge ourselves to the next generation of energy, 
Madam Speaker. That's what we should be doing here today.
  The American people aren't going to buy these arguments, but they are 
going to continue to be buying $5 gas until we decide, as a Congress, 
to do something about it.
  With that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me the time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland, a leader on the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Cummings.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  I just want to take a moment to make it clear that I support H. Res. 
1304. It provides for a structured rule, and I fully support the rule.
  As I was sitting here, I had to change my remarks in my head because, 
as I was listening to Mr. Nunes, I could not help but think about the 
people in my district of Baltimore, only 40 miles away from here, who 
aren't worried about whose fault it is. What they are concerned about 
are solutions to their problems so they can get back and forth to work, 
so that they can go shopping, so that they can do the things that they 
would normally do. I think that this rule and then this bill are a 
major step in the right direction in trying to help them.
  In a sense, I kind of agree with Mr. Nunes. I'm not anxious to do a 
lot of blaming because the people I represent get tired of watching C-
SPAN; they get tired of the back and forth, and they simply want the 
Congress to come together to find solutions to their problems.
  Yes, it is true that gas prices have risen to more than $4 per 
gallon. The Joint Economic Committee, on which I also serve, has 
reported that households can expect to spend as much as 25 percent more 
on gasoline this year than last year. This is a tremendous burden for 
the many households that I represent, and they simply cannot bear it. 
If, as I fear, these prices represent a new paradigm, we, as a nation, 
must urgently assess how we can adjust to ensure our economy can 
continue to grow while we conserve energy.
  I believe that one of the best adjustments we can make is to support 
the increased use of public transit, which already saves the United 
States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of gasoline per year. 
Unfortunately, in many areas, such as my hometown of Baltimore where 
public transportation already provides more than 93 million annual 
trips, transit agencies face budget constraints that are limiting their 
ability to grow to meet the new demand.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, the Federal 
contribution to public transit services totals less than 20 percent of 
all revenue accruing to these services. Local governments contribute 
nearly half of the revenue needed to provide public transit, but these 
governments are facing funding constraints.
  H.R. 6052 would provide an additional $1.7 billion in Federal funding 
for public transportation in fiscal years 2008 and 2009, funding that 
is essential to ensure that we can keep our Nation moving while 
conserving fuel.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill that 
increases Federal investments in public transit.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. It is my privilege to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished lady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).
  Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, today, the national average for a gallon 
of gas has reached $4.07. With your average vehicle tank holding 18 
gallons, that translates to $75 to fill your tank. This is on top of 
skyrocketing food costs and, now, increases in both our natural gas and 
electricity bills at home.
  Many American families simply cannot afford these prices. Yet we 
stand on this floor without allowing debate on a comprehensive solution 
for the American people. This country is tired of partisan maneuvering 
and is tired of Congress just saying ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, Americans are downright mad. Some may argue that high 
gas prices are an incentive to make Americans drive less or that high 
energy costs are an incentive for businesses and homeowners to utilize 
more green practices. High energy and gas prices also cause businesses 
and jobs to move offshore where natural gas is cheaper.
  I firmly believe in investing in technology that will move us away 
from our Nation's dependence on petroleum, but during this transitional 
period, we must also increase our domestic supply and fuel our economy. 
No one can deny that energy is something that we all use and need. 
Americans expect this Congress to do everything within our power to 
address these high gas and energy prices.
  Madam Speaker, we should not leave here for the Fourth of July recess 
without increasing our own natural resources. Bring relief to the 
American people. Keep our Nation competitive and open for business.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the 
gentleman from Vermont, a member of the powerful Rules Committee, Mr. 
Welch.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. I thank my colleague from Florida, and I admire 
her leadership on energy issues, among many other issues.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to speak about two things. One is an 
amendment that I offered to this bill that's been incorporated into the 
manager's amendment.
  This bill recognizes that one of the steps that we have to take, long 
overdue, is to build up our public transportation system. It's going to 
provide relief to commuters; it's going to help our environment; it's 
going to create jobs.
  The amendment that I offered and that Mr. Oberstar incorporated into 
the manager's amendment would allow funds to be used by local 
transportation authorities, like the Chittenden County Transportation 
Authority, to retrofit their equipment and facilities in order to 
improve energy efficiency and to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Those 
would be specific purposes for which authorized funds may be used.
  Specifically, it means that an organization like the Chittenden 
County Transit Authority in the Burlington area could retrofit their 
buses and be more fuel efficient. They've been trying to do that. A 
shortage of funds has kept them from achieving all of their goals. It 
would also allow the transportation authority in that State and in 
other States to build a natural gas pump station locally. This, we 
believe, is a very important part of the legislation presented to you.
  Second, we're having, in the process of this debate, an ongoing 
discussion about energy. The fact is--and I think we all know this--in 
the past when we've had crises around energy, it has never produced a 
lasting and durable response. There has been an immediate response but 
nothing lasting, whether it was after the OPEC organization in the 
early '70s, after the Gulf war or after Katrina. Usually, a crisis does 
produce a response. It hasn't. We know the time has passed as to when 
we can look the other way.
  What accounts for the high cost of energy? The reality is there are a 
number of factors. The weak dollar is one, because of our current 
account deficit. Speculation is another. There has been a massive 
increase in speculation in the commodities markets in general, in

[[Page 13892]]

oil in particular, where it's gone from folks who are delivering the 
product or who are receiving the product, to financial speculators who 
see that there is money in playing that game.
  There has also been an increased demand with globalization. China and 
India are building their economies. They're using more energy. But 
there has also been a significant failure of leadership to move us away 
from an oil-dependent economy. The reality is, what we need to be doing 
here in Congress is addressing both the short-term steps that we can 
take as well as the long-term need for a new energy policy.
  So what are the specific things that we can do in the short term? 
One, we can stop filling up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
diminish demand. We've done that. That will have a positive impact in 
reducing demand. Second, we can limit speculation. We should be putting 
limits on how much the speculative players can influence price, not 
only because there is significant expert testimony that that is adding 
a premium to the cost of a gallon of gas or to a gallon of home heating 
fuel, but that it also is creating a potential bubble where innocent 
participants and pension funds may see the value of their assets 
suddenly diminish when the market goes south. So we will be considering 
later anti-speculation legislation that will be helpful as well.
  Third, the ``Use It or Lose It'' legislation. Our friends on the 
other side have been making a big argument about the need to increase 
production. You know, there is not any disagreement here that part of 
our transition from an oil-based economy to a carbon-free economy has 
to include the continued production and use of carbon-based fuels, 
including oil. No question about it. The issue here is whether or not 
we need to increase lands that are available when we have 68 million 
acres already under lease, permitted, where all the oil companies need 
to do in order to produce more oil is to put metal to the Earth. This 
is 68 million acres, Madam Speaker, as you know, that is both onshore 
and offshore.
  So the argument is that we need to be opening up a national park and 
starting to drill there or into other coastal areas when we have 68 
million acres already available, but for reasons that only the oil 
companies--the leaseholders--are aware, those are not producing needed 
oil and natural gas for our citizens. It's estimated that the amount of 
oil that's available under those 68 million acres is 4.8 million 
barrels.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CASTOR. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. So what we need to do that also is a long-term 
energy policy is to increase mileage standards and take away the tax 
breaks that are going to the oil companies and steer them to 
alternative agency. Incidentally, ExxonMobil, which made $40 billion 
this year, spent $32 billion buying its stock back rather than 
producing oil on these leaseholds.
  We also have to have a new energy policy so we can keep our money at 
home. We're sending $1 trillion to the oil-producing states like 
Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, not particularly our friends. If we 
keep that money at home, we're going to strengthen our economy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes 
to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  Mr. LUCAS. Madam Speaker, due to higher fuel costs, the two largest 
utility companies in Oklahoma recently announced a monthly rate 
increase of $16 on average, with more increases expected this fall. 
This is just the latest example of how the pain at the pump is 
spreading to the other necessities of life. This added expense for fuel 
in business is being passed along to consumers, who are now being hit 
with a double dose of soaring prices.
  However, when given the opportunity to pass meaningful energy 
legislation, this majority has chosen to introduce the ``Bus Fares for 
Bureaucrats'' bill, which will spend $1.7 billion in tax revenues to 
reduce fares in public transportation systems. While I'm sure this will 
benefit the bureaucrats in D.C. who write these laws, I'm more 
concerned about the farmers in western Oklahoma, where there is no 
public transportation system to speak of.
  As of today, my constituents are paying upwards of $4 a gallon for 
gasoline to fill their cars and $4.66 a gallon for diesel to fill their 
tractors and trucks. Are we to tell them that they not only have to pay 
higher prices for gas and electricity but that now they have to 
subsidize people in big cities with the luxury of access to public 
transportation?
  As long as demand continues to rise, the price for oil will continue 
to climb without increasing supply. The answer to this problem is 
clear: We must increase our domestic supply of oil by allowing the 
exploration of new oil reserves and by increasing the capacity of our 
refineries.
  A recent Los Angeles Times Bloomberg poll stated that 68 percent of 
registered voters support opening up more land for oil and gas 
drilling, including off the Nation's coast. It's time for this majority 
to start listening to the demands of the American people and to open up 
more land for oil exploration.
  It's also necessary to encourage the development of alternative 
energy, such as wind or nuclear power. Oklahoma is currently the number 
nine generator of wind power in this country, producing 689 megawatts 
per year. There are other States that have the potential to produce 
more wind power than that but that choose not to install wind turbines 
because they consider them unsightly.
  However, I guarantee you that any Oklahoma wheat farmer who earns 
money from both his crops and the wind turbines on his land will tell 
you his wind turbines are beautiful.

                              {time}  1115

  Right now, America produces 20 percent of its energy needs from 
nuclear power while France produces 78 percent, 78 percent. That's 78 
percent less energy they need to import from other countries. So, not 
only are they able to produce more than three-quarters of their 
electricity needs in France, they are able to do so in a clean, 
efficient manner with minimal harmful emissions.
  This leads me to my most important point. If electricity that lights 
your house or the gas that powers your car is produced in America, new 
jobs are created, and we are becoming less dependent on foreign oil. 
It's time for America to get back in the business of energy production. 
I urge my colleagues to sign the discharge petition on H.R. 5656, ``To 
Repeal the Ban on Acquiring Alternative Fuels Act,'' so we can bring 
this essential piece of legislation to the House floor for a vote. The 
rising cost of gasoline is the single biggest challenge we face in this 
country, as every American who has been to the pump in the last few 
months knows, and it's time for Congress to rise to the challenge to 
come up with real solutions.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes 
to my friend from Tennessee (Mr. David Davis).
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Thank you for yielding time.
  It's interesting that we stand here and talk about public 
transportation. I represent northeast Tennessee, a rural area, and I 
tell you the people who live in northeast Tennessee don't have access 
to public transportation.
  People in rural America are hurting. Young families are hurting. 
Senior adults are hurting. Small businesses are hurting. Sheriffs' 
departments and police departments are hurting.
  Let me tell you about two groups. The first is Vern Long. Vern lives 
in Jefferson County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday when I was 
back home in the district. Vern is an Iraqi war veteran. He has a wife 
and a child. He lives in Jefferson County and drives to Knoxville, 
Tennessee to work every day. He makes $8 an hour. He's an apprentice 
electrician. He wants to go on to be an electrician. He has to drive 
into Knoxville, and it costs him $90 a week, $90 a week to fill up his

[[Page 13893]]

tank. He told me, ``Congressman, if the Congress doesn't pass an energy 
bill to bring these gas prices down, I may have to go on welfare and 
quit my job. And I want to protect my family. I want to be there to 
protect my future.''
  Let me tell you about Sheriff Steve Burns. Sheriff Burns is from 
Greene County, Tennessee. I met with him last Saturday. He told me he 
put his budget together for Greene County this past February and March. 
He said, if it passes in the county commission as he presented it, he 
will be $50,000 in the hole because of high gas prices.
  Public transportation bills to send bureaucrats to work in Washington 
will not help rural America. America is hurting. We need an energy 
policy. We don't need more excuses, and we don't need more bills that 
make it sound good and look like we're trying to do something here. We 
need an energy that actually uses American oil, natural gas, coal-to-
liquid technology, clean coal technology. We need to use nuclear power. 
Yes, we need green energy. We need all of the above. The American 
people are demanding action, real action, not excuses from Washington.
  Please, I beg the majority. Let's take this burden of high gas prices 
off of people like Vern Long and off of sheriffs' departments like 
Sheriff Steve Burns'. Let's pass some real energy legislation. No more 
excuses.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that, under the 
underlying bill, we provide extensive assistance to rural America. It 
is clear that folks in rural America oftentimes bear the brunt of high 
gas prices brought on by this unfortunate Bush economy and by the 
failure of leadership over the past 6 to 8 years. The underlying bill 
provides over $100 million for rural America to expand the alternative 
use through public transportation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  I thank again my distinguished friend for having yielded me the time 
this morning, and I thank all of those who have come to debate on this 
important legislation.
  Madam Speaker, the problem is, when the process by which legislation 
is brought to the floor is unfair, especially when the issue being 
dealt with by the legislation is as important as is the issue today, 
many Members' ideas are shut out, oftentimes ideas on which they have 
worked for months or years, and in this instance, they are ideas and 
proposals to bring down the cost of energy and the cost of gasoline. 
That's why process, something that may sound often theoretical, can 
have a significant impact on policy. In this instance, an unfair 
process is denying Members the opportunity to bring concrete ideas to 
the floor, for debate, to lower the price of energy. That's one of the 
reasons we are so disturbed, why we think it's so unfortunate that the 
process on an issue as important as this that the majority has chosen 
to utilize to bring this legislation to the floor is so unfair.
  On almost a daily basis, Madam Speaker, the cost of gasoline is 
breaking new records. Americans are now paying over $4 a gallon for 
gasoline. Yet the majority fails to bring legislation to the floor that 
will actually lower gas prices or decrease our dependence on foreign 
sources of energy.
  We believe it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering 
prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing cost of 
gasoline. So, today, I urge my colleagues to vote with me to defeat the 
previous question so this House can finally consider real solutions to 
rising energy costs. 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 alternatives fuels, introduced by 
Mr. Hensarling of Texas. 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.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, by voting ``no'' 
on the previous question, Members can take a stand against high fuel 
prices and in favor of debating legislation to actually deal with that 
crisis. I encourage a ``no'' vote on this previous question.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The reformers in this Congress are working for solutions and are 
casting aside the politics of the past, and for the first time in a 
decade, they are setting the right priorities for American families. 
See, American families are caught in this very unfortunate Bush economy 
that is squeezing them, whether it's health care, the rising cost of 
housing, and, of course, gas prices.
  This New Direction Congress, led by Democrats, is on the side of 
middle class families, and we are responding to their call for change 
in the direction of this country. But, Madam Speaker, it has not been 
easy. It has not been easy in these final years of the Bush 
administration. A number of times we have stood up to the 
administration to repeal the massive subsidies to the big oil companies 
and instead take that money and invest it in new renewable energies and 
biofuel technologies because one of the most promising ways to end our 
dependence on foreign oil is in the creation of renewable energy 
sources. But we were blocked by the White House and Big Oil.
  But we are not going to give up. If we had given up, the reformers in 
this Congress would not have been able to push through the first 
increase in fuel economy standards in over 30 years. The increase of 35 
miles per gallon for each automobile will save American families $700 
to $1,000 at the pump when fully implemented.
  American families are clamoring for a bold, new direction in energy 
policy. It is vital to their family budgets, and we know now, as, 
unfortunately, the leaders of the country have had to traipse over to 
Saudi Arabia and ask for more oil, that this is vital to our national 
security. So the contrast between the policies of the past and our 
forward-looking efforts could not be more clear.
  But, Madam Speaker, it is so easy to be frustrated by the misguided 
policies of this administration over the past 8 years and by their 
political gimmicks where they pretend that drilling for oil in new 
areas is the answer to high gas prices when their very own Energy 
Department dismisses the idea as untrue. After all, there are 68 
million acres already open and currently leased to oil and gas 
companies. So why here at the end of this administration would we give 
Big Oil even more?
  Madam Speaker, American families are counting on us. So I ask my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to back up your rhetoric with 
support for our bipartisan bills today, to provide American families 
with greater opportunities to use public transit by lowering fares and 
by increasing the frequency of buses and trains in their neighborhoods. 
Reject the oil drilling gimmick for what it is, and urge this President 
to address the oil speculators that are causing a run-up in high gas 
prices. My colleagues, stand up to the powerful interests, and end the 
practice of using energy policy as a way to support Big Oil. Instead, 
help our families; help our communities; enable researchers and 
innovators to lead us to a cleaner, safer, and more affordable future.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the rule and of the 
underlying legislation. Chart a new direction for America on energy. I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

[[Page 13894]]



Amendment to H. Res. 1304 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. 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 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.

  Ms. CASTOR. Madam 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, on that I demand 
the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules with regard to H. Res. 1291.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 198, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               YEAS--228

     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
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     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
     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
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     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)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--198

     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
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     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
     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
     Lampson
     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)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg

[[Page 13895]]


     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--8

     Burgess
     Cannon
     Davis, Lincoln
     Forbes
     McDermott
     Rush
     Space
     Stupak

                              {time}  1152

  Messrs. ADERHOLT, BONNER and DONNELLY 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam 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 230, 
nays 196, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               YEAS--230

     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
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     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
     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
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     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
     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)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--196

     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)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     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
     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
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     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--8

     Cannon
     Forbes
     McDermott
     Price (GA)
     Rangel
     Rush
     Space
     Taylor


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1202

  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.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 462 and 463, I was 
unavoidably detained on legislative business away from the Capitol. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

                          ____________________




EXPRESSING GRATITUDE FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE AMERICAN GI FORUM ON 
                          ITS 60TH ANNIVERSARY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1291, 
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1291.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421, 
nays 0, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               YEAS--421

     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
     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

[[Page 13896]]


     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     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
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     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
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     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
     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 (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     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)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boucher
     Cannon
     Cramer
     Forbes
     Frelinghuysen
     Gutierrez
     Murtha
     Price (GA)
     Rush
     Solis
     Space
     Taylor
     Velazquez

                              {time}  1208

  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate has passed without amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title:

       H.R. 6327. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




 CONTINUING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WITH RESPECT TO NORTH KOREA AND NORTH 
 KOREAN NATIONALS--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. 
                           DOC. NO. 110-128)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross) laid before the House the 
following message from the President of the United States; which was 
read and, together with the accompanying papers, without objection, 
referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:

To the Congress of the United States:
  Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as 
amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have 
issued an Executive Order continuing certain restrictions on North 
Korea and North Korean nationals imposed pursuant to the exercise of 
authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et 
seq.) (TWEA). In the order, I declared a national emergency to deal 
with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and 
foreign policy of the United States posed by the current existence and 
risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the 
Korean Peninsula. I ordered the continuation of certain restrictions on 
North Korea and North Korean nationals as we deal with that threat 
through multilateral diplomacy.
  These restrictions were first imposed pursuant to authorities found 
in section 5(b) of TWEA, following the declaration of a national 
emergency in 1950 in Proclamation 2914 (15 FR 9029), and continued 
annually, after the enactment of IEEPA in 1977, in accordance with 
section 101(b) of Public Law 95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) 
note). The most recent continuation of such TWEA authorities is found 
in Presidential Determination 2007-32 of September 13, 2007. In a 
proclamation, which I signed the same day as the order, I terminated, 
effective the following day, the exercise of TWEA authorities with 
respect to North Korea.
  The order I have issued continues the blocking of certain property 
and interests in property of North Korea or a North Korean national 
that were blocked as of June 16, 2000, and that remained blocked 
immediately prior to the date of my order. Absent this order, my 
proclamation terminating the exercise of TWEA authorities with respect 
to North Korea would have resulted in the unblocking of that property.
  The order also continues restrictions relating to North Korea-flagged 
vessels that would otherwise have been terminated by my proclamation. 
These restrictions prohibit United States persons from owning, leasing, 
operating, or insuring any vessel flagged by North Korea and from 
registering vessels in North Korea or otherwise obtaining authorization 
for a vessel to fly the North Korean flag. For the reasons set forth 
above, I found that it was necessary to continue these restrictions.
  I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with 
the Secretary of State, the authority to take such actions, including 
the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers 
granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the 
purposes of my order.
  I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order and proclamation I have 
issued.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
The White House, June 26, 2008.

                          ____________________




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 6264

  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respectfully request 
unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 6264.

[[Page 13897]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Kansas?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




                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 today.

                          ____________________




                  ENERGY MARKETS EMERGENCY ACT OF 2008

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules 
and pass the bill (H.R. 6377) to direct the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission to utilize all its authority, including its emergency 
powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive speculation in any 
contract market within the jurisdiction and control of the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission, on or through which energy futures or swaps 
are traded, and to eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, 
sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, 
or other unlawful activity that is causing major market disturbances 
that prevent the market from accurately reflecting the forces of supply 
and demand for energy commodities.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6377

       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 ``Energy Markets Emergency Act 
     of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. ENERGY MARKETS.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission was created as 
     an independent agency, in 1974, with the mandate to enforce 
     and administer the Commodity Exchange Act, to ensure market 
     integrity, to protect market users from fraud and abusive 
     trading practices, and to prevent and prosecute manipulation 
     of the price of any commodity in interstate commerce.
       (2) Congress has given the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission authority under the Commodity Exchange Act to take 
     necessary actions to address market emergencies.
       (3) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission may use its 
     emergency authority with respect to any major market 
     disturbance which prevents the market from accurately 
     reflecting the forces of supply and demand for a commodity.
       (4) Congress has declared, in section 4a of the Commodity 
     Exchange Act, that excessive speculation imposes an undue and 
     unnecessary burden on interstate commerce.
       (5) On June 6, 2008, the price of crude oil traded on the 
     New York Mercantile Exchange hit an all-time record of 
     $139.12 per barrel.
       (6) The average price of a barrel of crude oil in 2007 was 
     $72, and the average price of a barrel of crude oil to date 
     in 2008 is $109.
       (7) Heating oil futures contracts have risen in price from 
     $2.97 to $3.81 during the March through May contract months.
       (8) United States airlines are forecast to spend 
     $61,200,000,000 on jet fuel in 2008, which is $20,000,000,000 
     more than they spent for jet fuel in 2007.
       (9) According to the American Automobile Association--
       (A) families and businesses are paying an average of $4.07 
     per gallon for regular gasoline, which is near the all-time 
     high and is more than double the price in 2001; and
       (B) truckers and farmers are paying an average of $4.77 per 
     gallon for diesel fuel, which is near the all-time high and 
     triple the price in 2001.
       (10) During this decade, energy demand has been steadily on 
     the rise in nations such as China and other Asian exporting 
     nations.
       (11) In a May 2008 report, the International Monetary Fund 
     raised the possibility that speculation has played a 
     significant role in the run-up of oil prices, and stated ``It 
     is hard to explain current oil prices in terms of 
     fundamentals alone. The recent surge in the oil price seems 
     to go well beyond what would be indicated by the growth of 
     the world economy.''.
       (b) Direction From Congress.--The Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission shall utilize all its authority, including its 
     emergency powers, to--
       (1) curb immediately the role of excessive speculation in 
     any contract market within the jurisdiction and control of 
     the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on or through which 
     energy futures or swaps are traded; and
       (2) eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, 
     sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in 
     prices, or other unlawful activity that is causing major 
     market disturbances that prevent the market from accurately 
     reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy 
     commodities.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6377 directs the CFTC to utilize all of its 
authority, including its emergency powers, to immediately curb the role 
of excessive speculation, if any, in the energy and swaps futures 
market within its jurisdiction, and to eliminate any unlawful activity 
causing major market disturbances that prevent the market from 
accurately reflecting the forces of supply and demand of energy 
commodities.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think I would be covering any new ground in this 
Chamber if I were to speak about high prices of gasoline. Everybody in 
this chamber understands that problem. But, Mr. Speaker, a growing 
number of people believe a flood of speculative money into the energies 
futures is driving the increase in prices. The weak dollar and 
increased worldwide demand has led to a greater number of well 
capitalized investors into the commodities futures market, including 
the crude oil market, as these investors seek greater returns than they 
traditionally found in cash and securities.

                              {time}  1215

  It is undeniable that this group of institutional investors has a 
greater presence in futures markets than ever before.
  So what we are doing here is asking the CFTC to look into this and 
use the powers that they have to look at this situation and determine 
and give us a report which they have done in the past. We are asking 
them to take one more look and make sure that these additional moneys 
that are coming into the futures market are not having any undo effect 
on prices that people are concerned about.
  The CFTC is the chief regulator of the commodities futures and 
options market. It is their responsibility to identify, pursue and 
prosecute fraud in this area. I believe they are doing a good job in 
that regard. Chairman Lukken and his staff have testified repeatedly 
before our committee and others that at this point they can see no 
evidence of speculation causing problems in these markets. But there 
are a lot of folks who are concerned this is going on, and so we are 
asking them to take one more look.
  Under current law, U.S. traders can execute transactions in West 
Texas Intermediate crude oil, which is the benchmark oil contract on 
NYMEX, a CFTC-regulated exchange, and on London's ICE exchange that is 
regulated by the United Kingdom's FSA. The CFTC, however, has 
information on the positions of traders on the NYMEX that they don't 
have on the traders on ICE, and this is part of the issue that has 
caused us to be concerned because we don't have complete information on 
exactly what is going on in all of these markets.
  Mr. Speaker, CFTC right now is taking steps to gain more information. 
They have gone into an agreement with the FSA to expand trader data, 
and that is all good and we welcome these steps, but we believe more 
should be done. CFTC should immediately take these steps to utilize 
their authority to make sure that, as I said before, there is not 
excessive speculation in these markets.
  We on the Agriculture Committee are going to work with the CFTC to 
try to acquire more information, and we will thoroughly examine all of 
the bills in July that have been introduced in this area in a 
methodical way, we will listen to all sides, and we are going to try to 
move ahead with a consensus bill if

[[Page 13898]]

we can come to a consensus about what, if anything, should be done to 
move on this situation.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to, we hope, provide a reasonable and 
useful voice to come to the right conclusion and get the right answers 
about what is going on in the futures market and what is going on with 
oil prices in this country.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. 
Peterson, for his work in this area. We held a hearing on this issue on 
Tuesday of this week. In the farm bill which the Congress just passed 
overwhelmingly several times, we overrode the President's veto, it 
includes legislative language that takes further steps to complete the 
closure of the Enron loophole. In that testimony we received on 
Tuesday, we received assurance that between the language that was in 
the Commodity Futures Modernization Act passed in the aftermath of the 
Enron scandal, and in the language that was included in the farm bill, 
the Enron loophole is now closed.
  I have no reason to oppose this legislation and I therefore will 
support it. It simply tells the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to 
do what it already has the authority to do, and based upon the 
testimony that we received on Tuesday is already doing to ensure that 
there is not excessive speculation in the energy futures markets. I 
have every confidence that they will do so, that they will heed this 
additional voice of support for their doing their jobs. But, quite 
frankly, this legislation does not do what needs to be done by this 
Congress.
  The Democratic leadership in this Congress is continuing a pattern 
that the American people are increasingly concerned about, and that is 
to do everything they can to try to blame everyone but themselves for 
the problem that we face in this country of having years of neglect of 
not having a domestic energy policy dedicated toward increasing the 
supply, increasing the supply of oil, increasing the supply of natural 
gas, increasing the supply of clean-burning coal, increasing the supply 
of nuclear power, increasing the supply of alternative fuels, 
increasing efforts to bring about new technologies. This is the all-of-
the-above approach that this Congress should be taking that our 
conference has taken. In fact, we have worked very hard to see that 
this policy be brought to the floor of the House.
  Yes, I will support this bill telling the CFTC to use its authority 
to curb excessive speculation, but I think it appalling that we aren't 
doing the job that needs to be done. It is being blocked by the party 
that controls the access to the floor of this House.
  H.R. 2279, to expedite the construction of new refining capacity on 
closed military installations in the United States, and for other 
purposes, sponsored by Representative Pitts of Pennsylvania with 55 
cosponsors. From the House Energy and Commerce and Armed Services 
Committees, last major action taken, a motion to discharge petition 
filed by Mr. English, petition 110-9. Why haven't we seen this bill 
brought to the floor of the House?
  H.R. 3089, the No More Excuses Energy Act of 2007 sponsored by 
Representative Thornberry of Texas, 77 cosponsors, referred to the 
Committees on Natural Resources, House Ways and Means, and Energy and 
Commerce. Last major action, June 10, motion to discharge petition 
filed by Mr. Walberg. A motion was filed to discharge the Natural 
Resources, Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees of this 
action. No action taken. Why hasn't that bill been brought to the floor 
of the House?
  We have this week another discharge petition on H.R. 5656 which 
repeals the requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
of alternative fuels, a discharge petition filed this week by 
Representative Hensarling. Why hasn't this legislation been brought to 
the floor of this House?
  There are scores of other bills sponsored by both Republicans and 
Democrats dedicated to relieving this energy crisis that have been 
bottled up by the Democratic majority.
  When, Mr. Speaker, will we get the chance to vote on these very 
worthy bills? When will we get the chance to actually start offering 
relief from the outrageously high gas prices that American consumers 
are facing?
  That's the problem we are confronting. That's the problem that the 
leadership in this Congress is not allowing us to address. That's what 
needs to be done, not telling the CFTC to do the job that they are 
already doing and already have the authority to do, but acting to make 
sure that we are increasing supply of all sources of energy, new 
sources of energy, traditional sources of energy, acting to make sure 
that the incentives are in place for Americans to conserve. My 
goodness, they are already doing that. We are seeing that reflected in 
their activities. This Congress could be helping them out. It is 
failing to do so. And that, Mr. Speaker, is why we are failing the 
American people when the leadership of this Congress does not allow us 
to have these votes.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I am pleased now to yield to the chairman 
of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over this issue and has done 
outstanding work in leading his subcommittee to make sure we are on top 
of this issue, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in support of the Energy Market Emergency Act of 2008.
  I don't have to tell anyone that gas prices have skyrocketed over the 
last several months. We can all remember when we thought $2 a gallon 
gas was high. Now we would like to return to that. Now it is on average 
over $4.
  On June 6, the price of crude oil hit an all-time record of $139 per 
barrel. American families are paying an average of $4.07 for gasoline, 
double the price from 2001 when President Bush took over. Truckers and 
farmers are paying an average of $4.77 per gallon for diesel, triple 
the price from 2001 when the President took office.
  There is clearly not just one factor leading to these outrageous 
prices. However, there is a growing concern that excessive speculation 
by investors could be a significant cause of the prices we are 
experiencing. North Carolina families are struggling to make ends meet, 
as are families all across the country. Congress must act to ensure 
speculators are not artificially raising energy prices for their own 
gain while hardworking Americans are suffering.
  This legislation tells the CFTC, which is responsible for overseeing 
our energy markets, to use all other authority to ensure that excessive 
speculation is not occurring.
  I can't blame them. When the price of crude oil spikes $10, folks 
really believe something is wrong. The House Ag Committee will conduct 
hearings in July to examine all of the various pieces of legislation to 
address this issue, including legislation that I have introduced called 
the Increasing Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008.
  I believe after a careful review we can craft responsible legislation 
that can improve the price discovery function of these commodity 
markets. But no amount of CFTC authority will make a difference if the 
agency doesn't have the resources to do their job.
  Since 2002, trading on the commodity markets has increased six times.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from North 
Carolina has expired.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. While trading has increased six times, under the Bush 
administration, staff levels have fallen to the lowest level in the 33-
year history of the exchange.
  My legislation and others will increase it by 100 people. These are 
investigators. Let me just say for those who are listening, that means 
if you have a speed limit of 55 or 60 miles an hour, we are going to 
put more cops on the beat. That's what we need.

[[Page 13899]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support the Energy Market Emergency Act 
of 2008.
  I don't have to tell anyone here that gas prices have sky rocketed 
over the last several months. I remember a few years ago when two-
dollar-a-gallon gas seemed outrageous. Now the national average is four 
dollars.
  On June 6th, the price of crude oil hit an all time record of $139.12 
per barrel.
  American families are paying an average of $4.07 per gallon for 
regular gasoline, double the price from 2001 when President Bush took 
office.
  Truckers and farmers are paying an average of $4.77 per gallon for 
diesel fuel; triple the price from 2001, again when the President took 
office.
  There is clearly not just one factor leading to these outrageous 
prices. However, there is a growing concern that excessive speculation 
by investors could be a significant cause of the prices we are 
experiencing.
  North Carolina's families are struggling to make ends meet while the 
cost of energy soars. Congress must ensure that investors are not 
artificially raising energy costs for their own gain while hard-working 
Americans are suffering.
  This legislation tells the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, 
which is responsible for overseeing our energy markets, to use all of 
its authority to ensure that excessive speculation is not occurring.
  I serve as chairman of the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities 
and Risk Management, which has jurisdiction over the CFTC, and I'm here 
to tell you that people think something is not right.
  And I cannot blame them. When the price of crude oil spikes $10.00 in 
one day, people think somebody is making some money, and it isn't them.
  The House Agriculture Committee will conduct hearings in July to 
examine all of the various legislative proposals to address this issue, 
including legislation I have introduced, H.R. 6334, the Increasing 
Transparency and Accountability in Oil Prices Act of 2008.
  I believe after a careful review, we can craft responsible 
legislation that can improve the price discovery function of these 
commodity markets.
  No amount of additional CFTC authority will make a difference if the 
agency doesn't have the resources to do their job. Since 2000, trading 
on commodity markets has increased six-fold.
  However, during that time, the Bush administration let staffing 
levels at the CFTC fall to their lowest level in the agency's 33-year 
history.
  My legislation calls for 100 additional full-time positions at the 
CFTC, mostly for enforcement because they need the talent to keep an 
eye on these markets.
  And I want to applaud Representative Rosa DeLauro for knowing this 
simple truth and providing more funding for the CFTC than the President 
requested in the Agriculture Appropriations bill.
  Commodity markets are like highways in that both have limits. If 
drivers don't think there are any cops watching on the road, they are 
going to push past the speed limits. If the CFTC doesn't have enough 
staff to monitor an ever growing and changing marketplace, investors 
will push the limits there as well.
  Today's directive to the CFTC will send a message to the 
administration that they must get serious about these sky rocketing 
costs and will pave the way for more comprehensive legislation in the 
future. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the ranking member on the subcommittee with jurisdiction 
over the CFTC, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Goodlatte for yielding 
me time to speak in support of a bill that has been developed in part 
by the House Agriculture Committee. I am glad to see that this issue, 
the issue of speculation in the futures industry, is being handled by 
the committee of jurisdiction, the Committee on Agriculture. I think it 
is important for us to continue our long-standing effort at oversight 
at CFTC and the futures industry that the Agriculture Committee has had 
now for many years.
  This is an important issue. In fact, I don't think there is a more 
important issue that this Congress will face except for energy prices. 
It is a significant conversation, as we all know, and with dramatic 
consequences upon our constituents.
  An e-mail from one of my constituents in Olpe, Kansas, ``What will it 
take to get beyond partisan politics and the blame game? Society 
expects children to get along, work together, but they have lousy role 
models when it comes to government. Many of us are losing hope of 
Congress ever getting beyond bickering--and in the meantime, our 
country's problems get worse and worse. It seems that most of our 
government officials are insulated from the reality that face middle 
and lower-income families day after day,'' talking about the cost of 
energy, the prices that Americans are encountering at the pump.
  What concerns me, despite my support for this and a belief that CFTC 
ought to have every tool to discover manipulation, ought to have every 
tool to discover whatever ``excessive speculation'' means, and we ought 
to make certain that their enforcement capabilities are strong and 
beneficial on behalf of the consumer in this country, what concerns me 
most is that this issue has become the opportunity to do nothing on the 
underlying cause of why oil and gas prices are so high. And that is 
increasing demands at a time when we are doing little to increase 
supply.
  And this Congress, we pass legislation dealing with the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve, requiring that our government no longer fill the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

                              {time}  1230

  Whether or not that's a good idea or bad idea, I think all of us 
would admit it's not going to solve our energy problem. We debated and 
passed legislation dealing with antitrust and OPEC, and whether that's 
a good idea or a bad idea, all of us would agree it's not going to 
solve the problem with the price of energy and the cost at the pump.
  And today we're on the House floor talking about speculation. I agree 
with the gentleman from Virginia. It is time for this Congress to get 
to this underlying issue that we face in this country: increasing 
demand for energy and a lack of increase in the supply. The laws of 
supply and demand work. As much as we Members of Congress might want to 
pass a law to overcome supply and demand, it cannot be done. And so 
this Congress needs to adequately express the laws of supply and demand 
that this country needs.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield to 
the gentleman from Maryland who has sponsored legislation in this area 
and has a passionate interest in this issue and has been very much 
involved, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), for 3 minutes.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague and the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, for his leadership on this, along 
with our colleagues Ms. DeLauro, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Larson, 
and many others who have moved quickly to address the problems of 
rampant speculation in the energy futures market.
  The title of this legislation is the Energy Markets Emergency Act, 
and what it does is direct the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, 
the CFTC, to invoke its emergency powers to crack down on extreme 
speculation in the futures market. We all know that families across 
this country are facing emergencies in their family budgets, and it's 
time that the CFTC stepped forward and treated this like the emergency 
that it is.
  Part of the rise in prices is of course due to supply and demand and 
the fact that China and India are boosting a demand. That's part of it. 
But the other part of it is in fact an increase in speculation, extreme 
speculation. There's been testimony before this Congress in front of 
the committee, subcommittee of Mr. Stupak, and on the Senate side and 
the House side by Professor Greenberger from the University of Maryland 
School of Law and many others that make it absolutely clear that a 
component of the increase in price does not have to do solely with 
supply and demand.
  And the CFTC has the authority under the statute to invoke its 
emergency powers if market prices do not adequately reflect the forces 
of supply and demand. And I must say, Mr. Goodlatte, that it has not 
done that. This legislation does not say to the CFTC, Just keep doing 
what you're doing. The

[[Page 13900]]

fact of the matter is, they haven't made that finding, they have not 
invoked their emergency powers, and there's some permanent issues we 
have to come back and fix. We have to finally close the Enron loophole. 
We need to deal with what's called the London loophole. We need to do 
some things on an emergency basis.
  But if they invoke their emergency powers, they will have the 
authority to deal with those issues and close those loopholes on an 
emergency basis, and they have not done that. If they access and invoke 
these powers, they can put new position limits on, they can require 
greater margin requirements, they can even suspend tradings in certain 
funds.
  So what this does is say to them, use the powers that you have; do 
not sit on your hands and do not stand by and refuse to enact your 
emergency powers because while they have taken certain steps, they have 
not made the finding that this bill essentially says which is that 
speculation is part of the problem. No one says it's all of the 
problem. But it is a part of the problem, and they therefore have the 
authority under existing law to invoke the emergency powers, and it 
opens up a whole set of new tools that they are not using.
  So on this immediate basis, they can do everything necessary to 
address the problems of the Enron loophole, and they can do everything 
necessary to deal with the London loophole. They are not doing it 
today. We are directing them to treat this as the emergency it is.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond.
  I support this resolution because it gives nothing new to the CFTC 
but it gives it encouragement to do its work. It does not make any 
finding that there is excessive speculation in the market, and if there 
is excessive speculation in the market, then I certainly expect and 
support action by the CFTC to exercise its emergency powers to do so.
  But the gentleman is exactly right when he notes that India and China 
are increasing their consumption of all different types of sources of 
energy, and they're not the only ones. They're just the largest ones.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds to say further 
to the gentleman that when demand around the world, and not just in 
China and India, is increasing as steadily as it has in recent years 
and the United States sits back and waits for other countries to 
increase that supply and increases our dependence upon foreign oil from 
such unreliable sources as Venezuela and Nigeria and the Middle East, 
and we then think that simply asking the CFTC to do its job will solve 
this problem, that is a very serious problem.
  At this time, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the 
Agriculture Committee and the ranking member of our Department 
Operations and Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my colleague for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, but I want to restate 
that it's a redundancy. It's a restatement of CFTC's authority, and it 
does urge them to move forward with haste, which I believe that they 
are doing. We heard testimony just yesterday, and the chairman of the 
CFTC pointed out a couple things: One, they're taking the lead in 
creating this interagency process working with all of the other 
agencies, the Department of Treasury, the SEC and others to really take 
a hard look at this issue of speculation.
  Secondly, they've moved forward with haste to come up with a mutual 
recognition agreement with London and other jurisdictions to broaden 
their reach so that they can find out and get more transparency and 
more information as to what is really happening in these markets. The 
energy markets are a very complicated issue. And the danger is that 
Congress will take steps before we have adequate information that could 
truly be detrimental.
  I fear that this debate today is taking valuable floor time away from 
bills that would really make a difference in working on our energy 
issues. We need a long-term strategy, a mid-term, and a short-term 
strategy clearly. And dealing with the issue of speculation is part of 
a short-term strategy.
  But we cannot get away from the fact that we have very tight supply 
and demand. It is about evenly matched. And when you have a million 
barrels a day offline because of terrorist activity in Nigeria, when 
you have Venezuela's production declining because of aged technology 
and mismanagement, when you have Mexican production declining because 
of mismanagement and contract problems, these are all issues that are 
further putting stress on supply.
  Finally, I would point out on the supply side that we have a shortage 
of rig materials around the world, actually. China is dealing with 
pulling in all kinds of commodities and it is adding costs to this. We 
have a workforce shortage in this oil and gas industry. There are major 
factors all coming into the supply side of this that are a problem.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 
minute.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I think it's important to recognize these factors. What 
is driving uncertainty is clearly the lack of a confidence of energy 
policy, and this House can take action. There are bills ready. This 
House could clearly take action. We've got a number of bills, as my 
colleague, the ranking member of this committee, outlined earlier.
  Furthermore, the London loophole, CFTC has taken steps with their 
mutual recognition agreement. The farm bill provisions take substantive 
steps to close the Enron loophole.
  And finally, if we move prematurely to impose artificial standards 
and limits to trading, we could definitely hurt our transportation 
companies, our truckers, our farmers who hedge on these high energy 
prices.
  Furthermore, we may drive transactions into less transparent markets 
such as Dubai and other markets. This also denies a threat that the low 
value of the dollar, and there is a threat globally that we could be 
seeing a move in energy transaction, too. A different currency, the 
euro. And this is a further issue.
  So we need to move forward and not delay any further.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Minnesota has 10 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia, 7\1/2\.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the Chair of the House Agriculture appropriations committee 
who has been also very passionate in leading on this issue and also 
working in her committee to make sure that the CFTC has the resources 
they need to complete their task, the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. 
DeLauro) for 3 minutes.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that 
we bring to the floor today along with my colleagues, Mr. Peterson, I 
thank him for his leadership, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. 
Stupak, Mr. Larson.
  What is it about? It's about stopping the excessive energy commodity 
speculation that has driven up the price of gasoline by as much as 30 
percent, according to independent economists.
  Last October, the Government Accountability Office issued a report 
indicating that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission did not have 
the resources and the authority that it needed to protect the American 
people. When the report was issued, a gallon of gas cost on average 
$2.90. Today in my State of Connecticut, gas costs $4.37 a gallon. 
Commodity prices have skyrocketed in the past 5 years, but those 
unprecedented price spikes cannot be explained entirely by increased 
demand from China and India or the dollar's valuation.
  So what is the cause? Independent economists point to one significant 
culprit: unregulated speculation in our

[[Page 13901]]

futures markets. A May 2008 International Monetary Fund report agrees. 
Professional investors have purchased contracts for more than a billion 
barrels of petroleum essentially adding eight times as much demand for 
oil as the U.S. has added to its Strategic Petroleum Reserve over the 
last 5 years. The CFTC should be the cop on the beat protecting 
American consumers by putting a halt to out-of-control speculation. 
Unfortunately, the CFTC may be partly to blame for allowing loopholes 
and opening up exemptions.
  The resolution before us today is simple. It directs the Commodity 
Futures Trading Commission to use its emergency powers granted by 
Congress under section 4a of the Commodity Exchange Act to investigate 
excessive speculation in any contract market within the CFTC's 
jurisdiction and take the necessary action to eliminate excessive 
speculation that is artificially inflating gas prices.
  What the CFTC needs to do is to use its powers to close the Enron 
loophole, to end the London-Dubai foreign border trade loophole. I urge 
my colleagues to support this effort. What it essentially does is 
restore sanity to the markets, and it provides consumers with the 
relief that they need in order to be able to continue to lead their 
lives and not be forced to make choices of whether to not buy gasoline 
for their cars and put food on the table or other things to take care 
of their families.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record a 
joint analysis prepared by the majority and minority staff of the 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the testimony of 
Michael Greenberger before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation on June 3, 2008. It responds to a number of 
assertions made about what might happen to the market. And while I 
certainly would hope that something could be found to lower gas prices 
by as much as Mr. Greenberger suggested in his testimony, here are 
several pages of reasons why that may indeed not be the case.

 Select Excerpts of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
                             Investigations

       8. STATEMENT: ``Overnight, [prohibiting the trading of 
     energy commodities in Exempt Commercial Markets) will bring 
     down the price of crude oil, I believe, by 25 percent.''
       RESPONSE: According to recent market data, there is little 
     to no trading of crude oil contracts on exempt commercial 
     markets in the United States. Prohibiting the trading of 
     energy commodities in a market in which no trading is 
     currently taking place is, thus, unlikely to have an effect 
     on the price of crude oil. Moreover, although there have 
     never been any Exempt Commercial Markets for agricultural 
     commodities, many agricultural commodities have recently 
     experienced substantial price spikes. There is no credible 
     evidence that simply amending the CEA to regulate energy 
     commodities as if they were agricultural commodities will 
     lead to lower energy prices.
       19. STATEMENT (p. 8): ``The Senate Permanent Investigating 
     Subcommittee has now issued two reports, one in June 2006 and 
     one in June 2007, that make a very strong (if not 
     irrefutable) case that trading on ICE has been used to 
     manipulate or excessively speculate in U.S. delivered crude 
     oil and natural gas contracts. The June 2006 report cited 
     economists who then concluded that when a barrel of crude was 
     @ $77 in June 2006, $20 to $30 of that cost was due to 
     excessive speculation and/or manipulation on unregulated 
     exchanges.''
       RESPONSE: The 2006 and 2007 PSI reports focused on the role 
     of excessive speculation in U.S. commodity markets; neither 
     report contained any findings on whether traders manipulated 
     crude oil or natural gas prices.

  Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).
  Mrs. MYRICK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I support this bill, and if there is a problem with speculators, yes, 
we need to get to the bottom of it, but we also need to look at our 
supply and start using our own resources. Yes, it may be a stopgap to 
take us on to alternatives, which I totally support because there are a 
lot of things out there that will work and will stop our dependence on 
foreign oil. This is a national security issue, and that's what bothers 
me so much because right now, we are totally dependent on people who 
don't like us for our oil. And what that does is put money in their 
pocket that they are using against us to finance terrorism. It makes no 
sense. We have to look at supply, and we have to look at our own 
supply.

                              {time}  1245

  I have a bill that is the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, and very 
simply, it allows us to drill off the Outer Continental Shelf because 
it's estimated there is a lot of supply out there. And it lets the 
States decide if they want to do it, and they share in the revenue.
  We have got to get serious about this, and we need to get moving now, 
not wait. There are a lot of bills out there that could be on the 
floor, but we need to ensure our energy and national security with 
serious bills. Supply, we need to look at nuclear, and expand that.
  We need all the alternatives on the table because that's the only 
thing that's going to solve the problem. We can't just put band-aids on 
it. We have to address it in a serious manner.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield to 
my good friend and Blue Dog colleague from Utah (Mr. Matheson) for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, this is an important first step. This bill 
asks the CFTC to exercise its ability to determine if undue speculation 
is having an impact on oil prices in this country. We've heard 
witnesses before the House of Representatives testify before different 
committees that suggest this could be upwards of $50 of the price per 
barrel right now may be due to this type of activity. So I think it's 
important we take this first step.
  But I call it a first step. I would encourage our colleagues to 
continue to work together in a consensus way to have a productive 
effort in closing what's called the London loophole.
  I, along with many other Members in this body, have put forth 
legislation to stop unwarranted speculation in foreign financial 
markets. Such legislation may be the best available option we have got 
here in Congress to address oil prices in the short-term.
  When we do address this issue more fully, however, though, I also 
want to offer a word of caution. We should be careful not to be too 
overzealous. While we need to address the London loophole, we must make 
sure we do not take action that would damage our market-based economy.
  And finally, I will say this. While we do work on market 
manipulation, we also need to recognize Congress has other issues to 
deal with when it comes to the oil price issue. There is no one single 
factor. As much as folks come down on the floor of the House at times 
to talk about just one issue, this is a very complex issue that has 
many dynamics affecting the global price of oil.
  I think market manipulation is an important one for us to consider, 
but we also need to look at a more comprehensive package of issues to 
try to fully address this issue.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. There is a reason why there's so much 
speculation in the oil commodities market, and it is because supply is 
less than demand. This happens in any commodities market. Where demand 
is exceeding supply, the speculators dive in. And you can try to 
encourage the CFTC and you can pass new regulations on speculation, but 
as long as supply is less than demand, the speculators are going to 
move in.
  And I will say further, that if you try to regulate this market so 
much that it becomes dysfunctional, it will just go overseas. And the 
reason the speculators are getting in is because they know that this 
Congress does not want to open up American sources of energy.
  I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and outrageously, today, we 
had the Interior bill before us, and we had three amendments: one to 
open up ANWR, a huge source of oil; one to open up our offshore assets 
of natural gas and oil, which can be done safely with today's 
technology; and the third is to open up shale. We have more 
hydrocarbons in shale than the Saudis

[[Page 13902]]

have oil, but amazingly, the Democratic leadership didn't want to vote 
on those things. They don't want to open up those sources.
  That is the political position of the majority, the Democratic 
majority in this Congress, no increased domestic oil production, and 
that's why the speculators are pouring in. And there's going to be no 
relief for price at the pump, no matter what we do in this body, if we 
do not address the issue of supply.
  We have domestic energy. We can access that domestic energy safely 
and cleanly, but people are standing in the way in this body and the 
Congress of the United States.
  I predict that this bill is going to have absolutely no impact. We're 
going to do two more bills that probably will have no impact, and 
prices will probably continue to go up.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield 1 
minute to my good friend from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, as has been said, there's a number 
of causes for the high price in gasoline: a weak dollar, increasing 
demand from around the world, the failure of leadership to move into 
alternative energy policies. We have to focus on all of them.
  But one of the reasons is rampant speculation, and the question is, 
will we try to squeeze the speculator or will we allow speculation to 
continue to squeeze the consumer?
  This is a first step, where we're telling the Commodities Futures 
Trading Commission to do its job, determine the facts, make specific 
recommendations and actions on how to protect us, and incidentally, 
many innocent Americans have pension fund investments that are pouring 
into the speculative market.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it's my pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I'd just like to say to my colleagues who 
oppose drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, go home 
this weekend, this next week during the recess and talk to your 
constituents. Go to the gas stations and ask them if they would rather 
have the price of gasoline be as high as it is or start drilling for 
oil in the United States.
  We have the supply. We have the ability. And we're not doing a darn 
thing about it, and the American people and our economy is suffering. 
It is not just gas prices. Food prices and everything else is going to 
go up because it has to be transported across the roads.
  We need to move toward energy independence. We talked about it back 
in the seventies during the Carter years. We haven't done a darn thing 
in 30 years. It's time we started drilling here in the United States. 
The minute we start doing that the price will drop. Mark my words.
  I'd just like to say to my colleagues, use a little analogy. Nero 
started fiddling while Rome burned. We're fiddling right now with the 
energy of the United States and the economy of the United States. This 
body and the other body has the ability to do something about the 
prices of gas and other commodities in this country, and we're not 
doing anything about it.
  Another week has gone by. We're going to go back home. We haven't 
done a darn thing, and the American people are suffering.
  So, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have 
reservations about drilling here in the United States and give me all 
this environmental stuff, this is the time to do it. We want to move 
toward other forms of energy. We want to be concerned about the ecology 
of this country and other forms of transportation, but at the same 
time, it's going to take time for that to happen.
  We have to start drilling now. We can't wait. The American people 
want us to do it, and if you don't believe me, ask them when you go 
home this week. They're signing petitions by the thousands. The people 
of this country want to move toward energy independence. They want 
their gas prices to come down. They want other prices to come down, and 
they won't until this Congress and the other body starts moving toward 
energy independence by drilling here in the United States.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. 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. 6377.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I'm now pleased to yield to a 
leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee and energy issues in 
general, Mr. Markey from Massachusetts, 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the chairman so much, and I congratulate him on 
his superior work on this legislation.
  In the year 2000, a new thing happened in regulation because of a 
Republican-controlled Congress. It passed a massive deregulatory bill 
into law. This bill included the so-called ``Enron loophole,'' named 
after the now-notorious energy trading firm that had lobbied for its 
creation. This loophole is being exploited. It has not been fixed. As a 
result, the bill that we are debating today directs the Commodities 
Futures Trading Commission to examine excessive oil speculation and use 
their emergency powers to take corrective action.
  The CFTC simply has not been as aggressive as it should be in 
policing these markets. Part of the problem stems from the limited 
resources which the Bush administration have given them, but another 
part of the problem is that the CFTC has historically been a reluctant 
regulator. Instead of a commodities markets watchdog, it has been an 
industry lapdog, unwilling to use the full authorities that it does 
have to crack down on excessive speculation.
  This bill tells them to use their authorities to more aggressively 
police the energy futures market from manipulation for fraud, for 
excessive speculation. This is a good step.
  An ``aye'' vote on the Collin Peterson bill is essential to 
protecting the public from being tipped upside down and having money 
shaken out of their pocket.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 2 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank the ranking member 
for recognizing me.
  It's interesting that, if you look at this bill, which I intend to 
vote for, what it basically does is it points a finger in the face of 
the commodities future trading corporation and very sternly and mean-
eyed says: Do your job. Great.
  They're doing their job. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it's already 
been mentioned on the floor this afternoon that we had the acting 
chairman of the CFTC in front of the Ag Committee this week, and he 
reported that he is, in fact, doing his job, that he looks for every 
day manipulation in the oil market. He looks every day for undue impact 
by speculators on swaps in the market.
  And to the best of their ability and their economists' estimation, 
the price of crude oil is currently fundamentally set by laws of supply 
and demand, and that while they are not able to find any evidence of 
it, they look for that evidence or look for manipulation and undue 
influence of speculators in the market every single day.
  I want to thank the chairman for doing his good work on that 
committee. I know that he will take this stern advice to continue to do 
his job to heart.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute

[[Page 13903]]

to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, when the Saudi Arabians tell you you have a 
problem in your oil speculation market, you've got a problem in your 
oil speculation market.
  Now, some people have argued that a 100 percent increase in the 
amount of financial speculation in these markets is necessary to 
liquidity of the markets. Hogwash. We need more liquidity in these 
markets the way Iowans need more liquidity in the rivers right now. We 
are drowning in liquidity.
  There has been over 100 percent increase of this speculation going 
into these markets, and we have now had clear, cogent and convincing 
testimony this is one of the reasons for 100 percent increase in prices 
of oil in the last year.
  We have seen this movie before. It was called Enron. And my 
constituents saw their electrical bills go up 1,000 percent. Now, 
they're seeing their oil go up double per barrel in one year in this 
bad movie.
  Pass this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the chairman if he has additional 
speakers. I have only myself to close.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. At this moment we have no additional 
speakers, so I probably can move to close.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. That being the case, I will yield myself the balance 
of my time to say to the chairman again, I thank him for his work on 
this issue.
  I support this measure. Certainly, I expect the Commodities Futures 
Trading Commission to address any problems with excessive speculation 
in the energies markets and to use their emergency powers to do so, if 
appropriate.
  But I will tell you that this is a problem that's been going on a lot 
longer than recent speculation in this market. It's been going on for 
years because of a lack of increase of supplies of oil and natural gas 
and other basic sources of energy in this country.
  All we ask of the Democratic leadership is to put the bills on the 
floor that get what the American people want, and that is a vote to 
open up America to increase domestic supply of energy. The Speaker of 
the House doesn't have to support the legislation. The majority leader 
doesn't have to support the legislation. All they have to do is let 
this happen on a bipartisan basis, and we will have a bipartisan vote 
to do what the American people want. Let us have that vote. Let us have 
that debate on the floor of this House, and we will do what the 
American people want.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend, Mr. Goodlatte, that I 
appreciate his support for this measure. And what we're trying to do in 
our committee is to develop a consensus as we move through this issue. 
And there are a lot of ideas, a lot of different opinions out there, a 
lot of bills that have been introduced.
  This is a step that we can make today I think on a basis where we can 
come together and make sure that the CFTC is using the powers that they 
have to examine this market and make sure that the speculation, the 
extra money that's coming in is being done properly and is not 
affecting these markets in a way that is not appropriate. And I trust 
that they will do that job.
  But moving forward, what we intend to do, as I said earlier, as soon 
as we come back here from the July recess, our committee will convene 
on Wednesday after we come back and we will examine all of the bills 
that have been introduced or are introduced in the meantime. And we 
will have a debate on all the different aspects and all the different 
positions. And what we will try to do on that committee is to sort 
through all of this and hopefully come to a consensus about what is the 
appropriate way for us to move ahead.
  These are very complicated markets and issues, and I want to make 
sure that whatever we do is the appropriate response, and as somebody 
said earlier, we don't have unintended consequences because of the 
actions that we take here.
  So I look forward to working with my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle with my colleagues on this side of the aisle to find a 
consensus that can have bipartisan support like we achieved on the farm 
bill to move something ahead that makes sense for the American people 
and gets the right answer.
  With that, I urge adoption of the bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support to H.R. 6377, the 
Energy Markets Emergency Act, because I believe the Commodity Futures 
Trading Commission, CFTC, must investigate speculation in the energy 
futures market and account for any manipulation and price distortion.
  It is clear the increased positions of institutional investors, such 
as pension funds, endowments and sovereign funds, in the energy futures 
market are contributing to the escalating price of oil at an alarming 
rate. The CFTC should level the playing field and apply the 20 million 
barrel position limit to the institutional investors, the same limit 
that everyone else adheres to.
  I also believe the CFTC must work with the British Financial Services 
Authority, FSA, to establish position limits on oil futures traded on 
the London Intercontinental Exchange, ICE, similar to those established 
by the CFTC for traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange, NYMEX.
  In overseas markets, such as ICE, U.S. investors can buy as much oil 
as they want, driving up demand with little to no regulation.
  It is essential the CFTC work with the FSA in London to limit 
positions and gather accurate information on the impact that 
speculation has on oil prices.
  Rising gas prices are indicative of the United States need to affirm 
its commitment to renewable energy research and development, and focus 
on reducing our demand for oil by emphasizing conservation. In 
addition, however, transparency in the oil futures market is needed and 
appropriate.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6377, the 
Energy Markets Emergency Act of 2008.
  This bill is an important first step in reaffirming the authority of 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate excessive 
speculation in the energy futures market. There are many reasons that 
the cost of a barrel of oil has risen so dramatically in the last few 
years, including increased demand from developing nations, instability 
in oil-producing nations, the weakening of the dollar, and price 
gouging on the part of the oil companies. The recent surge in gasoline 
prices should serve as an urgent reminder that we immediately need to 
change the way that we produce and use energy.
  Nonetheless, consumers should not suffer unnecessary increases in 
gasoline prices that don't reflect actual changes in supply and demand. 
I have heard from economists that excessive speculation has added 
anywhere between $20 and $60 to the price of a barrel of oil. The Bush 
administration has an appalling record on oversight, and they have 
allowed the CFTC to become powerless to regulate the commodities 
market. The CFTC has emergency powers at its disposal, and this bill 
mandates the use of this authority. In addition to curbing speculation, 
the CFTC must prohibit the outright fraud and abuse currently being 
perpetrated on the market.
  Closing the loopholes that have allowed dark energy markets to 
flourish is just one step toward addressing our current energy crisis. 
I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this important bill.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6377.
  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. GOODLATTE. 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 and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________




               RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE ACT

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 6251) to prohibit the Secretary of

[[Page 13904]]

the Interior from issuing new Federal oil and gas leases to holders of 
existing leases who do not diligently develop the lands subject to such 
existing leases or relinquish such leases, and for other purposes, as 
amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6251

       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 ``Responsible Federal Oil and 
     Gas Lease Act''.

     SEC. 2. ISSUANCE OF NEW LEASES.

       (a) In General.--After the date of the issuance of 
     regulations under subsection (b), the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall not issue any new lease that authorizes the 
     exploration for or production of oil or natural gas, under 
     section 17 of the Mineral Leasing Act (33 U.S.C. 226), the 
     Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C. 351 et 
     seq.), the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 
     et seq.), or any other law authorizing the issuance of oil 
     and gas leases on Federal lands or submerged lands to a 
     person, unless the person--
       (1) certifies for each existing lease under such Acts for 
     the production of oil or gas with respect to which the person 
     is a lessee, that the person is diligently developing the 
     Federal lands that are subject to the lease in order to 
     produce oil or natural gas or is producing oil or natural gas 
     from such lands; or
       (2) has relinquished all ownership interest in all Federal 
     oil and gas leases under which oil and gas is not being 
     diligently developed.
       (b) Diligent Development.--The Secretary shall issue 
     regulations within 180 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act that establish what constitutes ``diligently 
     developing'' for purposes of this Act.
       (c) Failure To Comply With Requirements.--Any person who 
     fails to comply with the requirements of this section or any 
     regulation or order issued to implement this section shall be 
     liable for a civil penalty under section 109 of the Federal 
     Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982 (30 U.S.C. 1719).
       (d) Lessee Defined.--In this section the term ``lessee''--
       (1) includes any person or other entity that controls, is 
     controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a 
     lessee; and
       (2) does not include any person who does not hold more than 
     a minority ownership interest in a lease under an Act 
     referred to in subsection (a) authorizing the exploration for 
     or production of oil or natural gas.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. 
Fallin) each will control 20 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 the resolution under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today this body is considering responsible legislation 
aimed at compelling the oil industry to do what it should do best, 
drill for oil and bring relief to Americans at the pumps.
  That may seem like an odd notion, and certainly we will hear 
criticism from our Republican colleagues who continue to coddle Big Oil 
and pander to the industry's political agenda. And there are many in 
the industry who will not want to hear this side of the aisle say we 
are for drilling for oil. My approach is slightly different. Big Oil 
does not need to be coddled, it needs a swift kick in the backside.
  While Democrats in Congress know that we cannot drill our way to 
energy independence and continue to advocate for the development of 
alternative fuels and increased energy conservation, we also know that 
we must increase our supply of oil in the interim. I repeat; in this 
legislation we are not against drilling for oil. That is why today, 
with this legislation, we are saying ``Drill it or lose it.''
  The Federal Government makes vast swaths of public lands, both 
onshore and underlying the Gulf of Mexico, available for oil and gas 
development. What we are finding, however, is that the industry is 
stockpiling these oil and gas leases. At present, 68 million acres of 
Federal lands are being held by oil and gas companies with no 
production occurring on these leases. That acreage is equal to the size 
of Colorado.
  Considering today's oil prices, you would think that they would 
either diligently develop that acreage, bring any oil found into 
production, or relinquish the leases. The pending legislation would 
require this diligent development during the term of an oil and gas 
lease, and if it does not occur, the leaseholder would not be allowed 
to lease even more Federal lands. It's simple, ``use it or lose it,'' 
and allow another company to make a go at that leased land.
  Obviously, we have a much better chance to bring relief at the pump 
by producing oil on Federal lands already held by the oil companies 
much quicker than having to go through the environmental lawsuits of 
leasing and permitting required if we were to take the President's 
method and just open up OCS and ANWR immediately. We have a much better 
chance, Mr. Speaker, to help Americans grapple with the high cost of 
fuel by drilling in those Federal lands and waters already open to 
development.
  Over 80 percent of estimated oil and gas resources on Federal lands, 
both onshore and offshore, are available for development or will be 
shortly, pending the completion of planning documents. The amount of 
oil which could be produced from these areas represents 14 years of 
current domestic oil consumption. Think about that, 14 years; yet 
President Bush and his Republican allies continue to rally behind the 
oil industry's political agenda, advocating opening more of America's 
Federal land, including coastal areas and pristine environmental areas, 
to drilling.
  In response to this scheme I say to Big Oil and its allies, ``You've 
got 'em. Use 'em.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in unhesitant opposition to this misguided and 
uninformed legislation. I hope today's debate will allow the American 
people to see this legislation for what it is, and that is, a sham, a 
shallow attempt of the majority to hide that they lack any solutions 
for the American energy crisis facing our Nation.
  Let me start by just stating one simple fact: 97 percent of our 
Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal onshore areas are 
not leased. Now, let me just say that one more time. Ninety-seven 
percent of our Federal offshore areas and 94 percent of our Federal 
onshore areas are not even leased.
  The Democrat leadership has done everything it could for the last 
several decades to stop the leasing in 97 percent of offshore areas and 
94 percent of onshore areas since they think America's energy needs can 
be supplied by just 3 percent of offshore areas and 6 percent of the 
onshore areas. It is no wonder that America is facing an energy crisis.
  Let's talk about the legislative process, too, that brings this issue 
to the floor today. We are debating legislation that hasn't had a 
hearing, it hasn't had a mark-up, no committee report, it hasn't even 
been opened up for an amendment, and no Member of this House but for 
its author has had more than 5 hours to consider this bill. The Rules 
Committee even had to pass a special rule to allow this bill to come to 
the floor today, a rule that effectively waives all points of order 
against the bill, including PAYGO and earmark bans.
  The bill will also cost the American people not only additional 
energy domestic production, but reduces revenues to the Federal 
Government. Yes, America, in one fell swoop, Congress will increase 
energy costs for American consumers and steal from the pocketbooks of 
American taxpayers. Is this a way to go into Independence Day and to 
celebrate the birth of our country?
  The legislation before us is based on the premise that American oil 
companies are sitting on resources that they should be developing. The 
majority will make claims that millions of acres are not being 
produced. However, the reality is that every leased acre is undergoing 
some form of exploration, is

[[Page 13905]]

in the process of getting permits, facing a legal challenge, or in 
development. They are all going through those processes for every acre.
  The supporters of this misguided legislation are not offering any 
solutions to these challenges. There is no proposal to speed up 
development by reducing the waiting times for permits, limiting public 
challenges of leases and applications for the permits to drill, or 
reducing the frivolous lawsuits. In fact, last year, the Natural 
Resources Committee was fighting against, and I quote the chairman, 
``rapid oil and gas development that has taken place on our Nation's 
public lands in recent years,'' and focused on an agenda to slow, again 
quoting the chairman, ``the rampant, nearly unfettered energy 
development on Federal lands.''
  Last year, oil companies were developing too fast. Today, Congress is 
attempting to punish any company that can't squeeze a 10-year 
exploration and permitting process into a time frame that suits the 
majority. We simply can't have it both ways.
  One additional fact: Most of the majority leadership, including the 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, voted in 1992 to give oil 
companies more time to drill on onshore leases. That was done at a time 
when the industry actually had a higher percentage of leases in non-
producing status. The majority didn't seem to mind and didn't seem to 
be interested in complaining about stockpiling then.
  To the contrary, there was a bipartisan recognition that companies 
needed longer terms on their onshore leases to get more production. But 
these days, as production rates are higher, these same Members think 
that companies are stockpiling.
  We have had a number of experts in this area come forward and present 
expertise on this issue. I would reference a letter from the Department 
of Interior which highlights the lengthy, complicated, and often 
unsuccessful process a company must undergo to develop oil and gas on 
Federal lands and waters.
  In addition, I would like to submit for the Record a letter from the 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists, America's scientific 
experts on exploring for oil and gas. And their letter states, 
``Policies that increase exploration costs, decrease the available time 
to properly evaluate leases, and restrict access to Federal lands and 
the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with 
short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of increasing 
stable long-term supplies.'' That policy to restrict development and 
reduce exploration is exactly what this legislation before us will do.
  What America must realize is that the true source of most non-
producing acres in America is the U.S. Congress, which restricts access 
to almost 600 million acres of the Outer Continental Shelf. We could 
produce more oil from opening up 2,000 acres in ANWR than would likely 
be produced from all the onshore acres currently leased but not 
producing today, especially when you understand that much of the 
onshore resources are natural gas and not crude oil. If we were to open 
but a fraction of these acres held up by the congressional majority, we 
could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs right here 
in America. However, the majority has decided time and time again that 
we should limit our access to our onshore and offshore domestic 
resources.
  The American public is up in arms against the frivolous restrictions 
which Congress has placed on domestic energy production. People 
recognize the simple fact that opening up more Federal lands and waters 
could lead to lower gasoline prices and they're calling on us to lead 
America in this direction. Congress should open up this debate and this 
process today and allow each side to present their very best proposals. 
And that's what this debate is about today.

                                                    June 23, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on Federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 
     AAPG, on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.
       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development, and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region. 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right; you won't find oil or 
     natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use this data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether it conforms to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of this data improves the geological 
     model.
       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and

[[Page 13906]]

     natural gas sales will exceed the past and continuing 
     expenses to decide whether it is a commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases, and restrict access to federal lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf do not provide the American people with 
     short-term relief from high prices and undermine the goal of 
     increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, 
     DC.
           Sincerely,

                                       Willard R. (Will) Green

                                                        President,
                     American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

  Mr. Speaker, because we have so many other Members who would like to 
speak on this bill, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we 
extend the debate on H.R. 6251 to an additional 10 minutes, equally 
divided.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, did she say 
10 minutes on each side?
  Ms. FALLIN. Equally divided.
  Mr. RAHALL. I have no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, each side will control 5 
additional minutes.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from West Virginia, and I thank him 
for his extraordinary leadership on this issue and for the legislation 
he's bringing out here on the House floor, especially with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, right now we are facing an energy crisis. The Bush 
administration and Republicans in Congress are perpetuating a myth that 
the oil companies don't have access to enough places to drill for oil. 
This story is nothing more than a drilling decoy. We might as well put 
an aquarium out here in the well, there are so many red herrings that 
the Republicans are throwing into this debate about our energy 
independence.
  Roughly 80 percent of all of the oil and gas are located in areas 
where drilling is already allowed, 68 million acres, 80 percent of the 
resources in America. So ExxonMobil, everybody in America pulling into 
the ExxonMobil station. They made $40 billion last year. Do you know 
what they did with their $40 billion? They put $32 billion of it back 
into buying their own stock. They were drilling for profits in their 
own stock, not on the lands where America wants them to go to find the 
oil and gas, where they are already permitted.
  Now, what did they do on renewables, ExxonMobil? They took $10 
million, million dollars, just millions of dollars, 10 million, and put 
it into renewables. Do you know what else the oil industry is doing and 
the Bush administration and the Republican Congress? They're blocking 
the tax breaks still today for renewables, for solar, for wind, for 
geothermal, blocking them.
  So there is their agenda: Tip the consumer upside down at the pump, 
keep the supply of oil down because they're not drilling on the 80 
percent of the land where we say they could go, even offshore, and go 
and drill; pocket the profits for themselves; nickle and dime 
renewables; and then block the tax breaks for a renewable energy 
revolution in America. It's a recipe for disaster. But there is no 
mistake why we are here. You cannot have an oil and gas President and 
Vice President for 8 years and not have an oil and gas strategy for 
America. And the price that we are paying at the pump is the price we 
are paying for allowing that policy to be implemented for these 8 long 
years.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, we have 2 percent of the world's oil 
reserves, 2 percent. We consume 25 percent of the oil, which we consume 
on a daily basis. Republicans are saying let's drill off the beaches, 
let's drill where the polar bear is, although they are not willing 
today to put a penalty for the oil industry for not drilling where the 
80 percent of oil is. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a big mistake.
  OPEC has two-thirds of the oil in the world. That's their strength. 
Rather than sending a message to OPEC, we are going to innovate our way 
out of this with wind and solar and renewable energy sources. The 
Republicans are blocking the tax breaks for that and saying give bigger 
profits to oil and gas, don't penalize them for not drilling for the 
oil and gas here in America where we have access to it, and then go 
home on the 4th of July and pretend as though this 8 years of 
Republican rule where we have gone from $30 a barrel to $130 a barrel 
is not on their watch. It is, ladies and gentlemen. We have gone from 
46 percent dependence on imported oil on the day the Republicans took 
over Congress to 61 percent dependence upon imported oil on the day 
they left office 1 year ago. That's why we are in the mess that we're 
in right now.
  The American public needs help. We need to send a message to Big Oil, 
to Big Gas: Start drilling. Start drilling right now or lose the leases 
that the American people have given you. Do not warehouse these leases. 
Do not warehouse the oil and gas here in America. Let's put the penalty 
on them. Let us no longer have the policies set by Big Oil, by Big Gas, 
and OPEC. Let us today declare independence from them. Let us say we 
are taking those leases back from you. We are taking back the American 
land where oil and gas is. If you don't drill on it, you lose it, and 
we are going to penalize you for allowing this crisis to build to the 
point that it has today.
  Ladies and gentlemen, support the Rahall bill. This is the day where 
we begin to break and create our own independence from Big Oil in our 
country.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I just witnessed one of the 
greatest displays of inaccuracies I have ever heard in my life.
  It's too bad that the public doesn't understand that this whole bill 
is a charade, and I am disappointed in my chairman because there were 
no hearings on this. In fact, the testimony that I have heard from the 
majority is the reality is not real. The report is not real. And where 
he gets the figures about 68 million acres set aside and not utilized, 
I don't know. And where do they get the idea of getting 4 billion 
barrels?
  I've just listened to the gentleman from Massachusetts' tirade. I 
have heard that same tirade for as long as he's been in Congress. He 
has never supported any energy at all, any development of energy, 
including nuclear. Now his people in Massachusetts are paying that 
price.
  When I first came to Congress, we were in the minority, and the price 
of oil for a barrel was $8 a barrel, 39 cents at the pump. Yes, it's 
high today because the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was the last big 
development we ever had because this Congress would not allow us to 
develop any other oil fields. Now, we have a big oil field in Alaska 
called ANWR, which is 74 miles away from the existing pipeline that 
delivers 17 billion barrels to the American people, and we're not 
allowed to drill it because this Congress won't act.

[[Page 13907]]

  And we have a tirade on this floor about blaming Big Oil. There's 
only one group that's to blame, and it's this Congress, both sides of 
the aisle, because it's easier to buy it from OPEC countries. And we 
stopped trying to figure out how we can get off the dependency. We have 
not done that.
  Now, if we don't drill, we are going to be in trouble. I predict the 
price of oil, if we don't drill and start supply to this demand in the 
United States, the price of oil will probably go to $150 a barrel. And 
that's going to be under your watch.
  Are you proud of what you've done? I say no. This bill is a charade. 
It should be voted down, and we should vote ``no, no, no, drill, drill, 
drill.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, just to remind all of my colleagues, if this 
administration were not playing politics with oil, why does the 
President not just by one stroke of the pen sign an executive order 
lifting these lands that the other side claims should be open? That's 
all it takes, a stroke of the pen to lift the moratorium on these lands 
for drilling. Instead, he puts a political pointer at this body.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid remarks in the 
second person.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a little lesson about one of the 
largest finds of oil in the United States. We have known about it since 
1923.
  In 1923 this large area of Alaska was designated as Naval Petroleum 
Reserve Number 4. Why? Because we knew there was a huge pool of oil 
under it. Estimates are the current figure is up to 15, ``b,'' billion 
barrels of oil. That's a lot of oil. So the President, I believe it was 
President Harding at the time, designated that as a Naval Petroleum 
Reserve.
  This little area over here, the one they don't want to talk about, 
was designated as a wildlife refuge. Why was that? Well, because we 
didn't know there was any oil under it. So the oil's here, make it an 
oil preserve. There's wildlife here, make it a wildlife preserve. Now 
they say they want to drill in the wildlife preserve, but they're kind 
of neglecting this one over here.
  Now, it was a Naval Petroleum Reserve until 1996. In 1996 the 
Republican Congress voted to open it up to drilling by the oil 
industry. Bill Clinton signed the bill, and, in fact, the Clinton 
administration let the first 3 million acres of leases in the year 
2000. Eight years ago the industry got 3 million acres of land leased 
over a pool of 15 billion barrels of oil. They have drilled 25 wells 
and capped them. That's it. The Bush administration is going to lease 
another 4 million this next year.
  If we don't have this bill, maybe they'll drill some more wells and 
cap them. They have no plans. Now, they say they want to drill over 
here. You will notice actually this area is closer to the existing 
pipeline than this area over here, but they want to debate this area 
over here with no known oil reserves and no pipeline and neglect this 
area over here with massive reserves and no pipeline and apparently no 
plans to build a pipeline.
  If we pass this bill today, that will all change. They won't be able 
to sit on the largest single pool of oil in the United States territory 
anymore. They will have to begin in good faith to develop it. But guess 
what. The industry really doesn't want to do that because they're 
making a bucket of money the way it is now by pretending there's a 
shortage and not drilling.
  Now, that's just the Alaska issue. If we go offshore and look 
elsewhere, as Mr. Markey said earlier, 80 percent, according to the 
United States Minerals Management Service, 80 percent of the oil and 
gas that's known to exist off of the Continental United States is 
accessible from existing leases. Unfortunately, 6,491 of those leases 
are sitting idle. On different days you get different excuses: ``Oh, it 
takes a really long time.'' Well, if it takes a really long time, why 
do we want to let new leases when it's taken a really long time to 
develop the old leases that they're sitting on, that have known pools 
of oil under them? They're taking a bucket of money now. They don't 
want things to change; we do.
  Produce American oil for America.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Sali).
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include in the Record the 
letter from Assistant Secretary Allred relating to this bill that my 
colleague from Oklahoma referenced in her remarks.

                                       Department of the Interior,


                                      Office of the Secretary,

                                    Washington, DC, June 25, 2008.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Natural Resources, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Young: Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2008, 
     to Secretary Kempthorne regarding a recent report on oil and 
     gas by the House Committee on Natural Resources. Secretary 
     Kempthorne has asked me to reply.
       In your letter you asked that the Department of the 
     Interior (Department) address the report's claim that oil 
     companies hold non-producing leases on 68 million acres which 
     could produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 of natural 
     gas each day.
       The report does not reference specific locations for much 
     of the data and therefore we cannot ascertain where each of 
     the numbers was derived. It appears the report took raw data, 
     some of which can be found on the Department websites, and 
     then used various formulas to reach certain conclusions. The 
     report does not disclose the assumptions or formulas used.
       The views contained in the report are based on a 
     misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process. The 
     existence of a lease does not guarantee the discovery of, or 
     any particular quantity of oil and gas. To truly determine 
     this, lessees must develop data and eventually explore their 
     leases which requires numerous permits involving compliance 
     with various environmental laws and regulations. This process 
     often takes months or years. In addition, lessees undertake a 
     vast array of business steps prior to making a decision to 
     move a lease into production, and must obtain another set of 
     Federal and State permits to do so. I would like to provide 
     some background on both points.
       Obtaining a lease is just the first step. The lessee must 
     first obtain the myriad of permits and approvals for 
     exploration activities and development plans that are 
     required before production can occur. Exploration, which 
     occurs after the issuance of the lease, is critical. For 
     example, after an operator acquires an onshore lease they 
     must obtain Geophysical Permits, Permits to Drill, Sundry 
     Notices, and permits that may be required by State 
     government. In addition to all necessary permits being 
     obtained, an operator must also file a plan of development.
       Development offshore is equally complex. An operator must 
     obtain Geological and Geophysical Exploration Permits, 
     Environmental Protection Agency National Pollutant Discharge 
     Elimination System Permits, an Army Corps of Engineers 
     Permit, Permits to Drill, and Marine Mammals/Endangered 
     Species Permits. If a lessee makes the decision to move to 
     development, in addition to the myriad of required permits, 
     an operator must file numerous plans, including Deepwater 
     Operations Plans, Oil Spill Response Plans, Hydrogen Sulfide 
     Plans, Development Plans or Development Operations 
     Coordination Documents.
       While these lists are not exhaustive, they illustrate the 
     efforts that must be undertaken before a lease can be 
     explored and developed and production comes online. A more 
     comprehensive list of the various permits, approvals, and 
     other legal and regulatory prerequisites that may be required 
     based on site specifics for both onshore and offshore 
     production is attached for your information.
       In addition to the processes mentioned above, other factors 
     affect potential development and subsequent production. These 
     factors include capital investments and equipment such as 
     drilling rigs and platforms.
       In shallow water, approximately one in three wells results 
     in a discovery of a quantity of oil and/or natural gas 
     sufficient to produce economically In deeper water, one well 
     in five is economical. Shallow wells cost approximately 
     $200,000 for just the drilling. In deepwater, the drilling of 
     one well may cost $100 million to $200 million. A full 
     development project, including a platform or floater, 
     involves multiple blocks and has cost as much as $3.5 
     billion. Onshore development is less expensive. A well cost 
     10,000 feet or deeper well will $2 million to $3 million. A 
     shallow well runs about $200,000.
       To illustrate further that a lease does not mean the 
     discovery of oil and gas, it is important to look at the well 
     success rates. For onshore leases, the well success rate is 
     about 10 percent for new areas. For areas already developed, 
     it is much higher--about 95%. For offshore, in shallow water, 
     the success rate is about 33 percent. In deepwater it is 
     about 20 percent.
       In the Gulf of Mexico, 1132 new deep water exploration 
     wells have been drilled since 1995, with over 170 new 
     discoveries. While the government does conduct activities to 
     determine resource availability, it is the private

[[Page 13908]]

     sector that funds exploration activities for more refined 
     data and analysis on a site specific basis that can lead to 
     production. The lengthy processes we have in place can lead 
     to more production but it takes time to find the exact 
     location of those resources.
       In today's market, it does not make business sense for 
     lease holders to defer or forgo pursuing production and 
     continue to pay rental fees. In addition to the bonus bid 
     paid at the time of a lease being issued, lessees are 
     required to pay rentals for leases. In Fiscal Year 2007, 
     $267.2 million in rental fees was collected as rent for oil 
     and gas, coal, and other mineral leases.
       If a lessee determines that leased acreage does not contain 
     sufficient resources to produce economically, it will 
     typically relinquish the lease, and the Federal Government is 
     free to offer the tract at a subsequent lease sale. However, 
     only after numerous steps are taken, and leased acreage is 
     determined to contain economically and technologically 
     producible oil and gas, can a lessee justify the significant 
     investment required to bring leased acreage into producing 
     status.
       While increasing the productivity of already leased land is 
     important, to ensure our country's future security and 
     economic well being we need to open new areas for 
     development. The lengthy processes we have in place, which 
     can lead to more production, means that we need to look to 
     new areas. We cannot ignore that the world's demand for oil 
     has grown dramatically. Meanwhile, the supply of oil has 
     grown much more slowly. As a result, oil prices have risen 
     sharply, and that increase has been reflected at American 
     gasoline pumps.
           Sincerely,

                                            C. Stephen Allred,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                     Land and Minerals Management.
       Attachments.

                   Plans and Permits Required on OCS

       The number of required plan and permit approvals is on the 
     order of 25 to 30. The reason for a range is that the 
     specific lease holder may not file for certain permits on 
     their own. For example, they may not file for a G&G 
     (geological/geophysical) permit but it is certain that no 
     lease holder will move forward without geophysical data to 
     guide them. They may obtain sufficient data from a third 
     party that acquired under their own speculative permit with 
     the intention to sell the information to successful lease 
     bidders. Additionally, there may be supplemental plans filed 
     to cover changes in assumptions based on newer information 
     and other steps that not all lessees will need to file. The 
     overview of MMS regulations is at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/
homepg/regulate/regs/reg_sum.html with a discussion of the 
     plans and permits at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/regulate/
 regs/laws/env safe.html_#perapp. Following is a fairly 
     complete list of the plans and permits that a lessee may have 
     to file to bring a lease to production:

    List of Typical Plans and Permits Required to Bring a Lease to 
                               Production

       Oil and Gas Lease.
       Geological and Geophysical Exploration permit.
       Exploration Plan.
       Coast Guard Compliance review for mobile drilling units.
       Oil Spill Response Plan.
       Oil Spill Financial Responsibility.
       Hydrogen Sulfide Plan (some locations).
       Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination 
     (Exploration).
       Army Corps of Engineers Permit (Navigation and National 
     Security).
       EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit.
       EPA Air Emissions Permit (some locations).
       Marine Mammals/Endangered Species permits from NOAA or FWS 
     (some locations).
       Application for Permit to Drill (exploratory wells).
       Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in drilling 
     program).
       Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon 
     exploration wells).
       Deepwater Operations Plan (for some locations).
       Conservation Information Document (for some locations).
       Coast Guard Structural Review (for floating production 
     systems).
       Certified Verification Agent Review (for some locations).
       Development Plan or Development Operations Coordination 
     Document (depending on location).
       Pipeline Right-of-Way. Coastal Zone Management Consistency 
     Determination (Development).
       Application for Permit to Drill (development wells).
       Application for Permit to Modify (any changes in 
     development drilling program).
       Application for Permit to Modify (to plug and abandon 
     development wells).
       Platform Removal Application.
       Pipeline Decommissioning Application.

Permits, Plans, and Surveys for Development of an Oil and Gas Lease On-
                                 Shore


                    BLM Permits, Plans, and Surveys

       Geophysical Exploration Permit--Notice of Intent; Notice of 
     Completion--(Required if the operator chooses to conduct this 
     optional activity) Purpose: Allows exploration for oil and 
     gas resources on Federal lands.
       National Environmental Policy Act 
     (NEPA) Review--Environmental review may consist of review and 
     documentation through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), 
     Categorical Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision).
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.
       Oil and Gas Lease--(Required) Conveys a basic right to 
     develop oil and gas from Federal Mineral estate pending 
     approval of additional site-specific permits.
       Land Use Plan Conformance--The proposed lease is evaluated 
     to ensure it is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the leasing stage if not 
     current in the land use plan.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--May occur at the 
     leasing stage if not current in the land use plan and there 
     are endangered species present.
       Communitization/Unitization Approval--(Some Locations) 
     Creates management units to improve development efficiency.
       Plan of Developent--(If operations are located within a 
     unit agreement) Creates a development management plan for the 
     Unit.
       Application for Permit to Drill (APD)--(Required) Contains 
     the operator's proposed drilling and surface use plans and 
     any additional permit requirements added by the BLM. The BLM 
     may also require Cultural and Wildlife surveys.
       National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--
     Environmental review may consist of review and documentation 
     through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical 
     Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision.)
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.
       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.
       Sundry Notice--(Required) Notifies the BLM of the 
     operator's proposed changes to the APD.
       Approval and/or Review--In limited cases may involve NEPA, 
     Cultural, Wildlife, ESA reviews and consultation.
       Hydrogen Sulfide Plan--(Required if the poison gas may be 
     encountered) Plans for protection of public health land 
     safety in the event of a hydrogen sulfide leak.
       Right-of-Way Grant--(Required for any development that 
     occurs off the lease area.) Provides legal access for roads, 
     pipelines, and powerlines.
       National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Review--
     Environmental review may consist of review and documentation 
     through a Determination of NEPA Adequacy (DNA), Categorical 
     Exclusion (CX), Environmental Assessment (EA), or 
     Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). (May be completed by 
     the BLM or the Operator to BLM standards. The BLM signs the 
     Decision.) Usually completed in conjunction with the APD NEPA 
     analysis.
       Land Use Plan Conformance--Project evaluated to ensure it 
     is in conformance with the BLM's land use plan.
       Surveys--(Completed by the BLM or the Operator.)
       Cultural Survey--Almost always required. Almost always 
     completed through an operator-funded contract with a cultural 
     survey contractor that has been approved by the BLM. May 
     involve consultation with the State Historic Preservation 
     Officer.
       Wildlife Surveys--Frequently required. May be completed by 
     the BLM or the operator to BLM standards.

[[Page 13909]]

       Endangered Species Act Consultation--only required when 
     endangered species may be affected by the project.
       Tribal Consultation--May occur at the Planning or 
     Permitting stage in areas where Indian tribes have 
     historically used an area or have expressed an interest in 
     proposed projects.


            other federal. state. or local permits and plans

       Air Emission Permit--(May be required by State).
       National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit--
     (May be required by the State or EPA).
       Section 404 Permit--(May be required by the Army Corp of 
     Engineers if the project would potentially dredge or fill 
     waters of the U.S.).
       Storm Water Prevention Plan--(Required in some States).
       UIC Permit--(Required for Class II wells--water disposal or 
     reinjection).
       Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan--This is a 
     permit required by EPA when oil and gas activities have the 
     potential to impact waters of the United States.

  Mr. Speaker, the justification for this legislation is a report from 
Democrats on the Natural Resources Committee, and in that report the 
conclusion is reached: ``We can estimate that the 68 million acres of 
leased but currently inactive Federal land and waters could produce an 
additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic feet of 
natural gas each day.''
  Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the gentleman controlling the time on the 
other side be yielded time to respond to a question?
  Mr. RAHALL. Sure. If the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to 
answer the question.
  Mr. SALI. I understand that the Department of the Interior has issued 
a letter saying that they don't agree with the assumptions of your 
report.
  Can you name a single professional organization or government agency 
that has told you that they agree with the assumptions or calculations 
used to reach the conclusion that I have just read from the report?
  Mr. RAHALL. Our Committee on Natural Resources has extrapolated out 
the figures from current production on Federal lands, those figures 
coming from the Energy Administration, the same department that the 
administration uses.
  Mr. SALI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the answer to that 
question is ``no.'' There is no professional group or government agency 
that agrees with those assumptions.
  In his opening remarks, the good chairman said we must ``increase our 
supply'' of crude oil and that the answer to our energy needs in the 
short term is to increase American production.
  Then why aren't we voting on that today? The fact is that the 
assumptions that this bill is premised on are false and that there will 
be no increased production from this bill.
  Congress is to blame for the shortage of American production today, 
and this is having a real impact on people. There's a gal who is a 
certified nursing assistant in Boise, Idaho, who's taking care of my 
mother and my younger sister in a nursing home.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.

                              {time}  1330

  Ms. FALLIN. I yield the gentleman 30 seconds.
  Mr. SALI. Mr. Speaker, this young lady, who's a CNA, last week took 
her husband's bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 
so she could put gas in her car to go to work at this nursing home to 
take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous 
impact on real life people.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time for partisanship to be put aside. It's time 
for Congress to get to the real answer, which is increasing American 
production.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of this legislation. The oil and gas 
companies, awash in profits, would have us believe they have nowhere to 
drill. That's just plain wrong. It is the Bush administration which 
acknowledges that 80 percent of our oil and gas reserves are in areas 
where drilling is already allowed. The industry is sitting on nearly 70 
million acres of public lands where it could be drilling, but isn't. 
The oil and gas industry already owns drilling rights to more than 
6,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
  If the industry is so eager to produce more oil and gas, it should 
get to it. We don't need to open more lands to drilling, when industry 
is dragging its feet on producing where it already could.
  Mr. Speaker, this recent push by President Bush and Senator McCain to 
open up the rest of our coast to offshore drilling is a ruse. It's not 
about lowering gas prices today, or even in the future.
  In response to the previous statement, yesterday Guy Caruso, head of 
the Bush administration's Energy Information Agency, said the following 
about the impact of new drilling, and I quote, ``It would be a 
relatively small effect because it would take such a long time to bring 
those supplies on. It doesn't affect prices that much.''
  This push for new coastal drilling is really just a last-ditch effort 
to get rid of barriers to drilling everywhere before the Bush 
administration leaves office. It's an attempt for favored special 
interest to oil companies to get one more favor from its friends. And 
the high gas prices Americans are now paying offers the perfect cover.
  I urge my colleagues to call this industry's bluff. If Big Oil wants 
to drill on public lands, it can do so now. Please vote for this 
legislation that tells the industry to use it or lose it.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. My first reaction to reading this bill was how could 236 
Members of Congress on the Democratic side, their legions of staff, and 
their hired guns, know so little about a fundamental industry like 
we've got that they would think that these exploration companies would 
invest millions and, in some instances, billions of dollars of 
shareholder equity and debt and lease bonus payments, regulatory 
compliance and bureaucratic compliance costs, geological and 
geophysical costs, drilling and exploration expenditures, production 
facilities, to then sit on these generally unsalvageable investments 
and not produce oil and natural gas, which is the only way to recover 
these investments and make a profit.
  This chart, Mr. Speaker, shows a 14-year timeline of the typical 
exploration in the Gulf of Mexico. It is a difficult process to get 
through. There are some 27 bureaucratic steps that we go through. This 
legislation today will add another ongoing step that these companies 
will have to comply with.
  My colleagues here on the other side of the aisle know this 
discourages exploration. It fits in with their overall attempt to 
continue to keep gasoline prices high. It is one more dagger in the 
heart of the American lifestyle that has been developed since World War 
II that has centered on reasonable gasoline.
  Defeat this bill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has not even read the bill. If 
everything he says on that chart is true, that is due diligence. The 
companies get to hold their lease, under this legislation.
  I am very glad to yield 2 minutes to a member of our Appropriations 
Committee, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Anyone who thinks back just a few years would remember 
how this administration and the Members of the Congress who were so 
complicit with them has been able to falsify information and get this 
country into such deep trouble. The situation in Iraq has got to come 
to mind. All of the deep problems we have there, based upon the 
falsification of information. That is what we are seeing here again, 
falsification of information.
  The Republicans are alleging that no one wants the oil companies to 
be able to drill for oil offshore when the fact of the matter is that 
the oil companies already have leases on 68 million acres, half 
offshore, half on the dry land of this country, and they are not using 
those 68 million acres.
  So what the Republicans want to do, at the request of this White 
House, is

[[Page 13910]]

to continue to do what this administration has been doing since the 
meeting of Dick Cheney with the heads of the big oil companies in this 
country to continue to have an energy policy that is not in the 
interest of America but in the interest of the big oil companies.
  What they want them to do is to be able to get more land, more land, 
more public land, and hang on to that public land and not produce 
anything on it.
  What we are saying in this bill is use it or lose it. You already 
have the leases on 68 million acres of public land. Start using it. You 
want to drill, start drilling. We want you to drill. Drill on the 
leases that you already have. Don't pretend that you have nothing on 
which you can drill. You have 68 million acres.
  What the Republicans want to do is just put more public land in the 
hands of the oil companies so that they can more completely and over a 
longer period of time control all of the energy resources, oil and 
natural gas, that the people of our country own and possess. They want 
the oil companies to possess them for long periods of time, not to use 
them. They are not drilling on what they have.
  So pay attention to this bill, and vote for it. Use it or lose it.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Today, we are considering a bill to make something the 
law that is already the law. The majority claims it is necessary to 
force energy exploration companies to either use or lose leases they 
hold. However, use it or lose it is already the law. The Secretary of 
the Interior can already cancel a lease if the lessee fails to comply 
with the terms. Federal leaseholders are already required to produce 
oil and/or natural gas within 5 to 10 years of beginning the lease.
  By blocking some firms from competing for new leases, this 
legislation could further increase gas prices that are already 
exceeding $4 per gallon. This is frustrating because I believe West 
Virginians would rather see us take up legislation that will actually 
lead to a new and more forward-thinking energy policy rather than waste 
time passing legislation that is already on the books. That means new 
exploration, coal-to-liquids, and renewables.
  If this is the best the majority can do, is to restate current law, 
that's fine. But I think most Americans and West Virginians understand 
that the time has come for a more serious and comprehensive debate on 
this issue. That's what they deserve.
  Mr. RAHALL. I'm glad my colleague from West Virginia answered the 
previous speaker on the Republican side and explained the bill. But let 
me further clarify what the bill does and does not do, and current law.
  Currently, the law allows leaseholders 10 years to develop oil or 
gas. Our bill used to cut it down to 5 years. We have now upped it back 
up to the 10 years to try to satisfy some of the critics concerned with 
this legislation. Yet, they are still not pleased, of course.
  Existing leases can be cancelled if leaseholders fail to comply with 
lease provisions, such as public safety and environmental requirements. 
Yet, there's no law or regulation that requires diligent development on 
Federal oil and gas leases. That is what we are doing here, is 
requiring this due diligence. As long as the leaseholders paid the 
required annual rental fee, the government cannot compel diligent 
development of the leased lands.
  Our bill requires oil and gas operators to diligently develop oil and 
gas leases, as is currently required of coal leaseholders, I might 
remind my colleague from West Virginia. We had this same regime in 
place for Federal coal leasing. It was put in place when coal was in 
its boom days.
  What we are doing for oil and gas now is what we have done with coal 
and other commodities that are produced on the land that the people of 
the United States own.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of legislation that would pressure 
the oil companies to drill, and drill now. In my hometown of 
Louisville, people are struggling to pay more than $4.20 for a gallon 
of gas. While they search for a way to make ends meet, a few 
multinational corporations hold the answers: Permits to drill over 60 
million acres of oil and gas reserves today.
  These existing leases could double U.S. oil production. But the oil 
companies don't want more land to drill, they want more land to 
control, which keeps oil off the market and gas prices high. After all, 
high gas prices have made them the richest companies in the history of 
the world.
  Instead, they demand the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, presumably 
so they cannot drill there too. Even this oil-friendly White House 
admits that drilling the wildlife refuge won't affect the price of gas 
for more than 20 years, and then, only by a couple of pennies.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people's problems are measured in dollars, 
not pennies, and they can't wait until 2030. I urge my colleagues to 
pass this legislation and get American oil into the market as soon as 
possible.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, what time remains for each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oklahoma has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia, 6\1/2\.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The Democrats claim there's 68 million acres of 
energy-rich lands that companies are refusing to explore. Sixty-eight 
million acres. Really. So name one. Name an acre of land where vast 
reserves of oil are underground and a company refuses to explore.
  I will open the mike. One acre. Any takers?
  Mr. RAHALL. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Absolutely.
  Mr. RAHALL. We have these maps that are identified, that we have 
shown.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Well, bring down the map and identify an acre and 
tell us how much oil is underground and who has refused to drill.
  Mr. RAHALL. Would the gentleman tell us the same about the OCS, where 
the President is proposing to lift this moratorium?
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Do you have an acre you can point to?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes, we do. We will bring it in. Right here.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. That's what I thought. This bill is a shame and 
an insult to families who are trying to pay their gas bills.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. I thank my friend from West Virginia.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were a football coach and I had been calling a play 
for 7 years and I actually lost yardage, I'd change the play.
  Our friends on the other side, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to change 
the play. They want to keep the same plays that have been losing yards 
and money for the American people for the past 7 years.
  In the spring of 2001, Vice President Cheney had this meeting with 
the oil and gas industry to create a new energy policy for America. 
Then, the cost of a barrel of oil was $23. Now the cost of a barrel of 
oil is $139. The policy did not work.
  Then, the average price of gasoline was $1.46 a gallon. Today, the 
average price of a gallon of gasoline on Long Island is $4.31 a gallon. 
It tripled.
  The policy didn't work. In all that time, oil and gas companies could 
have drilled on the properties which they have leases to. They didn't 
do it.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I will not yield. I only have a little bit of time.
  They did not do it. Now what we're saying is we have got to try 
something new because what was tried before, didn't work. We need a 
change in policy. So what we are saying to the oil

[[Page 13911]]

companies is use it or lose it. Drill what you have the right to drill, 
explore where you have the right to explore, and if you're not willing 
to do that, we will find somebody who can.
  It's time to put the sound bites aside and give real relief to the 
American people. The fact of the matter is that the policies that have 
been tried, have failed. I am not saying that anybody has committed 
wrongdoing, I am just saying that they have pursued the wrong policies.
  The right policy is to put the American people's pocketbooks ahead of 
the oil company profits. Use it or lose it. That's what we are doing 
today.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, nobody likes these high prices, and I think 
most folks understand the law of supply and demand. Worldwide, this 
last year, we pumped 126,000 fewer barrels of oil and we used a million 
barrels more each day.
  We have said no to ANWR, we have said no to tar sands, we've said no 
to oil shale, we've said no to nuclear. Sierra Club, I'm told, has 
opposed solar in California. This Congress has not extended R&D for 
renewables. Yet, 85 percent of our offshore sites are off-limits.

                              {time}  1345

  I would like to put a letter that I received a copy of from the 
American Association of Petroleum Geologists into the Record that was 
sent to the Speaker. They conclude that policies that increase 
exploration costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
leases and restrict access to Federal lands in the OCS do not provide 
the American people with short-term relief from high prices and 
undermine the goal of increasing stable long-term surpluses.
  We can't waive a magic wand and say here it is. If you say 5 years, 
but you still require some 27 different environmentally-mandated 
permits that are required, with no shortening of the time that it takes 
to get those permits approved, you are not succeeding. In effect, what 
you are doing is telling the companies to go look someplace else. They 
are not going to look in America. They are going to look someplace 
else, because they may not have to comply with these same 25 different 
regulations that you have to comply with in this country. You can't 
just say 5 years, without shortening that process.
  Now, I am sorry that I didn't talk to Mr. DeFazio before I used that 
chart, but he cited I think a Shell development in Alaska that doesn't 
have access yet to the pipeline that takes that oil down through to the 
bottom of Alaska. Without the pipeline permits, they have to cap the 
wells.

                                           American Association of


                                         Petroleum Geologists,

                                                    June 23, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 
     (AAPG), on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members. The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.
       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development, and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region. 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right, you won't find oil or 
     natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use this data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether it conforms to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of this data improves the geological 
     model.
       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the 
     past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a 
     commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases, and restrict access to federal

[[Page 13912]]

     lands and the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the 
     American people with short-term relief from high prices and 
     undermine the goal of increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience & Energy Office in Washington, D.C. 
     at 202-684-8225 or 202-355-3415.
           Sincerely,
                                          Willard R. (Will) Green,
                                                        President.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to reply.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. The former Naval Petroleum Reserve has 15 billion 
barrels of oil under it. It was leased by President Bill Clinton in 
1998. There is no pending lengthy application process for the pipeline. 
They have no plans to connect to the pipeline.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Certainly, whatever time I have left.
  Mr. UPTON. If the gentleman would yield, it is my understanding that 
they haven't been able to conclude the permits that would link those 
oil discoveries.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) in bipartisan opposition to the 
bill.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise not necessarily in 
opposition to H.R. 6251. It is difficult to support or oppose something 
that is already current law. We already have use-it-or-lose-it. We have 
10-year leases in this bill. That is what the law is.
  Americans need Congress to look at real solutions in addressing 
energy needs, especially when we have $4 a gallon gas. We need answers, 
and not just slogans. We cannot drill our way to energy independence, 
we can't conserve our way, and we surely can't use alternatives to have 
energy independence. We need to do it all.
  The legislation before us today was introduced a week ago with no 
committee hearings, no markups. And they raise a valid question: Are 
people really sitting on oil leases and not producing?
  Now, there may be reasons for it, like there are not permits allowed 
to get it from the Navy Petroleum Reserve. I know in the Outer 
Continental Shelf, which I am real familiar with because it is off of 
Texas, a lot of those leases can't produce because there are no 
resources on it, but they still have that lease for 10 years.
  Let me tell you, with $140 a barrel oil, everybody wants to drill 
everywhere that you can. But we already have 10-year leases. In fact, I 
would like to include for the Record a copy of a current lease that is 
from Minerals Management on section 4, diligence and rate of 
development. We already have a diligence requirement in the 10 year 
leases that are there.
  What we need to do is actually do everything we can. We need to drill 
the leases we have, but we do need to get additional leases available 
in some of the most productive areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and 
make it available, because we need to make sure that our country is 
going to be energy independent and not dependent on Venezuela or Saudi 
Arabia or any other country. And we can do it. We have Senators going 
to Saudi Arabia begging for them to increase their production, but we 
won't increase ours in some of the most potential productive areas.
  That is why we need solutions instead of slogans. That is why I have 
a hesitation to support the bill or oppose it, because it is already 
current law.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. RAHALL. I appreciate my friend from Texas yielding.
  The due diligence requirements or timeline that you asked for 
submission into the Record, that is perfectly allowed under my bill. We 
would not grab a lease. If a company is showing due diligence, if a 
company is moving toward production of oil or gas on Federal leases, we 
don't touch them.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. I would be glad to read part of the lease 
for you, the fact that they can already take that lease back now under 
current law, if they want to.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the lease section referred to earlier for the 
Record.

       Sec. 4. Diligence, rate of development, unitization, and 
     drainage--Lessee must exercise reasonable diligence in 
     developing and producing, and must prevent unnecessary damage 
     to, loss of, or waste of leased resources. Lessor reserves 
     right to specify rates of development and production in the 
     public interest and to require lessee to subscribe to a 
     cooperative or unit plan, within 30 days of notice, if deemed 
     necessary for proper development and operation of area, 
     field, or pool embracing these leased lands. Lessee must 
     drill and produce wells necessary to protect leased lands 
     from drainage or compensatory royalty for drainage in amount 
     determined by lessor.

  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner), our minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding and tell my 
colleagues that in 1992 I voted for this bill. In 1992, the chairman of 
the committee voted for the bill. In 1992, Mr. Hoyer, the majority 
leader, and Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, voted for the same 
bill. This is already the current law.
  All this is is another excuse put up by the majority to not go after 
more American energy. That is all this is. And we have had more 
excuses. We going to blame it on speculators, we are going to blame it 
on the oil companies, we are going to blame it on OPEC, when there is 
only one group, only one group in this Chamber we ought to blame, and 
that is all the liberals in this House who have voted on for no energy 
each and every time over the last 18 years that I have been here.
  Forty-six votes. Forty-six votes have been brought to this floor over 
the last 18 years that I have been here to produce more American-made 
energy. I voted yes 46 times out of 46. Ms. Pelosi, as an example, 
voted yes twice. Just twice. And how many times did the gentleman from 
West Virginia vote to bring more American-made energy to the market?
  We are giving $600 billion a year to people in the Middle East, money 
that could be spent here in America if we were willing to bring more 
oil out of our ground in an environmentally safe way.
  Republicans have put forward an all-of-the-above strategy. We need to 
conserve more of our energy, we need to develop biofuels, we need to 
develop alternative fuels, we need to have nuclear energy, and, yes, we 
need to produce more oil and gas here in America in an environmentally 
safe way. But all we get from the other side each and every time are 
excuses. ``Let's blame somebody else.''
  We are about to go home for our Independence Day district work 
period. We should not leave here until we take steps that will help us 
move our country toward more energy independence. Not more excuses, not 
more posing for ``holy pictures,'' as the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee would say. We need to bring bills to the floor 
that will actually put Members on record whether they are for more 
American-made energy or not.
  I am willing to show my constituents how I will vote. Let's let all 
of America see how our colleagues will vote, for more American made 
energy, which is what we need to do to bring gas prices down in 
America.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the distinguished 
minority leader, if my memory serves me correctly, the minority party 
was in control of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue for some 6 years, 
both Houses of Congress. I don't recall this legislation or any serious 
energy policy being adopted during that time period.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the minority leader about developing 
all of our domestic reserves. Coming from a coal area, certainly I 
agree with that scenario, that we need to develop all of our domestic 
resources, and in a non-partisan fashion as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, July 28, 2005. The House of 
Representatives, one month from now will be the 3-year anniversary of 
the House Republican Congress passing their energy bill. The minority 
leader, who was just here, said

[[Page 13913]]

at that time when gas was $2.29 a gallon, ``It will ultimately lead to 
lower energy prices for the consumer and will spur our economy.''
  President Bush when it was signed: ``I am confident that one day 
Americans will look back on this bill as a vital step toward a more 
secure and more prosperous Nation that is less dependent on foreign 
sources of energy.''
  We have had 3 years of your energy policy, 3 years where you promised 
lower prices and a spur to the economy. By any standard of the 
imagination, it is a failure. Not because you want it to be. You 
thought it was the right policy. But it was a failure.
  We have today a policy, because we do not believe this is an either-
or choice, between more drilling or more conservation. We think it 
takes both. That is why we passed the standards, which you did not 
after 12 years in control, to increase the fuel efficiency standards 
for our cars. The first time in 30 years that was done. You all voted 
against that in your leadership.
  Second, when it comes to drilling, we do believe as it relates to the 
oil and gas companies who are having record profits, use it or lose it. 
We gave you 68 million acres of public land. I have 3 children, 11, 9 
and 8. My middle one, she loves chocolate, really loves chocolate. But 
we have a rule in the house: You don't get your desert until you finish 
everything on your plate. And to the oil and gas companies that want 
those leases in other areas, you don't get those leases until you 
finish what is on your plate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds
  Mr. EMANUEL. So see what we have done here. Not only have we given 
them 68 million acres with record supplies of oil and gas, you, the 
taxpayers, because they refused to agree to this, give them $14 
billion, that is the oil companies, to drill, out of your money. $14 
billion. They all vote against rescinding that and putting it towards 
alternatives. You give them $14 billion. You give them 68 million of 
acres of public land. And what is the policy? $4.08 a gallon for gas.
  I say it is time for a new direction: More conservation, more 
drilling, use it or lose it.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Ms. FALLIN. I would like to ask how much time remains.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Oklahoma has 5 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from West Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing me.
  I would point out to my good friend the conference chairman on the 
now majority side that we often passed pieces of legislation from this 
House that are already available to pass again today. Certainly there 
is no question that on the other side of this building, that 
legislation was often blocked. But we would like to see a comprehensive 
solution.
  My littlest boy and my grandchildren all love Band-aids. In fact, 
sometimes my little boy, Charlie, will fall and bump his head, and he 
feels better if we put a band-aid on his arm.
  I think that is kind of what we are doing here this week. We are 
bringing band-aids to the floor, rather than dealing with the real 
problem. We have got bills on the floor that say it is the people who 
run the service stations, and maybe there is price gouging; or it is 
the people who participate in the market; or it is the people who look 
for oil and gas.
  I would suggest it may very well be the people that don't bring the 
legislation to the floor that would do the things that my friend from 
Illinois just said he was for: Production. Those bills are there. We 
would like to see them discharged.
  We have got the No More Excuses Energy Act that the gentleman from 
Texas, Mr. Thornberry, has proposed, that would allow the kinds of 
production that the majority has just said they are for.
  We have got a refinery siting bill that Mr. Pitts from Pennsylvania 
has that would allow more refinery capacity.
  We have a repeal on a ban that won't let the government buy any of 
these alternative fuels that we are hearing are such a good idea. The 
very best way you can get a loan and go to the bank is if you had a 
government contract for coal-to-liquid jet fuel or oil shale or the tar 
sands. We have a Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act that we will be trying to 
discharge in the future. We would like to see the real solutions come 
to the floor.
  And on-use-it-or-lose-it, absolutely you do lose it when the lease is 
up. Less than 10 percent of the available land is being used now.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided bill. 
Rather than allowing us to bring forth legislation that will allow us 
to increase the supply of oil and gas, allow us to lower the price of 
gas at the pump, the Democratic leadership brings us this bill that 
could now halt leases for up to 3 years.
  Section 2(b) of this Act would require that the Department of 
Interior publish within 180 days major regulations dealing with 
development on Federal lands. If you go look, regulations associated 
with the EPA Act of 2005 are still not in place, and that has been 3 
years.
  Furthermore, with at least two agencies, both the Minerals Management 
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, having to conduct separate 
rulemaking, I find it hard to believe that with all the public comment 
and lawsuits that would be associated with this, it would be impossible 
to meet that timetable; and that would mean a delay of 2 years or 3 
years in leases.
  In Louisiana, the heart of our coast relies heavily on revenues we 
receive from offshore activities. We have dedicated in Louisiana that 
revenue to restore our vanishing coast. We have lost thousands of miles 
of land and acres of our coast to coastal restoration, and we have 
dedicated our revenues from leases to coastal restoration. Those funds 
are desperately needed.
  We cannot afford to wait to lose 3 years to have more leases. Our 
Nation cannot afford to lose 3 years of offshore leasing just because 
the Democratic leadership is trying to push legislation based on false 
assumptions.
  We need to defeat this legislation. We need to bring forth a real 
plan to increase supply and lower gas prices.
  Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 90 
seconds.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, we have heard before that Big Oil is 
trying to gouge the consumer, and now Big Oil is down there trying to 
hide this stuff, in an effort to find another scapegoat or say there is 
a big conspiracy that is causing our problems, rather than 30 years of 
failed policies on behalf of this Congress. And now we are doing this 
on a suspension where we have half the time to debate, no amendments 
are possible in an effort to stop discussion.
  The fact of the matter is 68 percent of all oil leases and 87 percent 
of all natural gas leases are done by small companies, small companies 
who need to produce to put food on the table. Is it logical that they 
are actually part of a conspiracy to hide the oil beneath the ground? 
This bill is nothing more than another law with a layer of bureaucracy 
put on it than we already have.
  But maybe, for the gentlelady of Oklahoma, maybe the Democrats have 
something here. Maybe we should be

[[Page 13914]]

looking at this tactic for other areas. Like we all know 18-year-olds 
and women have the right to vote. Maybe we can pass another law to let 
them vote; this time, they can use it or lose it.
  Or I know free speech is in the Constitution. Maybe we can say we all 
have free speech, unless we use it or lose it. I think there are some 
Members of this body who would never lose it. Or faith, use it or lose 
it. Or maybe a brain. You can use it, or you can become a Member of 
Congress.
  What we need to do right now is to stop finding scapegoats and find 
solutions. This bill is not a solution.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I have said this in my opening comments 
and I will say it again. We on the Democratic side are not opposed to 
drilling. We are for drilling on leases that oil companies currently 
already have in hand. We are for a comprehensive energy policy, 
including using all of our domestic resources and our domestic 
willpower as an American people.
  A comprehensive energy policy is something that this Congress will 
address using in a bipartisan fashion the talents of this body and the 
talents of American ingenuity and willpower.
  This pending legislation is a responsible bill that seeks to say to 
the oil companies: Use what you already have or show where you are 
moving toward producing that oil; otherwise, give somebody else a 
chance that may want to competitively bid on that same lease.
  This is a use it or lose it. And I urge a ``yes'' vote for this 
responsible piece of legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I think it would be instructive 
for Members to see this letter from the national organizations 
representing the oil producers, oil and gas supply industries and the 
off shore oil and gas infrastructure supply industry; the organizations 
that supply domestic energy for the American consumer.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: We write today in opposition of HR 
     6251, the so-called ``use it or lose it'' legislation under 
     consideration in the House today. As Americans cope with $4 a 
     gallon gasoline, it is regrettable that some in Congress 
     choose to propose diversionary legislation, not based on 
     facts, instead of focusing on the real issue--the need for 
     additional energy supplies to meet growing world energy 
     demand.
       Over the past few weeks, rhetoric surrounding our nation's 
     lack of a coherent energy policy has reached an apex. 
     Unfortunately, policy proposals like the ``use it or lose 
     it'' legislation ignore fundamental facts about the oil and 
     gas industry and jeopardize the long-term energy security of 
     our nation.
       Every energy forecast has predicted that oil and natural 
     gas will be a critical component of America's growing energy 
     demands. The federal Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
     estimates 88% of our nation's energy needs will be met by 
     oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power in the year 2030. 
     This fact is being lost in the proposals of some members of 
     Congress. While political candidates talk of energy 
     independence, some in Congress are offering proposals that 
     will lead our nation in the opposite direction. These members 
     ignore the challenges of domestic production, and make 
     unfounded accusations such as the latest charge that non-
     producing leases are the same as inactive leases. This 
     couldn't be further from the truth.
       The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is in the business of 
     supplying energy, not sitting on it. The industry has 
     reliably supplied our nation with the necessary energy to 
     move our cars and fuel our homes and will continue to do so 
     for decades to come. The industry buys leases with the intent 
     to produce all commercially viable reserves of oil and 
     natural gas. Unfortunately, not every acre of land under 
     lease contains oil or natural gas. In fact, many leases do 
     not contain any commercially recoverable oil or natural gas 
     resources.
       But these non-commercial leases continue to provide rental 
     payments for the federal government, on top of bonus bids 
     paid for the right to explore this land. In fact, the federal 
     government received more than $9 billion in bonus bids from 
     the last four offshore lease sales alone.
       For the acreage that does include promising reserve 
     prospects, it can take years and millions, or even billions, 
     of dollars to develop this resource. The exploration process, 
     which precedes production, necessarily takes time. Seismic 
     surveys must be undertaken, delineation wells must be 
     drilled, government permits must be obtained, environmental 
     regulations must be adhered to, and complex production 
     facilities must be engineered and installed.
       Oil and gas development is an extensive, expensive and 
     time-consuming process, even with advances in technology. As 
     an example, in the U.S. ultra deepwater (greater than 5000 
     ft) in the Gulf of Mexico--where some of our nation's most 
     promising new discoveries have been made--only 21% of wells 
     drilled have resulted in a discovery of oil or natural gas. 
     However, as a result of this industry's willingness to invest 
     billions of dollars despite these odds--and because of what 
     has historically been a stable domestic oil and natural gas 
     regulatory regime--the U.S. oil and gas industry has 
     continued to explore the Gulf of Mexico. This exploration has 
     resulted in an 820% increase in deepwater oil production and 
     a roughly 1,155% increase in deepwater natural gas production 
     from 1992 to 2006, while adding billions of dollars in 
     revenue to the federal treasury.
       In fact, royalty payments provide the second-largest 
     revenue stream to the federal government, behind only federal 
     taxes administered by the IRS.
       The ability to explore in Gulf Coast waters has resulted in 
     not only a steady stream of major discoveries since the mid 
     1990s, but also a tripling of estimated undiscovered 
     potential from 1995 to 2003. Similarly, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska 
     was initially thought to contain 9 billion barrels of oil, 
     but the industry has already produced about 12 billion 
     barrels and it still is estimated to contain reserves of 
     another 6 billion barrels. Imagine what American industrial 
     ingenuity could find through environmentally responsible 
     exploration and development of 85% of Lower 48 Outer 
     Continental Shelf and 83% of onshore federal lands that are 
     currently off-limits or facing significant restrictions to 
     development.
       The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Mineral Leasing 
     Act, and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands already 
     establish a regulatory system that sets time limits on lease 
     terms, establishes annual rental payments for leases that are 
     not yet in production, and requires diligent development of 
     all available resources. The current debate does not 
     acknowledge these facts. The American public deserves a 
     policy discussion grounded in market fundamentals.
           Sincerely,
     American Petroleum Institute.
     American Exploration and Production Council.
     International Association of Drilling Contractors.
     Independent Petroleum Association of America.
     Independent Petroleum Association of Mountain States.
     National Ocean Industries Association.
     U.S. Oil and Gas Association.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the administration's answer 
to record gas prices today is to allow drilling in Alaska's pristine 
wilderness and off our shorelines for little payoff a decade from now.
  What they don't tell you is that big oil companies already lease 68 
million acres of public lands that they are not developing. Big oil 
companies are sitting on 81 percent of America's Federal oil and gas 
reserves, but all they are producing are complaints that it's not 
enough.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6251--the ``use it or lose it'' 
bill. This legislation would compel the oil industry to start drilling 
on the acreage they already lease before obtaining any new leases.
  Madam Speaker, if domestic drilling can bring relief to American 
families, what are the oil companies waiting for?
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 6251, the Democrat ``use it or lose it'' plan.
  Leases and drilling permits are not awarded with any certainty that 
oil or gas will be found. Just because my Democrat colleagues say oil 
and gas is there, does not necessarily make it so. The Democrats in the 
majority need to stop playing geologist and start representing the 
American people.
  Seventy-six percent of the American people believe Congress should 
expand domestic production. Gas prices are high because demand is 
greater than supply. In fact, U.S. oil production has steadily 
decreased since 1970.
  Reports by the Bureau of Land Management and the Minerals Management 
Service place potential federally managed areas for oil and gas 
exploration at 1.3 billion acres. Currently, only 68 million acres of 
Federal land are being explored for oil and gas.
  This Congress should be more concerned with opening up Federal land 
to energy production than wasting time arguing over the 5 percent of 
land that is currently available.
  Democrats have pushed for higher gas prices for decades. Now that 
they have finally succeeded, Democrats seem determined to keep them 
that way.

[[Page 13915]]

  Madam Speaker, we know increasing supply will lower the price of 
gasoline and we have the means to do so. Drill here, drill now, pay 
less.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6251, the 
Responsible Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act.
  Over the last few months we have frequently heard claims from our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we need to open up more 
Federal lands to oil and gas drilling, the magic bullet that will solve 
our energy crisis. They have told the American people that Democrats 
and environmentalists are protecting our Nation's most sensitive and 
special environments at the expense of the American people. They have 
claimed that opening up land in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR) and on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would quickly help 
bring down the price of gas. Not only are these claims misleading 
American families desperately seeking help with skyrocketing gas 
prices, they are completely false.
  Currently 81 percent of our Nation's Federal lands are available to 
be leased for the purpose of oil and gas drilling. Sixty-eight million 
acres of the lands open for drilling both onshore and offshore 
currently are leased by oil companies who are not using them for 
production. It is estimated that these leased but unused lands could 
produce an additional 4.8 million barrels of oil and 44.7 billion cubic 
feet of natural gas each day, nearly doubling U.S. oil production and 
cutting oil imports by a third. Existing leases can also come online 
much faster than any newly leased lands, which would save only pennies 
per gallon, more than a decade down the road.
  I would like to commend my colleague from West Virginia, 
Representative Nick Rahall, for introducing H.R. 6251, the Responsible 
Federal Oil and Gas Lease Act. This legislation would require oil 
companies to certify to the Department of the Interior that they are 
actively developing on the lands that they have already leased. If 
these oil companies are not producing on these lands, they either would 
have to relinquish these leases or start producing on them before they 
could apply to lease additional lands. Also my colleagues who say 
``drill, drill, drill'' should support this legislation and they should 
stop talking about drilling on our environmentally sensitive coastlines 
and wildlife refuges until oil companies have gone as far as they can 
towards on these currently leased lands.
  This legislation is common sense and I urge my colleagues to support 
it. There is no logic to opening up more land to oil and gas drilling 
when we are not utilizing the leases we already have. Of course this 
legislation is not a long term solution to America's energy needs. 
Currently we produce 3 percent of the world's oil and consume 25 
percent. Unless we find a way to dramatically reduce our consumption we 
will never be able to drill our way to energy independence. I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
develop a long term solution to this crisis.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill.
  In recent days, discussion of the bill has included statements--by 
some supporters and some opponents alike--that I found exaggerated in 
their descriptions of the likely effect of its enactment. I regret 
that, and think it would be better to avoid the ``use it or lose it'' 
rhetoric that oversimplifies the issue and fails to reflect the reality 
that oil and gas exploration is a complicated commercial and scientific 
enterprise involving efforts not easily fitting within strict 
regulatory timelines.
  But while the bill may not be as far-reaching as some have claimed, I 
think it is a reasonable response to current conditions and should be 
passed.
  In essence, the bill would bar the current holders of Federal mineral 
leases--whether for onshore or offshore areas--from obtaining 
additional leases unless they are able to show that they are 
``diligently developing'' the leases they already hold. The Secretary 
of the Interior would be responsible for spelling out in regulations 
exactly what would be needed to show such ``due diligence.''
  Current Interior Department regulations include provisions addressing 
due diligence requirements, so this is not a new concept. But I think 
giving it greater emphasis is appropriate in view of the continuing 
importance of oil even as we work to increase the availability and use 
of alternative energy sources.
  More useful in terms of energy policy, this bill will reinforce the 
provisions of current law that aim to prevent hoarding of leases, and 
by providing an incentive for relinquishment of some leases may 
increase the opportunity for others to seek and obtain the right to 
explore for and perhaps produce oil or gas from those lands.
  This approach is similar to that taken when Congress amended the 
coal-leasing laws by passing the Coal Leasing Act Amendments of 1976 
over President Ford's veto. That 1976 legislation provided for a due-
diligence requirement as part of a comprehensive overhaul of the laws 
governing leasing and development of federally owned coal resources--a 
provision that some analysts have said had the most immediate practical 
effect of any of the legislation's various provisions.
  As a result, for several decades the holders of Federal coal leases 
have been required by law to diligently develop their leases, which has 
aided in the orderly and efficient development of the Nation's coal. I 
think a similar reinforcement of existing law for leasing of other 
Federal energy resources makes sense.
  This bill alone is certainly not all that needs to be done to improve 
our energy policies. But I think it can make at least a modest 
contribution to achieving that, and so I will support it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6251, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. FALLIN. 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.

                          ____________________




     PERMISSION TO CONSIDER AS ADOPTED MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motions 
to suspend the rules relating to the following measures be considered 
as adopted in the form considered by the House on Tuesday June 24, 
2008:
  House Resolution 1294, House Concurrent Resolution 163, House 
Resolution 353, House Resolution 1231, H.R. 2245, H.R. 4264, H.R. 4918, 
House Resolution 1271, House Concurrent Resolution 370, House 
Concurrent Resolution 195, House Resolution 970, House Concurrent 
Resolution 365.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, sundry motions to 
reconsider are laid on the table and titles are amended as applicable.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




            CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT TO MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the 
House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it 
adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 30, 2008, unless it sooner 
has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in 
House Concurrent Resolution 379, in which case the House shall stand 
adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




  PERMISSION TO REDUCE TIME FOR ELECTRONIC VOTING DURING PROCEEDINGS 
                                 TODAY

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during 
proceedings today in the House and in the Committee of the Whole, the 
Chair may be authorized to reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for 
electronic voting on any question that otherwise could be subjected to 
5-minute voting under clause 8 or 9 of rule XX or under clause 6 of 
rule XVIII.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




                             GENERAL LEAVE

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks, and include extraneous material on H.R. 6052.

[[Page 13916]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




        SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 6052.

                              {time}  1408


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 6052) to promote increased public transportation use, to promote 
increased use of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, 
and for other purposes, with Ms. DeGette in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6052, the 
Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008.
  The purpose of the bill, very simply stated, is to promote energy 
savings for all Americans by increasing use of public transportation 
throughout this country, a fact that has been a need, let us say, that 
has been driven home dramatically by $4 a gallon oil and gasoline 
prices since Memorial Day, and I thank the Speaker and majority leader 
for making time for us to bring this bill to the House Floor.
  Basic law of economics is that the price of gas is a two-part 
equation: Supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor in the cost of 
oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate ways we can 
attack the high cost of gasoline prices. And our fellow citizens 
understand this. They are making choices. They have been making choices 
for several years.
  Over the last 3 years, in particular, there has been growth of 1 
million new riders a day on public transportation systems across 
America, for 375 million new transit trips nationwide last year, a 
total of 10.3 billion transit trips throughout the country.
  There was a time when New York City accounted for 60 percent of all 
transit trips in the United States, but no longer. In the last 3 years, 
New York's share of transit ridership nationwide has slipped to 38 
percent, not because New Yorkers are riding transit less; they are 
riding more. But more Americans have found their way to public 
transportation, and increasingly in droves since the skyrocketing price 
of gasoline.
  Transit systems throughout the United States have found every new 
transit project, every new light rail project has more than tripled its 
original projections of ridership nationwide.
  Innovative cities like Denver under then-Mayor Wellington Webb, said: 
Ride our transit system free in the center city. Keep your pollution 
out of the center city. Ride the transit system free. And it has been 
an enormous boost and benefit to the city of Denver.
  I can and I will cite some very specific ridership improvements in my 
own State. In Minneapolis, the Hiawatha light rail, 20 years in the 
waiting, finally was constructed; ridership opened, and 9 months later, 
10 months ahead of schedule, they achieved their 10 millionth rider. 
Dramatic improvements.
  Seattle, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Francisco all have similar increases 
in transit ridership. The Charlotte Area Transit System recently opened 
a new light rail line. They have increased ridership 34 percent from 
February of last year to February of this year.
  CalTran, the commuter rail line that serves the San Francisco 
Peninsula and Santa Clara Valley, set a record for average weekday 
ridership in February of this year with a 9.3 percent increase over 
last year.
  The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, my good friend, 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) knows well, 
posted a rise of more than 20 percent ridership from Miami, Fort 
Lauderdale, West Palm Beach in March and April of this year as compared 
to last year.
  Americans are making the choice. They have decided. We need to help 
them with that choice. And the bill before us will make a huge step in 
that direction.
  This legislation provides substantial support for States and public 
transportation agencies increasing incentives for computers to make 
their choice to ride transit: 1.7 billion, 2 years for transit agencies 
that are reducing transit fares or expanding the services to meet the 
needs of growing transit commuters. We increase the Federal share for 
clean fuel and alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, and locomotive 
related equipment or facilities, helping transit agencies become more 
fuel efficient.

                              {time}  1415

  In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share for these 
activities will go from 90 percent to 100 percent of the net capital 
cost of the project.
  We also provide authority to extend the Federal transit pass benefit 
program which has operated over the past few years on a pilot basis in 
the National Capital Region and in a few selected areas throughout the 
country. After evaluating the transit pass program, the U.S. Department 
of Transportation recommended that it be expanded nationwide. We do 
that in this legislation. There was an executive order signed by 
President Clinton in 2000 that launched this initiative. It was 
supported in the SAFETEA legislation. The 3-year pilot program under 
our legislation would be substantially expanded nationwide.
  The Department of Transportation says that expanding this program 
will implement their own department recommendation by giving more 
Federal employees incentives to choose transit options. And we also 
create a pilot program to allow the funding expended by private 
providers of public transportation for van pools to acquire the vans to 
be used as their non-Federal share for matching Federal transit funds 
in five community pilot projects. Under current law, only public funds 
can be used as the local match. This pilot program will induce private 
funds to participate in the van pooling initiative.
  I would observe we had a very successful van pooling program in the 
Minneapolis-St. Paul area in the mid-1980s when companies like 3M, 
Control Data, and Minneapolis Honeywell bought the vans for their 
employees and provided a fuel subsidy and encouraged their employees to 
join together. The vans were full. The program was successful. It cut 
down on congestion in the greater metropolitan Twin City area, and 
reduced cost for all of the riders. We should do that nationally, and 
we provide further authority to make that change and to take that 
initiative.
  There are other provisions in this bill that are important, and I 
will submit those for the Record, but I want to close this part of my 
remarks with an observation by Paul Weyrich in a very thoughtful 
publication, Free Congress Foundation. ``Does Transit Work: A 
Conservative Reappraisal.'' It begins, ``The first recorded example of 
mass transportation was the movement of Adam and Eve from the Garden of 
Eden. At that time, 100 percent of the population was moved at once in 
a single trip; a record never equaled since.'' Then he says, 
``According to most studies of mass transit, it has gone straight 
downhill from there.''
  Well, we are on the way up and we are going to lift mass transit and 
speed its acceptance and its use by the public with the legislation 
that we bring before you today.
  Toward that purpose, I express my great appreciation to the gentleman 
from Florida, the ranking member, Mr. Mica, for the partnership he has 
engaged in with us and for the thoughtful, constructive suggestions he 
has

[[Page 13917]]

made every step of the way. I appreciate very much the gentleman's 
participation.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6052, the 
``Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008''. This bill 
promotes energy savings for all Americans by increasing public 
transportation use in the United States.
  As gas prices have skyrocketed past $4 per gallon since Memorial Day, 
everyone is talking about how we need more oil. I thank the Speaker and 
the Majority Leader for scheduling today's bill, H.R. 6052, so that we 
can also talk about using less.
  Let us all remember the basic law of economics that the price of gas 
is a two-part equation: supply and demand. Demand is a critical factor 
in the cost of oil, and decreasing demand is one of the most immediate 
ways that we can tackle the high cost of gas.
  Americans understand this. They are making choices today that are 
decreasing our global demand for oil. We're seeing record ridership on 
public transportation all across the country, as well as decreases in 
the number of miles traveled in cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks. Without 
doubt, many Americans are making these choices based on the economic 
hardship caused by the high price of gas. However, in my discussions 
with constituents in my district and people across the country, 
Americans are also considering transit alternatives because they're 
sick and tired of knowing that our great nation imports 60 percent of 
its oil, much of it from the Persian Gulf.
  As a result, across America, public transportation has experienced a 
renaissance in big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. In 
2007, Americans took more than 10.3 billion trips on public 
transportation, the highest level in 50 years. In the first quarter of 
2008, commuters took more than 2.6 billion transit trips nationwide, an 
increase of 3.3 percent over the first quarter of 2007.
  Now that the price of gas has surpassed $4 a gallon, even more 
commuters are choosing to ride the train or the bus to work rather than 
drive alone in their cars. Public transit systems in metropolitan areas 
are reporting increases in ridership of five, ten, and even 15 percent 
over last year's figures. Light rails saw the largest jump in ridership 
with a 10 percent increase to 110 million trips in the first quarter. 
Some of the biggest increases in ridership are occurring in many areas 
in the South and West where new bus and light rail lines have been 
built in the last few years.
  In Denver, for example, ridership was up eight percent in the first 
three months of 2008 compared with last year, and Minneapolis, Seattle, 
Dallas-Fort Worth, and San Francisco all reported similar increases. 
The Charlotte Area Transit System, which recently opened a new light 
rail line, has increased ridership more than 34 percent from February 
2007 to February 2008. Caltrain, the commuter rail line that serves the 
San Francisco Peninsula and the Santa Clara Valley, set a record for 
average weekday ridership in February with a 9.3 percent increase over 
2007. The South Florida Regional Transportation Authority, which 
operates a commuter rail system from Miami to Fort Lauderdale and West 
Palm Beach, posted a rise of more than 20 percent in ridership in March 
and April as compared to the same time last year.
  Madam Chairman, Americans are proving that riding transit is an easy, 
immediate, and important part of the solution to decreasing our demand 
for foreign oil. However, meeting this impressive new demand for public 
transportation services is no small task for our transit agencies. With 
these record-breaking numbers of commuters riding transit, many of our 
nation's transit systems are busting at the seams. In addition, the 
cost of fuel and power for public transportation providers has sharply 
increased, compounding costs of serving all of these new transit 
riders.
  Currently, public transportation reduces gas consumption by 1.4 
billion gallons a year (3.9 million gallons per day), which equates to 
more than 33 million barrels of oil. It's equal to 108 million fewer 
cars filling up year.
  Although those fuel savings are incredible, we can do better, and we 
must.
  H.R. 6052 provides much needed support to states and public 
transportation agencies and also increases incentives for commuters to 
choose transit options, thereby reducing their transportation-related 
energy consumption and our nation's reliance on foreign oil.
  To increase public transportation use across the United States, H.R. 
6052 authorizes $1.7 billion in funding over two years for transit 
agencies nationwide that are temporarily reducing transit fares or 
expanding transit services to meet the needs of the growing number of 
transit commuters. It is important to note that the funds authorized by 
this bill will be distributed to States and local communities in the 
same manner as they currently receive Federal transit urban and rural 
formula funds. However, in an effort to provide transit choices to 
smaller urban and rural areas, which may not currently have any transit 
service, this bill specifically increases the relative share of the 
transit funds that will be going to the rural areas.
  H.R. 6052 also increases the Federal share for clean fuel and 
alternative fuel transit bus, ferry, or locomotive-related equipment or 
facilities, thereby assisting transit agencies in becoming more fuel 
efficient. In fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the increased Federal share 
for these activities is 100 percent of the net capital cost of the 
project.
  H.R. 6052 also extends the Federal transit pass benefits program to 
require that all Federal agencies offer transit passes to Federal 
employees throughout the United States. Current law requires that all 
Federal agencies within the National Capital Region implement a transit 
pass fringe benefits program and offer employees transit passes.
  Data from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority 
covering the first three years of the National Capital Region transit 
pass program show that more than 15,500 automobiles were eliminated 
from roads in the Washington, DC area as a result of Federal employees 
shifting their travel mode away from single occupancy vehicle (``SOV'') 
use to public transportation use for commuting to work. DOT estimated 
the energy savings from this mode shift included the reduction of more 
than eight million gallons of gasoline for each of the three years that 
they studied. DOT also studied the results of a nationwide pilot 
program and found that, within the three agencies, 11 percent of the 
participants shifted their travel mode away from SOV use to public 
transportation use for commuting to work, again producing marked energy 
savings.
  The Department of Transportation has determined that both the 
National Capital Region transit benefits program and the nationwide 
pilot program produce marked energy and emissions savings, congestion 
reductions, and cleaner air, and recommends that the transit pass 
benefits program be extended to Federal employees nationwide. This 
provision will implement the Department's recommendation by providing 
more Federal employees the incentives to choose transit options, 
thereby reducing their transportation-related energy consumption and 
reliance on foreign oil.
  H.R. 6052 also creates a pilot program to allow the amount expended 
by private providers of public transportation by vanpool for the 
acquisition of vans to be used as the non-Federal share for matching 
Federal transit funds in five communities. Under current law, only 
local public funds may be used as local match; this pilot program would 
allow private funds to be used in limited circumstances. The Department 
of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool pilot 
projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, benefits, and 
efficiencies of the vanpool projects.
  Finally, H.R. 6052 increases the Federal share for additional parking 
facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway stations. This provision 
increases the total number of transit commuters who will have access to 
those facilities.
  Public transportation use in all of its forms--bus, rail, vanpool, 
ferry, streetcar, and subways to name a few--saves fuel and reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil. As such, increasing public transportation 
use by providing incentives for commuters to choose transit options is 
a priority of this Congress.
  Given the price of gas, Americans are more focused on the costs of 
commuting than at any time in recent history. And they want choices. We 
need to provide them. With passage of this bill, we have an opportunity 
to provide transit choices that will change the way that Americans 
travel.
  The impact of such changes on our nation's dependence on foreign oil 
would be extraordinary. According to a recent study, if Americans used 
public transit at the same rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of 
their daily travel needs--the United States could reduce its dependence 
on imported oil by more than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 
million barrels of crude oil that we import from Saudi Arabia each 
year.
  That's the difference this bill can help make.
  I strongly support H.R. 6052, the ``Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act of 2008'', and urge my colleagues to do the same.


[[Page 13918]]


         Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, 
           Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportaiton and Infrastructure, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oberstar: I am writing to confirm our mutual 
     understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 6052, 
     the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, 
     which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform on May 14, 2008.
       In the interest of expediting consideration of H.R. 6052, 
     the Oversight Committee will not separately consider this 
     legislation. The Oversight Committee does so, however, with 
     the understanding that this does not prejudice the 
     Committee's jurisdictional interests and prerogatives 
     regarding this bill or similar legislation.
       I respectfully request your support for the appointment of 
     outside conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R. 
     6052 or a similar Senate bill be considered in conference 
     with the Senate. I also request that you include our exchange 
     of letters on this matter in the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure Report on H.R. 6052 or in the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this legislation 
     on the House floor.
       Thank you for your attention to these matters.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Henry A. Waxman,
                                                         Chairman.
         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, June 3, 2008.
     Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
     Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Waxman: I write to you regarding H.R. 6052, 
     the ``Saving Energy through Public Transportation Act of 
     2008''.
       I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further 
     consideration of H.R. 6052, notwithstanding the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice 
     any further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this 
     legislation or similar language. Furthermore, I agree to 
     support your request for appointment of conferees from the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform if a conference 
     is held on this matter.
       This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee 
     report and inserted in the Congressional Record as part of 
     the consideration of H.R. 6052 on the House floor. Thank you 
     for the cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding 
     this matter and others between our respective committees.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                           James L. Oberstar, M.C.
                                                         Chairman.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I want to thank our chair of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, my Democrat counterpart, Mr. Oberstar, for 
his work on this piece of legislation that does deal with some of the 
issues that we are facing right now and follows some of the discussions 
that we have had on the floor relating to energy and energy 
conservation.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has a very small 
piece of the puzzle, but it is nonetheless an important piece and we 
have tried to exercise our jurisdictional responsibility in coming 
forth with this, again, small piece of the puzzle.
  This bill does provide for expansion of some of the transit grants 
around the country, and I think that there are some beneficial 
provisions for those in rural areas, suburban areas, and for much of 
the public that relies on public transportation.
  This bill further does allow sort of an unprecedented ability to use 
some of the money traditionally used for projects to assist some of the 
local transit authorities that are suffering now with high fuel costs. 
Just like the average family is suffering with high fuel costs, transit 
agencies have also experienced the same problem. They are cutting back 
on services, sometimes when people really need to have an option and 
don't have that option, by cutting out routes, and that has been 
announced even in my area. So I think we are doing a responsible thing.
  This is a 2-year authorization. It is an expansion of the 
authorization of $1.7 billion that does give some of the folks on my 
side some hiccups, but it is authorization, it is not appropriation and 
each Member is going to have to judge their support or opposition based 
on the final product. But I have joined Chairman Oberstar in support of 
this authorizing bill. I think again it fills our small piece of the 
puzzle.
  I did want to take just a minute or two, I didn't get a chance to 
speak on the rule or on the energy legislation that was before the 
House earlier, and there was quite a bit of banter. And some people 
were bashing the President and this administration for not having a 
plan. In fact, someone said he didn't recall a plan, which is kind of 
funny.
  I am very fortunate to have outstanding staff, but this summer I also 
have some outstanding interns. They come from all over the country to 
Congress, and I have gotten some from my district and elsewhere. So you 
have a little more staff to do research rather than just keep on the 
track that we are on here every day. I said wasn't there a Bush plan? 
And all be darned, there was a Bush energy plan. So I had a little 
research done on that.
  Lo and behold, very shortly into his term, it was May 17, 2001, the 
President of the United States, George Bush, just a few months into 
office, he set two major priorities, one being education. You remember 
on 9/11 he was in a Florida classroom talking about his plan to improve 
education. But even before that, in May as one of his first priorities, 
he announced his plan. He announced his plan actually in the home State 
of the chairman, in St. Paul, Minnesota. On that day when he announced 
it he said, ``If we fail to act, our country will become more reliant 
on foreign crude oil, putting our national energy security into the 
hands of foreign nations, some of whom do not share our interests.''
  On that same day when he announced his plan, he said regarding part 
of his plan, ``We will underwrite research and development into energy-
saving technology. It'll require manufacturers to build more energy-
efficient appliances. We will review and remove obstacles that prevent 
business from investing in energy-efficient technologies.''
  Furthermore, President Bush said, ``The second part of our energy 
plan will be to expand and diversify our Nation's energy supplies. 
America today imports,'' and now this is May of 2001, ``America today 
imports 52 percent of all of our oil. If we don't take action, those 
imports will only grow. As long as cars and trucks run on gasoline, we 
will need oil, and we should produce more of it at home.''
  The President called for burning coal more cleanly, expanding nuclear 
power, and drilling for new oil in new places, that included the Arctic 
area in Alaska. The President said that is banned now, but the 
President said it can be done safely.
  Listen to this one. This is the President in St. Paul. ``ANWR can 
produce 600,000 barrels of oil a day for the next 40 years. What 
difference does 600,000 barrels a day make? Well, that happens to be 
exactly the amount we import from Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We're not just 
short of oil; we're short of the refineries that turn oil into fuel. So 
while the rest of our economy is functioning at 82 percent of capacity, 
our refineries are gasping at 96 percent of capacity.''
  That was part of the President's plan, and how prophetic could you 
be. This was before 9/11. This was in May of 2001, announcing his plan.
  I can't take up all of the time, but I have Mr. Gephardt's response: 
Congress will take action to stop them. Mr. Kerry vowed to filibuster, 
and the Sierra Club is already running ads against it. Those were some 
of the responses.
  It is interesting how quickly we forget that there have been plans, 
and those plans could have made a big difference.
  Here today we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to make a small 
difference to give some of our Federal employees outside the Capital 
Beltway the opportunity to have the same transit advantages and 
payments that we give within the Beltway to Federal employees outside, 
expand some of the grants for transit, and also help some of those 
transit operations that are

[[Page 13919]]

suffering like the American family is with cutbacks because of high 
fuel costs.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to just 
remind my good friend that the bill before us is not ANWR or the other 
subjects. It is about moving people more efficiently with lower costs 
and lower energy consumption. I think we do ourselves service by 
sticking to the subject matter at hand.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) who as 
chair of the Surface Subcommittee has held 22 hearings on the future of 
transportation in America and has done a superb service for the Nation.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman of the full committee for his 
outstanding work over the many years for transit. How prophetic many of 
his positions have been. I remember during the last reauthorization 
fighting to just get a tiny bit more for transit. We didn't get what we 
wanted and said we would need, but we did get a little more, despite a 
particular opposition from a number of Republican Senators.
  We are loving our transit systems to death today. Americans of 
necessity, or with changes in life-style, are flocking onto mass 
transit at record rates, rates not seen in half a century in the United 
States of America. That's the good news.
  The bad news is so many Americans are flooding onto our transit 
systems, the most in 50 years, that our transit systems are having to 
curtail service and cut routes. There is something very wrong with this 
picture.
  At the very time that the American people are demanding an 
alternative because they can't afford the $4.50 a gallon for their car 
or they are tired of the congestion and commute, which have not yet 
been effectively dealt with because of our lack of investment in other 
infrastructure, they are turning to transit as an alternative.
  But transit is confronted with, if it is a bus, a doubling of the 
cost of diesel. And other modes that are electrically driven have seen 
their energy costs go up. But beyond that, the rate of utilization, the 
people crushing on, are wearing the equipment out even faster and we 
haven't been keeping up with the replacement cycle because of the 
under-investment in the system.
  I was talking to someone who came in from Rockville today. They said 
you wouldn't believe how packed it was. I said I think we are going to 
have to adopt the Japanese system where we hire little guys with white 
gloves to start pushing people onto our Metro cars, or our MAX cars in 
Oregon, because there are so many people who want to get on, we have to 
utilize what isn't enough capacity.
  So this bill is the first, little, baby, incremental step to giving 
some assistance to those transit agencies who want to give assistance 
to an American public that is hurting because of failed energy 
policies.
  I am not going to re-debate the energy policies with the gentleman 
from Florida, but that was an incredibly creative recapitulation of the 
failed energy policies of the Bush-Cheney administration over the last 
6 years.

                              {time}  1430

  So we need now to deal with some of the results of those failures.
  And we've debated other bills to help provide relief to the American 
consumers there. But here we have to provide relief and help to our 
transit agencies who are going to extend a hand to our American 
commuters and families. Unfortunately, this is, as yet, only a promise. 
It's an authorization. And the budget is a little tight around here 
unless you're one to fund a war with emergency funding. The President 
won't declare a transit emergency, I don't think. Maybe we can get him 
to do that. But we need to get some funding and flesh out the bones of 
this bill.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been sitting down here and listening for about a couple of 
hours to the debate on the whole question of energy, and I would like 
to, from my perspective, tell you what I have gleaned from this debate.
  First of all, Americans are suffering. That is a fact. The price of 
gasoline is too high. Another fact is that everything that is 
associated or has anything to do with transportation is being affected, 
and the prices are going up for groceries, for everything. And the 
American people are suffering.
  I'm very concerned about the future of our economy if we don't get 
more oil and gas to market.
  Now, a while ago, the chairman of the previous committee said that 
we're importing 61 percent of our oil, up from about 48 percent some 
time ago. This was the chairman on the Democrat side. I would agree 
with that. We are importing 61 percent, up about 13 percent from what 
we did a couple of years ago. The reason is we're not drilling enough 
here in America. We're not producing enough in America, and we're 
buying it from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela and other parts of the 
world.
  We need to move towards energy independence, and if we don't, I 
predict we're going to have severe, severe economic problems over the 
next few years. We could have a major economic recession or depression 
if we don't get control of our energy prices because it's going to 
spread into every other area of our lives. And the American people, I 
think, sense that. And that's why I said to my colleagues, Go home and 
talk to your friends and neighbors at the gas station and ask them, Do 
you want to get the gas prices down, or do you want to make sure that 
we don't drill in America, that we're more concerned about 
environmental concerns than we are of taking care of our economy?
  Obviously we want a better economy or better environmental situation. 
We want to go to alternative fuels. We want to do all of those things. 
Clean air, clean water. But at the same time, we don't want the entire 
economy of the United States to go down the tubes. And unless we get 
that energy independence by drilling here at home, that's a very real 
risk. We could have a real severe economic downturn.
  Fact: Prices are too high. Fact: It's hurting our entire economy. 
Fact: We have enough oil and gas in oil shale to make us energy 
independent if we get it out of the ground and out of the ocean into 
the market. Fact: 68 percent of oil well explorers are small companies. 
That's been brought out here today. And 87 percent of gas producers are 
small businesses. We talk about these permits. Why would they not want 
us to drill? It's their livelihood.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 additional minute.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Why would these oil producers and gas 
producers not want to drill?
  So I think it's a bogus argument to say, Hey, they're holding these 
permits and not drilling. They want to make money, and if they don't 
drill, they're not going to make money.
  In fact, 97 percent of the Continental Shelf and 94 percent of 
onshore areas are exempt from drilling, and the oil's there, the gas is 
there, and the coal shale is there; and we're not doing a darn thing 
about it, and we are arguing about it. There has to be a bipartisan 
move to solve this problem. It ain't gonna solve itself, and the 
American people continue to suffer.
  So I would like to say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, let's sit down and work this out because if we don't, everybody 
is going to suffer, and this blame game ain't solving anything.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
Chair of the Subcommittee on FEMA and Economic Development and other 
related subjects, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I owe the chairman and the ranking member many thanks for 
today's bill. I appreciate that you have worked together on it, and I 
appreciate that you have brought forward the only available remedy for 
driving down $4-a-gallon gas.
  Sometimes, Madam Speaker, the remedy is so obvious that we can't see

[[Page 13920]]

it. But who has made us see it are the American people because they 
have found that remedy, and they are leading the way. That's why this 
bill is on the floor today, notwithstanding the leadership of a 
chairman, who for a long time has wanted to pass this bill.
  I have great respect for our ranking member. But the fact is that 
wherever you stand on offshore or in Alaska, this is the only way to 
have an effect tomorrow. And that is what the American people are 
saying: Don't tell me about digging. Don't tell me about drilling. Tell 
me that I can get to work tomorrow. There is only one ``tomorrow'' 
remedy, and that is this public transportation remedy.
  Moreover, we know what to do. What makes me want to cry is the 
Federal Government has done it to a fare-thee-well with incentives 
right here in the national Capital area where more than half of the 
Federal presence is located for decades because we've been giving 
financial incentives to Federal employees to hop on the metro and to 
hop on buses to get to work instead of taking to the roads. And boy, 
they've done it.
  That's why I thank this House for last year authorizing a bill that 
will help us take care of the capital costs because Federal employees 
have hopped the metro and bus so that they've broken down our own 
metro.
  But Madam Chair, small communities and a lot of others don't have 
their metro, their subway. Guess what they are doing? They are hopping 
on buses. They are crowding on buses. They understand there is only one 
way to defeat gas prices tomorrow, and that is public transportation.
  I am very pleased that this bill leads by example because what we 
have done for a long time in the national Capital region in offering 
incentives to Federal employees will now be available to Federal 
employees countrywide. Everywhere in the United States Federal 
employees will get this incentive. When you consider that we're talking 
about more than a million employees, we're going to have an effect 
there.
  If you need any further proof, look at what the American people have 
done in leading us to this point. This is 2008. In less than a year, 
they have already dropped 100 million miles that they were driving 
before that. Where have those miles gone? The same people have taken 
more than 85 million more trips on public transportation. There's the 
proof. The proof is that people have voted in the best way to do it, 
crowd the trains, make it happen. Now we're going to make it possible 
so that they don't have to crowd, so that we're partnering with local 
jurisdictions, in fact, to help them to do it.
  We say to the American people today, we hear you, we're following you 
with this bill.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Madam Chairman, as the gas prices continue to rise, the 
most effective and immediate way to offer relief is to provide 
incentives for mass transit use. According to a study published by the 
American Public Transportation Association, public transportation use 
saves an annual 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline, almost 4 million 
gallons per day. Factoring in the national average of gas at $4 a 
gallon, it saves consumers nearly $16 million a day in gas costs.
  Now, I support our public transportation system, and I'm pleased to 
support an extensive grant program to help expand transit use across 
the country. But I am disappointed in this bill because it only 
requires that Federal employees be offered transit benefits. While I 
support expanding the current transit benefit program, all Americans 
should have this benefit.
  Now, more than a month ago, Congressmen Lipinski and Biggert and I 
introduced bipartisan legislation, the Creating Opportunities to 
Motivate Mass-transit Utilization to Encourage Ridership Act, the 
Commuter Act of 2008. Our legislation offers employers a 50 percent tax 
credit for all transit benefits provided to employees. And under its 
provisions, employees would receive up to $1,380 in free mass-transit 
funds this year, with the employer receiving a $690 tax credit.
  According to Forbes, the average gasoline costs in the ten worst 
commuter cities is $6.35 per day. Should businesses take advantage of 
this incentive, they would save their employees $1,600 per year. As 
family budgets tighten, an extra $1,600, or if there's two commuters, 
$3,200 would really ease burdens of health care and education. Such a 
benefit should also include Americans who are not lucky enough to have 
a Federal job.
  I support H.R. 6052, but I'm surprised that this bill stands for the 
principle that if the taxpayer already pays your salary, we will help 
you more. But what if you're not lucky enough to have a government-paid 
position? Under this bill, you're out of luck. But under our bipartisan 
Commuter Act, you would have this benefit, too.
  To help commuters, we should pass the bipartisan Commute Act to help 
all communities to really lower the gas bill of the United States and 
not just offer assistance to people already paid by the Feds.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  The gentleman made a thoughtful observation, and I'm sure the 
gentleman is aware that there already is a tax exemption in Federal 
code for private sector employers and employees. But that doesn't apply 
to the Federal government or to other governmental agencies because 
they don't have a tax. So the transit benefit for Federal employees is 
a matter that we could do within the context of the current bill.
  In the longer term, next year, when we consider the longer-term 
authorization, the gentleman's suggestion would be an appropriate 
matter for consideration. We will have better figures which we're 
requesting now from public agencies for those matters.
  Mr. KIRK. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KIRK. The gentleman is a very good chairman of the Transportation 
Committee. I know he wants to go in the right direction. I just wish we 
had gotten exactly where he wants to go a little faster today, and I 
thank the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I wish we could have, too, but we didn't have good 
numbers to see what those costs might be.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Woolsey), a representative of the beautiful Sonoma Valley.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. I want to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Mica for this piece 
of legislation because, Madam Chairman, it's going to take a big change 
in how we do business if our country is going to meet our energy 
demands for the future.
  While the Republicans in Congress and President Bush chant ``drill, 
drill, drill'' to appease, it appears, their big oil buddies, the truth 
is we can't drill our way out of this problem. What we need is a 
commonsense solution, solutions like the bill before us today. H.R. 
6052 won't solve all of our problems, but it does start the process of 
getting people to change their habits and get out of their cars by 
providing them options of transportation that allow them to get to 
where they're going without driving solo in their cars.
  It's steps like this that can make a big difference because public 
transportation is going to play a huge role in solving our energy 
problems. It will also make a difference in what is going on in our 
environment. It will help communities not have to build more and more 
roads, and it will get people where they're going in a very efficient 
way.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, to support 
the expansion of public transportation.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member 
of the T&I Committee, the gentleman from beautiful southwest Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank my friend, the ranking member, and I thank the 
committee.
  I think this is a good bill. I rise in support of it, but I want to 
emphasize

[[Page 13921]]

that this is really just a short-term relief in what we need to do. We 
have to do a whole lot more, and we could do a whole lot more.
  This will provide short-term relief in public transit for those who 
use it, but short of a comprehensive policy that involves short-term 
solutions, mid-term and long-term, this isn't going to get us anywhere 
near to what we need to do to solve our energy problems.
  I want to focus on one issue. I mean, clearly, we have to increase 
supply, and it can be done in an environmentally responsible way. We've 
shown that in my State of Louisiana.
  We should lift this moratorium on the Outer Continental Shelf, and 
that's one way that we can really move things forward quickly.
  I would emphasize that, in the cumulative debate that's gone on 
today, there's been some misinformation because Louisiana delegations, 
in a bipartisan way over the years, over the last decade-and-a-half, 
have fought to open the Outer Continental Shelf and provide Outer 
Continental Shelf revenue-sharing so that the States could also get 
some of this revenue to rebuild their infrastructure. This is a 
sensible way. We have fought for this, and we've been blocked by the 
other side consistently in this.
  I also want to point out with regard to the use-it-or-lose-it issue, 
it's very expensive, and companies cannot even get the permitting to 
assess with seismic what we know to be these reserves or what we think 
are reserves. We don't have definite information. A lot of that 
information is 10, 20, 30 years old, if we even have information.
  I would say that it costs somewhere between $1 and $5 million just to 
get the permit to do seismic. Then you have to get the lease. That's 
another anywhere from $11 to over $200 million to secure these leases. 
Then you go into seismic, and that can be very expensive. And those 
cumulative costs continue to add. By the time you actually get to a 
point where you can drill a well where you have known reserves, you're 
talking years down the line, and typically, it is not unusual for the 
costs to be up in billions, $1.5 billion.
  That's why it's important to lift this moratorium. Let's move 
forward. Let's have a comprehensive energy policy that's not only 
focused on supply and increasing exploration and production in an 
environmentally sensitive way, but also focuses on renewables and 
alternatives, nuclear and the others.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. How much time remains on both sides, Madam Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota has 11\3/4\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 15 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Oregon, a long-time proponent of and advocate for and practitioner of 
public transportation, a man who saves 8 barrels of oil a year by 
consuming 86,000 calories on his bike.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
his leadership.
  It's interesting for us to hear from some of our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, my good friend from Florida, recounting sort of the 
history of the Bush administration leadership on energy. I have a 
slightly different recollection of that.
  One of the first things this administration did when they came to 
power was to create 7 years ago a secret task force. They never really 
fully released what was going on or why, but we know that it was 
dominated by representatives of the industry. And the Secretary of 
Energy in March of 2005 indicated that 95 percent of the objectives of 
the task force were completed. And then 35 months ago, on the floor of 
the House, we passed their big picture energy bill when they controlled 
everything, House, Senate, White House, and it was going to envision 
great changes for all American families.
  Well, all American families have had some significant changes since 
the Republican energy bill was passed. Most significant is that 
gasoline prices have gone from $2.49 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. The 
changes about altered conservation, for instance, have come over the 
objections of our friends in the Republican party. Remember, for years, 
they made it illegal even to study increasing CAFE standards, and lo 
and behold, now George Bush is claiming credit for what we forced him 
to do for the first time in 30 years, increasing those fuel standards. 
But even if we give him credit for going to 35 miles to the gallon 
standard, it took George Bush longer to get to that 35 miles to a 
gallon than it took Jack Kennedy to get Americans to the moon.
  This legislation is part of a comprehensive approach. You've seen it 
come to pass from our first days in Democratic control in this 
Congress, where we provided more incentives for new sources of energy, 
where we've worked to shift incentives from massive oil companies who 
didn't need our tax dollars. Remember, George Bush said they didn't 
need subsidies at $50 a barrel. Well, Big Oil didn't need it at $100 
per barrel or $140, but that shift to alternative energy support was 
resisted by the administration and by my Republican colleagues.
  We have systematically moved forward in areas to give more choices to 
Americans. I heard my friend from Louisiana talk about how it costs 
money to explore the 68 million acres already available to them. Gee, 
ExxonMobil spent $36 billion last year, not in alternative energy, that 
was $10 million, but to buy back their own stock.
  Let's get a grip. It's time for us to move forward with choices that 
will make a difference. This legislation will make a difference for 
every community, rural and urban, around the country. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time at this 
time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We have several speakers, Madam Chairman, who have not 
arrived yet, and does the gentleman from Florida have other speakers?
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I'm in the same situation that the 
gentleman from Minnesota is.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman will yield back the balance of his 
time, we will yield the balance of our time.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Well, again, I have to compliment Mr. Oberstar, and folks have to 
look at what we're doing here this afternoon. This is the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We can't solve all the 
energy issues. We have a very small piece, and we're trying to take 
care of that small piece here today.
  We don't get into some of the other issues that have been raised, but 
I must say that I'm going to be going back to Florida tomorrow, and 
I'll be talking to folks. And you know, it doesn't take you long to 
talk to folks at home and have them get your attention. And they are 
getting our attention by saying, what are you doing about $4 a gallon 
gasoline, what are you doing about energy costs that are soaring, what 
are you doing about the price of food and other things that are being 
affected by energy costs.
  The people who are on a limited income, God bless them. I don't know 
how they're making it, or a fixed income, with the prices that they see 
both at the pump, at the store, in their lives. They want answers.
  I'm sorry that some of the other committees are not acting and the 
Congress is not acting like the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, because when I go home I have to tell them that how things 
are left in their Congress was that we took care of a small piece. We 
provided transit grants for those Federal employees working outside of 
the Beltway. We provided additional grants through eight transit 
companies who are hurting because of increased fuel costs and trying to 
expand transit service that people are becoming reliant on now because 
of the high cost of fuel. But I can't tell them that I've done anything 
about supply, that, again, the supply has been cut off.
  I even agree with the child that's crying in the gallery. People are 
not happy about this. They want a response from this Congress, and this 
Congress has the ability to act to increase the supplies so we're not 
reliant on reliable friends like Venezuela, the sheiks and

[[Page 13922]]

leaders in the Middle East, and that dependable source of energy, 
Nigeria.
  Folks, that isn't going to cut it for an answer when we get home, and 
this isn't complicated. It's a question of Economics 101. This is a 
question of supply and demand. Right now, in the short-term, we need to 
increase supply. If we had worked together over the past 7 years from 
that introduction by President Bush some 7 years ago, one of his first 
plans--and I cited his rollout statements, and let me just read also 
what he said on May 17.
  President Bush said: ``Too often, Americans are asked to take sides 
between energy production and environmental protection--as if people 
who revere the Alaska wilderness do not also care about America's 
energy future; as if the people who produce America's energy do not 
care about the planet their children will inherit. The truth is energy 
production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. 
They're dual aspects of a single purpose--to live well and wisely upon 
the earth. Just as we need a new tone in Washington, we also need a new 
tone in discussing energy in the environment, one that is less 
suspicious, less punitive, less rancorous. We've yelled at each other 
enough. Now it's time to listen to each other and act.''
  Again, these are the words of our President before 9/11 on the energy 
issue.
  You know, again, if you want to look at the Record, and I will be 
glad to submit for the Record how many Republicans and how many 
Democrats opposed each of the proposals, all that's history, folks. 
What the American people want is now us to act as the President said 7 
years ago.
  So, today, Mr. Oberstar and I don't bring an answer to the whole 
energy problem. We bring our little piece. We ask the rest of the 
Congress, I ask the rest of the Congress, to come forth and to act, and 
that needs to be done because when we get home, those people are going 
to ask you, what did you do about the high cost of energy, the high 
cost of food, the businesses that are closing, the lives that are being 
impacted by high energy costs, and we need to be able to give them an 
answer.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. We do have a speaker on the transit subject, and I'm 
very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. I'd like to thank the chairman for yielding and thank 
him for his leadership on this subject.
  In urban States such as mine in Rhode Island, we have more and more 
of our consumers getting caught in traffic jams. The air quality is 
increasingly poor, and still, people are having trouble affording to 
fill their gas tanks with gas. And this is a tsunami of problems, both 
with their paying for their gas, trying to get to work, and the traffic 
jams, and breathing in the poor air quality.

                              {time}  1500

  It seems to me adding this $1.5 billion for mass transit solves all 
three of these problems: One, it gets cars off the road; two, it allows 
us to get our air cleaned up; and three, it helps these consumers be 
able to save money that they would otherwise put into their gas tank. 
And in doing so, it reduces our demand on foreign oil.
  So, really, to reference what some of my colleagues have said, this 
is part of the approach to this problem, and I think it's well worth 
our taking into account. That is why I support this legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, with great appreciation, and thank him for 
making it possible for us to bring this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding.
  Jim Oberstar is one of the most knowledgeable people in America on 
energy issues and on transportation issues. And the two, of course, are 
closely related. I want to thank him for his leadership and for his 
service. We are fortunate, as an American people, to have him chairing 
this critically important committee.
  There is no stronger proponent of rail service and mass transit than 
Jim Oberstar. That service has never been more important than it is 
today. His vision and his service have put this country in a place 
where we now have the opportunity to make additional investment which 
is critically needed so that the demand for mass transit resulting from 
the cost of gasoline and energy products can be met by our mass transit 
system. And I thank him for his leadership.
  This bill, as well as the other two bills considered on this floor 
today on drilling and market speculation, is a clear recognition by 
this House majority that America's energy policy cannot be one 
dimensional.
  We've heard a lot of finger pointing on the floor today, and finger 
pointing is relatively easy. The fact of the matter is we all need to 
come together. I don't just mean Republicans and Democrats and the 
Congress of the United States, but all 300 million of us in this 
country need to come together and understand that we have 3 percent of 
the world's oil supply and 25 percent of the demand. It does not take a 
great mathematician to understand, therefore, that simply drilling for 
new product will not solve our problem. That is not to say by any 
stretch of the imagination that that should not be done.
  These bills, taken together, and when combined with other actions 
taken by the majority on energy, are a clear reflection of the 
alternative to the Republicans' sole focus on drilling, to the 
exclusion of alternative and renewable sources of energy.
  Let no one be mistaken: Democrats do not oppose further drilling, 
discovery and production of product, period. All we are saying, as I 
will explain in more detail shortly, is that the oil and gas companies 
should utilize the 68 million acres--that's 68 million acres--currently 
available to drill on which contain, according to experts, over 100 
billion barrels of oil. And we use about 7.5 billion a year in this 
country, so that is approximately 14 years of oil. That's what the 
experts tell us, not Democrats and Republicans, the experts tell us are 
available on these untapped resources currently available, currently 
leased. I would tell my friends that, not only that, but they contain 
hundreds of millions of cubic feet of natural gas.
  Now, as to Chairman Oberstar's bill: It promises Americans relief 
from our $4 per gallon gas prices. Tomorrow? No. Next week? No. Next 
month? No. Very frankly, we have been too long delaying our investment 
in alternative energy sources and alternative transportation modes. But 
it does promise that in the future we will have the capability both to 
provide mass transit for our people, and to provide for the alternative 
to lower demand which, therefore, should lower prices as well.
  It authorizes $1.7 billion over the next 2 years to provide grants to 
mass transit authorities to reduce public transit fares and will help 
transit agencies deal with escalating costs. That is a rational 
response to increased demand.
  In just the first 3 months of this year, Americans took almost 85 
million more trips on public transit than in the same period the year 
before. Surely all of us in this body, faced with 85 million additional 
trips, will want to respond in a way that provides capacity to 
accommodate that growth.
  Public transit reduces America's oil consumption as well as carbon 
dioxide emissions. Thankfully, the administration has, very late, come 
to the conclusion that, yes, global warming is a problem. 
Unfortunately, for 7-plus years of this administration they denied it 
was a problem, but coming to the right conclusion late is always 
timely.
  In addition, the legislation on market speculation that was 
introduced by Chairman Peterson and Congressman Van Hollen is an effort 
which I hope every Member of this body will support to address this 
issue, record high gas prices, from another angle.
  Oil producers are telling us they believe that a large portion of the 
price is related to speculation. Can I guarantee they're right? No, I 
cannot. Am I an expert on this issue? I am not. But I do

[[Page 13923]]

know that they have said that is the case. If it is the case, it's 
incumbent upon us to find out, because if it is, and we can reduce 
prices for the consumer at the pump, they expect us to do so and we 
want to do so.
  The Bush administration, of course, insists that the spike in gas 
prices is not attributable to market speculation. That may be why the 
commission that is supposed to oversee this has not acted as vigorously 
as they otherwise might. George Soros, a very successful investor, has 
said this: ``The crude oil market has been significantly affected by 
speculation.''
  The legislation that we will vote on shortly simply directs the 
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to use its full authority and 
emergency tools to curtail excessive speculation and other practices 
distorting the energy market. Why would any Member of this body vote 
against asking this commission to look at that issue to determine 
whether or not there is validity? If there is not, presumably the 
commission will so find.
  Finally, about Chairman Rahall's bill, let me simply say this: What 
could make more common sense than saying to the oil and gas companies 
that they should drill or pursue drilling on the 68 million acres of 
Federal land currently under lease or simply lose those leases? After 
all, they are leased for the purposes of us producing more product. If 
they lie fallow and are not being worked, not being investigated, not 
being explored, not being tapped, then the American consumer finds a 
dwindling or short supply. And what happens in that context? Prices go 
up. And yes, oil companies make record profits, but consumers lose. 
This bill simply says to the oil companies, be diligent in the 
development of what you have or lose the lease to someone who will 
pursue the discovery and production of oil.
  Democrats believe that we need to find product. I mentioned the 68 
million acres that you've heard a lot about, that's a lot of acres. But 
there is an additional 23 million acres in Alaska, 22 million of which 
is under congressional set-aside for oil production and discovery. Nine 
hundred thousand acres have already been leased for that purpose. And 
experts tell us there is more oil there than there is in the Alaskan 
Wildlife Refuge, but our Republican friends continue to focus on the 
Alaskan Refuge.
  Let no one be mistaken: The oil companies have many acres to look at 
onshore and offshore. According to the Minerals Management Service and 
the Bureau of Land Management, these 68 million acres on land and 
waters, 74 percent of which we have already leased, are not producing 
oil and gas.
  Our Republican friends have also charged that we're keeping the best 
lands out of the hands of oil and gas companies. That is not the case. 
They can say it again and again and again and again, but it's not the 
case. In fact, 81 percent--I hope all of my colleagues hear this, and I 
hope the American public will read the Record--81 percent of estimated 
oil and gas resources on Federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf 
are presently available for development. And here, perhaps, is the most 
important fact: These resources are equal, as I said, to 107 billion 
barrels of oil and 658 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That is 10 
times the amount of economically recoverable oil that could be produced 
from opening up the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and more than 14 years of 
current U.S. oil consumption.
  Finally, Madam Chairman, let me say that there is no silver bullet, 
we all understand that; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. We 
need to be honest with the American public. Unfortunately, for over a 
quarter of a century we have had mostly administrations or Republican 
control of the House and the Senate which essentially said that 
drilling more oil and not looking for alternatives was the policy they 
wanted to pursue.
  When we got here, we passed an energy bill that focuses on 
alternatives. If we only have 3 percent, we have 25 percent of the 
demand, you can bet your sweet life that those who have the oil all 
over this world are going to say to us, you pay us what we tell you to 
pay us. And not until we pursue policies--which this administration has 
failed to do, which this Republican leadership failed to do--not until 
that time will we be able to say to our friends and, indeed, some not 
so friendly, we're not going to pay your price because we have 
alternatives. We have mass transit provided by Jim Oberstar. We have 
alternative energies provided by the bill that we passed. We are 
expecting electricity--which the Republicans oppose--to be produced by 
alternatives. We have renewable fuel standards passed in this House, 
sent to the Senate.
  Ladies and gentlemen of this House, we have taken significant steps 
last year, we're taking significant steps today, and we will continue 
to take significant steps so that America will be energy independent. 
That's in the best interest of our national security, our economic 
security and, indeed, it is critically important for our global health.
  The bills we are considering on this House floor today are key 
components of a comprehensive energy strategy that seeks to provide 
Americans with relief at the gas pump while we wean our Nation from its 
dangerous addiction to foreign oil. The President said we're addicted 
to foreign oil. And yet there was a meeting on energy in 2001, just 
after the President became the Chief Executive, and they convened oil 
company executives to tell us, what should our policies be? One of my 
colleagues said, well, whatever they said--because the meetings were 
secret--their policies failed. Perhaps. Perhaps they failed. One cannot 
inevitably draw that conclusion, however, because those same companies, 
7 years later, are making the greatest profits they have made in the 
history of their companies. Perhaps their policies failed, or perhaps 
their policies led to success.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we need to pursue mass transit and invest in 
expanding it so we can meet the demand of our consumers and of our 
citizens and of our energy independence.
  I thank the gentleman for his leadership. And I urge my colleagues to 
vote for all three of these critically important bills. Are they the 
sole solution? They are not. Are they the only solution? They are not. 
Are they the solutions that we will take and then stop? They are not. 
But they are a step, each and every one of them, in the right 
direction. Let's take those steps today.
  I urge my colleagues to support these three bills.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Minnesota has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  I just want to say that we have a very severe problem in this country 
on our energy supplies. In the short term, there are a series of ways 
that we might save ourselves some money on the gas prices, and those 
ways include driving less, driving slower, carpooling, and using public 
transportation where it is available.

                              {time}  1515

  And I have to commend the chairman for bringing so quickly to the 
floor this important legislation, which provides a substantial increase 
in moneys, authorization, at least, for public transportation, which is 
already in place in our smaller metropolitan areas and even in our 
rural areas, so that we can enhance the public transportation available 
for people--what is already available--and take care of people who are 
making that move toward using a bit more public transportation.
  In the longer term, which is speaking about the 10-year kind of time 
frame, whereas the short term is in the first year or so, in the longer 
term, living closer to where we work so you don't have to commute so 
far, doing the research and development on renewable energy sources, 
drilling wherever it's open for leases, and I say that's in the

[[Page 13924]]

longer term because everybody agrees that it will take, even in the 
best of circumstances, 5 years to bring new leased areas to production 
and more likely 10 years to bring those new leased areas to production, 
that and changing over our whole vehicle fleet, our whole vehicle 
fleet, which will take a considerable period of time, to using much 
more fuel-efficient vehicles, those are the longer-term ways that we 
can get out of this problem.
  And by far the fastest way to immediately have an effect is the 
elimination of speculation. There has been much testimony before our 
committees that speculation is a very significant portion of what is 
going on right now. The speculative activity in the oil market has 
quadrupled in just the last few months, 3 or 4 months, and that would 
be the fastest and most effective way.
  My friend the ranking member from Florida has pointed out that we 
need to increase supply. Well, yes, it would be possible to increase 
supply. But remember, as the majority leader said here a few minutes 
ago, we in America have 5 percent, somewhat less than 5 percent, of the 
planet's population. We are now consuming 25 percent of the oil 
produced on this planet today, and we in America have only 3 percent of 
the reserves. You can't drill your way out of this problem because we 
do not have the reserves.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Minnesota and as well his ranking member, who I hope is 
recognizing the importance of the work that we are doing here today, 
and, of course, the Members that have spoken.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to support the Saving Energy Through 
Public Transportation Act of 2008 and also to speak to the manager's 
amendment that incorporates my language that speaks specifically to 
encouraging, I hope insisting, that stakeholders, whether they be 
cities and counties or various transit agencies, engage the public in 
the question of promoting public transportation.
  The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has shared a recent 
study that states that if Americans use public transit at the same rate 
as Europeans for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs, the 
United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more than 
40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil that 
we import from Saudi Arabia.
  Right as we speak, Houston, Texas, the fourth largest city in the 
Nation, is beginning to grow its mass transit system. It started by the 
advocation of many of us, including our former mayor Lee P. Brown, 
which required, because of the restraints here in Washington and the 
difficulties of our being able to get consensus, it was started by our 
own tax dollars. The 7\1/2\ mile transit system that was started at 
least 3 or 4 years ago has now become one of the fastest new starts in 
America and is located in my congressional district shared with my 
fellow colleague in the Ninth Congressional District. What it says is 
that new starts should be increased in months to come. And as we look 
to expanding opportunities for transit systems and reducing our use of 
oil, it is important as well that we look to collaborative efforts on 
efficient transportation systems.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Chairman, let me ask my colleagues to 
support this legislation, and I hope to get time on the manager's 
amendment.
  Madam Chairman, thank you, and thank you Chairman Oberstar for your 
efforts on energy conservation with H.R. 6052--``Saving Energy through 
Public Transportation Act of 2008.'' The Transportation and 
Infrastructure has once again produced legislation that will help 
Americans save money and develop new modes of transportation.
  The primary objective of this legislation is to reduce the United 
States dependence on foreign oil by encouraging more people to use 
public transportation. The Transportation and Infrastructure has shared 
a recent study that states if Americans used public transit at the same 
rate as Europeans--for roughly 10 percent of their daily travel needs--
the United States could reduce its dependence on imported oil by more 
than 40 percent, nearly equal to the 550 million barrels of crude oil 
that we import from Saudi Arabia each year.
  Rising gas prices have only added to this country's economic 
downturn. When we add this cost into our troubled housing markets, 
soaring food prices, and a war without a clear end--the importance of 
this legislation becomes even more apparent.
  I urge transportation systems such as Houston METRO to work in 
greater coordination with their local community to ensure that routing 
lines make not only economic sense, but practical sense as well.
  Community involvement is essential, which is why I offered an 
amendment that would state that ``public transportation stakeholders 
should engage local communities in the education and promotion of the 
importance of using public transportation in cities and counties; and 
in the planning, development, and design of transportation routing 
lines.''
  I am pleased that my amendment was incorporated into the manager's 
amendment. However, I am disappointed that all the language was not 
incorporated--leaving out the key portion of community involvement in 
planning, development, and design of transportation routing lines.
  I still support this measure and I sincerely hope that our local 
public transportation agencies take the communities' use into account 
as well as their thoughts on what routes would add value and which 
routes may actually do more harm than good. It is our residents who 
utilize the mass transit systems not the planning boards.
  In my district of Houston, Texas, many residents utilize the public 
transit system to alleviate congestion as well as to control cost. I 
believe it is imperative that we have full community involvement in the 
discussions surrounding outreach, planning, design of mass transit.
  Our parents who are trying to hold one child, guide another, balance 
their bags and get to work; it is our elderly who need extra time to 
get onto trains and buses; and our youth who are trying to get back and 
forth to school and activities--these are the people who can and will 
utilize public transportation. The incentives are there for commuters 
but they should be examined with community involvement so the right 
message is sent.
  This act will add value to our public transportation by:
  Authorizing $1.7 Billion of Capital and Operating Funds for Transit 
Agencies to Reduce Fares and Expand Transit Services. This section 
authorizes $850 million (General Fund) for each of fiscal years 2008 
and 2009 to allow public transit agencies to reduce transit fares and 
expand transit services. These funds will allow transit agencies to 
provide incentives for commuters to choose transit options, thereby 
reducing our nation's transportation-related energy consumption and 
reliance on foreign oil, as well as decreasing its greenhouse gas 
emissions. These funds will be distributed under current law urban and 
rural transit formulas. The Federal share for these grants is 100 
percent and funds will only be available for a two-year period.
  Increasing the Federal Share for Clean Fuel and Alternative Fuel 
Transit Bus, Ferry, or Locomotive-related Equipment and Facilities from 
90 percent to 100 percent. The bill increases the Federal share for the 
alternative fuel vehicle-related equipment from 90 percent to 100 
percent of the net project cost for fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
  Extending Transit Benefits to All Federal Employees. The bill 
establishes a nationwide Federal transit pass benefits program and 
requires all Federal agencies in the United States to offer transit 
passes to Federal employees.
  Requiring the Department of Transportation (DOT) to Establish 
Specific Guidance for Implementing the Nationwide Transit Pass Benefits 
Program. The guidance will ensure that Federal agencies have the 
necessary administrative procedures to ensure that Federal employees 
properly use the program. It also requires the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
Department of Energy to implement a nationwide three-year pilot transit 
pass benefit program for all qualified Federal employees of those 
agencies.
  Establishing a Vanpool Pilot Program. The bill establishes a two-year 
pilot program to allow the amount expended by private providers of 
public transportation by vanpool for the acquisition of vans to be used 
as the non-Federal share for matching Federal transit

[[Page 13925]]

funds in five communities. The provision requires the private providers 
of vanpool services to use revenues they receive in providing public 
transportation, in excess of its operating costs, for the purpose of 
acquiring vans, excluding any amounts the providers may have received 
in Federal, State, or local government assistance for such acquisition. 
The Department of Transportation will implement and oversee the vanpool 
pilot projects, and will report back to Congress on the costs, 
benefits, and efficiencies of the vanpool demonstration projects.
  Increasing the Federal Share for Additional Parking Facilities at 
End-of-Line Fixed Guideway Stations. The bill increases the Federal 
share for additional parking facilities at end-of-line fixed guideway 
stations to increase the total number of transit commuters who have 
access to those stations.
  Therefore Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6052, 
which seeks to address energy conservations through public 
transportation.

                  Amendment to H.R. 6052, as Reported

                  Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

       Page 3, after line 25, insert the following:
       (10) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and 
     involve local communities in the education and promotion of 
     the importance of utilizing public transportation in cities 
     and counties and in the planning, development, and design of 
     transportation routing lines.

  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Again, this is an important debate. It's a little piece of the big 
national debate that's going on now. Mr. Oberstar and I lead the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We came forward with this 
measure. This measure is within our jurisdiction, as I said earlier, 
and it is just a small piece of the puzzle.
  Many Members come to me on my side of the aisle and ask me how I am 
going to vote, and I am going to support this legislation. It does 
increase the authorization. That's a fairly substantial piece of change 
by any estimate, $1.7 billion over 2 years, and it does make some 
significant changes in policy, in opening up authorization to spend 
money to help transit companies and agencies that are suffering like 
the American public is suffering with high fuel costs, and I think 
that's a good thing. It expands some services for mass transit, which 
is also a good thing. And it also expands from just within the beltway 
to other Federal employees the benefits of using public transportation, 
and that's a good thing too.
  This is general debate, and we have gotten into general debate, and I 
have heard the distinguished majority leader speak and he quoted George 
Soros. I don't use him as a quote too much or rely on him for my 
opinion seeking, but I did just happen to have some sources that quote 
the American public and their opinion.
  The Los Angeles Times Bloomberg Poll said when all registered voters 
are asked whether they support increased exploration for oil and 
natural gas, 68 percent respond in the affirmative, and that was just 
within the last 2 days. Rasmussen reports, according to them, 67 
percent of the American people support oil drilling off the Nation's 
coasts and 64 percent think it will lower gas prices. Now, they seem to 
get it. The other committees with jurisdiction and the rest of Congress 
don't seem to get it.
  Now, don't tell me you can't do it. I mean this is an incredible 
institution and can do anything. We represent the greatest ingenuity, 
the greatest people that ever walked the face of the Earth. God blessed 
this Nation so much, and we are the custodians of coming here and doing 
things.
  Now, Mr. Oberstar and I on a Monday introduced a piece of 
legislation. We worked together on it, and within the same week on a 
Thursday night, we had the President of the United States at 7 o'clock 
at night sign the legislation as is. So we can do these things that the 
American people want.
  Now, 1 week from tomorrow, people are going to try to celebrate 
Independence Day in this great country, this great country for which so 
many people made so many sacrifices, and I have to go back home and 
tell them I increased transit grants for Federal employees outside the 
beltway and I also helped transit agencies who are suffering like they 
are to pay their fuel bill, but I don't have an answer for them. That's 
not what they want to hear, folks. This is the Congress of the United 
States, and we can and we must do better.
  I have been here going on my 16th year, not as long as Mr. Oberstar. 
He knows transportation inside and out and he's an expert renowned on a 
whole host of issues, but the good thing about being here just half as 
long as he is that you hear some of these things.
  First, we're going to solve this problem; we'll tax it. So what do 
they do? They say, windfall taxes for the oil companies that are taking 
advantage. Windfall taxes, that's it. So first we'll tax it.
  Well, that didn't work. People come up to me, did you ever hear of a 
time when you tax something and the price goes down for consumers? Duh. 
Well, that didn't work.
  So now there's speculation; so we'll get 'em. We'll regulate. We're 
going to regulate those speculators. That'll take care of it.
  Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have left.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MICA. Oh, good. So I can tell this story, Madam Chairman.
  This reminds me of sitting on a committee coming here, and this took 
over some time. We always hear about high drug prices, and I sat on the 
committee, and everyone was railing about the price of vaccination 
drugs. So we dragged in the drug companies to sit them down, and I 
remember this guy who represented a drug company, and this was an 
investigative hearing. And he showed a little vial, and he said, this 
vial of vaccine, this medicine, only costs about $2 to produce. So we 
hammered him. It only cost $2 to produce, but he said that the 
liability on it was reaching $30, so $30 and increasing.
  So then we dragged in the insurance company. ``You're charging them 
$30 for this vaccine?'' We hammered them. So they left.
  And then the next thing we knew was we weren't producing any vaccine 
in the United States because no one would insure it. So the next 
hearing we held--remember this, now, folks--the next hearing we held 
was on its now being produced in Great Britain and we had some bad 
batches. Well, we hadn't sent enough FDA inspectors over to inspects 
the batches there.
  Folks, these aren't the answers: additional taxation, additional 
regulation, chasing business off our shores. And the same thing isn't 
going to happen with energy. The American people get it. I just read 
the poll. It doesn't take a lot, folks. They know if you increase the 
supply, the price will go down. And we have the capability of doing 
that. We built the Alaska pipeline in 3 years.
  Next Friday is Independence Day. It's going to be a sad Independence 
Day because instead of America's being independent, we will be 
dependent on energy. That's affecting all of us, and it's not right.
  Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I listened with great interest to the gentleman's ruminations on a 
wide range of subjects. I won't comment on those that reach beyond the 
subject matter at hand, our transit bill. I do reaffirm my appreciation 
for his partnership in bringing this bill to the floor.
  This is an important piece of legislation. In the larger scheme of 
the billions of dollars, $125 billion a year, that we need to be 
investing in all levels of government in our surface transportation 
system, this $1.7 billion is a relatively small step, but it moves us 
in the direction of a mode shift in transportation to 10 percent of all 
trips by transit. If we made just that little step in America, we would 
save the equivalent of all the oil we import from Saudi Arabia. That is 
what we can do. It's within our grasp now. We don't need a research 
program. We don't need a man-on-the-moon program. We just need the 
funding to invest in what is already at hand: solid, responsible, 
reliable, effective transportation systems for the public to use 
instead of getting in their private vehicle.

[[Page 13926]]



                              {time}  1530

  Had the administration in 2003 concurred in a $375 billion 
transportation program for the next 6 years, as its own Department of 
Transportation recommended, and as Mr. Young, then-chairman of the 
committee, and I introduced, we would have been far better positioned 
today than we are now.
  Instead, that administration proposed only a $5.5 billion funding 
flat out over the 6 years for transit. We wound up with $10 billion in 
the SAFETEA legislation over the 5 years of the legislation. But we 
have to do far better than that, and this bill moves us in the right 
direction.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the 
Savings Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, H.R. 6052.
  As gas prices continue to skyrocket to over $4 a gallon, commuters 
are increasingly abandoning their automobiles in favor of public 
transportation. New Jersey's public transit agency, NJ Transit, is 
breaking ridership records for the sixth consecutive year, with over 
900,000 trips per weekday on its trains, buses, and light-rail 
vehicles. In the first 3 months of this year, public transit trips 
nationwide increased by 85 million over last year's numbers. Amtrak set 
record highs for its service with over 25 million users last year. This 
increase in use not only takes cars off our overburdened roadways, it 
conserves energy, decreases our greenhouse gas emissions, and helps our 
economy.
  However, mass transit agencies are also suffering from soaring gas 
prices, increased demand for their services, and decreased operating 
budgets. Transit agencies are paying 44 percent more for diesel fuel 
than they were at the beginning of this year, and almost half of bus 
operators and more than two-thirds of rail operators have increased 
their fares.
  The Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008 would 
help State and local mass transit authorities meet the increase in 
demand and allow them to provide a cost-effective alternative to 
driving. This legislation would authorize $1.7 billion in grants for 
mass transit agencies to upgrade and expand their transit services 
without having to further increase their fares.
  By taking public transportation the average American household could 
save $6,251 and help reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 4,800 pounds 
per year. However, commuters need affordable, reliable access to public 
transportation if they are to utilize these benefits. This bill would 
help make public transit more available to commuters, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Saving 
Energy through Public Transportation Act.
  My constituents are struggling to pay rising gas prices caused in 
part by wild speculation in oil markets. By providing greater access to 
public transportation we can reduce the demand for oil and help lower 
the price of gasoline. With increased use of public transit, we can 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen the economy by removing 
congestion from our already crowded roads.
  I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar for including the ``Capital 
Cost of Contracting'' pilot program in this bill. Congressman Mike 
Rogers and I have long supported this program.
  The provision makes it easier for employers and communities to offer 
vanpool services by leveraging their investment with Federal transit 
funds. By doing this, we can lower the cost of joining a vanpool and 
increase services nationwide. It is estimated that full adoption of 
this program could triple vanpooling across the Nation. This would 
conserve over 500 million gallons of fuel per year and greatly reduce 
harmful emissions. I appreciate the inclusion of this provision in the 
bill and applaud Chairman Oberstar for his determined efforts to 
provide public transit to more Americans.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Chairman, I rise today in 
strong support of H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public 
Transportation Act.
  At the onset I want to commend the bipartisan leadership of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for their efforts in 
getting this measure to the floor. The legislation before us is a good 
bill; one that will provide a much needed hand up to our Nation's 
transit agencies as they work to meet record demands for public 
transportation services.
  Dallas Area Rapid Transit Agency, or DART, headquartered in my 
congressional district and one of the best transit agencies in the 
country, fully supports this bill. Similar to other agencies around the 
country, DART ridership is setting records, as more north Texans 
recognize the immense value transit offers.
  In May, DART had its busiest month ever, providing 10.3 million 
trips. North Texans are flocking to transport by rail in record numbers 
as ridership by light and commuter rail is up 5.4 percent and 7.1 
percent respectively over 2007 numbers. During the first 7 months of 
2008, DART has witnessed a dramatic 33.8 percent increase in its 
vanpool ridership.
  The agency has acted aggressively to accommodate the increased 
demand. The agency is utilizing a new super light rail vehicle to 
increase passenger capacity.
  The agency now has a record 145 vans in operation for vanpool 
commuters and has reached its budget maximum. My transit agency could 
benefit immediately from the tools provided under H.R. 6052.
  H.R. 6052 will help transit agencies expand services and reach more 
people as it authorizes $1.7 billion dollars for capital and operating 
funds for transit agencies; increases the Federal cost share for 
alternative fuel transit buses; extends transit benefits to all Federal 
employees; establishes a vanpool pilot program; and increases the 
Federal cost share for commuter parking facilities so more people may 
have access to commuter stations.
  Madam Chairman, without question, there is a need for an overall 
expansion of transit programs across this country. However, in order 
for this to happen, there must be a realignment of infrastructure 
investment priorities and increased support at the local, State, and 
Federal levels. H.R. 6052 is a step in the right direction as it 
highlights importance of transit expansion across the Nation.
  Public transit takes drivers off the road; uses one-half the fuel of 
private automobiles; and saves working families billions annually in 
transportation costs. Studies show transportation costs are the second 
largest household expense behind housing costs.
  Nationally, for every dollar a working family saves on housing, it 
spends 77 cents more on transportation costs.
  While public transit remains an option for some--for poor and working 
families, public transit exists as a means for economic survival.
  So with that said Madam Chairman, I would merely like to reiterate my 
strong support for H.R. 6052 and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' in 
giving transit agencies across the country, and the millions of people 
they service, a hand up today. This sound, bipartisan piece of 
legislation is deserving of passage.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, the run-up in gas prices is 
squeezing families and sending them in search of cheaper alternatives 
to driving.
  As a result, our public transit authorities are also feeling the 
pinch as rising fuel costs and record ridership strain their systems.
  Almost half of bus operators and two-thirds of rail operators have 
been forced to raise their fares.
  Today, we are considering H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy through Public 
Transportation Act, which provides grants to mass transit systems to 
reduce fares and expand services for commuters.
  Using public transportation saves the average household more than 
$6,000 a year and reduces dangerous carbon dioxide emissions that 
contribute to global warming.
  Madam Chairman, I urge my colleagues to get on the bus and support 
this bill.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Chairman, l would like to recognize Chairman 
Oberstar and Chairman DeFazio for their exceptional leadership on this 
critical transportation issue.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6052, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, and urge swift 
passage of the measure.
  This bipartisan bill goes a long way in improving public 
transportation.
  By creating incentives for transit agencies to reduce fares and 
expand services, H.R. 6052 makes public transportation a more 
attractive option for commuters.
  But this bill also provides relief to many of our transit agencies 
who are struggling with operational costs.
  I've heard from agencies in my district, like Roaring Fork 
Transportation Authority, who have seen an increase in ridership, yet 
face the problem of record fuel prices.
  They are begging for more resources just to stay afloat.
  So I support the additional $200 million that this bill authorizes 
for formula grants to rural areas.
  Additionally, I applaud Chairman Oberstar for including a fuel 
provision in the Manager's Amendment, which will help our transit 
agencies deal with their fuel costs.
  With their increased ridership, they need help now more than ever.
  I believe H.R. 6052 will reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 
encouraging more people to use public transportation.
  Public transit is a critical piece of cutting greenhouse gases.

[[Page 13927]]

  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered read for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 6052

       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 ``Saving Energy Through Public 
     Transportation Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 2007, people in the United States took more than 
     10.3 billion trips using public transportation, the highest 
     level in 50 years.
       (2) Public transportation use in the United States is up 32 
     percent since 1995, a figure that is more than double the 
     growth rate of the Nation's population and is substantially 
     greater than the growth rate for vehicle miles traveled on 
     the Nation's highways for that same period.
       (3) Public transportation use saves fuel, reduces 
     emissions, and saves money for the people of the United 
     States.
       (4) The direct petroleum savings attributable to public 
     transportation use is 1.4 billion gallons per year, and when 
     the secondary effects of transit availability on travel are 
     also taken into account, public transportation use saves the 
     United States the equivalent of 4.2 billion gallons of 
     gasoline per year (more than 11 million gallons of gasoline 
     per day).
       (5) Public transportation use in the United States is 
     estimated to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million 
     metric tons annually.
       (6) An individual who commutes to work using a single 
     occupancy vehicle can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 
     pounds per day (more than 4,800 pounds per year) by switching 
     to public transportation.
       (7) Public transportation use provides an affordable 
     alternative to driving, as households that use public 
     transportation save an average of $6,251 every year.
       (8) Although under existing laws Federal employees in the 
     National Capital Region receive transit benefits, transit 
     benefits should be available to all Federal employees in the 
     United States so that the Federal Government sets a leading 
     example of greater public transportation use.
       (9) Increasing public transportation use is a national 
     priority.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SERVICES.

       (a) Authorizations of Appropriations.--
       (1) Urbanized area formula grants.--In addition to amounts 
     allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(B) of title 49, United 
     States Code, to carry out section 5307 of such title, there 
     is authorized to be appropriated $750,000,000 for each of 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry out such section 5307. 
     Such funds shall be apportioned in accordance with section 
     5336 (other than subsections (i)(1) and (j)) of such title 
     but may not be combined or commingled with any other funds 
     apportioned under such section 5336.
       (2) Formula grants for other than urbanized areas.--In 
     addition to amounts allocated under section 5338(b)(2)(G) of 
     title 49, United States Code, to carry out section 5311 of 
     such title, there is authorized to be appropriated 
     $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 to carry 
     out such section 5311. Such funds shall be apportioned in 
     accordance with such section 5311 but may not be combined or 
     commingled with any other funds apportioned under such 
     section 5311.
       (b) Use of Funds.--Notwithstanding sections 5307 and 5311 
     of title 49, United States Code, the Secretary of 
     Transportation may make grants under such sections from 
     amounts appropriated under subsection (a) only for one or 
     more of the following:
       (1) If the recipient of the grant is reducing, or certifies 
     to the Secretary that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will reduce one or more fares the recipient charges 
     for public transportation, those operating costs of equipment 
     and facilities being used to provide the public 
     transportation that the recipient is no longer able to pay 
     from the revenues derived from such fare or fares as a result 
     of such reduction.
       (2) If the recipient of the grant is expanding, or 
     certifies to the Secretary that, during the term of the 
     grant, the recipient will expand public transportation 
     service, those operating and capital costs of equipment and 
     facilities being used to provide the public transportation 
     service that the recipient incurs as a result of the 
     expansion of such service.
       (c) Federal Share.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Federal share of the costs for which a grant is made 
     under this section shall be 100 percent.
       (d) Period of Availability.--Funds appropriated under this 
     section shall remain available for a period of 2 fiscal 
     years.

     SEC. 4. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE.

       Notwithstanding section 5323(i)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code, a grant for a project to be assisted under 
     chapter 53 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
     that involves acquiring clean fuel or alternative fuel 
     vehicle-related equipment or facilities for the purposes of 
     complying with or maintaining compliance with the Clean Air 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) shall be for 100 percent of the 
     net project cost of the equipment or facility attributable to 
     compliance with that Act unless the grant recipient requests 
     a lower grant percentage.

     SEC. 5. TRANSPORTATION FRINGE BENEFITS.

       (a) Requirement That Agencies Offer Transit Pass 
     Transportation Fringe Benefits to Their Employees 
     Nationwide.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3049(a)(1) of the Safe, 
     Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
     Legacy for Users (5 U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Effective'' and all that follows through 
     ``each covered agency'' and inserting ``Each agency''; and
       (B) by inserting ``at a location in an urbanized area of 
     the United States that is served by fixed route public 
     transportation'' before ``shall be offered''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5 
     U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by striking subparagraph (A); and
       (ii) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (A) through (E), respectively; and
       (B) in paragraph (4) by striking ``a covered agency'' and 
     inserting ``an agency''.
       (b) Guidance.--Section 3049(a) of such Act (5 U.S.C. 7905 
     note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(5) Guidance.--
       ``(A) Issuance.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary of Transportation 
     shall issue guidance on nationwide implementation of the 
     transit pass transportation fringe benefits program under 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Uniform application.--
       ``(i) In general.--The guidance to be issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform application for use 
     by all Federal employees applying for benefits from an agency 
     under the program.
       ``(ii) Required information.--As part of such an 
     application, an employee shall provide, at a minimum, the 
     employee's home and work addresses, a breakdown of the 
     employee's commuting costs, and a certification of the 
     employee's eligibility for benefits under the program.
       ``(iii) Warning against false statements.--Such an 
     application shall contain a warning against making false 
     statements in the application.
       ``(C) Independent verification requirements.--The guidance 
     to be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain independent 
     verification requirements to ensure that, with respect to an 
     employee of an agency--
       ``(i) the eligibility of the employee for benefits under 
     the program is verified by an official of the agency;
       ``(ii) employee commuting costs are verified by an official 
     of the agency; and
       ``(iii) records of the agency are checked to ensure that 
     the employee is not receiving parking benefits from the 
     agency.
       ``(D) Program implementation requirements.--The guidance to 
     be issued under subparagraph (A) shall contain program 
     implementation requirements applicable to each agency to 
     ensure that--
       ``(i) benefits provided by the agency under the program are 
     adjusted in cases of employee travel, leave, or change of 
     address;
       ``(ii) removal from the program is included in the 
     procedures of the agency relating to an employee separating 
     from employment with the agency; and
       ``(iii) benefits provided by the agency under the program 
     are made available using an electronic format (rather than 
     using paper fare media) where such a format is available for 
     use.
       ``(E) Enforcement and penalties.--The guidance to be issued 
     under subparagraph (A) shall contain a uniform administrative 
     policy on enforcement and penalties. Such policy shall be 
     implemented by each agency to ensure compliance with program 
     requirements, to prevent fraud and abuse, and, as 
     appropriate, to penalize employees who have abused or misused 
     the benefits provided under the program.
       ``(F) Periodic reviews.--The guidance to be issued under 
     subparagraph (A) shall require each agency, not later than 
     September 1 of the first fiscal year beginning after the date 
     of enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter, 
     to develop and submit to the Secretary a review of the 
     agency's implementation of the program. Each such review 
     shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
       ``(i) An assessment of the agency's implementation of the 
     guidance, including a summary of the audits and 
     investigations, if any, of the program conducted by the 
     Inspector General of the agency.
       ``(ii) Information on the total number of employees of the 
     agency that are participating in the program.
       ``(iii) Information on the total number of single occupancy 
     vehicles removed from the roadway network as a result of 
     participation by employees of the agency in the program.
       ``(iv) Information on energy savings and emissions 
     reductions, including reductions

[[Page 13928]]

     in greenhouse gas emissions, resulting from reductions in 
     single occupancy vehicle use by employees of the agency that 
     are participating in the program.
       ``(v) Information on reduced congestion and improved air 
     quality resulting from reductions in single occupancy vehicle 
     use by employees of the agency that are participating in the 
     program.
       ``(vi) Recommendations to increase program participation 
     and thereby reduce single occupancy vehicle use by Federal 
     employees nationwide.
       ``(6) Reporting requirements.--Not later than September 30 
     of the first fiscal year beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this paragraph, and every 3 years thereafter, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure and the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate a report on nationwide implementation of the transit 
     pass transportation fringe benefits program under this 
     subsection, including a summary of the information submitted 
     by agencies pursuant to paragraph (5)(F).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specifically 
     provided, the amendments made by this section shall become 
     effective on the first day of the first fiscal year beginning 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. CAPITAL COST OF CONTRACTING VANPOOL PILOT PROGRAM.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and implement a pilot program to carry out vanpool 
     demonstration projects in not more than 3 urbanized areas and 
     not more than 2 other than urbanized areas.
       (b) Pilot Program.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 5323(i) of title 
     49, United States Code, for each project selected for 
     participation in the pilot program, the Secretary shall allow 
     the non-Federal share provided by a recipient of assistance 
     for a capital project under chapter 53 of such title to 
     include the amounts described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Conditions on acquisition of vans.--The amounts 
     referred to in paragraph (1) are any amounts expended by a 
     private provider of public transportation by vanpool for the 
     acquisition of vans to be used by such private provider in 
     the recipient's service area, excluding any amounts the 
     provider may have received in Federal, State, or local 
     government assistance for such acquisition, if the private 
     provider enters into a legally binding agreement with the 
     recipient that requires the private provider to use all 
     revenues it receives in providing public transportation in 
     such service area, in excess of its operating costs, for the 
     purpose of acquiring vans to be used by the private provider 
     in such service area.
       (c) Program Term.--The Secretary may approve an application 
     for a vanpool demonstration project for fiscal years 2008 
     through 2009.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report containing 
     an assessment of the costs, benefits, and efficiencies of the 
     vanpool demonstration projects.

     SEC. 7. INCREASED FEDERAL SHARE FOR END-OF-LINE FIXED 
                   GUIDEWAY STATIONS.

       Notwithstanding section 5309(h) of title 49, United States 
     Code, a grant for a capital project to be assisted under 
     section 5309 of such title during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 
     that involves the acquisition of real property for, or the 
     design, engineering, or construction of, additional parking 
     facilities at an end-of-line fixed guideway station shall be 
     for 100 percent of the net capital cost of the project unless 
     the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage.

  The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 110-734. Each amendment may be offered only in 
the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, 
shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
to a demand for division of the question.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 3, after line 23, insert the following:
       (9) Public transportation stakeholders should engage and 
     involve local communities in the education and promotion of 
     the importance of utilizing public transportation.
       Page 3, line 24, strike ``(9)'' and insert ``(10)''.
       Page 4, line 10, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later 
     than 7 days after the date on which the funds are 
     appropriated,''.
       Page 4, line 21, after ``apportioned'' insert ``, not later 
     than 7 days after the date on which the funds are 
     appropriated,''.
       Page 5, line 5, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the 
     time the Secretary prescribes''.
       Page 5, line 7, after ``transportation,'' insert ``or in 
     the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service,''.
       Page 5, line 9, after ``transportation'' insert ``, or in 
     the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service,''.
       Page 5, line 14, after ``Secretary'' insert ``within the 
     time the Secretary prescribes''.
       Page 5, line 16, after ``service,'' insert ``or in the case 
     of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus 
     service,''.
       Page 5, line 18, after ``service'' insert ``, or in the 
     case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus 
     service,''.
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) To avoid increases in fares for public transportation, 
     or in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, 
     intercity bus service, or decreases in current public 
     transportation service, or in the case of subsection (f) of 
     such section 5311, intercity bus service, that would 
     otherwise result from an increase in costs to the public 
     transportation or intercity bus agency for transportation-
     related fuel or meeting additional transportation-related 
     equipment or facility maintenance needs, if the recipient of 
     the grant certifies to the Secretary within the time the 
     Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will not increase the fares that the recipient 
     charges for public transportation, or in the case of 
     subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity bus service, 
     or, will not decrease the public transportation service, or 
     in the case of subsection (f) of such section 5311, intercity 
     bus service, that the recipient provides.
       (4) If the recipient of the grant is acquiring, or 
     certifies to the Secretary within the time the Secretary 
     prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the recipient 
     will acquire, clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related 
     equipment or facilities for the purpose of improving fuel 
     efficiency, the costs of acquiring the equipment or 
     facilities.
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 8. NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     carry out a national consumer awareness program to educate 
     the public on the environmental, energy, and economic 
     benefits of public transportation alternatives to the use of 
     single occupancy vehicles.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009. Such sums shall remain available until 
     expended.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The amendment clarifies that transit agencies may use these new 
grants to offset the increased cost of fuel to transit agencies. Every 
penny additional to the cost of diesel and gasoline fuel, public 
transportation faces a cost of $7.6 million.
  The amendment clarifies that intercity bus service is an eligible 
activity under the bill. The intercity bus provision was included in 
the version of the bill that passed the House last year, but through a 
drafting error, was left out when we reintroduced it. We correct that 
mistake.
  Many transit agencies, rural and small urban centers alike, contract 
with intercity bus providers for more mobility. So it's important that 
these services are eligible for the new grants created by this bill.
  We clarify that transit agencies may use the new transit grants to 
offset the increased cost of maintenance as they struggle to cope with 
recordbreaking ridership increases. I have been to transit agency 
maintenance centers and found very skilled workmen welding new pieces 
of steel in the support structures of buses that have rusted out over 
years of use.
  Transit buses are now, on average, 12 to 14 years. They should be 
replacing them every 7 to 8 years. We are seeing a million miles of 
ridership on a bus a year. They need to upgrade and improve and 
continue their maintenance.

[[Page 13929]]

  Many transit agencies are reporting surges in ridership and, at the 
same time, difficulty maintaining existing services because of higher 
fuel prices. So we are providing funding to all those transit agencies 
to respond to their current needs.
  I want to thank several of our colleagues for agreeing to have their 
amendments incorporated into the manager's amendment to expedite 
consideration of the bill: The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) whose 
amendment helps transit fleets become more fuel efficient by providing 
more funding for clean fuel or alternative fuel vehicle-related 
equipment or facilities; the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) 
whose amendment creates a national consumer awareness program to 
educate the public on environmental, energy, and economic benefits of 
public transportation; and the Jackson-Lee amendment that clarifies 
that public transportation stakeholders should engage and involve local 
communities in the education and promotion of public transportation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I claim the time in opposition, but I do rise in support of 
the manager's amendment. I particularly find most attractive in this 
measure the provision that would allow grant funding to subsidize 
increased full costs for some of our transit systems in the country.
  My support is not based on some lobbyist from a transit agency in New 
York or Washington or Orlando. My support is based on probably a little 
lady whose face I have never seen, but she wrote me and said, Mr. Mica, 
she said, They are going to cut one of the routes and I have no other 
way to get to work, and I am a constituent in your district. They are 
going to cut off those routes because of the higher fuel cost.
  So the reason I support this is because someone in my district is 
being dramatically affected. It may not be a big deal here in Congress, 
but I can assure you in that lady's life, if she can't get to work and 
make a living, it's a big deal to her. So that is why I support this 
manager's amendment and this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman the designee of the gentleman from 
Virginia for purposes of offering the amendment?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. McGovern:
       Page 7, after line 12, insert the following:
       (b) Benefits Described.--Section 3049(a)(2) of such Act (5 
     U.S.C. 7905 note; 119 Stat. 1711) is amended by striking the 
     period at the end and inserting the following: ``, except 
     that the maximum level of such benefits shall be the maximum 
     amount which may be excluded from gross income for qualified 
     parking as in effect for a month under section 132(f)(2)(B) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       Page 7, line 13, strike ``(b)'' and insert ``(c)''.
       Page 12, line 6, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, first of all, I would like to thank the gentleman 
from Minnesota and the gentleman from Florida for their hard work on 
this important legislation. I am offering an amendment, along with my 
colleague from Virginia (Mr. Davis). He has been a very important 
collaborator in this effort.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Davis-McGovern 
amendment. Like the underlying legislation, the purpose of this 
amendment is to reduce energy consumption by promoting public 
transportation. This amendment seeks to equalize the current 
transportation fringe benefit offered to Federal employees who commute 
to work via public transportation with the current benefit for those 
who drive to work by themselves.
  Currently, $220 per month in pretax benefits can be offered to 
Federal employees who drive to work and pay for parking, while these 
who opt to take a train, bus, or other form of public transit are only 
eligible for $115 a month. This disparity has had the reverse effect of 
what the transportation fringe benefit was geared to do, and that is to 
take commuters out of their personal automobiles by incentivizing them 
to use public transportation.
  Madam Chairman, this bipartisan amendment will do much more than get 
people to use public transportation. With fewer people driving to work, 
less gasoline is consumed, less wear and tear is done to our roads and 
bridges, and less emissions are released into the air. As Congress 
seeks ways to combat climate change and become energy independent, one 
of the best ways to make an immediate impact is by offering cleaner, 
greener commuting options for our workforce.
  According to the current estimates, Americans save $340 million a 
year in fuel costs as a result of the transit benefit. Increasing the 
transit benefit will result in a corresponding increase in that 
savings. As we look for ways to provide relief from skyrocketing fuel 
prices, the transit benefit is a proven part of the solution.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Davis-McGovern amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern). As has been explained, this does provide the Federal 
employee transportation benefit program, which has been so successful, 
is expanded in its usage, and for that, I think that our side agrees, 
and this is a bipartisan amendment and has our full support.
  On behalf of Mr. Davis, I urge adoption of that.
  I reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Chairman, I would like to reserve the remaining 
time to the coauthor of this amendment, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. I rise today in strong support of the Davis-
McGovern amendment to the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation 
Act of 2008. This amendment will increase the cap on the monthly amount 
available to Federal employees nationwide who ride mass transit. For 
calendar year 2008, this would increase the reimbursement for Federal 
employees who ride mass transit from $115 per month to $220 per month.
  At a time when transportation costs are escalating, with no end in 
sight, this amendment will have a positive impact on the lives and 
well-being of the Federal workforce. In addition, it will help promote 
the use of mass transit by Federal employees nationwide.
  For the National Capital Region, this benefit should have a 
significant impact on the commuting habit of Federal employees. An 
estimated 165,000 Federal employees currently participate in the 
Federal transit benefit program. We are hopeful that this amendment 
will encourage additional employees to leave their cars at home and 
commute using mass transit, resulting in less traffic on our region's 
already congested roadways.
  As an added incentive, employees using Metro would also have the 
option

[[Page 13930]]

of using this added benefit to pay for parking at mass transit stations 
because employees who ride Metro use the same SmarTrip card to pay for 
both rail service and mass transit parking.
  As a Member of Congress representing the National Capital Region, I 
have spent a lot of my career trying to find ways to promote the use of 
mass transit in our workforce. I believe this amendment will be an 
important step forward in both areas.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It's a 
``two-fer,'' supporting the Federal workforce and promoting energy 
conservation through the increased use of public transportation.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman from Florida yield a minute of his 
time?
  Mr. MICA. May I inquire as to how much time we have.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida has 4\1/2\ remaining. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I do so simply to express my support for the amendment, on which Mr. 
Mica and I have agreed, but also to point out that in the body of the 
bill there are protections and safeguards for the proper use of the 
transit pass authority provided in the additional funding increase in 
the monthly limit for the transit benefit. There have been reports of 
abuse of transit passes in the past year. An investigation by the 
Office of Inspector General revealed that there are some abuses.
  We have provided protection against such abuses in the base of the 
bill underlying this legislation. I wanted to point that out for those 
who may have been concerned to assure that the committee has taken 
appropriate steps to assure that transit passes are used by the person 
for whom intended and for the purpose for which intended.
  Mr. MICA. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, I thank Mr. McGovern and my friend 
from Virginia. This is really important for us, to be able to start 
equalizing the playing field. I think there is nothing at this point in 
the game that is more critical than giving people transportation 
choices. I appreciate the long-term interest and advocacy that you have 
had in terms of doing this. I think it is an important step to make 
sure that commuters across the country are treated in a fair and 
equitable fashion.
  I am hopeful that the body will embrace this, that we will be able to 
deal with it in an aggressive sense, both in terms of the Ways and 
Means Committee, that we can work with our colleagues to find ways in 
the Tax Code to make the adjustments that are necessary to cushion the 
commuter cost of transit users, as well as people who use their 
vehicles; that we deal with some people who have extraordinary costs 
because of the long distances commute, and I think there are ways that 
we can adjust this.
  I would beg their indulgence for one modest potential adjustment, and 
that is while this moves forward to make a difference for people who 
are commuting, I would hope there would be some way we could work 
together to also include equity for people who burn calories instead of 
fossil fuel, because as yet, the Tax Code and the policies do not 
provide equity for Mr. Oberstar's friendly, favorite people, the 
cyclists, although we have passed that three times through the House 
this year previously. Being able to put cycling communities along with 
transit and auto communities will make a big difference in the long 
run.
  I appreciate this leadership and look forward to working with them to 
make progress in the future.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida:
       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC. 8. EXCEPTION TO ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT 
                   REQUIREMENT.

       Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
     2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``No Federal agency'' and inserting ``(a) 
     Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no 
     Federal agency''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not prohibit a 
     Federal agency from entering into a contract to purchase a 
     generally available fuel that is not an alternative or 
     synthetic fuel or predominantly produced from a 
     nonconventional petroleum source, if--
       ``(1) the contract does not specifically require the 
     contractor to provide an alternative or synthetic fuel or 
     fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source;
       ``(2) the purpose of the contract is not to obtain an 
     alternative or synthetic fuel or fuel from a nonconventional 
     petroleum source; and
       ``(3) the contract does not provide incentives for a 
     refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or 
     increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum 
     source.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I want to thank Chairman Oberstar for bringing this bill, the Saving 
Energy Through Public Transportation Act of 2008, to the floor today.
  Madam Chairman, 232 years ago, this country fought to gain its 
political independence. Today, as we approach Independence Day, it is 
time that we must fight for energy independence.
  Madam Chairman, as we all know, Americans are suffering because of 
high gas prices. But some of the recent proposals we have seen in the 
past week are political opportunism at its worst. Take the proposal to 
end the moratorium on offshore drilling. Not only could drilling 
imperil Florida's $65 billion tourist industry, but there is 
insufficient oil to meaningfully address demand.
  In 2007, the Energy Department found that drilling off the coast 
would not add to domestic production before 2030, and that the impact 
on gas prices would be insignificant. Further, the U.S. proven reserves 
are approximately 2 percent of the world's supply, yet we continue to 
be the number one consumer of oil in the world, consuming about 25 
percent of the world's production. So anyone who stands here and says 
we are going to drill our way out of this problem is not being honest 
with the American public. It is time to get real, and it is time to 
take action now.
  While there are no easy answers, there are significant steps that we 
can take to stabilize gas prices.
  First, I am a proud cosponsor of the Responsible Federal Oil and Gas 
Lease Act of 2008, and I urge my colleagues to support this critical 
legislation. At a time when gas prices are skyrocketing, oil and gas 
companies should not be allowed to stockpile leases and they should be 
required to drill on the leases they own. They should use it or lose 
it.
  Second, Congress needs to investigate the impact of speculation in 
the commodities market and the impact that has on the price of oil. It 
is time to know whether energy speculators are gaming the system to 
make money at the expense of hard-working Americans.
  Third, we must continue to bring alternative energy to the country 
and to Florida. Recently, the farm and energy bills have set the stage 
for Florida to become the biofuels capital of America.

[[Page 13931]]

We must continue to invest in cellulosic ethanol so we can become 
energy independent.
  Fourth, we must recognize that the reckless fiscal policies of this 
administration have racked up a $6 trillion debt and this debt is 
ravaging the value of the dollar. In the past 6 years, this has 
contributed to a 40 percent devaluation of the dollar, and the fact 
that oil is a dollar-indexed commodity, the American people now know 
that when the value of the dollar goes down, the price at the pump goes 
up. The American people can no longer afford these reckless policies 
and this reckless deficit spending, and this Congress must make it 
stop.
  Lastly, we need to reduce the barriers to importing Canadian oil, 
which is why I am offering my amendment today which would clarify 
language in section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 
2007 so that it does not apply to Canadian oil.
  I appreciate the hard work that my colleagues Congressman Boren and 
Congressman Lampson have already done on this issue. For those of you 
who don't know, section 526 prevents the U.S. Government from 
purchasing an unconventional fuel whose carbon footprint is higher than 
a conventional fuel. Canada has vast supplies of natural gas and has 
the world's second largest proven reserves of oil in the world, and 
Canada is the largest supplier of crude oil and refined products to the 
United States, supplying approximately 13 percent of total U.S. 
imports.
  My amendment will clarify that section 526 does not preclude Federal 
agencies from purchasing generally available fuels, and that includes 
fuel from Canada's oil sands, refined using existing commercial 
processes. Through my amendment, we can address both a national energy 
supply issue and a national security issue. After all, who would you 
rather import oil from; our good friends up north in Canada, or from 
the Middle East?
  The time has come for real solutions, not rhetoric. Today's actions 
take important steps to help us stop skyrocketing gas prices and put us 
on the road to energy independence. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MICA. Let me say that the only problem that I have with this 
amendment as offered from my colleague from Florida is the amendment 
does not go far enough in correcting or addressing all of the problems 
caused by section 526 of the energy bill that prohibits the Federal 
Government from using coal derived, oil shale and other non-petroleum-
based alternative fuels regardless of existing procurement rules or 
what is actually cost efficient or practical.
  I am not going to vote against his amendment, but I do have some 
concerns I wanted to express against the amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the proponent of the amendment has expired. 
The gentleman has the only time remaining. The gentleman will need to 
close and yield back the balance of his time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Chairman, the reference was made by my other 
friend from Florida that there was a related provision that passed last 
week on a 429-1 vote. I confess to being the one person who voted 
against that. I had some concerns about how that was framed.
  I went back and did some research and concluded that my ``no'' vote 
was ill-advised, although it wasn't determinative, and I wanted to 
indicate that I personally support what is being proposed here. I think 
it is a reasonable compromise to deal with issues that need to be 
taken, and I appreciate my friend's courtesy in allowing me to do my 
mea culpa while you wait for your other speaker.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume just to point 
out, again, I am not going to object. I have concerns. I would like to 
have gone further.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank my colleague from Florida for giving me a 
moment to speak on this bill.
  We have had examples here all day today of the fact we are not going 
to be able to pass any meaningful energy legislation in this week 
before we go home for the 4th of July holiday. It is not just 
Republicans who are saying this. I want to point out the fact that in 
today's Politico, the story is headlined: ``Pelosi's Pump Pain. 
Aggressive Pre-Recess Plan Goes By the Wayside.''
  I would like to introduce this, without objection, into the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. FOXX. ``Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home 
for the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would show 
they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.''
  That obviously is not going to be done. We are passing bills here 
today that deserve the ``Emperor's New Clothes Award.'' Somebody has to 
stand up and say the emperor has no new clothes, because the bills that 
we are being asked to vote on are shams. We are not doing anything to 
help average, hardworking Americans who are paying over $4 a gallon for 
gasoline as a result of the Democrats' control in the last 18 months of 
this Congress.
  This is a sham. This is for show. They are going to go home and say 
they did something, but they did nothing to help the average working 
American, and it is time that people said so. We don't need to be 
allowing this sham to continue without being able to talk about it.
  It says here ``nothing has gone according to plan. The price-gouging 
bill failed to garner the two-thirds support necessary to pass.'' Even 
Democrats are speaking against the bill. They are talking about how it 
is going to hurt gas-producing States and the gas-producing people are 
opposed to it, the Democrats are.
  So nothing that is going on here is really going to help those of you 
who are paying over $4 a gallon for gasoline in this country. All we 
are doing is letting the Democrats put on a show that says that they 
are reducing the price of gasoline, when they are not.

     Pelosi's Pump Pain--Aggressive pre-recess plan goes by wayside

                         (By Patrick O'Connor)

       Speaker Nancy Pelosi hoped to send House Democrats home for 
     the Fourth of July recess with a series of votes that would 
     show they're serious about easing the pain at the pump.
       Their wish list included legislation giving the federal 
     government more authority to crack down on price-gouging by 
     oil companies and smaller vendors, a bill requiring energy 
     producers to relinquish any land not currently being tapped 
     for oil or gas production, and a measure creating new 
     restrictions for commodity traders whose speculation has 
     driven up the price of oil.
       But nothing has gone according to plan.
       The price-gouging bill failed to garner the two-thirds 
     support necessary to pass. An accounting issue forced leaders 
     to put off for a day the so-called ``use it or lose it'' 
     measure. And the legislation to curb speculation is now 
     caught up in a member fight over the proper path forward--a 
     fight that exposes the misgivings some Democrats have about 
     this activist agenda.
       So instead of a barrage of legislation aimed at knocking 
     back the Republicans' gas price assault, Democrats will 
     settle for a measure giving local transit agencies $850 
     million in each of the next two years to reduce prices and 
     add routes, as well as a symbolic vote calling on President 
     Bush to crack down on ``excessive'' commodity speculation.
       The Democrats' stumbles come as congressional Republicans 
     continue to push aggressively for more domestic oil and gas 
     production on the Outer Continental Shelf and in Alaska's 
     Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as for an ambitious 
     plan to turn coal shale beneath the High Plains into natural 
     gas.
       Republicans claim an amendment--offered by Pennsylvania 
     Rep. John E. Peterson--to open offshore drilling sites 50 
     miles off the coast has enough support to survive a committee 
     vote on the Appropriations panel.
       The committee postponed consideration of the measure on 
     which Peterson planned to

[[Page 13932]]

     offer his amendment, but Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told 
     members Tuesday he plans to bring it up when lawmakers return 
     from the weeklong Fourth of July recess.
       As the Democrats struggle to hold together support for the 
     existing offshore drilling ban, they find themselves coming 
     apart on another energy issue: what to do about oil 
     speculators.
       Some Democrats, such as Agriculture Committee Chairman 
     Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Rep. Bob Etheridge of North 
     Carolina, would like party leaders to advance a modest 
     measure that gives federal regulators more resources to crack 
     down on ``excessive'' speculation in the United States and 
     abroad.
       ``I'm not, at this point, sold that speculation is the 
     reason these prices are going up,'' Peterson said.
       Others, such as Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Maryland 
     Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democratic Party's campaign chief, 
     have urged the speaker to go further by making substantive 
     changes to the current laws, members and aides said.
       Add to that a jurisdictional squabble between Peterson's 
     Agriculture Committee and members of the House Energy and 
     Commerce Committee--including Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart 
     Stupak--who have been working on this issue for years, and 
     Pelosi faces a major internal challenge in bringing this 
     legislation to the floor.
       The speaker met with these and other members for more than 
     an hour Wednesday morning. They were joined by Michae1 
     Greenberger, a law school professor at the University of 
     Maryland and a former director of trading and markets at the 
     Commodity futures Trading Commission, who has testified 
     before Congress that speculators are driving up the price of 
     oil.
       But the participants who emerged from that meeting 
     suggested the various committees of jurisdiction will begin 
     looking at this legislation before leaders craft a 
     compromise.
       ``I think the consensus is that this needs to be done very 
     carefully,'' said House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-
     Md.).
       ``We're going to focus on the actual legislation and try to 
     come to a consensus,'' Peterson said.
       Pelosi told reporters Wednesday that she expects 
     legislation on the floor sometime next month, before 
     lawmakers leave for the summer and for their respective 
     nominating conventions.
       Some Democrats wanted to vote on a modest bill this week to 
     give themselves cover before the recess, aides said.
       A number of conservative Blue Dog Democrats were also 
     grumbling that party leaders were planning to put them in a 
     bad spot politically with these aggressive oversight 
     measures, aides said. Pelosi met with a number of these 
     members Wednesday, but the speculation issue was only one of 
     the topics discussed.
       In the meantime, both parties continued their finger-
     pointing over the gas prices and the policies that might have 
     an effect on them.
       On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior questioned 
     Democratic claims that energy producers could pump oil or gas 
     on 68 million acres of land that has already been leased. 
     This talking point became a common refrain last week; 
     Democrats argued that the lease-holding oil companies could 
     produce 4.8 million barrels of oil and more than 44 million 
     barrels of natural gas each day under the current contracts.
       ``The views contained in the report [issued by Democrats on 
     the House Natural Resources Committee] are based on a 
     misunderstanding of the very lengthy regulatory process,'' 
     wrote C. Stephen Allred, the assistant secretary of the 
     Interior for Land and Minerals Management, who favors 
     increased oil and gas exploration. ``The existence of a lease 
     does not guarantee the discovery of, or any particular 
     quantity of, oil and gas.''
       In his letter--which can1e at the request of Republican 
     Rep. Don Young of Alaska--Allred further argued that a 
     lengthy permitting process creates a lag for energy producers 
     to extract fossil fuels from this land.
       In a statement issued in response to the letter, House 
     Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick J. Rahall (D-W.Va.) 
     called it ``a diversion from the simple fact that there are 
     68 million acres of leased land not producing any oil and 
     gas.''
       Rahall said that the administration's argument about the 
     slow permitting process undercuts its arguments for lifting 
     the offshore drilling ban; a long permitting process, he 
     said, would slow any benefit to be gained from offshore 
     drilling, too.
       ``Roughly 80 percent of the oil and gas under federal 
     waters are in areas already open for leasing. They should 
     focus on that before trying to grab any more of our public 
     lands,'' Rahall said.
       The fight over gas prices also has a personal component.
       Pelosi has staked her speakership, in part, on aggressive 
     environmentalism to limit human contributions to global 
     warming. This puts her at odds with those in her caucus who 
     are more sympathetic to the oil and gas industry. That 
     dynamic forces her to tread lightly inside the party, but it 
     does not prevent her from issuing lofty challenges in the 
     name of the environment.
       ``We are in the battle of this generation,'' Pelosi told 
     reporters Wednesday. ``We're ready to make the fight. We are 
     united behind it.''

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 14, at the end of line 8, insert the following: ``or 
     at a park-and-ride lot that serves a fixed route commuter bus 
     route that is more than 20 miles in length''.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, as we all know, skyrocketing gas prices 
and the pain they cause is one of the most daunting issues facing this 
Congress and our Nation.
  Today in the State of Washington, the price per gallon of regular gas 
was $4.34, while a month ago it was $4.02 and a year ago it was $3.11 
in the State of Washington. It is hard to believe we are now in the 
position to yearn for the days of $3 gasoline.
  My constituents are looking for some form of relief, an option to 
paying outrageous prices to fill up their cars only to sit in gridlock 
traffic. Mass transit offers relief; however, mass transit does not 
succeed if the public is not convinced that it is a convenient 
alternative to driving their cars.
  The Transportation Research Board studied the accessibility of 
transit services to suburban commuters, and has identified strategies 
that improve customer acceptance and the use of transit services. The 
study found that acceptance and use of transit services are clearly 
influenced by the availability, convenience, and the cost of commuter 
parking at rail stations and at park-and-ride lots for commuter buses.
  Increasing commuter bus park-and-ride availability directly increases 
transit ridership in these routes. According to Sound Transit, a local 
transit agency in my district, once parking lots are 80 percent full at 
commuter bus stations, the public perceives them to be completely full 
and they continue to drive by, bypassing an opportunity to ease the 
pain of high gas prices in an environmentally friendly way.
  Expansion of these facilities incentivizes transit systems and the 
communities they serve by increasing their suburban park-and-ride lot 
capacity and increases the use of transit.
  Like every community, people in the Puget Sound region of Washington 
State are parking their cars and taking transit more often. In my 
district alone, the number of people who rode Sound Transit's buses and 
trains in 2007 increased by nearly six times the nationwide increase.
  A few bus ride examples. In the first quarter of 2008, the express 
bus service connecting two suburbs of Seattle, Lynnwood, Washington and 
Bellevue, Washington, grew by more than 31 percent over the first 
quarter of 2007. Ridership on Sound Transit service between Everett, 
Washington and Bellevue, Washington is up 24 percent. And between 
Federal Way, another suburb of Seattle, and the Microsoft campus in 
Redmond, it is up 12 percent. Those are some great examples of mass 
transit working in my district.

[[Page 13933]]

  I urge you to support my amendment. My amendment will simply allow 
bus park-and-ride lots the same Federal funding as commuter rail park-
and-ride lots receive in this bill.
  Join me in giving Americans a choice on how they go to work, go to 
the grocery store, or move about town other than painfully paying at 
the pump to fill up their cars. This amendment will ease congestion, 
help the environment, and save commuters from high gas prices.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to 
the amendment, though I do not intend to oppose it.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. First, a point of order, Madam Chairman.
  I observed the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) ask 
unanimous consent to include an article in the Record. That request 
must be made in the House under the rules of procedure, not in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. The gentlelady's request will 
be covered by general leave.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I have no objection to it, but I just want the 
procedure to be proper.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington 
was very thoughtfully expressed and explained, and I commend the 
gentleman on his statement, very thoughtfully done, to increase the 
Federal share for parking facilities that serve commuter bus routes.
  The Transportation Research Board has addressed this issue and 
evaluated the accessibility of transit services to suburban commuters, 
and they have found that acceptance and use of transit services are 
clearly influenced by the availability, convenience, and cost of 
commuter parking at transit stations and park-and-ride lots, quoting 
from the report.
  States that have successful long-distance suburban-to-central 
business district commuter bus operations found that increasing the use 
of commuter bus services and park-and-ride facilities is directly 
influenced by the availability of those park-and-ride services.
  Increasing the Federal share to 100 percent would create additional 
incentives for transit systems to build more of these facilities to 
serve the communities, and I really appreciate the initiative of the 
gentleman.
  In his reference to Microsoft, I know that Microsoft in past years 
has purchased in the range of 13,000 fares a year for its employees to 
ride the Sounder and other transit options in Seattle. It is very 
commendable of a company to engage in that kind of service to its 
workers, to encourage them to get to work in a better frame of mind, to 
help the environment, and to serve the public need.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend 
from Florida, the ranking member of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Mica.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman so much, that we have a distinguished 
member of our Transportation and Infrastructure Committee offering this 
well thought out amendment. It is going to clearly provide 
availability, convenience, and assist the cost of making eligible again 
these bus end-of-the-line parking facilities. Well thought out. There 
was a gap here, and I am glad the gentleman from Washington filled that 
so adequately, and we support the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and look 
forward to moving forward on this amendment. I think it balances a 
potential inequity.
  But I would hope that as we move forward to reauthorization, that the 
folks on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that we might be able 
to look at more Federal flexibility for the land that is used with 
these park-and-ride items, because in many cases they are frozen in 
time. We have inflexible Federal rules about what can be used for that 
land, and they have a habit of not being at the end of the line. So if 
we can in the future be able to use them as an anchor for community 
development and redevelopment where people can live and work at that 
point, rather than having to drive vast distances to get there in the 
first place, these facilities can leverage significant redevelopment 
opportunity, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and be able to reduce the 
operating cost for the lines.
  So I have no objection to this proposal as it goes forward, but I 
would hope that we would be creative as we move to reauthorization that 
we don't freeze in arbitrarily what local communities can do with 
transit agencies and the Federal Government to be able to leverage them 
to get more out of it in the long run so we don't have to unnecessarily 
force people to drive to use it in the first place.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. The gentleman is an alumnus of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, a refugee who has been taken in by 
the Ways and Means Committee; and he will be most welcomed at further 
hearings of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee to elaborate on 
this very thoughtful proposal that he has set forth. We welcome that 
contribution as we shape the next transportation legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
the leadership of the committee. One cannot get back to the committee 
often enough. And I would look forward to working with you and with the 
gentleman from Washington to make sure that we get the most out of 
these resources.
  Mr. REICHERT. In conclusion, I would just like to thank the chairman 
and ranking member for their support, and the gentleman's kind 
suggestions and thoughtful suggestions. I would urge passage of this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hodes

  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed 
in House Report 110-734.
  Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hodes:
       Page 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (3) If the recipient of the grant is establishing or 
     expanding, or certifies to the Secretary within the time the 
     Secretary prescribes that, during the term of the grant, the 
     recipient will establish or expand commuter matching services 
     to provide commuters with information and assistance about 
     alternatives to single occupancy vehicle use, those 
     administrative costs in establishing or expanding such 
     services.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 1304, the gentleman from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
  Mr. HODES. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in support today of my carpool promotion 
amendment.
  First, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Transportation 
Committee and the ranking member for introducing this important bill to 
encourage the use of public transportation in this country.
  Public transportation obviously needs to be part of a forward 
thinking 21st century energy strategy. However, in my home State of New 
Hampshire, many of my constituents live in rural areas where they don't 
have access to public transit, and many in my district have to commute 
by car 20 or 30 miles or more just to get to work.
  Today, in intraday trading, oil hit a record of $140 a barrel, and 
gas prices

[[Page 13934]]

are over $4 a gallon for regular gas in New Hampshire. The people I 
represent are struggling. Many drive more than an hour to work. And we 
have seen carpooling begin to increase in New Hampshire.
  With an extremely limited public transportation network, except for 
city bus service in the cities of Manchester and Concord, often the 
only option for alternative transportation is carpooling, and the 
opportunities are often limited for that.
  Since the average local commuter is spending more than $2,000 a year 
in gas just to drive to work, if a driver shares his car with just one 
other occupant and those carpoolers share the cost of gas, obviously 
they cut their costs for gas in half.
  Now, New Hampshire Department of Transportation has introduced a 
great program called Ride Share. They work with the New Hampshire 
Regional Planning Commissions and employers to encourage ride sharing, 
and they have implemented a Statewide ride sharing program. The program 
is dedicated to finding an alternative way for commuters to travel to 
and from work.
  These days, our highways and byways are increasingly gridlocked; and 
many of those cars stuck in gridlock, and all you have to do is go 
outside this building to see the kind of gridlock that Washington is 
famous for, and many of the cars that are sitting there are single 
occupant vehicles. Driving alone is not only expensive, but it also 
contributes to increased traffic congestion and air pollution.
  To help commuters cut costs and to reduce traffic congestion and air 
pollution, New Hampshire Ride Share uses geographical computer matching 
to provide commuters with information and assistance about ride sharing 
and alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, which can include 
carpools, van pools, buses and trains. Right now, two other States, 
Missouri and Michigan, have introduced similar programs.
  The amendment that I have propose will help provide additional 
funding for programs like Ride Share across the country. We have seen 
in one month a tripling of interest in participation in ride sharing in 
some parts of New Hampshire, and we need to see more.
  With the record high gas prices, rising food prices, the mortgage 
crisis, and the credit crunch, families across our Nation are feeling 
the economic squeeze. Commuters across our Nation are suffering under 
the strain of record gas prices, and they have to sacrifice more of 
their paycheck just to earn one.
  This amendment provides a real-time way to help commuters save money, 
reduce air pollution, and increase efficiency. It is a win-win all 
around. I urge my colleagues to adopt this important amendment to help 
commuters across our Nation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to 
claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, we are pleased to support the gentleman 
from New Hampshire's amendment. And it will also, I think, encourage 
commuters to find other ways other than single occupancy vehicles to 
get to and from work. He has the support of the American Association of 
Commuter Transportation.
  Again, it is a small piece in the larger puzzle. We only have 
jurisdiction, as I said earlier, over transportation issues; we can't 
resolve all the other problems we have with energy. But I commend the 
gentleman, and our side supports the amendment and urges its adoption.

                              {time}  1615

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HODES. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida, and I 
yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Transportation 
Committee.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I rise in support of the amendment which I am certain 
arises out of the experience of the New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation which has a program helping commuters find alternatives 
to riding alone. The State of North Carolina has created RIDE NC to do 
the same thing.
  I just want to observe that this bill pending before the House now is 
the 110th bill reported from the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure to the House, 110th bill in the 110th Congress. We have 
completed action on 63 bills and resolutions including 29 bills enacted 
into law; in addition to that, eight concurrent resolutions and 26 
House resolutions. That's a remarkable record of bipartisan 
participation for which I express my appreciation to the gentleman from 
Florida. On all of these, we've had bipartisan support.
  Mr. MICA. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I don't want to take the time, but we are concluding debate on this 
amendment, the Hodes amendment. I urge its adoption. I urge those who 
feel it is appropriate to support the measure, as I said it does have 
an increased authorization, not appropriation, of $1.7 billion. It does 
expand some of the transit grants to transit agencies that are hurting 
across the country. It does expand the transit benefits that are now 
restricted to those within the Beltway to Federal employees outside.
  It does not solve the problem. It is a small piece of the solution, 
and I have been pleased to work with Mr. Oberstar in a bipartisan 
fashion to do our small part.
  I must conclude, however, by saying that the House and the Congress 
can do a better job. My side of the aisle does not control the Congress 
this time. We have heard that there is a larger energy plan. We need to 
bring that energy plan forward.
  I didn't have the time that the majority leader had in his remarks, 
and this isn't a blame game situation nor should it be. People are 
suffering in this country with $4-plus a gallon gas. I just saw this 
$5.25, which must be from California. That's not why our constituents 
sent us here. They sent us here to solve problems. In the same 
bipartisan spirit that Mr. Oberstar and I are bringing forward this 
little piece, we need a much larger piece.
  A week from tomorrow is Independence Day, and that is a day we should 
be celebrating, not lamenting that we are not independent of foreign 
oil. We can work our way out of this. We can't tax our way out, we 
can't regulate our way out, but we have the means of moving forward and 
increasing the supply and lowering the price for the American people. 
We haven't done this, this Congress hasn't done this, and I am sorry 
that I have that to report at the end of my remarks, both in favor of 
the Hodes amendment and in favor of this legislation.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mahoney of Florida

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mahoney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421, 
noes 0, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--421

     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
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)

[[Page 13935]]


     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     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)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     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)
     Putnam
     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
     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)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     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)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Calvert
     Cannon
     DeLauro
     Doolittle
     Ellison
     Faleomavaega
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Jones (OH)
     Keller
     Lewis (KY)
     Norton
     Rush
     Schakowsky
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler

                              {time}  1645

  Messrs. NUNES, ISSA and Ms. GRANGER changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. NORTON, Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``aye.''
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chairman, on rollcall No. 465, I was stuck in 
traffic trying to get to the vote and I ran out of time. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  The CHAIRMAN. There being no other amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Ross) having assumed the chair, Ms. DeGette, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6052) to 
promote increased public transportation use, to promote increased use 
of alternative fuels in providing public transportation, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 1304, she reported the bill back 
to the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Walden of Oregon

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. In its present form, I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walden of Oregon moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6052 
     to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 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 5, after line 19, insert the following:
       (c) Use of Funds for Meeting Fuel-Related Needs of School 
     Bus Transportation.--
       (1) In general.--If school bus transportation services 
     within the urbanized area or State to which funds are 
     apportioned under subsection (a) have been adversely impacted 
     by increased fuel costs, and if any school districts within 
     the urbanized area or State are considering or have 
     implemented service cuts in school bus transportation as a 
     result of increased fuel costs, the recipient of the 
     apportioned funds shall immediately make such funds available 
     to the Governor of the State in lieu of using the funds for 
     the purposes described in subsection (b).
       (2) Allocation of funds to school districts.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Governor of a 
     State who receives funds under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) allocate the funds to school districts within the State 
     that have been adversely impacted by increased fuel costs and 
     are considering or have implemented service cuts in school 
     bus transportation; and
       (B) provide that such funds be used for operating and 
     capital costs in providing school bus transportation service 
     in order to reduce or eliminate cuts in such service as a 
     result of increased fuel costs.
       (3) Priority.--The Governor of a State shall give priority 
     in the allocation of funds under paragraph (2) to school 
     districts in rural and suburban areas where school buses 
     travel greater distances in transporting students.
       Page 5, line 20, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       Page 5, line 23, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oregon?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue reading.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 13936]]


  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me say I have a 
long history of supporting mass transit in the urban areas of my State, 
including light rail development and bus transportation systems. I've 
received State-wide recognition for this work.
  Unfortunately, there are no light rail routes, and few successful bus 
routes, in rural Oregon and in most of my district. In fact, the most 
important public mass transit in most of rural Oregon and, indeed, 
across most of rural America is a bright yellow school bus, like this 
one, that safely transports American children to and from school each 
day.
  No one in America is immune from the impact of record-high gas 
prices, but for those of us from rural areas, the impact has been 
particularly severe not only on farms, families and small businesses, 
but also on our local governments that are struggling to pay sky-high 
fuel prices to maintain basic services.
  Before you know it, our public school doors will open, and millions 
of our children will return to school, many of them on that familiar 
yellow school bus.
  Yet all across this country, school superintendents are struggling 
mightily to figure out exactly how they'll afford to operate those 
school buses and to get our children to school.
  Newspapers are filling with accounts of school districts and how 
they're going to respond to the cost of fuel. Some districts, including 
one just a few miles from here in Maryland, are considering reducing 
bus services and forcing children to walk up to 2 miles to school. Some 
schools are even discussing going to 4-day school weeks in order to 
reduce fuel consumption.
  As profound as this problem is in urban and suburban area, it is even 
worse for those of us from rural communities where school buses must 
travel long distances to pick up and drop off children.
  This is what the Yakima Herald-Republic in Washington State had to 
say just 5 days ago: ``Some of the surrounding districts in rural areas 
feel the pinch from increased costs a bit more because their buses have 
to travel farther to transport students. The Mt. Adams School District, 
which has about 1,000 students, is the third-largest district in the 
State with an area of 1,325 square miles. The district's 10 buses still 
travel more than 200,000 miles in a year.''
  All the way across the country in Franklin County, Virginia, the 
Roanoke Times reports that ``a school official advised the board of 
supervisors Tuesday that the division could face an extra $690,000 in 
added fuel costs.''
  Yet, today we have before us a bill that does absolutely nothing, 
nothing to lower the price of gasoline or diesel and nothing to help 
our schools, our school districts, and to help them pay for the bus 
transportation costs they're incurring.
  Instead, it proposes to increase subsidies for public transit systems 
that reduce their fares and expand taxpayer-funded travel perks for 
Federal employees.
  What's even worse is that existing Federal law would actually 
prohibit the funds authorized under this bill from being used to 
provide assistance to struggling school districts. Let me repeat that. 
This law, and the law on the books, don't allow the use of these funds 
for our school systems.
  As the school year approaches, it's time to get our priorities right 
and to take care of our kids first.
  My motion to recommit would fix this problem by sending this bill 
back to committee with instructions that they revise it, to 
specifically provide that in an area where school bus services are 
being cut back because of high fuel prices, that the funds under this 
bill shall be used first and foremost to help restore those school bus 
services, and that preference shall be given to rural and suburban 
areas where school buses have to travel greater distances to transport 
our children.
  If the Democratic leadership's going to refuse to even allow a vote 
on proposals to increase domestic energy supplies so that we can lower 
gas prices for all Americans, then the least we can do is try to soften 
the blow for our Nation's schools, our school bus system and our 
children.
  As currently drafted, this bill does not do that. We have a chance to 
fix it. We have a chance to help our school districts, particularly 
those in rural areas.
  Now, the majority will undoubtedly try to rally their Members against 
this motion, but I ask, given that Congress is recessing tomorrow, 
what's wrong with sending this bill back to committee where the staff 
can review the amendment over the break and the full committee can 
carefully consider the importance of helping local schools cope with 
their busing needs and report this bill back in 10 days?
  Or you can reject this on some sort of procedural grounds, and leave 
local schools in the lurch, and literally put our school children on 
the shoulder of the roadways, dodging traffic on their way to and from 
school this fall.
  When schools start closing a day a week early, when parents can't 
figure out how to get their children to and from school, Americans will 
look back on this moment and see who stood with our rural and suburban 
schools and with our children and who stood against them.
  This is a reasonable motion to recommit. The committee clearly has 
the time to take this up. It is of no disservice to the committee or 
this process to say our first priority in this House, if we're not 
going to allow greater access to American fuel, is to at least take 
care of America's school children and their busing needs.
  Every paper in your district is probably writing about this issue or 
will be as skyrocketing fuel costs cost them the ability to run their 
bus routes. You can smirk and you can laugh, but this reality is coming 
to us here and now.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Minnesota opposed to 
the motion?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes, in its present form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, in the 
introductory paragraph of the motion, to strike the word ``promptly'' 
and substitute therefor the word ``forthwith.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for 
that request?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I ask unanimous consent.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Reserving the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon yield for the 
making of that request?
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Yes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. To my friend and the Chair of the 
Transportation Committee, I would be happy to agree to the unanimous 
consent request provided that you and your side would also agree to 
allow us to add a proposal to reduce gas prices for struggling American 
families. Specifically, would the gentleman agree to add to the bill 
either the No More Excuses Energy Act, H.R. 3089, or at a minimum, the 
proposal to allow the deep ocean oil exploration, H.R. 6108, the Deep 
Ocean Energy Resources Act?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I made a unanimous consent request dealing with the 
motion of the gentleman, not the extraneous items the gentleman has now 
proposed.
  If the gentleman is serious about his motion to recommit, we're 
serious about accepting it where it's forthwith and bringing that 
language immediately back to the House.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. While I appreciate the gentleman's position, 
clearly there is an opportunity for the committee to consider this and 
other issues related to transportation, so I would object.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Did the gentleman object? I could not hear.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Then the gentleman is not serious about this motion, 
and this is a sham motion.

[[Page 13937]]

  Under the language ``promptly,'' we would not be able to consider 
this legislation again until well after the 4th of July recess of the 
Congress, which the gentleman fully understands.
  The substance of the motion is well-intentioned. However, under title 
23 and title 49 of the U.S. Transportation Code, school buses are 
specifically not eligible for public funds out of the Highway Trust 
Fund, nor would they be under the provisions of the bill that is before 
us.
  Since the gentleman from Oregon objects to accepting his language and 
making that change in Federal law to make school buses eligible, then I 
would suggest that he come back to the committee at an appropriate 
time, we're going to continue hearings--we've had 22 hearings already 
in the Surface Transportation Subcommittee last year and this year on 
the future of transportation--and make the case for such a provision to 
be included in the authorization that we will have next year. We would 
certainly be delighted to hear the gentleman's case for this provision 
and to perfect it. But as it stands, this ``promptly'' simply kills the 
transit expansion funding that we provide in the underlying bill.
  Therefore, because the gentleman objected to my unanimous consent 
request, I say the motion is not offered in good faith, not offered 
with good intentions. It is a sham motion, and we should defeat it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Speaker, were the gentleman's words in 
order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot render an advisory opinion.
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Is it in order to call a Member's motives in 
question, Mr. Chairman?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair does not issue advisory opinions.
  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.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was 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 the bill, if ordered, and motions to 
suspend the rules with respect to H.R. 6377, H.R. 6251, and House 
Resolution 1098.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199, 
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 466]

                               AYES--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     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
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Childers
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     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
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     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
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     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
     Rohrabacher
     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
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     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
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Forbes
     Gilchrest
     Gutierrez
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1721

  Messrs. KIRK and LINDER changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

[[Page 13938]]

  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322, 
noes 98, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 467]

                               AYES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Drake
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--98

     Akin
     Alexander
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Carter
     Conaway
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Feeney
     Flake
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Miller (FL)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rehberg
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Wilson (SC)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Aderholt
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Forbes
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1728

  Messrs. CONYERS and BILBRAY and Mrs. BACHMANN changed their vote from 
`` no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. WILSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 467, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________




                  ENERGY MARKETS EMERGENCY 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. 6377, 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 Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6377.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402, 
nays 19, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 468]

                               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)
     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
     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
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     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)
     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 (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)

[[Page 13939]]


     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     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, 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
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     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)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--19

     Blackburn
     Cubin
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Hensarling
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Mack
     Marchant
     Paul
     Pence
     Rohrabacher
     Sali
     Sessions
     Souder
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Forbes
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1736

  Mr. LAMBORN changed his 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.

                          ____________________




               RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL OIL AND GAS LEASE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6251, 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 West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) that the House suspend the 
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6251, as amended.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 195, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 469]

                               YEAS--223

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Cazayoux
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     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
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Richardson
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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)
     Solis
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     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)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Akin
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Doolittle
     Everett
     Forbes
     Kaptur
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller, Gary
     Peterson (PA)
     Rush
     Shadegg
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Weller
     Wexler


                Announcement by the Speaker pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1744

  So (two-thirds not being in the affirmative) the motion was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page 13940]]

  Stated against:
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 469, I was unavoidably 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________




  SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF THE YEAR OF THE AMERICAN VETERAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the 
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1098, 
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules 
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1098.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 409, 
nays 0, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 470]

                               YEAS--409

     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
     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
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     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
     Cubin
     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
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     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)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     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
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Speier
     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
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield (KY)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman (VA)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Bilbray
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Capuano
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Everett
     Forbes
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Tim
     Neal (MA)
     Pascrell
     Peterson (PA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rush
     Saxton
     Shuster
     Smith (WA)
     Tancredo
     Van Hollen
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in this 
vote.

                              {time}  1751

  So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and 
the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I 
was unable to vote on rollcall No. 465: Mahoney Amendment to H.R. 6052. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to vote on 
rollcall No. 466: Motion to Recommit H.R. 6052. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to vote on 
rollcall No. 467: Final Passage of H.R. 6052. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to vote on 
rollcall No. 468: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H.R. 6377. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to vote on 
rollcall No. 469: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H.R. 6251, 
as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Madam Speaker, due to family obligations, I was unable to vote on 
rollcall No. 470: Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree on H. Res. 
1098. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________




AUTHORIZING THE CLERK TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 6052, 
        SAVING ENERGY THROUGH PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the 
engrossment of H.R. 6052, the Clerk be authorized to correct section 
numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and to make such other 
technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to accurately 
reflect the actions of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellsworth). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




 DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 9, 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business 
in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on 
Wednesday, July 9, 2008.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?

[[Page 13941]]

  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




APPOINTMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER AND HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN TO ACT AS 
   SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 
                          THROUGH JULY 8, 2008

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

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                    June 26, 2008.
       I hereby appoint the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer and the 
     Honorable Chris Van Hollen to act as Speaker pro tempore to 
     sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions through July 8, 
     2008.
                                                     Nancy Pelosi,
                          Speaker of the House of Representatives.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the appointment is 
approved.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




          REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 5353

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my 
name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 5353.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________




        LET REGULAR ORDER PREVAIL ON AIR FORCE TANKER SELECTION

  (Mr. BONNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, today one of our colleagues introduced the 
KC-X Recompete Act, and its message is clear: If the warfighter wants a 
new tanker to replace its aging fleet anytime soon, it has but one 
choice, the Boeing KC-767. This act would tell the warfighter to take 
the 767; take it or leave it, or face years of delay if you have to 
have a new competition.
  Boeing's 767, mind you, is judged second best to the more capable, 
more modern, Northrop aircraft, an aircraft that I am proud would be 
built in my home State of Alabama.
  Yes, the GAO noted procedural errors in the source selection process, 
but it did not rule on the merits of these two aircraft. And there is 
no equivocation in terms of which plane the Air Force wants and 
desperately needs, the KC-45.
  Some have tried to preempt regular order and take this decision away 
from the warfighter. Let's not preempt the voice of the men and women 
who will take this plane into harm's way. We owe them that much.

                          ____________________




         INVOLVE ALL IMPACTED BY MASS TRANSPORTATION DECISIONS

  (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 wanted to rise again today 
to again commend the Transportation Committee, the full committee Chair 
Mr. Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica on H.R. 6052. I wanted to discuss 
very briefly an amendment that I offered, part of which was included in 
the manager's amendment, and it has to do with promoting education, but 
as well to address the question of involving all of those impacted.
  It reads that ``public transportation stakeholders should engage 
local communities in the education and promotion of the importance of 
using public transportation in cities and counties, and in the 
planning, development and design of transportation routing lines.''
  This is particularly of interest to constituents in Houston as we 
build a new metro system. Today they broke ground in the east end. I 
congratulate them. But as we look to make sure that we are involving 
all of the participants, the stakeholders need to address the question 
of routing.
  The only way that you will provide mass transit as a system for all 
the people is they must buy into it. We have a situation in Houston 
where we are looking to reroute from Wheeler, and I hope that this bill 
will get this understanding. Promote education of mass transit and get 
the stakeholders and communities to buy into it.

                          ____________________




    EXPRESSING PLEASURE THAT THE USE-IT-OR-LOSE-IT BILL DID NOT PASS

  (Ms. FOXX asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I am so pleased that the Democrats' use-it-or-
lose-it bill did not pass this House this afternoon. We have been 
saying for weeks that this is a sham. Use-it-or-lose-it is already the 
law of the land. Thankfully, enough people here, including 19 
Democrats, voted with almost all the Republicans to turn back this sham 
against the people of the country.
  What we need to be doing is we need to be producing more oil and gas 
for the American people, bringing down the price of gas. The Democrats 
are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, and, 
thankfully, they are not going to be able to do that since this bill 
did not pass. They wouldn't put it in committee to let it be debated. 
They put it on the suspension calendar, and it failed.
  The American people during this 4th of July work period need to tell 
their Members, we want you to fulfill the promises you made 2 years 
ago. Bring down the price of gas.

                          ____________________




                      CONGRATULATING PLANO WOLVES

  (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to congratulate the 
new high school baseball national championship team. It is from Plano 
West Senior High School. They are called the Wolves. Go Wolves.
  Maxpreps.com ranked the Texas State champs, the Plano West Senior 
High School varsity baseball team, number one in the Nation on June 22.
  Under head coach Kendall Clark, this year the Wolves played a perfect 
season, won the district title with 14 wins and won 28 straight in 
2008. This is the first time since 1987 that Plano Independent School 
District has had a team crowned national champions, and this year marks 
the first time a baseball team in Plano has captured the prestigious 
national title.
  Congratulations to the Wolves. We are proud of you. Your parents are 
proud of you, Plano is proud of you, and America is proud of you. I 
salute you. God bless you, God bless America.
  I include the names of the players and coaches in the Record, and 
congratulate them one and all.

                                               ALPHABETIZED ROSTER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name                     C      #      Position      Ht       Wt            Throws/bats
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Ard..............................     Sr     17    P/C/IF/OF      58"      160  R/R
Barrett Beck...........................     Jr     11         CF/P      58"      165  R/R
Andrew Blum............................     So     14         P/OF      61"      175  R/R
Garrett Brown..........................     Jr     18         P/OF     511"      160  R/R
Tyler Bruce............................     Sr      4            C     511"      185  R/R
Jason Coats............................     Sr     15           OF      62"      190  R/R
Reed Dillard...........................     Jr      1      C/IF/OF     510"      175  R/R
Ben Flora..............................     Sr      5            P     511"      165  L/L
Ryan Ford..............................     So     24           1B      63"      230  L/L
Harrison Holmes........................     Sr     10           SS      61"      185  R/R
Robert Huber...........................     So     16         P/IF     510"      150  R/R
Ryan Hughes............................     Sr     13           OF      59"      175  R/R

[[Page 13942]]

 
Drew Johnson...........................     Sr      9            P     510"      185  R/R
Jeffrey Kahn...........................     Jr     12        OF/DH      64"      185  R/R
Kale Kiser.............................     Sr      2           2B     511"      180  R/Switch
Will Moran.............................     Sr      7        OF/IF      59"      170  R/R
Jason Palmatary........................     Sr     22        IF/OF      63"      175  R/R
Blake Parker...........................     So      8           OF      58"      155  R/R
John Peloza............................     So     21            P      65"      215  R/R
Donald Plant...........................     Jr      3         3B/P      62"      185  R/R
Eric Wald..............................     Jr     23            P      62"      230  L/L
Kevin Weissenborn......................     Sr     19        SS/2B      59"      155  R/R
Jim Worth..............................     Sr      6            P      59"      160  L/L
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Coaches: Kendall Clark, Varsity Head Coach; Kevin Clark, Varsity 
Assistant Coach; Richard Zastoupil, Pitching Coach; Ralph Hinds, Junior 
Varsity Head Coach; Nathan Leraas, Junior Varsity Assistant Coach; and 
Gregory Pierce, Shepton Head Coach.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1800
                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize Members for Special 
Order speeches without prejudice to resumption of legislative business.

                          ____________________




                             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.

                          ____________________




      RECOGNIZING FRESNO STATE'S WINNING THE COLLEGE WORLD SERIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my good friend from 
California (Mr. Costa) to recognize something very important that 
happened in the San Joaquin Valley, for all the people of the San 
Joaquin Valley, and that is that yesterday the Fresno State Bulldogs 
won the college series. This is very special for all of us.
  At this time, I yield to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman 
from California, an alumnus of Fresno State, Mr. Costa.
  Mr. COSTA. I thank the gentleman from California, a colleague, a good 
friend and an avid supporter of the California State University of 
Fresno, as we all are in the Valley delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, we are proud to recognize the Fresno State baseball 
team, the Bulldogs, the Bulldogs on the West Coast, on their victory of 
the University of Georgia last night, the other Bulldogs, to claim the 
2008 National Collegiate Athletic Division Championship I-A Baseball 
National Champions. Obviously, as my good friend Congressman Nunes 
indicated, I am a proud alumnus today.
  The Dogs came into the tournament as the fourth seeded team and along 
the way beat Rice University, had two big wins over the University of 
North Carolina, and they are the first number four seed to reach the 
finals of the NCAA championship in any sport. It is truly historic in 
collegiate athletics. They went from the underdogs to the wonder dogs, 
and they accomplished this after spending over 40 straight days away 
from home. Leaving Fresno on May 14, they finally came home today.
  They won five elimination games, including a 19-10 win over Georgia 
during the championship series.
  This team was a pure joy to watch on the field. We saw outstanding 
defensive plays, 15 home runs by the offense, and they had American 
riveted to their televisions and radios to hear them win last night's 
game. It was an exciting month for anyone who is attached to the 
University or our San Joaquin Valley, or those who just happens to love 
our Nation's pastime, baseball.
  The character, camaraderie, preparation, and ultimately the 
performance and success of the team flows from their head coach Mike 
Batesole and his wonderful staff. This year he was chosen 2008 
Collegiate Coach of the Year in baseball.
  One unique thing about this team is that every player is from 
California. In fact, many of the players come from surrounding 
communities; in my colleagues' districts, Nunes, Radanovich, and 
Cardoza, and the like, they came from Clovis, Hanford, Bakersfield, and 
Turlock. Fresno State athletics takes pride in recruiting local talent 
from high schools and junior colleges.
  These young men are models for student athletes around the Nation. 
Seven seniors and one junior will graduate within nine semesters. Steve 
Susdorf was given the Western Athletic Conference All-Academic awards 
four times in his career with the Bulldogs. These classroom 
accomplishments should be commended. These are truly student athletes 
at their finest.
  There were five Bulldogs who made this year's College World Series 
All-Tournament Team. They are Erik Wetzel, Steve Susdorf, Steve 
Detwiler, Justin Wilson, and Tommy Mendonca. Congratulations to them.
  Tommy Mendonca from Turlock was also named the Collegiate World 
Series Most Outstanding Player, and was recently named to the 2008 
National Collegiate Team. He comes from strong Portuguese Valley roots, 
and we enjoyed watching him play.
  Finally, we again want to congratulate the Fresno State team on a 
season well played. We tip our hat to the University of Georgia for an 
outstanding series, and all the teams that played this season.
  Mr. NUNES. As you can see, Mr. Costa is a very proud alumni, Mr. 
Speaker. Also, I would be mistaken not to mention my chief of staff, 
Johnny Amaral, is also a proud alumni of Fresno State. I know that he 
was really rooting for the team. This is going to be a very important 
victory for the San Joaquin Valley tonight. I know they are going to be 
welcomed home by probably thousands of fans in Fresno; and I know that 
Mr. Costa and I can't wait to hopefully greet the team here and invite 
them to our Nation's capital and possibly even get a White House visit.
  Does my colleague have anything else?
  Mr. COSTA. I just want to thank the gentleman for yielding. We want 
to congratulate all of those who are a part of the University and these 
fine students athletes for a job well done.
  Mr. NUNES. Thank you.

                          ____________________




                 FRESNO STATE WINS COLLEGE WORLD SERIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Costa) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fresno State 
baseball team, the Bulldogs, on their victory over the University of 
Georgia last night to claim the 2008 NCAA Division I Baseball National 
Championship. I am a very proud alum today.
   The ``Dogs'' came into the tournament as a 4th seeded team . . . and 
along the way, beat Rice University and had two big wins over the 
University of North Carolina. They are the first number four seed to 
reach the finals of an NCAA championship in any sport. This is truly 
historic in collegiate athletics. They went from the underdogs, to the 
wonder ``Dogs''.
  And they accomplish this on the road, away from home for forty 
straight days, and won five elimination games, including a 19-10 win 
over Georgia during the championship series.
  This team was a pure joy to watch on the field . . . we saw 
outstanding defensive plays, 15 home runs by the offense, and they had

[[Page 13943]]

America riveted to their televisions and radios to hear them win last 
night's game. It has been an exciting month for anyone with an 
attachment to the University our San Joaquin Valley, are those who 
happen to love our Nations pastime, baseball.
  The character, camaraderie, preparation, and ultimately the 
performance and success of the team flows from Head Coach Mike ``Bait-
Soul'' Batsole and his wonderful staff. He was chosen this year 2008 
Collegiate Coach of the Year.
  One very unique thing about this team is that every player is from 
California. In fact, many of the players come from surrounding 
communities like Clovis, Hanford, Visalia, Bakersfield, and Turlock. 
Fresno State athletics prides themselves in recruiting local talent 
from Valley high schools and junior colleges.
  And those young men are the models for student-athletes around the 
Nation. Seven seniors and one junior will graduate within 9 semesters, 
and Steve Susdorf was given Western Athletic Conference All-Academic 
awards four times in his career with the Bulldogs. These classroom 
accomplishments should be commended. Student athletics at their finest.
  There were five Bulldogs who made this year's College World Series 
All-Tournament Team, and they are Erik Wetzel, Steve Susdorf, Steve 
Detwiler, Justin Wilson, and Tommy Mendonca. Congratulations.
  Tommy Mendonca, from Turlock, CA, also was named the College World 
Series Most Outstanding Player and was recently named to the 2008 
National Collegiate Team. He comes from strong Portuguese Valley roots, 
and I enjoyed watching him play this season.
  Finally, we again want to congratulate the Fresno State baseball team 
on a season well played, and tip my hat to the University of Georgia 
and all the teams that participated for an outstanding series and 
season.

                          ____________________




                         H. CON. RESOLUTION 362

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today on Resolution 362 
that is circulating in the House and its impact on policy in the Middle 
East.
  As a result of Resolution 362 and its tightening of sanctions on Iran 
in a more broader way, will that have a positive impact on America's 
policy in the Middle East? Will it have a positive impact on the 
politics in the Middle East? Will it have a positive impact on Iran as 
far as the conflict between our two nations is concerned?
  I will say, in my judgment, Mr. Speaker, that Resolution 362 will 
exacerbate, make much more difficult, the problems in the Middle East, 
the relationship of Iran with its neighbors in the Middle East, and the 
relationship of Iran with the United States, and the relationship of 
Iran with the country of Israel. Let me try to explain why.
  If we look at the Middle East right now in a very objective fashion, 
what is going on in the Middle East right now?
  The geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East right now is 
fractured. We are focusing on the conflict in Iraq. We need as a Nation 
to focus objectively on the Palestinian-Israeli question, to resolve 
that issue, to reduce the number of recruits for al Qaeda and the 
Taliban.
  We need to understand that Saudi Arabia, a Sunni country, does not 
want Iraq, a Shia country, to become an Iranian satellite.
  We need to understand that Iran, who lost more men dead in a conflict 
with Iraq just a few years ago than we lost in World War I, World War 
II, Korea, and Vietnam combined, wants to have some influence in the 
Middle East and certainly with what will go on in Iraq.
  What will influence the direction the Middle East will take in the 
decades to come? There is violent conflict there. There is political 
conflict there. There is mistrust in the Middle East.
  Let me use a quote from Sam Rayburn, former Speaker of the House. 
``Any mule can kick a barn door down, but it takes carpenters to 
rebuild that door and that barn.''
  We need carpenters. We need diplomats. More conflict, more 
restrictions, more sanctions is going to further exacerbate the problem 
in the Middle East and its relationship with the country of Iran.
  One other quick comment. Iran is not an Arab country. Iran is a 
Persian nation that speaks Farsi, that does not speak Arabic. It is a 
nation of Shias with their own brand of Islam.
  Knowledge and an informed policy in the Middle East, a surge of 
diplomacy, can make a key difference. Let me go back and express some 
precedence of the past about diplomacy and where it worked.
  When Nikita Khrushchev said he was going to bury the United States, 
what was Eisenhower's response? He invited Nikita Khrushchev to the 
United States to tour the Nation, and it began to lessen the conflict 
between the two countries.
  What did President Kennedy do when there were deployable nuclear 
weapons in Cuba aimed at the United States? He negotiated his way out 
of that conflict and saved a catastrophe.
  What did Nixon do after Mao Zedong said it would be worth half the 
population of China being destroyed if we could destroy the capitalists 
in America? What did Nixon do? He had a dialogue. He went to China.
  What happened when we did not have a dialogue, some understanding of 
Ho Chi Minh? A million people died.
  Today in the Middle East we certainly need a strong military, we need 
a strong intelligence. But the aspect that is missing in the Middle 
East is what Eisenhower said was so critical in foreign policy; that 
is, consensus and dialogue.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Members in this house that have 
started a long time ago, a couple of years, beginning a dialogue with 
the Iranians. Just last fall, 58 Members of this House on both sides of 
the aisle signed a letter to the parliament in Iran asking for a 
parliamentary exchange; 58 Members of Republicans and Democrats. That 
letter was hand-delivered by some of us in Lisbon to Iranian 
parliamentarians. They took it to Iran. And what is their response to 
us? They want a dialogue. There are members of the Iranian parliament 
that want a dialogue. Consensus and dialogue.
  We need more carpenters. Vote against Resolution 362.

                          ____________________




                   H.R. 5925, RECONCILIATION FOR IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Edwards of Maryland). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, there is an old saying: Everybody 
complains about the weather, but no one ever does anything about it. 
That is pretty much what we are doing in Iraq.
  In testimony before Congress and from press conference to press 
conference, administration officials have said that the most important 
item on our agenda for Iraq, right after security, is reconciliation. 
In fact, U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said before the Foreign Affairs 
Committee and the Armed Services Committee that reconciliation is 
perhaps the most critical challenge that Iraq faces right now. Even the 
Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel of recognized leaders in foreign 
policy and governing, wrote that: National reconciliation is essential 
to reduce further violence and maintain the unity of Iraq. And its 
report recommended that diplomats work to energize countries to support 
national political reconciliation in Iraq.
  But this is not just the goal of the United States, Madam Speaker. 
The Iraqis themselves are calling for reconciliation. Before a meeting 
of the United Nations, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, and I 
quote him, he said, ``Reconciliation lays the foundation for political, 
social, economic progress, and the security that we strive for.''
  This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, Madam Speaker. It 
isn't a Sunni or a Shia or Kurd issue. It isn't an American or Iraqi 
issue. Reconciliation is an issue that has something to do with all of 
us. It is the pathway for stability and peace in Iraq, and it is the 
pathway throughout the region.
  One news agency has dedicated itself to providing real resources, 
training, and assistance for reconciliation in Iraq. Since the year 
2004, the United States Institute of Peace, the USIP, has been working 
in Iraq at the national and local level building peace

[[Page 13944]]

 community by community and neighborhood by neighborhood. USIP has 
focused on preventing sectarian violence at the local level, developing 
leaders in schools, universities, government, and civil society, 
promoting the rule of law, engaging women in public life, and 
increasing regional stability. All this with a tiny staff, only three 
USIP staff members and eight Iraqi staffers.
  Despite the scarcity of resources, 120 Iraqis have been trained to be 
reconciliation facilitators. They will go into communities to help to 
work towards real solutions, making neighborhoods safer, promoting 
transparency and accountability, and so much more. The work they do is 
amazing and it is awe inspiring.
  Sadly, the resources available are meager in comparison to what we 
are spending to wage war. That is why it is time to bring our troops 
and private contractors home, to give Iraq back to the Iraqi people. 
And that is why I, along with my colleague from Connecticut, 
Christopher Shays, introduced H.R. 5925, International Partnership for 
Reconciliation in Iraq Act of 2008. This legislation will ensure that 
USIP will have the funding and support it needs to continue and to 
expand.
  I urge all of my colleagues to do something: Cosponsor the bill, H.R. 
5925, so that we can work with the Iraqi people, so we can work within 
the international community, and we can reconcile that area. I urge you 
to cosponsor H.R. 5925. Enough talking about the problem. It is time to 
do something.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1815

                         RAPE OF A LITTLE GIRL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, she was 8 years old. She was asleep in her 
own room, in her bed dreaming about whatever little girls dream about. 
She thought she was safe in her home. Suddenly she was awakened by the 
demon from the night. Patrick Kennedy of Louisiana was on top of her, 
having his way with her, this petite little angel. Kennedy was someone 
the little girl supposedly could trust; after all, he was her 
stepfather.
  This little girl was raped. So violent was the rape she fainted and 
the next thing she remembered she woke up in an ambulance speeding to 
Children's Hospital.
  Official court records state, ``When police arrived, they found the 
victim on her bed wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. 
She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area. The victim was 
transported to Children's Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic 
medicine testified that the victim's injuries were the most severe he 
had ever seen from a sexual assault in his years of practice. A 
laceration to the left wall of the vagina separated her cervix from the 
back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal 
structure. The injuries required her to have emergency surgery.''
  The little girl survived this attack by the barbarian and lives, even 
though she has been sentenced to a life of mental torture, physical 
pain and emotional trauma that she may not ever recover from. Her 
physical scars will never disappear.
  The child rapist was tried under Louisiana's law that specifically 
allows for the death penalty for criminals that choose to rape the most 
innocent among us, children. The law was passed by the legislature, 
signed by the Governor and is the wish of the people of Louisiana. A 
jury of 12 citizens heard the facts and they all agreed that Kennedy 
should die for his decision to rape his daughter. Several other states, 
including Texas, have the death penalty as a possible punishment for 
child rapists.
  This case has been reviewed by numerous courts, and has taken 5 years 
to reach our Supreme Court.
  In a decision this week by Justice Anthony Kennedy--no relation--the 
Supreme Court said the Louisiana law is just too severe and overruled 
the will of the people of Louisiana and a unanimous jury when he 
imposed his own moral code saying no one can be executed under these 
circumstances unless the villain also kills the child, otherwise it is 
a violation of the cruel and unusual provision of the United States 
Constitution.
  Although the jury was unanimous in ordering the death penalty, the 
Supreme Court split in its decision 5-4 with the majority siding with 
the evil-doer.
  Justice Kennedy focused on the fact that the victim survived the 
assault as the reason not to execute the rapist. In other words, the 
defendant got a break because the little girl had the will to survive.
  When I was on the trial bench in Texas, I had a rape victim once tell 
me that rape was a fate worse than death. In the eyes of this little 
girl, she probably agrees.
  When the ``cruel and unusual'' phrase was put in the Constitution, it 
was put there and based on constitutional history to outlaw torture and 
maiming of criminals. As history reflects, States decided what was 
appropriate punishment based upon these guidelines.
  The five justices who sided with the rapist don't seem to have lived 
in the real world or have real life experiences. They don't seem to 
provide justice for victims, only leniency for criminal defendants.
  I spent 22 years on the felony trial bench in Texas and heard over 
20,000 cases. The Constitution was the basis for every decision I made. 
I saw those charged with the worst acts people can commit, and I saw 
the brutalized victims of crime. I only mention this experience because 
trial judges see the world as it really is, not how we wish and hope it 
to be. Trial judges see real people every day.
  Unfortunately, eight of our nine Supreme Court justices do not have 
the benefit of this experience and have never been a trial judge and 
seen the effects of crime on people. They have spent much of their time 
in elite ivory palaces as law school professors and appellate judges 
removed from the world, second-guessing legislatures, trial judges and 
juries.
  I doubt if Justice Kennedy has ever been to Louisiana or talked to a 
rape victim or a rapist, or a jury, for that matter. Now Justice 
Kennedy says the verdict of death is just too cruel and unusual for us 
that live in a sophisticated society to allow. His ruling is a 
misinterpretation of the Constitution.
  Justice Alito said in his dissent that the death penalty laws should 
be allowed for child rape ``if they reflect society's evolving 
standards of decency.'' The State of Louisiana set the evolving 
standard for child rapists in Louisiana, and said leave our children 
alone or face the death penalty.
  Society's standard was trumped by five black-robed justices who want 
it their way. They are wrong.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                        WHO WILL SAVE ZIMBABWE?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, we are about to see the 
world sit by silently, not silently perhaps, but ineffectively, and 
allow one of the most outrageous abuses of human rights that we have 
seen in a long time to go forward.
  The president of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, is engaging in a pattern of 
oppression and tyranny and thuggery and despicable conduct towards his 
own people. He lost a preliminary election for the presidency despite 
every effort he could make to rig the election. Rather than allow the 
second round to go forward, he has ramped up the terror to the point 
where the man who got more votes than he in the first round 
understandably said he wouldn't participate in a run-off election which 
would not only be a fraud but which has already led to the murder and 
abuse of many innocent people.
  Robert Rotberg, a very distinguished scholar of Africa, wrote an 
article that was published in yesterday's Boston Globe. The headline 
is, ``Who will have the courage to save Zimbabwe?''
  He starts with a little history. He writes, ``After Idi Amin 
terrorized and

[[Page 13945]]

killed his own Ugandans throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere 
of neighboring Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end 
the mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for 
beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe from his 
besmirched and exposed presidency?''
  He is not calling for an army to go in, although there is certainly 
far stronger justification for an army to go there than a lot of places 
armies have been sent recently, but he has a program which he believes 
could be helpful. But as he points out, it has to be African nations 
that do this.
  This is a situation given the colonial history where the United 
States and Britain and France and others would not have the moral 
authority to act. But Africans should.
  Madam Speaker, I led a congressional delegation to Africa in April, 
and I was honored to be in the presence of the current president of 
South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, a man who was one of the leaders in 
overturning one of the worst oppressions we have seen, apartheid in 
South Africa. I was honored to be in his presence. I was delighted when 
he presented a very high honor from South Africa to our colleague, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).
  But I have felt terrible disappointment at President Mbeki's 
passivity in the face of the terrible repudiation of democracy by 
President Mugabe. I wish that President Mbeki would have understood the 
right of the people of Zimbabwe to receive the same kind of sympathy 
and help that many of us tried to extend to the people of South Africa 
when they were victimized.
  I will include for the Record the article by Mr. Rotberg making an 
argument for an African initiative to protect the people of Zimbabwe 
from the tyrant, the degenerating tyrant who so viciously oppresses 
them.
  Mr. Rotberg closes with this: ``Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United 
States and Britain would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare 
not. Only Africans and the U.N. have unquestioned moral authority.'' 
And he notes here that the former Secretary General Kofi Annan did a 
great job when Kenya had troubles and helped to pacify and restore 
democracy and stability to Kenya. So he says, ``Only Africa and the 
United Nations have unquestioned moral authority. Which African leaders 
will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage in Zimbabwe's dire time 
of need?''
  As one who has strongly supported the rights of the people of Africa 
to be free from colonialism, one who has strongly supported the need to 
provide the appropriate economic support so we can seriously diminish 
poverty, as a great admirer of President Mbeki and his colleagues, I 
implore them to save the good name of African democracy. And I 
understand the difficulty, and they certainly aren't the ones 
perpetrating this. But if the world, if Africa allows Mugabe to 
continue this terrible reign of terror, it will be a source of shame to 
us all.

              Who Will Have the Courage to Save Zimbabwe?

                         (By Robert I. Rotberg)

       After Idi Amin terrorized and killed his own Ugandans 
     throughout the 1970s, President Julius Nyerere of neighboring 
     Tanzania finally sent his army across the border to end the 
     mayhem and restore stability. Who will now do the same for 
     beleaguered Zimbabwe? Who will remove despotic Robert Mugabe 
     from his besmirched and exposed presidency?
       Presidential contender Morgan Tsvangirai's courageous 
     decision to boycott Zimbabwe's runoff election on Friday--
     after Mugabe's thugs broke up yet another opposition rally by 
     swinging iron bars and sticks at potential Tsvangirai 
     voters--compels the African Union, the UN Security Council, 
     and major powers finally to act. Tsvangirai said that he and 
     his supporters were facing war, not an election, and they 
     would ``not be part of that war.'' Serious UN sanctions are a 
     first step.
       Second, since South Africa shows no appetite for an 
     intervention and Tanzania, Botswana, Mozambique, and Zambia--
     Zimbabwe's neighbors--are unlikely to act militarily without 
     South African agreement an African stained Zimbabwe's tyranny 
     should: demand that Friday's poll be postponed until Africans 
     can patrol the country and oversee a free and fair real 
     election; demand compulsory mediation by former UN secretary 
     general Kofi Annan, who pacified Kenya earlier this year; 
     denounce despotism in Zimbabwe; and ban all Zimbabwean 
     aircraft from flying over neighboring airspaces, thus 
     effectively keeping Mugabe and his henchmen bottled up inside 
     their decaying country. Neighboring countries could also 
     squeeze land-locked Zimbabwe's electricity supplies and slow 
     rail traffic.
       Time is short. Mugabe is clearly still intent on ratifying 
     his usurpation of power on Friday. Tsvangirai officially led 
     Mugabe in the initial presidential poll in March. In recent 
     weeks Mugabe's military have unleashed a relentless wave of 
     intimidation against Tsvangirai's Movement for a Democratic 
     Change and its supporters, killing 86, maiming at least 
     10,000, and assaulting thousands more. Tsvangirai was 
     detained seven times before Sunday and his key deputy was 
     imprisoned last week without trial on a bogus treason charge. 
     Yesterday, the house of another key deputy was trashed and 
     his elderly relatives assaulted.
       Unless Africa and the UN act courageously, Mugabe will get 
     away with his brazen attempt to cling brutally to power and 
     impoverish his own people despite broad global contempt.
       Mugabe has also refused to summon Parliament, which is 
     dominated by the Movement for Democratic Change and was 
     elected overwhelmingly in March. As a result, many of 
     Mugabe's cabinet ministers and loyalist remain in office, 
     drawing salaries, despite having lost their seats. Several 
     times, Mugabe and close associates have publicly declared 
     that the Movement and Tsvangirai would never be allowed to 
     take office or govern. ``Only God will remove me,'' Mugabe 
     defiantly declared Monday.
       Conditions in Zimbabwe, where more than 80 percent of 
     adults are unemployed and nearly everyone is hungry; where 
     there are startling shortages of staple corn, wheat and 
     bread, sugar, oil, milk, and gasoline; and where brutality is 
     always around the next corner are even more horrific today 
     than they were in Uganda in 1979, when Nyerere invaded. 
     Famously, Mugabe told a BBC interviewer in 1999 that he was 
     ``no Idi Amin.''
       Mugabe's men have also continued to use food as a political 
     weapon, first stopping the supply of grain by international 
     relief agencies and last week physically stealing relief 
     shipments to give to their own supporters. Mugabe's thugs 
     have also harassed British and American diplomats at 
     roadblocks, in one case threatening to burn them alive in 
     their cars.
       Zimbabwe's inflation now exceeds 160,000 percent a year. 
     One U.S. dollar buys 4 million Zimbabwe dollars at the 
     unofficial street rate. Mugabe and his close associates 
     exploit differences between official and unofficial exchange 
     rates to prosper while ordinary Zimbabweans go hungry or are 
     attacked.
       Zimbabwe is in shambles. The United States and Britain 
     would doubtless like to act unilaterally, but dare not. Only 
     Africans and the UN have unquestioned moral authority. Which 
     African leaders will now emulate Nyerere's profile of courage 
     in Zimbabwe's dire time of need?

                          ____________________




                 PHARMACISTS FIRST LINE OF HEALTH CARE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, pharmacies play a critical role 
in delivering health care in America. Local pharmacists are the first 
line of defense in recognizing health problems and providing medical 
advice. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more difficult to find 
and retain pharmacists who will practice in rural areas. With the 
impending retirement of the baby boomer generation, this problem only 
becomes worse. It is estimated that over the next 20 years, there will 
be a shortage of 150,000 or more pharmacists nationwide.
  We are already experiencing this problem in Kansas. Seven counties in 
our State do not even have one single pharmacist; and 30 other counties 
have only one pharmacist in the county.
  During my time in Congress, I have advocated for community 
pharmacies, and I currently co-chair the Congressional Community 
Pharmacy Caucus.
  I was pleased that this week the House chose to address several 
important issues related to the issue of pharmacists in H.R. 6331, the 
Medicare Improvement for Patients and Provider Act. This legislation 
includes provisions that community pharmacists from across my State 
have been tirelessly advocating for and that are important to keeping 
them in business.
  The Congressional Community Pharmacy Caucus worked hard to get these 
necessary fixes included in this legislation, and I am gratified that 
they were

[[Page 13946]]

included in H.R. 6331. These provisions are included in bills that I 
have sponsored, and they include prompt pay. The bill requires 
pharmacies to be reimbursed within 14 days if clean claims are 
submitted electronically and 30 days if submitted in other ways.
  The AMP delay, this is the average manufacturer's price, the bill 
delays the implementation of the provisions creating the average 
manufactured price that was developed by CMS and which in my opinion is 
a terribly flawed system. The bill delays the implementation of the AMP 
system until after September 30, 2009.
  Finally, the bill suspends the competitive bidding requirements in 
the durable medical equipment program for 1 year as well, as well as 
exempting diabetes test supplies from being subjected to the 
competitive bidding process.
  It is important to the health of Americans and certainly to the 
health of rural Kansans that the Senate promptly adopt this 
legislation.
  Also this week, it was my pleasure to participate in a ceremonial 
signing of the Kansas legislation that will allocate $20 million in 
funding to help the University of Kansas School of Pharmacy increase 
the school's ability to conduct more pharmaceutical research and expand 
the size of the entering class at the school. Under this proposal, 
nearly 200 students would be able to enter the program through a 
satellite campus in Wichita in a new building being built on the main 
campus in Lawrence.
  The University of Kansas has a strong reputation for retaining 
graduates within our State. Sixty-three percent of KU pharmacy 
graduates live and work in Kansas. Increasing the educational capacity 
will give students an opportunity to learn, and will help address 
pharmaceutical shortages in our State.
  I would like to commend the leadership of the university, especially 
the dean of the School of Pharmacy, Ken Andus; Executive Vice 
Chancellor Barbara Atkinson; Provost Richard Lavalare; and Chancellor 
Robert Hemenway. I would also like to thank the legislature of our 
State for seeing the importance of this expansion.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to commend the investment 
in this worthwhile project, and I ask that Congress continue to do its 
part to see that pharmacies remain an important component of delivering 
health care across America.

                          ____________________




                              {time}  1830
 RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY TO THE 
                           STATE OF MARYLAND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Johns Hopkins 
University located in the Seventh Congressional District in the great 
State of Maryland for its continued commitment to excellence and its 
monumental contributions to the advancement of our society and to the 
health and wellbeing of people throughout the world.
  Johns Hopkins is a stalwart not only in my hometown of Baltimore City 
but the entire State of Maryland and this Nation. The university 
currently supports more than 85,000 Maryland jobs. More than 3 percent 
of the people receiving paychecks in Maryland either work for Johns 
Hopkins or have a job because of the money.
  Additionally, the institution adds at least $7 billion a year of 
income to the Maryland economy. However, the University's 
groundbreaking research and contributions that can be felt throughout 
the entire world. The advancements that have been made in research and 
technology since the University's establishment in 1876 have been 
critical in keeping our Nation on the cutting edge.
  The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine is one of the best in the world, 
receiving more research grants from the National Institutes of Health 
than any other medical school. The Bloomberg School of Public Health, 
renowned for contributions worldwide to preventative medicine and the 
health of large populations, ranks first among public health schools in 
Federal research support.
  Madam Speaker, the medical breakthroughs made possible through Johns 
Hopkins research are saving lives every single day, and the University 
continues to make great strides in helping men, women, and children who 
suffer from illness. Just the other day in the Baltimore Sun, for 
instance, there was an article reporting new, unprecedented success by 
Johns Hopkins researchers in the treatment of multiple sclerosis.
  MS is a chronic and often disabling, degenerative condition in which 
the body's immune system attacks the central nervous system. Symptoms 
of this disease range from numbness in the limbs to paralysis or 
blindness, and the programs and severity of this disease is 
unpredictable.
  According to the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, approximately 
40,000 Americans are currently suffering from MS and an additional 200 
people are being diagnosed each week. Although there are apparently a 
variety of treatments approved by the Food and Drug Administration that 
can lessen the frequency and severity of MS attacks, there is not yet a 
cure for this debilitating disease.
  However, this new research from Johns Hopkins offers a giant leap 
forward in the search for a cure. In a small college study, nine people 
were chosen to receive a single infusion of cyclophosphamide over 4 
days and were followed for 4 years. Madam Speaker, these nine patients 
have experienced the most severe symptoms of MS, and most of them had 
failed to respond to other treatments.
  At the completion of the 2-year period, researchers found that the 
treatment not only slowed the progression of MS, but it also restored 
neurological function that had previously been lost to the disease. 
Seven of the nine patients showed a decrease in the number of brain 
lesions in MRIs, and some even began walking, controlling bladder 
function, and returning to work for the first time in many years.
  One of the patients in the treatment program, 30-year-old Richard 
Bauer, summed up succinctly what this research has the potential to 
offer those who are suffering from MS. And he said, ``I was falling 
apart . . . trapped in my own body,'' and he continued, ``I'm a regular 
person again. I've gotten my life back.''
  Madam Speaker, there are countless other patients who have benefited 
tremendously from Johns Hopkins research and who credit this great 
university for giving them back their lives. I am proud to applaud the 
work of this great institution and to recognize its contributions to 
the State of Maryland, to our Nation, and indeed the world.

                          ____________________




  DO NOT BELIEVE THE U.S. FEAR FACTOR PROPAGANDA AS IT RELATES TO OUR 
                             FOREIGN POLICY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, today we saw some financial fireworks on the 
markets. The Dow Jones average was down 350-some points, gold was up 
$32, oil was up another $5, and there's a lot of chaos out there; and 
everyone is worried about $4-a-gallon gasoline. I don't think there is 
a clear understanding exactly why that has occurred.
  We do know that there is a supply and demand, there's a lot of demand 
for oil. The supplies may be dwindling. But there are other reasons for 
high costs of energy. One is inflation. For instance, to pay for the 
war that has been going on and the domestic spending, we have been 
spending a lot more money than we have. So what do we do? We send the 
bills over to the Federal Reserve to create new money. In the last 3 
years, our government, through the Federal Reserve and our banking 
system, created $4 trillion of new money. That is one of the main 
reasons why we have this high cost of energy in $4 gallon gasoline.

[[Page 13947]]

  But there is another factor that I want to talk about tonight. And 
that is not only the fear of inflation and future inflation, but the 
fear factor dealing with our foreign policy.
  And in the last several weeks, if not for months now, we have heard a 
lot of talk about the potentiality of Israel and/or the United States 
bombing Iran. And it is in the marketplace, and it's being bid up. The 
energy crisis is being bid up because of this fear. It's been predicted 
if bombs start dropping, that you're going to see energy prices double 
or triple. It's just the thought of it right now that helps to push 
these prices, the price of energy, up. And that is a very real thing 
going on right now. But to me, it's almost like deja vu all over again, 
as has been said.
  We listened to the rhetoric for years and years before we went into 
Iraq. We did not go in in the correct manner. We didn't declare war. 
We're there. It's an endless struggle. We're in Iraq. We're endlessly 
struggling there, and I cannot believe that we may well be on the verge 
of initiating bombing of Iran.
  Leaders on both sides of the aisle and the administration have all 
said so often that no options can be taken off the table, including a 
nuclear first strike on Iran. The fear is, they say, maybe some day 
they're going to get a nuclear weapon, even though our own CIA and our 
NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, has said they have not been 
working.
  The Iranians have not been working on a nuclear weapon since 2003. 
They say they're enriching uranium, but there's no evidence whatsoever 
that they're enriching uranium for weapons purposes. They may well be 
enriching uranium for peaceful purposes, and that is perfectly legal. 
They have been a member of the nonproliferation treaties, and they are 
under the investigation of the IAEA, and Alberidy last verified in the 
last year there have been nine unannounced investigations and 
examinations of the uranium nuclear structure, and they have never been 
found to be in violation. Yet this country and Israel are talking about 
a preventive war starting bombing for this reason without negotiation, 
without talks.
  Now, the one issue that I do want to mention tonight is a resolution 
that is about to come to this floor, if our suspicions are correct, 
after the July 4th holiday. And this bill will probably be brought up 
under suspension, it will probably be expected to pass easily, and 
probably will be, and it's just more war propaganda, more preparation 
to go to war against Iran.
  And this resolution, H.J. Res. 362, is a virtual war resolution. It 
is the declaration of tremendous sanctions and boycotts and embargoes 
on Iran. It's very, very severe.
  Let me just read what is involved in this, if this bill passes, what 
we're telling the President he must do. This demands that the President 
impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, 
ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran and 
prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials. I 
mean, this is unbelievable. This is closing down Iran. Where do we have 
this authority? Where do we get the moral authority? Where do we get 
the international legality for this? Where do we get the constitutional 
authority for this?
  This is what we did for 10 years before we went into Iraq. We starved 
children. 50,000 individuals that were admitted probably died because 
of the sanctions on the Iraqis. They were incapable at the time of 
attacking us, and all of the propaganda that was given for our need to 
go into Iraq wasn't true.
  And it's not true today about the severity. And they say, Yeah, but 
Ahmadinejad, he's a bad guy. He's threatened violence. But you know, us 
threatening violence is very, very similar. We must look at this 
carefully. We just can't go to work again under these careless, 
frivolous conditions.

                          ____________________




                    SOLUTIONS FOR HIGH ENERGY PRICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Madam Speaker, tonight I rise because my constituents 
in my district are sick and tired of paying record-high gas prices 
while Congress does nothing to increase domestic energy production. 
Imagine for a moment that you are a regular working mom struggling to 
make ends meet. You need to get the kids to and from school, you need 
to get to work, you need to buy groceries, you need to do all of the 
things that millions of working parents do every day. Then at the end 
of the week, you stop by the gas station only to find that prices are 
so high that you can't even afford to fill your tank. What do you think 
she would want from her representative in Congress?
  I know what my constituents want us to do. Everything. We should 
allow exploration of America's own energy reserves in places like ANWR 
and the Outer Continental Shelf waters. We should bring new carbon 
friendly nuclear reactors online and begin the reprocessing of nuclear 
energy. We should invest in clean coal plants with carbon sequestration 
technologies. We should invest in research and development of 
alternative energy technologies, be that wind, hydro, geothermal, 
solar, and we should provide the tax incentives necessary to accelerate 
their deployment.
  In short, we should do all of the above and more. America can neither 
drill nor conserve its way to cheaper energy. We must have a 
comprehensive approach that does have both short- and long-term 
solutions.
  Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Science and Technology 
Committee, I have been a long-time advocate for research development 
for energy technologies like hydrogen, cellulosic fuels, solar, wind, 
and green buildings. In my own district, scientists at Argon National 
Laboratory are leading the way on the development of specialized 
batteries for special hybrid vehicles. They will allow motors to drive 
40 miles before using a drop of gas. That's more than enough to cover 
Americans' commute to work and back. Then they can just plug the car 
into a regular electric socket and recharge it for another 40 miles.
  I believe that the significant advances in these energy technologies 
are just around the corner, but in the meantime, we must provide relief 
to hardworking Americans being squeezed by soaring gas prices, and that 
means increasing the domestic supply of energy.
  America is the only industrialized Nation in the world that prohibits 
oil and glass exploration in its Outer Continental Shelf waters. 
Foreign nations, like Cuba, are permitted to drill closer to our shores 
than the American companies; and yet instead of opening America's vast 
energy reserves, Congress forces us to rely on expensive oil from the 
Middle East.
  I agree that examining futures markets for excessive speculation and 
exercising proper oversight is fine and good, but if we want to 
effectively curb speculation in the oil market, we should show that we 
are serious about developing our own energy reserves. When more supply 
is on the horizon developing our own energy reserves, speculators will 
have much less incentive to invest in oil commodities.
  This debate isn't just about the price that Americans are paying at 
the pump. It's about the growing threat to our economy and our 
security. Last year alone, America increased its dependence on foreign 
members of OPEC by an additional 7 percent. How much more money and 
control are we willing to turn over to nations in these unstable 
regions of the world? And yet despite this growing threat, Congress is 
still debating legislation that holds zero potential to increase 
domestic energy production or help break our addiction to foreign oil.
  Madam Speaker, I'm glad that the House leadership has finally 
realized that we need to bring bills to the floor to address America's 
energy needs. I just wish the legislation considered today was up to 
the task.

[[Page 13948]]



                          ____________________




                              {time}  1845
                           SUPPLY AND DEMAND

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, you know, Americans are beginning to 
pressure the Democrats to face up to the basic law of economics: supply 
and demand. They understand that, despite all the rhetoric on the part 
of the Democrats, what we need is more supply to meet the demand for 
petroleum products.
  The Democrats refuse to respond in the appropriate manner. What they 
continue to do is bring up sham bills, avoid the issue, and try to take 
away people's attention from the real issue.
  So what they did today was bring up a bill under suspension of the 
rules, H.R. 6251, which they called use-it-or-lose-it. This has been 
their mantra for the past few days, trying to say again that the oil 
companies--and they love to beat up on the oil companies--have all the 
means at their disposal to meet the supply needs in this country.
  However, the American people understand that's not true. Even 19 
Democrats understood that that's not true, and thankfully, the bill did 
not pass because it required a two-thirds majority vote, and it didn't 
get that.
  What H.R. 6251 would have done was threaten increased American energy 
production. It would do nothing to lower the price at the pump, and it 
would breach existing oil and gas contracts. But of course, what we've 
seen from this Democratically controlled Congress, they don't care much 
about the law. They don't care much about contracts, the basic part of 
our law in this country.
  I want to share with you some editorials that have been written about 
this harebrain scheme on the part of the Democrats, but it's not just 
the Republicans who feel this way, and as I've said, 19 Democrats voted 
against the bill today. I'm very proud of them for standing up to their 
despotic leadership and voting ``no'' on this bill.
  But here's some of the editorials that have come out about this 
legislation. The Charleston, West Virginia, Daily Mail, the hometown 
paper of Congressman Nick Rahall, one of the main sponsors of the bill: 
``Now comes a new wrinkle, another attempt to dodge sensible policy--
this one from West Virginia's Representative Nick Rahall. He proposes 
to give big oil companies an ultimatum: Unless they drill on the 68 
million acres of inactive land they now lease from the Federal 
Government--or give up those leases--they would be barred from getting 
new leases.
  ``Oh, for pity's sake. It may not be possible to produce from some 
reserves at the current price. Huffing and puffing around that American 
companies shouldn't have access to any new reserves until they have 
made full use of the reserves they have would unnecessarily delay the 
identification of new domestic sources, and production from those 
sources.
  ``Rahall's bill is yet another pitiful attempt to avoid doing what 
clearly needs to be done--make more U.S. reserves available to U.S. 
companies.'' That's in the Charleston Daily Mail editorial, 6/18/08.
  The New Hampshire Union Leader: ``Of all the dumb ideas to come out 
of Washington in recent memory, last week Representative Carol Shea-
Porter embraced what might be the dumbest of them all. Shea-Porter has 
cosponsored legislation to force oil companies that hold leases on 
Federal land to commence developing that land or lose the lease. Simply 
put, Shea-Porter hasn't the slightest idea what she's talking about.''
  Another one. ``Furthermore, AAPG's Nation says, current leases 
already require oil companies to take certain steps to use the land. 
The premise behind the bill Representative Carol Shea-Porter is 
cosponsoring--that oil companies have huge reserves of untapped oil 
wells sitting beneath already leased Federal land, which they can tap 
right away if only Congress orders it--is unsupported by the facts. 
Nation called it `laughable.' ''
  It is a great day when the American people can prevail, when they 
will convince the Democratic leadership--and it's important that we say 
over and over and over and over again that it's the Democrats who are 
in charge of the Congress. They are the ones in charge of bringing 
bills to a vote. Republicans have common sense answers to this. We will 
increase American-produced energy sources, and it's time to bring those 
bills for a vote.

                          ____________________




    IRANIAN CONFERENCE IN PARIS: 2ND ANNUAL WORLD DEMOCRACY CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for those who promote democracy in Iran and stability in Iraq. 
In Paris, thousands of Iranians have gathered to celebrate a big 
victory today. It is a great day for the Iranian people and their 
resistance.
  On Monday, the government of the United Kingdom formally removed the 
Iranian opposition from the U.K.'s Terror list. This happened after 
many years of campaign by the organization. Legislators approved the 
decision of the Proscribed Organization Court of Appeal, which ruled in 
May that the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK) should no longer be 
listed as a proscribed group.
  It is a great day for the Iranian people, for all freedom loving 
people of Iran who have been forced to leave Iran, and for their just 
resistance. It was great to hear that the British government formally 
removed an Iranian opposition group from the U.K.'s Black list on 
Monday, after many years of campaign by the organization.
  As a Representative of the 18th Congressional District of Texas, I 
have had the pleasure, of working with a strong and vibrant Iranian 
population in Houston. They have contributed immensely to the cultural 
diversity, economic and political dynamic of Houston. As a Member of 
Congress, I find Iran's support of terrorist organizations, pursuit of 
nuclear weapons, and dismal human rights record to be extremely 
worrisome. However, I am also concerned by what appears to be 
precipitous movement by this Administration toward yet another war in 
the Gulf region, without having first exhausted diplomatic means of 
addressing any conflicts.
  I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic 
Iran. I believe in an Iran that holds free elections, follows the rule 
of law, and is home to a vibrant civil society; an Iran that is a 
responsible member of the region and the international community, 
particularly with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An 
Iran that, unfortunately, we do not see today.
  Today, the Bush Administration announced a set of new sanctions 
against Iran. The Administration labeled the elite Quds division of the 
Revolutionary Guard Corps as supporters of terrorism, and stated that 
the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps was engaged in proliferating 
weapons of mass destruction. These designations trigger unilateral 
sanctions designed to impede the Revolutionary Guard, and any who might 
do business with it. These new sanctions mark the first time that the 
United States has taken such a step against the armed forces of any 
sovereign government.
  The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the 
region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's policy, is to 
assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, 
and religious liberty. Every government can be judged by the way in 
which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current 
Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many 
and diverse minorities.
  Given the government's poor record for transparency and 
accountability, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) 
inability, despite intensified inspections since 2002, to verify that 
Iran's nuclear program is not designed to develop a nuclear weapon is 
cause for great concern. While Iran states that the intention of its 
nuclear program is for electricity generation which it feels is vital 
to its energy security, U.S. officials challenge this justification by 
stating that ``Iran's vast gas resources make nuclear energy programs 
unnecessary.''
  The controversy surrounding Iran's procurement of nuclear energy is 
cause for great concern, however, the Administration's avoidance of any 
and all diplomatic relations with Iran are cause for greater alarm. 
Moreover, the current rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding 
war with Iran is both counter productive and highly inflammatory. While 
full diplomatic,

[[Page 13949]]

political, and economic relations between the U.S. and Iran cannot be 
normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are put in place to 
prevent the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, these policy 
objectives should not constitute pre-conditions for any diplomatic 
dialogue.
  Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and 
deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster 
greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the 
United States and would enhance the stability the security of the 
Persian Gulf region. Doing so would reduce the threat of the 
proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region while advancing 
other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of 
establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be 
over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the 
means through which we resolve this looming crisis.
  I am planning to introduce important legislation that will call for 
human rights and religious freedom in Iran. The Iranian people have 
continued to ask for democracy to reign free in their country and I 
intend to support the Iranian people in that endeavor. As you know, 
over the past few months, the people of Iran have been standing up to 
Iranian government. I am aware that at least 5000 acts of protest took 
place last year. I applaud your efforts to encourage those who have 
raised their voices against the extremists in Iran.
  The United Nations has condemned Iran 54 times for its atrocious 
human rights record. Inhumane treatment of youths, women and workers by 
the government of Iran is further evidence of the regime's intolerance. 
Iranian women have shown they play a pivotal role in establishing 
democracy and ensuring human rights in Iran.
  We all must work together for a stable and democratic Iraq. Today, 
there is undisputable evidence that Iran is the main contributor to the 
violence in Iraq which causes American casualties. The extremist 
government in Iran has acted to ensure the failure of Iraqi 
reconciliation. Iran is part of the problem in Iraq and does not wish 
to be part of the solution. But Iraq's tribal leaders are standing up 
to the Islamic extremism coming from Iran. I know that over 3 million 
Iraqi Shiites have signed a declaration this month rejecting Iran's 
meddling. They have also shown support for the Iranian opposition MEK 
living in Ashraf. I support their invaluable efforts for peace and 
stability in Iraq.
  Although many disagree with the current status of this war in Iraq, 
all agree that we must collectively work to stop Iranian-style 
fundamentalism from taking root in Iraq. Let me here recognize your 
actions in support of democracy in Iraq as well as in Iran. With many 
continuing to suggest that military action in Iran is the best way to 
deal with our political discrepancies, it is now time to renew our 
efforts in strengthening our diplomatic policies in the Middle East. 
The same people who called for attacking Iraq now are raising the 
drumbeat for military action against Iran.
  Despite the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate 
concluding that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, the Bush 
administration is bolstering its case for war by labeling Iran one of 
the greatest threats to American security. Bombing Iran would bring 
disastrous consequences. The entire Middle East likely would descend 
into further violence putting the well-being of innumerable civilians 
at risk. U.S. standing in the world would plummet and oil prices would 
soar. A U.S. attack would only strengthen hardliners in Iran.
  Supporting the efforts of the Iranian people who want democracy is 
especially important now that the UK government confirmed on June 24, 
that the MEK was no longer ``Concerned in terrorism'', and officially 
took the name of the organization off their black list. This is a great 
victory for the cause of democracy in Iran. In light of the recent 
developments, the United States must seriously consider the court's 
findings and also remove the limitations it has placed on the MEK.
  The world community must strengthen the sanctions on the clerical 
regime. It must also immediately recognize and support the Iranian 
resistance as the democratic alternative to the regime in Iran.
  Today, the mullahs are increasingly using oppression inside and 
terrorism outside of Iran as a foreign policy tool. The solution to the 
current crisis is often perceived to only have two solutions--war or 
appeasement. I disagree. There is a third option. The Third Option 
introduced by Mrs. Maryam Rajavi relies on the strength of the Iranian 
people and their organized resistance. This is the best and least 
costly alternative. Let us not continue to make the mistake of 
appeasing Iran. As a viable alternative, we must move to support the 
Iranian people and their resistance. Only you can bring about 
democratic change in Iran.
  I have come to know the people of Iran and appreciate their thirst 
for freedom. My message to them is this: rest assured that it is 
attainable. I wish you the best in your struggle for peace, freedom and 
democracy.

                          ____________________




                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today the Supreme Court made a 
strong move in support of individual gun rights in their decision in 
District of Columbia v. Heller.
  Since 1975, the residents of Washington, D.C., have had their second 
amendment rights to bear arms stolen from them by the D.C. government. 
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares that: ``A well 
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.''
  Our Founding Fathers knew that without the second amendment, an 
oppressive government would eventually try to tear away our rights. 
They could not trust the government to always protect our rights, and 
so they wrote the second amendment. As James Madison later wrote: ``Who 
are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. 
The sacred trust can be nowhere so safe as in the hands most interested 
in preserving it.''
  The second amendment protects the fundamental, individual right of 
law-abiding citizens to own firearms for any lawful purpose. Further, 
any law infringing on this freedom, including a ban on self-defense and 
handgun ownership, is blatantly unconstitutional. Every study has shown 
that gun control is not effective in curbing crime. Rather, these types 
of restrictions only leave law-abiding citizens more susceptible to 
criminal attack. Other than law enforcement, only criminals have had 
handguns in the District of Columbia.
  The Supreme Court took a strong step forward today to protect the 
individual gun rights of Americans, and I applaud them for doing so. As 
Justice Scalia stated, ``The Second Amendment protects an individual 
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and 
to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense 
within the home.''
  Though the Supreme Court's decision does champion the individual 
right to bear arms, it also allows restrictions based on type, manner 
of carrying, purpose, sensitive location, and commercial sale of 
handguns.
  Most alarmingly, the Court irrationally envisioned that their holding 
may completely detach the second amendment right from its purpose. 
Regarding the purpose of the right, United States General George 
Washington Stated, ``A free people ought not only be armed and 
disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to 
maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse 
them, which would include their own government.''
  Recognizing an evolving standard that limits the right to weapons to 
only those ``in common use at the time'' and accepting prohibitions of 
``dangerous and unusual'' weapons, the Court gives short shrift to the 
fact that modern laws, of the very sort it strikes down today, have 
prevented the common use of ``sufficient arms and ammunition to 
maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse 
them, which would include their own government,'' as George Washington 
envisioned.
  The ruling outrageously claims that, ``the fact that modern 
developments have limited the degree of fit between the purpose and the 
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.'' The 
truth is that our second amendment right must fit the purpose, and this 
Court has separated the two. This Court wrongly leaves loopholes for 
prohibition of weapons that would be necessary for today's militia 
duty. Militia, at the time of our findings, included every male 18 
years of age or older.

[[Page 13950]]

  I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman and proud owner of numerous 
firearms. The National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, 
and Gun Owners of America are just some of the numerous sporting 
associations that I am a life Member of. A full-body-mounted African 
lion and Kodiak grizzly bear are just a few of my prized trophies that 
visitors see when they come to my D.C. office.
  I strongly support the Constitution's second amendment right to bear 
arms and will defend the rights of law-abiding citizens to purchase, 
use, carry, and keep firearms. I vigorously oppose all attempts to 
restrict the second amendment.
  I believe that any law, whether at the local, State, or Federal 
level, which restricts or infringes upon law-abiding citizens' ability 
to own a firearm is unconstitutional and should be repealed.
  The plain language of the Second Amendment clearly indicates that it 
was written to protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms. I 
believe, as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John 
Adams, and other founding fathers believed, that the individual right 
to bear arms is a representation of freedom and independence and I will 
always defend that right from abusive regulations and licensing.

                          ____________________




             AMERICAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS FOR LOWER GAS PRICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I just wanted to start out by saying 
that I know that I can't talk directly to the American people, but I 
hope that if anyone is out there listening that they would listen to my 
comments that I make to you.
  Madam Speaker, I guess about 2 weeks ago probably I started getting 
some phone calls about different petitions on the Internet and other 
places about the prospects of America becoming more energy independent, 
that we would not be dependent on foreign oil sources, and that we 
would be able to use our own natural resources to meet our energy 
needs.
  And people began to ask if I had gone and signed them or had seen 
them. One was on americansolutions.com, which offered to increase 
domestic oil drilling. There was one about a gas holiday. There were 
several about developing alternative energy sources. But there were 
some interesting petitions against drilling by Democratic Senator Ms. 
Boxer, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace.
  As I walked into a service station in my district, there was a 
petition on the counter, Madam Speaker, that said: Sign here if you 
want to let your representatives know that you're for lowering gas 
prices. And I'm assuming that the proprietor of that station had it 
there to keep people from talking bad to him about the price that was 
on his pump.
  But what I decided after looking at all these different petitions is 
that I would come up with a petition so the American people could 
understand where their representative was at. We know where our 
constituents are. I think on the American Solutions petition they are 
at like 1.7 million people. So we can kind of understand where the 
American people are at. They want us to be independent. They want us to 
increase our U.S. oil production.
  So what I decided to do was come up with a petition, and what this 
petition says is: American energy solutions for lower gas prices. Bring 
onshore oil online; bring deepwater oil online; and bring new 
refineries on online. Realize, we have not built a refinery in this 
country since the late 1970s.

                              {time}  1900

  And you may not realize this, because we're always talking about 
crude oil, but you might not realize that the United States imports 6.2 
billion gallons of gas and 4.6 billion gallons of diesel every year. We 
import these from the United Kingdom, U.S. Virgin Islands, France, 
Canada, Netherlands, Norway--which, by the way, Norway is now the third 
largest exporter of crude oil, and back in 1965 they were energy 
dependent on foreign oil and they decided that they would open up to 
drilling in the North Sea. They are now the third largest exporter of 
crude oil. But we import refined gas from them--Germany, Russia, Italy, 
and of course the OPEC countries, which don't even really have that 
much refining capacity, Madam Speaker, but yet we buy refined gas from 
them.
  So I got a petition, I've had it over here on the wall, Madam 
Speaker, for probably about 2 weeks now. There are 435 spaces for the 
Members, and then there are seven spaces for the delegates from the 
U.S. territories. And I'm happy to say that we've had 191 signatures. 
Now, this may be too simple for some people because all it says is, ``I 
will vote to increase U.S. oil production to lower gas prices for 
Americans.'' And so we need your help, Madam Speaker. We need you to 
sign. I don't think you're on it, Madam Speaker.
  But we've got a Web site, and it's our Web site at house.gov/
westmoreland. And on there we have everybody that has signed, and we 
have everybody that we've talked to that said they would not sign. So 
we've got two columns, we've got a signers and a non-signers. And then 
also, just to let you know, we have notified every office here at least 
once, we will do it again next week. And some people said have, well, 
Congressman, they ask me how long have you been working on this? And I 
say, well, about almost 2 weeks. Well, how come you only have 191 
signatures? Well, Madam Speaker, I'd ask people that ask me that 
question, Sunday, when they're at church, try to talk to 450 people on 
a Sunday, it's almost hard to do, especially when you get in different 
conversations with folks. So if you want to understand, house.gov/
westmoreland, Madam Speaker, that's where somebody would go if they 
wanted to see where their Congressman was at on this simple petition 
that basically just says, ``I will vote to increase U.S. oil production 
to lower gas prices for Americans.''
  I would like to yield some time to my friend from Indiana.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Let me just say to my good friend, Congressman 
Westmoreland from Georgia, I am so happy that you are going to all this 
trouble to get all of our colleagues to sign this petition. And if 
you're at 191, you're not too far short of 218. And when you get 218, I 
will join with you to go to the Speaker and show her that we have 218 
signatures--or you do--and that they ought to bring this to the floor 
for a vote because a majority of the House wants this done.
  You know, we passed another week. A week has gone by since you and I, 
I think, last were on the floor. And everybody's going home for the 4th 
of July recess--they're going to be in parades, they're going to be on 
radio, they're going to have town meetings--and we haven't done 
anything about reducing the price of gasoline or moving toward energy 
independence. And so I, like you, if I were talking to the American 
people right now, I would say, when your Congressman or your Senator is 
in that parade, I want you to talk to them strongly and say, we want 
you to drill in America. We want you to move us toward energy 
independence. We've been talking about it since Jimmy Carter was 
President 30-something years ago, and we aren't doing anything. And 
that's why we're dependent on foreign oil and that's why gasoline 
prices are over $4 because we aren't producing the oil here, we're 
sending it overseas.
  We're sending over $400 million a day to Saudi Arabia to pay for oil 
that we're using. We could use that money right here in America, and it 
would help create jobs and expand our economy. We're sending $125 
million a day to President Chavez in Venezuela, who's trying to move 
every country in this hemisphere toward communism and who is a good 
friend of the Castro brothers, Fidel and his brother Raul.
  We have big problems here because we aren't drilling in America. And 
we need to have everybody in this country contact their Congressman and 
Senator and say, hey, listen, get with the

[[Page 13951]]

program, it's time for us to move toward energy independence. We can't 
have this economy of ours suffer anymore.
  I would like to enter into the Record, Madam Speaker, if I might, a 
letter that was sent by the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists. These are the experts that say there is oil here, we ought 
to drill here, and here's how we ought to do it and here's how we ought 
to explore. And when you read this letter--which is now going to be put 
in the record--it tells very clearly that drilling costs for one well 
onshore costs a half a million dollars, and offshore it can cost up to 
$25 million. And so these geologists, when they get these permits to 
drill in a certain area, they go out to make darn sure that there's oil 
there before they sink a well that's going to cost $25 million. And 
that's an exploratory well. And it's a half million dollars if you 
drill onshore. So we're talking about big money. And when you realize 
that 68 percent of the people who drill for oil are independent 
drillers, they're not the big oil companies, and 87 percent of the 
people who drill for gas are not the big oil and gas companies, they're 
individual people who have small companies, and if they find oil 
they're going to get it, and if they find gas they're going to get it. 
And so this idea that these permits are not being researched and looked 
at is just crazy.
  And when you read what the American Association of Petroleum 
Geologists said, and the President is a Mr. Willard Green, you realize 
that these people want to get oil and gas out of the ground, they want 
to get it out of the offshore sites on the Continental Shelf, and they 
can't do it simply because they don't have the ability to pursue these 
permits.
  Only 3 percent of the area offshore is available for permitting and 
for drilling for oil; 97 percent of the Continental Shelf isn't being 
touched. And we have about 80 percent onshore that's not being touched. 
We ought to explore every place we can to move this country toward 
energy independence. We ought to remove ourselves from being dependent 
on Saudi Arabia, who isn't really a friend of ours, and on Venezuela, 
which really isn't a friend of ours, and other countries that aren't 
friends of ours. We ought to really move towards energy independence. 
And the minute we announce we're going to do that, we're going to drill 
on these sites, I'm sure the American people realize the price of oil 
is going to go down. The competitive nature of the free enterprise 
system and supply and demand will force the price of oil down, and it 
means the price of gasoline will go down as well.

                                                     June 3, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Steny Hoyer,
     Majority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi, Majority leader Hoyer, and Minority 
     Leader Boehner: Given the on-going debate about access and 
     leasing activity on federal onshore lands and the Outer 
     Continental Shelf, I would like to offer some perspective, on 
     behalf of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists 
     (AAPG), on the science and process of finding oil and natural 
     gas.
       AAPG, an international geoscience organization, is the 
     world's largest professional geological society representing 
     over 33,000 members; The purpose of AAPG is to advance the 
     science of geology, foster scientific research, promote 
     technology and advance the well-being of its members. With 
     members in 116 countries, more than two-thirds of whom work 
     and reside in the United States, AAPG serves as a voice for 
     the shared interests of energy geologists and geophysicists 
     in our profession worldwide.
       AAPG strives to increase public awareness of the crucial 
     role that the geosciences, and particularly petroleum and 
     energy-related geology, play in our society.
       Finding and developing oil and natural gas blends science, 
     engineering, and economics. It has distinct phases: 
     exploration, development. and production. And it is risky, 
     because finding oil and natural gas traps, places where oil 
     and natural gas migrate and concentrate, buried under 
     thousands of feet of rock is like finding the proverbial 
     needle in a haystack. Talent and technology increase our 
     chances of a discovery, but there are no guarantees.
       What is exploration? Well, the grid pattern on a block map 
     makes it tempting to think of exploration as a process of 
     simply drilling a well in each grid block to determine 
     whether it contains oil. But because of the natural variation 
     in regional geology, one cannot assume oil and natural gas 
     are evenly distributed across a given lease or region, 
     Rather, exploration is about unraveling the geologic history 
     of the rock underneath that grid block, trying to understand 
     where oil or natural gas may have formed and where it 
     migrated. If the geology isn't right, you won't find oil or 
     natural gas.
       Legendary geologist Wallace Pratt once observed, ``Where 
     oil is first found is in the minds of men.'' When preparing a 
     lease bid, geologists use their knowledge to identify the 
     specific areas in a region that they believe have the highest 
     likelihood of containing oil and natural gas traps. 
     Successful exploration begins with an idea--a hypothesis of 
     where oil may be found.
       Since exploration is about developing and testing ideas, 
     some acreage available for leasing is never leased. That is 
     because no one develops a compelling idea of why oil or 
     natural gas should be there. Similarly, some acreage is 
     leased and drilled repeatedly with no success. Then, one day, 
     a geologist develops an idea that works, resulting in new oil 
     or natural gas production from the same land that others 
     dismissed as barren.
       Once a lease is awarded, geologists begin an intensive 
     assessment. They collect new geological, geophysical, and 
     geochemical data to better understand the geology in their 
     lease area. They use these data to construct a geological 
     model that best explains where they think oil and natural gas 
     were generated, where it may have been trapped, and whether 
     the trap is big enough to warrant drilling.
       If there is no evidence of a suitable trap, the explorer 
     will relinquish the lease and walk away. If they see a trap 
     that looks interesting, they schedule a drill rig to find out 
     if they are right. Drilling is the true test of the 
     geologists' model, and it isn't a decision to be made 
     lightly. Drilling costs for a single well can range from $0.5 
     million for shallow onshore wells to over $25 million for 
     tests in deep water offshore.
       As the well is drilling, geologists continually collect and 
     evaluate data to see whether they conform to their 
     expectations based on the geological model. Eventually, they 
     reach the rock layer where they think the trap is located.
       If there is no oil or natural gas when the drill reaches 
     the trap they were targeting, they've drilled a dry hole. At 
     this point the explorers will evaluate why the hole is dry: 
     was there never oil and gas here; how was the geological 
     model wrong; and can it be improved based on what they know 
     from the drilled well? Depending on the results of this 
     analysis, they may tweak the exploration idea and drill 
     another well or decide the idea failed and relinquish the 
     lease.
       If there is oil and/or natural gas, they've drilled a 
     discovery. Typically, they will test the well to see what 
     volumes of oil and/or natural gas flow from it. Sometimes the 
     flow rates do not justify further expenditures and the well 
     is abandoned. If the results are promising, they will usually 
     drill several additional wells to better define the size and 
     shape of the trap. All of these data improve the geological 
     model.
       Based on this revised geological model, engineers plan how 
     to develop the new field (e.g., number of production wells to 
     drill, construction of oil field facilities and pipelines).
       Using complex economic tools, they must decide whether the 
     revenue from the oil and natural gas sales will exceed the 
     past and continuing expenses to decide whether it is a 
     commercial discovery.
       The process of leasing, evaluating, drilling, and 
     developing an oil or natural gas field typically takes five 
     to ten years. Some fields come online sooner. Others are 
     delayed by permitting or regulatory delays or constraints in 
     the availability of data acquisition and drilling equipment 
     and crews. Large projects and those in deep water may require 
     a decade or more to ramp up to full production.
       As you can see, oil and natural gas exploration is not 
     simple and it is not easy. It requires geological ingenuity, 
     advanced technologies, and the time to do the job right. It 
     also requires access to areas where exploration ideas can be 
     tested--the greater the number of areas available for 
     exploration, the higher the chance of finding oil and natural 
     gas traps.
       U.S. consumers are burdened by high crude oil prices. 
     Conservation and efficiency improvements are necessary 
     responses, but equally important is increasing long-term 
     supply from stable parts of the world, such as our very own 
     federal lands and Outer Continental Shelf.
       As Congress considers measures to deal with high crude oil 
     prices, I urge caution. Policies that increase exploration 
     costs, decrease the available time to properly evaluate 
     leases and restrict access to federal lands

[[Page 13952]]

     and the Outer Continental Shelf do not provide the American 
     people with short-term relief from high prices and undermine 
     the goal of increasing stable long-term supplies.
       I am happy to further discuss these ideas. Please contact 
     me through our Geoscience & Energy Office in Washington, D.C. 
     at 202-684-8225 or 202-355-3415.
           Sincerely,
     Willard R. (Will) Green,
       President, American Assoication of Petroleum Geologists.

  And when they talk about these speculators, there are people that 
speculate in gas futures and oil futures, there is no question about 
that. But the minute we say we're going to drill here in this country, 
you watch those prices drop; you watch those speculators start getting 
out of the market and selling what they have. And that will force the 
price down on oil, it will force down the price of gasoline, and it 
will help this country.
  And let me just say to my colleague--and I really appreciate him 
yielding to me--if we don't get with the program, if my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle and the Senate and the House don't work 
with us on this side of the aisle, we're going to end up with gasoline 
prices being $5 or more per gallon. And if we have a conflict in the 
Middle East, as we've heard talked about here tonight, it could go much 
higher than that. That will put extreme pressure on this economy.
  And I hate to predict this, but I really believe that if we don't get 
control of this situation and start drilling onshore and offshore in 
our territory, I think we could have a severe economic recession in 
this country. And when I say severe, I mean severe. The price of food 
is going up rapidly, the price of gasoline is going up rapidly. The 
price of products that are shipped across this country, which is 
almost--everything is going up very rapidly, and we're not doing a darn 
thing about it because we're depending on the Saudis.
  We had Senators go over to the Saudis just recently and ask them to 
open up more oil fields so we can buy more of their oil. Why are we 
doing that? Why aren't we drilling in America so we don't have to 
depend on foreign oil? It makes absolutely no sense to send billions 
and billions and billions of dollars overseas and to other countries 
that don't even like us when we won't even drill here in the United 
States.
  And so I am so happy that my colleague has taken the time and the 
effort to get the message out to our colleagues that they ought to sign 
onto this petition. And I know he feels like I do--and we come down 
here night after night talking to each other--that we would like, if we 
could talk to the American people, to put pressure on their Congressmen 
and Senators to sign onto this policy of drilling in America, to sign 
this petition so we can move toward energy independence. If we do that, 
and I would say this to my American friends all across this country, if 
we do that, you watch the price of gasoline go down. It will go down 
like a rock. You will see gasoline below $3 before you know it. But we 
have to say that we're going to drill for oil in this country, onshore 
and offshore. The minute we do that, America, just watch these prices 
go down. But first of all, we have to get this body and the other body, 
the House and the Senate, to get together and say, okay, we're going to 
drill. And we can't do that unless the American people put pressure on 
their Congressmen and Senators to sign on.
  You have done yeoman service to this country, Congressman 
Westmoreland, because you've got 191 Members that have already signed 
that. And I'm going to work with you to get 218. And as I said before, 
the minute you get 218, I will walk with you to the Speaker's office 
and say, hey, it's time to bring this to the floor.
  You're doing good work. I'm proud of you.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Indiana. And I want 
to get 300 signatures because I would like for the American people to 
know that way more than just a simple majority is behind them for 
making sure that, not necessarily those of us that are our age, but our 
children and our grandchildren will not have to go through the things 
that we're going through today. Because in 1995, this Congress passed 
drilling in ANWR and President Clinton vetoed it. And by all estimates 
today, 13 years later, we would be getting one million barrels of oil a 
day.
  And as Senator Schumer said over in the Senate about 2 weeks ago, if 
we could get OPEC to increase oil production by one million barrels a 
day, it would lower the price of gas 50 cents a gallon just like that.
  We don't need to be sending our President over to foreign countries--
and especially those that are not that friendly to us--with hat in hand 
on bended knee asking them to use more of their natural resources to 
provide us with oil when we won't use our own natural resources.
  In talking about that, because this is the one thing that gets people 
fired up, Madam Speaker, and really gets those lines hot, that they 
want to find out if their Congressman has signed this very simple one 
sentence, is that it says, ``In a recent interview on al Jazeera, 
Chavez''--now this is Hugo Chavez from Venezuela--``Chavez called for 
developing nations to unite against U.S. political and economic 
policies. What can we do regarding the imperialist power of the United 
States? We have no choice but to unite,'' he said. ``Venezuela's energy 
alliances with nations such as Cuba, which receives cheap oil, are an 
example of how we use oil in our war against neoliberalism,'' he said. 
Then there was another date, on March 15, 2005, in the Washington Post, 
Mr. Chavez says, ``We have invaded the United States, but with our 
oil.''
  Now, that would make your blood kind of boil, Madam Speaker, but this 
is what really gets people off is the fact that every day American 
families and businesses in this country write Hugo Chavez a check for 
$170 million. That $170 million could be going to our country. It could 
be going to provide energy independence. It could be going to provide 
jobs and build an industry, put into infrastructure; $170 million a day 
to Mr. Chavez.
  Now, what we've been doing this week with the Democratic majority--
and let me remind you, Madam Speaker, that it was back in April of 2006 
that then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi made a statement, and she said, 
``Democrats have a commonsense plan to bring down the skyrocketing 
price of gas.'' And at the time it was about $2.06 a gallon. We are 
waiting on that commonsense plan to be unveiled. We're waiting on it. 
And we heard that there were going to be about four energy bills this 
week. And Madam Speaker, the energy bills that were brought out this 
week was kind of like putting lipstick on a pig.
  H.R. 6377, the speculation bill, this is what it says, ``to direct 
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to utilize all its 
authority.'' In other words, we passed something that's already 
existing law. That's what we did, we passed something that was already 
existing law.
  I want to read to you what happened in some quotes from H.R. 6. H.R. 
6, Madam Speaker, was a bill that the new majority passed in January--I 
believe it was January 18, 2007--shortly after taking over, after they 
had promised the American people that they were going to lower gas 
prices. And I do want to read this one quote before I start reading 
these others. This is from Paul Kanjorski, and this was about 2 weeks 
ago. It said, ``A man was trying to question Mr. Kanjorski about his 
remarks that Democrats had overpromised during the 2006 congressional 
elections by implying that they could end the war if they controlled 
Congress.''

                              {time}  1915

  ``Now, anybody who is a good student of government would know that 
that wasn't true,'' Mr. Kanjorski said at an Ashley town hall meeting 
in August, ``but you know the temptation to want to win Congress back. 
We sort of stretched the facts, and people ate it up.''
  Yep, they ate it up. And right now they're paying a price for it.
  I want to read you some quotes. These are from January 18, 2007, when 
we were debating H.R. 6:

[[Page 13953]]

  Mr. Peter DeFazio: ``It is sad to see the Republicans come to this. 
Now they laughingly say that this will lead to higher gas prices.''
  Well, gas was $2.23 a gallon on the day Mr. DeFazio made his 
statement. It's about $4.08 today. So we were probably right. This was 
no way to lower gas pries.
  The same day, January 18, 2007, Mr. Jim McGovern said: ``What we are 
doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people 
who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big 
Oil . . . ''
  Well, we have had seven investigations into price gouging, and it 
hasn't lowered the price of gas. In fact, it has gone up almost $2 a 
gallon since that statement was made.
  The same day, John Hall: ``Today we are going to take back the tax 
giveaways to Big Oil so we can give the American people a break at the 
pump.''
  January 18, floor statement, Kathy Castor: ``Instead of giving away 
billions of dollars to big oil companies which made multimillion dollar 
profits last year, the new Congress intends to chart a course in a new 
direction by investing in alternatives for the American people. This 
will help America become energy independent and ultimately lower the 
utility costs for average Americans.''
  I would like to tell the gentlewoman that the price of natural gas is 
twice what it was.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I yield.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I just want to follow up the train of thought 
that you have.
  These taxes that they want to put on Big Oil, if there are excessive 
profits made and there is collusion or something like that, if there is 
criminal behavior, obviously everybody wants to make sure that doesn't 
take place. But whatever they're promising, everything that I have seen 
the opposition party promise, is that they are going to hit Big Oil 
with more taxes. That isn't going to get one more drop of oil to the--
--
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Reclaiming my time, evidently taking these tax 
breaks away is not lowering the price of oil either.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. No. That's right. They want to take tax breaks 
away. They want to increase taxes. And when you pass a tax increase on 
to a business or industry, oil or automobiles or whatever it is, it's 
passed on to the consumer in the form of price increases. So if they 
raise taxes, it won't give us one more drop of oil, which we ought to 
be drilling for right now, but it will make more expenses for the 
companies, and unless they can prove wrongdoing, those expenses will 
passed on to the consumer in the form of another price increase. So 
raising the taxes on the oil companies is only going to exacerbate the 
problem and make the cost of oil go up more. And I don't understand why 
my colleagues don't understand basic economics and the law of supply 
and demand. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
  We need to pass legislation that will get more oil to the refineries, 
build more refineries, as you've said, and start getting the price of 
oil down because we are energy independent. And just talking about, 
okay, we're going to hit Big Oil, that may resonate with a lot of 
people. Some people say, oh, my gosh, they are not paying enough taxes. 
They ought to be taxed more. They are making too much in profits. 
That's not going to bring any oil to the market, not a drop.
  So I just say to my colleagues, quit beating on a dead horse. We have 
got to become energy independent. We have to drill here in America. And 
I hope everybody in the country who may be looking at this, and we 
can't talk to them, but everyone in the country who is looking at this 
tonight ought to ask their Congressmen and Senators, Is what you're 
talking about in Washington going to bring one more drop of oil to the 
marketplace? Is it going to move us toward energy independence? And if 
it isn't, they ought to sign that petition. They ought to get on with 
the program in making us more energy independent.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank you for saying that because that's exactly 
true, and the petition is actually so simple, one line: ``I will vote 
to increase U.S. oil production to lower the price for Americans.'' And 
you can go to house.gov/westmoreland and see if the Congressman is 
there.
  Madam Speaker, you would really have been intrigued at some of the 
things that I heard about why they couldn't sign it.
  But I want to continue on. These are quotes from the H.R. 6 debate, 
which was on January 18 of 2007, after the new majority, the Democrats, 
had overpromised the American people, as admitted, and now they were 
coming up with something that was satisfying that radical 
environmentalist base of theirs, whom they felt like they owed their 
victory to, at least in part. So they were going to take away the tax 
breaks and other things.
  I'm not a big fan of Big Oil. Don't get me wrong. But I had a high 
school economics teacher, and I didn't pay that much attention in 
school, but Colonel Wofford at Therrell High School there in Atlanta 
taught us that taxing manufacturers or producers does not lower the 
price to consumers. So for whatever that's worth, I will give that to 
the majority.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman would yield, let me just 
elaborate on that really quickly.
  I hope everybody who may be paying attention to this, our colleagues 
in their offices, realize that business and industry have a certain 
margin of profit that they have to make to keep the doors open, 
whatever it is. And as you have just said, if they are taxed and they 
have a margin of profit of 8 percent and you raise their taxes, they're 
going to pass that cost increase on to the consumer in the form of a 
price increase. And that's what my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, your colleagues, don't understand.
  We really need to do what's necessary to move toward energy 
independence, and raising the price of gasoline by taxing these 
companies is not going to solve the problem.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.
  January 18, and these are quotes from H.R. 6, which was their 
mantelpiece legislation. This was their commonsense plan, I guess, for 
bringing down the skyrocketing gas that at the time was $2.23 a gallon:
  Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee said: ``The price per barrel of oil is $50 
plus.'' Today I think it's about $140.
  She goes on to say: ``And so what is this Congress and this 
leadership doing? It is doing the right thing.''
  January 18, floor statement by Steve Israel: ``This dependence on 
foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is a glaring threat to our national 
security.''
  I could not agree with you more. But we are more dependent today than 
we were when you made that statement.
  Mr. John Lewis, my colleague from Georgia: ``More than ever we need 
to get our priorities straight. We need to stop dancing while Rome 
burns and reverse the damage we have done to our environment. The 
American people need relief from energy costs.''
  And I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. Lewis, but the problem is 
that gas has almost doubled since you made that statement.
  Rahm Emanuel: ``Mr. Speaker, let's review the score: ``Big Oil, one; 
taxpayers, zero. Now the score is tied, and we are just getting warmed 
up.''
  Well, I hope you're about as warm as you're going to get, Mr. 
Emanuel, because I don't know if we can stand any more of this.
  January 18, 2007, floor statement from Allyson Schwartz: ``The United 
States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend $800 million 
every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This threatens our 
economic stability, our environmental security, and our national 
security, and today we say `enough.'''
  Well, I say ``enough'' too, but if we had said ``enough'' then and 
started producing our own oil and started using our own natural 
resources, maybe oil wouldn't have almost doubled since then.
  The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, Mr. Chris Van

[[Page 13954]]

Hollen, said this: ``This is the time to change direction, to set a new 
course on energy policy, to say to the country we're not just talking 
rhetoric, we mean what we say.''
  Mr. John Yarmuth: ``Mr. Speaker, my constituent, like yours, paid 
over $3 a gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough?''
  Absolutely it's enough. But today we are paying over $4 a gallon, and 
the reason we are is because we refuse to use our own natural resources 
for the health of this country and, like so many of these other 
statements said, for the national security of this country.
  Stephanie Tubbs Jones: ``Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will 
place an undue burden on oil companies which will lead to higher gas 
prices.''
  Okay. We must have been right because what happened was after H.R. 6, 
with gas being $2.23 a gallon, today it is $4.08.
  What we are trying to do, before I yield to some of my colleagues, we 
have that petition that my friend from Indiana and I have been talking 
about, and what it says is ``I will vote to increase oil production to 
lower the price of gas.'' And what that means is bringing onshore 
drilling online, offshore drilling online, deepwater oil online, and 
bring in more refineries online.
  If we bring onshore oil online, it will save anywhere from 70 cents 
to $1.60 a gallon. To bring deepwater oil online, the Outer Continental 
Shelf, 90 cents to $2.50 a gallon. To bring new refineries online, and 
not one has been built since 1976, would save anywhere from 15 to 45 
cents. The gas tax holiday, 18 cents. To halt oil shipments to the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a nickel.
  Now, I have got some more quotes on that, and, of course, this was 
passed in the House probably back in May. We stopped those shipments in 
July, and so we should find out if it's going to bring it down a nickel 
a gallon. But if you look at what the Democrat plan was, and this is 
that commonsense plan, I'm assuming, but ``sue OPEC,'' we have had a 
lot of success with that. ``Launch the seventh investigation to price 
gougers.'' ``Launch the fourth investigation to speculators.'' Now, we 
put that lipstick on that pig today with the speculation bill, that we 
just really passed something that's already on the books.
  ``Twenty billion dollars in new taxes on oil producers.'' I can 
hardly wait to see what that does to lower the price of gas. And we've 
seen that just not even putting the new taxes on them but just taking 
tax relief away from them has caused gas to almost double.
  And then of course they've got ``halt oil shipments,'' which is a 
nickel.
  You can see that if we put our policies in place that gas today would 
be somewhere around $2.10, and that's using very conservative savings 
over there. And you can see that if this works, and we don't even know 
that this is going to work, it would be about $4.03.
  So we hope that we will get 300 signatures on this petition to show 
the American people that we are not going to lie here in a fetal 
position or just keep doing repetitious things to make you think we are 
doing something. So if you could just go to the house.gov/westmoreland 
and look at it. We had 45,000 hits on it, Madam Speaker, last night. 
And we have had a couple of Members that have come to us and said, We 
have heard and we want to go from the ``would not sign'' to the 
``sign.'' So we can't do it, Madam Speaker, if people aren't going to 
be involved with us because we don't have that much influence over the 
majority.
  I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, my 
classmate (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Thank you so much, Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you for leading 
this Special Order tonight and for the work that you have been doing 
for the last several weeks on this issue.
  I think it's important that we say over and over and over again that 
the Republicans do have a plan to lower gas prices. We are doing 
everything that we can to create new sources of American-made oil 
because we are in touch with the American people. We go home every 
weekend. Most of us worked for a living before we came here; so we know 
what it's like to meet a payroll. We haven't been in government all our 
lives. We haven't served in the Congress for 53, 54 years.

                              {time}  1930

  We are out there every weekend talking to the folks that we 
represent, and we know how the high prices of gasoline are hurting 
them. I think the Democrats are in strong denial. They think, again, 
that they can continue to bash the oil companies and hide their heads 
in the sand about what is going on.
  I want to thank you and our colleague from Indiana and our other 
colleagues that are going to be speaking tonight who are exposing the 
Democrats for who they are and what they are. Again, as I said earlier, 
it's important that we let the American people know it's the Democrats 
who are in control. The President cannot create new gas sources or new 
oil sources. Only the Congress has the power to do what needs to be 
done. So we need to set the record straight.
  It seems like the Democrats want to do everything possible to avoid 
creating new oil and bringing down the price of gasoline. They purport 
to represent the little person, the common person, the average person 
in this country, but it's obvious that that's not who they care about. 
They care about the radical environmentalists and toeing their line.
  Now I consider myself an environmentalist. My husband and I are in 
the nursery and landscaping business. I cherish the earth. I am a big 
recycler. I am very careful about how I spend things. When you grow up 
poor, you learn to be careful with money.
  But we know that our Speaker is the wealthiest person in Congress. 
Many of the Democrats are among the wealthiest people in the Congress. 
This really isn't hurting them at all. Again, I think it's very 
important that we debunk what they are trying to say to the American 
people about why their ``use it or lose it'' is what needs to be done. 
Again, they are good at blaming everybody else in the world for the 
problems that they create or that they can't solve.
  I want to talk a little bit about their comment that all we have to 
do is get the oil companies to use the leases that are available to 
them and put out some facts. We had the Truth Squad. The Truth Squad 
hasn't been active lately, but we need to bring it back. As our 
colleague says, You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not 
entitled to create facts.
  So let me say something about why we need to do something more than 
simply pass legislation that has already been passed. During President 
Reagan's administration, 160 million acres of onshore land was leased 
for exploration. Today, only 50 million acres are leased. Only 6 
percent of Federal onshore land is available for leasing. ANWR contains 
10.4 billion barrels of oil, but is 100 percent closed.
  I want to say something about ANWR, and I want to say something--I 
saw these pictures on TV again tonight. When ANWR is portrayed, it is 
usually portrayed as this meadow with daisies growing in it, animals 
grazing. That isn't what ANWR is. ANWR is a frozen desert. The 
temperature gets to 60 degrees below zero there sometimes. Practically 
nothing grows there.
  I was all over Alaska in 2005. I saw the oil fields. And, you know 
what? The oil fields don't look like the oil fields they show you on TV 
either. We have got to get those guys to get up-to-date pictures. You 
don't have these big cranes going up and down and back and forth like 
this. The oil wells don't even look like oil wells. They are little 
boxes with some gauges on them. If somebody didn't tell you that they 
were drilling oil there, you couldn't possibly know it. So we are not 
going to be spoiling our scenery, and we are certainly not going to 
hurt ANWR.
  The OCS contains 86 billion barrels of oil, the Outer Continental 
Shelf, but 97 percent of it is closed. Onshore Federal land contains 31 
billion barrels of oil, but only 6 percent of it is open to 
exploration. Oil shale on Federal land contains 2 trillion barrels of 
oil, but is 100 percent closed.
  The Democrats' claims are wrong. They claim that there are 4.8 
million

[[Page 13955]]

barrels and 44.7 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day that may be 
extrapolated from unused Federal leased lands. Stephen Allred, 
Assistant Secretary of the Land and Minerals Management, wrote that 
anyone who makes these claims has a ``misunderstanding of the very 
lengthy regulatory process. Lessees must comply with permit upon 
permit, often 27 total permits, without any drilling, and a lease does 
not equal oil. A lease is not a permission to drill, a lease is a 
permission to explore.''
  The Democrats assume that every acre of leased land can produce the 
exact same amount of oil and gas as the very best producing acres. This 
argument is not based on science, fact, or even common sense. A lease 
doesn't guarantee the discovery of oil and gas. A lessee may never 
actually find oil or gas. Between 2002 and 2007, 52 percent of all 
exploration wells were dry.
  We have got to set the record straight. We can't let the Democrats 
get by with talking about things that aren't true and trying to fool 
the American people.
  I see my colleague from Georgia has some wonderful maps here. Let me 
defer to you to talk about ANWR a little bit.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Well, what I wanted to point out, this is what ANWR 
looks like. It's kind of a frozen tundra. I had some young people up 
here the other day from a school, and one of them asked me a question, 
said, Are you for drilling in ANWR? I said, Yes, I am. She kind of 
frowned. I said, Why? She said, I don't want you to ruin all the 
beautiful trees up there.
  I tried to find a tree. I couldn't find a tree on the place. So 
there's a lot of misunderstanding out there about what it is. Then you 
can look at the size of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and then 
the ANWR part as compared to the whole State of Alaska. A lot of people 
don't understand that Alaska--we have got a map of it somewhere--it's 
bigger than Texas. I know Mr. Conaway is here from Texas. Three times 
the size of Texas.
  In fact, I will let Mr. Conaway talk about Texas and ANWR and other 
things, if he would like.
  Ms. FOXX. If I might, before Mr. Conaway speaks, I want to make one 
more comment. I have been getting a lot of letters in the last couple 
of weeks from boy scouts who are talking about their concerns with what 
is going on. I got one this week that was really heart-rending. He 
said, If the price of gas keeps going up, we are not going to be able 
to go on vacation, we are not going to be able to go to the grocery 
store. We are not even going to be able to go to church anymore.
  I think it's a real shame that we have people out there who are being 
denied the opportunity even to go to church because they cannot afford 
the price of gasoline. That is a sad state that we have come to in this 
country, and it's a sad commentary on the Democrats when they want to 
allow that to continue, when they have the power to do something about 
it.
  I yield back.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Let me say this, that it is a shame that we are 
having to limit so much of the travel. We need to conserve, but we 
can't conserve our way out of this. The real shame of this is when 
winter comes and natural gas is twice what it was. Mr. Peterson from 
Pennsylvania was down here the other night and really opened my eyes to 
it. Not only are people not going to be able to leave their home, they 
are not going to be able to stay warm in their home when the winter 
comes and the price of natural gas.
  To another one of my classmates and colleagues, Mr. Conaway from 
Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Well, I thank my classmate from Georgia for hosting this 
hour tonight.
  We spend an awful lot of time at these microphones, both sides, 
basically talking past each other. Usually, the rhetoric is heated, and 
we don't listen. My experience is this is the worst 435 listeners on 
the face of the Earth because we are clearly more interested in hearing 
what I have got to say than listening to what you have got to say.
  It happens time and time and time again at these microphones, 
basically because we tend to polarize and take the absolute positions, 
knowing full well that the best path for America is somewhere in the 
middle.
  The best path for America includes working all the other alternatives 
and trying to develop those and trying to see as far over the horizon 
as we can for a day in which crude oil and natural gas will no longer 
be available, not by choice but by the fact it has all been used up. It 
is a finite resource. We should be conserving everywhere we get, not on 
an individual basis but collective as well.
  Yes, from our position, we should be exploring and developing and 
producing American resources; crude oil, natural gas, uranium, nuclear, 
oil shale, tar sands, the full gamut of these resources.
  So if we can actually spend some time and sit together and try to 
work out our differences, I think there is a solution here that is 
really best for America.
  When I first read the ``use it or lose it'' bill, my first reaction 
was how can 236 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and all 
of their staffs and all of their hired consultants know so little about 
a fundamental industry that is so vital to our national security, our 
economic security, and that is the oil business. Then I came to the 
cynical conclusion that I was wrong; they do know about it.
  They do know exactly what they are doing by this bill that was up 
earlier today on a suspension calendar that we were able to defeat 
because over a third of us said that is wrong-headed.
  Here's a quick basic. When an oil and gas oil company, generally a 
major oil company because it requires so much money, leases in the Gulf 
of Mexico, where we have been drilling for a long, long time, they pay 
a lease bonus, which is a sizable amount of money that is given to the 
Federal Government, that says for a time certain I get exclusive rights 
to explore and try to find crude oil and natural gas on this particular 
parcel of land. That bonus money is a sunk cost because if they find 
oil, they get to produce it. If they don't find oil, too bad.
  This industry, much maligned from these microphones, is a group of 
dedicated, hardworking, patriotic, honest people who have an incredible 
tolerance for risk in this environment.
  So they put up the lease bonus money, sometimes millions and millions 
of dollars, just for the right to wade into the bureaucratic morass 
that we have created around these circumstances, where you have got 27 
permits and all kinds of stuff to get to just until you get to start 
the process. The process includes geological studies, geophysical 
studies, evaluation to try to find where on that parcel of land the 
best spot may be. You have got sunk costs, regulatory compliance costs.
  Then, once you have decided where you are going to drill, that you 
decided that you think there are commercial reserves in place under 
that dirt, under that ocean, then you still don't know it until you 
drill it. Then you have got the cost of drilling, all the expense 
there. Then, if you find commercial quantities of crude oil, you have 
to build a production platform that has got to be uniquely built for 
the particular formation you have got, and that has got to be moved out 
into the gulf and anchored.
  So what you have is many millions and millions, in some instances, 
billions of dollars of shareholder equity and debt that's been invested 
in trying to find crude oil and natural gas. Most of that is sunk cost. 
The only way they get a return on their investment, the only way they 
justify to their shareholders that they are making the right decision 
is to produce whatever crude oil and natural gas is in place.
  So there are plenty of incentives already built in to produce. The 
idea that they would ``sit'' on production in the hopes that this price 
gets even higher, which they know the price is too high now, is just 
wrong-headed.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Not only that, reclaiming my time for a minute, did 
not the Democrat majority in 1992 extend that lease period to 10 years? 
Was it prior not 5 years or 7 years what it was?
  Mr. CONAWAY. The traditional offshore lease needs to be at least 10 
years

[[Page 13956]]

because from start to finish--we have got some graphs here that we can 
show you the logical, businesslike progression that companies have to 
walk down. What is not mentioned so far is all the litigation costs 
that are associated with these leases, particularly in the Rocky 
Mountains. If a company is able to win a lease, they are immediately 
sued by environmentalists to prevent their exploring for it. This 
current price of gasoline and crude oil is a product of supply and 
demand.

                              {time}  1945

  About 86 million barrels a day of production, about 85 million 
barrels a day of usage, and that varies from day-to-day. Inventories 
start dropping. That means demand has gone beyond the current 
production supply.
  The most immediate area for quick relief in this regard would be 
Iraq. The Iraqi government has recently reached out to ExxonMobil, 
Shell, BP and Chevron to ask them, ask the experts, the folks who have 
the money to be able to do it, to come into Iraq and help them increase 
the amount of production that Iraq produces from oil and gas. They are 
about half of what they were under the Shah. And their fields are on 
land and the most quickly responsive to getting new oil and gas 
supplies to the market.
  Charles Schumer, a colleague on the other side of the building, 
immediately weighed in, said that is wrongheaded and said he wants to 
find out some way to prevent Iraq from developing Iraq's resources.
  It is not good enough that we prevent America from developing 
America's resources, but now we want to tell the Iraqis how they should 
be able to do it as well. We are about to run out of time. That is one 
of the things I wanted to say, and I appreciate getting to weigh in on 
this.
  Here is the bottom line: Post-World War II, we have developed an 
American lifestyle that was incredibly dependent on inexpensive 
gasoline, suburbs, rural America, that requires being able to drive to 
and from work, to and from recreation. Maintaining these high prices, 
as our colleagues across the aisle are intent on doing, is, in my view, 
an attack on that way of life.
  You can call it partisan or not, but if you look at where the bulk of 
the Democratic support is in the Congress, it is in big cities, where 
they have access to mass transit, trains and buses and those kinds of 
things. But in rural America, flyover America, where most Republican 
support is, we don't have access to that.
  I can assure you, the folks who live at Lake LBJ, named after Lyndon 
Johnson, and work in Marble Falls and Llano and Burnet, there are no 
buses to get to and from work. They have got to drive their cars.
  So as we continue to on purpose maintain these high gasoline prices, 
this is an attack on our suburban way of life, an attack on rural 
American and the rural way of life and a lifestyle that has served us 
well since post-World War II.
  One final statement: When I go home, this is all my constituents talk 
about. And if I were to come up here and take the position that I am 
going to ignore what they are saying, the way our Democrats appear to 
be doing, I would get tossed out of office, because apparently they are 
not hearing the same thing that you and I are hearing when we go home. 
Apparently in Democratic districts the high gasoline prices are not 
particularly relevant, which begs the question that 71 percent of 
Americans want to drill.
  So I appreciate my colleague letting me speak tonight. We can solve 
this. We can fix this. But it is going to require some modification on 
our part, some modification on our Democratic friends' part. But we 
really do need to start listening to each other and quit demagoging, 
and particularly with respect to the oil business, considering those 
folks less than human as we look at what they do for America every day.
  I yield back.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend. Now I have got to go catch a 
plane, but I hope that everybody will go to House.gov/westmoreland, 
Madam Speaker, to find out who is for drilling and who is for not just 
drilling, but like the gentleman from Texas said, for producing more of 
our natural resources to lower the price of gas.
  Now I want to yield to my good friend from Nebraska, from the 
heartland of this country, from one of the corn-producing States, 
another one of my classmates that came in, and that is Mr. Fortenberry.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Well, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my good 
friend. I am so sorry you have to leave quickly, but I understand. I 
hoped we could dialogue a little bit and perhaps broaden the discussion 
slightly. Mr. Conaway just gave a great segue by saying I think we can 
get this done, and I think that is what the American people are hungry 
for.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Burton will dialogue with you.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. You got to go.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. So you have to settle for me.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. That is fine too, my good friend from Indiana. But I 
believe the American people are hungry for a bold new energy vision.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) is 
recognized for the remainder of the hour as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Speaker, I think the American people are 
hungry for a bold new innovative vision for a sustainable energy 
future, and I think we have to have an honest conversation about the 
full range of options in our energy portfolio; looking at the 
opportunity to increase domestic resources, use of domestic resources 
in an environmentally responsible way, while also bridging to a 
sustainable energy future that looks at the full range of opportunities 
that are presented to us. And one of the things that I don't think is 
unpacked quite adequately, Mr. Burton and Madam Speaker, is the issue 
of how small-scale entrepreneurs can play an increasing role in meeting 
a sustainable energy policy.
  For many years now, by the way, I have powered my home by wind. Now, 
I don't have a wind turbine in my backyard. I live in the city. But, 
nonetheless, I used to be on the Lincoln City Council. Nebraska is a 
public power State. The Lincoln City Council basically has authority 
over the electric system.
  We greatly encouraged them a number of years ago to move forward on 
wind energy and they integrated wind turbines into their portfolio. Of 
course, it is a small portion of their portfolio, but nonetheless, I 
thought it was important to support that. I paid a little bit more than 
$4 a month extra on my energy bill to help underwrite that new 
development a number of years ago. Now they have integrated that cost 
and are sharing it with everyone. But, nonetheless, we have been in 
front of this trend for some time.
  There is a hog farmer in my district, for instance. A couple years 
ago, Danny Kulthe in Colfax County, he just decided he was going to do 
something different. He has 8,000 head of hog. He captures that manure 
in a methane digestion pit, takes that methane, puts into a generator 
and produces enough electricity to power 40 homes from 8,000 head of 
hog. And he did this a number of years ago by pulling together the 
capital through a variety of innovative sources, some grant sources as 
well.
  But a small scale entrepreneur like that is helping lead the way in a 
whole new energy vision that does several things: He solves an 
environmental problem, he wedded agriculture and energy policy, and he 
created additional income for his farm. Small scale entrepreneurs like 
that I think are yearning to be engaged in this bold, new energy vision 
to help write the various chapters we are going to need to help solve 
this.
  Mr. Conaway said it well. I think we can get this done, but it is 
going to take bold, new, creative thinking and public policies that I 
think underwrite this type of vision for a sustainable energy future.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentleman will yield just for a minute, 
I would like to say I agree with my colleague. These new forms of 
energy, these new technologies, are extremely

[[Page 13957]]

important. I am kind of awed by the fact that you have taken the lead 
in Nebraska in getting this done.
  But while we are doing that, the one problem that I think we have is 
we have to realize the transition to the new technologies is going to 
take time, and while that is taking place, we are going to have to have 
energy. That is why we ought to be able to drill in the United States, 
and do it in an environmentally safe way, so we can produce natural gas 
and oil here at home. And while we are doing the transitioning to the 
new technologies like you are talking about, we won't have to depend so 
much on foreign oil and what might happen in another part of the world.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. One of the issues regarding our very heavy 
dependence on foreign oil as well is that it does entangle foreign 
affairs considerations. That is a very significant issue. It greatly 
increases trade deficits, it entangles foreign affairs considerations. 
It leaves us vulnerable, not only economic, but in many other ways.
  So I think it is very important as you are saying to look at full 
range of options in this portfolio we have, potential portfolio, and 
have a ``both-and'' discussion about how we bridge to that sustainable 
energy future by looking at, first of all, the easiest and best thing 
we can do quickly obviously is to think through the issue of 
conservation, how we become and continue to be and expand our ability 
to be good stewards of the resources we have, integrate these new 
technologies, use the resources we have now to bridge to that 
sustainable future.
  Here is another example for you. I was visiting with a small-scale 
car manufacturer. They have some proprietary battery technology. I am 
not an expert in these areas, but apparently this vehicle can go 120 
miles on a single charge. It takes 10 minutes to refuel it, so-to-
speak, if you have the special equipment. If you don't, you can plug it 
into your 220 volt outlet, like your dryer plugs into, and that takes 
about six to eight hours. It goes zero to 60 in about 10 seconds, and 
it has a 5-star safety rating, crash rating. It is like a regular 
vehicle, except the engine is different.
  So let's be clear: This spike in gas prices is causing great duress 
for families and farmers and small business owners, particularly in an 
area like I represent that I think has some similarities to where you 
represent as well. And I think it compels all of us to begin to think 
boldly and innovatively about how we can get this done by looking at 
that full range of options that we have in our energy portfolio and 
bridge into that energy future.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I want to thank the gentleman for taking this 
time. I know you have to catch a plane tonight. I think it is important 
that the people who are watching in their offices and maybe Americans 
who might be paying attention, that they realize that we are not just 
talking about oil and gas, we are talking about all forms of energy, 
and we want to get to that.
  But, as you said and as has been said many times, that is going to 
take a transitional period, and during that transition, while we are 
trying to encourage more innovation, that we don't sink the ship by not 
having enough energy to get the job done.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I really thank you for the opportunity to dialogue 
on this question and to focus, yes, on the urgency of the moment, while 
also creatively thinking about where we go. I mean, this is America. 
This is the land of innovation. We can get that done.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Thank you, Mr. Fortenberry. Have a nice trip 
back, and tell the people of Nebraska we said hi.
  Madam Speaker, we are about to wrap this up. I just want to say to my 
colleagues, I see my colleague from down south is waiting patiently for 
us to end our Special Hour, I just want to say that we all want to work 
together. We want to solve this problem for the American people. We 
want to get the price of gasoline down and we want to go to new forms 
of energy. But it is going to take time. And during that time for 
transition, it is extremely important that we start moving toward 
energy independence. And a main cog in that wheel is drilling here at 
home for oil and natural gas.
  So I hope, if I were talking to the American people, that they would 
talk to their Congressmen and Senators over this July 4th break. They 
are going to be there for parades and everything else. And I would say 
to the American people, if I could talk to them, talk to your 
Congressmen and your Senators. Tell them you want to be energy 
independent, you want to move toward energy independence, and we ought 
to drill here in the United States wherever we can.

                          ____________________




         REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM NEEDED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TAYLOR. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking all the men and 
women who work for the House of Representatives. I know that they are 
anxious to get out of town and begin their 4th of July holiday. But 
when we come back in July, it will be what I have considered over the 
course of my life the beginning of hurricane season, and we still have 
some unfinished business from Hurricane Katrina that affected my 
district and could potentially affect over half of all Americans, and 
that is the reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program.
  If Congress does not act by September, this program that is of vital 
importance to people in the Midwest from flooding, the people on the 
Gulf Coast because of hurricanes, the people in New England because of 
storms, this program is important to everyone, it may not get 
reauthorized, and I think it would put a lot of Americans in jeopardy. 
Therefore, I think it is important that we not only reauthorize it, but 
fix some of the problems that we have discovered in the wake of 
Hurricane Katrina.
  I want to begin with some homes from my hometown. This is one that 
belonged to Mr. and Mrs. John Hadden in Bay Saint Louis, Mississippi. 
If you take a look at it, it started about 10 feet off the ground. It 
had hurricane shutters. It had a low profile roof. It was built to be a 
hurricane-proof house. It was insured for about $650,000. This is what 
it looked like the day before Hurricane Katrina. This is what the 
family came home to when they could get back to Bay Saint Louis.
  I mentioned that they had $650,000 worth of insurance with their 
insurance company, State Farm. Almost 2 years to the day of that, they 
still had not been paid by State Farm Insurance Company. Corky is a 
financial planner. He thought he had done everything he should do. What 
he didn't realize is that he was dealing with a company that instead of 
saying ``we are your good neighbor,'' went out of its way not to pay 
him.
  This is another home, a much more traditional, older home. In fact, 
it was one of the oldest homes in my hometown of Bay Saint Louis. It 
belonged to Jody and Betty Benvenuti. They had it insured for $586,000.

                              {time}  2000

  Jody is in the insurance business. He understood the importance of 
it. He paid his premiums on time. He insured his home for what he 
thought it would cost to rebuild it. This is what it looked like when 
he evacuated, as he was ordered to by his Nation, the day before the 
storm. This is what he came home to. Within a couple of weeks, his good 
neighbor, the State Farm agent, informed him that he saw no evidence of 
wind damage, and therefore, he was going to get paid nothing on his 
homeowner's policy.
  Another home in South Mississippi, more of a typical South 
Mississippi home, belonged to Mr. and Mrs. Pat Street. $250,000 worth 
of insurance. Prior to the storm, prior to all of the inflation that 
has taken place since then, that probably would have been a very good 
amount to be insured for. It certainly should have covered the cost of 
replacing it should something bad

[[Page 13958]]

have happened. Again, they were ordered to evacuate. So this is what 
their home looked like as they were leaving before the storm. That's 
what they came home to. Again, they were told by the insurance company 
we see no evidence of wind damage. Notice the tree is knocked over to 
different angles. So, therefore, we're not going to pay you the 
$250,000. We're going to pay you $9,000 on this policy.
  Madam Speaker, in South Mississippi, we asked the United States Navy 
to model what happened that day on August the 29th of 2005. What the 
Navy told us, I found, as a life-long resident of the gulf coast, to be 
pretty interesting. It's that we've always thought of maximum wind and 
maximum water occurring at the same time, but in the case of Hurricane 
Katrina, as you can see, category 2 and 3 force winds, which is up to 
140 miles an hour, actually occurred several hours before the water 
showed up. When I asked the Navy to explain that to me, they said it's 
pretty simple. You can push air a lot faster than you can push water. 
The storm was moving ahead of the water.
  So, basically, what it translates to is that homes like I just showed 
you were subjected to anywhere from 2-to-4-hours' worth of hurricane-
force winds before the water ever showed up. As a matter of fact, it's 
not just that area that we're talking about, but as to the entire State 
of Mississippi, the insurance companies actually paid claims on wind 
damage all the way from down here on the Mississippi gulf coast all the 
way up to Memphis, Tennessee. They paid claims in every county in the 
State of Mississippi.
  What was particularly interesting and what should be particularly 
interesting to the 53 percent of all Americans who live in coastal 
America is that the claims they chose not to pay were right down here 
where the winds were the strongest. They somehow would tell people that 
no, no, no. Your damage was not the result of wind. It was the result 
of water.
  This is in fairness to them. These are the areas in South Mississippi 
that were affected by both wind and water. This is where the flood 
went. For those of you familiar with that area, this is I-1 to I-10. It 
was designed to be a hurricane-proof road, and by and large, the 
designers did a very good job. They came close to doing that, but there 
were some areas north of I-10 that flooded.
  Our Nation has a plan to help people protect themselves in the event 
of a hurricane. Most prudent people whom I know, based on the fact that 
we have had other hurricanes in my lifetime--Hurricane Betsy and 
Hurricane Camille--don't know whether it's going to be the wind. They 
don't know whether it's going to be the water. So a prudent homeowner 
buys a homeowner's policy. It's supposed to protect you in case of wind 
damage. If you buy a flood policy, it's supposed to protect you in case 
of flood.
  So the way the claims process should have worked is our Nation should 
have hired the insurance industry to go out and adjust a claim. If the 
wind did it, it should have, therefore, been covered under the 
homeowner's policy. The company would then pay out of its pocket those 
people who suffered wind damage. If the water did it, then folks who 
would be covered by the National Flood Insurance Program would have the 
Nation that would back that program. The Nation would pay the insurance 
industry to sell the policy. The Nation would pay the insurance 
industry to go out and adjust the claim. That way, we wouldn't have to 
have a lot of Federal employees who would be doing all of these things.
  Up until Hurricane Katrina, the program worked pretty well. With 
Hurricane Katrina, though, we saw a very different set of circumstances 
because what should have happened didn't happen. That insurance company 
that we were counting on to go out and adjust the claim and to make a 
fair, proper adjustment of the claim, in many instances, looked after 
its own best interest against the interest of the homeowner and, by the 
way, against the interest of the American taxpayer.
  Now, why is that?
  The law calls on the insurance companies to do a proper adjustment of 
the claim, and we give them total discretion as to who is going to 
adjust that claim. Think about it. I can't think of anyone else in 
America who can send a bill to the United States of America for 
$250,000 for the cost of that claim, another $100,000 for the cost of 
the contents, and no one second-guesses it, and no one looks over his 
shoulder and sees if it's a proper claim. In this instance, it was the 
case. So some insurers interpreted the law to allow them to blame 
everything on the water.
  What does that mean?
  It means that, for starters, a typical homeowner's policy says that, 
if your--the homeowner's--house gets hit by a meteor tonight or if your 
house catches on fire tonight or if a trucker loses control of his 
vehicle and, unfortunately, plows into your living room and your house 
is uninhabitable, a typical homeowner's policy will not only pay to get 
your house fixed; it will pay to put you up for up to 24 months until 
your house can be repaired. But when the insurance company walks onto 
your property and says, ``We see no evidence of wind damage. We're not 
going to pay your homeowner's policy,'' then they escape those things. 
They don't fix your house, and they don't pay the cost of putting you 
up.
  Again, the law calls on them to call for the proper adjustment of a 
claim, but what had happened in the case of Katrina and what I fear 
could happen to you if you live in coastal America is that the policy 
is that the companies do what they did in South Mississippi, which is, 
within days of the storm, they send their adjusters notices that say, 
when you see wind and water both occur, blame it all on the water.
  What that means is, as I've told you, that there were 4 hours of 
hurricane-force winds at homes like the Benvenutis' and the Haddens' 
and at others. They had substantial damage because of the wind, but the 
insurance company took the policy that if there was one 2-by-4 left 
standing after 4 hours of hurricane-force winds and then a wave came 
along and knocked down that last 2-by-4 that they had escaped all 
liability for what the wind did and that the taxpayer would pay all of 
the cost of getting this fixed, that they would escape all liability of 
rebuilding that home, all liability of putting that family up until 
their house could be repaired. The taxpayer was going to foot the bill. 
Well, flood insurance doesn't cover cost of living expenses. So, right 
off the bat, that cost was borne by the taxpayer.
  How do they get away with this?
  Well, buried in a typical 25-page contract, that was the norm for 
State Farm Insurance Company. On Page 10 of a 25-page contract, buried 
in there despite a contract with America that calls for a fair 
adjustment of the claim, they told folks we do not insure any coverage 
for any loss which would not have occurred in the absence of one or 
more of the following excluded events:
  We do not insure for such loss regardless of: A, cause of excluded 
event, B, other causes of the law, C, whether other causes acted 
concurrently or in any sequence with the excluded event to produce the 
loss or, D, whether the event occurs suddenly or gradually, involves 
isolated or widespread damage, arises from natural or external forces 
or occurs as a result of any combination of these.
  If you are confused, don't feel alone. A Federal judge, Judge Lou 
Guirola in South Mississippi, ended up suing his insurance company 
because they told him he couldn't read his policy. The former president 
of the United States Senate, Trent Lott, also an attorney, was told 
``We're sorry, Senator. You can't read your policy,'' which leads to 
the question:
  If a U.S. Senator and a Federal judge can't read their policies, what 
chance do you have? What chance does a high school football coach, a 
corrugated box salesman or a housewife have if those guys are told 
``you can't read your policy''?
  That goes back to the conflict between the law that says you can do a 
fair adjustment of the claim and a company that says, if both things 
happen, we're not going to pay.
  I'm quoting from the National Flood Insurance Program regulations, 
section

[[Page 13959]]

44 CFR. ``The primary relationship between the `write your own 
company'' that's your insurer--``and the Federal Government will be of 
a fiduciary nature; i.e., to ensure that any taxpayer funds are 
accounted for and are appropriately expended.
  ``The entire responsibility for providing a proper adjustment for 
both combined wind and water claims and flood-alone claims is the 
responsibility of the `write your own.' ''
  In effect, our Nation said we're trusting you, State Farm. We're 
trusting you, Nationwide. We're trusting you, Allstate, to do a fair 
adjustment. If the water did it, Nation pays. If the wind did it, you 
pay.
  So how did the insurance industry respond to being given this huge 
leeway?
  Within days of the storm, within about 13 days to be exact, State 
Farm was writing their adjusters and was saying, where wind acts 
concurrently with flooding to cause damage to insured property, 
coverage for the loss exists only under flood coverage. What does that 
translate to? The homeowner gets screwed out of his policy, and you, 
the taxpayers, get stuck with the bill.
  This is an internal e-mail from an engineering firm, one of the ones 
that was hired by State Farm to go out and adjust these claims. It had 
been fired by State Farm for actually doing what the law said to do, 
which was to say this much wind damage, this much water damage, but now 
they have reached an agreement with State Farm, saying, ``Okay. We'll 
go back and revise those things.'' Meaning, we'll scratch out all 
efforts to say that the wind did it, because we're going to now say the 
water did it, and the taxpayer pays. So this is from Randy Down to Bob 
Kochan. This is an internal memo that we've been given access to:
  ``I have serious concerns about the ethics of this whole matter. I 
really question the ethics of someone who wants to fire us simply 
because our conclusions don't match his or hers. In my opinion, we need 
to find a more rational and ethical client other than State Farm to be 
dealing with. They have already contradicted themselves regarding the 
reports, wanting percentages stated, and his counterpart calling a few 
days later and telling us to resubmit two reports that had shown 
percentages and saying that SF,'' State Farm, ``absolutely does not 
want them shown because they would then have to settle for the portion 
that was reportedly caused by wind.''
  In the House of Representatives, we have passed language to try to 
correct this. The people who have objected to this have been, by and 
large, from the insurance industry. The insurance industry, in their 
claims, will tell you that they had settled 95 percent of the Katrina 
claims within the first year. What they will not tell you is that there 
were hundreds of thousands of wind-only claims in Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia where there was 
no flooding. So in any place they couldn't blame flooding, in any place 
they could not put the bill on the government, they had no choice but 
to pay.
  So, yes, they did pay thousands of claims. Disputes over wind and 
flood damage were confirmed to the portions of the coastal counties and 
parishes that experienced both flooding and the most severe wind 
damage.
  Bob Hardwick of the Insurance Information Institute testified in 
Congress: ``A claim was completely excluded, for example, because it 
was not covered under the policy to begin with, which wouldn't be in 
these statistics to begin with. We consider a claim when there is some 
damage that is compensable under the insurance policy. In other words, 
these statistics don't consider all of the claims filed, only those 
that the insurer decided to pay.''
  To put it simply, the claims of the three folks that I showed you 
when I first walked in would have been considered by the insurance 
company to have been settled because they were told ``no.'' Maybe in 
State Farm's mind that case was closed. It certainly was not in the 
case of those three families, and it was not just three families. I 
could bring thousands of similar photos before you with thousands of 
similar sad stories.
  So those families were screwed out of their policies, but the point I 
want to make to you, to the taxpayers of America, is that you got stuck 
with bills. The Nation got stuck with bills that the insurance 
companies should have paid.
  I think there was fraud. The insurance companies tell you there was 
no fraud, but the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, finds ``an 
inherent conflict of interest exists when the same insurance company is 
responsible for determining the extent of the flood damage that the 
National Flood Insurance must pay and the extent of the wind damage 
that is the responsibility of the company, itself. FEMA, a parent 
organization of National Flood Insurance, cannot determine the accuracy 
of flood insurance payments because it does not require companies to 
explain how they divided wind and flood.

                              {time}  2015

  ``Property owners with separate wind and flood policies cannot buy 
insurance and know in advance what hurricane damage will have been 
covered.''
  The Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security went on 
to say because FEMA oversight on wind-water claims is minimal, the 
inspector general subpoenaed records from 15 insurance companies to 
investigate their proceedings. Adjusters working for the insurance 
companies, or for the companies, have a conflict of interest when 
handling flood claims.
  Concurrent causation. Remember, that's what we talk about, page 10 of 
a 25-page document. Language in the insurance policies creates the 
potential to bill flood insurance for damage that is caused by both 
wind and flooding.
  Let me make it perfectly simple. You are a claims adjuster, you're 25 
years old, you have a mortgage. You have kids in school, Christmas is 
coming up, and you have the opportunity to walk on that property and do 
a fair adjustment which says my company has to pay some, the Nation has 
to pay some, or you have the opportunity, in fact you have been 
instructed by your boss to say when there is wind and water, stick it 
to the government.
  What do you think they did? And as we saw from that internal company 
memo, the ones who did it right were threatened with being fired.
  Not only does the insurer not pay for the house to be rebuilt, they 
don't pay the living expenses for the property owner who would be 
entitled to them if the claim was approved.
  So who pays? You pay. In the case of south Mississippi, let me start 
by saying we are eternally grateful to the American people for the 
kindness and generosity that they have shown us because at one point 
there were 42,000 families just in south Mississippi living off the 
generosity of the people of America. They were living in what has now 
been called a FEMA trailer, a 28-foot travel trailer that our Nation 
was generous enough to buy and put on their property, hook up to water 
and sewer, but not without a cost. In fact, the cost of those 42,000 
trailers turns out to be, that we paid on the average $15,000 per 
trailer to buy them, and $16,000, which I know is an outrageous cost, 
to put them on that property. That was a no-bid deal to one of the 
President's buddy's, Bechtel, Incorporated.
  But the fact of the matter is it did happen and it will happen again 
next time. And the combined cost of this for those 42,000 families, our 
Nation, you and I, pitched in $31,000. The cost of that just in 
Mississippi alone was $1.3 billion that the Nation paid that in most 
instances an insurance company should have paid. But because they said 
there was no wind damage, we are not paying on your homeowner's policy, 
so somebody got stuck with the bill. Our Nation did.
  You would like to think that maybe they did that because funds were 
tight or maybe it threatened the survivability of those companies. That 
certainly wasn't the case. In 2005, even after paying the Hurricane 
Katrina claims that they did, the insurance industry made $48.8 billion 
in profits.
  In 2006, we were fortunate to have fewer hurricanes, they made $67 
billion in profits.

[[Page 13960]]

  Last year, $65 billion in profit.
  We have before us a situation where it is the perfect storm of 
everything that can go wrong for the consumer.
  Number one, you would think why isn't Congress doing something about 
this. For starters, you can open the Federal Code from the first page 
to the last code and you won't find one word of regulation of the 
insurance industry. It gets worse. The insurance industry, the same 
folks that are supposed to be our good neighbor, we're supposed to be 
in their good hands, they're supposed to be on our side, it turns out 
that they are exempt from the antitrust laws that regulate every other 
business in America. It is perfectly legal for State Farm to call 
Allstate to call Nationwide and say, You know what, let's raise 
everybody's rates. So be it your health insurance, your automobile 
insurance, or your homeowner's insurance.
  It is also legal for them, as I am pretty well convinced they did 
after the storm, to call each other up and say: You know what, if you 
don't pay claims, State Farm, and I don't pay claims, Allstate, and 
Nationwide doesn't pay claims, there won't be anybody saying they are 
getting screwed, because they're all getting screwed; but it's just the 
way it is.
  If any other business in America did that, they would go to jail. But 
the insurance industry is exempt from the antitrust laws. Congress has 
not addressed that, but I want you to be aware of it. They were given 
this exemption based on a Supreme Court ruling in 1944 that says, wait 
a second, you're doing interstate commerce, you have to be regulated by 
interstate commerce. Instead, Congress came back in 1945 and passed 
something called the McCarran-Ferguson Act which in effect is granting 
an immunity from the antitrust laws to the insurance industry. I had 
hoped we would address that. We didn't. But Congress did do something.
  First, I would like to tell you I'm sure some of you are thinking, 
that is just a Mississippi problem. Why are you boring us? I will tell 
you it is definitely a Mississippi problem. State Farm won't sell 
property insurance policies in Mississippi. Farm Bureau will not renew 
wind coverage. Allstate, no new wind coverage sold in south 
Mississippi. Nationwide, no wind coverage sold in south Mississippi. 
But it is not just our problem, it is America's problem.
  Massachusetts is a long way from south Mississippi. Since 2003, ten 
insurance companies have dropped homeowner coverage in Cape Cod, 
affecting 44,000 homeowners.
  In New York, Allstate stopped writing new homeowners' policies for 
single-family homes in New York City, Long Island, and Winchester 
County. Allstate held 26 percent of the market share for homeowners in 
these counties in 2006.
  In Maryland, the second largest homeowner insurance in the State, 
Allstate, Allstate will stop writing new policies in many coastal 
areas.
  North Carolina, the North Carolina State Insurance Plan, the beach 
plan, saw liability increase by over 260 percent, so that is a State-
run system picking up for the fact that the private sector has pulled 
out.
  In Virginia in 2006, State Farm stopped writing insurance business. 
Travelers Insurance stopped selling and renewing residential insurance 
in Virginia Beach.
  South Carolina insurance companies have dropped the last 16,000 
homeowners' policies since 2006.
  In Florida, State Farm has announced it will stop writing residential 
renters and commercial properties on March 1, 2008.
  Texas, Allstate won't write new homeowners' policies in 14 coastal 
counties.
  Louisiana, the State insurance plan that jumped in to take the place 
of the private sector is now the third largest homeowner's insurance.
  In Alabama, State Farm won't write policies to cover the beach towns.
  The point is that although the coastal counties of America constitute 
only 17 percent of the total land mass, it represents 53 percent of all 
Americans. That is why this is a problem that affects every one of us, 
at least half of us. Every one of us who lives in a coastal State, half 
of all Americans.
  Unless we change the law, Congress will allow this system to continue 
and taxpayers to continue to foot the bill when the next hurricane 
strikes.
  So what's the solution? The solution is what the House of 
Representatives has already passed that the Senate has not passed that 
we will go to conference in the next month on, and that I would hope as 
a result of this that the American people would encourage their 
Senators to help us find a risk-based, actuarially sound national pool 
to allow property owners to purchase coverage for both wind and water, 
a revocation of the insurance industry's antitrust exemption that 
allows them to fix prices.
  The multi-peril bill that passed this House with the help of Speaker 
Pelosi and Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, and a lot of other folks, 
including a number of my Republican colleagues, would allow property 
owners to buy both wind and flood coverage through the National Flood 
Insurance Program.
  It would increase the coverage, and I am one of the many people who 
lost my home that night, and I for one was shocked at the incredible 
cost of replacing my house. And, quite frankly, the $250,000 that the 
National Flood Insurance covers, I would have told you 5 years ago was 
a lot of money. Based on my experience of building a 1,400 square foot 
house, I realize now it really doesn't cover enough. So we have 
increased the coverage up to $500,000 per structure, $150,000 for 
contents. For non-residential, it's a million for the structure and 
$750,000 for contents.
  Property owners would be able to buy insurance and know in advance 
that hurricane damage will be covered without disputes. That you don't 
have to hire an engineer to say whether the wind did it or the water 
did it, you don't have to hire a lawyer, and you don't have to wait 2 
years to get justice. If you leave your home, if you evacuate the way 
your Nation told you to get out of there, and you come home to a 
substantially damaged home, or if you come home to nothing, which is 
what thousands of my friends and neighbors did, you know that if you 
paid your policy, if you built your house the way you should have, that 
you are going to get paid.
  The premiums for this new coverage would be risk-based and 
actuarially sound. Under the new rules of the House, under the 
Democratic majority, we can't start any new program that doesn't pay 
for itself. That's the way it should be. So the premiums would be more 
than enough to cover the liabilities and so there would be, unlike the 
present situation where $1.3 billion went to pay for FEMA trailers by 
folks who got screwed by the insurance companies, where billions of 
dollars went for homeowners' grants in Louisiana and Mississippi to pay 
people who didn't get paid by the insurance companies, in these 
instances those people who had the policy who paid the premiums who 
built the houses the way they should, they're going to be covered and 
you, the taxpayer, will not have to subsidize this by one dime.
  Wind storm insurance would be available where the local governments 
adopt and enforce the international building code or equivalent.
  The Federal multi-peril program will spread the risk geographically. 
If you think about it, Mississippi has a fairly small coastline so it 
is fairly safe to say that if a storm hits, the entire coastline is 
going to get hit. That is not spreading the risk. On the other hand, if 
53 percent of all Americans live on the coast, the chance that every 
coastal community is going to get hit by a storm that year is 
minuscule. In fact, it would probably be called Armageddon, and we hope 
that doesn't happen.
  Taxpayers would benefit where more damages are covered by the 
insurance industry instead of the inefficient governmental disaster 
assistance programs. Insurance companies could return to coastal 
communities to sell fire, theft, and liability coverage and excess 
coverage above the $500,000 that this policy would cover.
  A multi-peril bill was introduced in the House in February. It had 33 
cosponsors, 27 Democrats, 6 Republicans.

[[Page 13961]]

Ms. Waters, the chairman of the subcommittee, included the text in the 
National Flood Insurance Program. It passed this House by a vote of 
263-146. It did not get a lot of help in the United States Senate. It 
will go to conference this summer.
  If you live in coastal America, I would give you a couple of words of 
advice.
  Number one, if you have a homeowner's policy, break it out. See if it 
has the words ``concurrent causation'' in that policy because if it 
does, that becomes the same excuse that the insurance companies used to 
screw thousands of south Mississippians out of their money. Demand a 
clarification from your insurance agent as to what that means for you. 
Does that mean you are going to find an excuse not to pay me? Or does 
that mean that you're going to come through like a good neighbor, like 
I'm going to be in your good hands, like you're supposed to be on my 
side.
  The second thing I would ask you to do, if you belong to the home 
builders or the realtors or the bankers, encourage those organizations 
to back this program because, again, for 53 percent of all Americans, 
they are in peril at the thought of not being able to cover their home 
for wind damage.
  But I will take this a step further. It has come to my attention 
recently that there has been as much tornado damage around the country 
for the past 20 years as hurricane damage. Tornadoes happen to be very 
fierce in a smaller area, but the cumulative effect of all those 
tornadoes has caused as much damage dollar-wise as the hurricanes have.
  In fairness, we ought to cover that, too. In fairness, those people 
who are waking up in Indiana and Ohio and Iowa from the devastation of 
those floods and from the devastation of those tornadoes, they need to 
know that they are protected, too.
  I would hope that as this bill goes to conference that our Nation 
would step forward and assume the responsibility and provide every 
American the opportunity to purchase multi-peril insurance. Hopefully 
we can start out with hurricanes because we know the present system 
isn't working there. But I think every American ought to know that if 
they build their house right and pay their premiums and something 
terrible happens to them, that their Nation is going to be there for 
them. And yes, they have paid into a fund that will help cover that 
cost when it happens.
  We will have that opportunity next month, and I would hope that every 
American, no matter where you live in America, would see the value of 
this and would ask their Senators to agree to this, and that we can do 
something that's good, not just good for my State, not just good for 
Alabama and Louisiana, not just good for Maine and Massachusetts and 
North Carolina, but good for every American.
  The insurance industry let us down. The insurance industry makes huge 
money. The insurance industry is exempt from the antitrust laws. The 
insurance industry has the most favorable tax treatment of any industry 
in America; and the truth of the matter is, instead of having all of 
those benefits and turning around when the people were down and saying 
yes, we are going to help you, they screwed the people of south 
Mississippi.

                              {time}  2030

  What I don't want is them to do that to you.
  This is not going to be an easy fight. This is truly a case of the 
citizens against the lobbyists. In 2004, the insurance industry donated 
$36 million in political contributions. In 2006, $31 million. Most of 
that money went to Republicans, but in fairness, now that the Democrats 
are in the majority, they're probably writing checks to Democrats, too.
  They're doing this because they want to hang on to their greedy 
practices. They want to hang on to their anti-trust exemption. They 
want to hang on to the fact that they can collude. They want to hang on 
to the fact that they can turn around and have the lowest taxes in 
America and that they have zero Federal regulation, that there is 
nothing that the Federal law can do to stop them from these practices.
  But you know what? We have right on our side. We have the best 
interest of the homeowner, whether he's in Kansas, Massachusetts, 
Mississippi, California, when we think that there's better ways to 
offer an all-fairness insurance, backed by our Nation, that's going to 
be there when we need it.
  So Madam Speaker, with that in mind, I'm going to yield back the 
remainder of my time. And for the very, very patient staff of the House 
of Representatives, I kept you here as late as I did, but I appreciate 
this opportunity to speak to the people.

                          ____________________




                                PEAK OIL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Boyda of Kansas). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Today oil, I think, went to its highest 
price ever, about $140 a barrel. So all of America is now thinking 
about energy and oil, and I would like to start this evening's 
discussion by referring to some comments made in a speech 51 years ago, 
the 14th day of this past May, by Hyman Rickover, the father of our 
nuclear submarine, to a group of physicians in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
  I would encourage everyone to pull this speech up, a Google search 
for ``Rickover'' and ``energy speech'' and it will pop up. Or you can 
go to our Web site, and you will find a link there to it.
  Hyman Rickover was a very perceptive person, and every time I read 
this speech I am again amazed at how prophetic and insightful he was. 
He says in this speech 51 years ago, Remember now, there is nothing man 
can do to rebuild exhausted fossil fuel reserves. They were created, he 
says, by solar energy 500 million years ago and took eons to grow to 
their present volume. In the face of the basic fact that fossil fuel 
reserves are finite, the exact length of time these reserves will last 
is important in only one respect--and this is 51 years ago--the longer 
they last, the more time do we have to invent ways of living off 
renewable or substitute energy sources and to adjust our economy to the 
vast changes which we can expect from such a shift. This was counseled 
51 years ago.
  What he's saying is that it's obvious that oil cannot be forever. 
That it is finite; one day it will run out. He noted that at this time 
we were about 100 years into the age of oil, which he called ``this 
golden age,'' and he noted that how long it lasted was important in 
only one regard: that the longer it lasted, the more time would we have 
to plan an orderly transition to other sources of energy which will, of 
necessity, be renewable sources of energy.
  Then this last little paragraph here is one that I really like. It is 
so perceptive and so prophetic of what our attitude has been. Fossil 
fuels, he says, resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible 
parent, that is the leaders of the world's countries, will use this 
capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as 
possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will 
squander it in riotous living and not care one wit how his offspring 
will fare.
  The next chart is an additional quote from this same speech. He says, 
I suggest this is a good time to think soberly about our 
responsibilities to our descendents. We really haven't done that, have 
we? I have 10 kids and 16 grandkids and two great-grandkids, and I 
think a lot about our responsibility to our descendents, those who will 
ring out the fossil fuel age. Hyman Rickover noted that in 8,000 years 
of recorded history that the age of oil would be but a blip in the 
history of man.
  We might give a break to these youngsters by cutting fuel and metal 
consumption so as to provide a safer margin for the necessary 
adjustments which eventually must be made in a world without fossil 
fuels.
  Our behavior has in no way indicated that we recognize the 
inevitability of reaching a maximum production of oil

[[Page 13962]]

and then less and less and less oil until finally there is none of it 
left. Obviously, it is not infinite. Obviously, one day it will be 
gone. Where are we? Where are we in this long sequence of events from 
the discovery of oil, its massive use, and finally the waning use of 
oil until we finally transition to other fossil fuels?
  The next chart shows what's happened in our country, and we need to 
go back 52 years ago to kind of put this in perspective because 52 
years ago, the 8th day of March, in San Antonio, Texas, an oil 
geologist by the name of M. King Hubbert gave a speech to a group of 
executives and other oil people assembled there in San Antonio. And he 
told them that in just 14 years, the United States--which was then, I 
think, king of oil, producing more oil, consuming more oil, exporting 
more oil than any other country in the world--he said in just 14 years, 
our country is going to reach its maximum production of oil. And after 
that, no matter what we did, the production of oil was going to fall 
off, as you can see from the chart here which shows the production of 
oil in our country.
  And he was predicting the lower 48, Texas and the rest of the U.S.A., 
and to him the rest of the U.S.A. was the rest of the 48 States. And in 
1956 at this point he was predicting that in 1970, just 14 years later, 
that we would reach a maximum oil production. After that, it would fall 
off.
  Now, we found a lot of oil in Alaska, and we found some oil in the 
Gulf of Mexico, and we learned to get more natural gas liquids; but in 
spite of this huge discovery in Alaska and through that 4-foot 
pipeline--and I've been to Dead Horse, to Prudhoe Bay and seen the 
beginning of that pipeline--through that for a number of years flowed 
25 percent of our domestic production.
  In spite of that, except for this little blip, it's been down, down, 
down. And now in the lower 48 we produce well less than half of the oil 
that we did in 1970.
  We have tried very hard to make M. King Hubbert out a liar. We have 
drilled more oil wells than all the rest of the world put together. We 
are really, really good at finding oil. We're really, really good at 
pumping oil.
  The next chart shows that another prediction M. King Hubbert made 
has, in fact, almost certainly come true. In 1979, that's just 9 years 
after we peaked in our country, using his same analysis technique, he 
predicted that the world would be peaking about now.
  Just a word about his analysis and how he did it. It's no magic. He 
observed that in our country that an individual oil field increased its 
production until it reached a maximum production, at which time about 
half the oil had been pumped, and then the last half of the oil, as is 
reasonable, was harder to get and so less and less was pumped. So you 
had a little bell curve produced by that.
  And he reasoned that if he knew how many little bell curves there 
were in our country and how many more fields we would find, that he 
could then predict when we would be reaching our maximum oil 
production. And using that technique, he predicted correctly that we 
would reach our maximum production in 1970, just 14 years after he made 
that prediction.
  Using that same technique, he looked at the world and the world 
fields and all of the countries producing oil, and he calculated that 
we should be reaching the world maximum production, called ``peak 
oil,'' about now.
  On this chart are two curves. These are data collected by the two 
entities in the world that probably do the best job of keeping track of 
the production and consumption of oil, and of course they're the same. 
We use what we produce. This is the IEA, it's an international 
organization, and the EIA, the Energy Information Administration, a 
part of our Department of Energy. And both of these, as you can see, 
have oil production essentially flat for the last 36 months.
  Now, what's happened with this flat oil production for the last 36 
months is shown by this lower curve here, and obviously this is a bit 
old because this shows oil at only $95 a barrel. I didn't make it all 
that long ago, this chart. It now would be well off the top. I think it 
hit $140 a barrel today. Well, that's what happens when you have a 
static supply and an increasing demand. The price goes up and up.
  The next chart, and this is a really information-filled chart, and if 
you had only one chart to use, this would be the chart because it has 
so much information in it. The bars here show the discoveries of oil 
and the year on the abscissa here on which they were discovered. And 
you see that we were finding a lot of oil back in the 1940s. By the 
way, I can remember when gasoline was kind of a little gas war, and it 
was kind of on sale. It was $6 per gallon. Another age, wasn't it?

                              {time}  2045

  Then we found a bunch in the 1950s, and boy, it really peaked out in 
about the 1970s, which is interestingly the time that M. King Hubbert 
said that we would reach our maximum oil production.
  And then ever since then, it's been down, down, down, down, down, and 
that's with ever better techniques for discovering oil. We now have 3-D 
seismic. We have computer modeling. And still our discoveries of oil, 
year by year, on average have gone down, down, down.
  The solid black line here represents the consumption of oil, and 
we're going to see this curve on several of the other charts that we're 
going to show. And this shows a very interesting exponential growth 
through the Carter years, with a stunning statistic.
  Every decade up through the Carter years, we used as much oil as we 
had used in all of previous history. Now, think about that for a 
moment. Had we continued on that path, when you have used up half of 
your oil, you would have just 10 years of oil remaining. But 
fortunately, we didn't think it was so fortunate at the time. 
Fortunately, we had the Arab oil embargo price spike hikes in the 
1970s, and a worldwide recession resulted from that, and there was 
actually a decrease in the use of oil. It actually fell off.
  Following that, we really put some effort into efficiency. Your 
refrigerator is now two or three times more efficient than it was then, 
and most of the energy using things, your refrigerator, your air 
conditioner, are very much more efficient than they were then. So now 
the rate of growth is very much slower, as you can see. Notice what 
would have happened had we not had that shock and put some effort into 
efficiency. This curve would have gone off the top of the chart here.
  Well, you know that if you integrate under a curve, the area under 
the curve represents, in this case, the volume used. You can understand 
that, if you note that, you could round off these discoveries by 
putting a line like so, and the area under that line would represent 
the totality of the discoveries. So the area under this line represents 
how much we have used.
  From about 1980 on, we have found less and less on the average each 
year, and we've been using more, but we had a lot of reserves back here 
that we hadn't used. So now we are dipping into these reserves, and 
we're filling in this area here with reserves from back here.
  Now, yes, here are some reserves, and we'll find some more. There's a 
lot of dispute about how much more we're going to find, but I will tell 
you that most of the world's experts believe that we have probably 
found about 95 percent of everything that we will find, and the new 
finds are really interesting. The big one in the Gulf of Mexico, for 
instance, was under 7,000 feet of water, 30,000 feet of rock, and they 
haven't yet started to exploit it with oil at $140 barrel because it's 
very hard to get here.
  Now, what will the future look like? Well, you're going to have to 
make some guesses and educated guesses as to how much more we're going 
to find. Those who put this chart together think that on the average it 
will be like so, but obviously, it won't be as nice, smooth like that. 
It will be up and down, but on the average like that. I'd draw the line 
a little lower actually if I were averaging, a little lower than that.
  Then we have all of these reserves back here we haven't used, and so 
we

[[Page 13963]]

now, in addition to what we find in the future, we can use more because 
we can use them back here. And so we will be going down, down, down. If 
we go up, up, up, by the way, you're soon going to run out of these and 
fall off of a cliff, but fortunately, geology won't let us do that 
because we can only get it so fast, which is our problem today. We 
aren't able to produce oil any faster than we are now producing it. 
Within some limits, we can control what the future looks like with 
enhanced oil recovery and so forth, but one thing you cannot do is pump 
oil that is not there.
  I'd like now to return to the next chart to another quote from Hyman 
Rickover. He says: Whether this golden age, this age of oil which he 
called the golden age, will continue depends entirely upon our ability 
to keep energy supplies in balance with the needs of our growing 
population.
  That is precisely what we have not done. You saw in one of the 
previous charts, the demand has grown and the supply is static, and 
when that happens, of course, you have an increase in price, and the 
price has gone up from $10 a barrel a relatively few years ago to $140 
a barrel today.
  The next chart is from one of four studies that our government has 
paid for. This was the first of those four studies and the biggest. 
This one was done by the big SAIC corporation, Science Applications 
International Corporation, a huge, very well-regarded company. And the 
study was headed by Robert Hirsch, and so this is called the Hirsch 
Report, and they present a chart there which is a very interesting one.
  For reasons that are difficult to understand, some, including some in 
our Energy Department, are predicting that we will find as much more 
oil as all the reserves that are yet to be pumped. And it's a really 
interesting story how they got there to that conclusion. But they're 
predicting that we will find almost as much oil as we now know exists 
that we can pump.
  Most of the world's experts--and this number will be up and down a 
little bit--but most of the world's experts believe that the 
recoverable oil at the end of the day will be about 2 trillion barrels. 
This table has it at 2.248 trillion barrels, roughly 2 trillion 
barrels. They're predicting that we'll find enough more to represent 3 
trillion barrels. That's a lot more oil to find from that previous 
chart we showed. You would have to reverse the trends of the last 30 
years, where it's been down, down, down, and now you're going to 
reverse that and it's going to go up? Laherrere says that what they're 
proposing is absolutely implausible. Laherrere is a French expert in 
this area.
  But I show you this chart because even if we found that much more 
oil, the maximum production of oil would be pushed out only, according 
to this chart, to 2016. That curve that I told you you would see again 
and again, the rapid increase in use through the Carter years, the oil 
price spike shocks of the 1970s, the reduced demand worldwide, and then 
the slower rate of growth now, they're predicting a 2 percent growth. 
This is 2 percent.
  By the way, exponential growth, Albert Einstein was asked what the 
next great force in the universe was going to be after nuclear energy, 
and he said the greatest force in the universe is the power of compound 
interest. You see, 2 percent growth, and that's so small that our stock 
market really doesn't like that, and it begins to go negative with 2 
percent growth. But 2 percent growth doubles in 35 years. It's four 
times bigger in 70 years. It's eight times bigger in 105 years. And 
it's 16 times bigger in 140 years. So even very modest growth like 2 
percent, gee, that's not much, but it's 16 times bigger in 140 years. 
And we still expect our children's children to be around in 140 years.
  Now, this chart has another illustration on it. Suppose we're able to 
use some enhanced oil recovery and really suck it out fast, and you now 
continue up to 2037. You've now pushed the peak over to 2037, and then 
you fall off a cliff. Again, you cannot pump what is not there.
  I will tell you that this is most unlikely to happen. I do not think 
the technologies are there to pump the oil that fast, but the point 
that I wanted to make in this chart was that even if we found as much 
more oil as all of the oil that's now known to be there that can be 
pumped, it would push the peak out--this chart says only to 2016. 
That's not very out. That's just around the corner.
  As a matter of fact, that Hirsch Report said that unless you 
anticipated peak oil by two decades you would have some economic 
consequences. If you anticipated it by only a decade, you would have 
very serious economic consequences. So even if this is true, even if 
this is true that we find as much more oil as all the oil that we 
currently know is out there to be pumped, it would push it out only to 
2016. So we should have started an aggressive program of renewables a 
couple of years ago if we're going to avoid serious economic 
consequences.
  The next chart is just another chart showing this same phenomenon, 
how little additional time you get with enormously increased 
discoveries of oil, and you need to think about this when you're 
thinking about pumping the oil in ANWR and on the Outer Continental 
Shelf and under our public lands. If ANWR has 10 billion barrels of 
oil--and that's the 50 percent probability. The 95 percent probability 
is considerably less than that, and 95 percent is more probable 
obviously than 50 percent probability. But suppose it has the 50 
percent probability, that oil would last the world only 120 days. Now, 
I say the world because under present circumstances it is impossible 
not to share your oil with the world, because if we use oil that we 
produce, then the oil we might have bought from Venezuela or Saudi 
Arabia or Iran, someone else can buy. So, in reality, you are sharing 
your oil with the world.
  Well, the only way not to do that, by the way, is to own so much oil 
that you don't need to get any from the outside, and then to use it all 
for yourself, even though others may need the oil more than you. 
Obviously we're not going to be doing that because we have only 2 
percent of the known reserves of oil, and we use 25 percent of the 
world's oil.
  This chart shows that roughly 2 trillion again. They show it as 1.92 
trillion, and they show the peak occurring about 2010 roughly now with 
that. But if we find, again, this huge amount of additional oil and it 
goes up to 2.93 trillion, roughly the 3 trillion that you saw in the 
previous one, that will move the peak out only to about this point. 
It's a little different in their calculation, how far it moves the peak 
out, but all of this is within the lifetime of our children. And then 
they think that we will find a lot of unconventional oil. In a little 
bit I think we'll have a chance to talk about some of that 
unconventional oil. We may get a lot of that. We may not get much of 
that.
  There's another dimension in this whole discussion that I have a 
couple of charts on, and the next chart introduces this, and that is 
the geopolitical implications of where we are.
  This was a statement by Condoleezza Rice, our Secretary of State in 
2006: We have to do something about the energy problem. I can tell you 
that nothing has really taken me aback more as Secretary of State than 
the way that the politics of energy is, I will use the word, 
``warping'' diplomacy around the world. We have simply got to do 
something about the warping now of diplomatic effort by the all-out 
rush for energy supply.
  And I'm sure that she had in her mind when she said that the next 
chart, which is a really interesting chart. And this shows the world 
according to oil, and this shows you what our world would look like if 
the size of each country was determined by the amount of oil that it 
had.
  And you see here that Saudi Arabia really dominates the landscape, 
and it should because Saudi Arabia has, we believe, 22 percent of all 
the reserves in all the world. And notice the countries very near them: 
Iraq, tiny little Kuwait, Iran. These are one, two, three and four in 
terms of supply of oil in reserves in all the world. United Arab 
Emirates, you almost have to have a magnifying glass to find them on 
the

[[Page 13964]]

map, and look how much oil they have. Here we are, United States, bunch 
up there in Canada and the Lower 48 here. We only have 2 percent of the 
oil in the world. This represents one-fiftieth of the land mass here.

                              {time}  2100

  And our biggest supplier of oil is Canada. Our third biggest supplier 
of oil--it was the second until a few months ago--is Mexico. And 
notice, they have less oil than we. As a matter of fact, together I 
don't know that they have any more oil than we have. They're exporters, 
because in Canada there aren't very many people, and in Mexico the 
people are too poor to buy the oil, and so they're able to export it. 
Now our second largest supplier is Saudi Arabia. Notice, Venezuela 
dwarfs everything else in this hemisphere.
  Another really interesting thing to look at is the size of China and 
India in this ``World According to Oil.'' Here they are, China and 
India; about 2.3 or 4 billion people total, having less oil than the 
United States, with a booming economy. The economy in China, the last 
data I saw, growing at 11.7 percent. Japan in its heyday never grew 
faster than that, and notice the tiny amount of oil that they have.
  Notice Russia. Russia is one of the largest exporters in the world 
today. They don't have the most oil by any means, but they're very 
aggressively pumping their oil and exporting it. And they are 
considerably larger, many times larger than we, and they have a much 
smaller population than we have. Well, very interesting map. And this 
points out some of the geopolitical realities in the world.
  The next chart shows China's response to this reality. China has seen 
this ``World According to Oil,'' and this is their response to it. This 
shows our globe, and it shows the countries on it. And these little 
symbols represent who is buying the oil. Now, there are a few dollar 
signs, not very many, as you see. And there are a lot of these symbols 
that represent China. As a matter of fact, they almost bought Unocal in 
our country. Remember all of the hysteria over that possibility a 
couple of years ago?
  Look what they're doing in the Middle East. Look what they're doing 
in northern Africa. Look what they're doing in Indonesia and in Russia. 
They're buying oil all over the world. At the same time, thinking about 
this geopolitical picture, at the same time that they are aggressively 
buying oil they are aggressively building a blue water navy. Why would 
they buy the oil when in today's world it doesn't make any difference 
who owns the oil? We own only 2 percent of the world's oil, but we 
use--and the next chart will show that. The next chart shows that we 
use 25 percent of the world's oil, owning only 2 percent of it. And we 
import almost two-thirds of what we use. And we're able to do that 
because he who comes to the auction block with the dollars buys the 
oil.
  So why would China buy oil when in today's world it doesn't make any 
difference who owns the oil? The country that comes with the dollars 
buys the oil. Could it be that they're buying this oil and building 
this huge blue water navy because one day they may have to tell the 
rest of the world, gee, I'm sorry, we have 1,300,000,000 million people 
clamoring for the benefits of an industrialized society and we just 
can't share this oil. Something to think about, isn't it?
  The next chart is another look at this geopolitical reality that 
we're in. And there are two bars here. The bar on the right shows the 
top 10 oil and gas companies on the basis of how much reserves they 
have. Well, pretty obvious from looking at that ``World According to 
Oil'' that most of those are going to be over in the Middle East. As a 
matter of fact, among the top 10, 98 percent of all the oil is owned 
not by companies, but by countries. And only 2 percent is owned by Luke 
Oil, which is kind of a company. One might argue that it had a lot of 
national control.
  The bar on the left represents the top 10 oil and gas companies on 
the basis of how much they produce. Now, the really big guys that a lot 
of our people are concerned about because they're making big profits, 
they don't look big at all when you look at it from a world 
perspective. They own none of the oil of the top 10. They don't even 
count in the top 10 countries or companies that own oil. And they 
represent only 22 percent of the production of oil. They're pumping 
somebody else's oil is what that means, and not much of that relative 
to the oil that's produced by these countries.
  The next chart is another quote from the Hirsch Report. And this came 
out in `05. Our country has paid for four reports, all saying 
essentially the same thing. And you may ask a really legitimate 
question, how come I haven't heard about these? All saying essentially 
the same thing: ``The peaking of oil is either present or imminent, 
with potentially devastating consequences.''
  The first report was the Hirsch Report early in '07. Later in '07 was 
another report by the Army Corps of Engineers saying essentially the 
same thing. Then last year, in '07, there were two reports, one by the 
Government Accountability Office, and another requested by the 
Secretary of Energy and the President, the National Petroleum Council. 
They came out last year in '07. All four of these reports say about the 
same thing, the peaking of oil is either present or imminent, with 
potentially devastating consequences. Now, how come you haven't heard 
about this? Why hasn't your government told you about this? And why 
haven't you heard about a really aggressive program to address the 
challenge presented by this reality?
  World oil peaking is going to happen. This was in the Hirsch Report, 
'05. ``World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and 
decline thereafter.'' It happened in our country in 1970. The same 
person who predicted that predicted the world would be peaking about 
now. I have a very simple question I've asked myself over and over 
again. If M. King Hubbert was right about the United States--and he 
was, incontrovertible evidence that he was right about the United 
States--and if he predicted in 1979 that the world would be peaking 
about now--and by the way, by 1980, we knew of a certainty that he was 
right about his prediction of the United States because, in looking 
back from 1980, we can see, gee, he was right. In 1970, we really did 
peak, and we're now over the peak and sliding down the other side. 
Shouldn't someone have said, gee, if M. King Hubbert was right about 
the United States, might he not be right about the world? And if, in 
fact, he is right about the world, shouldn't we really be doing 
something about this? It's an interesting question. I'm not sure I know 
the answer to it.
  People tend to hear what they want to hear, they tend to see what 
they want to see. My wife tells me that I shouldn't be talking about 
this. She said, don't you know that in ancient Greece they killed the 
messenger that brought bad news. And I tell her this is really a good 
news story. The good news is that if we start today to fix this 
problem, the ride is going to be less bumpy than if we start tomorrow. 
And the second good news about this is that--I'm really exhilarated by 
this. There is no exhilaration like the exhilaration of meeting and 
overcoming a big challenge, and this is a huge challenge. I believe 
that America is up to this. If America knew what the problem was, if 
America knew what needed to be done to solve the problem, I think that 
we would do now what we did in World War II. And I lived through World 
War II. I was born in 1926. Yeah, you've done the arithmetic right, I'm 
82 now. And I lived through World War II, and I remember how everyone 
was involved in that war. And I think Americans would do that again.
  This maximum is called the peak. A number of competent forecasters 
project peaking within a decade. That was in `05. Now, 3 years later, 
this is within a decade, and most of them were predicting it peaking 
about now. Some uncertainty, and a lot of things contribute to that 
uncertainty, and that's what he talks about here in the rest of this 
paragraph.
  ``Oil peaking presents a unique challenge.'' And then this statement, 
``The world has never faced a problem like this without massive 
mitigation more

[[Page 13965]]

than a decade before the fact.'' Now, if peaking is upon us, it is 
impossible to do this mitigation a decade before the fact. ``Without 
massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will 
be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions, 
wood to coal and coal to oil, were gradual and evolutionary. Oil 
peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary.''
  The next chart is additional quotes from this Hirsch Report. ``The 
peaking of oil production presents the United States and the world with 
an unprecedented risk management problem.'' As peaking is approached, 
liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase dramatically.'' 
Wow, that's exactly what's happened in the last few months, isn't it? 
``And without timely mitigation''--which we have not done--``the 
economic, social and political costs will be unprecedented.''
  Now, these are the words of a very serious study done by one of the 
most prestigious organizations in our world today. ``Without timely 
mitigation, the economic, social and political costs will be 
unprecedented.''
  The next chart. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, this may 
be worth a million, huh? Here is a guy with his huge SUV, and he's 
standing beside the dwarf of a pump there, ``Demand and Supply.'' And 
he says, ``Just why is gas so expensive?'' That's what happens when the 
demand exceeds the supply.
  The next chart looks at U.S. energy consumption by sector. I would 
like to spend a few moments now looking at the gross energy picture. 
Energy, by the way, is a very unique entity. You use it once. You can't 
recycle it. All energy eventually ends up in the lowest form of energy, 
which is heat. And then it gets radiated to space and it's gone. If you 
want more energy, you've got to either get it from the sun as it comes 
in, or the consequences of the sun, the wind blowing and so forth, or 
the waves. Or you've got to find energy that was produced by the sun a 
very long time ago. And of course it was the shining of the sun that 
made the little organisms grow in these ancient, subtropical seas that 
then settled to the bottom and sediment came in. And we believe the 
Earth opened up, the tectonic plates moved and they were submerged, so 
they were close enough to the molten core that, under the right 
temperature, the right pressure, with enough time, finally became gas 
and oil. And there is no gas there unless there is a rock dome over it 
to hold the gas, otherwise it escapes, and then you have some really 
gummy oil that's going to be extremely difficult to get. The Saudis are 
now trying to exploit a field like that, the Khurais field, I think 
they call it. And they may get 1,000,200 million barrels a day starting 
next year, but it's a very technical field. They've spent billions of 
dollars drilling wells. They're going to inject seawater under pressure 
to periphery the field to try to move the oil, which is very stiff and 
sticky, to the center of the field where they can then move it out to 
the well.
  But this shows the U.S. energy consumption by sector. Electric power, 
40 percent; transportation, 28 percent; residential and commercial, 11 
percent; and industrial, 21 percent.
  The next chart shows us what we use to produce the electricity. And I 
wanted to look at this because I want us to remember that we have two 
basic kinds of energy we use today; one is electric energy and the 
other is liquid fuels energy. And there is some ability to use one or 
the other, but there is a limit to what this transferability is. But 
some of the energy we use to produce electricity could be used in our 
cars and trucks and trains and so forth.
  Coal, actually, we could use that; the Germans did it, the South 
Africans did it when they were producing oil from coal by the Fisher 
Tropes method. It's a 100-year-old method, we know how to do it. And we 
could convert our coal into a gas or a liquid. Here is natural gas, and 
you see city buses running on natural gas. Nuclear, that just produces 
electricity. Hydro, that just produces electricity. Petroleum liquids 
and coke, not very much there. About 3 percent of our electricity is 
produced by diesel, by liquid fuels.
  I just wanted to show that, by conserving in electricity or by 
producing a lot more of our electricity with nuclear, which now 
produces only about 20 percent, we could free up some of the natural 
gas and some of the coal that could be converted to a gas or liquid 
because our really big challenge in the future is liquid fuels.

                              {time}  2115

  I'm pretty sanguine about what we can do electricity-wise for the 
future, much less sanguine about what we can do for liquid fuels.
  We use some renewables. The next chart shows us the renewables that 
we're using. And I want you to look at the scale of this. This is 1 
percent. I think totally 2\1/2\ percent of all of our electricity is 
produced by renewables. And we have lots of wind machines. We have lots 
of solar panels on the roofs of houses. And the biggest one of these is 
wood and then wind.
  By the way, this is wood waste used by the timber industry and by the 
paper industry. The opportunities to massively grow this are not all 
that much. Waste energy is a great idea, but we need to remember that a 
huge waste stream is largely the result of profligate use of fossil 
fuels. In a fossil fuel-deficient world, that waste stream will be 
nowhere near as big as it is now. But for the moment, it represents an 
opportunity to create more electricity, and I think we ought to be 
exploiting it.
  This is true geothermal. That's tapping into the molten core of the 
Earth. You go to Iceland. I didn't see a single chimney in Iceland. 
They get all of their energy there, as far as I know, from geothermal. 
We have some places in our country where we are close enough to the 
molten core of Earth that we could do that.
  Here is solar, and I'm a big fan of solar. I have a little getaway 
place in the mountains of West Virginia, and I'm off the grid. All I 
have is solar there. But notice the trifling amount. This is 1 percent 
here, 1 percent, this whole thing. Notice the trifling contribution 
that solar is making now.
  The next chart, this is an interesting one because what it does is it 
shows us how much of our energy we are getting from fossil fuels.
  We are very much like the young couple whose grandparents have died 
and left them a big inheritance, and they now have established a life-
style where 85 percent of all the money they spend comes from their 
grandparents' inheritance and only 15 percent of the money comes from 
their income. And the inheritance, if they live a normal life span, the 
inheritance is going to run out before they die, before they retire 
even. So, obviously, they have got to do something. They have got to 
either spend less or make more. That's precisely the predicament that 
we are in. It's the predicament that Hyman Rickover was cautioning 
about 51 years ago. We get 85 percent of all of our energy from coal, 
petroleum, and natural gas, and we get only 15 percent of it from other 
sources. The major part of those other sources is nuclear power, which 
provides 8 percent of our total energy for the country, about 20 
percent of our electrical energy.
  And here are the renewables. These are the things that Hyman Rickover 
was talking about, which we inevitably will transition to. Now, we may 
for a long time be able to get a lot of energy, maybe much more than 
this, from nuclear. But except for nuclear energy, this list, and you 
could make it a little bigger and include a few more things in it, but 
this is the kind of the things that we are going to have to be living 
on in the future. We will inevitably transition to renewables. Oil is 
not forever. It will run out. The only question is when. So we need to 
be doing something about this.
  The next chart shows some things that I have personally been involved 
with to help this transition. Renewable energy and energy tax credits, 
I introduced a bill in the House which is a companion bill to the 
Senate, Senate 2821, the Cantwell-Ensign bill. And this passed the 
Senate, by the way, 88-8. And the House bill is 5984. What it does is 
to continue the tax credits for developing renewables. Without those 
tax

[[Page 13966]]

credits, they are not yet competitive with oil. If we wait until they 
are, the challenge will be even greater and the problem even bigger. So 
we must get these things going now. We should have had them going a 
long time ago. And we really need these tax credits. They are about to 
expire.
  Renewable domestic sources, H.R. 6107. I set up, with my good friend 
Tom Udall from New Mexico, the Peak Oil Caucus. And we have a 
resolution that we hope the Congress will vote on, recognizing the 
reality of peak oil and the necessity of doing something about it.
  ARPA-E, I'm a very strong supporter of ARPA-E. DARPA, after which 
ARPA-E is patterned, is part of our defense organization, and it has 
been enormously successful in pioneering envelope-pushing things. The 
Internet is the result of early work by DARPA. All of our unmanned 
aircraft wouldn't be here if it weren't for DARPA, and we think that we 
need something like that in energy. The government needs to be involved 
in this. Some of the things we need to push are not near enough term 
that businesses can justify investing money in it. That's why we have 
DARPA. It has been enormously successful for the military. And I'm a 
big fan of ARPA-E. We need to prioritize what's probably going to work, 
where we should invest our money.
  CAFE standards, I have been a big fan of increasing CAFE standards.
  The other day driving to work, I noticed in front of me in one lane 
was an SUV with one person in it. In the lane next to it was a Prius, 
and I drive one. I bought the first one in Congress, the first one in 
Maryland, as a matter of fact. But I noted that the two people riding 
in that Prius were getting six times the miles per gallon per person as 
compared to the one person riding in the SUV. We have enormous 
opportunities for conservation.
  Let me note at this point that there's only one thing that will bring 
down the price of oil. For the moment drilling won't do it because that 
oil will not flow for years. Investing in renewables will not do it 
because they will not be of any moment for a while. I'm a strong fan of 
renewables, and I now signed on to a bill to drill in ANWR if we use 
all of the Federal revenues to invest in alternatives because we 
desperately need to accelerate the development of these alternatives. 
Only one thing will reduce the price of oil, and that is to use less of 
it. Supply and demand. Now, there is a little bit of speculation in 
there, but the market will eventually punish them if they are 
artificially increasing the price of oil. If you buy oil for $140 a 
month from now if, in fact, it's $130, you've got to come up with $10 a 
barrel for every future barrel you bought. They cannot forever inflate 
the market. Ultimately they will pay for their sins if, in fact, this 
is going on.
  Farms can't produce all of their own energy and some for the people 
living in the city. We're really in trouble for the future.
  Tax credit for hybrids, we really need to extend that. People are 
buying hybrids. You know, $4 gas is a big incentive. We need to 
accelerate that. We need to incentivize people to park their SUV, to 
get in this hybrid, which will get more mileage.
  Fuel flexibility, neutrality. This is an interesting one, the so-
called DRIVE Act, and what this would do would mandate that all of 
America's cars in the future will be flex-fuel cars. It costs less than 
$100 per car, to build a car that would burn any fuel. The only cars 
produced in Brazil are flex-fuel cars. They can burn gasoline. They can 
burn ethanol. They can burn any percentage mixture of ethanol and 
gasoline. And we can have flex-fuel cars that can burn any fuel. We 
have no idea 10 years from now what fuels will be out there to use 
because the average car stays in the fleet for 16 to 18 years. So we 
need to be making these flex-fuel cars so we will be prepared to use 
whatever fuels are available in the future.
  The next chart, and this is kind of an expansion of the previous 
chart we saw. What this looks at is the energy sources that are 
available to us as we transition from fossil fuels ultimately to 
renewables. We have some finite sources and we have nuclear. We have 
finite sources, and these are the tar sands and the oil shales and 
coal. Just a word about each of those, and I need to come to the floor 
and spend a lot of time talking about these because there is a lot of 
irrational exuberance, as Alan Greenspan would say, about the potential 
for production from some of these sources.
  Just a word. The tar sands of Canada are getting a million barrels a 
day. They know what they are doing is not sustainable. By the way, the 
world uses about 85, 86 million barrels a day; so a million barrels a 
day is a bit more than 1 percent of what we use. But it's not 
sustainable. They're using gas that will run out. They're using water 
that will run out. They're thinking about putting a nuclear power plant 
there. I understand if you think of it as a vein which is now on the 
surface, when that's mined, it ducks under it and overlays; so they're 
going to have to develop it in situ. They don't know how to do that. 
There's a huge amount of potential oil there, more than all the 
reserves of oil in all the world. But how much we can develop it and 
how quickly we can develop it is really very uncertain at this time.
  Oil shales, the same thing can be said about those. Those are in our 
country out in Colorado and Wyoming and so forth, Utah. We have 
probably 1\1/2\ trillion barrels of potential oil there. This isn't 
really oil, but with some heating and so forth, it can be converted 
into oil. Nobody yet is exploiting any of that. A lot of money has been 
spent there. Shell Oil Company did a big experiment a few years ago. We 
may get a lot from that; we may get little or nothing from it. It is 
very uncertain.
  Our coal, it's said we have 250 years of coal. Let me hold that 
discussion for just a moment because we are going to have a little 
chart in a moment if we have time for it.
  Nuclear, I'm a big fan of nuclear. There are three ways to get 
nuclear power: One is the light water reactor, the fissionable uranium. 
That is finite. It will run out. We cannot build power plants forever 
and fissionable uranium. But we can go to breeder reactors, which, as 
the name implies, produces more fuel than they use. You borrow some 
trouble when you go to those, transporting fuel for enrichment, 
weapons-grade fuel, and so forth, but it produces really clean energy.
  Then there's nuclear fusion. If we get that, we're home free. That's 
what the sun does, and that's what we do in the hydrogen bomb. But to 
control that, we have been working on it for a long while, and it's 
always very elusive, always way out in front of us. If you think you're 
going to solve our energy problems with fusion, you probably think 
you're going to solve your personal economic problems by winning the 
lottery. I think the odds are probably about the same. By the way, that 
doesn't keep me from enthusiastically voting for the $250 million a 
year we spend on fusion because if we get there, we're home free. 
That's all the energy we could ever need forever. But the high 
probability is we are going to be using a combination of these 
renewable sources. The next time I come to the floor, I'm going to 
spend a lot of time talking about realistic expectations for these 
renewables.
  Two bubbles have already broken: the hydrogen bubble and the corn 
ethanol bubble. The National Academy of Sciences said if we use all of 
our corn for ethanol, it would displace 2.4 percent of our gasoline. 
All of it. And the amount we have used has now driven up the price of 
food around the world, as you have noted. They made a similar 
observation for soybeans. If we use all of our soybeans for soy diesel, 
it would displace 2.9 percent.
  By the way, they noted that for corn ethanol, all of the corn going 
to ethanol, if you tuned up your car and put air in the tires, they 
said, you would save as much gas as using all of our corn to produce 
corn ethanol. We get incredible amounts of energy from these fossil 
fuels. The quality and quantity of energy in these fossil fuels is just 
incredible.
  I mentioned earlier that I was excited by this. This presents a huge 
challenge to us. We had a huge challenge in World War II. I lived 
through that. And what I think we need to address this problem is a 
program that

[[Page 13967]]

involves everybody in the Nation. And the last time that happened was 
in World War II. Everybody needs to be involved. We had a victory 
garden. We had daylight savings time. We saved our household grease. No 
new cars were built for people in 1943, 1944, and 1945. And then we 
need the technology focus of putting a man on the moon, and we need the 
urgency of the Manhattan Project. We are the most creative, innovative 
society in the world. I'm convinced that, properly informed, the 
American people can perform miracles. I think we once again can become 
an energy-exporting country, energy exporting in the terms of exporting 
the technology it takes to exploit these renewables. I'm excited about 
this. I think we need challenges. Our young people's lives are just too 
easy in this country. As I tell audiences, young people, some of them, 
not a majority of them, spend far too much time watching dirty movies 
and smoking marijuana. They wouldn't be doing that if they had a real 
challenge. I can imagine Americans going to sleep at night saying, 
``Today I used less energy than I did yesterday and I'm okay.''

                              {time}  2130

  Just one last chart and then I have got to close. The last one.
  Using less energy doesn't mean you have a lesser quality of life. It 
doesn't mean you have a lesser quality of life. This chart shows a 
number of the countries of the world and the amount of energy they use 
and how good they feel about life on the ordinate. Here we are, using 
more energy than anybody else in the world, but notice, there are I 
think 24 countries, some of them using only half the energy we use, 
that don't feel as good about life as we do; they feel better about 
life than we do.
  There are lots of opportunities for efficiency and conservation. We 
will come to the floor and talk about realistic expectations for what 
we can get out of these renewables and about all of the opportunities 
that we have for efficiency and conservation.
  I'd just like to close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that America really 
can respond to this. We have performed miracles in the past, we can do 
it again. So I am excited about this. With my wife's counsel that I 
shouldn't be talking about this, I think that this is a good news story 
because America really, really, really responds well to a challenge. We 
did it in World War II, we did it in putting a man on the moon. We can 
do it here again.
  Thank you, Madam Speaker.

                          ____________________




                    FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

  A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate has passed with amendments in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 5690. An act to remove the African National Congress 
     from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts 
     or events, provide relief for certain members of the African 
     National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other 
     purposes.

                          ____________________




                  AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS EXEMPTION

  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the 
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 5690) to remove the African National 
Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or 
events, provide relief for certain members of the African National 
Congress regarding admissibility, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:

       On page 2, strike line 12 through the end of line 21 and 
     insert the following:
       (a) Exemption Authority.--The Secretary of State, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General, may determine, in such Secretary's sole and 
     unreviewable discretion, that paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(I), 
     (2)(B), and (3)(B) (other than clause (i)(II)) of section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)) shall not apply to an alien with respect to 
     activities undertaken in association with the African 
     National Congress in opposition to apartheid rule in South 
     Africa.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the right to object, although I 
do not intend to object. I do so here for the purpose of debate only. I 
thank the gentlewoman for her request, and I rise in support of this 
measure, H.R. 5690. I concur in my colleague's request for unanimous 
consent to pass this measure as amended by the Senate.
  Madam Speaker, this bill corrects a longstanding error on U.S. policy 
towards South Africa. The House passed the bill on May 8 of this year, 
and the Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent just a few moments 
ago.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored to participate in the process of updating 
U.S. immigration law as it applies to visits to the United States by 
South African officials, such as former President Nelson Mandela, to 
reflect the appropriate status of the African National Congress, and I 
look forward to personally sharing news of passage of this bill with 
Mr. Mandela and the South African government when I visit South Africa 
next week with Chairman Berman.
  Ms. LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROYCE. I yield to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. LEE. First, let me thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding and for his leadership and for his commitment and his 
assistance in helping to bring this bill to the floor tonight, or back 
to the floor tonight.
  Mr. Royce and I have traveled to Africa. We have actually been to 
Darfur in the Sudan and witnessed the horrific genocide taking place, 
and because of your leadership and because of the bipartisan way in 
which we have worked, we have put, again, the United States on the 
right side of history on leading the charge for divestment against the 
Sudanese government.
  Here we are tonight, really a remarkable evening. It's 9:40 and we 
are here on the floor doing what we should do. We probably should have 
done it a long time. We are here. Thank you, Mr. Royce, very much.
  Despite his legacy as a hero of the antiapartheid movement, Nelson 
Mandela's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1993, and his election as 
President of South Africa in 1994, Nelson Mandela continues to be 
included on the United States terrorist watch list due to his 
leadership and participation with the African National Congress. As a 
result, former President Mandela and countless men and women like him, 
who fought for decades, for decades, mind you, a war of liberation 
against the apartheid government of South Africa, are required to 
obtain a visa waiver under the Immigration and Nationality Act in order 
to enter the United States.
  This continuing indignity should not be allowed to persist any 
longer. This year, President Mandela will turn 90 years old. I believe 
his birthday is July 17. And so as a fitting tribute to his legacy and 
to the many others who fought against apartheid, all of us tonight 
believe that we should promptly pass this bill so that the African 
National Congress and President Mandela can be removed from the 
terrorist watch list.
  Like many, I was very involved in the antiapartheid movement. I 
remember having to travel to Switzerland and to Austria and to other 
countries in Europe just to meet with members of the ANC, African 
National Congress, to determine how the antiapartheid movement in the 
United States could support their courageous efforts to shatter the 
dehumanizing, racist system of apartheid.
  We could not meet, unfortunately, in our own country here in the 
United States because they would have been put in jail. It's no telling 
what would have happened to me and to others who were committed to 
support the African National Congress and to end apartheid.
  I tell you, this has been a remarkable 18 years. President Mandela 
was released from prison 18 years ago. And so it's amazing that to this 
day, despite his legacy as a hero of the antiapartheid movement, that 
he still

[[Page 13968]]

needs a visa waiver to enter the United States. This is just plain 
wrong.
  Last December, I traveled to South Africa for World AIDS Day with our 
colleague, Congresswoman Donna Christensen. We met with many, many 
people in South Africa, and were specifically asked that Congress take 
action and pass some legislation to remove President Mandela from this 
terrorist list, and the ANC. Many of us either had forgotten or really 
did not know that. And so we came back and started working on this 
bill.
  I have to thank Congressman Berman, our Chair of our Foreign 
Relations Committee, and Congressman Conyers and Congressman Payne and 
Congressman Bennie Thompson and Senator Reid and others for really 
helping to help move this bill forward.
  Let me just say, I come from California and I do have to remind 
tonight the rest of the country that it was my predecessor, Congressman 
Ron Dellums, now Mayor Ron Dellums, who put our country on the right 
side of history. I had the privilege to work for Ron for 11 years. For 
12 years, he introduced a sanctions bill, and finally, in the eighties, 
this Congress overturned President Reagan's veto and put America on the 
right side of history and began the divestment movement.
  Our colleague, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, was in the State 
legislature and she work tirelessly on divestment legislation. Her 
leadership put the State of California on the right side of history. 
Actually, I believe that California was the first State to move forward 
with sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa.
  Recently, Congresswoman Waters and Mayor Dellums received one of the 
highest honors presented to them by the South African government. So we 
are very proud of them and thankful for their leadership.
  In the Bay area and for those who may be listening, if you remember, 
we really started the antiapartheid movement with the labor unions, the 
ILWU. Many of us were actually arrested. We refused to unload the 
ships. The ILWU, great and courageous men and women. They refused to 
allow any items to come into the Bay area.
  And so we were arrested. We fought. We did so much to try to raise 
the level of awareness and attention as to what was taking place in 
South Africa. I can remember us carrying little black passbooks, 
because coming in from the townships, black South Africans had to have 
IDs, passbooks. And we had a burning-our-passbook ceremony on the steps 
of city hall to let people understand that the black majority of South 
Africa could not live in major towns and had to live in squalor and 
could only come in to work and had to leave with their passbooks.
  So I could go on and on. I am saying this tonight because I want 
those who are listening to say, This is a really significant moment. 
This has been, again, a long time coming. But I think this is one of 
those moments where we have seen the Secretary of State, Republicans, 
Democrats, all of us working together to end this terrible, terrible 
policy that we have with regard to the ANC and Nelson Mandela.
  I have to salute our speaker, Speaker Pelosi; our minority leader, 
Mr. Boehner; Mr. Hoyer. Also, Congresswoman Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick, 
Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and all the members of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, and those who, when we started talking 
about this, first of all, couldn't believe that this was still the case 
but said we have got to do something. We have got to fix it.
  So, again, to our staffs. I have to say to Perl Alice Marsh of the 
Foreign Affairs staff, to Christos Tsentas on my staff, and to all of 
the staff on both sides of the aisle who have worked so diligently, 
tonight is long overdue. It's taken a heck of a lot to get here, but we 
hope that tonight we will be able to say to President Mandela: Happy 
Birthday, Mr. Mandela.
  Mr. Royce, hopefully you will be able to take a signed copy of the 
bill by the President to Mr. Mandela and wish him God speed, happy 
birthday, and thank goodness we were finally, finally, finally able to 
take the ANC and President Mandela off of the terrorist watch list.
  Mr. ROYCE. We will do that. I thank the gentlelady.
  Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________




                         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. Costa) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Kucinich, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Nunes) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Broun of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Nunes, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Bishop of Utah, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mrs. Biggert, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Gilchrest, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Member (at his request) to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________




                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  Ms. Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly 
enrolled bills of the House of the following titles, which were 
thereupon signed by the Speaker:

       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.R. 6040. An act 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.
       H.R. 6327. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




                      SENATE ENROLLED BILL SIGNED

  The SPEAKER announced her signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate 
of the following title:

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

                          ____________________




                              ADJOURNMENT

  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, 
I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 44 minutes 
p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, June

[[Page 13969]]

30, 2008, at 10 a.m., unless it sooner has received a message from the 
Senate transmitting its adoption of House Concurrent Resolution 379, in 
which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent 
resolution.

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

       7332. A letter from the Director, Regulatory Review Group, 
     Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's 
     final rule -- Guaranteed Loans; Number of Days of Interest 
     Paid on Loss Claims (RIN: 0560-AH55) received June 19, 2008, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Agriculture.
       7333. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission, 
     Federal Trade Commission, transmitting the Commission's final 
     rule -- Affiliate Marketing Rule [Regulation No. 411006] 
     (RIN: 3084-AA94) received June 19, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
     801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
       7334. A letter from the Deputy Archivist of the United 
     States, National Archives and Records Administration, 
     transmitting the Administration's final rule -- Presidential 
     Library Facilities [NARA-07-0005] (RIN: 3095-AA82) received 
     June 18, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       7335. A letter from the Assistant Secretary, Department of 
     the Interior, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Open and Nondiscriminatory Movement of Oil and Gas as 
     Required by the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [Docket ID: 
     MMS-2008-PMI-0024] (RIN: 1010-AD17) received June 19, 2008, 
     pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources.
       7336. A letter from the Deputy Director, NIST, Department 
     of Commerce, transmitting the Department's final rule -- 
     Technology Innovation Program [Docket No: [071106659-8716-
     02]] (RIN: 0693-AB59) received June 19, 2008, pursuant to 5 
     U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Science and 
     Technology.
       7337. A letter from the Regional Solicitor, Department of 
     the Interior, transmitting the Department's request for a 
     rehearing of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's April 
     3, 2008, order on the Ten-Year Summary Report under Article 
     58 of the license for the Don Pedro Project; jointly to the 
     Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.
       7338. A letter from the Administrator, Environmental 
     Protection Agency, transmitting a copy of a legislative 
     proposal to implement an important new treaty for the 
     protection of aquatic life and the marine environment; 
     jointly to the Committees on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, Science and Technology, and the Judiciary.

                          ____________________




                      PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

           By Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. Deal of 
             Georgia, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. 
             Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Pickering, Mrs. Bono Mack, 
             Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Terry, Mr. Sullivan, and 
             Mrs. Blackburn):
       H.R. 6376. A bill to expand the authority of the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to impose debarments in order to 
     ensure the integrity of drug, biological product, and device 
     regulation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota (for himself, Mr. Van 
             Hollen, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. 
             DeLauro, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, Mr. 
             Welch of Vermont, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Mahoney of 
             Florida, Mr. Barrow, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Holden, Mr. 
             Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Kagen, 
             Mr. Hodes, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. Shuler, Mr. 
             Pomeroy, Mr. Farr, and Mr. Lampson):
       H.R. 6377. A bill to direct the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission to utilize all its authority, including its 
     emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive 
     speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction 
     and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on 
     or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to 
     eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or 
     unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, 
     or other unlawful activity that is causing major market 
     disturbances that prevent the market from accurately 
     reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy 
     commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture; considered and 
     passed.
           By Mr. BARTON of Texas (for himself, Mr. Deal of 
             Georgia, Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, Mr. Shimkus, Mrs. 
             Wilson of New Mexico, Mr. Pickering, Mrs. Bono Mack, 
             Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Terry, Mr. Sullivan, and 
             Mrs. Blackburn):
       H.R. 6378. A bill to expand the authority of the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services to impose debarments in order to 
     ensure the integrity of drug, biological product, and device 
     regulation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce.
           By Ms. FALLIN:
       H.R. 6379. A bill to expedite the exploration and 
     development of oil and gas from Federal lands, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources.
           By Mrs. BIGGERT (for herself, Mr. Emanuel, and Mrs. 
             Emerson):
       H.R. 6380. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to provide payments under the Medicare Program 
     for unscheduled physician telephone consultation services in 
     the case that such payments are determined to be cost and 
     quality effective; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
     and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
     period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each 
     case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mrs. Capps, 
             Mr. Weiner, Mr. Hinchey, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Braley 
             of Iowa, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Towns, Mr. Stupak, Ms. Solis, 
             Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Welch of 
             Vermont, Ms. Castor, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
             Schiff, Mr. Markey, Mr. Allen, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of 
             California, Mr. Ross, Ms. Baldwin, Ms. DeLauro, Mr. 
             Wexler, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Roybal-Allard, 
             Mr. Rush, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Sutton, Mr. 
             McNerney, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. 
             Lipinski, Mr. Rothman, Mr. Baca, Mr. Berman, Ms. 
             Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. DeGette, Mr. Davis of 
             Illinois, Mr. Stark, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. 
             Coble, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Terry, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Conyers, 
             Mr. Higgins, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Sarbanes, 
             Mr. Filner, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
             Scott of Virginia, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Meeks of New 
             York, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Wu, Mr. Melancon, Ms. Hooley, 
             Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Norton, Mr. McGovern, and Mr. 
             Dingell):
       H.R. 6381. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act with respect to liability under State and local 
     requirements respecting devices; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce.
           By Mr. RANGEL (for himself and Mr. George Miller of 
             California):
       H.R. 6382. A bill to make technical corrections related to 
     the Pension Protection Act of 2006, and for other purposes; 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor, 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. HAYES:
       H.R. 6383. A bill to make available for research and 
     development of alternative energy certain revenue received by 
     the United States for all future oil and gas leases; to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Science and Technology, 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. BISHOP of Utah (for himself, Mr. Boehner, Mr. 
             Sali, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Heller, Mr. Herger, Mrs. 
             McMorris Rodgers, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
             Renzi, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr. 
             Alexander, Mr. Rehberg, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Franks of 
             Arizona, Mr. Simpson, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania, 
             Mr. Pearce, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. Upton, Mrs. Blackburn, 
             Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Walberg, Mr. 
             Wittman of Virginia, and Mrs. Myrick):
       H.R. 6384. A bill to provide a comprehensive plan for 
     greater American energy independence; to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the 
     Judiciary, Energy and Commerce, Science and Technology, Ways 
     and Means, Agriculture, Education and Labor, Armed Services, 
     Transportation and Infrastructure, and Oversight and 
     Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined 
     by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Mr. KIRK (for himself, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr. Shays):
       H.R. 6385. A bill to provide a large-scale national effort 
     to improve the state of our national security, economy and 
     environment by providing market incentives to produce and 
     deploy alternative energy solutions and reduce our dependence 
     on foreign oil; to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Science and Technology, Energy 
     and Commerce, Education and Labor, Rules, Natural Resources, 
     Agriculture, Armed Services, and the Budget, for

[[Page 13970]]

     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. McCARTHY of California:
       H.R. 6386. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act to extend and revise incentive payments for 
     physician scarcity areas under part B of the Medicare 
     Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to 
     be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
     consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. VAN HOLLEN (for himself, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. 
             Levin, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Ackerman, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
             Texas):
       H.R. 6387. A bill to provide duty-free treatment for 
     certain goods from designated Reconstruction Opportunity 
     Zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Conyers, 
             Mr. Obey, Mr. Rangel, Mr. George Miller of 
             California, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Skelton, 
             Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Berman, Mr. Spratt, 
             Mr. Gordon, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Filner, Mr. Thompson 
             of Mississippi, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. 
             Brady of Pennsylvania):
       H.R. 6388. A bill to provide additional authorities to the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform.
           By Mr. BROWN of South Carolina:
       H.R. 6389. A bill to modify Captain Sam's Inlet Unit M08 of 
     the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System in 
     Charleston County, South Carolina, and to revise the System 
     map relating to the unit; to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources.
           By Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida:
       H.R. 6390. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide a credit against tax for certain caregivers, 
     to expand the dependent care credit, and to increase the 
     exclusion limitation for dependent care assistance programs; 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. BURTON of Indiana (for himself, Mr. Putnam, Mr. 
             Paul, Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Ms. Watson, and Mr. 
             Bartlett of Maryland):
       H.R. 6391. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act 
     with respect to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 
     Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. CUELLAR (for himself and Mr. Dent):
       H.R. 6392. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
     designate an agency within the Department of Homeland 
     Security to modernize the integrated public alert and warning 
     system of the United States to disseminate homeland security 
     and other information, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period 
     to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
     for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Ms. DeGETTE (for herself and Mr. Platts):
       H.R. 6393. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act to promote tobacco use cessation under 
     the Medicare Program, the Medicaid Program, and the maternal 
     and child health program; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, 
     for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 
     each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 
     the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Ms. GIFFORDS (for herself, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
             Hinojosa, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. 
             Baca, Mr. Pastor, Mr. Grijalva, Mr. Filner, and Mr. 
             Mitchell):
       H.R. 6394. A bill to amend the Medicare Prescription Drug, 
     Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to extend Federal 
     reimbursement of emergency health services furnished to 
     undocumented aliens, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce.
           By Mr. AL GREEN of Texas:
       H.R. 6395. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry 
     out a program for fellowships and research to enhance 
     domestic preparedness and the collective response to acts of 
     terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
           By Mr. HASTINGS of Florida:
       H.R. 6396. A bill to establish a commission to make 
     recommendations on the appropriate size of membership of the 
     House of Representatives and the method by which Members are 
     elected; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. HENSARLING:
       H.R. 6397. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to 
     make certain improvements in the basic educational assistance 
     program administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, 
     Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, Energy 
     and Commerce, Science and Technology, Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and Natural Resources, 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. HODES (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Ms. DeLauro, 
             and Mr. Hinchey):
       H.R. 6398. A bill to impose a permanent prohibition on the 
     use of funds by the Department of Defense for propaganda 
     purposes within the United States not otherwise specifically 
     authorized by law and to require an investigation into 
     possible violations of the annual Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act prohibition on such propaganda; to the 
     Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. HODES:
       H.R. 6399. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security 
     Act to prohibit the display of Social Security account 
     numbers on Medicare cards; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. HOEKSTRA (for himself, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Rogers 
             of Michigan, Mr. Upton, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Camp of 
             Michigan, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Tiberi, Mr. 
             Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. 
             Herger, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mrs. 
             Bachmann, Mr. Pence, Mr. Feeney, Mrs. Musgrave, and 
             Mr. Campbell of California):
       H.R. 6400. A bill to authorize a State to transfer or 
     consolidate funds made available to such State under certain 
     transportation, education, and job training programs after 
     the United States experiences economic growth at an annual 
     rate of less than 1 percent for 2 calendar quarters; to the 
     Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the 
     Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and 
     Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Honda, 
             Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Grijalva):
       H.R. 6401. A bill to spur rapid and sustainable growth in 
     renewable electricity generation in the United States through 
     priority interconnection, renewable energy payments, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
     in addition to the Committees on Science and Technology, and 
     Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
     the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas (for herself, Mr. 
             Hinojosa, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Corrine 
             Brown of Florida, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Sestak, Mrs. 
             Lowey, and Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas):
       H.R. 6402. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 to establish grants to increase student 
     attendance; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
           By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
       H.R. 6403. A bill to amend title II of the Workforce 
     Investment Act of 1998 to establish financial literacy 
     education programs for newly naturalized citizens of the 
     United States; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
           By Mr. KINGSTON (for himself, Mr. Barrow, Ms. Granger, 
             Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Moran of 
             Virginia, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Keller, Mr. 
             Feeney, Mr. Pence, Mr. Deal of Georgia, Mr. Gingrey, 
             Ms. Fallin, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. 
             David Davis of Tennessee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. 
             Latta, Mr. Jordan, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Carter, Mr. 
             Gohmert, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, 
             Mrs. Drake, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Garrett of New 
             Jersey, Mrs. Schmidt, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Everett, Mrs. 
             Musgrave, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. Sessions, Ms. DeLauro, 
             Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Wolf, Ms. 
             Kaptur, Mr. Young of Alaska, Ms. Clarke, and Mrs. 
             Emerson):
       H.R. 6404. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury 
     to mint coins in commemoration of the centennial of the 
     establishment of the Girl Scouts of the United States of 
     America; to the Committee on Financial Services.
           By Mr. LARSEN of Washington:
       H.R. 6405. A bill to authorize a process by which the 
     Secretary of the Interior shall process acquisitions of 
     certain real property of the Samish Indian Nation into trust, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources.
           By Mr. LARSON of Connecticut:
       H.R. 6406. A bill to elevate the Inspector General of the 
     Commodity Futures Trading

[[Page 13971]]

     Commission to an Inspector General appointed pursuant to 
     section 3 of the Inspector General Act of 1978; to the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
           By Mr. LEWIS of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
             McDermott, Mr. Reynolds, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Ramstad, 
             Mr. Emanuel, Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Shays, 
             Ms. Matsui, Mr. Platts, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Kind, Mr. 
             Moran of Virginia, and Mr. Doggett):
       H.R. 6407. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide an exclusion from gross income for AmeriCorps 
     educational awards; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Ms. MATSUI (for herself, Mrs. Maloney of New York, 
             Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Doggett):
       H.R. 6408. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to 
     establish requirements to ensure the security and safety of 
     passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure.
           By Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota (for herself, Mr. 
             Loebsack, Mr. Lucas, Ms. Sutton, and Mr. Walz of 
             Minnesota):
       H.R. 6409. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the credit for electricity produced from 
     certain renewable resources; to the Committee on Ways and 
     Means.
           By Mr. McCOTTER:
       H.R. 6410. A bill to provide for the elimination of 
     agencies and programs which receive ineffective ratings or 
     three consecutive adequate ratings under the Government 
     Performance and Results Act of 1993 and to amend the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 to rebate the savings from such 
     eliminations to the taxpayers; to the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on 
     Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
     the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
     provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 
     concerned.
           By Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut (for himself, Mr. Souder, 
             Mr. Clay, Mr. Towns, Ms. Foxx, Mr. Shadegg, and Mr. 
             Waxman):
       H.R. 6411. A bill to strengthen transparency and 
     accountability in Federal spending; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
           By Mrs. MUSGRAVE:
       H.R. 6412. A bill to promote the energy security of the 
     United States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on 
     Energy and Commerce, Science and Technology, Oversight and 
     Government Reform, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Ways and 
     Means, and Agriculture, 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. PALLONE:
       H.R. 6413. A bill to prohibit the Administrator of the 
     Federal Emergency Management Agency from updating flood maps 
     until the Administrator submits to Congress a community 
     outreach plan, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Ways 
     and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. PALLONE (for himself and Mr. Rothman):
       H.R. 6414. A bill to establish a pilot program on the 
     provision of legal services to assist veterans and members of 
     the Armed Forces who receive health care, benefits and 
     services, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Veterans' Affairs, and in addition to the Committee on Armed 
     Services, 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. PASCRELL:
       H.R. 6415. A bill to provide that goods that are 
     manufactured in a foreign trade zone and comply with the 
     rules of origin under a trade agreement to which the United 
     States is a party may enter the customs territory of the 
     United States at the rate of duty applicable under that 
     agreement; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Capuano, Mr. 
             Tancredo, Mr. Rangel, Ms. Lee, Mr. McGovern, Ms. 
             Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
             Texas, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Fattah, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. 
             Bishop of Georgia, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. 
             Rush, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Ms. 
             Waters, and Mr. Hastings of Florida):
       H.R. 6416. A bill to codify existing sanctions against the 
     Government of Sudan until the Government of Sudan meets 
     certain conditions relating to a just and lasting peace in 
     Sudan; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina:
       H.R. 6417. A bill to prevent Members of Congress from 
     receiving the automatic pay adjustment scheduled to take 
     effect in 2009; to the Committee on House Administration, and 
     in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 
     Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
     fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. POE (for himself, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Burton of 
             Indiana, and Mr. Lamborn):
       H.R. 6418. A bill to achieve greater national energy 
     independence by terminating longstanding moratoriums on the 
     domestic production of offshore oil and natural gas and to 
     authorize States to petition for authorization to conduct 
     offshore oil and natural gas exploration and extraction in 
     the coastal zone of their State; to the Committee on Natural 
     Resources.
           By Mr. ROHRABACHER (for himself, Mr. Goode, Mr. Jones 
             of North Carolina, and Mr. Roskam):
       H.R. 6419. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to exclude from gross income compensation received by 
     employees consisting of qualified distributions of employer 
     stock; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. SHERMAN (for himself and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
       H.R. 6420. A bill to toll the congressional notification 
     period for removing North Korea from the state sponsors of 
     terrorism list; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Rules, 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. SHUSTER:
       H.R. 6421. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior 
     to establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing 
     program for the Coastal Plain of Alaska, to provide for 
     expanded leasing of the oil and gas resources of the outer 
     Continental Shelf for exploration, to eliminate certain 
     impediments to the development of nuclear energy sources, to 
     promote coal-to-liquid fuel activities, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in 
     addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and 
     Commerce, Science and Technology, Transportation and 
     Infrastructure, and Rules, 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. SPACE:
       H.R. 6422. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to allow small businesses a refundable income tax credit 
     to offset the cost of providing health care coverage for 
     employees; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
           By Mr. STUPAK:
       H.R. 6423. A bill to provide for the transportation of the 
     remains of members of the Armed Forces who died in a theater 
     of combat operations when those remains are subsequently 
     recovered; to the Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi:
       H.R. 6424. A bill to establish a homeowner mitigation loan 
     program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency to 
     promote pre-disaster property mitigation measures; to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
           By Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi:
       H.R. 6425. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 
     2002 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to maintain 
     a Response and Recovery Corps to perform functions related to 
     the collective response to acts of terrorism, natural 
     disasters, and other emergencies, and for other purposes; to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in 
     addition to the Committee on Homeland Security, for a period 
     to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case 
     for consideration of such provisions as fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
           By Mr. TIAHRT (for himself, Mr. Moran of Kansas, Mr. 
             Shimkus, Mr. Reichert, and Mr. LaHood):
       H.R. 6426. A bill to prohibit the use of funds by the 
     Department of Defense on the KC-X tanker contract, and for 
     other purposes related to that contract; to the Committee on 
     Armed Services.
           By Mr. WELCH of Vermont (for himself and Mr. Markey):
       H.R. 6427. A bill to provide funding for the Low-Income 
     Home Energy Assistance Program; to the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Education 
     and Labor, and the Budget, 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. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Keller, Mr. Feeney, and 
             Mr. Smith of Texas):
       H.J. Res. 96. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States to permit the penalty 
     of death for the rape of a child; to the Committee on the 
     Judiciary.
           By Mr. HOEKSTRA:
       H.J. Res. 97. A joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States relating to parental 
     rights; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 13972]]


           By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN (for herself and Mr. Blunt):
       H. Con. Res. 383. Concurrent resolution recognizing the 
     importance of homeownership for Americans; to the Committee 
     on Financial Services.
           By Ms. LEE (for herself, Ms. Waters, Mr. Meeks of New 
             York, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Waxman, Ms. Norton, Ms. 
             Matsui, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Berman, Mr. Honda, Mr. 
             Rush, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Ms. 
             Kilpatrick, Mr. Sires, Mrs. Napolitano, and Ms. 
             Solis):
       H. Con. Res. 384. Concurrent resolution supporting the 
     goals and ideals of National HIV Testing Day, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
           By Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN (for herself, Mr. Engel, Mr. Burton 
             of Indiana, Mr. Berman, Mr. Weller, Mr. Klein of 
             Florida, Mr. Wexler, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Pence, Mr. 
             Smith of New Jersey, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Wilson of 
             South Carolina, Mr. Mack, Mr. Rohrabacher, Ms. 
             Watson, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Crowley, 
             Mr. Royce, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Chabot, Ms. Wasserman 
             Schultz, and Mr. Cantor):
       H. Con. Res. 385. Concurrent resolution condemning the 
     attack on the AMIA Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, 
     Argentina, in July 1994, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. SALI:
       H. Con. Res. 386. Concurrent resolution recognizing and 
     celebrating the 232nd anniversary of the signing of the 
     Declaration of Independence; to the Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform.
           By Mr. TANCREDO (for himself and Mr. Chabot):
       H. Con. Res. 387. Concurrent resolution expressing the 
     sense of Congress that the United States should sever 
     diplomatic relations with Zimbabwe until such time as the 
     President determines that Zimbabwe meets requirements 
     relating to democratic, free and fair elections, basic civil 
     liberties and human rights, and certain other requirements; 
     to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. BILBRAY (for himself, Mr. Campbell of 
             California, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Alexander, Mrs. 
             Myrick, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Gary G. Miller of 
             California, Mr. Roskam, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. 
             Coble, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Jones of 
             North Carolina, Mr. Shuler, and Mr. Barton of Texas):
       H. Res. 1306. A resolution recognizing the dedication and 
     honorable service of members of the National Guard who are 
     serving or have served in Operation Jump Start; to the 
     Committee on Armed Services.
           By Mr. BAIRD (for himself and Mr. Upton):
       H. Res. 1307. A resolution commemorating the Kingdom of 
     Bhutan's participation in the 2008 Smithsonian Folklife 
     Festival and commending the people and the Government of the 
     Kingdom of Bhutan for their commitment to holding elections 
     and broadening political participation; to the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. BILIRAKIS (for himself, Mr. Carnahan, Ms. Ros-
             Lehtinen, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Pence, Mr. Smith of New 
             Jersey, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Royce, Mr. Chabot, 
             Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Poe, Mr. Fortuno, 
             Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
             McCotter, Mr. Linder, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Calvert, Mr. 
             Weller, Mr. Sali, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Porter, Mr. Terry, 
             and Mr. Shays):
       H. Res. 1308. A resolution condemning the broadcasting of 
     incitement to violence against Americans and the United 
     States in media based in the Middle East, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mrs. DRAKE:
       H. Res. 1309. A resolution recognizing and honoring the 
     44th anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 
     1964 and those who worked to achieve this goal; to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee 
     on Education and Labor, for a period to be subsequently 
     determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of 
     such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
     committee concerned.
           By Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (for herself, Mr. Filner, 
             and Mr. Hinchey):
       H. Res. 1310. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     House of Representatives that the Government of Iran's lack 
     of protection for internationally recognized human rights 
     creates poor conditions for religious freedom in the Islamic 
     Republic of Iran; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. FATTAH (for himself and Mr. Souder):
       H. Res. 1311. A resolution expressing support for the 
     designation of National GEAR UP Day; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
           By Mr. LAMBORN (for himself, Ms. Harman, Mr. Reyes, and 
             Mr. Udall of Colorado):
       H. Res. 1312. A resolution commemorating the 25th 
     anniversary of the Space Foundation; to the Committee on 
     Science and Technology.
           By Mr. LAMPSON (for himself, Mrs. Davis of California, 
             Mr. Feeney, and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
       H. Res. 1313. A resolution celebrating the 25th anniversary 
     of the first American woman in space, Dr. Sally K. Ride, and 
     honoring her contributions to the space program and to 
     science education; to the Committee on Science and 
     Technology.
           By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Bartlett of 
             Maryland, Mr. Gerlach, Mr. Berman, Mr. Andrews, Mr. 
             Bilirakis, Mr. Costa, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
             Florida, Mr. Engel, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Langevin, Mr. 
             McCotter, Mr. McDermott, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Miller of 
             Michigan, Mr. Rothman, Ms. Schwartz, and Mr. Walz of 
             Minnesota):
       H. Res. 1314. A resolution remembering the 75th anniversary 
     of the Ukrainian Famine-Genocide of 1932-1933 and extending 
     the deepest sympathies of the House of Representatives to the 
     victims, survivors, and families of this tragedy, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
           By Mr. McCAUL of Texas (for himself, Mr. Lampson, Mr. 
             Bilbray, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Broun 
             of Georgia, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of 
             Florida, Mr. Calvert, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. 
             Gonzalez, Mr. Hinojosa, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. McCarthy of 
             California, Mr. Cramer, Ms. Watson, Mr. Schiff, Mr. 
             Doggett, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
             Edwards of Texas, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Ortiz, 
             Mr. Feeney, Mr. Lucas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of 
             Texas, Mr. Reyes, and Mr. Carson):
       H. Res. 1315. A resolution commemorating the 50th 
     Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration; to the Committee on Science and Technology.
           By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself, Mr. Ellsworth, Ms. 
             Kaptur, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hall of Texas, 
             Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Snyder, and Mr. Jones of North 
             Carolina):
       H. Res. 1316. A resolution honoring the service of the Navy 
     and Coast Guard veterans who served on the Landing Ship Tank 
     (LST) amphibious landing craft during World War II, the 
     Korean war, the Vietnam war, Operation Desert Storm, and 
     global operations through 2002 and recognizing the essential 
     role played by LST amphibious craft during these conflicts; 
     to the Committee on Armed Services.

                          ____________________




                               MEMORIALS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII, memorials were presented and referred as 
follows:

       327. The SPEAKER presented a memorial of the Legislature of 
     the State of Louisiana, relative to Senate Concurrent 
     Resolution No. 76 memorializing the Congress of the United 
     States to take such actions as are necessary to expedite the 
     reopening of the Arabi branch of the United States Postal 
     Service located in St. Bernard Parish; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       328. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Idaho, relative to Senate Joint Memorial No. 114 expressing 
     opposition to S. 40 and H.R. 3200; jointly to the Committees 
     on Financial Services and the Judiciary.
       329. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 68 
     memorializing the Congress of the United States to provide 
     funding for the Louisiana University of Medical Services, 
     Inc., College of Primary Care Medicine; jointly to the 
     Committees on Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor.
       330. Also, a memorial of the Senate of the Commonwealth of 
     Pennsylvania, relative to Senate Resolution No. 321 
     memorializing the President of the United States and the 
     Congress of the United States to enact S. 70; jointly to the 
     Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and the 
     Judiciary.
       331. Also, a memorial of the Legislature of the State of 
     Louisiana, relative to Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 36 
     expressing opposition to the authorization of offshore 
     aquaculture in the Gulf of Mexico; jointly to the Committees 
     on Natural Resources and Agriculture.

                          ____________________




                          ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

       H.R. 303: Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.
       H.R. 410: Mr. Olver.
       H.R. 423: Mr. Wolf.
       H.R. 552: Mr. Crowley.
       H.R. 583: Ms. Kaptur.
       H.R. 688: Mr. Sherman.
       H.R. 736: Mr. Boozman, Mr. Poe, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Sali, Mrs. 
     Myrick, and Mr. Souder.
       H.R. 1029: Ms. DeLauro.
       H.R. 1032: Mr. Kennedy.
       H.R. 1113: Mrs. Drake, Mr. Hall of New York, and Mr. 
     LoBiondo.
       H.R. 1117: Mr. Towns.

[[Page 13973]]


       H.R. 1120: Mr. King of New York.
       H.R. 1228: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 1279: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
       H.R. 1283: Mr. Ortiz.
       H.R. 1293: Mr. Sensenbrenner.
       H.R. 1399: Mr. Childers.
       H.R. 1428: Mrs. Gillibrand.
       H.R. 1552: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
       H.R. 1610: Mr. Moran of Kansas and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
       H.R. 1655: Mr. Space.
       H.R. 1671: Mr. Markey.
       H.R. 1709: Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
       H.R. 1755: Mr. Holt.
       H.R. 1866: Mr. Kagen.
       H.R. 1881: Mr. Boren and Mr. Ferguson.
       H.R. 2053: Mr. Space, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and Mr. 
     Calvert.
       H.R. 2060: Mr. Cannon.
       H.R. 2091: Mrs. Musgrave.
       H.R. 2104: Mr. Camp of Michigan.
       H.R. 2123: Mr. Young of Alaska and Mr. Sarbanes.
       H.R. 2132: Mr. Carson.
       H.R. 2167: Mr. Altmire and Mr. Crowley.
       H.R. 2188: Mr. Walsh of New York.
       H.R. 2279: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. 
     Culberson, Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Brown of South Carolina.
       H.R. 2289: Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, 
     Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, and Mr. Michaud.
       H.R. 2329: Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Walberg, and Mr. Knollenberg.
       H.R. 2330: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H.R. 2370: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Carter, Mr. English of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Holt, and Mr. Terry.
       H.R. 2384: Mr. Latham.
       H.R. 2472: Mr. Sestak.
       H.R. 2493: Mr. Feeney and Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H.R. 2583: Mr. Holden.
       H.R. 2606: Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Doyle, Mr. Ryan of 
     Ohio, and Ms. Hirono.
       H.R. 2676: Mr. Altmire.
       H.R. 2686: Mr. Welch of Vermont.
       H.R. 2708: Mr. Markey.
       H.R. 2712: Mr. Lamborn.
       H.R. 2721: Mr. Costa.
       H.R. 2762: Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
       H.R. 2796: Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
       H.R. 2832: Mr. Langevin and Mr. Latham.
       H.R. 2842: Ms. Berkley.
       H.R. 2880: Mr. Costa.
       H.R. 2990: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota.
       H.R. 2994: Mr. Altmire.
       H.R. 3047: Mr. Scalise.
       H.R. 3089: Mr. Brown of South Carolina and Mr. Crenshaw.
       H.R. 3094: Ms. Giffords and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
       H.R. 3119: Mr. Wexler, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Hinchey.
       H.R. 3186: Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Ruppersberger, 
     and Ms. DeGette.
       H.R. 3245: Mr. Shays.
       H.R. 3289: Mr. Lynch and Mr. Price of North Carolina.
       H.R. 3329: Mr. McNerney.
       H.R. 3396: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
       H.R. 3406: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
       H.R. 3485: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 3652: Mr. Welch of Vermont and Mr. Loebsack.
       H.R. 3669: Ms. Schwartz.
       H.R. 3679: Mr. Westmoreland.
       H.R. 3689: Mrs. Maloney of New York.
       H.R. 3929: Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 4048: Mr. Alexander.
       H.R. 4061: Mr. Waxman.
       H.R. 4099: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
       H.R. 4126: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Dent, Mr. 
     Keller, Mr. Cuellar, and Ms. DeGette.
       H.R. 4158: Ms. Richardson, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr. 
     Filner, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Bilbray.
       H.R. 4236: Mr. LoBiondo.
       H.R. 4245: Mr. Lamborn.
       H.R. 4269: Mr. Klein of Florida.
       H.R. 4344: Mr. Feeney.
       H.R. 4833: Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Mr. Westmoreland, 
     Mr. Taylor, Mr. Cleaver, and Mr. Shuler.
       H.R. 4900: Mr. Cazayoux.
       H.R. 5160: Mr. McDermott.
       H.R. 5236: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
       H.R. 5267: Mr. Cantor.
       H.R. 5315: Mr. McGovern.
       H.R. 5404: Mr. Waxman, Mr. Markey, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Wu, and 
     Mr. Langevin.
       H.R. 5435: Mr. Becerra and Mr. Salazar.
       H.R. 5465: Mr. Carson.
       H.R. 5488: Mr. Sestak.
       H.R. 5515: Mr. Shays.
       H.R. 5535: Ms. Hirono, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. 
     Markey, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson 
     of Texas, Ms. Sutton, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Mr. 
     Jefferson, Ms. Matsui, and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
       H.R. 5575: Mr. Grijalva.
       H.R. 5583: Ms. Giffords.
       H.R. 5604: Mr. Peterson of Minnesota and Mr. Latham.
       H.R. 5606: Mr. Feeney and Mr. Kagen.
       H.R. 5629: Mr. Pascrell.
       H.R. 5632: Mr. Fortenberry, Mrs. Capps, and Mr. Lincoln 
     Davis of Tennessee.
       H.R. 5652: Mr. Hunter.
       H.R. 5656: Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Gary G. 
     Miller of California, and Mrs. Schmidt.
       H.R. 5674: Mr. Miller of North Carolina.
       H.R. 5731: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky and Mr. Goodlatte.
       H.R. 5737: Mr. Shimkus.
       H.R. 5772: Mr. Sires.
       H.R. 5782: Mr. Dent.
       H.R. 5793: Mr. Klein of Florida.
       H.R. 5838: Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, and 
     Mr. Meeks of New York.
       H.R. 5874: Mrs. Cubin, Mrs. Lowey, and Mr. Latham.
       H.R. 5878: Mr. Latham.
       H.R. 5898: Mr. Grijalva and Ms. Lee.
       H.R. 5910: Mr. McCotter, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Franks of 
     Arizona, and Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
       H.R. 5925: Mr. Crowley, Mr. Payne, Ms. Watson, and Mr. 
     Wexler.
       H.R. 5954: Mr. Holt.
       H.R. 6045: Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Wexler, and Mr. Bishop of New 
     York.
       H.R. 6057: Mr. McNulty.
       H.R. 6064: Mr. Cuellar.
       H.R. 6066: Ms. Waters, Ms. Lee, Mr. Carson, Mr. Sherman, 
     and Mr. Waxman.
       H.R. 6067: Mr. Larsen of Washington.
       H.R. 6076: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
       H.R. 6079: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. McCotter, Mr. 
     Costello, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, and Mr. Frank of 
     Massachusetts.
       H.R. 6089: Ms. Schakowsky.
       H.R. 6091: Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Gallegly, and Mr. 
     Souder.
       H.R. 6100: Mr. George Miller of California.
       H.R. 6108: Mr. Feeney.
       H.R. 6126: Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
       H.R. 6130: Mr. Stearns.
       H.R. 6157: Mr. Carney.
       H.R. 6162: Mr. Udall of Colorado.
       H.R. 6168: Mr. Cleaver.
       H.R. 6169: Mr. Cleaver.
       H.R. 6172: Mr. Bonner and Mr. Davis of Alabama.
       H.R. 6194: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H.R. 6199: Mr. Nadler.
       H.R. 6207: Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, 
     Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. 
     Kingston, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Bartlett 
     of Maryland, and Mr. Gingrey.
       H.R. 6208: Mr. Cleaver.
       H.R. 6209: Mr. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cohen, 
     Mr. Capuano, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Towns, and Mr. 
     Markey.
       H.R. 6210: Mr. Lipinski.
       H.R. 6251: Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr. Space, and Mr. 
     Carney.
       H.R. 6252: Ms. Granger, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mr. 
     McHenry.
       H.R. 6256: Mr. Tierney.
       H.R. 6264: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
       H.R. 6285: Ms. Speier.
       H.R. 6288: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
       H.R. 6292: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
       H.R. 6294: Mr. Miller of Florida, Ms. Corrine Brown of 
     Florida, Mr. Crenshaw, Ms. Castor, Mr. Mahoney of Florida, 
     Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr. Mario 
     Diaz-Balart of Florida.
       H.R. 6297: Ms. Matsui.
       H.R. 6299: Mr. Rothman and Ms. Granger.
       H.R. 6316: Mr. Arcuri, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, 
     Ms. Shea-Porter, Mr. Sires, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Rothman, Mr. 
     Andrews, Mr. Abercrombie, and Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
       H.R. 6321: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
       H.R. 6328: Mr. Dingell.
       H.R. 6330: Mr. Lampson.
       H.R. 6347: Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, and 
     Mr. Oberstar.
       H.R. 6348: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Kingston, 
     and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
       H.R. 6353: Mr. Davis of Illinois.
       H.R. 6368: Mr. Camp of Michigan.
       H.R. 6371: Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Doggett, and Mr. Becerra.
       H.J. Res. 39: Mr. Rogers of Michigan.
       H.J. Res. 50: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
     Michaud, Mr. Shays, and Mr. Inglis of South Carolina.
       H.J. Res. 79: Ms. Norton.
       H.J. Res. 89: Mr. Scalise and Mrs. Musgrave.
       H.J. Res. 91: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts and Mr. Holt.
       H. Con. Res. 81: Mr. Paul.
       H. Con. Res. 214: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
     Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Watson, Mr. Al Green of Texas, 
     and Mr. Cummings.
       H. Con. Res. 276: Mr. Shays.
       H. Con. Res. 284: Mr. Forbes.
       H. Con. Res. 296: Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mrs. Biggert, Mr. 
     Lamborn, Ms. Waters, Mr. Boren, and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of 
     Florida.
       H. Con. Res. 338: Mr. Watt.
       H. Con. Res. 345: Mr. Poe, Ms. Woolsey, Ms. Jackson-Lee of 
     Texas, Mr. Faleomavaega, and Mr. Meeks of New York.
       H. Con. Res. 352: Mr. Andrews.
       H. Con. Res. 356: Mr. Sherman.
       H. Con. Res. 358: Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Boren, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
     Udall of Colorado, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Larsen of Washington, 
     Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Reyes,  Mr. Chabot, Mr. English of 
     Pennsylvania, Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Issa, and Ms. Fallin.
       H. Con. Res. 360: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota and Mr. 
     Conyers.

[[Page 13974]]


       H. Con. Res. 362: Mr. Rehberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Shimkus, 
     Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr. Goodlatte, Ms. Castor, Mr. 
     Altmire, Mr. Filner, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. Weller, Mr. Bishop of 
     Georgia, and Mr. Latham.
       H. Con. Res. 364: Mr. Shays.
       H. Con. Res. 365: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
       H. Con. Res. 380: Mr. Towns and Mrs. Tauscher.
       H. Con. Res. 381: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
       H. Res. 732: Mr. Hill, Ms. Matsui, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Clay, 
     Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. 
     Courtney, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr. Baca, Mr. Hall of New York, 
     Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Berry, Mr. 
     Childers, Mr. Ross, Ms. Harman, Ms. woolsey, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. 
     McDermott, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Emanuel, Mr. 
     Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Ellison, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Waxman, 
     Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. DeGette, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Clarke, Ms. 
     Hooley, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Sires, Ms. Eshoo, Mr. Cazayoux, 
     Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Welch of Vermont, Mr. Issa, 
     Mr. Rothman, Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Saxton, Mr. 
     Perlmutter, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Carson, Ms. 
     Jackson-Lee of Texas, Ms. Edwards of Maryland, and Mr. 
     Cramer.
       H. Res. 758: Mrs. Drake.
       H. Res. 906: Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. 
     Reyes, and Mr. Wolf.
       H. Res. 1006: Mr. Kanjorski and Mr. Wilson of Ohio.
       H. Res. 1008: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
       H. Res. 1012: Mr. Johnson of Illinois.
       H. Res. 1017: Mr. Honda, Ms. Norton, Mr. Moore of Kansas, 
     and Mr. Cleaver.
       H. Res. 1045: Mr. Honda and Mr. Grijalva.
       H. Res. 1111: Mr. Kanjorski.
       H. Res. 1140: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
       H. Res. 1179: Mr. Gordon.
       H. Res. 1227: Mrs. Capps.
       H. Res. 1232: Mr. Costello, Mrs. Maloney of New York, and 
     Mr. McDermott.
       H. Res. 1246: Mr. Schiff, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez 
     of California, Ms. Sutton, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Carson.
       H. Res. 1248: Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. 
     Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. 
     Everett.
       H. Res. 1255: Mr. Taylor, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. McHugh, Mr. 
     Hunter, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Everett, Mr. 
     Bishop of Utah, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Shuster, Mr. Hayes, Mr. 
     Wittman of Virginia, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Bartlett of 
     Maryland, Mr. LoBiondo, Ms. Fallin, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Daniel 
     E. Lungren of California, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. 
     Calvert, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Carter, Mr. McCarthy of 
     California, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Snyder, 
     Mr. Akin, and Mr. Abercrombie.
       H. Res. 1266: Mr. Cleaver and Mr. Doyle.
       H. Res. 1273: Mr. Langevin.
       H. Res. 1278: Mrs. Myrick.
       H. Res. 1287: Mr. Sestak, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
     Florida, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Boustany, and Mr. Camp 
     of Michigan.
       H. Res. 1290: Ms. Waters.
       H. Res. 1296: Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Sestak, and Mr. 
     Etheridge.
       H. Res. 1301: Mr. Fattah, Mr. Dreier, Ms. Tsongas, Mr. 
     Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. McGovern, Mr. 
     Hinchey, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Olver, Mr. Jones of 
     North Carolina, and Mr. Calvert.
       H. Res. 1302: Mr. Boehner, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Coble, Mr. 
     Chabot, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. 
     Space, Mr. Ross, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Mahoney of 
     Florida, Mr. Terry, Mr. Linder, Mr. Patrick Murphy of 
     Pennsylvania, and Mr. Lamborn.

                          ____________________




         DELETION OF SPONSORS FROM PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

       H.R. 5353: Mr. Carson.
       H.R. 6264: Mrs. Boyda of Kansas.

                          ____________________




                            PETITIONS, ETC.

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

       285. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the Screen Actors 
     Guild, relative to a Resolution requesting proclamation on 
     behalf of the State of California on the celebration of the 
     Screen Actors Guild's 75th Anniversary; to the Committee on 
     Oversight and Government Reform.
       286. Also, a petition of the Citrus County Board of County 
     Commissioners, Florida, relative to Resolution No. 2008-069 
     requiring that American flags manufactured in the United 
     States, be flown at all Citrus County government facilities; 
     to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
       287. Also, a petition of the Council of the City of 
     Tehachapi, California, relative to Resolution No. 07-08 
     urging the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the 
     original and historic view of the Second Amendment in its 
     full and complete meaning; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________




                          DISCHARGE PETITIONS

  Under clause 2 of rule XV, the following discharge petitions were 
filed:

       Petition 10, June 24, 2008, by Mr. JOHN R. ``RANDY'' KUHL, 
     Jr. on H.R. 5656, was signed by the following Members: John 
     R. ``Randy'' Kuhl Jr., Doug Lamborn, David Davis, Robert E. 
     Latta, Joseph R. Pitts, Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Ron Paul, 
     Michael T. McCaul, John Kline, Randy Neugebauer, Lynn A. 
     Westmoreland, Wally Herger, Patrick J. Tiberi, John Linder, 
     Todd Tiahrt, Terry Everett, Phil English, Steve Chabot, Frank 
     D. Lucas, Trent Franks, Patrick T. McHenry, Tom Cole, Lamar 
     Smith, Kenny Marchant, Geoff Davis, Joe Wilson, Howard P. 
     ``Buck'' McKeon, Ken Calvert, John B. Shadegg, Peter J. 
     Roskam, Jim Jordan, Daniel E. Lungren, Jo Ann Emerson, Sam 
     Johnson, Phil Gingrey, K. Michael Conaway, Cathy McMorris 
     Rodgers, Tim Walberg, John J. Hall, Mario Diaz-Balart, 
     Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Marsha Blackburn, Dennis R. Rehberg, 
     Rodney Alexander, Paul C. Broun, Jean Schmidt, Pete Sessions, 
     Jeff Miller, Jeff Flake, Todd Russell Platts, Mike Rogers, 
     Jeb Hensarling, Darrell E. Issa, Judy Biggert, John L. Mica, 
     Tom Price, John E. Peterson, John Abney Culberson, Tom 
     Latham, Jack Kingston, Mary Fallin, Mike Ferguson, Candice S. 
     Miller, Ginny Brown-Waite, Kay Granger, Michael C. Burgess, 
     Thelma D. Drake, Joe Barton, Mike Pence, Thomas M. Reynolds, 
     Ric Keller, Henry E. Brown, Jr., Nathan Deal, Dave Camp, 
     Harold Rogers, Jim McCrery, Duncan Hunter, Roy Blunt, Jerry 
     Weller, Eric Cantor, Thaddeus G. McCotter, Spencer Bachus, 
     Greg Walden, Gus M. Bilirakis, Fred Upton, Vito Fossella, 
     Donald A. Manzullo, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Dean Heller, 
     Dan Burton, Virgil H. Goode, Jr., John Shimkus, Tom Davis, 
     Marilyn N. Musgrave, Roscoe G. Bartlett, Bill Shuster, 
     Charles W. Dent, James T. Walsh, J. Gresham Barrett, Lee 
     Terry, Scott Garrett, Howard Coble, Bill Sali, John M. 
     McHugh, W. Todd Akin, Adrian Smith, Kevin McCarthy, Jo 
     Bonner, John A. Boehner, Ander Crenshaw, Joe Knollenberg, 
     John T. Doolittle, Tom Feeney, John Campbell, John R. Carter, 
     John Boozman, Steve King, Jon C. Porter, Ted Poe, Sue Wilkins 
     Myrick, Peter T. King, Virginia Foxx, Adam H. Putnam, and 
     Deborah Pryce.
       Petition 11, June 24, 2008, by Mr. THOMAS G. TANCREDO on 
     House Resolution 1240, was signed by the following Members: 
     Thomas G. Tancredo and Jean Schmidt.

                          ____________________




              DISCHARGE PETITIONS--ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS

  The following Members added their names to the following discharge 
petitions:

       Petition 3 by Mr. PENCE on House Resolution 694: Timothy V. 
     Johnson.
       Petition 4 by Mr. ADERHOLT on H.R. 3584: Trent Franks.
       Petition 5 by Mrs. DRAKE on H.R. 4088: Timothy V. Johnson.
       Petition 6 by Mr. BOUSTANY, Jr. on House Resolution 1025: 
     Pete Sessions.
       Petition 8 by Mr. WALBERG on H.R. 3089: Don Young, Thomas 
     G. Tancredo, Jeff Flake, and Mike Rogers.
       Petition 9 by Mr. ENGLISH on H.R. 2279: Rob Bishop, Trent 
     Franks, and Michael N. Castle.
     
     



[[Page 13975]]


                     SENATE--Thursday, June 26, 2008

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

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
  Let us pray.
  God of our hopes and dreams, from whom all blessings flow, thank You 
for Your presence and sustaining power. Strengthen our lawmakers during 
the rigorous demands of their day. Lord, manifest Your presence and 
inspire them with Your unchanging love. Help them to remember that 
greater than the leverage of force is the power of love. Remind them 
that love can mold wills, penetrate lives, and overcome obstacles. 
Lord, make our Senators instruments of Your peace and love in a hurting 
nation and world. Enable them to say with the Psalmist: ``Test me, O 
Lord, and try me, examine my heart and my mind, for Your love is ever 
before me, and I walk continually in Your truth.''
  We pray in Your loving Name. Amen.

                          ____________________




                          PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  The Honorable Mark L. Pryor 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 26, 2008.
     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to 
     perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                   Robert C. Byrd,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. PRYOR 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 leader remarks, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 
FISA.
  Earlier this week, we were able to work out an agreement to consider 
two district court judges today. The Judiciary Committee is going to 
meet today to consider other judges, but we now have two we are going 
to approve sometime today, and they are William T. Lawrence of Indiana 
and G. Murray Snow of Arizona. When the Senate considers the 
nominations, there will be an hour for debate, equally divided and 
controlled, prior to the votes on confirmation of the nominations. 
These votes will occur sometime during the day. The second vote will be 
10 minutes in duration.
  Mr. President, I guess we have to learn from our experiences in life, 
and I try to do that. I was thinking, coming to work here today, what 
have I had that is comparable to what we have been doing here this 
week? And the best I could come up with is, when I was a boy, I would 
go with my dad and my family to gather wood. We would go up these 
washes, desert washes, and in these washes grows what we call cat's 
claw mesquite. That is the only place it grows, in these washes, the 
reason being that the seeds only germinate when they are pulverized, 
pounded down these washes. So we would go down there in a pickup--four-
wheel drives did not exist or rarely existed at the time--and 
invariably we would get stuck in the sand. Those back tires would 
spin--one of them especially--and sometimes it would take a long time. 
Those tires would spin. That vehicle was going a thousand miles an hour 
but moving nowhere. But as the day and time progressed, we would put 
brush under the tires and the rocks, and we would get out eventually.
  Well, that is kind of where we are today in the Senate. All week 
long, we have been stuck in the sand, spinning our wheels. This is 
Thursday, and Thursday can be a magical day in the Senate, but it is 
not automatic. It is not automatically a magical day. We have many 
things to do to, in effect, stop spinning our wheels. We have four 
major pieces of legislation that need to be considered before we can 
leave for the Fourth of July recess.
  FISA. I received a call this morning from the majority leader in the 
House, Leader Hoyer, and he--a lot of people are responsible for 
getting this bill to this point, but I think all would acknowledge that 
his work on this was instrumental--and he, of course, would like us to 
finish this as quickly as possible. We are currently considering the 
motion to proceed to FISA. That is the legislative matter now before 
this body. I hope and I am convinced that we will be able to work out 
an agreement to move action on this bill.
  Housing. Yesterday, the Senate overwhelmingly voted for the Dodd-
Shelby bipartisan agreement. So it is not a matter of whether but when 
the housing legislation will pass the Senate. I hope we can reach an 
agreement before the end of the day as to how this bill is going to be 
finished. If we don't, I will just have to look for another opportunity 
to file cloture and this bill will be completed. As I have indicated to 
a number of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, as we proved 
yesterday, when we have an opportunity, we can move legislation. There 
was agreement made on amendments, there was compromise on those 
amendments, and that is what will happen as we proceed down the road. I 
know there is an issue dealing with whether one Senator can offer an 
amendment to have the extenders not paid for. That won't happen on this 
bill. Those who want to do that can do it on some other vehicle, but 
that won't happen on the housing legislation.
  The supplemental. I hope we can reach agreement today to complete 
action on this bill that was passed by the House overwhelmingly--the 
House got 355 on that piece of legislation, with just a handful of 
votes against it. It was truly a piece of legislation that was 
important to be done. I am sorry, that was not the number on that, Mr. 
President, but it was passed overwhelmingly, the supplemental, and we 
need to do it here.
  This bill includes the GI Bill of Rights, and it includes an 
unemployment insurance extension, which people are waiting for us to do 
today and the President to sign the bill. There are, of course, other 
domestic priorities, not the least of which is on the Medicaid 
regulations. Every Senator has received calls from their Governor about 
the importance of these Medicaid regulations. Passage of this bill will 
be a victory for the American people, and it is one of those rare 
instances where we have, as I have said on the floor in recent days, 
worked with the President, and he has worked with us, and we have a 
bill he is going to sign without any question.
  Medicare. That is the bill that passed by a vote of 355 to 59 in the 
House. It is an extremely important piece of legislation. We have to 
complete that before we leave here. If we don't do it before July 1, 
everyone knows--well,

[[Page 13976]]

when I walked out of my office, the head of the American Medical 
Association was there saying: Pass the bill the House passed. She is 
over there. She is a physician from Buffalo, NY, and she said it is one 
of the most important things we could do to help the health care 
delivery system in this country. The AARP yesterday came out for this 
legislation.
  It is an extremely important piece of legislation. The bill is 
similar to the one drafted by Senators Baucus and Grassley earlier this 
month that every Senate Democrat and nine Senate Republicans voted for. 
It represents the only chance this body has to head off cuts to doctors 
before they take effect at the end of this month. So we either will get 
an agreement today to pass the Medicare doctors fix or, when I have an 
opportunity, which will probably be after midnight tonight, to file 
cloture on that. If that is the case--and I can't do that before 
midnight--then that will mean a weekend cloture vote. So we have to do 
that. We have no alternative. Everyone wants to go everyplace because 
the Fourth of July break is coming, but we can't do that until we 
complete that. I hope that can be worked out as soon as possible.
  I am optimistic that this is going to be a productive day in the 
Senate, but I am also realistic that it may not be. Magic can happen, 
as I have indicated, when we work together here in the Senate. On 
Thursdays, a lot of that magic occurs, but it does not mean it is going 
to happen automatically. I hope it is not a continuation of being stuck 
in the sand and those wheels are spinning and spinning. I hope we can 
get something done for the American people today.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.

                          ____________________




                                  FISA

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, last April the Director of National 
Intelligence, ADM Mike McConnell, warned Congress about a serious flaw 
in the laws that govern our Nation's terror-fighting capabilities. New 
technologies had made our old electronic surveillance program 
dangerously out of date, he said, causing us to miss substantial 
amounts of vital intelligence on foreign terror suspects overseas.
  In reaction to these concerns, the Senate passed and the President 
signed a temporary measure, the Protect America Act. The Protect 
America Act lived up to its name. We are told that from the time of its 
passage last August until its expiration in February, it allowed us to 
collect significant intelligence on terrorists and has been critical in 
protecting the United States from harm. But the Protect America Act had 
a signal failure: the telecom companies that may have helped prevent 
terrorist attacks were not protected from potentially crippling 
lawsuits. This was no small thing since without these companies, 
America wouldn't even have an effective surveillance program. 
Bankrupting the telecoms would be like outlawing fire hydrants--you 
could have the best firetrucks and the best firemen in the world, but 
you would still be incapable of putting out fires.
  So after several months of new negotiations, the House finally 
devised and approved last week a revision of the original surveillance 
law that addresses the DNI's major concerns, including the important 
telecom protection. As the DNI put it in a recent letter endorsing the 
House-passed bill:

       This bill would provide the intelligence community with the 
     tools it needs to collect the foreign intelligence necessary 
     to secure our Nation while protecting the civil liberties of 
     Americans. The bill would also provide the necessary legal 
     protections for those companies sued because they are 
     believed to have helped the government prevent terrorist 
     attacks in the aftermath of September 11. Because this bill 
     accomplishes these two goals, essential to any effort to 
     modernize FISA, we strongly support passage and will 
     recommend the President sign it.

  That is the Director of National Intelligence.
  Passage of this legislation is long overdue. When the Protect America 
Act expired in February, the DNI warned Democratic leaders in the House 
once again about the need for an updated law. Yet House Democrats were 
evidently more concerned about the pressure they were getting from left 
wing groups such as moveon.org. They brushed the DNI's warnings aside 
and refused to take up and pass a bipartisan Senate-passed compromise 
bill that would have easily cleared the House. As a result of 
Democratic intransigence, our intelligence community has been 
handicapped in its ability to acquire new terrorist targets overseas. 
This was grossly irresponsible, and many of us said so at the time.
  Now more than a year after the DNI made his initial plea, House 
Democrats have finally done the right thing. They have acted on the 
DNI's warnings by passing an updated surveillance law that meets his 
original criteria and which meets the criteria Republicans laid out 
during last year's debate--namely, one that gives the intelligence 
community the tools it needs to protect us, which doesn't put the 
telecom companies that made this program possible out of business, and 
which would get a Presidential signature.
  Now it is time for the Senate to take up this bill and pass it 
without any further delay. The bill isn't perfect. I would have 
preferred for the Speaker to allow a vote on the Senate-passed FISA 
bill. But it does meet the DNI's criteria, and therefore its passage 
will mark a serious achievement, though long overdue, in the interest 
of our national security.
  This hard-fought bill represents the epitome of compromise. The 
senior Senator from Missouri should be singled out for his outstanding 
work on this most important piece of legislation. He has done a service 
to the Senate and to the Nation by patiently working all of this out 
over the course of more than a year.
  He was assisted in that effort by very able staff. Louis Tucker, Jack 
Livingston, and Kathleen Rice were invaluable throughout the process, 
to every Senator who was involved in this extremely important debate. 
They also deserve our thanks.
  I will support this bill for all the reasons I have mentioned and 
urge my colleagues to do the same. We must pass this before leaving 
town and not allow it to be held up by yet another Democratic 
filibuster.

                          ____________________




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES


                         SERGEANT TATJANA REED

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a brave woman, 
mother and soldier who has fallen. On July 22, 2004, SGT Tatjana Reed 
was tragically killed when an improvised explosive device detonated 
near her vehicle during combat operations in Samarra, Iraq.
  Born half a world away, Sergeant Reed came to call Fort Campbell, KY 
her home. She was 34 years old.
  For her bravery in service, she received numerous medals, awards and 
decorations, including the Bronze Star Medal and the Purple Heart.
  Born and raised in Germany, Sergeant Reed chose to make America her 
own, and she chose to enlist in the U.S. Army to protect it.
  To hear Tatjana's younger sister, Rebecca Milliner, describe their 
time together as children, growing up in Germany sounds little 
different from growing up in America.
  ``She had to drag her little sister along to hang out with her 
friends,'' Rebecca recalls. But ``she never complained about having to 
take me with her.''
  Tatjana graduated from high school in Germany, then later came to 
America as a young woman in 1991 and graduated from basic training in 
February of that year. The Army proved to be Tatjana's path to 
embracing both a new country and a new mission in life.
  ``She loved the Army,'' says Tatjana's mother, Brigitte Dykty, who 
also came to America from Germany around the same time as her daughter.
  Brigitte remembers that before Tatjana left for Iraq, her daughter 
``told me not to worry for her,'' she says. Tatjana reassured her 
mother by saying, ``It's my job.''
  Tatjana became an emergency medic and was stationed at Fort Knox, KY. 
The Bluegrass State became her new home. In 1993, she transferred to 
Fort

[[Page 13977]]

Campbell, and also spent time in Kosovo. In August of 1998, she became 
an American citizen.
  But perhaps the greatest gift in Tatjana's life was her daughter, 
Genevieve, who tucked a framed photo of herself into Tatjana's bags as 
a gift to her mom when she went to Iraq.
  By the time she was deployed to Iraq, Tatjana was assigned to the 
66th Transportation Company, based out of Kaiserslautern, in her native 
Germany, and served as a heavy-wheeled vehicle operator. At a memorial 
service for Tatjana, her fellow soldiers described the joy of working 
with her.
  ``When I first came to the 66th, Sergeant Reed was the first person I 
met,'' says Private First Class Melissa Cramblett. ``She took me under 
her wing. She was a good person, a good [non-commissioned officer,] and 
she cared a lot for us.''
  Other soldiers described a caring woman who was a mother figure to 
the younger troops under her care. She translated German for the 
soldiers communicating with the locals, and brewed a strong cup of 
coffee that became the soldiers' favorite.
  ``She was an exceptional woman,'' says SSG Agustin Sarmiento. ``There 
were no other words to describe her. She was a real tender, loving, 
caring person. She cared for soldiers.''
  The compassion Tatjana showed for the people around her was not new. 
A story her sister, Rebecca, shared with me illustrates that.
  When I was eight or nine I was rushed to the hospital to have my 
appendix removed,'' Rebecca says. ``I was scared because I never had to 
stay in a hospital before. I remember waking up from the surgery and 
opening my eyes and looking at my sister. She said, `How are you 
doing?' She started joking with me, so I would forget about my pain.
  ``She was at the hospital with me every day. That is when she became 
my hero.''
  Tatjana always called her daughter Genevieve ``her little soldier,'' 
and so at Tatjana's funeral, Genevieve did not cry. To remain her 
mother's little soldier, she said she would cry when she was alone.
  Tatjana's passing leaves a hole in the lives of those who knew her 
that cannot be filled. We are thinking of her mother Brigitte Dykty; 
her daughter Genevieve Reed; her sister Rebecca Milliner; her brother 
Torsten Wissmann; her stepfather Joseph Dykty; and many other beloved 
family members and friends.
  Rebecca still remembers the shock of hearing the tragic news. ``My 
sister was gone just like that,'' she says.
  ``The one good thing that came out of it [is] she now is a hero to 
millions of people and not just to me.''
  Rebecca and her family can rest assured that this Senate does indeed 
recognize SGT Tatjana Reed as a hero. And now, her adopted country will 
forever adopt her, as a brave patriot who made the greatest sacrifice 
for her Nation.
  Mr. President, in Kentucky today a family mourns the loss of a hero 
and patriot. SGT William G. Bowling was tragically killed on April 1, 
2007, when an improvised explosive device detonated near his vehicle as 
he was on patrol outside Baghdad. Sergeant Bowling hailed from 
Beattyville, KY, and he was 24 years old.
  He received several awards, medals and decorations for his valor, 
including the Army Commendation Medal, the National Defense Service 
Medal, and the Purple Heart.
  ``This is the job he wanted to do,'' says his wife, Jennifer, about 
her husband's service. ``He wanted to serve his country. . . . He 
really believed in what he was doing in Iraq.''
  In fact, this was Will's second tour of duty in Iraq. He was serving 
as a military police officer assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters 
Company, 2nd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 
10th Mountain Division, based out of Fort Drum, NY. Will enlisted in 
the Army in 2003 and then reenlisted in 2005.
  The year of his first enlistment, 2003, was an important one for 
another reason. That year, Will had a job at Affiliated Computer 
Services, where he got to meet a young woman named Jennifer.
  Their first date was on Groundhog Day; they went to see a movie. As 
he and Jennifer grew closer, he described for her his desire to join 
the Army.
  ``He was at a point in his life where he just felt like he needed to 
enlist,'' Jennifer recalls. ``He thought about joining right after 9/
11, and he thought about it some more after that. It was just something 
he thought he needed to do.
  ``I knew something could happen,'' she adds. ``But I supported him.''
  Will and Jennifer fell in love, and they were married on July 23, 
2003, in Richmond, KY. On the very next day, Will reported for Army 
training.
  Will served as an infantryman when he first enlisted, training at 
Fort Benning, GA, then reporting to Fort Drum. He was deployed on his 
first tour in Iraq in 2004 and reenlisted while on tour in 2005. Upon 
returning home, he trained at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, in 2005 and 2006 
to become an MP.
  Deployed on his second Iraqi tour in August 2006, Will patrolled the 
streets of Baghdad, and was part of a crew that found and detonated 
explosives before they could harm other soldiers or civilians.
  Looking ahead, Will and Jennifer saw a happy life together. He 
thought of joining the Kentucky State Police and building a house for 
his family in Beattyville.
  That family included Will and Jennifer's two beautiful daughters, 
Hannah Katheryn and Allyson Peyton. Sadly, Will never got to lay eyes 
on his younger daughter Allyson, who was born the day after his 
funeral.
  ``I sent him lots of pictures of the girls,'' Jennifer remembers. He 
``was very devoted to me and our daughters. [He] couldn't wait to 
return . . . and was extremely excited about the birth of the new 
baby.''
  Hannah and Allyson will not get to learn firsthand how their father 
loved the Indianapolis Colts and that his favorite player was Peyton 
Manning. In fact, that is where Allyson gets her middle name.
  They'll miss hearing their father talk about his love of NASCAR and 
his favorite drivers, Dale Earnhardt and Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Will 
would even say half-jokingly that he wanted to be a driver someday.
  ``For our second anniversary, he got to go to the Kentucky Speedway 
to participate in the Richard Petty Driving Experience,'' says 
Jennifer. ``He was so excited and had such a great time that day. I can 
still see the smile on his face. ``
  Will liked to have water gun fights with his nephews, build things 
out of Legos and play a few video games. He enjoyed the bands U2 and 
the Foo Fighters and the comedian Dane Cook. And together, he and 
Jennifer would walk their dogs--Oreo, a Siberian Husky, and Java, a 
German Shepherd.
  ``He was just an outstanding, respectable man,'' says Jennifer. He 
``could be quiet at times, [but] loved to smile and laugh.''
  Will was the kind of man who collected many friends. Hundreds of 
people filled the Booneville Funeral Home to say their goodbyes, and to 
recognize his bravery in fighting for such an important cause. I was 
honored to be able to write a eulogy for Will, which was read at the 
service.
  Our prayers go out to Will's beloved friends and family members 
today. We are thinking of his wife Jennifer Evans Bowling; his 
daughters Hannah Katheryn and Allyson Peyton Bowling; his father, Adam 
Miller; his mother Kathleen Bowling; his parents-in-law James and Cathy 
Evans; his brother-and sister-in-law Jim and Roxanne Evans; his nephews 
Michael and Wesley Evans; his grandparents Chester Terry and Francis 
Bowling; his grandmother-in-law Katheryn Holloway, and many others. 
Will's grandfather-in-law, Frank Holloway, has also passed away.
  Will also served alongside many brave soldiers in the Army, forging 
friendships that lasted a lifetime and beyond. We are thinking of SGT 
Billy Messer, SP Travis Tysinger, SGT Brian Marshall, SSG Billy 
Thompson, SGT Stephen Tucker, and SGT Arthur Briggs.
  The town of Beattyville has honored Will by engraving his name on a 
memorial wall that is erected downtown.

[[Page 13978]]

That's an appropriate way to remember Will as a soldier and a hero.
  His wife Jennifer plans her own way of remembering Will as a husband, 
a father, and a man.
  ``I've bought a farm and I'm going to build a house exactly as we had 
planned,'' she says. ``I will display his die-cast cars . . . and will 
put his Army memorials on display.''
  This Senate will remember SGT William G. Bowling for his life of 
service, and his enormous sacrifice. We honor his heroism in defending 
his family and his country. And we will not forget the example he has 
set for all of us--not least, his two young daughters.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6327

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of H.R. 6327--this matter was received from the 
House earlier further, that a Baucus substitute amendment at the desk 
which is a 3-month FAA extension and a highway trust fund fix be agreed 
to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the 
motions to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DeMINT. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is 
recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. I am very supportive of the aviation bill. I do think it 
is inappropriate to add $8 billion of unrelated spending without debate 
or amendment, so I regretfully have to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am wondering while my friend is on the 
floor, the highway trust fund, according to the States, is upside down. 
There is not enough money in it. With the construction season upon us 
for renovation and repair of streets, highways, and bridges, I say to 
my friend: Would any smaller amount of money be satisfactory, say, $6 
billion?
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I appreciate the question from the leader. 
I think again it is inappropriate to make a decision on whether it is 
$6 billion or whatever the figure is. Only a couple of months ago we 
were all here on a technical correction bill. We had the opportunity to 
take a lot of money that was saved from projects that were not needed. 
We talked at the time on this floor about the fact that the trust fund 
was short. But instead of taking that savings and putting it back in 
the trust fund, we used it to add additional earmarks and to put more 
money into projects that were there. So there has been no intent by 
this body to try to look at the problem with the trust fund. Certainly 
it is something we need to deal with but not as part of the aviation 
bill.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am disappointed but not nearly as 
disappointed as 50 Governors. This is a situation where the highways of 
this country are in desperate need of repair and construction.
  With the economy faltering, as it is, and the housing market 
stumbling, this would be a tremendous help. For the $6 billion, it 
would create about 300,000 jobs--300 thousand. For every billion 
dollars we spend, it creates about 47,500 high-paying jobs. The spinoff 
from those jobs is significant.
  This would be vitally important to give our economy a little shot in 
the arm. So I am disappointed my friend has objected.
  We are going to have to continue to work to try to replenish that 
trust fund. The trust fund is not adequately funded because of the fact 
that people are not traveling as much. They are not buying enough fuel 
at least to fill the trust fund. The price of gasoline, when President 
Bush took office, was $1.46, $1.47. Now it is an average of about $4.12 
a gallon.
  We have real problems around the country. When gas was at $1.47, the 
same tax came into the coffers to fill this fund. So it is an issue, 
and I would say to my friend, the technical corrections bill was just 
that, it was to take care of other things that were essentially needed 
at that time.

                          ____________________




         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6327.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows.

       A bill (H.R. 6327) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times 
and passed; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 6327) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.

                          ____________________




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3661

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of Calendar No. 836, H.R. 3661, an act to extend the 
expiring Medicare provisions; that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with 
no intervening action or debate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is 
obviously a great need to correct the problem of what will occur if we 
do not fix the doctors' reimbursement schedule.
  But there are also more ways to do this than one, and the one that is 
being proposed is the House-passed bill by the majority leader. We 
would suggest that since the Senate should be heard on this matter and 
have the opportunity to put its ideas on the table, Senator Grassley 
and Senator Baucus should have a chance to work on the Senate proposal; 
that we would rather proceed with an extension of the present Medicare 
provisions so doctors are not subject to a reduction in reimbursement 
for 30 days and allow this to happen.
  I will be required to object to this on behalf of the leadership over 
here and myself. Then I would like the courtesy of the majority leader 
to ask unanimous consent for a 30-day extension.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I say to my friend, this legislation passed 
the House by a huge bipartisan vote--359, as I recall, House Members 
voted for this.
  Now, as far as putting the stamp of the Senate on this bill, we have 
already done that. We passed a bill. We had every Democrat and nine 
Republicans. That is basically what the House has sent back to us--that 
matter we took a look at earlier.
  I say that the chairman of the committee, Senator Baucus, is 100 
percent behind this request I have, as is the AARP, the AMA, and many 
support groups around the country. That is now in the Record. We put 
that in the Record yesterday.
  So this is something we have to do. I would say to my friend, on the 
30-day extension, I understand the seriousness of his proposal. I have 
said many times on this floor, I will not repeat it in detail, I have 
the greatest respect for the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. 
But it is my understanding that there has been an objection to my 
proposal, and he will go ahead and offer the 30-day extension, to which 
I will object.
  I will be happy to seriously consider it but not too seriously.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of a 30-day

[[Page 13979]]

Medicare extension that is at the desk; that it be read a third time 
and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  I think the point is, there are serious reservations on our side of 
the aisle, and I think legitimately other places, on the way the House 
has handled elements of the Medicare system in this bill and that is to 
undermine the ability of many seniors to participate in what is known 
as Medicare Advantage.
  We think there is a better way to do it. We think the Senate can do a 
better job of this bill, and we think 30 days to work on it makes some 
sense.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________




                       RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

                          ____________________




             FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 6304, 
which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 827, H.R. 6304, an Act to 
     amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to 
     establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of 
     foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank our leaders for getting us on this 
very important bill.
  As we have discussed before, the failure to modernize and authorize 
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last summer has caused 
serious gaps in our intelligence capability.
  When the Protect America Act that was introduced by our Republican 
leader, Senator McConnell, and me last year finally passed, we put the 
intelligence community back in the business of intercepting critical 
intelligence communications from foreign terrorists talking to each 
other about possible activities in the United States, or against our 
troops and our allies elsewhere, and obviously any of those who were 
threatening the United States.
  I can tell you, without going into detail, that the foreign 
intelligence collection from these has been about the most valuable 
piece of information we have with respect to terrorist intent. So I 
appreciate the fact that this body is ready to move forward.
  I hope we will have a way forward to get it done by the time we leave 
for the Fourth of July recess. It is critical we get this done 
promptly. If we go into late July or even into August without getting 
it done, serious consequences will start to impact our ability to 
collect intelligence.
  Again, I thank our minority leader, Senator McConnell, for his kind 
words, especially about my very capable staff who have worked very 
hard, not only to help put this bill together, but we have briefed 
Members of both sides of the aisle, their staffs. We have spent a lot 
of time doing that.
  Of course, as I outlined yesterday, we spent a very long 2\1/2\ 
months working with the House. As I indicated, the bill this body 
passed, the FISA amendments, we passed 68 to 29 in February with the 
good, strong support of the chairman of the committee, Senator 
Rockefeller. We worked on a bipartisan basis. We worked with and 
listened to the intelligence community to do several things that were 
critical.
  No. 1, we wished to make sure there was protection for the privacy 
and constitutional rights of Americans and U.S. persons here and 
abroad. For the first time, we included that. We also needed to protect 
the telephone companies or carriers who have participated in the 
terrorist surveillance program under the lawful orders issued by the 
President, under his constitutional authority in article II, an act in 
good faith by those carriers.
  We provided that immunity, or retroactive liability protection, more 
accurately, that was critical to ensuring that they can continue to 
participate. They are loyal American citizens, and they wanted to be 
able to help. But when frivolous lawsuits, seeking billions of dollars 
in damages, are filed against them, whether they participated or not, 
and there is no assurance that any telephone company so sued has 
participated. They cannot use a defense that they did not participate. 
They have to have protection.
  We built in that protection in a way that was acceptable to both 
sides in this body in the FISA amendments and also satisfied the 
concerns of the majority party in the House, which, as Leader McConnell 
said, had the votes, if they had wished to pass our FISA amendments.
  We believe this new bill we are considering, H.R. 6304, which passed 
the House with a strong majority vote of 293 to 129 last Friday, should 
be passed here.
  As with the Senate's original FISA bill passed several months ago, 
the compromise that is before us required a little give-and-take from 
all sides. But, in essence, what we have before us today is basically 
the Senate bill all over again.
  I am aware that some on the far left wish to paint this as some 
radical new legislation. But if you read the language, it is not 
different. The press picked up on this straight away last week and kept 
asking me to help them find the purported ``big changes'' in this bill 
that no one can find. I have not been much help to them because the 
answer is, there is not much that is significantly different, save some 
cosmetic fixes that were requested by the majority party in the House.
  For example, I am pleased that the strong retroactive liability 
protections that the Senate bill offered are still in place, and our 
vital intelligence sources and methods will be safeguarded. I am 
pleased this compromise preserves the ability of the intelligence 
community to collect foreign intelligence quickly and in exigent 
circumstances without any prior court review.
  I am also pleased the 2012 sunset, 3 years longer than the sunset 
previously offered in any House bill, will give our intelligence 
collectors and those parties we need to have cooperate with us the 
certainty they need in the tools they use to keep us safe.
  I am confident the few changes we made to the Senate bill in H.R. 
6304 will in no way diminish the intelligence community's ability to 
target terrorists overseas, and the Director of National Intelligence 
and the Attorney General agreed. That had to be the test. They worked 
with us. They made compromises. When we had a proposal for additional 
protections for Americans, they agreed. But we had to work out the 
language to make sure we provided protections without destroying the 
basic integrity of the bill.
  I believe we did that. We did that with the Senate bill, and we did 
it again with the minor changes the House wanted to make.
  Let me address, for the time being, the banner issue of the 
legislation, which is Congress's affirmation that the telecom providers 
that may have assisted the Government after 9/11 should have the 
frivolous lawsuits against them dismissed.
  I am confident in the standard of review in title II of the bill on 
which we agreed with Congressman Hoyer and Congressman Blunt, his 
counterpart in the House, namely, a ``substantial evidence'' standard, 
which will ensure that those companies that assisted the Government 
following the September 11 terrorist attacks obtain the civil 
retroactive liability protection they deserve.
  Unlike the amendment we defeated in the Senate that asked for the 
court to determine whether the providers acted in ``good faith,'' we 
affirm in this legislation, as we did in the previous Senate bill, that 
the providers did act in good faith, and that the lawsuits shall be 
dismissed unless the judge finds that the Attorney General's actions 
were not ``supported by substantial evidence.''
  The focus is on the Attorney General's certification to the court, 
not

[[Page 13980]]

the actions of the providers. We know the providers operated in good 
faith, and they deserve liability protection. We are allowing, however, 
the court to review the Attorney General's role in that.
  Another way to describe it is that we have essentially provided the 
district court with an appellate standard of review, just as we did in 
the Senate bill. Congress affirms in this legislation that the lawsuits 
will be dismissed, but then we give the district court an opportunity 
to change that outcome if the judge determines the Attorney General's 
certification was not supported by ``substantial evidence'' based on 
the information the Attorney General will provide to the court. So the 
intent of Congress is clear: the companies deserve liability 
protections. That principle has been approved overwhelmingly on a 
bipartisan basis in both the Senate when we adopted our bill in 
February and the House when it adopted its bill last Friday.
  Also, there are clear limits on what documents the court may review 
and the extent to which parties may participate in legal arguments. 
Because of these important limitations, I am confident that neither the 
standard of review nor the court processes will jeopardize liability 
protections or our intelligence sources and methods. Thus, Congress is 
again positively reaffirming that these companies should have the 
lawsuits dismissed.
  Mr. President, for the record, I thank publicly these providers--and 
they know who they are--who came to our Nation's defense in a time of 
national peril. Thank you for ensuring that our Government could keep 
Americans safe. Thank you for withstanding years of frivolous lawsuits 
that you did not deserve. But, unfortunately, that has been your 
penalty for your patriotism. You are a big factor in why America has 
not been hit with another terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. 
You helped keep us safe for nearly 7 years since that terrible day, and 
you did so without legal relief. I thank you, and those who stand with 
me today thank you. The least we can do in Congress is to provide you 
with the legal protections you so rightly deserve.
  Now, some Senators would like to strip the providers' civil liability 
protections in the bill. Some believe the thanks these providers 
deserve should come in the form of billions of dollars of penalties 
through frivolous lawsuits that threaten their business reputation. 
Having reviewed the underlying authorities, the certifications, as one 
who has practiced a little bit of law in this area, I can tell you 
there is no way they could or should be held liable for any monetary 
damages, much less the billions of dollars irrationally requested in 
the lawsuits.
  What these lawsuits do is seek to undermine our program by laying out 
who participates in it. By getting at the details of the program, we 
would provide those who seek to do us harm with information on how we 
collect the information on them that is needed to prevent their 
attacks. Just as important, bringing them, dragging them through the 
mud of trials in court would simply assure that their business 
reputation would be severely damaged in the United States and 
potentially obliterated abroad. In addition, there is a real likelihood 
that terrorist activities or other extremists would turn on and attack 
their property or even their personnel.
  I believe seeking to strip liability protection is void of any mature 
understanding of the threats this Nation faces. That sort of 
shortsighted pandering to far-left political interest groups endangers 
our citizens and pays back patriotic service with politically motivated 
penalty.
  I do not join with those who want to treat those who responded to our 
call for help with disregard and disrespect. I thank the providers for 
responding to the call, and I will join many others in passing this 
legislation who will be thanking them with their vote on this important 
national security legislation.
  For those who want to challenge the program, note that we did not ban 
civil suits against the Government or against any officer of the 
Government. And criminal suits--if there are any criminal penalties--
are not banned. They could be instituted by the appropriate 
jurisdictions with law enforcement responsibility.
  So, Mr. President, there are lots of other points to consider, and 
when we get on the bill I will be happy to join in discussing any 
further questions that are raised.
  Again, I thank my staff, I thank Senator Rockefeller and his team for 
having passed the FISA bill. I am very grateful to Mr. Hoyer, the 
majority leader in the House, whose efforts were essential to passing 
this bill and bringing it to us. We have thanks also for the ranking 
member of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, who worked 
with us day in and day out on all of the changes that were requested. 
Lamar Smith, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, he 
and his staff and his team worked with us throughout.
  We have before us not a perfect piece of legislation--I do not think 
on this Earth we will ever see a perfect piece of legislation. But for 
the challenges we had to go through and the compromises we had to make, 
this is the best possible product we can produce that has already 
gained an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the House. I hope it will 
also get the same kind of response in the Senate.
  Our intelligence community deserves it. The citizens of the United 
States deserve not only their rights protected, but they need and 
deserve the protection this act will give them from further attacks 
like 9/11.
  Mr. President, I do not see anyone seeking the floor, so I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, if I could, I would like to be recognized 
for 15 minutes to speak on the FISA legislation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, the Senate is taking up a matter that I 
think is very important to the American people and our national 
security, and that is to pass the compromise reached by the House and 
the administration regarding the FISA program.
  I want to briefly lay out my view of how the law works in this area. 
The initial approach by the Bush administration that there was no 
requirement to comply with the FISA statute, the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act, because of inherent authority of the Executive in a 
time of war I didn't agree with, quite frankly. The idea that an 
American would be travailed by an agency of our Government if that 
American citizen was suspected of being involved with the enemy--a 
fifth column movement, for lack of a better term--and there would be no 
court review was unacceptable to me.
  If an American citizen is suspected of collaborating with the enemy, 
I think there is a requirement for the Government to have its homework 
checked, have a judge authorize further surveillance in a kind of 
balanced approach. Once there is a reasonable belief that an American 
citizen may be involved with enemy forces, that becomes a crime of 
treason, potentially.
  I do think it is appropriate for Congress to pass a statute that 
would say when an American citizen is suspected of being involved with 
an enemy force, taking up arms against the United States--uniformed or 
not--the FISA statute applies. The inherent authority of the Executive 
to conduct surveillance in a time of war is limited, or can be limited 
by the other branches of Government.
  Having said that, this idea that at a time of war you need a warrant 
to surveil the enemy, when no American citizen is involved, is crazy. 
We have never in any other war gone to a judge and said: We are 
listening to enemy forces--for instance, two suspected

[[Page 13981]]

members of al-Qaida, non-American citizens--and we need a warrant. You 
don't need that. That is inherent in the ability to conduct military 
operations, to monitor the enemy.
  Those who want to basically criminalize the war, I disagree in equal 
measure. We are at war, and there is an effort by our intelligence 
agencies out there to monitor phone calls and other electronic 
communications of a very vicious enemy that is intent on attacking us 
again. That program has been shut down because of this dispute.
  We have finally found a compromise which would allow the program to 
move forward, protecting American citizens who may be suspected of 
being involved with enemy forces, and also allowing the Commander in 
Chief and our military intelligence community to aggressively monitor 
networks out there that wish us harm. In this global world in which we 
live, the technology that is available to the enemy is different than 
it was in 1978. So we have modernized FISA and made it possible for our 
intelligence community to be able to keep up with the different 
technologies that enemy forces may be using to communicate.
  I can assure the American people that this program has been of 
enormous benefit, the terrorist surveillance program. It has allowed us 
to stay ahead of enemy activity, and with terrorism you do not deter 
them by threatening them with death. That is something they welcome. 
Other enemies in the past have been deterred from attacking America 
because they know an overwhelming response will come their way. In the 
Cold War, it was called mutually assured destruction. With terrorist 
organizations that would gladly forfeit the lives of mentally 
handicapped young people, and others, you have no idea what they are up 
to, and you just try to isolate them the best you can. Finding out what 
they are up to and following their movements is essential because you 
have to preempt them before they are able to attack.
  We have a compromise that has come from the House to the Senate that 
I can live with. The sticking point was the role our telecommunications 
companies played in the terrorist surveillance program. It is my 
understanding that the Attorney General--the chief law enforcement 
officer of the land--and the Department of Justice gave a letter to the 
telecom companies involved, saying: Your cooperation with our 
intelligence communities and military surveillance program is legal and 
appropriate, and we need your help because a phone call made in 
Afghanistan, because of the global economy in which we live, may be 
routed through an American system here, and the two people talking are 
not citizens, but there may be a telecommunications involvement in 
terms of routing of the phone call, and we need assistance from the 
telecom companies to be able to track the technology that exists today 
that is being used by the enemies of the country.
  The idea that somebody would want to sue them because they broke the 
law, after they have been told by the Department of Justice and the 
Attorney General their help was needed and it was lawful for them to 
help, misses the point.
  What are we trying to do as a country? Are we trying to avoid the 
fact that we are at war by talking about lawsuits that undermine the 
ability of our country to protect itself? I am very much for civil 
liberties. I don't want any American, as I said before, to be followed 
by an agency of our Government, suspecting they are cooperating with 
al-Qaida or another terrorist group, and not have the Government's work 
looked at by a judge. I would not want that to happen to anybody. If 
you think anybody who is an American citizen is helping the enemy, you 
ought to be able to go to a judge and get a warrant. But this idea of 
having the American telecommunications companies, which were 
cooperating with the Government in a fashion to help our forces and our 
intelligence community stay ahead of an enemy, be subject to a civil 
lawsuit is riduculous. That is not the appropriate remedy.
  If we allow these companies who have been asked by their Government, 
through the chief law enforcement officer of the land, to participate 
in the program--if we ask them to participate and then sue them, who is 
going to help us in the future? This is pretty basic stuff for me. If 
we do not protect these companies from lawsuits that are existing out 
there, when they were willing to help the Government--if we don't give 
them protection, nobody in the future is going to come and help us. We 
need all the help we can get. We need help from banks, 
telecommunications companies, and we need help from all kinds of 
different corners of the private sector to beat this enemy. We are all 
in it together.
  The terrorists use banks to funnel money. Well, the banks can help us 
if we suspect that an account exists that is being used by a terrorist 
organization. We should be able to track that down. We are all in this 
together.
  The private sector plays a role in the war on terrorism. Every 
citizen can play a role in the war on terrorism by being vigilant. We 
finally reached a deal that would allow the program to be reauthorized, 
protecting civil liberty and telling the telecommunications companies 
that helped us: You are not going to get sued.
  To my dear friend, Senator Specter--his solution is to let the 
lawsuits come forward but shield the companies by having the Government 
take legal responsibility and be subject to being sued. That is not the 
right answer either. Our Government wasn't doing a bad thing. Our 
Government was doing a good thing. Our Government was trying to find 
out what enemies of this Nation were up to before it was too late.
  We have had a lot of warnings in the past that were ignored. How many 
times do we have to deal with this terrorist problem through the law 
enforcement model to only wake up and find out that we were wrong? The 
law enforcement model will not work. The law enforcement model punishes 
people after they commit the crime. We are at war. Our goal is to keep 
them from attacking us. The military model is the one we should pursue. 
In every other war, the private sector itself has helped the Government 
defeat the enemies of this country.
  When Senator Obama says he would like this provision taken out of the 
bill--protection for telecommunications companies from lawsuits--that 
he would like that taken out of the bill, what he is telling the 
Senate, the House, and the country is that this deal will fall apart. 
If we took this provision out, there would be no deal. People like me 
would not allow this process to go forward--and we had to give some. 
There was a give on the part of the administration and people like 
myself. There are some programs that I think are inherent to fighting 
the war that now have to be reviewed by the court. But that was a 
compromise.
  So for Senator Obama to come and say that he would take this 
provision out is saying that he does not believe in a bipartisan deal 
on the subject matter in question. The left has gone nuts over there--
the hard left. They think this is totally unacceptable. So, apparently, 
he is going to tell them: I don't support this. I am sure that is what 
they want to hear. But I say to my colleague, deals require giving and 
taking. It requires sometimes telling your friends what they don't want 
to hear. This is an example, in my opinion, of trying to tell your 
friends what they want to hear and positioning yourself in a way to 
look good with the public in general.
  That is not leadership. Leadership requires the common good to trump 
special interests. It requires political leaders to turn to their 
allies at times and say: No, your suggestion cannot win the day because 
if I give you what you are insisting on having, there will be no 
movement forward.
  Senator Obama is willing to give the left what they want. The 
consequence of that would be that the deal would fall apart because 
many people like me believe if you allow these companies to be sued for 
helping their country, then nobody will come forward in the future to 
help their country from the private sector.
  In this war, we are going to need support from the private sector, 
not only

[[Page 13982]]

in telecommunications but in banking and other areas. So I hope the 
amendment to strike the retroactive immunity for telecommunications 
companies will be defeated because, if it is passed, the deal fails, 
the movement forward stops, and America is harmed. I am here to support 
the deal.
  Understand that I didn't get all I wanted, but America will be safer 
if we can get this program reauthorized. Our civil liberties will be 
better protected, and the ability to understand what our enemies are up 
to will be greatly enhanced. Every day that we move forward as a nation 
with this program being compromised is a day that the enemy has an 
advantage over us. We know what happens if this enemy is not dealt with 
firmly and quickly. They are lethal, they are committed, and they will 
do anything to harm our way of life.
  We have an opportunity to come together as Republicans and Democrats 
and move forward on a surveillance program that is vital to our 
national security, and those who want to undo this deal because of 
special interest pressure are not exercising the leadership the 
American people need in a time of war.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 10 minutes and that the time be counted against 
the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Refueling Tankers

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 4 months ago when the Air Force announced 
that Airbus, not Boeing, would supply the next generation of aerial 
refueling tankers, Air Force acquisition officials declared that the 
contest had been fair, open, and transparent. They said they made no 
mistakes, and they boasted that the decision could withstand any level 
of scrutiny.
  The Government Accountability Office called all of that into question 
in a 67-page decision that shows the Air Force competition was unfairly 
skewed toward Airbus from the very beginning.
  The decision, responding to Boeing's protest of the Air Force 
competition, was damning. The GAO described the contest as 
``unreasonable,'' ``improper,'' and ``misleading.'' It found that the 
Air Force significantly overestimated the cost of the Boeing tanker, 
that it misled Boeing while helping Airbus, and that the Air Force 
selected Airbus even though the company failed to meet key requirements 
of the contract. It concluded that:

       But for these errors, we believe that Boeing would have had 
     a substantial chance of being selected for the award.

  It is unclear at this point whether those errors were due to 
incompetence or to impropriety. But one thing is definite: This contest 
was anything but fair or transparent.
  I want to know how the Air Force got this so wrong. I have already 
asked for a meeting with Defense Secretary Gates so he can tell me how 
the Pentagon plans to respond. I will make it clear that the Air Force 
cannot go forward with this contract and that I expect it to follow the 
GAO's recommendations. The Air Force must return to the original 
request for the proposal, rebid the contract, and get this right.
  The difference between what the Air Force said about the acquisition 
process and the GAO's findings are startling.
  On February 29, Sue Payton, who is the Air Force's Assistant 
Secretary for Acquisition, said at a DOD news briefing:

       We have been extremely open and transparent. We have had a 
     very thorough review of what we're doing. We've got it 
     nailed.

  A week later, she told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Defense:

       The Air Force followed a carefully structured source 
     selection process, designed to provide transparency, maintain 
     integrity, and ensure a fair competition.

  And throughout the last 4 months, Air Force officials have insisted 
that they selected the cheapest plane that best met their criteria and 
that they made no mistakes.
  The GAO's decision paints a very different picture of the contest 
and, as I said, it raises serious questions about how the Air Force 
conducted this competition. The GAO found the Air Force made a number 
of errors that unfairly helped Airbus and hurt Boeing. The GAO found 
that the Air Force changed direction midstream about which criteria 
were more important. It did not give Boeing credit for providing a more 
capable plane according to the Air Force description of what it wanted. 
Yet it gave Airbus extra credit for offering amenities for which it did 
not even ask.
  The GAO found that the Air Force ``treated the firms unequally'' by 
helping Airbus at Boeing's expense. The GAO found that the Air Force 
misled Boeing about whether it had fully met the requirements in the 
RFP, all the while keeping up conversations with Airbus and giving it 
the correct information.
  The GAO said the Air Force deliberately and unreasonably increased 
Boeing's estimated costs. When the mistake was corrected, it was 
discovered that the Airbus A330 actually cost tens of millions of 
dollars more than the Boeing 767. The GAO said the Air Force accepted 
Airbus's proposals, even though Airbus could not meet two key contract 
requirements. First, Airbus refused to provide long-term maintenance, 
as was specified in the RFP, even after the Air Force asked for it 
repeatedly. Second, the Air Force could not provide that Airbus could 
refuel all of the military's aircraft according to procedure.
  Let me say that again. The Air Force selected the Airbus A330 even 
though Airbus refused to agree to a key term in the contract and even 
though the Air Force failed to show that the A330 was even capable of 
refueling our military's aircraft by the books.
  These are serious findings. No matter how one looks at it, this 
competition was anything but transparent. Even though the Air Force 
declared its contest was fair, it appears it had its thumb on the 
scales for Airbus all along.
  But the last findings could be the most damaging of all of them. If 
Airbus cannot actually prove its tanker can do the job or that it will 
fulfill its obligations, how can it possibly be awarded that contract?
  Today the Air Force is contemplating what to do next. As I said, I 
think the answer is clear. This contract should be rebid. I agree with 
those who have said we need to get these planes into the hands of our 
air men and women as fast as possible. I represent Fairchild Air Force 
Base in Washington State. Those air men and women fly those refueling 
tankers. I know how important this decision is to them.
  This was not an acceptable acquisition process, and it would be 
unconscionable to go forward with this selection without first 
addressing the questions that were raised by the GAO's decision. In 
order to do that, we must have a competition that is not overshadowed 
by questions of ethics or competence, and we have to get the right 
plane.
  These tankers we are talking about refuel planes and aircraft from 
every single branch of our military. They are the backbone of our 
global military strength. We need a competition where the criteria are 
clear, where the participants can earn credit that is spelled out in 
the contract and there is no extra credit that is awarded unfairly, and 
we need a fair evaluation of all the costs.
  We need to go back and start with a clean slate, hold a truly 
transparent competition that does our air men and women justice. That 
is what our American taxpayers expect, and our American servicemembers 
deserve nothing less.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 13983]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am going to talk a little about the 
FISA amendment and the protection of civil liberties of Americans. Some 
people who are concerned about this bill don't recognize that there 
have been enormous changes made that specifically speak to civil 
liberties, and so I would like to talk about that. I wish to take the 
time to explain how the negotiators of the FISA bill have taken great 
care in protecting the constitutional right of privacy of American 
citizens in crafting this agreement, which was a heavily discussed and 
worked over matter.
  The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 includes strong protections of civil 
liberties of Americans while still allowing the Government to collect 
the foreign intelligence it needs to protect the country, literally. 
Maintaining this balance between civil liberties for Americans and 
protecting our Nation against foreign attack was obviously my utmost 
priority, as well as Senator Bond's, during the lengthy negotiation 
process that produced what I think is historic legislation in 
modernizing FISA for the first time in 30 years.
  The FISA bill protects Americans in a lot of ways by ensuring FISA 
Court involvement in any aspect of the new procedure for targeting 
foreigners outside the United States that could involve U.S. persons. 
It does so in four significant ways:
  First, the bill requires the FISA Court to approve procedures used to 
determine whether the foreign target of the surveillance is outside of 
the United States. The court's assessment of the adequacy of these 
procedures will ensure that the new authorities cannot be used for 
domestic surveillance.
  Second, the bill requires the court to approve the procedures used to 
address any incidental acquisition, retention, or dissemination of U.S. 
person information. These procedures protect the privacy of any 
Americans who might be in contact with a foreign target.
  Third, by explicitly asking the court to assess whether the 
procedures comply with the fourth amendment, the bill requires the 
court to determine whether the privacy interests of U.S. persons are, 
in fact, adequately protected.
  Finally, the bill requires the court to approve targeting and 
minimization before collection begins, in most instances. The court 
would be required to review and approve the procedures at least 
annually. This is called prior approval, and it was something that was 
not welcomed by some, but through the negotiation process, the prior 
approval process was incorporated in the bill, and it means that the 
court has to approve targeting and minimization before collection. The 
Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General would only 
be able to proceed prior to a court order if emergency circumstances 
exist but for a period of time no greater than 7 days before being 
required to seek the approval of the court and no more than 30 days 
while the court is considering the request. Sometimes, but very rarely, 
emergencies do take place.
  The FISA bill also provides unprecedented new privacy protections for 
Americans abroad. This may be the most important part. For the first 
time, Americans traveling or working abroad are entitled to the same 
protection from surveillance and search that they would have if they 
were in the United States. There are 4 million Americans at any given 
moment who are outside of the United States, which is equal to the 
total population of our Nation when it was founded. The requirement is 
that the Government obtain a court order prior to targeting them for 
any foreign intelligence collection. So they get the same type of 
protection as does anybody in the United States. That is a first. 
Before, the Attorney General could pretty much just say: We want to 
target these people overseas, and there was no court involved, there 
was no approval process involved legally. Now that cannot happen. So 
they are protected, indeed, the same as anybody in the United States.
  The bill requires the court to make an individual determination of 
probable cause before a U.S. person overseas may be targeted for any 
electronic surveillance or other foreign intelligence collection. Each 
court order is valid for no longer than 90 days. This is an important 
new protection that has never before been in place.
  Apart from the court review I have detailed, the FISA bill also 
protects the privacy interests of Americans through other provisions.
  The bill prohibits the new procedure for targeting foreigners outside 
the United States from being used to target anyone inside the United 
States or from being used to acquire entirely domestic communication. 
The way it is now--and it is called reverse targeting--within the 
United States, you take out of the air some communication of somebody 
overseas who may be contacting somebody in the United States, and that 
potentially puts the U.S. person at risk. That is reverse targeting. So 
there is a prohibition now which explicitly includes reverse targeting, 
where the purpose of targeting somebody outside the United States is to 
target somebody in the United States. I know it is complicated, but it 
is important.
  Because of the importance of the prohibitions in the bill, the bill 
requires the Attorney General to adopt guidelines that ensure that the 
Government obtains individual court orders when required and does not 
engage in any prohibited conduct, such as reverse targeting, which, in 
effect, disappears from the lexicon of telecommunication collection. 
The bill also requires the Attorney General and the Director of 
National Intelligence to certify to the FISA Court, under oath, that 
the acquisition complies with the prohibitions in the bill and that the 
procedures and guidelines are consistent with the requirements of the 
fourth amendment.
  To ensure there are no unintended consequences relating to when a 
warrant must be obtained under FISA or how information obtained using 
FISA can be used, the bill does not change the definition of 
``electronic surveillance'' in FISA. It is left exactly as it is. 
People say: Well, why is that? Everything has changed. Well, there can 
be legislative authorizations to make changes, but only if those 
legislative authorizations are made can there be changes in electronic 
surveillance. So the definition remains the same--a good, solid base.
  The bill requires extensive reporting to Congress about the 
implementation of the new provisions, compliance with the prohibitions 
in the bill--that is important; we have not had that--and the impact of 
the new provisions on U.S. persons.
  The bill sunsets on December 31, 2012, a date which ensures that the 
reauthorization of the FISA bill will be addressed, in fact, by the 
next administration.
  In addition to protecting the civil liberties of Americans in the new 
procedures, the bill seeks to prevent any future circumvention of FISA 
and to ensure that Congress has a complete set of facts about the 
President's surveillance program.
  Well, one might question: How does that happen? In title III of the 
FISA bill that is before us, we direct the inspectors general of 
relevant agencies--and that is a whole bunch of intelligence agencies--
to complete a comprehensive review of the President's warrantless 
surveillance program. Then, within a year, the inspectors general must 
submit an unclassified report to Congress, with a classified annex, if 
necessary. This IG review provides an important vehicle for ensuring 
that a comprehensive set of facts about the President's program is 
available to Congress and, to the extent the classification permits, to 
the American public itself.
  A comprehensive review of the President's program is particularly 
important given the possibility the courts will dismiss ongoing 
litigation due to title II. It also ensures that accountability for the 
program will be directed at the Government, where it belongs.
  To ensure that the Government never again relies on an inapplicable 
statute to argue that warrantless wiretapping is permissible, the bill 
strengthens the

[[Page 13984]]

requirements that FISA and specific chapters of title XVIII are the 
exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and criminal law 
interceptions may be conducted. The act provides that in addition to 
the specifically listed statutes, only an express statutory 
authorization passed by the Congress for surveillance or interception 
may constitute an additional exclusive means for that surveillance or 
for that interception. It is a very strong protection against abuse.
  Finally, the bill clarifies that criminal and civil penalties can be 
imposed for any electronic surveillance that is not conducted in 
accordance with FISA or the specifically listed criminal intercept 
laws.
  In summary, the FISA bill has a multitude of statutory provisions 
that provide the judicial and congressional oversight that is essential 
to protecting the civil liberties of all Americans, both here and 
abroad. They were not protected abroad. They are now. The House did not 
pass this bill because they believed there was an insufficiency of 
civil liberty protections--and they may have been right. So we hammered 
these out in long meetings in which the White House, all the 
intelligence agencies, and the leadership--Republican and Democratic--
of the House and the Senate were there.
  It is a much stronger bill. People will argue that people like me 
talk about a balance between being able to collect--which is the only 
way you are going to know if you are going to be attacked--or civil 
liberties. So people tend to go all the way this way or all the way 
that way, not recognizing or not being willing to accept that there can 
be a balance. We have created that balance in our bill. I am proud of 
that. It is one of the many reasons I am for the bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Alaska is recognized.


                     HONORING ELLADEAN HAYS BITTNER

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I never thought I would have this 
occasion, but I want to speak today to honor the life of a great woman, 
my mother-in-law, Elladean Hays Bittner.
  Ellie was born February 1, 1919, in Phoenix during the great flu 
pandemic. She often remarked on why she had no birth certificate--the 
hospital did not expect her to survive.
  Ellie grew up and worked on her family's ranch in Arizona. She 
studied home economics at the University of Arizona, graduating in 
1939. During college, she rode with the U.S. Army cavalry and was 
chosen to be a member of the Mortar Board, a national honor society.
  Ellie married William-Bill-Edward Bittner in 1944 in Arizona. They 
honeymooned to Alaska, traveling by Alaska steamship and train to 
Anchorage to meet her in-laws. In 1950, Ellie moved to Alaska with Bill 
and their children, Catherine--my wife, William, and Judith. Ellie 
worked for the Anchorage school district, teaching home ec. She started 
a boys' cooking class and an early childhood education program.
  Governor Hickel appointed Ellie to a position with the Alaska 
Department of Education. She traveled extensively, interviewing women 
in remote villages and towns and published a study that was a pioneer 
effort to identify economic opportunities for women.
  Ellie and Bill were very active in Alaska, entertaining frequently at 
their downtown log house in Anchorage and flying all over the territory 
in their Cessna 180 with their children.
  The family began splitting their time between Alaska and Arizona in 
the 1970s and Ellie returned to ranching. She established the ``Quien 
Sabe'' outfit, which she was featured with in 2002 at the Cowgirl 
Museum and Hall of Fame, and is included in ``Hard Twist'', a book on 
western ranching women. Ellie remained active in ranching until her 
death.
  She was a great lady. She passed away on June 10 in our hometown of 
Anchorage, AK, surrounded by her family. I had the honor to be with her 
for part of that time. I speak for all of us and many more when I say 
this. There is a hole in our lives that will never quite be filled. 
Ellie left us with wonderful memories. Through these, she will live on.
  Every time I hear Willie Nelson I am going to remember Ellie. She 
loved Willie Nelson. I think the only difference she had with Willie is 
she hoped her children, her babies, would grow up to be cowboys.


                            Leave of Absence

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be excused from attendance 
of the Senate following today's session, until the first vote in July.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Honoring William Sheffield

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute, on his 80th 
birthday, to a great American and a great Alaskan, Governor Bill 
Sheffield. My friend Bill Sheffield was the Democratic Governor of 
Alaska from 1982-86, which was just a short episode in a lifetime of 
service to Alaska both in government and in the private sector.
  Governor Sheffield came to Alaska in 1953, the same year I moved to 
our great State, to handle television sales for Sears and Roebuck. His 
exceptional intellect and work ethic were easily recognized. Quickly, 
he took leadership positions in the Chamber of Commerce and other 
business groups in Alaska, eventually becoming president of the Alaska 
State Chamber of Commerce and, in 2006, being awarded the Lifetime 
Achievement Award in Business by the Alaska Business Monthly. By 1960, 
he had entered the hotel industry by purchasing his first hotel in 
Anchorage. The day before the Good Friday Earthquake in 1964, Bill 
Sheffield had just opened a new hotel, but it would take more than that 
earthquake to stop Bill. His hotel business continued to grow until he 
owned 16 hotels throughout Alaska and the Yukon Territory.
  As Governor, Bill Sheffield was focused on ``Bringing the State 
Together,'' the theme of his campaign. His reputation as a problem-
solver and his pledge to unite Alaskans resulted in a landslide 
victory. Governor Sheffield's experience as a businessman served him 
and Alaskans well during his time in the Governor's Office. His efforts 
reduced excessive spending in State government and helped save Alaska's 
natural resources for the use of all Alaskans for generations yet to 
come.
  After leaving government, Governor Sheffield continued his service to 
Alaskans, taking seats on several private and nonprofit boards of 
directors. Currently, he is the director of the Port of Anchorage, 
where he has developed a master plan for expansion of the port through 
2014. Governor Sheffield's vision for this expansion of the State of 
Alaska's largest port will not only serve Anchorage, but nearly the 
entire geographic area and population of our State. Mr. President, over 
90 percent of the goods that come into my State come through the Port 
of Anchorage. Furthermore, this expansion will serve the national 
defense needs of the United States by providing vital transportation 
support and access to four major military installations in Alaska, 
including the Stryker Brigade at Fort Wainwright. I am proud to have 
supported the port expansion project and I am proud of Governor 
Sheffield and the work he is doing for Alaska and all of the United 
States.
  Governor Sheffield's continuing service does not end with the Port of 
Anchorage. Additionally, he is a trustee of Alaska Pacific University, 
a member of the advisory board of ENSTAR Natural Gas, a charter member 
of Commonwealth North, past chairman of the Federal Salary Council and 
a member of the board of directors of the Alaska Railroad and formerly 
the railroad's president & CEO. As Governor, Bill Sheffield was 
instrumental in saving the Alaska Railroad, purchasing it from the 
Federal Government and then providing the necessary investment in 
Alaska's infrastructure to assist in our development. In recognition of 
his service to the railroad and to the State of Alaska, the Alaska 
Railroad Depot at the Anchorage International Airport was named after 
Governor Sheffield in 1999.
  Most importantly to Alaskans, Bill is also a skilled fisherman and 
avid outdoorsman. A love of bush Alaska runs

[[Page 13985]]

through every aspect of this man. I know firsthand of his love for the 
bush areas of our home State. He and I have enjoyed many days together 
out on the water whether fishing for salmon on the Kenai River or 
elsewhere in Alaska.
  In this Chamber today, we see a lot of partisan fighting. One of the 
greatest qualities of my friend Bill Sheffield is the ability to get 
past the labels of Democrat and Republican. Bill Sheffield is a 
lifelong Democrat. While he was the Governor of Alaska and I was here 
in Washington as Senator, we always found a way to work together. As 
Governor, Bill Sheffield was able to identify what needed to be done 
for the greater good of Alaska. More importantly, he pushed aside the 
partisanship, went ahead and did what needed to be done for Alaskans. 
In both business and government, Governor Sheffield is a leader and a 
doer. He is a fine example for all of us. I am honored to count Bill 
Sheffield a friend and I hope the entire Senate will join me in wishing 
him a happy 80th birthday. Happy birthday, Billy.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is with great honor and respect that 
today I acknowledge the 80th birthday of a great friend and leader in 
Alaska. Governor William ``Bill'' Sheffield has been a leader in 
business and government for most of the 55 years he has lived in 
Alaska. He served as Governor from 1982 to 1986, following a business 
career in which he built a company that became one of the largest 
private employers in Alaska and the Yukon Territory.
  Governor Sheffield came to Alaska in 1953 as a regional sales 
representative for Sears Roebuck in charge of television sales and 
service. He became one of the top salesmen in the nation during the 
1950s and began his leadership in business groups such as the Jaycees 
and the Chamber of Commerce. In 1960, he purchased an Anchorage hotel, 
and founded Sheffield Enterprises. In 1964, literally the day before 
the great Alaska earthquake of March 27, 1964, he opened a new hotel in 
Anchorage. This began an expansion that eventually saw his company grow 
to 16 hotels with 750 employees. He sold the company in 1987 to Holland 
America Line-westours, one of the major players in Alaska's growing 
tourism market. While in business, Sheffield served as president of the 
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce and the Alaska Visitors Association.
  As a candidate for Governor in 1982, Bill Sheffield's theme was 
``bringing the state together'', a reference to a pair of divisive 
ballot initiatives that same year. His message of inclusion and 
cooperation helped him win the governorship in a landslide. Governor 
Sheffield then turned his attention to curbing the runaway growth in 
State government, promoting efficient business-style management of 
public works projects and saving more of Alaska's energy revenues for 
future generations.
  Currently, Governor Sheffield serves as port director of the Port of 
Anchorage, where he oversees a critical and all-encompassing port 
expansion. The port is a military strategic port and serves 80 percent 
of Alaskans with 90 percent of their goods. He is also a trustee of 
Alaska Pacific University, a member of the advisory board of ENSTAR 
Natural Gas, and a charter member of Commonwealth North, one of 
Alaska's leading public affairs forum. He is the past chairman of the 
Federal Salary Council; recently he received the Lifetime Achievement 
Award in Business from the Alaska Business Monthly; the former 
president and CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and now serves on 
its board of directors. In recognition of his service to the railroad 
and to the State of Alaska, the Alaska Railroad Depot at the Ted 
Stevens International Airport was named in his honor in 1999.
  Governor Sheffield has always believed that wisdom comes with the 
experience of making your own payroll. He credits his success in 
business and government from having the experience of workers depending 
on him alone for their paycheck.
  Lastly, Bill Sheffield, a lifelong Democrat, is one of the best 
examples of someone who puts partisanship aside, rolls up their sleeves 
and works with anyone who is also dedicated to achieving important 
goals for the greater good. Whether in business, politics, education or 
many other endeavors that have benefited so many people, he is a leader 
and example for all of us.
  I would also be remiss if I didn't mention that Bill is an excellent 
duck hunter, fisherman and avid outdoorsman. Mr. President, I am proud 
to call Bill Sheffield a friend and I hope the entire Congress will 
join me in wishing him well on the 80th anniversary of his birth. Happy 
Birthday, Bill.
  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. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
10 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Student Aid

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, as I travel my State, I have held close to 
100 roundtables of 15, 20 people gathered together as a cross section 
of the community in some 65 or 70 Ohio counties.
  I hear more and more people talking about how difficult it is for 
middle-class kids, for kids from working families, especially for 
first-generation and potential first-generation students being able to 
go to college.
  We have made some progress in the Senate in the 15, 16, 17 months 
since the Presiding Officer and I and others have been in this body. 
One was the College Cost Reduction Act, an investment in America's 
students. It was a promise that I and my other freshman colleagues 
campaigned on 2 years ago. We have delivered.
  The increases in student aid that are beginning to go into effect 
next week are a downpayment of America's future prosperity, on its 
future competitiveness. This investment could not have come at a better 
time. With college costs at an alltime high, neither student aid nor 
family incomes have been able to keep up.
  In my home State of Ohio, between 2001 and 2006, the cost of 
attending college increased 53 percent at 4-year public colleges and 
universities, and almost 30 percent at 4-year private colleges, 53 
percent at public universities, close to 30 percent at 4-year private 
schools.
  During this same period, the median household income in Ohio 
increased only 3 percent. In the 2004-2005 school year, 66 percent of 
students graduating from 4-year institutions in my State graduated with 
student loan debt. The average debt was $20,000.
  This bill will help students manage the debt they are incurring and 
give them more options after they leave school. One of the most 
important provisions of the bill is a new income-based repayment 
program that will allow students to pay their debt as a percentage of 
their income. This initiative, along with the Public Service Loan 
Forgiveness Program, will help students manage their debt and allow 
them to pursue careers in public service without fear of student loan 
payments they simply cannot afford.
  In April, I held a Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions Committee 
public hearing at Ohio State University to discuss student debt issues. 
One of the witnesses we heard from was a young woman from Cincinnati 
whose distraught mother wrote me about the crippling debt her daughter 
had accrued trying to pay for college.
  She testified she never believed an education could cost so much and 
how she worried about how she was going to help her family and advance 
her career now that she was saddled with so much student loan debt.
  As I said, as I travel the State, I hear stories such as these from 
students and parents who tell me it is becoming harder and harder to 
afford a college education for those Ohioans, for millions of others 
across this country. This bill will finally provide some

[[Page 13986]]

much-needed relief. I would add that as Governor Strickland, the new 
Governor of the State who has been in office some 17 months or so, has 
frozen tuition at public universities, which has made a big difference, 
obviously, in the affordability of college. And coupled with what the 
State is trying to do now in Ohio, after the State did very little to 
rein in college costs, coupled with what we are doing here, it will 
make a big difference, particularly for first-generation students, but 
for all people who want to go to college whose parents do not make 
quite enough for them to be able to afford it. This is a major step, a 
positive step, in changing the direction of our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Medicare Advantage

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, pending before the Senate is an important 
measure about compensating medical providers who treat Medicare 
patients. Medicare patients, of course, are the elderly and the 
disabled. This program that was started over 40 years ago reaches 40 
million Americans. It is an important lifesaver. It is a lifeline for 
many people who have reached a point where they can no longer afford to 
pay for their own major medical bills. Many of these people are on 
fixed incomes. Many of these folks have no health insurance, other than 
Medicare. They are desperate to find the kind of care they need.
  Medicare, a program that was once criticized as being too much 
government and socialism, has turned out to be one of the most valuable 
programs the Federal Government offers. For 40 million Americans, it 
means they have the peace of mind that when they are sick, there is a 
place to go and someone to pay for it, that they will not sacrifice 
their savings and everything they have because of a medical 
catastrophe. There is a suggestion of cutting the compensation to 
Medicare providers by 10 percent. The fear is, if we cut that pay to 
these Medicare providers, fewer doctors will take Medicare patients; 
they will decide that the economic benefits are with other patients who 
might be paying more through private health insurance or even out of 
their own pockets.
  We have a deadline. On July 1, this 10-percent cut goes into place. 
We have been trying, week after week, month after month, to pass in the 
Senate a provision that will protect these Medicare providers from this 
proposed cut of 10 percent. Imagine, if you will, that seniors who have 
doctors' appointments in the first or second week of July call to find 
that the appointments have been canceled because their doctor no longer 
takes Medicare patients. I don't want that to happen in Illinois. I 
don't think it should happen anywhere across this country.
  A bill comes through the House of Representatives which proposes that 
we stop this 10-percent cut and make sure Medicare does not suffer this 
change and that the Medicare beneficiaries are not disadvantaged. The 
vote was called earlier this week in the House of Representatives. The 
final vote was 355 to 59. By a margin of 5, or 6 to 1, a bipartisan 
vote in the House of Representatives, they voted to take care of this 
problem and do it now before the July 1 deadline kicks in. The bill 
that passed in the House is supported by physicians, consumer groups, 
pharmacists, hospitals, and many others. Who opposes this bill? Two 
groups. I should say two entities--the health insurance industry and 
the White House. Why? Because the bill provides for savings from 
private fee-for-service Medicare plans. In other words, the additional 
10 percent that is going to be paid to these Medicare providers, part 
of it at least is offset by saying that private health insurance 
companies are going to receive less in reimbursement for treating 
Medicare patients.
  Why should they receive less, you ask? Because the so-called Medicare 
Advantage plans, private health insurance plans providing benefits that 
look a lot like Medicare, charge more than the Medicare plan, 12 to 13 
percent more. Those aren't figures dreamed up by Congress. They come to 
us from the executive branch of Government. We suggested some savings 
in the amount of money paid to private health insurance companies and 
the resistance comes, obviously, from those companies, the White House, 
and this morning from the Republican side of the aisle. They refuse to 
let us cut any reimbursement to the private health insurance companies 
that charge more for the same services that Medicare is providing.
  So we have reached an impasse. It is an impasse that has to be broken 
to the benefit of Medicare beneficiaries. I think we should be guided 
in breaking it by what happened in the House of Representatives by a 
vote of 355 to 59. Private fee-for-service plans are paid more than 
what it costs to treat the same Medicare patient in the traditional 
Medicare Program. We are paying these private insurance companies more 
than the ordinary Medicare reimbursement.
  For some on the other side of the aisle, this is all well and good. 
They want to privatize Medicare. They want to end this so-called 
Government health insurance plan. I am not one of those. After more 
than 40 years of success in Medicare, I don't want to see this program 
go away. This program has been a lifeline when all else has failed. 
Medicare Advantage plans, those private health insurance company plans 
I talked about, cost taxpayers, on average, 13 percent more than 
Medicare for the same benefits. Private fee-for-service Medicare 
Advantage costs even more, 19 percent. This payment disparity gives 
private fee-for-service plans a competitive advantage over traditional 
Medicare. In other words, they can offer a little bit more, some bells 
and whistles, and they charge dramatically more when it comes to 
billing taxpayers and the Government for their services. We are trying 
to trim that back a bit.
  The howls and screams from the other side of the aisle come because 
they want to protect these private health insurance companies. These 
unjustified higher payments are fueling large increases in enrollment 
in these types of plans that charge more because they offer a little 
bit more here and there. Even CMS has been concerned about the 
marketing practices of these private fee-for-service plans. Understand, 
these private health insurance companies, trying to enroll Medicare 
beneficiaries into their private health insurance alternative to 
Medicare, are going door to door, using telephone, mail, soliciting 
many seniors. Some of them are misled. Some of them are confused by the 
solicitations. There is outright fraud taking place. There have been 
numerous reports of sales agents using strong-arm tactics to enroll 
Medicare beneficiaries in these plans without the beneficiaries 
understanding how the plans differ from traditional Medicare.
  Yesterday, the Government Accountability Office released a report 
that shows that private Medicare Advantage plans spent less on medical 
care than they report to the CMS which, in turn, earned them $1.14 
billion in additional profits over what was expected. This is money 
going directly into the pockets of the insurance industry, not for the 
health benefits of Medicare patients. This report confirms the deal 
that was offered to Medicare beneficiaries and American taxpayers by 
these private plans is even worse than we thought. Yet today, on the 
Republican side of the aisle, they are objecting to this fix in 
Medicare to protect these private health insurance plans that have been 
found over and over again to charge too much, to be abusive in their 
marketing and, frankly, to provide less medical care than they 
promised.
  In this report, for the first time in the history of the Medicare 
Advantage Program, GAO compared the private plans' projected spending 
on medical care and profit margins with their actual profit margins and 
spending on medical care. They found that in 2005, the Medicare 
Advantage plans projected spending 90.2 percent of total costs on 
medical services but actually spent 85.7 percent. By spending less on

[[Page 13987]]

helping Medicare patients, these plans increased their profits. That is 
what it is all about--giving the Medicare patients as little as 
possible.
  These private health insurance plans are big winners when it comes to 
making money but at the expense of medical care for the Medicare 
patients. These are the same companies Republicans are trying to 
protect by objecting to our fixing this Medicare reimbursement problem.
  It is a shame we are putting the health of America's seniors on the 
line for the profit of a handful of private insurance companies. The 
Bush administration is disguising the truth. They claim the Medicare 
Advantage plans are helping, when they aren't doing a good job. This 
GAO report is more evidence of waste and abuse in this program, 
evidence which those who object to our moving forward refuse to even 
read or acknowledge. The changes in this bill are modest. They are 
nowhere close to payment cuts the House approved earlier this year. 
What Republicans and the White House are objecting to is taking away 
another special advantage that private fee-for-service plans have been 
given, the ability to deem a doctor or hospital as part of its 
necessary work. This bill merely requires private fee-for-service to 
enter into contracts with health care providers, as all other private 
Medicare plans already do. This reform is good for patients, good for 
health care providers, and good for taxpayers.
  The overwhelming vote in the House for this bill shows Congress will 
no longer allow the Bush administration, as it is packing to leave town 
over the next 6 months, to protect the health insurance industry at the 
expense of Americans, our families, and Medicare beneficiaries.
  I urge my colleagues, support the Medicare Program, make sure 
Medicare providers are adequately funded. Don't stand in defense of 
private health insurance at the expense of this valuable program.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2264

  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate take up the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartel Act, 
NOPEC. This legislation will authorize our Government, for the first 
time, to take action against the illegal conduct of the OPEC oil 
cartel. It is time for the U.S. Government to fight back on the price 
of oil and hold OPEC accountable when it acts illegally. Our amendment 
will hold OPEC member nations to account under U.S. antitrust law when 
they agree to limit supply or fix price in violation of the most basic 
principles of free competition.
  NOPEC will allow the Attorney General to file suit against nations or 
other entities that participate in a conspiracy to limit the supply, or 
fix the price, of oil. In addition, it will specify that the doctrines 
of sovereign immunity and act of state do not exempt nations that 
participate in oil cartels from basic antitrust law. This legislation 
will not create any private right of action nor require any action by 
the Attorney General, it will simply give the administration the option 
to bring an antitrust action against OPEC member nations. Passage of 
this legislation will mean that OPEC member nations will face the 
possibility of real and substantial antitrust sanctions should they 
persist in their illegal conduct.
  I have introduced this legislation in each Congress since 2000. This 
legislation passed the full Senate by a vote of 70 to 23 last June as 
an amendment to the energy bill before being stripped from that bill in 
the conference committee. The identical House version of NOPEC passed 
the other body as stand alone legislation in May 2007 by an 
overwhelming 345 to 72 vote. It is now time for us to at last pass this 
legislation into law and give our Nation a long needed tool to 
counteract this pernicious and anticonsumer conspiracy.
  As we consider the causes of rising gas prices--now exceeding the 
once unthinkable $4 per gallon level, up 74 percent since the beginning 
of last year--one fact has remained conistent--any move downwards in 
price ends as soon as OPEC decides to cut production. And whIle the 
OPEC nations enjoy their riches, the average American consumer suffers 
every time he or she visits the gas pump or pays a home heating bill. 
The Federal Trade Commission has estimated that 85 percent of the 
variability in the cost of gasoline is the result of changes in the 
cost of crude oil.
  The most fundamental principle of a free market is that competitors 
cannot be permitted to conspire to limit supply or fix price. There can 
be no free market without this foundation. And we should not permit any 
nation to flout this fundamental principle.
  Mr. President, the suffering of consumers across the Nation in the 
last few years has made me more certain than ever that this legislation 
is necessary. When I first introduced this legislation in June 2000, 
the worldwide price of crude oil was $29 per barrel. It has now more 
than quadrupled. How much longer must consumers wait for us to take 
action? I believe we need to take action now.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 169, H.R. 2264, at a time to be determined by the 
majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, and 
that the bill be considered under the following limitations: that no 
amendments be in order to the bill; that there be 2 hours of debate, 
with time equally divided and controlled between the leaders or their 
designees; that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate 
proceed to vote on passage of the bill without further intervening 
action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.


                              Clean Energy

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, in the last few days, we have been talking 
about the housing bill. Last night I got to speak as I had the day 
before about an amendment I have been trying to get onto the housing 
bill. I would like to speak about the importance of that amendment, 
once again.
  This country is facing high energy costs right now, with gasoline 
over $4 a gallon. Home heating oil is being affected by the price of 
energy. Natural gas prices have gone up by over 70 percent. It is 
affecting literally every single family and business in the United 
States. We need to have a broad-based approach to finding all the 
sources of American energy we can possibly find to help make us less 
dependent on Middle Eastern oil and other energy supplies coming from 
outside the United States. It is important for our national security, 
and it is also important for our economic security.
  The amendment I wanted to offer to the housing bill deals with 
alternative renewable energies. These are energies such as solar, wind, 
geothermal, and many others. This amendment is identical to a bill 
Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, and myself worked on together. In 
total, 45 Members have cosponsored this bill. We actually offered this 
legislation as an amendment to housing bill the last time that bill was 
on the Senate floor in April.
  At that time, our amendment passed with 88 yea votes and only 8 nay 
votes. Rarely does something around this body pass 88 to 8 in such a 
bipartisan fashion in these partisan days. We should take advantage of 
that bipartisanship and do something right for the American people.
  Not only do we want more American energy, but whenever we can, we 
should certainly try to incentivize bringing more green energy to the 
United States. That is the reason we introduced this bill, and it is 
the reason there was such a strong vote on it.
  There have been a couple of objections as to why we should not 
include this amendment on the housing bill. It has been said that this 
amendment has nothing to do with housing. I would beg to differ. First 
of all, the stronger the economy, the more people will be able to 
afford to buy and retain homes. This renewable energy tax bill 
literally will produce probably 100,000 to 200,000 jobs

[[Page 13988]]

in the United States and billions of dollars worth of investment in the 
United States. When people have jobs, there is a better chance they can 
afford homes.
  Second, there are many provisions in our renewable energy tax bill 
that directly relate to housing. My amendment provides incentives to 
expand energy efficiency in new homes, existing homes, and appliances 
used in homes. For example, if you want to invest in solar energy in 
your home, if you want to help the country out by taking some of your 
electricity demand off of the power grid and actually produce your own 
electricity with solar energy in your home, we have tax credits to 
encourage this activity. If somebody is building a more energy-
efficient home, we have tax credits in there to do that. In addition, 
we encourage the production of more energy-efficient appliances for 
your home. So this amendment is directly related to housing.
  One of the other provisions the managers of this bill--and especially 
the Democratic leadership--do not want this amendment attached to the 
housing bill is that it is ``not paid for.'' Well, there are already 
$2.4 billion in tax-related items that are not paid contained in this 
housing bill. I will not go into the details because they are fairly 
complicated, but know there is almost $2.4 billion in unpaid-for tax 
incentives in this bill.
  The Democratic manager of this bill said the Democrats in the House 
of Representatives would not go for our particular renewable tax credit 
legislation because it was not paid for, that there were too many 
Democrats in the House of Representatives who would object to it. Well, 
how do they expect $2.4 billion in other tax incentives that are not 
paid for to be accepted over there and then argue that ours would not 
be accepted as well? So I think we should do absolutely everything we 
can at this time--with high energy prices on gasoline, home heating 
oil, and natural gas going up in the United States--we should do 
everything we can to get Senator Cantwell's and my amendment on 
renewable energy tax credits put onto this housing bill.
  Another reason it is important to have this amendment on this bill, 
instead of waiting for another bill in the future, is that a lot of the 
contracts and the financing of renewable energy projects--whether they 
are solar, geothermal, wind, or any of the other clean energy we have 
in the United States--it is critical for the financing of these 
projects that we have predictability and we get the Clean Energy Tax 
Stimulus amendment done as soon as possible. For each quarter that 
passes--and the Senator from Washington has spoken eloquently about 
this--that is more projects that do not get financed. Projects will not 
always be financed in the future if they have lost their financing now. 
Investors lose confidence.
  So we need to have predictability, and we need to enact my amendment 
soon as possible. The housing bill, everybody around here knows, is 
going to be one of the few bills that will be signed into law this 
year. So we need to have the renewable energy tax credits on a bill 
that is going to be signed into law. If we actually care about 
advancing use of renewable energy in this country, if we care about 
jobs in the renewable energy sector of our economy, then we need to 
have this amendment passed into law.
  The Democratic leader has already said he is going to pull the bill 
and we are going to come back to the housing legislation after the 
Fourth of July break. I encourage all Americans to contact their 
Senators and Representatives in the House, and let their voices be 
heard that this is an important issue to them. Write in, e-mail--do all 
the types of things that are necessary to participate in our democratic 
process, to say yes to renewable energy, to say yes to jobs in America.
  Let's put this amendment on the housing bill when we get back after 
the Fourth of July recess. Let's do it as quickly as possible. Let's 
get the House of Representatives to cooperate with us on something that 
is good for America. I happen to be a Republican Senator but this is a 
bipartisan issue. In fact, this should be nonpartisan. This should be 
something that is done forgetting about whether you are a Republican or 
Democrat. Let's do something that is good for America. Let's do more of 
that around this place, and I think we will all be better off for it.
  I conclude by imploring my colleagues: Think about this during the 
break. Think about what is at stake with the tens and tens of thousands 
of jobs, the billions of dollars in investment in renewables, and the 
chance that we can do something good for America and bring more green 
energy, more clean energy to the United States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. BROWN. 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.


                          Paul Laurence Dunbar

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the birth of Paul 
Lawrence Dunbar.
  It was the African-American poet Maya Angelou who made the verse ``I 
know why the caged bird sings'' widely famous, but it was Paul Laurence 
Dunbar from Dayton, OH, who penned that powerful poem more than a 
century ago. That seems to be the true story of Paul Lawrence Dunbar, 
as a trailblazer who paved the way for later generations of African-
American poets and writers.
  While academics continue to debate Dunbar's stature in the pantheon 
of American poets, there is wide agreement that he is a seminal figure 
in African-American literature, the first to achieve national--and some 
would argue international--recognition among African Americans.
  Paul Lawrence Dunbar was born into meager circumstances in Dayton, 
OH. His birthday we honor tomorrow on June 27, 1872. He was the son of 
former slaves who escaped to freedom. He was raised by his mother 
Matilda, who had little to give him in terms of material wealth. Her 
job as a washer woman provided little more than food and clothing for 
Paul and his four brothers and sisters. Instead, she instilled in him 
something much greater. Paul's mother taught him the arts of song and 
storytelling and instilled in her son a lasting love of poetry and 
literature. Because of his mother, the poet fell in love with the power 
of words at a very early age, some accounts having him reciting and 
writing poetry as early as age 6. This love for literature grew over 
the years as his mother encouraged him to read and reinforced the 
importance of school.
  By the time young Paul reached high school, he was the only African 
American in his class at Dayton Central High. While he faced so many 
difficulties because of his race, he achieved so much during this time 
in his life. In the face of prejudice, he became a member of the 
debating society, editor of the school paper, and president of the 
school's literary society. Working with his classmates and his friends 
in Dayton, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Paul Laurence Dunbar published an 
African-American newsletter. All the while, he helped support himself 
by working as an elevator operator in Dayton's Callahan Building.
  Dunbar's birthday, June 27, came to be a very important day for the 
poet, as it was on that day when his abilities to write were first 
showcased in his hometown and then many years later again on his 
birthday when he received national recognition--it was June 27, 1892, 
when giving the opening welcome before the Western Writers Conference 
at the Dayton Opera House.
  As the story goes, Paul was asked by his teacher Helen Truesdell only 
days before to give the opening remarks. He was nervous not only about 
writing the remarks but also about enough time away from his job as an 
elevator operator to give them.
  As Jean Gould describes in her book, ``That Dunbar Boy":


[[Page 13989]]

       Speaking to the Western Writers Conference afforded Paul 
     his first opportunity to be heard by writers beyond the 
     Dayton region, a special birthday gift that began the 
     launching and the cementing of his writing career. His 
     welcoming address received a burst of eager applause as he 
     bowed and made a dash for the backstage exit of the Opera 
     House--he was due back at the Callahan Building as the 
     elevator operator in just 10 minutes!

  This experience for Paul underscored his love of writing and his 
desire to make it his career. Soon after, he published his first book 
of poems, ``Oak and Ivy.''
  It was on June 27, 1896, that William Dean Howells, a prominent 
literary critic of the times, published a column in Harper's Weekly 
enthusiastically praising Dunbar's second book, ``Majors and Minors.''
  Howell stated:

       There has come to me from the hand of a friend, very 
     unofficially, a little book of verses, dateless, placeless, 
     without a publisher, which has greatly interested me.

  So that established Dunbar as a national literary figure. From there, 
he went on to write four collected volumes of short stories, four 
novels, three published plays, lyrics for 12 songs, 15 books of poetry, 
400 published poems, 200 unpublished poems, uncounted essays on social 
and racial topics in periodicals and newspapers in a career of less 
than 13 years.
  Literary critics to this day continue to debate Paul Lawrence Dunbar. 
It has been argued that the author should be considered one of the 
earliest crusaders for equal rights and that his work belongs in the 
long tradition of protest writing. Other critics argue against this 
sort of designation--a controversy that speaks to the complexity and 
richness of his writing.
  There is no debate that Paul Lawrence Dunbar and his works have 
enriched the history and character of his hometown, Dayton; his State--
my State--Ohio; and our great country. Paul Lawrence Dunbar is known 
throughout the world for his literary genius. He is recognized as a man 
of humanity and integrity and determination, thus becoming the first 
African American to be accepted by the discipline of American 
literature.
  Tomorrow, actually, is the date of his birth, but I stand today to 
honor this Ohioan and his work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the motion to 
proceed to the FISA bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Zimbabwe Elections

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are known happily as the world's 
greatest deliberative body and the world's greatest democracy. There 
are times when I have been here when we have indeed lived up to that 
reputation, and it has been exciting and rewarding. We also are blessed 
to serve in an institution where very frequently we extol the virtues 
of our commitment to spreading freedom around the globe. We take that 
seriously. I don't think there is a Senator here who doesn't believe in 
our responsibility to do that and who isn't proud of America's role in 
being able to do that in many parts of the world where we have made a 
difference.
  However, in recent days here in Washington, the news earlier this 
week that Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of Zimbabwe's main opposition 
party, was forced to withdraw from a runoff election that was scheduled 
for tomorrow, that news was regrettably met by an absence of the kind 
of outrage that it demands and, frankly, by an absence of action of any 
kind in the global community.
  It is important for the Senate, in my judgment, to forcefully condemn 
a shockingly brutal campaign, an overt, visible for everybody to see, 
disdainful, arrogant campaign of violence and intimidation that has 
been launched by President Robert Mugabe and his henchmen which 
rendered free and fair elections in Zimbabwe impossible.
  Morgan Tsvangirai's courageous decision not to put his supporters at 
further risk in an election that Mugabe explicitly said he would not 
respect if he did not win ought to be a wake-up call for the world and 
especially to the African leaders who have the most influence over 
Zimbabwe.
  Action is long overdue. For months now, Mugabe's thugs have savaged 
opposition politicians, civil society activists, and anyone else who 
dared to dream of a peaceful end to his rein of terror. Villagers have 
literally been handed bullets by soldiers and told to choose between 
democracy or their lives.
  Since the initial balloting in March, the MDC--the Movement for 
Democracy--believes that at least 86 of its supporters have been 
killed, over 10,000 have been injured, 2,000 unlawfully detained, and 
200,000 have fled their homes. In fact, the details of this campaign of 
violence and intimidation are even more horrifying than the statistics 
convey. Women have been burned to death. Young men have been tortured 
and dismembered, and the elderly have been savagely beaten.
  In fact, it is hard to imagine a campaign of political murder as 
brazen and visible to everybody as the one that has been unleashed on 
unarmed innocents, with a sense of complete inability to be touched by 
any civil forces outside. Mugabe very matter of factly stated last 
week:

       We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X 
     on a ballot. How can a ballpoint pen fight with a gun?

  I believe someone with that kind of attitude--willing to strip away 
democracy that all of the African nations, European nations, civilized 
nations of the world, and United Nations have agreed is the right of 
the people of Zimbabwe--that kind of attitude deserves the outrage and 
action that it asks for.
  We know that even if Tsvangirai had not withdrawn, there was a 
unanimous consensus that Mugabe would have stolen the election by 
simply rigging the ballots. Once again, this unapologetic dictator 
telegraphed his intentions, saying that only God, not the voters of 
Zimbabwe, could remove him from office.
  Democracy in Zimbabwe is not the only casualty of the news this week. 
Every bit as damaged, frankly, is the moral authority of the 
international community. Make no mistake, Mugabe is thumbing his nose 
at the international community. Daring them, with a sense of complete 
impunity, he is inviolable in whatever thuggery he wants to engage in. 
That is because he has heard the world say ``never again'' again and 
again. Then he has watched the world engage in collective hand-wringing 
as mass atrocities unfold and nothing happens, just like the last time.
  Well, this can't be allowed to continue. Until recently, there was 
little hope of vigorous international response. But Tsvangirai's 
selfless act of courage hopefully now can act as a catalyst for change.
  On Monday, the United Nations Security Council, including China and 
Russia, issued its first condemnation of violence, acknowledging it 
would be impossible for a free and fair election to take place. A day 
later, some of Africa's influential leaders called Mugabe out for the 
savagery of his intentions in this free election process. That has now 
made it, thankfully, more difficult for him to try to disguise the 
violence as a struggle against postcolonial bullying. Yesterday, that 
international community demanded that he postpone the runoff elections 
and negotiate with Tsvangirai.
  Just yesterday, on his 90th birthday, Nelson Mandela lent his voice 
of moral authority to condemn what he called the ``tragic failure of 
leadership in our neighboring Zimbabwe.'' Those are strong words, and I 
think obviously those words--coming from Nelson Mandela, the former 
President of South Africa and really founding President of their 
democracy today--those words diminish Mugabe's legitimacy.
  Obviously, words aren't going to save Zimbabwe's people. The 
international community needs to take action, and it needs to take 
action that sends the regime in Zimbabwe a simple, unequivocal message: 
Mugabe must go. If he thinks only God can remove him and shows such 
extraordinary disrespect

[[Page 13990]]

for the people of his country, clearly the international community has 
a responsibility to make it impossible for him to do anything else but 
go.
  The Senate passed a resolution that I submitted in late April, but, 
frankly, resolutions don't get the job done. They indicate an intent, a 
desire by the Senate, perhaps; they indicate that we are taking notice 
of what is happening. But this is now a matter of life and death. It is 
also a matter of the credibility of the international community.
  If words such as ``never again'' with respect to a holocaust mean 
something or if the lessons of Bosnia, Herzegovina, and the other 
disruptions that we have seen in other parts of the world mean 
anything, then we have to do whatever is necessary to be able to bring 
about a timely end to the violence and a peaceful transition to 
democracy.
  The U.N. Security Council needs to impose, immediately, quickly, 
targeted sanctions on Mugabe. It needs to impose them on his cronies 
and his family. It needs to make it clear to them that they cannot do 
what they are doing with impunity. Freezing bank accounts and imposing 
further travel restrictions are punishments that may lead those around 
Mugabe to begin to reassess their own self-interests, without doing 
harm to the people who have already had harm done to them by this 
dictatorship.
  The real leverage and legitimacy to motivate, mediate, and monitor a 
negotiated solution lies in the heart of Africa itself. The Southern 
Africa Development Community and the African Union have, frankly, too 
often been willing to sit on the sidelines. They need to play a 
sustained and active role in resolving this crisis in a way that 
respects the will of Zimbabwe's people. They need to do that now with 
the help of the European Community, ourselves, and the U.N. itself.
  If Mugabe refuses to step down, both the Southern African Development 
Community and the African Union should suspend Zimbabwe's membership 
immediately and consider applying their own sanctions. I met the other 
day with the ambassadors from Botswana in South Africa and Zambia, and 
they agreed that if Mugabe stays now in a situation where he has 
nullified unilaterally the ability to have an election, he is, in fact, 
an unconstitutional leader of the country. Under the charter of the 
African Union, the Constitution, they would be completely within their 
rights--in fact, it would be imperative that they move to isolate him 
because he no longer would be a legal leader of that country.
  The United States and the European Union need to stand squarely 
alongside African governments in withdrawing recognition from the 
illegitimate Mugabe regime and impose additional sanctions targeting 
his criminal cabal. Until recently, a few African leaders have proven 
to be an obstacle to the crisis. South Africa's President Thabo Mbeki 
is perhaps the most prominent example, sadly. I think many people had a 
much higher expectation of President Mbeki. I have known him and worked 
with him. I regret that in this situation Mr. Mbeki has chosen to 
ignore the warnings of his predecessor and icon and of others. It has 
been some time now that the world has been waiting for Thabo Mbeki in 
South Africa to weigh in squarely with respect to Zimbabwe's future.
  I believe President Mbeki is going to be judged by history for his 
response to this crisis. As the leader of the region's powerhouse in 
the southern African community, the development community's mediator in 
this crisis, President Mbeki still has an opportunity to turn up the 
heat on Mugabe, while also helping facilitate a respectable way out.
  The world cannot afford for President Mbeki to remain out of step 
with other countries in the region, not to mention his own political 
party, in condoning Mugabe's brutality. If he chooses to continue on 
this ineffectual path, then President Mbeki will remain, in fact, 
complicit in the tragic events in Zimbabwe and risk isolating himself 
internationally, as well as in his own country. If Mugabe surrenders 
and a genuinely democratic government, committed to implementing the 
needed economic and political reforms, is formed, Zimbabwe's new leader 
will be left to pick up the pieces of an economy that has been run into 
the ground by Mugabe.
  Annual inflation is reportedly running at over 150,000 percent. 
Unemployment stands at over 80 percent. Hunger grips 4 million people. 
An estimated 3,500 people die each week from hunger, disease, and other 
causes related to grinding poverty. The United States and the 
international community must be prepared to provide a comprehensive, 
economic, and political recovery package that will help the people 
recover from so many years of abuse and neglect.
  Right now, our most urgent challenge is to protect the innocent 
people in Zimbabwe who have been devastated by violence, starvation or 
inadequate access to essential care and services. We need to do that by 
pushing Africa's leaders to restore and expand humanitarian aid, 
deploying a civil protection force to prevent attacks, help victims, 
and pursue vicious criminals. Matching words with action is a great 
challenge of this body, the Senate, and particularly it is the 
responsibility of this administration. This is a test for our 
collective moral authority, our willingness to lead with our values, 
and a test of whether we are going to send the strong, necessary 
message to the people of Zimbabwe, and indeed the people in all of 
Africa, that we support their aspirations for a free and democratic 
country.
  We are losing lives almost every single day in Iraq. We are spending 
$12 billion a month. We invaded that country, purportedly, to bring 
them democracy. We support other countries in the Middle East--Lebanon 
and others--that are struggling to have democracy. We can't be 
regionally selective about where the virtues of democracy make a 
difference. In Africa, where for too long people have been neglected, 
even abandoned--and too many times they believe the rest of the world 
doesn't care--this is an opportunity for us to send a different kind of 
message and make a different kind of difference. I hope they will know 
that the free world will stand with the aspirations of those who are 
willing to risk their lives to have a better future and to actually 
give meaning, through our support, for free elections and democracy 
everywhere in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                         Winning in Afghanistan

  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, today, I rise to convey my growing 
concern--and I think the American people share this concern--on an 
issue that the three major television networks' evening newscasts 
devoted just 46 minutes of coverage to so far this year: The war in 
Afghanistan.
  The White House has become distracted and weighed down by the war in 
Iraq. It has knowingly ignored dealing with the real threats that 
endanger American interests. It is time now to refocus our efforts and 
concentrate on the real front in the war on terror, and it is time to 
get serious about winning in Afghanistan.
  The United States has one overarching priority when it comes to this 
region: to ensure that al-Qaida or any other terrorist group does not 
gain the sanctuary it requires to plot, plan, or train for another 
terrorist attack on American soil or against our allies.
  However, despite some 62,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, including 
approximately 34,000 American forces, and more than 140,000 Afghan 
troops and police, Taliban and al-Qaida forces have regrouped and 
become stronger over the past 2 years. Finding sanctuary in the 
southern and eastern parts of the country and along the border with 
Pakistan, Taliban and pro-al-Qaida forces are threatening to undermine 
hard-fought international efforts to bring stability and peace to 
Afghanistan.
  The assessment from our top experts in the field is bleak. Retired 
General James L. Jones, who until the summer of 2006 served as the 
supreme allied commander of NATO, found in one report that:

       NATO is not winning in Afghanistan. . . Afghanistan remains 
     a failing state. It could become a failed state.


[[Page 13991]]


  2007 was the deadliest year since the fall of the Taliban, with over 
6,000 people killed. Violence continues in 2008. Secretary Gates 
reported in May that for the first time, more coalition troops were 
killed in a month's fighting in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
  As of this week, at least 451 members of the U.S. military have died 
in Afghanistan, including at least 20 from my home State of 
Pennsylvania. Overall, violence has risen 27 percent in Afghanistan in 
the past year, with a 39-percent increase in attacks in the eastern 
region--where most U.S. troops operate--and a 60-percent surge in 
Helmand province, where the Taliban resurgence has been the greatest. 
Suicide bombings rose to 140 in 2007, compared with 5 between 2001 and 
2005.
  The news in recent days has also been especially troubling. Over the 
weekend, militants operating in sanctuaries in Pakistan launched rocket 
and artillery attacks into Afghanistan killing four Afghan civilians, 
including two children. NATO forces, whose patience has been repeatedly 
tested by escalating insurgent violence along the Afghan-Pakistani 
border, have since retaliated by shelling guerrillas along the 
Pakistani border.
  Last week, hundreds of NATO and Afghan forces engaged in one of their 
biggest battles in years against approximately 400 Taliban fighters in 
Kandahar. These fighters had bombed the main city jail and freed 
hundreds of their comrades. One report says that those who have been 
freed are among the most dangerous.
  These setbacks emerged as the Government Accountability Office, GAO, 
released its latest report concluding that despite spending $16.5 
billion, the Pentagon and State Department still lack a ``sustainable 
strategy'' for developing the Afghan National Security Forces. Only two 
of the Afghan Army's 105 units are fully capable of fulfilling their 
mission. No police unit is fully capable. Today, I sent a letter to 
Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice asking for answers on why our 
progress in building Afghanistan's security forces is so stunted.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    June 26, 2008.
     Hon. Robert M. Gates,
     Secretary, Department of Defense,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Condoleezza Rice,
     Secretary, Department of State,
     Washington, DC.
       Secretary Rice and Secretary Gates: I read with great 
     concern the U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO) 
     June 2008 report on the Afghan National Security Forces 
     (ANSF). Despite investing approximately $16.5 billion to 
     train and equip the Afghan army and police forces over the 
     past six years, I am alarmed to learn that the United States 
     still lacks a comprehensive interagency plan to build the 
     Afghan army and police. More troubling is the fact that only 
     two of 105 army units and zero police units are considered 
     fully capable of conducting their primary mission. I am 
     writing you today to ask a simple question: why are we so 
     behind in this fundamental task?
       Building sustainable peace requires having a national army 
     and local police that can provide and maintain security once 
     international forces leave. In the case of Afghanistan, this 
     is especially crucial as terrorists could easily reestablish 
     a safe haven. I recognize and appreciate that building 
     capable and effective security forces is a difficult and 
     complex undertaking, especially given the well-documented 
     challenges we face in Afghanistan. However, this task must 
     remain an urgent priority at the highest levels of this 
     Administration. The security services, especially the local 
     uniformed police, are the face of the Afghan Government and 
     will determine the fate of security in Afghanistan.
       I have several specific concerns regarding our efforts to 
     build and sustain the Afghan National Security Forces.
       First, the costs for maintaining the security forces are 
     estimated at approximately $2 billion per year. Given the 
     Afghan government's limited financial capacity, are these 
     costs sustainable or will the international community be 
     supporting the Afghan army and police for the foreseeable 
     future?
       Why is the United States' timeline for completion of a 
     fully capable Afghan police force (2012) different from the 
     benchmark used by the Afghan government and the international 
     community (2010)?
       How are we effectively evaluating the capability of the 
     army and the police? How are the Defense Department's 
     ``capability milestones'' being evaluated? Too often, we are 
     overly concerned with quantitative indices (i.e. number of 
     troops, weapons, uniforms, etc.) rather than taking a 
     qualitative approach. The United Nations Police (UNPOL) has 
     begun developing a Rule of Law Index (ROLIX) to help 
     qualitatively measure the progress of security sector 
     institutions in their work to establish the rule of law that 
     may be of great value here.
       The importance of civilian mentors in building the Afghan 
     security forces cannot be overstated. As the GAO has stated, 
     international peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Kosovo, and 
     East Timor have shown that field-based training of local 
     police by international police mentors is critical to the 
     success of establishing professional police forces. Why is 
     there still such a shortage of police mentors? How will this 
     be remedied?
       Equipment shortages plague both the Afghan army and police. 
     Combined Security Transition Command--Afghanistan (CSTC-A) 
     officials have stated that equipment shortages are due to 
     competing U.S. priorities in Iraq. Why are the Afghan 
     security forces facing such massive equipment shortages? Why 
     is this not a major priority for the U.S. government?
       I look forward to reading your report to Congress on our 
     efforts to assist the Government of Afghanistan in increasing 
     the size and capability of the Afghan Security Forces, 
     including assessments of key criteria for measuring the 
     capabilities and readiness of the Afghan Security Forces. I 
     cannot overemphasize how important it is that we get this 
     right and not squander any further opportunities to help 
     build these basic institutions in Afghanistan. The security 
     of the Afghan and American people depends on it.

  Mr. CASEY. The problems plaguing Afghanistan are well documented: a 
resurgence of pro-Taliban forces, a burgeoning narcotics trade, rampant 
government corruption, insufficient resources for reconstruction, 
stalled development, fragile political and security institutions, and 
sheer, mind-numbing poverty. I spent a day in Kabul last month, where I 
had the good fortune of visiting with the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee, Senator Levin, and even during this short amount of 
time, the magnitude of the challenges we face there was clear.
  But what I also discovered is that despite these awesome challenges, 
there is a strong spirit amongst Afghans and coalition troops to 
persevere in the face of overwhelming odds. Afghans do not want the 
Taliban to come back. They may be disappointed by the results of 
President Karzai's government and broken promises by the international 
community. But they have been fighting for over 30 years for peace and 
stability. And they are not going to stop now. Not when they are this 
close to achieving those goals.
  So it is now up to us to demonstrate true global leadership and 
finish what we started in 2001. This means, as the Afghanistan Study 
Group so aptly said, replacing the ``light'' footprint approach this 
administration has taken with respect to Afghanistan with the ``right'' 
footprint approach.
  There is a common sentiment here in Washington that what is needed 
the most in Afghanistan is resources. If only we had more money, more 
troops, and more trainers on the ground, we would see more positive 
results.
  It is true that we need to devote more resources to Afghanistan. That 
is why I was pleased to see that the recent international donors 
conference in Paris secured about $20 billion in commitments from more 
than 60 countries and international institutions, including a previous 
pledge of $10.2 billion from the United States. And that is why I 
applaud Secretary Gates' and Secretary Rice's repeated efforts in 
Brussels and other European capitals to secure additional Allied troops 
for the coalition in Afghanistan, troops that are free to wage combat 
where they are needed. We do need more to accomplish our mission.
  But I do not want to engage in the transatlantic blame-game of which 
country could be doing more because it glosses over the underlying 
fault lines that have plagued our strategy in Afghanistan from day one. 
Ultimately, the real problem is not just one of troops or money or 
resources.
  Rather, our mission in Afghanistan is in jeopardy because we still 
have not defined our long-term U.S. strategic objective in Afghanistan 
and, by implication, across South Asia.
  We have not linked our relevant military security operations to a 
political strategy, and, most importantly, we have not made a long-term 
strategic

[[Page 13992]]

commitment to Afghanistan in the eyes of the Afghan people. We have 
decoupled Pakistan from Afghanistan instead of formulating a strategy 
that would address the inherent and historic relationship between the 
two nations.
  It is time to reformulate our basic fundamentals on how to approach 
this war. First and foremost, any strategy for turning the tide in 
Afghanistan must incorporate what is happening in Pakistan. To date, 
this administration has not fully appreciated Pakistan's security 
paranoia and the duplicity it has generated. Fueled by a credible fear 
that the U.S. will once again leave Pakistan in the lurch, as it did in 
the seventies and nineties, credible evidence exists that Pakistani 
security forces have renewed their ties to the Taliban to preserve 
their options.
  We must redraw our map of this war to include the border region 
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. U.S. Army COL Thomas Lynch, a leading 
Afghan expert, has declared:

       The future of Afghanistan can be lost in Afghanistan, but 
     it can only be won in Pakistan.

  GEN Dan McNeill, who briefed both Senator Levin and me when we were 
in Afghanistan--he recently left after 16 months of service commanding 
NATO's international security force--warned that success in Afghanistan 
would be impossible without a more robust military campaign against 
insurgent havens in Pakistan.
  Second, we must take advantage of the opportunity to work with Afghan 
security forces. They remain nascent and fragile at this moment, but 
they have significant potential with the proper investment of training, 
manpower, and equipment. As our military leaders in Afghanistan told me 
last month, the Afghan army is made up of proud soldiers who want to 
fight for their nation and who have a can-do spirit. But we must 
provide them the tools they need.
  We cannot underestimate the importance of properly training the 
Afghan security forces. Last week, a GAO report said:

       Without capable and self-sustaining Afghan army and police 
     forces, terrorists could again create a safe haven in 
     Afghanistan and jeopardize efforts by the United States and 
     international community to develop the country.

  In particular, as Senator Levin and I recommended upon our return 
from Afghanistan, we need to assist the Afghan army to take over 
responsibility for border security functions in the territory adjoining 
Pakistan. Today, a lightly armed Afghan border police patrols this 
vital region, and this border police remains underequipped and 
underarmed. This is unacceptable. The United States and NATO allies 
should work together with the Afghan army to assume that critical 
national security function.
  Finally, our strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan must focus on 
sustained development assistance. Former U.S. commander, GEN Karl 
Eikenberry, used to say, ``The Taliban begins where the roads end.''
  Despite a massive influx of money into Afghanistan, we are not moving 
quickly enough to demonstrate to the Afghan people concrete results 
that improve their lives--building roads, schools, and hospitals.
  We need to decouple our military activities from reconstruction 
assistance and bring our development experts from the U.S. Agency for 
International Development to the table where they belong. Our 
development approach thus far has overrelied on private contractors 
whose goals, missions, and timelines do not correspond with our own.
  I have one more paragraph. We have to recognize that this battle 
against extremism is not going to be won in 2 or 4 or 10 years. It is 
not going to be won on the military battlefield. It is a generational 
challenge, a battle for the ages that will require significant 
resources in basic human development. Extremists exploit poverty, 
ignorance, and anger. The task before us is to defuse the igniters of 
that anger before they explode in the form of another failed state in 
Afghanistan or a terrorist attack in the United States.
  We have a great history in this country of helping rebuild societies 
from ashes. It is time for a new Marshall Plan for Afghanistan, one 
that links the necessary resources with the right institutional 
expertise. It is time for us to do what we do best in the world.
  In concluding, I go back to the work of the 9/11 Commission. In 
analyzing the many unexplored connections that led to that fateful day, 
September 11, 2001, the independent, bipartisan 9/11 Commission found:

       The most important failure was one of imagination. We do 
     not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat.

  That is what was said after 9/11. The same can be said today. Our 
brave men and women, the troops and diplomats who serve every day in 
Afghanistan get the picture. They see what this administration chooses 
to ignore. Failure in Afghanistan is not an option. Our national 
security, the safety of our families here, depends on what we do in 
Afghanistan, and preventing another terrorist attack here depends on 
what happens in Afghanistan and all of South Asia. We cannot fail in 
Afghanistan.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Food vs. Fuel

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, for the past few weeks, I have been 
leading an effort to dispel the myths surrounding the impact of 
biofuels policies on our food prices. You may remember that back on May 
15, I came to the Senate floor to announce to my colleagues that the 
campaign to smear ethanol is a well-funded and seemingly well-
coordinated campaign. It is being led by none other than the Grocery 
Manufacturers Association.
  In the weeks since that floor statement, I have been using every 
opportunity I can to beat back this smear campaign and inject the facts 
into the debate.
  Biofuels are being scapegoated for rising wheat prices, even though 
the 2007 crop was the largest planted in 4 years. Biofuels are being 
blamed for the increased price of products such as rice and bananas, 
which have no correlation to corn production or our biofuels policies.
  According to economists across the administration, biofuels have 
caused a tiny fraction of the increase in global and domestic food 
prices. They are also responsible for only a small portion of even the 
increase in the price of corn.
  The fact is, the increased cost of oil is the biggest driver behind 
the increased price of food. In other words, energy and how energy fits 
into the food chain and the dramatic increase in the price of oil to 
$130, $140 a barrel is the biggest driver in the increased price of 
food.
  But we also have drought in wheat-producing countries, such as 
Australia last year, adding to this increase. We have also had 
increased demand by the middle class of China and India for meats in 
their diet to a greater extent than ever before. Yet the grocery 
manufacturers and their association have focused the entire effort on 
ethanol. They see ethanol and renewable fuels as the root cause and 
most vulnerable to their attack.
  Even with oil at $135 a barrel, they see their victory in undermining 
biofuels policies. It is important to note that biofuels are actually 
working to lower the price of gasoline at the pump. In fact, in Iowa, 
you can buy gasoline with biofuels in it for about 13 cents a gallon 
cheaper than you can 100 percent gasoline.
  So while high energy costs are driving increases in food prices, the 
grocery manufacturers would have you believe that the solution is less 
energy supply. That is counterintuitive.
  The Grocery Manufacturers Association does not seem to care much 
about facts. Their criticism and talking points are not based on sound 
science, sound economics, or even common sense.
  While biofuels are easy to blame, it is intellectually dishonest to 
make these claims. But maybe intellectual dishonesty does not make any 
difference to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.
  They have indicated that they fully support advanced biofuels from 
biomass rather than food crops, and

[[Page 13993]]

maybe with ethanol we think of that as cellulosic ethanol, and of 
course, we are all supportive of efforts to promote the next generation 
of biofuels. But undercutting the current industry is not the way to 
get fuels into that second generation coming from biomass instead of 
from grain.
  Those who are determined to pull the rug out from under today's 
biofuels should know that the next generation will not exist if the 
current generation is undermined.
  I hope the Grocery Manufacturers Association has taken notice that I 
am not going to sit quietly while they try to undermine 30 years of 
public policy. In other words, 30 years ago, we decided in this 
Congress we needed more emphasis on renewable fuels because God only 
made so much fossil fuel. So you have to get to what you are going to 
do postpetroleum, and it is renewables. Of course, conservation is the 
other part of that as well.
  So 30 years ago, we started out with incentives for biofuels. It is 
still not a mature industry, but it is maturing very quickly. If you 
cut the legs out from under that industry right now and the agriculture 
that supports it and the jobs in rural America that do the work, you 
are not going to have the next generation.
  I sometimes think, even though I blame the Grocery Manufacturers 
Association because they announced this campaign of scapegoating 
ethanol, that somehow it is not just the Grocery Manufacturers 
Association. I cannot help but think that big oil is back there 
applauding everything the grocery manufacturers are doing.
  Until now, in fact, the only significant opposition to developing 
renewable fuels over the past 30 years has come from big oil. I was not 
afraid to stand up to big oil over the last 30 years, and I am not 
going to stand by while the Grocery Manufacturers Association, with 
their smear tactics, destroy what the American people have been calling 
for--an industry so we can produce renewable fuels. And because of our 
national defense, the stakes are too high.
  The Grocery Manufacturers Association's efforts, if successful, will 
raise prices at the pump in Iowa. I said 13 cents higher if you have 
100 percent gasoline instead of 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent 
gasoline. And in the process, we would be increasing our dependence on 
foreign oil. Why not keep the money in the United States instead of 
spending $130 a barrel and sending it over to the Arabs where they will 
allow terrorists to train against us? Is risking our national and 
economic security worth the bottom line of a few multimillion-dollar 
food companies? Don't be fooled. Their campaign is not altruistic. It 
came directly from their mouths that this campaign is about their 
``bottom line.''
  Where is the outrage? American consumers need to know that a few big 
food companies are jeopardizing our efforts toward energy independence 
so that they can raise the price of food and increase their profits. 
They want to do away with this industry and, in the process, as Iowa 
State University tells us, without ethanol, gasoline would be on 
average about 30 cents higher per gallon. If the increased price of 
energy goes up, and energy is the cause for about one-third of the 
increase in the cost of food, then obviously food is going to go yet 
higher.
  We are on a path, from the standpoint of national security and 
economic security, to reduce our dependence on oil from the likes of 
Venezuela and Iran. The Grocery Manufacturers Association wants to put 
the brakes on our efforts toward energy independence. They apparently 
prefer putting our economic security in the hands of crazy people, such 
as the President of Venezuela and the President of Iran, rather than 
putting their economic security in the hands of American farmers 
growing renewable fuels.
  The Grocery Manufacturers Association, through their president and 
CEO, Cal Dooley, requested to have a meeting with me to discuss the 
impact of food-to-fuel policies. Given the association's objectives to 
``obliterate whatever intellectual justification might still exist for 
their corn-based ethanol among policy elites''--and that is what their 
public relations firm said about ethanol--I was pleased to accept 
former Congressman Dooley's efforts to talk to me about it.
  U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer was also kind enough to 
accept my offer to participate in that meeting. However, I thought to 
have a meaningful discussion on their campaign to smear ethanol and my 
justification for renewable fuels, and so I requested the attendance of 
chief executives of 15 of the GMA's member companies. I thought it 
would be important for the CEOs of these companies, who are members of 
the association, to speak for themselves about the impact biofuel 
policies are having on their businesses. The companies themselves are 
in a much better position to explain why they believe the anti-ethanol 
campaign they have underwritten would be warranted. So I invited the 
CEOs of Campbell's Soup, Del Monte Foods, Lakeside Foods, Sarah Lee, 
Dean Foods, Hormel Foods, Procter & Gamble, Kellogg's, Land O'Lakes, 
ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Kraft, Ralston Foods, Cargill, and Archer 
Daniels Midland to come to the meeting. I expected to have many of the 
CEOs jump at the opportunity to tell me I am wrong. I thought I would 
hear firsthand how the increase in corn prices was affecting the bottom 
line of General Mills or Kellogg's or Kraft.
  Many of the CEOs I invited are members of that trade association's 
board of directors. Naturally, I expected the CEOs to want to defend 
their association's campaigns and its tactics. Unfortunately, that is 
not what I got. Only one CEO--Chris Policinski of Land O'Lakes--agreed 
to attend, and Cargill offered a senior executive in place of their 
CEO. But of 15 companies, only one CEO thought it was worth their time 
to come to Washington and visit with me and Secretary of Agriculture 
Schafer about their trade association's campaign to smear ethanol. So I 
had no choice but to cancel the meeting.
  They have hired a high-priced public relations firm to coordinate 
their campaign. One would assume they believe in the policies they are 
promoting. So why wouldn't they take advantage of this opportunity to 
convince Secretary Schafer and me that we have it all wrong? This is 
clearly a high priority for them. They seem to have invested a great 
deal in it, and a lot of dollars in it. Why wouldn't they attend the 
meeting? Don't they believe in what they are doing?
  It appears all they want to do is to give a thumbs-up to their trade 
association's hiring of expensive PR firms to do their dirty work, 
instead of entering into real dialog with those of us who feel strongly 
that this country needs a policy of renewable energy, and more 
renewable energy every day.
  I don't know whether GMA encouraged these CEOs not to attend. My 
colleagues might find it amusing, however, that two companies declined 
my invitation with a form letter. The letter from Mr. Conant, CEO of 
Campbell's, and the letter from Mr. Mackay, CEO of Kellogg's, used the 
same text declining my invitation. Now isn't that something? CEOs of 
two major companies coming up with exactly the same words in letters 
signed by them to decline. I don't know who wrote it first, but I might 
expect CEOs of such primary companies to be a little more original in 
their communication with me. It makes one wonder who wrote the letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
at the end of my remarks these two letters.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to keep pounding home the 
facts behind the relationship between food prices and biofuels, because 
it is not supported by economics, it is not supported by common sense, 
and it is not supported by sound science. The fact is, biofuels are 
increasing our national security, biofuels are helping our balance of 
trade, and they are reducing our dependence on Middle East oil and the 
whims of big oil. Every barrel we use of biofuels is $135 not going to 
some foreign land where they train terrorists to kill Americans.

[[Page 13994]]

  So it is time we cleared the air, it is time we looked at the facts, 
and it is time we recognize, once again, that everything about our 
domestic renewable fuel industry is good, good, good. I emphasize it is 
good for the environment--less CO2 in the air--it is good 
for good jobs in rural America, because a lot of these ethanol 
refineries are in rural America, where we never thought we would have 
good-paying jobs, and a lot of these refineries respond to another 
problem--we don't have enough oil refineries in this country. In a 
sense, every ethanol plant, every biofuels plant is a refinery. It is 
good for our national security, which I think I have made very clear, 
and it is good for agriculture. It is good that we don't have 
Government supporting surplus grains. We are not having taxpayers' 
money go out to farmers. Farmers are getting their money from the 
marketplace now that prices are higher.
  So I don't know how many times I have to say it, but there are no 
negatives about biofuels and everything about them is good, good, good.

                               Exhibit 1


                                        Campbell Soup Company,

                                        Camden, NJ, June 18, 2008.
     Hon. Charles Grassley,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: Thank you for your invitation to meet 
     regarding the relationship between US biofuels policies and 
     their impact on commodity and food prices. Regrettably, I am 
     unable to attend.
       In my stead, however, the Grocery Manufacturers Association 
     and a number of other organizations with similar concerns 
     plan to participate. I also unders1and GMA will extend to you 
     an invitation to attend the November meeting of the GMA Board 
     of Directors, where we can have a full and productive 
     discussion regarding our nation's energy policy.
       As you know, GMA is working with many farm organizations, 
     including the National Turkey Federation, the National 
     Chicken Council, and the National Cattleman's Beef 
     Association, to improve our federal food-to-fuel policies by 
     accelerating the development of biofuels made from crop 
     wastes and other energy feedstocks. Many experts have 
     concluded that cellulosic biofuels hold enormous promise and 
     will not pit our energy needs against the needs of food 
     companies, livestock farmers and consumers. The Campbell Soup 
     Company strongly supports biofuel policies that boost the 
     income of farmers and simultaneously meet the needs of food 
     companies and consumers.
       In light of growing prices for corn and other commodities, 
     we support policies that will reduce the use of food and feed 
     crops to produce fuels. Although there are many factors 
     contributing to rising commodity prices, federal policies 
     that divert one-third of the U.S. corn crop is the only 
     factor legislators have the power to change. Recent studies 
     by the World Bank, the United Nations, and America's leading 
     agricultural think tanks have linked rising commodity prices 
     to these federal food-to-fuel policies.
       Again, I thank you for your kind invitation to join you and 
     Secretary Schaffer to discuss these concerns and regret that 
     I am unable to attend. If appropriate, I would be happy to 
     offer Kelly Johnston, Campbell's Vice President--Government 
     Affairs, whom you know, to represent our company. The 
     Campbell Soup Company looks forward to working with you and 
     all interested parties to craft sensible and sustainable 
     energy policy.
           Sincerely,
                                                      D.R. Conant,
     President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____



                                              Kellogg Company,

                                  Battle Creek, MI, June 17, 2008.
     Charles E. Grassley
     U.S. Senator,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grassley: Kellogg Company strongly supports 
     biofuel policies that boost the income of farmers and 
     simultaneously meet the needs of food companies and 
     consumers. I sincerely appreciate your invitation to meet 
     regarding these policies on June 24th, Regrettably, I am 
     unable to attend.
       In my stead, however, the Grocery Manufacturers Association 
     and a number of other organizations with similar concerns 
     plan to participate. I also understand GMA will extend to you 
     an invitation to attend the November meeting of the GMA Board 
     of Directors, where we can have a full and productive 
     discussion regarding our nation's energy policy.
       As you know, GMA is working with many farm organizations, 
     including the National Turkey Federation, the National 
     Chicken Council, and the National Cattleman's Beef 
     Association, to improve our federal food-to-fuel policies by 
     accelerating the development of biofuels made from crop 
     wastes and other energy feedstocks. Many experts have 
     concluded that cellulosic biofuels hold enormous promise and 
     will not pit our energy needs against the needs of food 
     companies, livestock farmers and consumers.
       In light of growing prices for corn and other commodities, 
     we support policies that will reduce the use of food and feed 
     crops to produce fuels. Although there are many factors 
     contributing to rising commodity prices, federal policies 
     that divert one-third of the U.S. corn crop is the only 
     factor legislators have the power to change. Recent studies 
     by the World Bank, the United Nations, and America's leading 
     agricultural think tanks have linked rising commodity prices 
     to these federal food-to-fuel policies.
       Again, I thank you for your kind invitation to join you and 
     Secretary Schaffer to discuss these concerns and regret that 
     I am unable to attend. Kellogg Company looks forward to 
     working with you and all interested parties to craft sensible 
     and sustainable energy policy.
           Sincerely,

                                            A.D. David MacKay,

                                                        President,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the time until 2:15 is under the control of 
the junior Senator from Alaska or her designee.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                           Alaskan Statehood

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today is an opportunity for us in the 
next 45 minutes to talk about a celebration. We have had some pretty 
serious business under discussion here on the Senate Floor, and today I 
and my colleague, Senator Stevens, joined by others, rise to celebrate 
the 50th anniversary of the Senate passage of the Alaska Statehood Act, 
the act which eventually conveyed statehood upon the great State of 
Alaska after a fight for equal rights and representation that lasted 
literally decades.
  After a long and contentious battle, both in Congress and across the 
country, the Senate passed the Alaska Statehood Act 50 years ago, on 
June 30, by a vote of 64 to 20. The act was signed into law 7 days 
later by President Eisenhower, and Alaska officially became a State on 
January 3, 1959. This was the headline in the Anchorage Daily News 
announcing, ``We're In.'' Our territorial Governor, Mike Stepovich, 
President Eisenhower, and Secretary Seaton are in this photo that we 
look to in our State's very young history with great fondness.
  This year across the State, there will be celebrations all over put 
on by communities, by clubs, by businesses, by the State government. To 
help kick off this celebration, I would like to briefly remember a 
little bit of the history of a very rough journey toward statehood.
  The territory of Alaska was bought from Russia in 1867. I know many 
students, when they are looking at their history books, learn that it 
was dubbed ``Seward's Folly.'' It was World War II and the Cold War 
that really transformed the face of Alaska, however. Having a 
strategically critical location for both wars, Alaska saw a large 
increase in Federal money and population in the 1930s and the 1940s.
  While the aspiration for statehood had existed for many years and 
though Alaska had a delegate to Congress since 1906, it was during this 
time period that a serious and motivated and modern statehood movement 
rose up and captured the attention of Alaskans across the State.
  The Alaska Statehood Committee was formed in 1949. This committee of 
11 Alaskans was bipartisan. No more than six could belong to the same 
party, and at least two members had to come from each of the four 
judicial districts Alaska had at the time. They were given the task of 
publicizing and educating the public on statehood, both in Alaska and 
nationally, as well as framing a State constitution.
  As early as 1946, though, 3 years before the Statehood Committee was 
formed, there was a large majority of Americans who were already very 
supportive of Alaskan statehood. A Gallup

[[Page 13995]]

Poll that year indicated that 64 percent of Americans were in favor of 
statehood, with only 12 percent opposed. The percentage of supportive 
Americans grew to 81 percent by 1950. But even then, nearly a decade 
still remained in what became a bitter battle against special 
interests.
  The wealthy salmon canning industry was the primary lobbying group 
that opposed statehood at the time. The salmon canners would put fish 
traps at the mouth of some of Alaska's largest rivers, and they caught 
nearly 30 percent of Alaska's salmon every year, sending the yearly 
salmon catch plummeting from 924 million pounds to 360 million pounds 
over a 20-year period. Alaska was in a tough spot. They were powerless 
to resist. With 99 percent of the territory's land owned by the Federal 
Government and with very little control over resource policy, the 
industry was pretty much free to devastate one of the State's most 
valuable renewable resources, and that was our Alaskan salmon.
  This desire for a say in our own affairs only grew the intense desire 
of Alaskans to attain statehood for themselves. The newspaper the New 
York Journal-American summed up the situation this way:

       Alaska wants statehood with the fervor men and women give 
     to a transcendent cause. An overwhelming number of men and 
     women voters in the United States want statehood for Alaska. 
     This Nation needs Alaskan statehood to advance her defense, 
     sustain her security, and discharge her deep moral 
     obligation.

  In 1950, after years of thwarted attempts to bring an Alaska 
statehood bill to the floor of either Chamber of Congress despite the 
strong support of President Truman, a bill actually got a floor vote. 
It passed the House of Representatives, but it failed over here in the 
Senate.
  Frustrated by repeated legislative defeats, Alaskans decided to write 
a State constitution. This was done in 1955. We decided to do it to 
show the country that we were politically mature and genuinely ready 
for statehood.
  After a 75-day Constitutional Convention at the University of Alaska 
Fairbanks, a constitution was adopted by the delegates and ratified by 
Alaskans. It was later described by the National Municipal League as 
``one of the best, if not the best state constitutions ever written.''
  The way it dealt with natural resources was particularly distinctive 
and ingenious. The State's natural resources were viewed as a public 
trust and were required to be developed for ``maximum use consistent 
with the public interest [and] for the maximum benefit of its people.'' 
Development based on ``sustainable yield'' was constitutionally 
mandated. To this day, the State continues to operate on this principle 
in our fisheries, minerals, fossil fuel development, and our timber. 
One example of the results of this policy is that Alaska is the only 
region in the United States that has no overfished fish stocks.
  Two years after the constitution was ratified and 50 years ago, on 
May 28, the House of Representatives voted on the bill that would 
eventually confer statehood upon Alaska. The bill passed the House 210 
to 166. The Senate passed it 64 to 20, and then President Eisenhower 
signed it into law. Over 15 years passed between April 2, 1943, when 
the first bill was introduced, and June 30, 1958, when the final bill 
was passed. We were officially a State on January 3, 1959.
  I have been perusing the Congressional Record to kind of get a sense 
of the Senate debate at the time, the debate that preceded Alaska's 
entry into the American Union. I am a born and raised Alaskan. I have 
found the record absolutely fascinating. It includes enthusiastic and 
very passionate arguments in favor of statehood but also countered by 
lawmakers who saw Alaska's entry into the Union as being a huge 
mistake. There is even an occasional Communist threat reference, a 
reminder that this debate occurred against the backdrop of the Cold 
War.
  Some of the arguments against statehood included the fact that Alaska 
was not contiguous with the rest of the United States; Alaska was not 
sufficiently developed economically or politically to be ready for 
statehood. There was also a reference to the fact that Alaska doesn't 
produce enough agriculture.
  There were provisions granting Federal land to the State. They 
alleged it was a huge Federal giveaway, but keep in mind that the 
Federal Government still owns over half of the State of Alaska. But 
really the argument centered around the concern that Alaska would be a 
huge burden on the Federal Government financially.
  Senator Richard Neuberger of Oregon, who was a supporter and was 
presiding over the Senate during the historic Alaska statehood rollcall 
vote, said that Alaska statehood would afford the United States the 
opportunity to show that ``we practice what we preach.''
  Neuberger said:

       For decades we have preached democracy to the rest of the 
     world, yet we have denied full self-government to our vast 
     outposts to the north, despite many assurances that such 
     would not be the case.

  He continued on by saying:

       The voice of America may talk of democracy, but its message 
     will ring hollowly through the rest of the Free World if 
     America fails to practice democracy. In the crucible of world 
     opinion, we shall be tested by deeds and not words. Statehood 
     for Alaska will be a tangible deed.

  Among Alaska's greatest friends in the Senate were both Senators from 
Washington State, Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson and Warren Magnuson. Jackson 
told his colleagues that the time was ``past due'' for the admission of 
Alaska to the Union, while Magnuson said it in another way. He said:

       Alaska has sat impatiently in the anteroom of history for 
     42 years.

  These comments represent only a fraction of the Alaska statehood 
debate which began years before the last frontier became the 49th 
State, but still they offer some valuable perspective on the challenges 
and obstacles our forefathers faced on the road to statehood.
  A few of my colleagues will be joining us over the next half hour or 
so to help remember and reenact the debate that occurred 50 years ago. 
I am grateful for their willingness to join me in celebrating our 50th 
anniversary of the 49th star on the flag.
  I mentioned that Alaska has been referred to as ``Seward's Folly.'' I 
don't think many people know that we also were referred to as 
``Icebergia,'' obviously a reference to the colder environment up 
there. But Alaska has since made incredibly significant contributions 
to our great Nation. I do not think anyone considers Alaska a folly. We 
provide 55 percent of America's seafood, we attracted 1.5 million 
tourists last summer to the State, and we have been a stable domestic 
supplier of U.S. oil needs for the past 30 years.
  Alaska is proud to be ``the Great Land'' in the greatest Nation in 
the world. I am privileged to represent its people here in the United 
States.
  With that, I yield the floor to my senior colleague, Senator Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The senior Senator from Alaska 
is recognized.
  Mr. STEVENS. I believe I have been allocated 20 minutes to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no previous order.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, that photograph brings back many memories 
to me. The gentleman on the right was my employer at the time, the 
Secretary of Interior, Fred Seaton. As a matter of fact, I was standing 
right behind him at the time that photograph was taken.
  I remember the debate here on the floor of the Senate on the Alaska 
statehood bill. On the day the vote was taken, I was standing up where 
those people are right now in the Press Gallery. That was unheard of, 
but I was standing beside my good friend who was the editor of the 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, C.W. ``Bill'' Snedden. He had bought this 
newspaper. He purchased it a few years before we got statehood, and he 
turned its policy around to support statehood.
  One of the things he created was a cartoon they put on the front page 
of the paper every day. It was a small thing down at the bottom. This 
was Sourdough Jack. Sourdough Jack had wise sayings every day. This one 
day he published this, it was:


[[Page 13996]]

       All of the valid arguments against Alaska statehood are 
     listed in full on pages 2, 3, and 4.

  All blank. That was the attitude of Alaskans. There really was no 
valid opposition to our becoming a State.
  However, I think the Senate should know what the Senate did then and 
the role of the Senate in Alaska becoming a State--and Hawaii, too, 
later the same year.
  Our delegate at that time in the House of Representatives, Democrat 
Bob Bartlett, discovered an old rule in the House that permitted 
matters of constitutional import to be taken to the floor of the House 
and worked on solely by the Committee of the Whole of the House, 
bypassing the Rules Committee. So after having tried since 1913 into 
1958 to get statehood, our delegate made the motion to bypass the Rules 
Committee. With a vote of the House, they approved going right to the 
floor with the Alaska statehood bill. That was an achievement no one 
could even have expected. But it showed the power of the press at that 
time. The American press took up the cudgel, they took up the sword to 
have both Alaska and Hawaii become States. It was really great to see 
Hearst and Luce and so many of the leaders of the newspaper profession 
joined together to urge the American people to swell up and demand 
these bills be passed.
  As the bill passed the House and came over here, there was a great 
problem because the Rules Committee chairman made it very plain that if 
there was an attempt to have a conference committee on this bill 
admitting Alaska to the Union, he would see to it that it would never 
see the light of day in the House. So our job at that time was to get 
the statehood bill passed by the Senate without one single change--not 
a comma, no paragraphs, nothing altered, and nothing changed.
  I think the Senate today would appreciate that problem because those 
were the days of the true filibusters. Those were the days before the 
current rule on cloture. At that time, it took two-thirds to stop 
debate. It was something to behold, sitting in the gallery as I did, to 
see the power of Senator Scoop Jackson on the one hand and Senator 
Norris Cotton on the other--Norris Cotton being a Republican from New 
Hampshire, Scoop Jackson being a Democrat from Washington--guide that 
bill through the Senate and overcome the filibuster that was led by my 
late good friend Strom Thurmond.
  It is a total tribute to the democracy we represent that this 
enormous act of admitting a State--there had not been another State 
admitted since Arizona had been admitted in 1913. Here we were in a 
post-World War II period, when part of the momentum for our getting 
statehood was, in fact, the people who had served in the Armed Forces 
and were stationed in Hawaii or in Alaska--many of them had been 
stationed in the territories and went back to the territories after 
they were released from service after we won World War II.
  But this day, the day the Senate finally passed this bill, was a 
unique one.
  The galleries were full. That is one reason I was up in the press 
gallery rather than over in the normal gallery for visitors. But, very 
clearly, we knew it was going to be a difficult day for us. We had 
counted votes and all of the rest trying to predict what was going to 
happen. But when it happened, I want the Senate to know, this was 
something significant that happened. The people in that photograph, 
except for the President, gathered right out in the reception room of 
the Senate. Then we went to--Republican and Democratic alike--members 
and people from the gallery, we went to the then-chapel of the Senate, 
and we offered a prayer to thank the people who had given us this new 
right.
  It was one of the most significant days that I can remember in my 
life. I am proud of my colleague who has brought upon the Senate the 
idea of having some remembrance here of what went on in those days. Our 
State has become a State. We have developed our economy to be one of 
the great producers of natural resources. Many people have challenged 
that, and we are currently blocked in exploring the Outer Continental 
Shelf off our State. Two-thirds of the Continental Shelf of the United 
States is off our State.
  Every well so far that has been tried has been blocked. We have been 
blocked now for 25 years at getting the right. We thought we achieved 
it in the 1980 act which set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic for 
oil and gas exploration and development.
  I hope we will come to a time where we will realize the errors of our 
past and we will find that the day will come when the Arctic Coastal 
Plain will be opened. Once it is, the Alaska oil pipeline, which was 
built to carry 2.1 million barrels a day--it is carrying less than 
700,000 barrels a day now--will be full. Because we know from 3-D 
seismic and from the well that was drilled, there is no question that 
there is oil on the Coastal Plain that some people call ANWR. But the 
development of that plain will bring us, both the Federal Government 
and the State, billions of dollars that we want to dedicate to the 
development of renewable and alternative resources.
  For instance, we have half the coal of the United States. We should 
have mine-mouth conversion for coal gasification, coal liquefaction.
  We have those magnificent five military bases in our State. They all 
need lots of energy. We have to find some way to assure they will have 
energy for our national defense. I think we are proceeding to the point 
that the American people know what we must have; that is, we must have 
the right to proceed to develop our resources.
  Fred Seaton, whose picture was photographed there as the Secretary of 
the Interior, was an appointed Senator from the State of Nebraska. He 
made only one statement on the floor of the Senate. He was absolutely 
convinced that Alaska should become a State.
  Let me read a portion of what he said:

       Alaska is as deserving of statehood, and as ready for 
     statehood, and as greatly in need of statehood, to come into 
     her own, as were any of the present States when it was their 
     turn before the bar of the Senate.
       Let us deal with the American citizens in Alaska no less 
     generously in this manner than were our forbearers dealt with 
     in their respective territories. Alaska, like all other 
     States will keep the faith and carry the grand old United 
     States tradition. Alaska's star has for too long been denied 
     its rightful place on the glorious flag of the United States 
     of America.

  We, as Alaskans, are proud of what we have done. From the days we 
became a part of the United States in 1867 when Secretary Seward led 
the negotiations to buy the Territory of Alaska from Russia for a mere 
2 cents an acre, we have contributed substantially to the income, the 
resources, and to the well-being of our people.
  We are the northern territory for the defense of this country. Our 
national missile defense site at Fort Greely, AK, has the capability of 
defending the whole United States, 360 degrees around, from Maine to 
Florida, from the tip of California to the tip of Alaska. That national 
missile defense site defends America.
  We have committed ourselves to support those in uniform who defend 
this country and defend our way of life. So I think this is a wonderful 
thing to celebrate, the fact that the Senate took the action it did in 
approving the basic approach of the House to take the initiative to 
bring Alaska into the Union.
  We were followed by our great and dear friends from Hawaii. And many 
people wonder why we are so close, those of us from Hawaii and Alaska. 
We represent offshore States. When we got here, many of the laws that 
applied to the 48 States did not apply to us. The effect of our working 
together has been that Hawaii has four Senators and Alaska has four 
Senators because we have a lot in common. We do not vote together on 
issues of national issues, that is not a position. But when it comes to 
the rights of our States, we have shown what can happen in the Congress 
of the United States when two delegations say: We are together. And as 
new States, we deserve to be recognized and treated as equal partners 
in this Union.
  I am proud to speak of the alliance that we have with Senators Inouye 
and Akaka--that has been achieved in my almost 40 years here.

[[Page 13997]]

  As I have said, Mr. President, for many days in June of 1958 I 
watched from the gallery as the Senate debated and finally passed the 
Alaska Statehood Act. That vote marked the end of our long and 
difficult road to self-determination.
  Alaska was my home. I had been U.S. Attorney in Fairbanks. Working in 
Washington as Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, 
I became involved in the battle for statehood.
  Some Americans believed Alaska was too remote and too politically 
immature to become a full partner in the Union.
  Alaskans worked tirelessly to show the American people and Congress 
that the Union would benefit from Alaskan statehood. My friends, Bill 
Snedden, publisher of the Fairbanks Daily News Miner, and Bob Atwood, 
publisher of the Anchorage Times, wrote to almost every paper in the 
U.S. setting forth our positions for statehood and requesting support 
for our efforts.
  Alaskans reached out to their friends and family in the lower 48 
asking them to write their Senators requesting they support statehood.
  Fifty-five men and women met at our constitutional convention in 
Fairbanks and devoted themselves to creating what has been called ``the 
best state constitution ever written,'' proving Alaskans had the 
political maturity to join our union.
  I worked with the Secretary of the Interior, Fred Seaton, and members 
of the Eisenhower administration to explain the President's support of 
Alaska being a State.
  Six years earlier Secretary Seaton had been a Senator from Nebraska. 
He served for only 1 year being appointed to fill the vacancy caused by 
the death of Senator Wherry. In his first address to this body, Senator 
Seaton spoke strongly in support of statehood for Alaska, recalling the 
doubts and objections raised when his own State of Nebraska was 
struggling for statehood.
  Senator Seaton said:

       Alaska is as deserving of statehood, and as ready for 
     statehood, and as greatly in need of statehood, to come into 
     her own, as were any of the present States when it was their 
     turn before the bar of the Senate.
       Let us deal with the American citizens in Alaska no less 
     generously in this matter than were our forbearers dealt with 
     in their respective territories. Alaska, like all the other 
     States, will keep the faith and carry on the grand old United 
     States tradition. Alaska's star has for too long been denied 
     its rightful place on the glorious flag of the United States 
     of America.

  Our delegate to the House of Representatives, Bob Bartlett and our 
``Tennessee Plan'' Senators and Representatives, and Alaskan pioneers 
Ernest Gruening, Bill Egan and Ralph Rivers met with Members of 
Congress to convince them to support Alaska statehood.
  After the House passed our statehood bill on May 28, 1958, opponents 
in the Senate tried to stop the bill by attaching controversial, 
unrelated amendments.
  Our good friend from Washington, Senator Henry ``Scoop'' Jackson led 
a bipartisan effort to fend off changes to the bill.
  In the 6 days of debate prior to the vote, Senators carefully weighed 
the prospect of granting statehood to Alaska.
  Alaskans are proud of all we have accomplished in the 50 years since 
that historic vote.
  Through responsible development of our vast natural resources we are 
working to build a strong and vibrant economy.
  Prudhoe Bay and the 800 mile Trans-Alaska Pipeline, completed in 
1977, have delivered more than 15 billion barrels of oil to the 
American economy.
  In 2007 alone, Alaska's mining industry contributed an export value 
of $1.1 billion to the national economy.
  Through science-based management, our fisheries have been protected 
and rehabilitated. Because of our success, Alaska's fisheries 
management principles are now used as models for fisheries across the 
country. Today half our Nation's total domestic seafood production 
comes from Alaska.
  Modern water and sewer facilities and health care clinics are now 
located in most rural Alaskan communities. Through these and other 
projects and development of our natural resources, Alaskans are 
creating educational and job opportunities in the most remote corners 
of our state.
  Alaskans proved our strategic military value to the Nation during 
WWII when our Territorial Guard provided a first line of defense and 
protected the terminus of the lend lease Aerial Bridge at Fairbanks.
  Today Alaskans welcome and support the men and women of the 1st of 
the 25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team based in Fairbanks, the 4th of the 
25th Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Anchorage and the 11th Air 
Force based at Elmendorf.
  They, and our Alaska National Guard, have served our Nation bravely 
in Afghanistan and Iraq and around the world. Our strong tradition of 
service has resulted in more veterans per capita living in Alaska than 
in any other State.
  While Alaskans have much to celebrate on our 50th anniversary of 
statehood, we continue working to accomplish more.
  The Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline will deliver 4 billion cubic feet of 
domestically produced natural gas each day to homes and businesses 
throughout the United States. Our pipeline will also create 400,000 new 
jobs nationwide.
  Continued development of Alaska's resources, including oil and gas 
development on the arctic coastal plain and our outer continental 
shelf, could also help deliver the energy needed to power our Nation's 
economy.
  Recent estimates show that the arctic coastal plain alone could 
deliver 1.5 million barrels of oil a day to market and contribute 
billions of dollars in corporate income tax revenues and royalties to 
the U.S. Treasury.
  Alaskans began our journey to statehood in 1867 when the Secretary of 
State William Seward advocated for the purchase of the territory from 
Russia for a mere 2 cents an acre. At the time the decision was 
ridiculed as ``Seward's folly.''
  Alaskans have worked hard to realize the full potential of our land 
and our people. There is no doubt Alaskans have lived up to the faith 
the Senate showed in us 50 years ago when it voted to grant us 
statehood. Alaskans have earned the name of our State, ``the Great 
Land.''
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I want to thank my senior colleague for 
his comments. It is rare that we have an opportunity to speak from such 
personal knowledge about the battle for statehood.
  As he spoke, I imagined Senator Stevens sitting up there in the 
galley watching this debate anxiously as the future of Alaska was being 
decided. So it is an honor to work with him representing the people of 
Alaska. But for him to be able to share this historical perspective is 
wonderful. Our neighbors to the south in Washington have worked with us 
on so many different issues over the years.
  As I mentioned in my comments, Senator Jackson and Senator Magnuson 
were big advocates for statehood for the State of Alaska.
  I am delighted that our colleague, Senator Murray, has agreed to join 
us in talking about Alaska's statehood.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. ``Mr. President, let us vote for the 49th star in the 
flag.'' Those were the words from the great Senator from the State of 
Washington, Warren Magnuson, spoken on this floor in 1958, just before 
this body finally agreed to make Alaska one of the United States.
  Today, I am very pleased to join our colleagues from the north in 
Alaska to say a warm congratulations to the people of Alaska on this 
50th anniversary of their statehood. Alaska's statehood, as you heard, 
was controversial a half century ago. But I think time has proven that 
the United States is a greater Nation thanks to the Land of the 
Midnight Sun.
  As Senator Murkowski has said, Washington State's Senators, Warren 
Magnuson and Henry Jackson, were some of Alaska's greatest friends. 
Their advocacy helped to sway this Senate that Alaskans were ready to

[[Page 13998]]

join the Union. Today I want to give you a flavor of that debate at the 
time and their role in it.
  Back in 1958, Alaska's statehood had already been an issue for 42 
years, and legislation to make it a State had been introduced in every 
Congress since 1943.
  As Senator Jackson said in one speech that led up to that final vote 
that Congress had held 11 hearings, two of them in Alaska, and others 
here in Washington, DC. And more than 4,000 pages of testimony had been 
published.
  ``It was time to put the issue to rest,'' he argued, and I quote:

       There can be no doubt that the record is complete. Our 
     objective is statehood. It can be achieved now.

  Those were the words of Senator Jackson back then. And as the debate 
continued, Senators Magnuson and Jackson were confident that Alaska was 
ready.
  Senator Magnuson argued that with 180,000 citizens, Alaska had more 
residents than Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Alabama, Nevada, Idaho, and 
21 other States when they were admitted into the Union. He pointed out 
to this body that Alaska was strategically located between the United 
States and the Soviet Union and that it was home to two important 
military bases at the time right when the Cold War was escalating.
  He dismissed the argument that Alaska could not support itself as a 
State because that argument had not held up when it was used for his 
own State of Washington.
  He said:

       Alaskans feel confident that they can lick this problem as 
     they have met and solved others. I say, we should give them 
     that opportunity.

  So in Senator Magnuson's mind, the controversy was very similar to a 
family argument about whether a child was ready to leave home. He said:

       These United States, like fearful parents, can waver 
     further in indecision, and allow our lack of confidence to 
     undermine Alaskans and say, ``You will be ready for statehood 
     someday, but not now.'' Or we can be proud of Alaskans' 
     determination to strike out for their true independence 
     through their own real self government.

  ``The United States should follow through the second course,'' 
Magnuson said.
  He said:

       The territory feels entitled to sit and deliberate with 
     us--be one of us. Alaska wants to work out her own future, 
     just as each of the other 48 partners in our nation have been 
     allowed to do. Alaska's hopes, aspirations, and quiet self-
     confidence are understandable. She knows that her resources, 
     her people, and their combined potential spell a brilliant 
     future.
       Alaska has sat impatiently in the anteroom of history for 
     42 years. Alaska should be a State.

  I am very proud of the role Washington's two Senators played in this 
debate at the time. Alaska's road to statehood was long and it was 
hard. But Alaskans are some of the toughest people around. They fought 
for their rights. They did not give up. And they prevailed.
  So as they celebrate across their State I wish them a happy and a 
successful future. I want to close by once more quoting Senator 
Magnuson's words to the people of Alaska.
  He said:

       We approve and commend your vision, understand and believe 
     your hopes, know that your mission and goal can and will be 
     reached, so good luck and godspeed.

  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I am honored to stand and speak today on 
the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the legislation establishing 
Alaska as our 49th State. I continue a tradition of sorts: A former 
Idaho Senator, Frank Church, stood in this same chamber 50 years ago, 
May 5, 1958, to be exact, to call for Alaska's statehood.
  Let me begin, if I may, with the words Senator Church recited that 
day:

     Wild and wide are my borders,
     Stern as death is my sway,
     And I will wait for the men who will win me--
     And I will not be won in a day;
     And I will not be won by weaklings,
     Subtle, suave and mild,
     But by men with the hearts of Vikings
     And the simple faith of a child;
     Desperate, strong and restless,
     Unthrottled by fear or defeat,
     Them I will guild with my treasure,
     Them I will glut with my meat.
     Send me the best of your breeding,
     Lend me your chosen ones,
     Them I will take to my bosom,
     Them I will call my sons.

  These lines come from a poem entitled, ``The Law of the Yukon,'' and 
were written by Robert W. Service, a Canadian poet who traveled north, 
caught up in the fever of the Klondike Gold Rush. The poem was inspired 
by the majesty of the land of the Northwest Territories and the Alaska 
territory, and for Senator Church set the stage for an impassioned, 
intricately argued plea for Alaska's statehood.
  Senator Church spoke that day of taxation without representation. He 
referenced the treaty by which the United States acquired Alaska which 
said that the inhabitants of the Territory ``shall be admitted to the 
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of 
the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free 
enjoyment of their liberty.'' Senator Church asked this body the 
question: ``Can it be that ours, too, will be the error of the Roman 
senate, which sapped the vitality and strength from the Roman Republic, 
refusing to extend the right of franchise, until government became a 
mockery, empty of empty of principle . . .?''
  Fortunately for the United States in this matter, right prevailed 
that year, and those calling for Alaska's statehood were vindicated in 
their tireless quest.
  The admission of Alaska into the Union represents a rejection of the 
status quo, a manifestation of the very American tendency to look 
beyond what is to what could be, and Alaska has exceeded all 
expectations. That historic 1958 debate about Alaska's statehood 
mentions things familiar today which remain the backbone of Alaska's 
economy and, by extension, are integral to the U.S. economy, salmon, 
oil and natural gas to name a few. Alaska enriched our inventory of 
public land immeasurably: forests rich in wildlife; the majestic 
mountains of the Denali and the breathtaking flanks and soaring peak of 
Mount McKinley; glaciers of incredible beauty; rivers teeming with 
salmon; and bays and harbors with orcas and other ocean wildlife. 
Alaska holds beauty and riches beyond measure above and below the land, 
rivers and oceans.
  Periodically, the U.S. Senate does something that, in the words of 
Senator Church that year, falls outside the realm of meeting exigencies 
of the present. When the Senate bestowed statehood upon Alaska 50 years 
ago this week, it grasped the brief shining moment history had granted 
it and looked beyond partisan politics to do something great and 
glorious for the good of our Nation.
  I appreciate the Senator from Alaska's invitation to speak during 
this auspicious time in Alaska's history. I am proud of the role of 
Idaho lawmakers in the history of Alaska's statehood, particularly 
Senator Church, and also Congresswoman Gracie Pfost who also supported 
Alaska's statehood that year. In fact, an editorial in the Fairbanks 
News-Miner on May 6, 1958 called Senator Church ``one of Alaska's 
greatest champions in Congress.''
  Idaho and Alaska will always have much in common. Both western Rocky 
Mountain States, we face similar land use, wildlife and natural 
resource issues and we both celebrate the staggering beauty of our 
land. While Idaho does have the largest amount of wilderness area in 
the continental United States, it is dwarfed, of course, by Alaska 
which has the largest amount of Federal land of any State. Idaho and 
Alaska lawmakers can be proud of half a century of working together for 
the good of our States, our constituents and the mountain west.
  Congratulations, Senator Murkowski and Senator Stevens, on the 
birthday of your great State.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from the State of 
Idaho. As he indicated, Senator Church was a great leader in the 
statehood fight. Idaho and Alaska have long since

[[Page 13999]]

maintained that good relationship from five decades ago. I also 
recognize the comments of Senator Murray from Washington. The 
relationship our two States have had throughout the years through trade 
and commerce has provided issues on which we have worked jointly. 
Again, I thank them for taking the time to help Alaska commemorate its 
50th anniversary celebration.
  I will tell my colleagues, as the first Senator serving in the Senate 
to ever have been born in the State of Alaska--I was actually born just 
a little bit before statehood, born in the territory--I am fiercely 
passionate about my State. My mother was born in the community of Nome 
in the early 1930s, at a time when Alaska was pretty rough and tumble. 
My family on both sides was involved in the issues that led to 
statehood. I am very proud of how we as a State have advanced over 
these 50 years. To be able to recognize that progress and then look 
forward with anticipation as we forge the next 50 years, a State that 
has so much to offer this country, not only our natural resources but 
the ingenuity and resourcefulness of our people, the fact that our 
Alaska Natives per capita serve at record numbers in our military, 
providing for the defense of this country, we are full participants in 
this great Nation. Even though our geography separates us, there is a 
sense of patriotism and love for this country that does not go without 
recognition.
  I am honored to stand before the Senate today to celebrate the battle 
that led to statehood and the recognition of decades of good work.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record the names of distinguished young Alaskans who have been 
permitted to be on the floor today to witness the celebration of our 
50th anniversary.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            Senator Murkowski's Interns and Their Hometowns

       Brian O'Leary--Kodiak, Rochelle Hanscom--Fairbanks, Nychele 
     Fischetti--Anchorage, Taryn Moore--Anchorage, Lyndsey Haas--
     Petersburg, Kristen Coan--Palmer, Wes Stephel--Soldotna, 
     Haleigh Zueger--Unalaska, Kelsey Eagle--Sitka, Samantha 
     Novak--Anchorage, Cameron Piscoya--Nome, and Alexis Krell--
     Wasilla.

              Senator Stevens' Interns and Their Hometowns

       Bennett Clare--Nikiski, Castillo Serame--Anchorage, Choi 
     Claire--Anchorage, Downey Michael--Anchorage, Hein Dyle--
     Juneau, Horstkoetter Paul--Anchorage, Johnsen, Jakob--
     Fairbanks, Lettow Jaimee--Wasilla, Malmberg Cort--Kodiak, 
     Syversen Karmel--Anchorage, Alguire Coleman--Ketchikan, Eby 
     Eryn--Anchorage, Gilman Rebecca--Kenai, Joynt Marshall--
     Wasilla, Kazmierczak Jessica--Salcha, Mallipudi Andres--
     Anchorage, Oh Samuel--Wasilla, Osterman Thomas--Kasilof, and 
     Welch Alisha--Bethel.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I could add a word to my two 
distinguished colleagues. I have had the good fortune--and it is good 
fortune--to have visited every State in the United States and the 
territories in my nearly 82 years of wonderful life that the good Lord 
has given me. I would think every American would deem, every American 
who has a feeling for the outside and the magnificent beauty of nature, 
that their education would not be complete unless they visit Alaska and 
see with their own eyes and breathe the air, see the water, all the 
magnificent beauty. I have enjoyed a number of trips to Alaska, largely 
sponsored by my dear friend Senator Stevens, through the years. We have 
been there together many times, many times in connection with the U.S. 
military, which finds a wonderful home in Alaska. Alaskans have taken 
such good care of them.
  But you have a great strength. Those of us in the Senate are proud to 
serve with two fine Senators from the great State of Alaska.
  Mr. President, I ask at this point in time if I could address the 
FISA bill. Is that the pending business or may I ask to speak on that 
business now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the motion to 
proceed to the FISA bill.
  Mr. WARNER. So it is appropriate at this time to deliver remarks with 
regard to that bill?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, this is one of the most important subjects I have had 
the privilege of addressing in my 30-some years in the Senate. I and 
many others will rise in connection with this bill in support of the 
FISA Amendments Act. It is a critical piece of legislation for 
America's present and future security. It achieves an important balance 
between protecting civil liberties and ensuring that our dedicated 
intelligence professionals have the capabilities they need to protect 
this Nation.
  Currently, Admiral McConnell is Director of our intelligence system. 
I have had the privilege of knowing him for over 30 years, working with 
him. We are fortunate that he and General Hayden and many others are 
carrying the torch for our Nation's intelligence. They have worked very 
hard on this piece of legislation, as has my dear colleague from 
Missouri, Senator Bond. I am on the Intelligence Committee. He has done 
a splendid job in negotiating the conference--hopefully, what will be a 
settlement. He was supported by our chairman, Senator Rockefeller. It 
has been a team, with the two of them achieving the juncture we are at 
now in the consideration of this bill.
  The bill ensures that the intelligence capabilities provided by the 
Protect America Act, enacted in August of 2007, remain sealed in 
statute. I cannot overemphasize how important that is to ensuring our 
Nation's security. I wish to underscore, once again, the importance of 
legal protection for the telecommunications carriers that have 
voluntarily--underline voluntarily--come forth for the private sector 
and have assisted our Government with the terrorist surveillance 
program, commonly referred to as TSP, which was originated and 
authorized by the President under appropriate sections, in my judgment, 
of the Constitution, particularly article II.
  I wish to emphasize that I was privileged to be Secretary of the Navy 
in the period of the 1970s, when the All-Volunteer Force was conceived. 
That force of young men and women, each of whom raised their hands and 
said, I volunteer to serve in uniform, is not unlike the issue today 
with elements of corporate America, the private sector, who have come 
forward to volunteer to assist this Government in performing the 
intelligence responsibilities undertaken which guarantee the freedoms 
and safety we enjoy every day here at home. The extensive evidence made 
available to the Senate Intelligence Committee shows that carriers that 
participated in this program relied upon our Government's assurances 
that their actions were legal, authorized by the President, and in the 
best interests of the security of our Nation.
  In brief, our Government provided the carriers with essential 
assurances, and the carriers responded to our Government's request for 
help. These carriers must be protected from costly and damaging 
lawsuits. Such lawsuits could end the current level of participation in 
the vital intelligence programs by these carriers and will likely deter 
other companies and private citizens who might like to step forward and 
volunteer in helping us protect ourselves by virtue of the essential 
intelligence we must monitor and collect every day. After all, these 
carriers are corporations in most instances, if not all. They are 
beholden, the executives of these corporations, to the stockholders. 
That is the system of free enterprise we have in the United States. 
Consequently, they, on behalf of their stockholders--and the 
stockholders could be the pension funds, could be a stock held by any 
number of people and entities in our system of Government--are coming 
forth simply asking for codification of assurances having been given by 
the Government so they can go back to their stockholders and explain 
that: We are doing this to protect America. We now have, by virtue of 
the actions of the Congress, signed and sealed by the President, the 
law that

[[Page 14000]]

will protect your interests in this country from lawsuits which have no 
foundation in law.
  I would like to share a ``Dear Colleague'' letter which all Members 
of our Chamber some months ago received from the esteemed chairman and 
vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senators Rockefeller and 
Bond.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the letter be printed 
in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. WARNER. The letter discussed the Senate Intelligence Committee's 
extensive and bipartisan review of the TSP, which included dozens of 
briefings, hearings, and interviews, as well as extensive document 
reviews. As a result of this more than 10-month comprehensive 
examination, the committee concluded--and I quote what was written and 
published to our colleagues by the committee--
       Irrespective of one's opinion of the President's reliance 
     on Article II authority to justify the TSP, those companies 
     that assisted with the TSP did so in good faith and based 
     upon the written--

  I repeat: ``written representations''--

     from the highest levels of government that the program was 
     lawful. The Committee's bill reported out on a strong, 
     bipartisan vote of 13-2--

  I wish to repeat that. That is a strong vote. I have served on the 
Intelligence Committee. This is my third tour of duty, you might say, 
given that we have, under our leadership, stipulated periods to serve. 
That is a big, strong vote. At one time, I was ranking member, as is 
Mr. Bond, of that committee, and that is about as strong a vote as you 
can get among the diversity of the wonderful people who have, 
throughout my years in the Senate, served on that committee.

       [That vote] reflects our determination that companies that 
     cooperated with the government in good faith should be 
     protected from time-consuming and expensive litigation. It is 
     a matter of fundamental fairness.

  End quote by the committee.
  Another item which played a key role in my thinking about the issue 
was a thoughtful article published in a newspaper by private citizens 
with past distinguished careers in public service relating to 
intelligence. The first is Benjamin Civiletti, U.S. Attorney General 
under President Jimmy Carter; followed by Dick Thornburgh, U.S. 
Attorney General under President George Herbert Walker Bush; and Judge 
William Webster, a very distinguished gentleman I have known personally 
for many years, former Director of the CIA and former Director of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
  Now, there are three diverse public servants, with different 
political backgrounds, but they came together for the common purpose of 
trying to strengthen America's intelligence system. The article, 
entitled ``Surveillance Sanity,'' appeared in the October 31, 2007, 
edition of the Wall Street Journal. I have spoken on the floor 
previously about this article and their contribution, but because of 
its direct relevance to the issue we are now deliberating on and 
hopefully will vote on today, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of 
the article be printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. WARNER. Let me share with you some of their thoughts. Regarding 
the Intelligence Committee's carefully crafted and limited liability 
provision, which is very similar to the provision in the bill currently 
before us, these three distinguished public servants--now private 
citizens--said:

       We agree with the Committee. Dragging phone companies 
     through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but 
     it would deter other companies and private citizens from 
     responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be 
     uncertainty or level risk.

  Unfortunately, our committee has already heard testimony that without 
such protections, some companies believe they can no longer continue 
their cooperation and assistance to our American Government, 
particularly the intelligence sections.
  Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburgh, and Webster also wrote:

       The government alone cannot protect us from the threats we 
     face today. We must have the help of all of our citizens. 
     There will be times when the lives of thousands of Americans 
     will depend on whether corporations such as airlines or banks 
     are willing to lend assistance. If we do not treat them 
     fairly when they respond to assurances from the highest 
     levels of the government that their help is legal and 
     essential for saving lives, then we will be radically 
     reducing our society's capacity to defend itself.

  That is very strong language, very clear language. I urge my 
colleagues, once again, to look at their article.
  As the Senate considers this bill, it should reject any amendments 
which would put the carriers and their millions of shareholders in 
legal limbo, waiting while the Government litigates unrelated 
constitutional claims. Lawsuits against the companies would likely 
continue in the interim which would: have negative ramifications on our 
intelligence sources and methods; likely harm the business reputations 
of these companies; and cause the companies to reconsider their 
participation--or worse--cause them to terminate their cooperation in 
the future.
  The Senate Intelligence Committee, by a vote of 13 to 2, stated its 
belief that the carriers acted in good faith and that they deserve to 
be protected.
  Clearly the issue of whether the President acted within his 
constitutional authority in authorizing the TSP can and should be 
addressed in a separate context from this bill.
  Even the exclusive means provision in this bill favored by my 
Democratic colleagues in the House and Senate acknowledges the 
President's constitutional authority in stating that certifications to 
companies for assistance shall identify the statutory provision on 
which the certification is based, ``if a certification . . . is based 
on statutory authority.'' This clearly indicates that the certification 
could be based on the President's constitutional authority.
  But, even if one did not agree that the President acted within his 
Article II powers, why would anyone want to punish the carriers for 
something the Government called on them to do and assured them was 
legal?
  Individuals who believe that the Government violated the civil 
liberties can pursue legal action against the Government, and the bill 
before us does nothing to limit that legal recourse.
  As stated so eloquently by Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburg, and Webster, 
I quote the following:

       Whether the government has acted properly is a different 
     question from whether a private person has acted properly in 
     responding to the government's call for help. . . . Because a 
     private person cannot have all the information necessary to 
     assess the propriety of the government's actions, he must be 
     able to rely on official assurances about need and legality.

  I strongly believe that the President did act within his Article II 
executive branch authority in authorizing this program. Even the 
exclusive means provision in this bill favored by my Democratic 
Colleagues in the House and Senate acknowledges the President's 
constitutional authority in stating that certifications to companies 
for assistance shall identify the statutory provision on which the 
certification is based ``if a certification . . . is based on statutory 
authority.'' This clearly indicates the certification could be based on 
the President's constitutional authority.
  But even if one did not agree that the President acted--acted--within 
the confines of the U.S. Constitution--particularly article II outlines 
the executive branch's power under the President--why would anyone want 
to punish the carriers for something the Government called on them to 
do and assured them was legal? Individuals who believe the Government 
violated their civil liberties can pursue legal action against the 
Government, and the bill before us does nothing--I repeat: does 
nothing--to prohibit a citizen to bring that legal recourse against 
their Government, the U.S. Government.
  As stated so eloquently in the Messrs. Civiletti, Thornburgh, and 
Webster document, I further quote:

       Whether the government has acted properly is a different 
     question from whether a

[[Page 14001]]

     private person has acted properly in responding to the 
     government's call for help. . . . Because a private person 
     cannot have all the information necessary to assess the 
     propriety of the government's actions, he must be able to 
     rely on official assurances about need and legality.

  I agree with the conclusions of these three eminent private citizens.
  I would like to also call your attention to an important letter sent 
last week--June 19, 2008--to Senate and House leadership from the 
Attorney General of the United States and the Director of National 
Intelligence--that is GEN Michael Mukasey and ADM Michael McConnell--
two distinguished public servants now serving America.
  Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that this letter be 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 3.)
  Mr. WARNER. These gentlemen said:

       [P]roviding this liability protection is critical to the 
     Nation's security.

  They confirmed that the intelligence community cannot obtain the 
intelligence it needs without--I repeat, without--the assistance from 
these carriers, companies, and other segments of the private sector. 
They noted:

       It is critical that any long-term FISA modernization 
     legislation contain an effective liability protection 
     provision.

  It should be clear from this letter that the Director of National 
Intelligence and the Attorney General of the United States could not 
support the bill without explicit retroactive legal protection for the 
carriers and other segments of the private sector.
  It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
6304, the FISA Amendments Act, as passed by the House, and to vote 
against any amendments that intend to strip out or alter the critical 
civil liability provision or any other section of the bill that is 
essential to our intelligence community.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                             Select Committee on Intelligence,

                                 Washington, DC, February 1, 2008.
       Dear Colleagues: The FISA Amendments Act, S. 2248, provides 
     limited and narrowly-drawn retroactive civil liability 
     protection to those telecommunication companies that 
     allegedly assisted the government with the President's 
     Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP). An amendment has been 
     offered to this Act to strike these liability protections in 
     favor of ``substitution,'' a legal mechanism for replacing 
     the companies in the ongoing TSP litigation with the 
     government.
       The Senate Intelligence Committee conducted a comprehensive 
     and bipartisan review of the President's TSP, including the 
     issue of carrier liability. The Committee reviewed numerous 
     documents, including the Department of Justice legal opinions 
     and the letters from the government to the companies. The 
     Committee held a number of briefings and hearings involving 
     government and company officials. The Committee also visited 
     the National Security Agency to see firsthand how the TSP 
     worked.
       As a result of this extensive review, the Committee 
     concluded that, irrespective of one's opinion of the 
     President's reliance on Article II authority to justify the 
     TSP, those companies that assisted with the TSP did so in 
     good faith and based upon the written representations from 
     the highest levels of government that the program was lawful.
       The Committee's bill, reported out on a strong, bipartisan 
     vote of 13-2, reflects our determination that companies that 
     cooperated with the government in good faith should be 
     protected from time-consuming and expensive litigation. It is 
     a matter of fundamental fairness. The Committee rejected the 
     broad immunity proposal sought by the Administration. Our 
     limited immunity provision only covers assistance provided 
     from September 11th to when the TSP was put under court 
     authorization in January of last year. It does not provide 
     protection from criminal prosecution or extend protections to 
     government officials. Any litigation against government 
     officials will continue.
       In concluding that civil liability protection for those 
     companies was appropriate, the Committee recognized that 
     allowing the current litigation to continue could: (1) 
     compromise our intelligence sources and methods through 
     ongoing discovery and other litigation proceedings; (2) 
     result in significant loss of business reputation or 
     financial loss for those companies that participated in good 
     faith; (3) jeopardize the personal safety of overseas 
     employees of these companies if it becomes known that the 
     companies assisted the government in fighting terrorism; (4) 
     put taxpayers' dollars at risk for dubious legal claims; and 
     (5) lead to reluctance by these and other companies to 
     cooperate with legitimate requests for assistance in the 
     future.
       The substitution amendment sponsored by Senators Specter 
     and Whitehouse does not alleviate any of these concerns. Even 
     if the companies are removed directly from the litigation, 
     discovery would still be allowed to proceed against them. In 
     short, the conduct of the companies would continue to be 
     litigated, raising significant concerns that their identities 
     or details about their assistance will be disclosed. Given 
     the essential role that our private partners play in 
     intelligence collection, we believe that this is simply too 
     great a risk to our national security.
       We believe, therefore, that the ongoing litigation against 
     the telecommunication companies should be brought to an 
     immediate close and that the Intelligence Committee's 
     bipartisan determination of good faith should stand. We urge 
     you to support the Intelligence Committee's bill and oppose 
     any effort to modify or strike its civil liability provision.
           Sincerely,
     John D. Rockefeller IV,
       Chairman.
     Christopher S. Bond,
       Vice Chairman.

                               Exhibit 2

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 31, 2007]

                          Surveillance Sanity

      (By Benjamin Civiletti, Dick Thornburgh and William Webster)

       Following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, 
     President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to 
     target al Qaeda communications into and out of the country. 
     Mr. Bush concluded that this was essential for protecting the 
     country, that using the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     would not permit the necessary speed and agility, and that he 
     had the constitutional power to authorize such surveillance 
     without court orders to defend the country.
       Since the program became public in 2006, Congress has been 
     asserting appropriate oversight. Few of those who learned the 
     details of the program have criticized its necessity. 
     Instead, critics argued that if the president found FISA 
     inadequate, he should have gone to Congress and gotten the 
     changes necessary to allow the program to proceed under court 
     orders. That process is now underway. The administration has 
     brought the program under FISA, and the Senate Intelligence 
     Committee recently reported out a bill with a strong 
     bipartisan majority of 13-2, that would make the changes to 
     FISA needed for the program to continue. This bill is now 
     being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
       Public disclosure of the NSA program also brought a flood 
     of class-action lawsuits seeking to impose massive liability 
     on phone companies for allegedly answering the government's 
     call for help. The Intelligence Committee has reviewed the 
     program and has concluded that the companies deserve targeted 
     protection from these suits. The protection would extend only 
     to activities undertaken after 9/11 until the beginning of 
     2007, authorized by the president to defend the country from 
     further terrorist attack, and pursuant to written assurances 
     from the government that the activities were both authorized 
     by the president and legal.
       We agree with the committee. Dragging phone companies 
     through protracted litigation would not only be unfair, but 
     it would deter other companies and private citizens from 
     responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be 
     uncertainty or legal risk.
       The government alone cannot protect us from the threats we 
     face today. We must have the help of all our citizens. There 
     will be times when the lives of thousands of Americans will 
     depend on whether corporations such as airlines or banks are 
     willing to lend assistance. If we do not treat companies 
     fairly when they respond to assurances from the highest 
     levels of the government that their help is legal and 
     essential for saving lives, then we will be radically 
     reducing our society's capacity to defend itself.
       This concern is particularly acute for our nation's 
     telecommunications companies. America's front line of defense 
     against terrorist attack is communications intelligence. When 
     Americans put their loved ones on planes, send their children 
     to school, or ride through tunnels and over bridges, they are 
     counting on the ``early warning'' system of communications 
     intelligence for their safety. Communications technology has 
     become so complex that our country needs the voluntary 
     cooperation of the companies. Without it, our intelligence 
     efforts will be gravely damaged.
       Whether the government has acted properly is a different 
     question from whether a private person has acted properly in 
     responding to the government's call for help. From its 
     earliest days, the common law recognized that when a public 
     official calls on a citizen to help protect the community in 
     an emergency, the person has a duty to help and should be 
     immune from being hauled into court unless it was clear 
     beyond doubt that the public official was acting illegally. 
     Because a private person cannot have all the

[[Page 14002]]

     information necessary to assess the propriety of the 
     government's actions, he must be able to rely on official 
     assurances about need and legality. Immunity is designed to 
     avoid the burden of protracted litigation, because the 
     prospect of such litigation itself is enough to deter 
     citizens from providing critically needed assistance.
       As the Intelligence Committee found, the companies clearly 
     acted in ``good faith.'' The situation is one in which 
     immunity has traditionally been applied, and thus protection 
     from this litigation is justified.
       First, the circumstances clearly showed that there was a 
     bona fide threat to ``national security.'' We had suffered 
     the most devastating attacks in our history, and Congress had 
     declared the attacks ``continue to pose an unusual and 
     extraordinary threat'' to the country. It would have been 
     entirely reasonable for the companies to credit government 
     representations that the nation faced grave and immediate 
     threat and that their help was needed to protect American 
     lives.
       Second, the bill's protections only apply if assistance was 
     given in response to the president's personal authorization, 
     communicated in writing along with assurances of legality. 
     That is more than is required by FISA, which contains a safe-
     harbor authorizing assistance based solely on a certification 
     by the attorney general, his designee, or a host of more 
     junior law enforcement officials that no warrant is required.
       Third, the ultimate legal issue--whether the president was 
     acting within his constitutional powers--is not the kind of 
     question a private party can definitively determine. The 
     companies were not in a position to say that the government 
     was definitely wrong.
       Prior to FISA's 1978 enactment, numerous federal courts 
     took it for granted that the president has constitutional 
     power to conduct warrantless surveillance to protect the 
     nation's security. In 2002, the FISA Court of Review, while 
     not dealing directly with the NSA program, stated that FISA 
     could not limit the president's constitutional powers. Given 
     this, it cannot be said that the companies acted in bad faith 
     in relying on the government's assurances of legality.
       For hundreds of years our legal system has operated under 
     the premise that, in a public emergency, we want private 
     citizens to respond to the government's call for help unless 
     the citizen knows for sure that the government is acting 
     illegally. If Congress does not act now, it would be 
     basically saying that private citizens should only help when 
     they are absolutely certain that all the government's actions 
     are legal. Given the threats we face in today's world, this 
     would be a perilous policy.

                               Exhibit 3

                                                    June 19, 2008.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker: This letter presents the views of the 
     Administration on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (``FISA'') Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304). The 
     bill would modernize FISA to reflect changes in 
     communications technology since the Act was first passed 30 
     years ago. The amendments would provide the Intelligence 
     Community with the tools it needs to collect the foreign 
     intelligence necessary to secure our Nation while protecting 
     the civil liberties of Americans. The bill would also provide 
     the necessary legal protections for those companies sued 
     because they are believed to have helped the Government 
     prevent terrorist attacks in the aftermath of September 11. 
     Because this bill accomplishes these two goals essential to 
     any effort to modernize FISA, we strongly support passage of 
     this bill and will recommend that the President sign it.
       Last August, Congress took an important step toward 
     modernizing FISA by enacting the Protect America Act of 2007. 
     That Act allowed us temporarily to close intelligence gaps by 
     enabling our intelligence professionals to collect, without 
     having to first obtain a court order, foreign intelligence 
     information from targets overseas. The Act has enabled us to 
     gather significant intelligence critical to protecting our 
     Nation. It has also been implemented in a responsible way, 
     subject to extensive executive, congressional, and judicial 
     oversight in order to protect the country in a manner 
     consistent with safeguarding Americans' civil liberties. 
     Since passage of the Act, the Administration has worked 
     closely with Congress to address the need for longterm FISA 
     modernization. This joint effort has involved compromises on 
     both sides, but we believe that it has resulted in a strong 
     bill that will place the Nation's foreign intelligence effort 
     in this area on a firm, long-term foundation. Below, we have 
     set forth our views on certain important provisions of H.R. 
     6304.


               Title I--Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

       Title I of H.R. 6304 contains key authorities that would 
     ensure that our intelligence agencies have the tools they 
     need to collect vital foreign intelligence information and 
     would provide significant safeguards for the civil liberties 
     of Americans.
       Court Approval. With respect to authorizations for foreign 
     intelligence surveillance directed at foreign targets outside 
     the United States, the bill provides that the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) would review 
     certifications made by the Attorney General and the Director 
     of National Intelligence relating to these acquisitions, the 
     reasonableness of the procedures used by the Intelligence 
     Community to ensure the targets are overseas, and the 
     minimization procedures used to protect the privacy of 
     Americans. The scope of the FISC's review is carefully and 
     rightly crafted to focus on aspects of the acquisition that 
     may affect the privacy rights of Americans so as not to 
     confer quasi-constitutional rights on foreign terrorists and 
     other foreign intelligence targets outside the United States.
       We have been clear that any satisfactory bill could not 
     require individual court orders to target non-United States 
     persons outside the United States, nor could a bill establish 
     a court-approval mechanism that would cause the Intelligence 
     Community to lose valuable foreign intelligence while 
     awaiting such approval. H.R. 6304 would do neither and would 
     retain for the Intelligence Community the speed and agility 
     that it needs to protect the Nation. The bill would establish 
     a schedule for court approval of certifications and 
     procedures relating to renewals of existing acquisition 
     authority. A critical feature of the H.R. 6304 would allow 
     existing acquisitions, which were the subject of court review 
     under the Protect America Act or will be the subject of such 
     review under the H.R. 6304, to continue pending court review. 
     With respect to new acquisitions, absent exigent 
     circumstances, Court review of new procedures and 
     certifications would take place before the Government begins 
     the acquisition. The exigent circumstances exception is 
     critical to allowing the Intelligence Community to respond 
     swiftly to changing circumstances when the Attorney General 
     and the Director of National Intelligence determine that 
     intelligence may be lost or not timely acquired. Such exigent 
     circumstances could arise in certain situations where an 
     unexpected gap has opened in our intelligence collection 
     efforts. Taken together, these provisions would enable the 
     Intelligence Community to keep closed the intelligence gaps 
     that existed before the passage of the Protect America Act 
     and ensure that it will have the opportunity to collect 
     critical foreign intelligence information in the future.
       Exclusive means. H.R. 6304 contains an exclusive means 
     provision that goes beyond the exclusive means provision that 
     was passed as part of FISA. As we have previously stated, we 
     believe that the provision will complicate the ability of 
     Congress to pass, in an emergency situation, a law to 
     authorize immediate collection of communications in the 
     aftermath of an attack or in response to a grave threat to 
     the national security. Unlike other versions of this 
     provision, however, the one 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.
       Oversight and Protections for the Civil Liberties of 
     Americans. H.R. 6304 contains numerous provisions that 
     protect the civil liberties of Americans and allow for 
     extensive executive, congressional, and judicial oversight of 
     the use of the authorities. The bill would require the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to 
     conduct semiannual assessments of compliance with targeting 
     procedures and minimization procedures and to submit those 
     assessments to the FISC and to Congress. The FISC and 
     Congress would also receive annual reviews relating to those 
     acquisitions prepared by the heads of agencies that use the 
     authorities contained in the bill. Congress would receive 
     reviews from the Inspectors General of these agencies and of 
     the Department of Justice regarding compliance with the 
     provisions of the bill. In addition, the bill would require 
     the Attorney General to submit to Congress a report at least 
     semiannually concerning the implementation of the authorities 
     provided by the bill and would expand the categories of FISA-
     related court documents that the Government must provide to 
     the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees.
       Title I also includes provisions that would protect the 
     civil liberties of Americans. For instance, the bill would 
     require for the first time that a court order be obtained to 
     conduct foreign intelligence surveillance outside the United 
     States of an American abroad. Historically, Executive Branch 
     procedures guided the conduct of surveillance of a U.S. 
     person overseas, such as when a U.S. person acts as an agent 
     of a foreign power, e.g., spying on behalf of a foreign 
     government. Given the complexity of extending judicial review 
     to activities outside the United States, these provisions 
     were carefully crafted with Congress to ensure that such 
     review can be accomplished while preserving the necessary 
     flexibility for intelligence operations. Other provisions of 
     the bill address concerns that some voiced about the Protect 
     America Act, such as clarifying that the Government cannot 
     ``reverse target'' without a court order and requiring that 
     the Attorney General establish guidelines to prevent this 
     from occurring. We believe that, taken together, these 
     provisions will allow for ample oversight of the use of these 
     new authorities and ensure that the privacy and civil 
     liberties of Americans are well protected.

[[Page 14003]]




    II. Title II--Protections for Electronic Communications Service 
                               Providers

       Title II of the bill contains, among other provisions, 
     vital protections for electronic communications service 
     providers who assist the Intelligence Community's efforts to 
     protect the Nation from terrorism and other foreign 
     intelligence threats. Title II would provide liability 
     protection related to future assistance while ensuring the 
     protection of sources and methods. Importantly, the bill 
     would also provide the necessary legal protection for those 
     companies who are sued only because they are believed to have 
     helped the Government with communications intelligence 
     activities in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
       The framework contained in the bill for obtaining 
     retroactive liability protection is narrowly tailored. An 
     action must be dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to 
     the district court in which the action is pending that 
     either: (i) the electronic communications service provider 
     did not provide the assistance; or (ii) the assistance was 
     provided in the wake of the September 11 attack and was the 
     subject of a written request or series of requests from a 
     senior Government official indicating that the activity was 
     authorized by the President and determined to be lawful. The 
     district court would be required to review this certification 
     before dismissing the action, and the provision allows for 
     the participation of the parties to the lawsuit in a manner 
     consistent with the protection of classified information. The 
     liability protection provision does not extend to the 
     Government or to Government officials and it does not 
     immunize any criminal conduct.
       Providing this liability protection is critical to the 
     Nation's security. As the Senate Select Committee on 
     Intelligence recognized, ``the intelligence community cannot 
     obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from 
     these companies.'' That committee also recognized that 
     companies in the future may be less willing to assist the 
     Government if they face the threat of private lawsuits each 
     time they are believed to have provided assistance. Finally, 
     allowing litigation over these matters risks the disclosure 
     of highly classified information regarding intelligence 
     sources and methods. As we have stated on many occasions, it 
     is critical that any long-term FISA modernization legislation 
     contain an effective liability protection provision. H.R. 
     6304 contains just such a provision and for this reason, as 
     well as those expressed with respect to Title I above, we 
     strongly support its passage.


               III. Title III--Review of Previous Actions

       Title III would require the Inspectors General of the 
     Department of Justice, the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence, and of certain elements of the Intelligence 
     Community to review certain communications surveillance 
     activities, including the Terrorist Surveillance Program 
     described by the President. Although improvements have been 
     made over prior versions of this provision, we believe, as we 
     have written before, that it is unnecessary in light of the 
     Inspector General reviews previously completed, those already 
     underway, and the congressional intelligence and judiciary 
     committee oversight already conducted. Nevertheless, we do 
     not believe that, as currently drafted, the provision would 
     create unacceptable operational concerns. The bill contains 
     important provisions to make clear that such reviews should 
     not duplicate reviews already conducted by Inspectors 
     General.


                     IV. Title IV--other Provisions

       Title IV contains important provisions that will ensure 
     that the transition between the current authorities and the 
     authorities provided in this bill will not have a detrimental 
     effect on intelligence operations.
       Title IV also states that the authorities in the bill 
     sunset at the end 2012. We have long favored permanent 
     modernization of FISA. The Intelligence Community operates 
     more effectively when the rules governing our intelligence 
     professionals' ability to track our enemies are firmly 
     established. Stability of law also allows the Intelligence 
     Community to invest resources appropriately. Congress has 
     extensively debated and considered the need to modernize FISA 
     since 2006, a process that has involved numerous hearings, 
     briefings, and floor debates. The process has been valuable 
     and necessary, but it has also involved the discussion in 
     open settings of extraordinary information dealing with 
     sensitive intelligence operations. Every time we repeat this 
     process it risks exposing our intelligence sources and 
     methods to our adversaries. Although we would prefer that 
     H.R. 6304 contain no sunset, a sunset in 2012 is 
     significantly longer than others that were proposed and it is 
     long enough to avoid impairing the effectiveness of 
     intelligence operations.
       Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this 
     crucial bill. We reiterate our sincere appreciation to the 
     Congress for working with us on H.R. 6304, a long-term FISA 
     modernization bill that will strengthen the Nation's 
     intelligence capabilities while respecting and protecting the 
     constitutional rights of Americans. We strongly support its 
     prompt passage.
           Sincerely,
                                               Michael B. Mukasey,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                                   J.M. McConnell,
                                Director of National Intelligence.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Thank you, Mr. President.


          Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act

  We are at a critical point today for 44 million Medicare 
beneficiaries--seniors, people with disabilities--and the physicians, 
the health care providers, who serve them. We are at a critical point.
  I am very hopeful we are not going to see this number go up--the 
number of filibusters that have been done on the other side of the 
aisle. I am very hopeful this number is not going to go from 78 to 79 
over the Medicare legislation that is in front of us.
  We have already seen a filibuster in a successful effort to stop the 
Medicare bill that would make sure that the 10-percent cut for 
physicians does not take place and that other preventative and other 
access issues are addressed. That is already part of these 78 
filibusters. We have already seen the Medicare bill filibustered.
  But today we are hopeful, based on the wonderful bipartisan vote of 
355 Members of the House of Representatives, that as we come back with 
their bill that was passed--and I should mention, based on the bill 
that was crafted by Senator Baucus; and I wish to give him tremendous 
credit for all the hard work he has done; and I am proud to be a member 
of the Finance Committee, as the distinguished Presiding Officer is--
but the House, based on the work of the Senate, as well, has passed, 
with 355 votes, on a bipartisan basis, a bill to make sure 44 million 
seniors and people with disabilities do not find themselves worse off 
as it relates to being able to get a doctor or being able to get the 
care they need.
  So we are at a crossroads right now. The time is up. As of next 
Tuesday, July 1, a cut will take effect if we do not act. On top of 
that, we will not see the other beneficial parts of this bill take 
effect for our seniors, for people with disabilities, for their 
families. So we are now at a point where it is decisionmaking time. The 
House has acted. It is my understanding they will, in fact, be 
adjourning at the end of today, and we will be in a situation to either 
act, based on a strong bipartisan vote and a tremendous amount of work 
that has been done in the Senate, or we will see devastating 
consequences in the Medicare system.
  I do not want to see this number go from 78 to 79 because of a 
filibuster on a critically important Medicare bill. That is what we are 
talking about. This legislation itself is good public policy. That is 
why it received the 355 votes that it did, because it not only stops 
the cut, the 10-percent cut that is scheduled to take place next 
Tuesday, July 1--which, by the way, is the result of a fatally flawed 
sustainable growth rate formula, which I have talked about many times 
on this floor--we have to change the way what is called the SGR is set 
up in terms of physician payments--this would not only stop a major cut 
for physicians that translates into cuts in service for Medicare 
beneficiaries, but it also does some other very important things that 
relate to increasing service.
  First, let me say that if the cut were to take effect, we are talking 
about in Michigan alone losing $540 million--$540 million--for the care 
of seniors and people with disabilities over the next 18 months--only 
18 months, $540 million, if we do not act before next Tuesday.
  Right now, as to the 20,000 M.D.s and D.O.s in Michigan who provide 
high-quality care to 1.4 million seniors and people with disabilities 
and the over 90,000 TRICARE beneficiaries--our men and women in the 
military--we would see cutbacks in their staffing, in their ability to 
provide service.
  I have heard so many stories from physicians' practices about what 
all of this means. At a time when more and more people are going into 
Medicare, as our country is aging, we do not need

[[Page 14004]]

to see cutbacks that mean there are fewer physicians available to treat 
our senior citizens and people with disabilities. That is what that 
means. That is what this will mean if we do not act.
  Additionally, the bill provides important and meaningful protections. 
We are looking at increasing help for low-income seniors, low-income 
individuals on Medicare who will be able to get additional assistance. 
It also improves coordination in a number of areas and addresses what 
we call mental health parity--being able to make sure that mental 
health services are treated in the same way as public health services. 
This is something we have gone on record to address in this body in a 
bipartisan basis on more than one occasion. In this Medicare bill, we 
address discrepancies between mental health services and physical 
health services, all of which are the same thing, in my mind. This is a 
continuum of care in terms of health care. But that is addressed in 
this bill and has very strong support.
  The bill also addresses very important investments in technology for 
the future--investments that won't take place, such as electronic 
medical records that will not be developed if, in fact, we see huge 
cuts in Medicare, rather than investing in the future and investing in 
technology.
  The legislation in front of us would do two things in the area of 
technology. We would provide additional opportunities for telehealth--
more providers, more facilities that would be able to use and be 
reimbursed for telehealth--and we focus on e-prescribing, which is the 
first stage of health information technology, bringing it into the 21st 
century in terms of our health care system and technology.
  I am very proud of Michigan. We have been one of the leaders in both 
of these areas. In telehealth, in the upper peninsula of Michigan, we 
have had 15 counties that have been connected through the health care 
system. We have had the opportunity to see how well telemedicine works 
for all of our seniors, for people with disabilities, for families in 
general in the UP, as well as in northern Michigan and all around 
Michigan, including our rural communities, as well as in many of our 
urban communities. Telehealth is very important and it is expanded in 
this Medicare bill with more access to care.
  We also address the first building block of health information 
technology, and that is e-prescribing. There are incentives for 
physicians to use e-prescribing and there is accountability in that 
arena. This is another area I have to say that I am proud of my State 
of Michigan for, because we have spent a lot of time and effort, and we 
have gotten real results for people, in terms of saving lives and 
saving money as it relates to e-prescribing. We have a group called the 
Southeastern Michigan E-prescribing Initiative, our auto industry, the 
United Auto Workers, BlueCross and BlueShield, and many of our 
businesses and providers have come together and found extraordinary 
results.
  One of the things that I think is so important about e-prescribing is 
when you have an e-prescribing system, an electronic system where your 
current medicines can then be compared with any new prescription that 
the physician wishes to write, they are finding very important safety 
and quality results. For instance, 423,000 prescriptions that were 
originally written by physicians were changed or canceled by the doctor 
once they received very important information about potential allergic 
reactions or some other interaction with the other medicines their 
patient was on. So this is very important information that is 
available. We also know that 39 percent of the time, the physician, 
given more information, changed the prescription to save the patient 
and the employer money; being able to offer the option of more generic 
drugs. So there are huge benefits to e-prescribing. On top of that, you 
can read the physician's handwriting, and I say that lovingly to all of 
my physician friends.
  But we are in a situation now where we have a bill in front of us 
that not only stops cuts that would be devastating but looks to the 
future in terms of electronic e-prescribing, in terms of telehealth, 
preventive services, helping low-income seniors and people with 
disabilities, being able to provide mental health parity; a number of 
areas that while they overall are low in cost are huge in benefit in 
terms of savings lives. In fact, there are many places in this bill 
where we are talking about saving dollars at the same time we are 
saving lives.
  I am also very pleased with the fact that the bill addresses a number 
of health disparities that face those who receive Medicare based on the 
legislation I have introduced with, in fact, all of the women Members 
of the Senate--all 16 women Members. We have cosponsored the HEART for 
Women Act, which begins to gather gender and race data to determine 
gaps in coverage around heart disease. We are now using similar 
language in the Medicare bill to collect more data for researchers 
about disparities around health treatments and so on.
  The bottom line is this is a must-pass bill, and we need to pass it 
now. Time is running out. In fact, in my mind, time has run out. It is 
now time to act today. When our leader, Senator Reid, who is very 
committed to this legislation, committed to Medicare, came to the floor 
and asked for unanimous consent to be able to take up the Medicare 
bill, there were objections again. I am very concerned that those 
objections are going to be leading to another filibuster, another 
filibuster vote coming in the next day or few days.
  I hope colleagues are aware that the American Medical Association 
strongly supports this bill and has been actively involved in promoting 
the bill and urging all of us to support the bill. The AARP, a leading 
seniors' organization, has endorsed the House bill as well. I will read 
a portion of their letter. AARP's letter notes:

       Our members have also stressed strong interest in knowing 
     how their elected officials vote on key issues that affect 
     older Americans. Given the importance of the Medicare 
     legislation, we will be informing them how their Senators 
     vote on this legislation when it comes to the Senate floor.

  There is great concern among people around the country watching and 
waiting. People are asking what is taking us so long and why haven't we 
acted. We have legislation that we worked through on a bipartisan basis 
here in the Senate, and it has now passed by 355 votes in the House of 
Representatives. You can't get much better than that vote. This bill 
has now come over to us and it is time for us to act.
  I thank again Chairman Baucus for his leadership and his hard work. I 
also thank my good friends in the House, Chairman Rangel and Chairman 
Dingell, for their work on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries and 
physicians. I stand squarely behind this bill. I was proud to introduce 
legislation a number of months back to address the question of 
physician payment and the need to change the process and the way this 
is done fundamentally. I am so pleased that the bill in front of us 
mirrors the 18-month bill I introduced and adds to it some critically 
important changes, critically important incentives to modernize the 
system with telehealth and more access to health care, modernize the 
system as it relates to electronic prescribing, and does more to make 
sure our low-income seniors receive the help they need, and makes sure 
that we are, in fact, providing a more equitable system where mental 
health and physical health payments and services are looked at in the 
same kind of way. This is very important. Focusing more on prevention 
is very important.
  The bottom line is we have 44 million Americans who rely on Medicare 
every day. Medicare is a great American success story. It passed in 
1965. It is a great American success story that has brought healthier 
lives through better medical care as well as opportunities for longer 
lives for millions and millions of Americans. Access to those services 
is jeopardized seriously if we do not pass this bill. The ability to 
expand on services and prevention is also in jeopardy if we do not pass 
this bill.
  I am hopeful we will come together, as our House colleagues have 
done, and stand on a bipartisan basis in support of our providers, our 
health care providers and, most importantly, those

[[Page 14005]]

men and women who are counting on us to keep the Medicare system strong 
for the future. I am hopeful we will not see another filibuster 
stopping us from addressing the important issues of Medicare. This 
needs to be done today.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. 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.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for a few minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                      Tanker Aircraft Competition

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we heard a good bit recently and there 
has been some discussion in the Senate about the competition for the 
tanker aircraft that was decided by the Air Force in favor of the 
Northrop Grumman team.
  The Government Accountability Office team of lawyers--not 
technicians--conducted a review of the procedures utilized in that 
selection process, in light of 111 objections filed by the losing 
Boeing team. They concluded that eight objections were merited against 
the procedural conduct of the competition by the Air Force. Now the 
ball is back in the lap of the Air Force to review those objections and 
to take appropriate steps to make sure this is a fair and just 
competition.
  I will just say that I was committed in the beginning and throughout 
this process that it should be a nonpolitical decision, a decision made 
by the U.S. Air Force based on the criteria set out in law, based on 
the fact that the Congress, after an attempt had been made to carry out 
a sole-source lease agreement for the Boeing aircraft--after that was 
rejected and after great embarrassment to the Air Force and Boeing, we 
ordered that a bid take place.
  I want my colleagues to understand the posture we are in. At the end 
of the bid process, the Air Force concluded this:

       While [the] KC-767 offers significant capabilities, the 
     overall tanker/airlift mission is best supported by the KC-
     30.

  The Northrop team.
  They go on to say:

       [The] KC-30 solution is superior in the core capabilities 
     of fuel capacity/offload, airlift efficiency, and cargo/
     passenger/aeromedical carriage.

  On the most important factors, the core capabilities, they found that 
the Northrop team's aircraft was superior.
  GAO did not overrule those findings. In fact, the contrary is the 
case. What GAO said was in this very long, complex RFP request for 
proposal--and legal requirements of bidding processes, the Air Force 
made some errors. Mr. President, 111 complaints were raised against the 
Air Force, but 8 were found to be worthy of objection.
  In the course of GAO's evaluation of the procedural conduct of the 
bid process, they reached these conclusions that I think have been 
overlooked as people have discussed this issue. For example, the GAO 
stated and did not dispute this:

       Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft exceeded to a greater 
     degree than Boeing's aircraft a key performance parameter 
     objective to exceed the RFP's identified fuel offload to the 
     receiver aircraft versus the unrefueled radius range of the 
     tanker.

  In other words, GAO concluded and agreed that the KC-45 is more 
capable at refueling than the Boeing aircraft, which is what the Air 
Force found. They did not object to that point.
  In addition to carrying more fuel, which clearly the Northrop team's 
aircraft does, the GAO also agreed with the Air Force's professional 
conclusion that it would be easier--and this is important--it would be 
easier for pilots to refuel their jet fighters, for example, from the 
Northrop KC-45. This is an important issue.
  The GAO said:

       Boeing also protests the Air Force's conclusion in the 
     aerial refueling area that Northrop Grumman's proposed larger 
     boom envelope--

  The spread of the refueling booms--

     proposed larger boom envelope offered a meaningful benefit to 
     the Air Force. From our review of the record, including 
     hearing testimony on this issue, we do not find a basis to 
     object to the Air Force's judgment that Northrop Grumman had 
     offered a larger boom envelope and that this offer provided 
     measurable benefit.

  Further, the GAO also supported the Air Force's conclusion that 
Northrop's KC-45 was a better airlifter.
  GAO said:

       Boeing also challenges the Air Force's evaluation judgment 
     in the airlift area that Northrop Grumman's proposed aircraft 
     offered superior cargo, passenger, and aeromedical evacuation 
     capability than did Boeing's aircraft. From our review of the 
     record, including the hearing testimony, we see no basis to 
     conclude that the Air Force's evaluation that Northrop 
     Grumman's aircraft was more advantageous in the airlift area 
     is unreasonable.

  That is a big issue. Every combatant commander with whom I have 
talked and who has had to move troops, cargo, personnel, and equipment 
to the battlefield knows the critical need for as much airlift 
capability as they can have. These refueling tankers can also serve as 
a cargo aircraft and a troop movement aircraft. Clearly, the Northrop 
Grumman aircraft is more advantageous, according to the Air Force's 
professional finding. And that was approved by the GAO's analysis.
  The GAO also found and upheld the Air Force's holding that Northrop 
Grumman had a higher ``fleet effectiveness'' rating. Fleet 
effectiveness--also called IFARA--reflects ``the quantity of an 
offeror's aircraft that would be required to perform the scenarios in 
relation to the number of KC-135R aircraft that would have been 
required.'' Put simply, to boil that down, the Air Force judged that 
one Northrop plane could do more refueling more efficiently than one 
Boeing plane. And the GAO upheld that finding.
  GAO found no fault with the Air Force's conclusion that Boeing's 
proposal was more risky in certain areas and that their past 
performance on similar contracts was ``marginal.''
  The GAO said:

       We find from our review of the record no basis to object to 
     the Air Force's past performance evaluation, under which both 
     firms' past performance received a satisfactory confidence 
     rating. We also find no basis to question the SSA's judgment 
     that, despite equal confidence ratings that the firms 
     received under this factor overall, Northrop Grumman's higher 
     ``satisfactory confidence'' rating, as compared to Boeing's 
     ``little confidence'' rating, under the program management 
     area, was a reasonable discriminator. The Air Force evaluated 
     Boeing's past performance as marginal in this area . . . We 
     have no basis, on this record, to find the Air Force's 
     judgment unreasonable.

  What that means is they evaluated how well both of the bidders, 
Northrop Grumman and Boeing, have performed in other contracts in the 
past and found that Boeing's record was less sound. They were less 
reliable in performing the contract once they had been awarded it, and 
they gave extra points for that. That was affirmed by the GAO.
  Amidst all the discussion of procedure and KKPs, RFPs, and dotted i's 
and crossed t's, what did the GAO say in this matter? They said the Air 
Force picked a plane that could carry and offload more fuel more 
efficiently and in a more desirable way for the pilots. They also found 
that the plane's secondary mission, airlift, that can be very critical 
in a national emergency when we have to move cargo and personnel 
rapidly around the world would be accomplished more effectively by the 
Northrop aircraft. Finally, GAO agreed that the Northrop plane was 
lower risk and that Boeing had marginal past performance.
  So as we allow this process to proceed, as it should, as we expect 
the Air Force to take seriously the matters raised by the GAO, we will 
adhere to one overriding principle; that is, Congress ordered that the 
Air Force conduct a bid of which would be the best aircraft. This bid 
process was conducted by the Air Force as we as Members of Congress 
directed. I, as a lawyer, am not capable of flying an aircraft. Nor am 
I capable of analyzing aerodynamics and validating how much weight or 
wingspan or how much boom coverage is needed to safely refuel multiple 
aircraft at one time. I cannot

[[Page 14006]]

fully evaluate how valuable the ability to carry large amounts of fuel 
is as compared to an aircraft that carries less, but the Air Force is. 
What we need to do is make sure the Air Force does its job and selects 
the best aircraft. I strongly object to any attempt to politicize this 
process.
  Finally, I note that this aircraft would be constructed in Alabama, 
my home State. It is not going to be built around the world in some 
foreign land. It is a team headed by Northrop Grumman, also the EADS 
team. It will be an aircraft constructed in our country, with tens of 
thousands of jobs created in our country.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity to share these remarks. I hope 
my colleagues will allow this process to proceed in a professional, 
lawful way and respect and honor the professional decision of the Air 
Force, which will have to live with this choice of tanker for perhaps 
another 50 years, like the current tanker.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, so that we can lock in a couple of 
things, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business, and 
then I would be followed by the junior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                                Zimbabwe

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I thank the junior Senator from 
Pennsylvania for allowing me to go ahead of him on something I think is 
very significant and something with which I am sure he agrees.
  Today, I want to call attention to a place that has been lost in the 
sea of many other conflicts and crises plaguing our world--Zimbabwe, a 
country slightly bigger than the State of Montana which sits in the 
southeastern portion of Africa. It has faced and continues to face 
difficult challenges and untold sufferings caused by an authoritarian 
and corrupt leader, Robert Mugabe.
  After fighting a long battle and civil war, Zimbabwe gained 
independence in 1980 from the white Rhodesians. Independence came with 
an envisioned sense of hope. Everyone thought good things were going to 
happen, and the President that was elected was a man named Robert 
Mugabe. But the honeymoon quickly ended with the realization that newly 
elected President Mugabe had fought the war to gain personal power and 
control rather than to provide freedom and democracy for its people.
  In the 1990s, the country continued to weaken under the self-centered 
leadership of Mugabe. As the Book of Proverbs--Solomon--tells us: 
``Where there is no vision, the people perish.'' That is what is 
happening in Zimbabwe.
  Robert Mugabe failed to provide a vision for his country, focusing 
solely upon himself and his ability to remain in power. The people of 
Zimbabwe have suffered dramatically as a consequence.
  In a country that once showed evidence of steady economic growth--a 
country, I recall, that was considered one of the wealthiest countries 
in Africa; that was considered to be the bread basket of Africa--it has 
now been named the world's fastest shrinking economy.
  In 2007, inflation rose above 8,000 percent. Unemployment is 
estimated at 80 percent, and 80 percent of the population lives on less 
than $2 a day. Mugabe's leadership has been such a disgrace. Throughout 
almost 30 years of his leadership, nearly 28 years, he has worked to 
tighten his rein over the nation by intimidation, violence, and 
oppression.
  In 2002, the Government initiated a farmland redistribution program 
which resulted in 400,000 farmers losing their homes and livelihood. 
The program resulted in scandal and embarrassment to Mugabe when 
investigations revealed that more than 300 farms were intended for his 
senior officials and ministers rather than for resettlement. In other 
words, these were payoffs to his political friends.
  In 2005, Mugabe initiated one of the most inexcusable incidents of 
his Presidency. Operation Murambatsvina--or translated, Operation Clean 
Out the Filth--was a demolition project the Government claimed was 
designed to reduce crime in the major city. It resulted in an estimated 
700,000 Zimbabweans losing their homes. Twenty percent of the 
population has been reported as affected by the demolitions.
  Many people thought this was a political move aimed at squashing any 
potential protests or uprisings against the regime and displacing the 
opposition party base. Not only has Mugabe's actions displayed his 
blatant disregard for the well-being of his people, but he has also 
expressed this in his own words. In August of 2006, after a violent 
crackdown on a peaceful protest by the Zimbabwean union, Mugabe said he 
had warned, prior to the incident, that security forces ``will pull the 
trigger'' against the protesters.
  Mugabe said this:

       Some people are now crying foul that they were assaulted. 
     Yes, you get a beating. When the police say move, move, if 
     you don't move, you invite the police to use force.

  Many believe that the farmland redistribution and Operation Clean Out 
the Filth contributed drastically to the poverty affecting the 
Zimbabweans. The Government has accused food aid agencies of using food 
to turn Zimbabwe away from Mugabe's ruling party, and, in turn, 
continues to maintain tight control of food distributions.
  The totalitarian regime has, not surprisingly, placed a very 
significant emphasis on their military and security forces. In 2006, 
the Government reportedly spent more than $20 million--that is 20 
million U.S. dollars--to purchase new cars for police, military, and 
intelligence officers. In a dying economy, it is stunning that Zimbabwe 
is able to buy high-priced military articles, to include their recent 
purchase of fighter jets from China costing more than $240 million.
  As you know, Madam President, China has an increasing influence on 
the continent of Africa, but their relationship and long support of 
Mugabe's ZANU-PF Party is concerning. China is currently Zimbabwe's 
largest investor and second largest trading partner. As most Western 
countries, including the United States, enforce an arms embargo against 
the country, China continues to sell defense articles to the regime. 
Most recently, South Africa refused to let a Chinese cargo ship unload 
because it was carrying more than 70 tons of small arms destined for 
Zimbabwe.
  China has also played a significant role in diplomacy in Zimbabwe. 
China was Mugabe's key supporter through the international outrage in 
response to Operation Clean Out the Filth. China worked to quiet the 
U.N. condemnation of the incident and is now expected to veto any 
proposed action by the Security Council to punish Mugabe's 
administration--which, of course, they can do under the rules of the 
United Nations. China's persistent support and supply to Mugabe's 
regime demonstrates their indifference to the violence, oppression, and 
potential civil war looming in the country.
  On March 29, 2008, Zimbabwe held Presidential elections along with 
parliamentary and local elections. I am very familiar with this, Madam 
President, because I was there when it happened. I was actually in 
Tanzania, and we were watching very carefully, with all the countries, 
all hoping that they would have an honest election. Sure enough, Mugabe 
lost. The incumbent President Mugabe ran for the ZANU-PF Party, and a 
man named Morgan Tsvangirai for the Movement for Democratic Change 
Party.
  The election process was tainted with intimidation of voters and 
violence against the opposition party and supporters of the opposition. 
Political rallies were banned. The opposition party's secretary general 
was jailed, denied bail, tried for treason, and may face the death 
penalty. There are also reports that the regime is restricting access 
to food in opposition areas, threatening already hungry people to 
either vote for Mugabe or to starve.
  The results of the race, finally released in May, indicated that the 
MDC opposition leader won the election but didn't quite reach the 50 
percent, so

[[Page 14007]]

 there was a runoff that was scheduled for Friday--that is this Friday, 
the 27th. Sadly, this week, the opposition leader, because of threats 
on his life, pulled out of the race and refused to take part in what he 
calls ``a sham of an election process.'' He said he cannot ask 
Zimbabweans to vote ``when that vote could cost them their lives.'' He 
has taken refuge now in the Embassy of the Netherlands.
  Mugabe has clearly stolen the election, and the outlook for true 
reform for democracy for the people of Zimbabwe looks very bleak at 
this time.
  As I have traveled across the continent--and I have traveled across 
Africa more than any other Member probably in the history of America--I 
have seen wonderful things happening on the continent. Whether it is 
Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, Ghana, Benin, or Cote d'Ivoire, in 
these countries wonderful things are happening. They are making great 
strides everywhere except Zimbabwe. While Mugabe leads Zimbabwe away 
from reaching its full potential, there are other leaders on the 
continent who have chosen a vision of democracy, freedom, and progress 
in their countries. And while not perfect, each is making improvements 
and taking strides to improve democratic practices and exercising the 
free political will.
  Mugabe will never allow his people to decide the next phase and 
direction of their country. I think we should call on the African 
leaders, which I have done personally in Africa--many of whom are my 
friends and brothers--and leaders all over the world to do what we can 
to help the people of Zimbabwe.
  I have to say, Madam President, and I speak firsthand because I was 
there when this happened, that Zimbabwe was once the bread basket of 
sub-Sahara Africa, and I have seen Zimbabwe now, the most devastated of 
all the 52 countries of the continent of Africa.
  With that, I yield the floor, and again I thank my friend from 
Pennsylvania for allowing me to go before his presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator from Pennsylvania is now, 
under previous consent, going to be recognized, and it is my 
understanding as well that the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator 
Whitehouse, would like to follow him. I ask unanimous consent that 
following both Senator Casey and Senator Whitehouse that I be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                           Rising Gas Prices

  Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I rise today to talk about a problem so 
many of our families are facing and so many of our businesses, and that 
is the problem of rising gas prices. Unfortunately, we have seen an 
increase of at least $1 at the pump in just 1 year.
  Like a lot of my colleagues in the Senate, I just received a letter 
from a woman in Pennsylvania, 86 years old, from Bucks County, PA, and 
she talked about, in her letter, the Great Depression, when she was 
describing how people had nothing and how worried she is about our 
current economic crisis, especially in light of these gas prices. She 
reminds us that, just as in the Great Depression, we need to have 
commonsense solutions to dig ourselves out of the economic trauma so 
many families face.
  Today, whether it is on gas prices, the cost of health care, or the 
mortgage foreclosure crisis that has gripped the country, we do need 
commonsense solutions. We don't need more gimmicks, we don't need more 
partisan bickering, we need commonsense solutions. And those solutions 
on gas prices are not a magic wand. No piece of legislation in the 
Senate will bring down gas prices immediately. We know that. Anyone who 
says otherwise is not speaking the truth. But there are things that we 
can do to at least begin the process, or go down that road, I should 
say, of bringing those prices down.
  We have to move in a direction that focuses on short-term solutions 
as well as long-term--short term and long term. We will talk about 
those in a couple of moments, but, in particular, I think we should 
focus on one problem where I think there is even some bipartisan 
agreement on, and that is speculation in the oil futures market. We 
have never seen it like it is now, where profiteers from places in this 
country but also from around the world, literally make money, in some 
cases millions of dollars, every time that price of gasoline goes up.
  So we have to bring some discipline and some accountability and some 
transparency to the marketplace. And speculation is one area where we 
need to have legislation. That would help more short term than long 
term.
  How about big oil? They have a role to play. By one estimate, the 
five biggest oil companies, over 5 years, have seen their profits go up 
by five times. I don't think there are many families in America who 
have seen their bottom line, their family income, go up by five times 
over 5 years, and big oil has seen that. Just since 2001, their profits 
have increased over $600 billion. Now, if their profits are going up at 
that rate since 2001, and if the price of gasoline under this 
administration went up from $1.46 or $1.47 to $4--and on top of all 
that, in addition to those oil company profits, the previous Congress 
gave them $17 billion in tax breaks--something is wrong. This is beyond 
inequitable; it is just bad policy. It is not working.
  What we are seeing is the status quo. We keep giving oil companies 
tax breaks hoping their hearts are big enough to help us and it will 
all work out, but that hasn't happened, and it will never happen in 
light of what we have seen in recent history. So it is about time for 
big oil to do what President Kennedy implored us to do many years ago, 
and that is to do something for their country at this time of record 
profits for them and pain at the pump and this economic squeeze that so 
many families and small businesses face.
  What can we do? A couple of things. First, we could enact legislation 
such as the legislation I proposed in 2007, way back in the spring of 
2007. My bill was the Energy Security and Oil Company Accountability 
Act. It would do basically two things. I will describe it very quickly.
  First, end those tax breaks for big oil. They have gotten enough and 
we have not seen any results for those tax breaks. End those breaks and 
other credits our Government gave them and use those savings to our 
Government not just to sit there, but use those savings to invest in 
research and development on alternative fuels and the infrastructure we 
need to bring alternative fuels to the marketplace and to help us with 
our energy challenges. That is No. 1: End the breaks.
  No. 2, under my legislation, impose a windfall profits tax on big oil 
and use that savings to redirect those dollars for relief for our 
families, especially low-income families who are trying to make ends 
meet. They are trying to pay for health care, they are trying to pay 
for a mortgage, trying to pay for higher education, and on top of that 
they are paying $4 or more at the pump. It is time oil companies helped 
us in this process.
  My legislation would do those two things. I was happy the major part 
of my legislation from 2007 made its way into what Democrats in the 
Senate proposed a couple of weeks ago, legislation that was blocked and 
obstructed by the Republicans in the Senate. The Consumer First Energy 
Act would do a number of things. I will describe that quickly.
  First, getting back to our point about speculation, this legislation, 
the Consumer First Energy Act, would finally at long last do something 
about market speculation. Why should we sit back and say: Gas prices 
are too high; it is too bad; there is nothing we can do about it.
  There is something we can do about it. One part of the solution, one 
part of the commonsense approach--and I think my colleagues on the 
other side would agree with this for the most part--is we should bring 
more transparency to these transactions. This raw speculation is all 
over the world, but it is even here in America, where

[[Page 14008]]

profiteers are making money while the price of gasoline goes up for our 
families. They are literally trading in the dark.
  You know the old expression that sunlight is the best disinfectant to 
corruption--which is one of the best ways to describe what is happening 
here. To take the corruption out of that marketplace, we need to apply 
some sunlight to those transactions. If the transactions are OK and 
people want to make a lot of money, why shouldn't we have information 
about those transactions? Apply some sunlight and transparency to those 
transactions. If people are going to make money, they ought to do it in 
the light of day, not under cover of darkness. If it is so good to do 
and they want to make money, these profiteers, and do well in the 
marketplace, we ought to require them to have more stake in the 
transaction, more skin in the game, so their margins, what they have to 
put down, should be a much higher number. If they want to make money, 
we want more transparency on those transactions and we want them to put 
down more money. If they do that, they will have the opportunity to 
make money.
  The first thing this legislation does is crack down on speculation. 
The legislation the Senate Democrats offered, the Consumer First Energy 
Act, also made it very clear that, at long last, in American law, price 
gouging is illegal. It is at best murky right now. We have to be very 
clear about what price gouging is and what it is not, and make it 
illegal.
  The other thing this legislation did was adopt the idea I had, and 
many others had--I am not the only one--on the issue of the windfall 
profits tax, saying to oil companies: You can have profits; there is 
nothing wrong with that; but if you are going to have record profits 
while American families do not have their income going up, you have to 
help us. You have to do, as I said before, something for your country, 
Mr. Oilman, Mr. Oil Company. You have to do something to help your 
country.
  If you are diversifying and helping us reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, if you are giving us options to reduce our dependence and 
have a long-term energy strategy, then maybe the profits tax on your 
company wouldn't be as high. But if you are going to turn a blind eye 
to this problem and say you are going to make record profits and not 
help, we are going to impose a tax on you and make sure you are doing 
your share--especially when the oil companies have made $600 billion 
since 2001.
  There are other parts of the Consumer First Energy Act I will not go 
into in the interest of time. But there are things we can do. These are 
short-term strategies. But the long-term solution here we know is 
committing ourselves to future of energy independence. That means 
investing dollars, using the Tax Code, using incentives to do what 
Americans do best. When Americans have an opportunity to use their 
brainpower and their innovation and their ingenuity to help on a 
problem, we have to make sure our Government is backing them up.
  We are not doing nearly enough to invest in the new technologies--
whether it is clean coal technology or whether it is investing in 
biofuels, all kinds of alternatives, and renewable sources of energy. 
Our Government is not doing enough to incentivize the marketplace to 
come up with a solution long term so we do not face this problem in the 
future.
  Before I conclude, I want to address a couple of arguments. One of 
the arguments we hear time and again is about drilling. Over and over 
we hear about drilling from some people here in Washington, some people 
here in this body. I do not think many people believe the basic 
argument that we can drill our way to energy independence. No one 
believes that. But the argument is made over and over again. I think in 
the interests of putting facts on the table, we ought to put a few on 
the table right now. Here are some facts important in this debate about 
``we can just drill our way out and all our problems will go away with 
lower gas prices.''
  Fact No. 1, the percent of America's recoverable oil reserves already 
open for drilling--79 percent.
  Fact No. 2, America has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. That 
is not nearly enough to impact world oil prices. We have 3 percent of 
the reserves, yet we consume 25 percent of the world's oil. There is no 
way, no matter what we do on drilling, that we can drill our way out of 
this.
  Fact No. 3, oil companies already have access to 45.5 million acres 
of Federal land to drill for oil and natural gas. They should tell us 
why they are not drilling in those areas.
  Oil companies, fact No. 4, are only drilling on 21 percent of the 
leases they currently have offshore in Federal waters. Why is that, Mr. 
Oil Company? Why are you not drilling on more than 21 percent?
  The last fact: Oil companies have refused to invest in refining 
capacity. They have lost 4 percent of refining capacity since 2001. 
Since 2001--remember those profits I talked about? Since you were 
making, oil companies, $600 billion in profits since 2001, why did you 
lose 4 percent of refining capacity? Why are you crying crocodile tears 
right now that you need more land when you have all those acres?
  These are questions the oil companies should answer. These are facts 
that are not making their way into the debate.
  I think we have not a magic wand to propose, but we have short-term 
relief we can provide and long-term strategies to reduce our dependence 
on foreign oil; to literally not just commit ourselves to an energy 
future that is good for our families and for our country but is about 
national security in the end. Unless we can do that over time, and 
unless we commit ourselves to these strategies, we are not only going 
to be dependent on other countries for our oil but we will be less and 
less safe because of that dependence.
  I think it is critically important that we take action instead of 
blocking legislation, as happened earlier this month on so many of 
these short- and long-term solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, before I discuss for a moment the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I applaud my colleague, the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, for his remarks. In the year 
and a half we have served together in this body, he has stood out as a 
powerful advocate for consumers, particularly Pennsylvania consumers. 
He has always had a very thoughtful, helpful, and productive approach 
to the solutions he has put forward and espoused. It is an honor for me 
to follow him on the Senate floor here.
  On the question of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, I will 
talk about the immunity question for telecoms at another time. It is 
not yet clear what amendment will be allowed to be offered. I thought I 
would talk about two other issues at this point. The first is the 
process that has got us here. I do wish to pay particular tribute to 
the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Jay 
Rockefeller, for how steadfast he has been in pushing through this 
process.
  We in the Senate have also been done a great service by our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives, who stood fast against the 
Bush administration efforts to stampede this legislation through 
without proper negotiation and without the basic process of back and 
forth that ordinarily improves legislation. It has made for a better 
piece of legislation. It also makes for a notable contrast with what 
happened a year ago, when we first took up this legislation.
  I wish to talk for a minute about that because it was a very 
disappointing episode, I believe, in the Senate's history, and it is 
one I wish to make sure we chronicle because it should not be repeated.
  In order to understand what I am going to say, it will be important 
to remember the schedule at the time. I have just replicated July of 
2007, and the early days of August here. The first time the big sort of 
stampede push began, for me at least, was when the Director of National 
Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, met with me on July

[[Page 14009]]

11 in the secure confines of the Senate Intelligence Committee to tell 
me what he wanted. There had been a big FISA bill that had everything 
but the kitchen sink in it. It was clearly going no place. He realized 
he would have to focus on what he wanted, and he said three things. 
These are from my notes of that meeting.
  No. 1, we need to compel the telecoms to help us; No. 2, we need to 
get foreign-to-foreign conversations, not Americans, foreign-to-foreign 
conversations without having to go to the FISA Court; and No. 3, we 
need a warrant if we are going to wiretap Americans. We accept that.
  So I said to him: That is fine, but you do not have any legislation. 
We are suspicious of what is going to be in this legislation when it 
shows up, so the sooner you can get it written and the sooner you can 
get it to us the better, because the devil is going to be in the 
details and we need a chance to look it over. That was on July 11.
  The draft legislation was circulated on July 27. It was circulated, 
at least to me, by mail, so I didn't get it on July 27. I got it over 
the weekend, the following Monday, on July 30. The Friday from Monday 
delivery stunt is one we have seen before. But what concerned me was 
that once that legislation was delivered, the Bush administration began 
to whip up everything they could do to try to panic Americans about 
what was going on.
  On July 28, that Saturday, President Bush gave a radio address, 
saying:

       Our intelligence community warns that under the current 
     statute we are missing a significant amount of foreign 
     intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our 
     country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill 
     so that our national security professionals can close 
     intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our 
     country.

  He asked us to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before 
we leave town, and said our national security depends on it. That is 
what he said here.
  The Senate promptly picked up the chorus with one of my colleagues 
saying we would be deaf during August to discussions of threats being 
carried on by al-Qaida and others seeking to do us harm if we did not 
pass the legislation.
  Another colleague said:

       This is a time when the Director of National Intelligence 
     and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security have 
     said it is a high threat month and it is imperative for 
     national security that we adopt this now.

  Another one of our colleagues said:

       Make no mistake, inaction on our part needlessly subjects 
     every American to increased danger. We need to act.

  Those are just several high points of a real campaign to try to drive 
this issue by public fear.
  Well, here is what concerned me. If, when the President spoke on July 
28, national security was that vitally affected by the speed of this 
legislation; if every day that went by we were missing intelligence, 
because of an intelligence gap, of al-Qaida plots that were being 
developed then and there to attack us; if that were true also on the 
3rd, why wasn't it true back here on July 11 and 12 and 13, 14, 15, and 
all the way through here when they circulated the draft on July 27?
  Here is what they sent us. This. It is 12 pages. That is it. Double 
spaced. I could write 12 pages of legislation double spaced in 17 hours 
if our national security depended upon it. It would not take me 17 
days. So when it takes them 17 days to write 12 pages of legislation 
and then deliver it on the Monday before we recess and suddenly there 
is an explosion of concern about immediate al-Qaida attacks that are 
being planned that we need to get into, something does not add up. I 
believe the result was what I call the August stampede, and as a result 
we passed, bluntly, a very poor piece of legislation, the so-called 
Protect America Act.
  This piece of legislation does a number of very good things to repair 
some of the damage in the Protect America Act.
  The first is protection for Americans when we travel abroad. 
Americans travel a lot now. They travel on business, they travel on 
vacation. It is a lot more expensive now given the Bush 
administration's oil prices, but people still travel a lot. The rule 
had been, under the Protect America Act, that if you were traveling 
abroad, you had no statutory or judicial protection of your privacy, 
none whatsoever. They could listen to your telephone calls, they could 
take your BlackBerrys, e-mails, anything--it was open season. There 
were no statutory or judicial protections for Americans once they set 
foot outside of the country. The only protection was an executive 
order, 12333, which said that if the Attorney General determined that 
you as an American were an agent of a foreign power, then they could 
listen, then they could surveil, then they could intercept, but only if 
the Attorney General made that determination. So there was a 
protection, but it was only an executive order--nothing statutory, 
nothing judicial. Then we looked into the opinions that underlie the 
Bush warrantless wiretapping program, and here is what I found.
  The flaw in the Protect America Act is that it contained no 
statutory, no judicial protections for Americans once they were 
traveling abroad and put them at the mercy of the executive branch of 
Government to be wiretapped at will, protected only by an Executive 
order. Our discovery, in the course of looking at the classified legal 
opinions that supported the warrantless wiretapping program, we 
discovered this rule that had been inserted by the Office of Legal 
Counsel:

       An executive order cannot limit a President. There is no 
     constitutional requirement for a President to issue a new 
     executive order whenever he wishes to depart from the terms 
     of a previous executive order. Rather than violate an 
     executive order, the President has instead modified or waived 
     it.

  Well, as a theory, I think that is, frankly, deeply flawed legally.
  In my examination of Attorney General nominee Mukasey, I asked him 
what the force of an Executive order was. He answered me saying:

       Should an executive order apply to the President and he 
     determines that the order be modified, the appropriate course 
     would be for him to issue a new order, or amend the prior 
     order.

  I think that is not only the correct but the obvious solution. But we 
were left in a situation in which an American traveling abroad, without 
statutory protection, without judicial protection, and with the only 
protection from the executive being a protection that the President 
cannot be limited by and that he can ignore at will--frankly, that was 
no protection at all.
  So we worked very hard in the committee--and it has persisted through 
the entire lengthy process we have been involved in--to make sure that 
an American, whether you are in the United States or traveling abroad, 
has the protection of a judicial order before your Government can 
wiretap you. And that has been achieved. That has been an important 
achievement.
  A second achievement has been in the area of minimization. I know the 
Presiding Officer was a prosecutor in Minnesota. I have run wiretap 
investigations as a U.S. attorney, I have run wiretap investigations as 
an attorney general, and I have seen firsthand how important 
minimization is to a wiretap investigation.
  Minimization is what happens when you have the authority to wiretap 
somebody, but because you have the authority to wiretap one person, 
they could be talking to somebody else who is not part of the criminal 
or national security activity involved, and if that proves to be the 
case, you have to minimize that to protect the rights of the third 
person they are talking to. In the old days, the FBI agents would 
literally sit there with their earmuffs on listening and flip the 
switch on and off to see whether the conversation was still an innocent 
conversation or related to some criminal matter.
  Now it is more complex, but those minimization procedures did not 
previously have any judicial oversight. They only were required to be 
filed. Under this bill, the Attorney General shall adopt minimization 
procedures. It is mandatory. But more than that, the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Court is given authority to review those 
minimization procedures; specifically, to determine whether those 
procedures meet the statutory standards

[[Page 14010]]

we require for minimization procedures. So that is particularly 
important.
  Finally, this statute for the first time recognizes ``the inherent 
authority of the FISA Court to determine or enforce compliance with an 
order or a rule of such court.'' So they not only get the minimization 
procedures, they get to approve the minimization procedures. If it is 
determined that the executive branch isn't following them, they can 
check for compliance, and they can enforce the procedure. That is a 
substantial, additional improvement that brings this in line with the 
traditions of wiretap surveillance within the United States.
  Another significant improvement has been in the area of exclusivity. 
FISA has always said that ``it shall be the exclusive means by which 
electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, 
oral, and electric communications may be conducted.''
  That was clearly the intent of Congress, as courts, including in the 
Andonian decision, have agreed. However, we have a problem again with 
the Office of Legal Counsel. The Office of Legal Counsel said this:

       Unless made a clear statement in the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act that it sought to restrict presidential 
     authority to conduct wireless searches in the national 
     security area--which it has not--then the statute must be 
     construed to avoid a reading.

  I don't know how you get ``which it has not'' out of the clear 
language of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act saying this is 
the exclusive means. But once we found out that in these classified 
opinions the Office of Legal counsel had suggested this language right 
here either didn't exist or didn't mean anything, it had to be solved. 
Thanks to the leadership of Senator Feinstein, in particular, there has 
been great energy put into improving the exclusivity provision. I think 
it is now an exclusivity provision that would defeat this type of, 
frankly, improbable legal analysis and clearly define that it is 
Congress's intent in the FISA statute to take every possible avenue it 
can to limit executive surveillance activities to those that are 
performed within the statutory authority of this particular 
legislation.
  The last thing is reverse targeting. There has been considerable 
concern about allowing the Government to identify a foreigner who is in 
touch with Americans regularly and target that foreigner with the 
reverse targeting purpose to actually pick up the conversations of the 
American and dodge the requirement for a warrant for judicial review 
vis-a-vis the American. There are strong provisions in here that 
require that regulations and procedures be developed to prevent that.
  I hope to be able to discuss the statute further, as we get to the 
discussion about immunity. But I will conclude by summarizing that the 
process we went through to get to this piece of legislation, 
particularly article I of this bill, was a very proud moment for this 
Senate and for this caucus, for Chairman Rockefeller. It has been 
infinitely better than the degraded process we went through last August 
in the atmosphere of stampede. I think the quality of the underlying 
legislation shows it. I hope as we continue to work together in the 
Senate on other issues, we continue to follow the process that took 
place with respect to this iteration of the FISA bill, and we never go 
back to the kind of hectic, imprudent stampede we were put through last 
August. Second, the elements of article I are improved. This is, in 
article I, a bill we can we very proud of. We will have our dispute 
about the immunity provisions. I will have my thoughts on that for 
later. But there is much that has been accomplished and great credit is 
due particularly to Chairman Rockefeller for those accomplishments.
  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. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 NOMINATION OF WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
                  FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

                                 ______
                                 

NOMINATION OF G. MURRAY SNOW TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE 
                          DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the authority of the June 24 order 
issued by the Chair, I now ask that the Senate proceed to executive 
session to consider Calendar Nos. 627 and 628.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nominations.
  The legislative clerk read the nominations of William T. Lawrence, of 
Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District 
of Indiana; and G. Murray Snow, of Arizona, to be United States 
District Judge for the District of Arizona.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, all Senators should be aware that this 
vote will occur very quickly and the second vote will occur immediately 
after the first one is completed. We appreciate everyone's cooperation. 
We are still working through some issues, and we will have some news 
for the rest of the Senators by the time, hopefully, the first vote is 
announced.
  Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. REID. Yes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I advise the distinguished leader, I will 
speak on these judges and judicial matters probably for 10 to 15 
minutes at most, and then I would be prepared to go to a rollcall vote 
on William Lawrence, which would be the first one. I intend to support 
both nominees.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, let me say to the distinguished chairman 
of the Judiciary Committee, we are glad we are at the point where we 
are today. There has been cooperation. We have approved two circuit 
court judges. This will be the third district court judge. It is my 
understanding there was a markup that went ahead today without any 
problem and a couple more judges were reported out at that time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I advise the leader, four judges were reported out this 
morning, as well as a U.S. attorney and another one of President Bush's 
nominees.
  Mr. REID. I appreciate the continued good work of my friend, the 
distinguished Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, the distinguished leader has put the 
Senate in executive session to consider two more judicial nominations. 
I would like to speak on these in my capacity both as a Senator from 
Vermont and as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. We are going to be 
confirming these two nominations which are, of course, for lifetime 
appointments to the federal bench, as the distinguished Presiding 
Officer, an attorney in her own right and with a distinguished 
background as a prosecutor in Minnesota prior to being here, knows. The 
two are William Lawrence, nominated to a vacancy in the Southern 
District of Indiana, and Murray Snow, nominated to a vacancy in the 
District of Arizona.
  I have been delighted to work with my friend of 30 years, Senator 
Lugar of Indiana. He strongly supports the recommendation of Judge 
Lawrence. He came to see me about Judge Lawrence prior to his 
nomination coming up here. Senator Bayh of Indiana also came to see me 
and supports the nomination. I have been pleased to accommodate Senator 
Kyl in scheduling first Committee action and now Senate action on the 
nomination of Judge Snow. Both nominations are being expedited for 
confirmation in a Presidential election year.

[[Page 14011]]

  As we approach the Fourth of July recess and celebrate the 
independence of our great Nation, we will be confirming our fourth and 
fifth judicial nominations of the week.
  But when I go back home to Vermont, as I did this past weekend, and 
as I will this week, I find that Vermonters--and I suspect this is so 
with all Americans--are not really concerned about judicial 
nominations. I have not had anybody come up to me--when I am coming out 
of church or walking through the grocery store or gassing up my car--
and say: We need more judicial nominations.
  But what they are concerned about are gas prices that have 
skyrocketed so high they don't know how they are going to be able to 
afford to drive to work. I have talked to parents of children in rural 
parts of our State where there is no mass transportation--never will 
be. They have to bring their children to school. Both the mother and 
father are working. They then have to drive to work. These are not 
high-paying jobs. They then have to drive back and get their children. 
One couple might have to take care of elderly parents, and they are 
wondering how they can afford to do it with these gas prices. They are 
far more concerned about that than they are with lifetime appointments 
to our Federal bench.
  They are concerned also about the steepest decline in home values in 
two decades. Madam President, when I was a child, I remember my parents 
always telling me one of the greatest things you can do is to own your 
own home. Marcelle and I have been fortunate. We have been able to do 
that. We have encouraged our children to do the same. And I encourage 
people in my own State of Vermont, especially young people: If you can 
own your own home, it is worth borrowing money because that will be 
part of your retirement, part of your stability. But now they have seen 
the steepest decline in home values in two decades. Many owe more on 
their house than their mortgage. Many are wondering as they see jobs 
failing, as they see their gasoline prices go up, as they see the value 
of their homes go down, if their children will have a brighter future 
than they did or their parents did.
  More and more Americans are affected by rising unemployment. Last 
month brought the greatest 1-month rise in unemployment in 20 years. It 
brought the job losses for the first 5 consecutive months of this year 
to over 325,000 people. The number of people who lost their jobs are 
equal to half the population in my whole State. Americans are worried 
about soaring health care costs. They are worried about rising health 
insurance costs. They are worried about the rising costs of education. 
They are worried about rising food prices--long before they are worried 
about the number of Federal judges being confirmed.
  Just yesterday, the front page of the Wall Street Journal had this 
headline: ``Consumer Confidence Plummets.'' That is a pretty dire 
headline: ``Consumer Confidence Plummets.'' The next line read: ``Home 
Prices See Sharp Decline.'' With that article they ran a graph titled 
``In a Free Fall'' that shows housing prices in April down more than 15 
percent from a year ago and consumer confidence at the lowest level in 
nearly 20 years. According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of 
Americans saying they intend to buy a home in the next 6 months is at a 
25-year low and consumers' expectations of the economy over the next 6 
months is the lowest it has ever been in the more than 40 years they 
have kept track--the lowest it has ever been--ever been--in 40 years.
  Unfortunately, the bad economic news for hard-working Americans is 
nothing new under the Bush-Cheney administration. During his 
administration, President Bush and all Americans have seen unemployment 
rise more than 20 percent and trillions of dollars in budget surplus--
which he inherited from President Clinton's administration--turned into 
trillions of dollars of debt, with an annual budget deficit of hundreds 
of billions of dollars. When President Bush took office, the price of 
gas was $1.42 a gallon. Madam President, I remember some people 
complaining about $1.42 a gallon gas when the President took office. 
Today, it is at an all-time high of over $4 a gallon. The Nation's 
trade deficit widened 8 percent in April alone due to the surging gas 
prices, and now it is at the highest level in 13 months.
  The numbers are staggering: $4 a gallon for gas, $139 a barrel for 
oil, more than $1 billion a day--let me repeat that: $1 billion a day--
just to pay the interest on the national debt and the massive costs 
generated by the disastrous war in Iraq. These are the numbers 
Americans care about, not a few nominees who are getting the honor of a 
judicial appointment and lifetime tenure in a respected job that pays 
nearly $200,000 a year.
  Yet we do not hear about these numbers from the other side of the 
aisle. We do not hear about the free-fall in home prices. We do not 
hear about the free-fall in the consumer confidence index from the 
other side. We do not hear about the Bush deficits, which have brought 
the value of a dollar down almost in half. We do not hear about these 
numbers, as terrible as they are, and as much as they affect real 
people in Minnesota and Vermont and elsewhere. We do not hear from them 
about the number of Americans who are losing their homes, nor about the 
number of Americans who are losing their jobs, nor about the number of 
Americans who cannot afford to bring their children to school, nor 
about the number of Americans who cannot afford to put groceries on the 
table, nor about the number of Americans who cannot afford to gas up 
their car so they can go to work. The only numbers we hear about from 
the other side of the aisle are the number of nominees they insist must 
be considered by a certain date to reach some mythical average number.
  Week after week, even as the Senate--under the leadership of Senator 
Reid and the Democrats--continues to make progress on filling judicial 
vacancies, we hear a steady stream of grumbling from Republicans. And 
it turns out, they are responding to partisan pressures from special 
interest groups.
  Madam President, the special interest group I listen to are the hard-
working American families in my State of Vermont and the other 49 
States. If we are going to listen to a special interest group, listen 
to the men and women who have to pay to take their children to school, 
put groceries on their table, go to work, try to make ends meet, and 
are seeing the value of their home drop 25 percent. If we are going to 
listen to any special interest group, at a time when the economy is 
tanking, let's talk about the special interest group, the average 
American man and woman.
  It is ironic that the Senate's Republican minority is so focused on 
the number of judges because that is the only number that has actually 
improved under President Bush. On July 1, 2000, when a Republican 
Senate majority was considering the judicial nominees of a Democratic 
President in a Presidential election year, there were 60 judicial 
vacancies. Twenty-one were circuit court vacancies. These vacancies 
were the result of the actions of Republicans, when there was a 
Democrat in the White House, pocket-filibustering over 60 judicial 
nominees.
  In stark contrast, after the two nominations we confirm today, and 
the circuit court judges we confirmed on Tuesday, there are just 40 
total judicial vacancies throughout the country. There are only nine 
circuit court vacancies. By confirming Judge Helene White and Ray 
Kethledge to the last two vacancies on the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals, we reduced circuit court vacancies to single digits for the 
first time in decades--only nine vacancies on our Nation's 13 circuit 
courts.
  The history is clear. Democrats have reversed course on judicial 
vacancies from the days during which the Republican Senate majority 
more than doubled them. We have already lowered the 32 circuit court 
vacancies that existed when I became chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee in the summer of 2001. We had 32 vacancies. We lowered it to 
nine. In fact, this is the first time we have hit single digits in 
decades--since the Republican tactics of slowing judicial confirmations 
began in earnest in 1996. Why? Because the Democrats

[[Page 14012]]

did not pocket-filibuster 60 judges, as the Republicans did to a 
Democratic President. We treated President Bush's nominees with more 
respect than they treated President Clinton's. But we also treated the 
whole Federal judiciary system with a great deal more respect. This is, 
after all, the third independent branch of Government. It is the one 
branch that should be devoid of politics. It is the one branch that 
should be able to be set apart from this. And it is the one branch 
where you leave your political affiliations at the doors.
  The 100 nominations we confirmed in only 17 months in 2001 and 2002--
I was working with a very uncooperative White House--reduced the 
vacancies I inherited by 45 percent by the end of 2002. I became 
chairman halfway through that year. The Republicans had been in control 
up to that halfway mark. They did not confirm a single judge. In 17 
months, we confirmed 100.
  So with 40 additional confirmations last year, and another 14 so far 
this year, the Senate, under Democratic leadership, has already matched 
the confirmation total for the entire last Congress. That was 2 full 
years with a Republican Senate majority working to confirm the judicial 
nominees of a Republican President. In fact, after these two 
confirmations, we will have reached 54 judicial confirmations for this 
Congress.
  I am sure there are some who prefer partisan fights designed to 
energize a political base during an election year. I do not. The 
American people do not want Federal judges to be tied to partisan 
politics.
  Madam President, I felt very honored to be a lawyer. I felt very 
honored to try cases in Federal courts. I felt very honored to try 
cases when I was a prosecutor. And I feel honored to be on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. But I have always said one of the things you 
should be able to do if you walk into a court room--whether you are a 
plaintiff or a defendant, whether you are the Government or the other 
side, whether you are rich or poor, no matter your race, no matter your 
issue--you should be able to look at the judge and say: I am going to 
be treated fairly. The judge is not going to ask what my political 
party is, what my station in life is, whether I am a big corporation, 
whether I am a poor defendant or a plaintiff.
  So when there are efforts to make a partisan issue over judicial 
confirmations, as my friends on the Republican side have done, that is 
sorely misplaced. Their obstructionism has done a great deal of damage 
to our attempts to address the important needs of Americans.
  We have seen Republican obstructionism since the beginning of this 
Congress. Republicans used filibuster after filibuster to thwart the 
will of the majority of the Senate from doing the business of the 
American people. Republican filibusters prevented the Senate majority 
from passing a climate change bill. Republican filibusters prevented 
the Senate majority from passing the Employee Free Choice Act and the 
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Republican filibusters prevented the 
Senate majority from passing the DC Voting Rights Act. Republican 
filibusters prevented the Senate majority from passing the Renewable 
Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. 
Republican filibusters blocked the Renewable Energy and Job Creation 
Act of 2008. Republican filibusters blocked the Medicare Improvements 
for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. Republican filibusters blocked 
the Consumer First Energy Act. These are critical pieces of legislation 
to address the priorities not of special interest groups, but of real 
Americans--urgent priorities such as the energy crisis, the 
environment, voting rights and health care, and fair wages for working 
men and women. All of them had the support of the majority of the 
Senate. All were blocked by a minority of Republican Senators who 
filibustered them.
  This long list of priorities unaddressed because of the Republicans 
in Congress would be even longer if we were to include the many 
important bills President Bush has vetoed since the beginning of this 
Congress. That list includes legislation to fund stem cell research, to 
fight debilitating and deadly diseases such as Parkinson's, multiple 
sclerosis, and diabetes; to extend and expand the successful State 
Children's Health Insurance Program that would have provided health 
insurance to more of the millions of American children who are without 
it in the wealthiest, most powerful Nation on Earth; to set a timetable 
for bringing American troops home from the disastrous war in Iraq that 
has lasted longer than we were in World War II; and to ban 
waterboarding and thus help restore America as the beacon for the rule 
of law.
  The effort of Republicans to turn attention from the real issues 
facing Americans to win partisan political points with judicial 
nominations is another in a long line of tactics we have seen that have 
prevented us from making progress since the beginning of this Congress.
  As I said before, people do not stop me in the grocery store or 
coming out of church or walking down the street or getting out of my 
car to say please confirm more judges. They say: Please, do something 
about the high cost of gasoline. Do something about the fact that I am 
going to lose my home in foreclosure because the value has dropped so 
much. Do something about the fact that our child does not have health 
insurance.
  These tactics would be laughable if they were not tragic. I believe 
they are an affront to those men and women in this country who are 
working hard to make ends meet. I know a lot of these good, honest 
Americans. I see them every weekend in my own State of Vermont. They 
don't face problems as Republicans or Democrats; they face them as 
proud Americans, proud Vermonters. They wonder how they are ever going 
to get insurance for their child and they worry every day their child 
may become ill. They wonder if they can get to their job, and often 
they are holding down two jobs to make ends meet. They wonder if they 
can bring their children to school.
  I congratulate the nominees and their families on their confirmation 
today. These nominees have good reason to be proud. I predict they will 
be confirmed unanimously, and I am proud of them, because the Federal 
judiciary is the one arm of our Government that should never be 
political or politicized regardless of who sits in the White House.
  So let us stop using this question of judges as some kind of an issue 
in trying to distort the fact that the Democrats have treated President 
Bush better than the Republicans treated President Clinton on judges. 
Let us stop using the issue of judges to prevent us from addressing the 
things Americans care about: their jobs, their homes, their children, 
the cost of gas and oil.
  I will continue in this Congress, and I will be here in January with 
a new President in the next Congress, to work with Senators on both 
sides of the aisle to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains 
independent and this real jewel of jurisprudence be able to provide 
justice for all Americans, as they say in their oath of office, without 
fear or favor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in my capacity as ranking member on the 
Judiciary Committee, I did want to make very brief comments on the 
nominees who are pending for the district courts.
  First, G. Murray Snow for the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Arizona, a very well-qualified man: a bachelor's degree from Brigham 
Young University in 1984, magna cum laude; a Harry S. Truman scholar 
for Nevada, a noted scholarship--parenthetically, one which our older 
son Shanin had--Phi Kappa Phi; law degree, magna cum laude--a very 
distinguished academic and professional record.
  Similarly, William Thomas Lawrence for the U.S. District Court for 
the Southern District of Indiana has exemplary qualifications 
academically and professionally.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the resumes printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my remarks.

[[Page 14013]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. One additional addendum. I thank the chairman of the 
committee and the majority leader for moving ahead with three 
confirmations earlier this week, and these two confirmations.
  Again I renew my request that we be able to move to a situation where 
we will avoid blocking judges, where we will proceed on up-and-down 
votes and we will not seek to hold vacancies in judicial nomination 
situations where there are judicial emergencies--for example, in the 
Fourth Circuit with the nomination of Judge Conrad pending from North 
Carolina--and that we will move ahead with the nomination of others who 
have been waiting for very long periods of time.
  Today, the Judiciary Committee took up a report by the Inspector 
General, in which he noted that there had been political considerations 
in hiring at the Department of Justice. The report singled out Peter 
Keisler, who had been acting Attorney General and Assistant Attorney 
General in the Civil Division, and commended him for calling the 
inappropriate conduct for what it was. I mention Peter Keisler because 
he is so well qualified for the DC Circuit vacancy to which he has been 
nominated.
  It will be my expectation that these two nominations would move 
through smoothly. They were accepted on a voice vote in the Judiciary 
Committee, and it is my hope that we will use this to move ahead on the 
confirmations of Federal judges on a yes-or-no vote.

                               Exhibit 1

William Thomas Lawrence--United States District Judge for the Southern 
                          District of Indiana

       Birth: 1947; Indianapolis, Indiana.
       Legal Residence: Indianapolis, Indiana.
       Education: Louisiana State University, 1965-1968; no degree 
     received; B.S., Indiana University, 1970; J.D., Indiana 
     University School of Law--Indianapolis, 1973.
       Primary Employment: Attorney, Poore, Popcheff, Wurster, 
     Sullivan & Burke, 1973-1976; Attorney, Popcheff, Lawrence & 
     Page, 1976-1979; Public Defender (Part-time), Marion County 
     Superior Court, Criminal Division 4, 1974-1983; Attorney, 
     Lawrence, Carter, Gresk, Leerkamp & Walsh, 1979-1989; 
     Attorney, Johnson, Smith, Pence, Densborn, Wright & Heath, 
     1989-1997; Master Commissioner (Part-time), Marion County 
     Circuit Court, 1983-1997; Presiding Judge, Marion County 
     Circuit Court, 1997-2002; Magistrate Judge, U.S. District 
     Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 2002-Present.
       Selected Activities: Indiana Bar, 1973-Present; 
     Indianapolis Bar Association, 1973-Present--Distinguished 
     Fellow, 1997, Chairman, Bench Bar Conference, 2002, Chairman, 
     Judicial Section of the Association, 2004, Chairman, 
     Continuing Legal Education Commission, 2002, Vice-President, 
     2005, Board of Managers, 2005, Executive Committee, 
     Litigation Section, 2004-2005; Seventh Circuit Bar 
     Association, 2002-Present; Federal Bar Association, 2002-
     Present; Indiana Judges Association, 1997-2002, Board of 
     Managers, 2000-2002; Board of Directors, Judicial Conference 
     of Indiana, 1997-2002; United States Magistrate Judges 
     Association, 2002-Present; Board of Directors, Marion County 
     Justice Agency, 1996-2002; Member, Indiana State Forensic 
     Science Commission, 1984-1990; Executive Director, Indiana 
     Merit Selection Commission on Federal Judicial Appointments, 
     1980-1986.
       ABA Rating: Substantial Majority ``Well Qualified,'' 
     Minority ``Qualified.''
                                  ____


   G. Murray Snow--United States District Judge for the District of 
                                Arizona

       Birth: 1959; Boulder City, NV.
       Legal Residence: Tempe, AZ.
       Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Brigham Young University, 
     1984--Harry S. Truman Scholar for Nevada, 1982; Member, Phi 
     Kappa Phi Honor Society.
       J.D., magna cum laude, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham 
     Young University, 1987--Editor-in-Chief, Brigham Young 
     University Law Review, 1986-1987.
       Primary Employment: Law Clerk, Hon. Stephen H. Anderson, 
     U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 1987-1988; 
     Meyer, Hendricks, Victor, Osborn & Maledon, P.A.--Associate, 
     1988-1994, Member, 1994-1995; Member, Osborn Maledon, P.A., 
     1995-2002; Judge, Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, 
     2002-Present.
       Selected Activities: Arizona State Bar Association, 1987-
     Present--Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct, 
     1998-2004, Ethical Rules Review Group, 2000-2002; Mesa 
     [Arizona] Judicial Advisory Board Member, 2003-Present; 
     Judicial College of Arizona--Board Member, 2003-2004, Dean, 
     2005-Present; Committee on Judicial Education and Training--
     Board Member, 2005-Present, Executive Committee, 2005-
     Present; Task Force on Model Code of Judicial Conduct, 2007-
     Present--Chair, March 2007-Present; Recipient, Halo Award, 
     Arizona Association of Providers for People with 
     Disabilities, 2000; Recipient, Citation for Service on the 
     Arizona State Bar Committee on the Rules of Professional 
     Conduct, 1998-2004.
       ABA Rating: Unanimous ``well qualified.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana is recognized.
  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I appreciate this opportunity to support 
the President's nomination of Judge William Thomas Lawrence to serve as 
a U.S. district judge for the Southern District of Indiana.
  I would first like to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, 
Pat Leahy, ranking member, Arlen Specter, the respective leaders of the 
Senate, and especially my colleague, Senator Evan Bayh, for their 
important work to facilitate the timely consideration of this 
distinguished nominee.
  On December 18, 2007, the Senate voted to confirm the nomination of 
John Tinder to serve on the Seventh Circuit Court. John was a 
distinguished leader on Indiana's Southern District Court, and I knew 
his successor would need to possess the same degree of integrity and 
intelligence. Given this need for strong leadership, I was pleased to 
commend William Lawrence to President Bush for consideration. This 
selection was the product of a bipartisan process and reflective of the 
importance of finding highly qualified judges to carry forward the 
tradition of fair, principled, and collegial leadership.
  I have known Bill Lawrence for many years. I have always been 
impressed with his high energy, his resolute integrity, and his 
remarkable dedication to public service.
  William Lawrence attended Indiana University, where he received both 
his undergraduate and his law degrees. He immediately entered private 
practice but also devoted time to serve as a public defender in Marion 
County, IN, courts.
  Subsequently, he served part time as a master commissioner of the 
Marion County Circuit Court.
  In 1996, Judge Lawrence was elected to the Marion County Circuit 
Court. In this position, he built a reputation for fairness and 
efficiency. The Marion County Circuit Court is one of the busiest in 
the State of Indiana. In less than 3 years, Judge Lawrence reduced the 
number of pending cases by 20 percent. This impressive performance on 
the bench led to his appointment in 2002 to serve as U.S. magistrate 
judge.
  Throughout Bill's career, his reputation for personal courtesy, 
fairness, decency, and integrity was equally well earned and widespread 
among colleagues and opposing counsel alike and on both sides of the 
political aisle.
  I am also pleased that Bill's experience and professionalism are 
recognized by the American Bar Association, which bestowed a rating, by 
a substantial majority of the committee, of ``well-qualified.''
  I would like to thank again Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter 
for their important work on this nomination. I believe Judge Lawrence 
will demonstrate remarkable leadership and will appropriately uphold 
and defend our laws under the Constitution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Madam President, I wanted to note that what Senator Specter 
said a moment ago about Arizona judge Murray Snow are my feelings as 
well.
  He has been nominated to the Federal bench in Arizona. He is 
supremely qualified, unanimously ``well-qualified,'' according to the 
Bar Association, and a fine appellate court judge already. He will make 
a fine addition to the Federal bench.
  I will have an additional statement so all of my colleagues will know 
about his superb qualifications. We will be voting for him soon. I 
assume he will be approved. I appreciate my colleagues' support for his 
nomination.
  Judge Snow has served on the Arizona Court of Appeals since 2002. 
Prior to his judicial service, he was a partner at Osborn Maledon. 
Judge Snow received his bachelor's degree magna cum laude from BYU in 
1984 and received his law degree magna cum laude

[[Page 14014]]

from BYU in 1987. He was Order of the Coif. After law school, Judge 
Snow clerked on the Tenth Circuit for Judge Stephen Anderson. Judge 
Snow was an adjunct professor of political science at ASU 7 years. He 
served for 4 years on the State Bar of Arizona Ethical Rules Review 
Group and for six years on the Committee on Rules of Professional 
Conduct. The ABA unanimously gave Judge Snow its highest rating of 
``well-qualified.''
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I have permission to yield back time on 
both sides of the aisle for the judges, so I yield it back.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  All time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of William T. Lawrence, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge 
for the Southern District of Indiana?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that 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. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 159 Ex.]

                                YEAS--97

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     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
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kennedy
     McCain
     Obama
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 2 minutes of debate equally divided 
on the nomination of G. Murray Snow.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I yield back the remainder of time on 
this side, and I am advised on the other side they yield their time. 
There is no need for a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Time is yielded back.
  Mr. REID. 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. 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. For the information of all Members, Senator Leahy and 
Senator Specter have agreed that we can have the judge's vote by voice, 
and we will do that in a minute. But I wish to inform everyone that the 
Republican leader and I, following this judge being approved--we will 
go into a quorum call, and we will be in a position, hopefully, in the 
next 15 minutes, half hour--you know how time is counted in the Senate. 
Jack, who used to work down here--one night I came in here and he gave 
me a dog chain. I said: Why did you do that? He said: Because the 
Senate goes on dog time.
  We will try to do something very quickly. But we will go into a 
quorum call following the judge being approved, and Senator McConnell 
and I will be back with the next chapter of the saga as quickly as we 
can.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the Senate advise and 
consent to the nomination of G. Murray Snow, of Arizona, to be United 
States District Judge for the District of Arizona?
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motions to reconsider are laid on the 
table, en bloc, and the President will be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action.

                          ____________________




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
return to legislative session.
  Mr. LEAHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we do not have our path forward yet, and 
that is an understatement. But we are working on it. There are a number 
of Senators, both Democrats and Republicans, who want to speak in 
morning business.

                          ____________________




                            MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
be in a period for the transaction of morning business for a period of 
a half hour, that the time be divided equally and I, of course, ask 
this time count against postcloture time on the FISA matter on which we 
are working.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, is the business before the Senate that 
we are in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is.

                          ____________________




                    OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF DRILLING

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, for years, we have had an energy policy 
that was written by big oil for big oil, and the result has been good 
for big oil but a disaster for the American people.
  Gasoline is now at over $4 per gallon, and the Bush-McCain plan is to 
do more of the same. My colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle 
have continuously sought to help big oil while at the same time they 
have blocked Democratic attempts to develop real policies to end our 
addiction to oil. The result is that under the Bush administration the 
price of oil has shot up over $140 per barrel and more, and the price 
of gasoline has more than doubled.
  Despite this history of gas prices going up and up because of failed 
policies, the Republican Party continues to block measures that will 
help create change in this situation. Every time we offer sensible 
policies to address the oil crisis, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle say no. They said no to the Consumer-First Energy Act that would 
finally clamp down on rampant oil speculation and burst the speculative 
bubble that has caused oil prices to skyrocket. Then they said no to 
the renewable energy tax extension bill that would help continue the 
rapid growth of wind and solar and provide an incentive for the 
purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles. This would help us begin the 
transition to new energy sources so we are not so vulnerable to the 
rising cost of fossil fuels. And then our colleagues said no to climate 
change legislation that lays out the framework to completely change our 
economy from one based on oil and other fossil fuels to an economy 
based on renewable energy.
  Democrats have now laid out a sensible plan for change in our energy 
policy that will make America stronger

[[Page 14015]]

and more independent in the short, medium, and long term, but all our 
colleagues can say in return is no--no to the American people and--from 
what I hear in terms of their response--yes to big oil.
  President Bush was right when he told the Nation we are addicted to 
oil. But what amazes me is their plan is designed to have us continue 
to act like addicts. Instead of supporting real plans to conserve oil 
or even transition to sustainable fuels, the Bush-McCain plan is to go 
out in search of our next oil fix.
  Ending a bipartisan 26-year moratorium to open the Outer Continental 
Shelf to oil is simply not a solution to our oil crisis.
  To defend the senseless Bush-McCain plan to open all our shores to 
drilling, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been 
playing fast and loose with the facts. They claim opening our shores to 
future drilling will somehow affect gas prices. As I recently pointed 
out on the floor, this argument flies in the face of projections by 
President Bush's own Energy Information Agency. They project that even 
if we opened the entire Outer Continental Shelf to drilling off the 
East Coast, off the West Coast, and opened the entire eastern Gulf of 
Mexico, nothing would happen to gas prices--not today, not tomorrow, 
not ever.
  Now, it seems that Senator McCain cannot keep up the charade any 
longer. On Monday, he admitted he did not expect his plan to provide 
relief at the pump, but that his plan would have a psychological impact 
that would be ``beneficial.'' Psychological games are not going to 
reduce the price of oil. The American people are sick and tired of 
Republican politics that try to use political spin rather than sound 
policy to solve our problems.
  Another fact that the other side of the aisle wants to keep from the 
American people is that 80 percent of the oil and natural gas resources 
in our Federal waters are already open, already open for exploration. 
Oil companies are sitting on 68 million acres of oil and natural gas 
leases where they have not produced any oil or natural gas. I joined my 
colleagues, Senator Dodd and Senator Durbin, to introduce a bill, the 
Responsible Ownership of Public Lands Act, that will charge oil 
companies an escalating fee for leased acres they put aside and do not 
use for oil and natural gas exploration. This will give these companies 
the incentives they need to stop hoarding the resources they have 
instead of seeking access to environmentally sensitive areas.
  One other factor that has not been discussed properly in this debate 
about high gas prices is the effect of President Bush's disastrous 
economic policies. The weak dollar means it simply takes more money to 
buy the same barrel of oil than it did at the beginning of President 
Bush's term. In 2000, one Euro was equal in value to $1. Today, one 
Euro is worth close to $1.60.
  In large part, this weak dollar has been caused by the enormous 
domestic budget deficits this administration has rung up to pay for the 
war in Iraq. Instead of actually paying for this mistake, the 
administration has been printing money and piling up huge debts. We are 
spending over $12 billion a month in Iraq, and this foreign policy 
disaster is now adding up to be a fiscal policy disaster. It is time we 
finally end the war and get our fiscal house in order. In turn, this 
would strengthen the value of the dollar and help lower the price of 
gasoline.
  But perhaps the most disturbing thing about the misinformation 
campaign to sell the Bush-McCain plan to open all our oceans to 
drilling is that they refuse to discuss how drilling will be 
economically and ecologically devastating to our coasts.
  On June 3 of 1979, an exploratory oil well in the Gulf of Mexico blew 
out. The resulting 140 million gallon spill was the second largest in 
world history, over 10 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill. As you 
can see from this map, the spill traveled 600 miles to blanket the 
coast of Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana, causing tremendous damage.
  I think we all remember that on March 24 of 1989, the tanker Exxon 
Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound, AK. The oil tanker ruptured 
and spilled over 10 million gallons of oil. The result was an oil spill 
over 600 miles that created one of the largest environmental disasters 
in history. We were told we had state-of-the-art technology then, in 
terms of carriers, tankers, and everything else. Well, that was 600 
miles of devastation.
  I am about to show images of the devastation following the spill, and 
certainly I would ask if there are any children watching, or those who 
are sensitive to the plight of animals, they should probably look away 
from some of the images.
  The Exxon Valdez coated the Alaska shoreline, turning a pristine 
environment into a toxic waste cleanup site. Over 11,000 people worked 
to try to clean oil washed up onshore. Even today, there is estimated 
to still be over 20,000 gallons of oil on Alaska's sandy beaches. The 
spill killed thousands of animals immediately. It killed hundreds of 
otters and seals, as many as half a million sea birds, and over 200 of 
the very symbol of America itself--the Bald Eagle.
  Anyone who saw these devastating images from this incident cannot 
forget them. But what is important to remember from these disturbing 
images is that if we open the east and west coast to drilling, the same 
thing could happen to places here in the lower 48.
  My colleagues from the Commonwealth of Virginia want to open the 
coast of Virginia to drilling. They seem to think that oil drilling 
will only affect the State of Virginia. But oil spills do not sit 
still. Remember that oil drilling spill in the gulf that traveled 600 
miles, and the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska was over 600 
miles wide. So what would a similar spill look like on the east coast? 
It would mean a devastated coastline from New York down to South 
Carolina. The environmental impact would be immeasurable, and the 
economic impact would be enormous.
  The New Jersey shore is a priceless treasure my home State will 
protect at any cost. But the shore also generates tens of billions of 
dollars in revenues each year and supports almost half a million jobs 
in South Carolina; in Myrtle Beach alone, more than $3 billion in 
revenue. Do we want oil washing up onto Virginia Beach, flowing up into 
the Chesapeake Bay? Can Maryland's famous blue crabs survive such an 
environmental assault?
  It is time for a real cure, based on a tough examination and 
reordering of our energy priorities, and not tired old policies of the 
past. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to end their 
efforts to block real reform. It is time we unite together to pass the 
Consumer-First Energy Act to clamp down on excessive speculation and 
finally burst this oil bubble. It is time we come together and pass the 
renewable energy tax extension bill that will promote the development 
of clean energy here at home, help our automakers develop cars that run 
on electricity, and develop advanced biofuels so we have a sustainable 
alternative to gasoline.
  If we do not do this, we are continuously wedded to the past, 
continuously wedded to the addiction, continuously wedded to a failed 
policy. To hear our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, if we 
opened the east and west coasts, it would go directly, like gas, into 
your car. We know that is not true. That is simply not going to happen.
  The American people are sick and tired of an energy policy written by 
big oil. It is time for our friends on the other side of the aisle to 
join us in real reform so we can actually achieve something that moves 
us in a much different direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

                          ____________________




                  LIHEAP AND COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, on Tuesday, I introduced S. 3186, the 
Warm in Winter and Cool in Summer Act. This bill would provide $2.53 
billion in emergency funding for the Low-

[[Page 14016]]

Income Home Energy Assistance Program, commonly known as LIHEAP.
  I take this opportunity to thank the majority leader for completing 
the rule XIV process of placing this bill directly on the Senate 
calendar yesterday. I also want to express my deep appreciation to him 
for his goal of moving this legislation forward within the next month. 
I think there is widespread support, in a nonpartisan way, for this 
legislation, which impacts people when the weather gets hot and it 
impacts people when the weather gets cold.
  This bipartisan bill is being cosponsored by Senators Leahy, Snowe, 
Brown, Sununu, Cardin, Coleman, Kerry, Collins, Kennedy, and Smith and 
I expect that the numbers of Senators from both sides of the aisle who 
will be supporting it will only grow. The bottom line here is pretty 
simple, and that is: With the cost of energy soaring, we have many 
millions of Americans wondering next winter how they are going to be 
able to stay warm, and we have got to expand LIHEAP funding to match 
the inflationary costs of home heating fuel.
  For those people living in warm weather States, what we understand 
right now is that electricity rates are also soaring. There are many 
Americans--elderly people, lower income people--who are unable to 
afford the increasingly high cost of electricity. They run the danger 
of seeing their electricity cut off. When the weather gets 110 degrees 
and the electricity gets cut off, and you are a senior citizen or you 
are a person who is frail or who is ill, you have a problem dealing 
with heat problems.
  So I hope and expect there will be widespread support for this 
legislation. Once again, I thank the leader for putting this on the 
rule XIV process.
  I also want to say a few words about the Medicare package that was 
approved overwhelmingly in the House on Tuesday, and which we expect, 
hopefully, to take up here shortly. This bill is nearly identical to 
the bill put forth on the floor last week by Finance Committee Chairman 
Baucus, and I thank the chairman for his commitment and his effort in 
putting together this excellent piece of legislation.
  There is a lot in this bill, but there is one particular section I 
want to focus on, and that is the section pertaining to Medicare 
payments to community health centers.
  Specifically, this bill provides for a much needed increase in the 
cap on Medicare payments to community health centers, and also requires 
a GAO study to determine whether the current structure for Medicare 
payments to community health centers provides adequate compensation for 
the care provided. I believe it does not.
  According to the National Association of Community Health Centers, 
the artificially low cap on Medicare payments costs community health 
centers $50 million annually--money that could be used to provide 
primary care access to thousands more of our Nation's seniors. An 
overwhelming majority of community health centers--a full 75 percent--
now lose money--they lose money--treating Medicare beneficiaries. An 
inadequate and arbitrary payment system jeopardizes the ability of 
community health centers to continue to provide necessary primary care 
to the 1.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who are seen at community 
health centers each year, many of who live in the most isolated and 
medically underserved regions of this country.
  Let me say a word on community health centers, because I am a very 
strong advocate of that program. The truth is that in the midst of the 
disintegrating health care system, one of the major crises we are 
facing is in primary health care access. All over America, especially 
in rural areas, millions and millions of people simply cannot get 
access to a doctor, to a nurse, to a dentist, to people who will help 
them deal with their day-to-day health problems. The insanity of 
continuing that situation, that lack of health care access, means 
people will simply get sicker. They are going to go to the emergency 
room and they will end up in the hospital at far greater expense and a 
lot more human suffering.
  I happen to believe this country has to join the rest of the 
industrialized world and establish a national health care program which 
guarantees health care to every man, woman, and child. I think at a 
time when we spend twice as much per person on health care as any other 
nation and have 47 million people uninsured and see our social indices, 
in terms of infant mortality or longevity, much worse than many other 
countries, I think we should finally conclude there is something 
fundamentally wrong with our health care system.
  Health care should be a right of all people. We should do it in a 
cost-effective way. The function of health care should not be to make 
insurance companies rich or make drug companies rich but should be to 
provide quality health care to every man, woman, and child.
  In the midst of all that, while we try to take on the insurance 
companies and all their lobbyists and while we try to take on the drug 
companies and all their lobbyists and advertising and campaign 
contributions, there is one simple thing we can do, where I suspect 
there is going to be tripartisan support, and that is substantially 
increase the funding for community health centers. In that regard, I 
thank Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi for a very strong authorization 
package that came out of the Health, Education, Labor Committee. I 
thank Senator Harkin and Senator Specter for their support in giving us 
a reasonable increase in appropriations funding. But we have a long way 
to go.
  The simple truth is--and this is a point that should be understood by 
all Members--if we spend as a nation $2 or $3 billion more on community 
health centers, do you know what? We could provide primary health care 
access to every man, woman, and child. That is about 1 week of the war 
in Iraq. So you have war in Iraq, 1 week; or $2 billion or $3 billion 
building hundreds of community health centers, providing primary health 
care, dental care, mental health counseling, low-cost prescription 
drugs, to every man, woman, and child.
  In the course of the coming months and years, I will be fighting for 
that $2 or $3 billion. It certainly is not going to solve all our 
health care problems, but by providing a place where any American--
whether you are insured, uninsured, Medicare, Medicaid--regardless of 
your income you can walk in and get high-quality primary health care--
wow, that is a huge step forward in this country.
  In order to make sure these community health centers function, we 
have to do something else. Do you know what we have to do? We have to 
graduate doctors and nurses. We are living at a time when we are not 
graduating from medical school enough doctors or enough nurses or 
enough dentists. We have to work on that. One of the ways we work on 
that is to significantly increase funding for the Health Services 
Corps, a program which provides debt forgiveness and scholarships for 
those willing to serve in underserved medical areas.
  There is a lot of work to be done. I think we are making some 
progress on the Medicare bill coming before us. The day has to come 
when all our people, by right, have primary health care access and 
access to health care.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I was asked by the Senator from Montana, Mr. 
Tester, if there would be any objection if I asked that, after I finish 
my remarks, he be recognized for 5 minutes; that the Democratic time be 
extended 5 minutes and the Republican time be extended 5 minutes.
  Is there any objection to that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                  FISA

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I know this is morning business, but I need 
to get people's attention back on FISA, I hope. Let me clarify some 
things that have been said earlier today. From time to time, some have 
tried to rewrite the history on what happened 1 year ago in producing 
the Protect America Act, our first attempt to fix

[[Page 14017]]

the problems with foreign intelligence surveillance 1 year ago. That 
was not pretty, but I note there have been mischaracterizations of it. 
After last year, many critics of FISA, most notably in the House, tried 
to rewrite history and discredit ADM Mike McConnell, the Director of 
National Intelligence, and this compelled me to speak out on the matter 
at this time. He, in my view, from what I saw, acted in good faith, and 
he was charged with not having done so. But it seems there is another 
effort today to rewrite history. I can say, as vice chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee and the cosponsor of the Protect America 
Act, I was the lead negotiator during the final hours of the Congress, 
as we tried to pass a critical short-term update of our Nation's law 
governing terrorist surveillance.
  As one who was there, I dispute the misinformation that was spread 
and largely by those who were not there. I will outline the events as 
they occurred, and here is what happened.
  As I think most of us know, in January 2007, the President announced 
that the terrorist surveillance program was coming under the FISA 
Court. Our Director of National Intelligence, Admiral McConnell, 
subsequently stated that after that time, the intelligence community 
lost a significant amount of collection capability and that, combined 
with increased threat, compelled him to ask Congress to modernize FISA, 
sooner rather than later.
  On April 12, Admiral McConnell sent his full FISA modernization 
proposal to Congress, and on May 1 he presented it in open session to 
the Senate Intelligence Committee.
  Some would like us to believe that was the first time this became an 
issue for us, in July, but it was not. The DNI had appeared in open 
session before the Senate Intelligence Committee and had pleaded with 
us to update FISA months earlier.
  I might say, along with another colleague of ours on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee, Senator Bayh, we visited Iraq in early May of 
2007, and the Joint Special Operations Commander, LTG Stan McChrystal, 
told us at that time that the blockage in electronic surveillance by 
FISA was substantially hurting his ability to gain the intelligence he 
needed to protect our troops in the field and gain an offensive 
advantage. I believe I, and perhaps Senator Bayh, spoke about that in 
committee and on the floor.
  Immediately following the admiral's testimony in May, I had urged the 
Intelligence Committee immediately to mark up FISA legislation. I was 
told by members of the majority that until the President turned over 
certain legal opinions from the terrorist surveillance program, 
Congress would not modernize FISA. That Congress would hold America's 
security hostage to receiving documents from a program that no longer 
existed was disheartening to me. We had already received an inordinate 
amount of documents from the Department of Justice and the Director of 
National Intelligence. Yet I do not dispute the desire or the right of 
members to seek privileged documents from the executive branch. In 
fact, I joined in requesting some of that. But I did disagree with 
holding up FISA modernization when those documents were not necessary 
to do that.
  Despite the urging from the Director of National Intelligence, and 
knowing this outdated law was harming our terrorist surveillance 
capabilities, for more than 3 months Congress chose to do nothing. Let 
me be clear, it was Congress that chose to ignore the pleas of the 
intelligence community. As a matter of fact, in late June, Admiral 
McConnell had a briefing for the entire Senate. I believe about 42 to 
44 of us showed up there. He briefed Members of the Senate, again 
urging us to modernize FISA. Finally, his pleadings began to gain 
traction.
  In mid-July, Members of Congress agreed to discuss a short-term, 
scaled-down version of FISA to protect the country for the next few 
months before we could address comprehensive reform in the fall. 
Admiral McConnell immediately sent Congress his scaled-down proposal.
  Over the next week, Admiral McConnell was given nearly half a dozen 
versions of unvetted proposals from various congressional staffs across 
Congress and then pressed for instant support of these proposals. The 
admiral returned a compromise proposal to the Senate, including some of 
the provisions requested. Unfortunately, there were numerous bait and 
switches that took place during that time.
  Since the bipartisan committee process was circumvented to craft 
legislation behind closed doors without input from the relevant 
committee and the minority, it got messy in the final hours. Even as 
the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I was excluded from 
the key meetings. Not only was I excluded, most members of the 
Intelligence Committee, Republican and Democratic, were left out of the 
process.
  Therefore, in the waning moments before the recess, I got together 
with a number of Democrats, including several from our Intelligence 
Committee, to discuss the short-term approach for the Protect America 
Act that Leader McConnell and I had introduced and which had the 
support of the DNI and the Department of Justice.
  Finally, on August 3 and 4, Congress, on a strong bipartisan basis 
and a desire to get out of town for the August recess, passed the 
Protect America Act.
  That was why it was jammed up. The administration was not trying to 
stiff us. The administration felt it was being stiffed. Fortunately, a 
solid, bipartisan majority of the Senate came together, passed the 
bill, and gave the House, regrettably, no choice but to pass it--which 
they did. But after the passage of the act, I think we all learned a 
good lesson. We sat down together on the Senate Intelligence Committee 
and began, on a bipartisan basis, to work out a permanent solution to 
FISA. I am very thankful we could do it. We put in a great deal of 
work. We spent a lot of time with the DNI, with the lawyers and the 
operatives for the program, and Senator Rockefeller and I worked, in a 
bipartisan fashion, to come up with a strong committee bill that we 
passed out of the Senate later on a 68-to-29 vote.
  I thank my colleagues on the committee, their staff, and all the 
Members of Congress who supported us, particularly the 68 who came and 
voted aye to pass the FISA amendments in February.
  That started the process that led us to where we are today. There is 
a strong bipartisan product before us. There were changes, cosmetic 
changes largely, made that the House believed were important and the 
intelligence community assured us would not interfere with their 
ability to collect information under the structure we had set forth in 
the FISA amendments that were passed by the Senate.
  That is where we are today. I am ready, willing, and able, whenever 
it is the will of the leadership, to act on amendments that may be 
before us and try to pass this bill so we will have some certainty for 
the intelligence community that they will know what the guidelines are 
for the next period through 2012.
  In any event, I will be back when we get on the bill to go over some 
of the items which are in question. But I think you see our chairman, 
Senator Rockefeller, who is on the floor, and I can assure you this is 
a good, solid, bipartisan bill that we should pass.
  I see it is a good time to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized, 
pursuant to the previous order.

                          ____________________




                                GI BILL

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the bipartisan Webb 
GI bill, and I urge the Senate to join me in voting to pass it without 
further delay. As a member of the veterans committee, this legislation 
has been a big priority of mine for the past year and a half.
  Montana is home to more than 100,000 veterans. I have spoken with 
many of them over the past year and a half, and I was very pleased to 
work on their behalf last year for the largest increase in funding in 
the history of the VA.

[[Page 14018]]

  Earlier this year, the Senate passed my legislation to raise the 
reimbursement rate for veterans' travel to and from VA facilities. It 
was the first increase in 30 years.
  As American forces continue to be engaged in wars in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, it is well past time for Congress to step up to the plate and 
deliver for our veterans.
  This new GI bill will provide first-class educational benefits for 
those who served since 9/11. It will pay for tuition and books and a 
monthly stipend roughly equivalent to the benefits given to millions of 
Americans following World War II.
  The first GI bill created a vibrant middle class that drives our 
economy to this day and makes America the envy of the world. This GI 
bill can do the same again.
  Every major veterans organization in this country supports this bill. 
I understand even the White House has dropped its longstanding 
opposition, and the President now says he will sign this bill into law.
  Passing the 21st century GI bill will be a landmark achievement for 
this Congress. It will strengthen our Nation's military readiness 
through better recruitment by making military service a more practical 
option, and it will provide an important investment in Americas's 
future by enabling veterans to afford college at a time when career 
options and lifetime earning potential are increasingly linked to 
higher education.
  One in nine Montanans have served our country in the military. We 
have one of the highest veterans rates in the country, and our Montana 
values compel us to take care of those who have served. Many of my 
Montana neighbors have written to me in support of this new GI bill for 
the new ``greatest generation.''
  One airman from Belt, MT, said to me:

       I hope this bill passes for myself and for future 
     generations. I have been deployed three times in my five and 
     a half years of active duty service, and will be leaving 
     active duty service within the year. This bill is finally 
     something that will allow people to do the things that they 
     put off and that so many have died for since the beginning of 
     our war on terrorism. I ask you to support this bill and 
     allow all our Armed Forces members to succeed in life and all 
     their endeavors.

  Another veteran from Kalispell, MT, wrote:

       I read with a great deal of interest your article in the 
     Flathead Beacon about the need for a GI Bill, much like that 
     of what we had in the past. I was able to attend college 
     under the GI Bill after I was discharged from the Army in 
     1956 under that bill enacted for World War II vets. The GI 
     Bill was instrumental in the creation of our middle class. It 
     gave this child of the Depression an opportunity to 
     experience the degree of success that I very likely would not 
     have been able to achieve had it not been for that GI Bill.

  These are just two examples of the many letters I have received from 
back home. I know many Senators received similar letters. I call on all 
of my colleagues to join me in voting for this vital legislation. We 
must pass this bill to honor the service and sacrifice of our Nation's 
veterans and to invest in America's future.
  I have been pleased to work on this important piece of legislation 
with a bipartisan group of Senators led by the Senator from Virginia, 
one of my fellow members of the Senate class of 2006.
  Senator Webb and I hail from different parts of the country and 
different walks of life, but we joined the Senate at the same time with 
a simple hope: to provide a new direction for our Nation.
  Last year, Senator Webb and I traveled together to Iraq. We were able 
to visit with quite a few of the brave young men and women who serve 
our country day in and day out. When you talk to these folks, it really 
makes you feel that our Nation is in good hands. They are serving us 
well, and now it is time to do right by them. This is commonsense 
legislation that will demonstrate to our veterans that America honors 
their service and cares about their future.
  Passing this bill is the right thing to do, and it is the smart thing 
to do. I urge the Senate to vote as soon as possible to pass this new 
GI bill for America's new ``greatest generation.''
  I thank the Senator from Missouri for giving me this opportunity to 
speak.
  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. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as the chairman of the Senate Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, I am very pleased to express my support for the 
provisions of the war funding supplemental that would establish a new 
GI bill for the 21st century.
  These provisions, drawn from S. 22 as introduced by the junior 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Webb, who serves with me on the committee, 
will establish a new program of educational assistance for the brave 
young men and women who have answered the call to duty in service to 
our country since September 11, 2001.
  This past Sunday, June 22, marks the 64th anniversary of the original 
GI bill. As one of the 8 million World War II veterans who took 
advantage of the opportunity it made available, I know firsthand the 
value of what we are prepared to approve today. If it were not for the 
valuable educational benefits I received, I would not be standing here 
today in the Senate.
  Without the GI bill and the maturity and discipline I learned through 
my military service, I am certain my life would have turned out much 
differently. The original GI bill changed America. It made higher 
education accessible for individuals from all backgrounds.
  Veterans flooded colleges and universities. Huge lines of returning 
servicemembers doubled or tripled enrollments. By the time the original 
GI bill expired in 1956, the United States was richer by hundreds of 
thousands of trained engineers, accountants, teachers, scientists, 
doctors, dentists, and more than 1 million other college-educated 
individuals.
  The original GI bill created major social change. Some have credited 
it with creating the middle class. And when the sons and daughters of 
the ``greatest generation,'' the baby boomers, came of age, the legacy 
of a college education was passed on to them.
  Today, we are set to approve a measure that will shape today's 
military, the future of the military, and the future of our Nation for 
many years to come. Today's new veterans will know that we honor the 
contributions they have made in service to this Nation. We understand 
the sacrifices they made, the hardships they endured, and the toll that 
has taken on their lives and the lives of their families.
  This new GI bill will be a tool that the military can use to attract 
our best and brightest college-bound high school seniors to voluntary 
military service. Down the road these new veterans will turn to their 
children and grandchildren and tell them that the way to advancement is 
through the successful completion of an honorable period of service to 
their country.
  I am genuinely delighted to have played a role, however small, in the 
formulation of this legislation. I sought to work with Senator Webb 
early in the development of this measure. When the time for action was 
at hand, he and I came together as a team and crafted the workable 
measure that is before the Senate today. I express my deep respect and 
gratitude to Senator Webb for his untiring efforts and personal 
commitment to this issue.
  As chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, I am excited 
to see that this new GI bill will have a smooth transition. I intend to 
work closely with Senator Webb and others toward that end. We will 
begin later this week by ordering reported a group of technical 
amendments that will help ensure that the implementation of the new GI 
bill will be as effective as possible.
  The committee, in its oversight capacity, will also be working 
closely

[[Page 14019]]

with both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to identify 
and resolve issues before they become problems.
  Today, with the final passage of this new GI bill, we say to our 
newest generation of citizen soldiers, we appreciate you. We recognize 
that the ability of our Armed Forces to attract and retain quality 
personnel in the future, and consequently our national security, 
depends on how we meet the needs of those serving us today. The new GI 
bill will do that for our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________




                               TAX POLICY

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to address the Senate on the 
issue of tax policy. Serving as a member of the Senate Finance 
Committee with jurisdiction over this, I watch tax policy pretty 
closely. We are almost half through the year 2008. Since January 1 of 
this year, several tax relief provisions have expired. I am talking 
about what we call tax extenders that have been on the books in the Tax 
Code for several years, in some cases decades, that sunset from time to 
time that must continue to be extended if you want the benefits of that 
tax policy.
  In most cases, we think this tax policy is good policy because many 
times these policies have been on the books and expired, and we have 
extended them. So the term ``tax extender'' means keeping existing tax 
policy in place; however, it has sunset so Congress must act to keep it 
going.
  The biggest one is called the AMT. Most people know it by the 
alternative minimum tax fix. That affects 25 million families. There 
are a number of other widely applicable tax relief provisions that fit 
into the term ``tax extenders.''
  One provides millions of families with a deduction for college 
tuition, another provides deduction for our schoolteachers for out-of-
pocket expenses that they might pay for that the school district does 
not pay for. One that is very important to innovation in American 
business is called the research and development tax credit, which has 
been part of the Tax Code since 1981.
  All of these tax relief provisions expired not just today but 6 
months ago.
  This Congress has not passed legislation yet to deal with this 
problem. We have had two cloture votes in the Senate on taking care of 
this, but those votes have been on a bill that will not pass the 
Senate. And even if the House bill were to pass the Senate, the 
President would not sign it. So the issue is, do we want to get these 
things extended or not? If you are going to do it, you have to do it in 
a way that is going to get it through the House and Senate, as well as 
the President's signature.
  What is holding up this bipartisan, time-sensitive tax relief? It is 
an obsession with the Democratic leadership, a version of pay-go or 
pay-as-you-go. I have spoken on this before, but the hangup is the 
Democratic Party's feeling and obsession over raising taxes to offset 
continuing current law tax relief policies.
  I have offered a deficit-neutral path to these tax extenders, that 
being a restraint on new spending. But I have no takers from the other 
side. I haven't even received a response on the merits of my offer that 
I made to the other side. The action or lack of action thus far proves 
my point. The leadership of the other party--or maybe all Members of 
that party--is so obsessed with raising taxes that they are willing to 
hold hostage popular bipartisan tax relief measures.
  Democratic spokespersons are threatening to kill these tax extenders 
unless they get tax increases they want so badly. It reminds me of a 
nursery story. I am referring to the story of the big bad wolf. I have 
a chart here so people don't forget who the big bad wolf is. You 
remember the story. The big bad wolf in that nursery story threatened 
the three little pigs. He said something like: I am going to huff and 
puff and blow your house down. The Democratic leadership is playing the 
role of big bad wolf right now.
  Here is what my friend the distinguished House leader said:

       The extender bill is not going to pass unless it's paid 
     for.

  When asked if he would make a similar pledge regarding the $62 
billion cost of preventing the alternative minimum tax from hitting 21 
million more taxpayers, the distinguished leader of the other body 
demurred:

       The extender bill is not going to pass if it's not paid 
     for.

  I call this an obsession.
  I might add, I have been pleased to work with the House majority 
leader in the past, particularly on the children's health insurance 
bill and other matters. But in the case of the tax extenders, I beg to 
differ with the distinguished leader of the other body. That is some 
very serious huffing and puffing. For those millions of families 
sending their kids to college, forget about your tuition tax deduction 
unless the Democrats get their offsetting tax increase. They have 
ignored the spending cut proposal I circulated over a week ago, so they 
are not holding tax extenders hostage to a pledge to pay for them. They 
are holding extenders hostage to their version of pay-as-you-go, which 
is guaranteed tax increases. More revenue, from their judgment, means 
more spending and yet bigger government.
  Now I will show you the big bad wolf can sometimes be a Republican. I 
have another chart with a famous quote on it from a former majority 
leader of this body. Senator Frist said:

       If the Senate kills the trifecta bill, we will not return 
     to it this year. That means we would have no permanent death-
     tax reform, no tax-policy extenders, and no minimum-wage 
     increase. It's now or never. It's this week.

  That is what was said approximately 18 months ago. At the time, 
Republicans were in the majority. It was also the last time folks in 
control of Congress were holding extenders hostage for an unrelated 
reason. In that case, the unrelated issue was death tax relief. 
Extenders were part of what was referred to then as the ``trifecta.'' A 
third part of the trifecta was a minimum wage increase.
  Here is what then-Senate majority leader Bill Frist said, kind of a 
repeat:

       If the Senate kills the trifecta bill, we will not return 
     to it this year. That means we would have no death-tax 
     reform, no tax-policy extenders, no minimum-wage increase.

  He went on to say:

       It's now or never. It's this week.

  What we have is huffing and puffing, a threat to blow the extender 
House down--the big bad wolf once again. So you can see my criticism is 
not partisan. I have shown a case where the Republican majority held 
tax extenders hostage.
  As we know, soon the then-Republican leader, the then-majority 
leader, Dr. Frist, came to his senses. He finally brought forward a 
bill that addressed the tax extenders in the lameduck session of 
December 2006.
  The bottom line is, the folks on our side recognized, although it 
took a long time, the merits of continuing tax policy that has been on 
the books for a long period of time, that a vast majority of the 
Congress knows is good policy and it ought to be extended. They 
recognized that the unsuccessful effort to leverage the popularity of 
these tax benefits did not mean the extenders had to die on the vine. 
This recognition occurred despite earlier threats I have already spoken 
to to kill the extenders.
  It will be the same tale of the big bad wolf 2 years later. A 
partisan obsession with a tax-increase version of pay-go or pay-as-you-
go will not, at the end of the day, trump bipartisan popular tax relief 
measures that millions of families are counting on and have been on the 
books for a long time. If I am wrong, the spokespeople for the 
Democratic Party should tell those millions of families and thousands 
of innovative businesses that their partisan agenda is more important 
than doing the people's business. I will continue to wait for a 
response. More importantly, the people should hear the answer.
  I feel very strongly that these are tax matters we ought to address 
very soon. Certainty of tax policy and predictability in tax policy is 
very important for our economy to move forward. In this case, I am 
referring to the bipartisan tax relief this Congress passed in 2001 and 
2003.

[[Page 14020]]

  I wish to emphasize the word ``bipartisan.'' The reason I wish to 
emphasize ``bipartisan'' is too often this policy of 2001 and 2003 that 
ought to be extended is referred to as ``the Bush tax cuts,'' as my 
friends on the other side of the aisle would like our friends in the 
media to call them, and the friends in the media are catching on. But 
why not bipartisan tax relief? Because I remember when that suggestion 
first came from the White House. It was $1.7 trillion worth of tax cuts 
over 10 years. I immediately said we were not going to be able to do 
that because we had to do something in a bipartisan way. So it ended 
up, because of my decision, in conjunction with Senator Baucus, that it 
was not going to be more than $1.3 trillion. So I come to the floor 
with legitimacy to denigrate the label of ``Bush tax cuts'' and 
emphasize bipartisan tax cuts.
  I have actually noticed that my Democratic colleagues like the 
reference ``tax relief.'' They have used the reference on the campaign 
trail of their Presidential candidate. How ironic. My Democratic 
friends label the bipartisan tax relief the ``Bush tax cuts,'' yet they 
call their own tax plan ``tax relief,'' especially when this so-called 
Democratic tax relief is merely an extension of the 2001 reduction in 
tax rates for certain taxpayers, not all taxpayers. I am not surprised. 
After all, it is political season. But I feel a little bit disgruntled 
about it all. Sometimes I get mad about it. But I also am dismayed. I 
am disappointed that the poll-driven use of the term ``Bush tax cuts'' 
flows so easily off the tongues of people in the other party. The media 
folks can't get enough, so they continue to repeat the ``Bush tax 
cuts'' over and over and over. You can imagine how an author of a 
bipartisan tax relief measure would feel if it is referred to this way.
  But do you know what really disappoints me? The fact that the 
spokespeople for the Democratic Party and their Presidential candidate 
are telling Americans who make less than $250,000 a year that their 
taxes will not go up if they vote Democratic in November. I think this 
is intellectually dishonest, and the folks in the media should call 
them on this and make it very clear that it is otherwise. Why do I say 
this? Because my friends on the other side will increase capital gains 
rates. They will also increase the tax rate on dividend income. I told 
this body and any friends in the media that Americans earning less than 
$250,000 a year have capital gains each year. They also claim dividend 
income. Here I will remind my colleagues and the media that over 24 
million tax returns last year claimed dividend income. There is not 
that many taxpayers over $250,000 a year.
  Also, over 9 million Americans claimed capital gains. We have another 
chart on capital gains. You would be correct if you guessed that not 
all of these Americans were making more than $250,000.
  So how do you get away with saying we are just going to increase the 
taxes on people over $250,000 and let the capital gains rate go up, let 
the tax on dividends go up? You are hitting many Americans under 
$250,000. I will bet some of them were even low-income taxpayers 
because we established a policy just a few years ago that under a 
certain income and a very low income, we want low-income people to have 
a savings ethic, not only that, but the ability to actually save, 
people who today have a zero rate of taxation on capital gains--zero.
  Speaking of zero, the junior Senator from Illinois has proposed to 
reduce the capital gains rate for startup companies from 7.5 percent, 
which is the current rate, to zero. I like his thinking on that policy 
because it is going to help small business, it is going to help 
entrepreneurship.
  But the distinguished Senator will increase the capital rates in 
other areas by at least 33 percent. That strikes me as being 
counterproductive. That is rearranging the deck chairs. It is simply 
squeezing the balloon. And in a sense, I consider it hot air and 
certainly not change you can believe in. It is not change I believe in, 
and eventually the American voters are going to see through this.
  Let me get back to the tax increase that Americans making less than 
$250,000 will see. I want to take a moment to talk about an interview 
conducted by Wolf Blitzer of CNN. On his program Sunday, June 15, Mr. 
Blitzer delved into the capital gains and dividend income tax issue. He 
asked his guest--the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
Committee--whether Senator Obama's plan to tax dividends and capital 
gains would increase taxes for Americans of every background, not just 
rich people. I am glad Mr. Blitzer asked the question.
  The most interesting point to this story is the response. The 
response was that Senator Obama will increase the capital gains rate. 
Let me repeat that. If the distinguished Senator from Illinois is 
elected President, he will raise rates on capital gains. Why? 
Apparently the junior Senator from Illinois thinks investment income 
is, quote, unquote, leisure income. He thinks that ``leisure income'' 
should not get the same breaks as income earned through labor.
  I wish to submit for the Record an excerpt of the transcript from the 
June 15 show on CNN so folks in the media can see this. The excerpt is 
the full interview of the DCCC chairman. I have highlighted the portion 
of the interview I wish folks to pay attention to.
  To quote the chairman:

       Obama has said that you shouldn't give a break to leisure 
     over labor.

  The DCCC chairman expounded upon this by saying:

       In other words, people who are making money simply by 
     investing it, rather than through their work in the labor 
     force, shouldn't be getting a break over the people who are 
     going to work every day.

  The DCCC chairman thinks ``that makes sense.''
  So the Democratic leadership, and their Presidential candidate, 
believe the current tax policy favors leisure over labor, and they 
consider that all investment income is leisure income. So what they are 
saying is anyone who saves and anyone who invests is a person of 
leisure.
  Maybe my friends on the other side of the aisle have been reading the 
writings of Thorstein Veblen. Professor Veblen, as shown in this 
picture, authored ``The Theory of the Leisure Class.'' ``The Theory of 
the Leisure Class'' took a satiric approach to American society and 
economics. ``The Theory of the Leisure Class'' characterizes this 
``leisure class'' as individuals who only benefited society in a minor 
or peripheral way because they did not engage in labor-intensive jobs. 
Instead, the ``leisure class'' often prevailed over ``labor income'' 
classes by making profits without producing goods and services.
  Professor Veblen also argued that certain labor income individuals 
began to mimic or emulate the ``leisure class'' to do nothing more than 
achieve a so-called higher status.
  So is the distinguished DCCC chairman, or his Presidential candidate, 
suggesting that all people who invest money are part of a leisure 
class, a leisure class that is making money rather than producing goods 
and services? And as a result, somehow, they should not get any breaks 
over those who are laboring for their money?
  Do they want to discourage those who labor and produce goods and 
services from saving and investing? Do they want to discourage laborers 
from mimicking or emulating those profiting off of investments? They 
seem to think that all folks who invest are higher income people.
  As an aside, if the DCCC chairman were correct, we would not have at 
least 5 million Americans using the low-income saver's credit, adopted 
in a bipartisan way here in this Congress. I have a chart in the 
Chamber. It shows the number of low-income taxpayers on a State-by-
State basis claiming the saver's credit.
  This is data from 2003.
  In Iowa, for instance, there were almost 96,000 low-income families 
and individuals using the saver's credit.
  Chairman Baucus and I designed this policy in the 2001 bipartisan tax 
relief legislation. Now it is permanent law. About 5.5 million low-
income savers--

[[Page 14021]]

and these are not people of leisure--use the credit. I would tell the 
DCCC chairman and the junior Senator from Illinois that these low-
income savers are not figments of somebody's imagination. They are real 
people. I do not think they consider themselves members of the 
``leisure class.''
  I encourage everyone to study this transcript. You will see that the 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, according to his surrogates, wants 
to tax investments because he believes that making investment income is 
leisure. He believes that hard-working Americans should not get a break 
on this type of income. He believes that taxpayers do not work hard 
enough to earn money they can invest and then, in turn, have investment 
income, and that those who do work hard should not be given an 
incentive to invest.
  I wish my friends on the other side to know that investments begin 
with taxpayers' hard-earned income. So in order to invest it, they 
first have to work hard to even earn it.
  Also, I would like my friends on the other side, who agree with the 
DCCC chairman, to ask any taxpayer who saves, any taxpayer who invests 
their money, whether they think investment is easy. Investment is hard 
work. You have to educate yourself. You have to make prudent decisions. 
Ask them if investing their own money is leisure. The other side thinks 
it is kind of like sitting out there on the beach in the Sun all the 
time, not having a worry in the world.
  It is almost like the other side is reviving the ``two Americas'' 
that the former Democratic Presidential candidate--former Senator John 
Edwards--was all about. But here, my friends on the other side are 
saying that higher income people--or folks in the ``leisure class,'' 
according to Professor Veblen--are the only taxpayers who invest. They 
contend that these folks are bad, that this ``leisure class'' should no 
longer have incentives to invest.
  At the same time, my friends are taking away incentives for hard-
working Americans to save and invest. The implication is if you save 
and invest, you are bad, and if you do not save and invest, you are 
good.
  But that is going too far. It is off the reservation. Separating 
workers who save and invest from workers who do not save and invest is 
new territory for the other party and should not go unchecked.
  The junior Senator from Illinois eloquently states that we need to 
move past division and that we as Americans need to come together. Who 
is going to disagree with that? My friend talks about his disdain for 
old-style politics and emphasizes change. But it is interesting to hear 
the surrogates of Senator Obama reaching back to the class warfare 
discussions that took place in the last century.
  This is not change you can believe in.
  Middle- and low-income investors should be appalled--appalled because 
their Government believes their pursuit of the American dream is all 
leisure and that the Government wants to increase their taxes, yes, on 
Americans who make less than $250,000.
  So following the question of Mr. Blitzer, I wish to ask my friends on 
the other side of the aisle--or whoever wants to speak for them--
whether Americans making less than $250,000 will see a tax increase 
under a new Democratic administration. Because if you take their words 
for what they are now, you are going to see a lot of big tax increases 
for people making less than $250,000 a year.
  I wish to know whether they agree with Senator Obama and the 
Democratic leadership and believe that investment income is leisure.
  My Democratic friends may respond that the junior Senator from 
Illinois wants to give middle-income folks a tax cut. But this middle-
class tax cut is fiction for those middle-income taxpayers who save and 
who have investment. I challenge my media friends to tell Americans 
what is going on here.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the excerpt from the 
transcript of ``CNN Late Edition'' of June 15, 2008, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Excerpt From Transcript of CNN Late Edition--June 15, 2008

       BLITZER: Welcome back to LATE EDITION. I'm Wolf Blitzer in 
     Washington. The Democrats are hoping not only to win the 
     White House this fall, but also to increase their majorities 
     in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We're joined 
     now by the man in charge of that effort in the House, the 
     Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris 
     Van Hollen. He is a Democratic congressman from Maryland. 
     Congressman, thanks very much for coming in.
       VAN HOLLEN: It's good to be with you.
       BLITZER: You happen to be my congressman as well since I 
     live in your district. But that's not going to make this any 
     easier for you.
       VAN HOLLEN: Come on, Wolf.
       BLITZER: No favorites. All right. Let's talk a little bit 
     about what we just heard from John Boehner. Why not start 
     drilling? There are enormous amounts of oil right here in the 
     United States on the coast, on the East Coast, the West Coast 
     and Alaska. That could dramatically increase supply and as a 
     result reduce the price per barrel and the price at the pump. 
     What is wrong with that?
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we are drilling. There is nothing wrong 
     with drilling. We have lots of oil companies in the United 
     States that are drilling.
       BLITZER: Nancy Pelosi votes against everyone of these 
     drilling propositions.
       VAN HOLLEN: And in fact, there are 60 million acres of 
     federal land that are currently leased to the oil and gas 
     companies that are sitting idle. They're not drilling. They 
     like the status quo. They like the way things are going. 
     We're going to have legislation that is going to be 
     considered shortly that is use it or lose it. If you are 
     going to hold up these 68 million of federal lands, you've 
     got to start drilling for oil or else somebody else should 
     have an opportunity to do it.
       VAN HOLLEN: Because the fact of the matter is they've been 
     idle for all these many years. So the point is there's lots 
     of acreage out there already under lease . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: Here is Congressman Roy Blunt, the number two 
     Republican in the House, speaking out on this issue this 
     week.
       (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
       REP. ROY BLUNT, R-MO: Who's to blame are policies that 
     wouldn't allow us to use our own resources. Every other 
     country in the world looks at their natural resources and 
     sees them as an economic asset. Democrats in Washington look 
     at our natural resources and see them as an environmental 
     hazard. That's a mistake.
       (END VIDEO CLIP)
       BLITZER: All right. What do you say?
       VAN HOLLEN: Facts are stubborn things. Sixty-eight million 
     acres of federal lands, currently leased to the oil and gas 
     industry, sitting idle. We're going to say to them, ``Use it 
     or lose it. Get pumping.''
       The issue isn't whether or not we should use our natural 
     resources. The issue is exactly where. And what you're saying 
     is, when you've got 68 million acres of federal lands already 
     leased, you should use that before you start looking 
     elsewhere.
       BLITZER: They say they can drill in Alaska in an 
     environmental safe way. You just heard Congressman Boehner 
     say that.
       VAN HOLLEN: As John McCain said, there are already areas 
     where they can drill. We shouldn't be drilling there.
       And let me point out that the Department of Energy, our own 
     department of Energy, has said, if you drill in Alaska, first 
     of all, you won't see any results at the pump for 10 years. 
     And after 20 years, you might see a reduction of two cents 
     per gallon.
       This is not a way to solve our energy problem. The problem 
     is the oil--the Republican Party has been very tight with the 
     oil and gas industry for many years. And all they're 
     proposing is more of the same, more subsidies for the oil and 
     gas industry. I think it's important to point out that, since 
     George Bush was elected president, the oil and gas industry 
     has contributed over $94 million to the Republican Party and 
     its candidates. So I'm not surprised . . .
       BLITZER: How much have they contributed to the Republicans?
       VAN HOLLEN: A whole lot less. I mean, we're talking about, 
     maybe, 80 percent to Republicans, 20 percent to Democratic 
     candidates, generally.
       The DCCC--we don't take money from oil and gas PACs. And I 
     think what you see, in the results, is the policy.
       They're calling for more of the same. We should not be 
     giving more subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Our 
     proposal is to say, let's take those funds and invest them in 
     renewable energy and energy efficiency.
       BLITZER: The DCCC is the Democratic Congressional Campaign 
     Committee, which you're in charge of. You're the chairman and 
     your job is to get more Democrats elected to the House of 
     Representatives.
       You say that you don't accept money from the oil and gas 
     PACs. But you do accept money from lobbyists and other PACs, 
     even though Barack Obama doesn't accept that money for his 
     campaign. And he's now told the DNC not to accept that kind 
     of money.

[[Page 14022]]

       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we did something very new this time 
     around. In fact, I led the effort in the House; Barack Obama 
     led the effort in the Senate, to require transparency, for 
     the first time, of bundling by lobbyists.
       That means that, when registered lobbyists are raising 
     money, not just their own contribution but they're going out 
     and raising it from other people, that we're now going to 
     disclose that.
       So what we believe is you should have total transparency. 
     People can make up their mind. But when we tried to do that 
     under the Republican-controlled Congress, when we tried to 
     get that transparency, they said no. So we've seen a dramatic 
     change already.
       BLITZER: But just to clear, unlike the DNC or the Obama 
     campaign, you'll still take that PAC money, that lobbying 
     money?
       VAN HOLLEN: The DCCC is a multicandidate committee, unlike 
     the presidential campaign committee where one person gets to 
     make a decision.
       BLITZER: Listen to John Mc Cain rail against Senator Obama 
     on the issue of taxes. Because he says that, if Obama is 
     elected president, taxes won't only go up for the wealthy, 
     but they'll go up for the middle class as well. Listen to 
     this.
       (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MC CAIN: When Senator Obama talks about 
     raising income tax rates on those making over $250,000, that 
     includes these businesses as well. He also proposes increases 
     in dividends and capital gains taxes. Under Senator Obama's 
     tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes 
     rise.
       (END VIDEO CLIP)
       BLITZER: That's going to scare a lot of voters out there.
       VAN HOLLEN: But it's flat-out untrue. And people need to go 
     and look at what Barack Obama is proposing. What he has 
     proposed is a middle-class tax cut. People in the middle 
     income category will get a tax cut. If you're over $250,000 a 
     year, you may see your Bush tax breaks rolled back some.
       So this is an issue where people have got to look at the 
     facts. Because the Democrats have been pushing for AMT 
     reform. We want to get rid of the alternative minimum tax. We 
     want middle-class tax relief.
       The Republicans, on the other hand, have focused on 
     providing tax breaks to people at the very, very top.
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: A lot of middle-class families have investments 
     where they get capital gains, where they get, you know, 
     dividends. And he says, under Obama's proposals, they would 
     be paying more tax.
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, what Obama has said is that you shouldn't 
     give a break to leisure over labor.
       In other words, people who are making money simply by 
     investing it, rather than through their work in the labor 
     force, shouldn't be getting a break over the people who are 
     going to work every day. That's essentially his position. And 
     I think that makes sense to most people, that if you're 
     working every day, you shouldn't carry a larger burden than 
     other . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       BLITZER: So you have no problem seeing the capital gains 
     tax rate go up?
       Because Obama has clearly suggested, if he had his way, it 
     would go up.
       VAN HOLLEN: Well, we're going to be looking at Senator 
     Obama's proposal. We haven't adopted any particular position 
     on that issue, in the House, as Democrats. But I just want to 
     be clear that that's what he said.
       I think what you're seeing here, Wolf, is a feeling in the 
     country--we saw it in these polls--that the Republican 
     leadership in Washington is in a bubble. They're very much 
     out of touch with the economic pain Americans are feeling.
       John McCain said, not long ago, that we have seen great 
     progress under the Bush administration. And if you like 
     George Bush's economic policies, you're going to love John 
     McCain's economic policies.
       What we've seen is unemployment has gone up. In fact, last 
     month, we saw the largest Increase . . .
       (CROSSTALK)
       VAN HOLLEN: But we proposed unemployment insurance 
     compensation. John Boehner and the Republicans opposed that. 
     When people are struggling with their mortgages, they were 
     there to bail out Bear Stearns, but the fact of the matter is 
     they voted against a housing stabilization plan.
       So I think people see this disconnect between the 
     Democrats, who are trying to connect with middle-class 
     families, and Republicans, who are always looking out for the 
     very folks at the top and the oil and gas industry.
       BLITZER: Congressman Van Hollen, thanks for coming in.
       VAN HOLLEN: Thanks for having me.
  BLITZER: Happy Fathers Day.
       VAN HOLLEN: Thank you.
       BLITZER: I appreciate it very much.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________




                                  CFTC

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise for a few minutes this evening to 
talk about a couple events from today. First of all, the price of oil 
today hit over $140 a barrel--another, I think, tragic milestone as it 
relates to the impact on our economy and the challenges we face as oil 
prices continue to go higher and higher and higher.
  I also note for my colleagues that the House took very aggressive 
action today in basically ordering the Commodity Futures Trading 
Commission, on an overwhelming 402-19 vote, to take action to utilize 
its authority, including its emergency powers, which is critical for 
the CFTC to do if it wants to have proper oversight of these oil 
futures markets.
  Now, I know this is something we have been pushing here in the 
Senate, saying there are loopholes we still need to close. Many of my 
colleagues joined in a letter last month--22 of us--to the CFTC telling 
them to use their authority and to act aggressively. They came back 
with a half step saying they were going to start collecting new 
information from the British regulators that oversee some of our oil 
markets in the U.S.
  We told the CFTC that was not good enough. We told them to use their 
existing authority to start collecting information directly from the 
IntercontinentalExchange Futures Europe, a dark market that is subject 
to British oversight but operates in the United States under a CFTC 
staff no-action policy.
  I think those pleas by us have basically gone ignored or at least 
half steps have been taken by the CFTC. So I was very pleased today 
that H.R. 6377 passed the House of Representatives 402 to 19. So there 
has been an outstanding margin of bipartisan support in the House of 
Representatives to pass a bill that requires the CFTC to use its 
existing authority, including emergency authority. This bill does not 
say the CFTC ``may'' utilize its authorities; it says they ``shall.'' 
So it is very direct. It says those broad emergency authorities that 
include investigating excessive speculation, reducing position limits--
basically overall stricter position limits--and including limiting or 
suspending trading. These are things the CFTC has the power to do in 
its emergency authorities to make sure excessive speculation and 
manipulation are not occurring in the markets.
  So I want to say I think this is a very bold step the House of 
Representatives has done. They did this very quickly today, and in a 
very aggressive, bipartisan fashion.
  I hope the Senate would take the same aggressive measure as soon as 
possible, and in the same overwhelming majority, to show we are serious 
about reining in excessive speculation and potential manipulation in 
the oil markets.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.

                          ____________________




                         MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on Tuesday, the House passed the Medicare 
Improvements for Patients and Providers Act, and I urge the Senate to 
take up and pass this bill tonight.
  The House passed the bill with an overwhelming vote, 355 to 59. That 
is a 6-to-1 ratio. Even among Republican Members of the House, more 
than twice as many Republicans voted for the bill as against it.
  The Senate should take up and pass this Medicare bill not just 
because the House passed it with 355 votes, but, rather, because it is 
the right thing to do. The Senate should pass this Medicare bill 
because time is running out. I understand the House is going to adjourn 
today. I think they have cast their last vote. If we don't act soon, 
the law cuts payments to doctors by 10 percent on July 1. We have to 
stop that cut. That cut threatens access to care for America's seniors. 
Already, some providers are declining Medicare patients. That trend 
will accelerate--believe me, I have talked to a lot of doctors--that 
trend will accelerate if we don't act. We must pass this bill tonight. 
The Senate should pass this

[[Page 14023]]

Medicare bill because it is the only way to avoid the cut. There is no 
other option. There is no alternative. There is no short-term solution. 
This is the only train in the station. This is it.
  The House-passed bill is very similar to S. 3101. That is the Baucus-
Snowe bill the Senate considered 2 weeks ago, but the House made three 
noteworthy changes to that bill.
  First, the House-passed bill includes legislation to delay the 
Competitive Acquisition Program for durable medical equipment. 
Congressmen Pete Stark and David Camp introduced legislation to do that 
in the House, and Senator Grassley and I, along with 24 other Senators, 
introduced that legislation here in the Senate.
  I support competitive bidding as a way to decrease costs, but 
Congress needs to ensure that these savings are not achieved at the 
expense of beneficiary access to the care they need in their own 
communities. We need to take a closer look at competitive bidding 
before it moves forward. The passage of this Medicare bill will allow 
that.
  The House-passed bill also does not include cuts in funding for 
oxygen supplies and equipment, and it does not include cuts in funding 
for power wheelchairs. Those who support these reforms make a good 
case, but ultimately the cuts could not be included as part of this 
must-pass legislation.
  This bill is a balanced package. It is a true compromise. It does not 
go nearly as far as many House Democrats wanted it to go, and it goes 
about as far as some of my Republican colleagues in the Senate can go.
  When the House passed its children's health bill last year, the House 
made major changes to the Medicare Advantage Program. Last year's House 
CHIP bill would have significantly restricted the program, but this 
House Medicare bill does not do that.
  This bill includes a reduction in the double payment for medical 
education costs to private plans in Medicare, and this bill would 
protect seniors from unscrupulous marketing practices by private health 
plans. That has to be corrected and it is in this bill. Both of those 
changes were also included in a bill crafted by Senate Republicans. I 
think they are wise, and they are wise to follow up with a similar vote 
later on tonight.
  This bill would do more. It would also require the so-called private 
fee-for-service plans to form provider networks. All other plans must, 
all other Medicare Advantage plans must, and so should private fee-for-
service plans. It would also make sure there are doctors behind those 
plans. It is not the case in current law, but that change is made in 
this bill. This bill does not--I must say--does not include deep cuts 
to Medicare Advantage payments. It also does not cut private fee-for-
service plan payments at all. It just has this provision which I think 
is a major reform.
  I would go further on Medicare Advantage, but I must say to my 
colleagues that this is not the time and this is not the legislation to 
do that. This is the time to avert the pending cut in payments to 
doctors. That payment cut would devastate access to care for America's 
seniors. We cannot let that happen. We cannot let those cuts go 
through, which would devastate care for America's seniors.
  So what else will this bill do? For Medicare beneficiaries, this 
Medicare bill would expand access for preventive services. We have all 
talked about that, and this bill does it. It would eliminate the 
discriminatory copayment requirements for seniors with mental 
illnesses. We have talked about that. We should not have discriminatory 
copayment requirements for seniors with mental illness. And it provides 
additional needed care for low-income seniors.
  The Medicare bill would take important steps to shore up our health 
care system in rural areas. It includes provisions from the Craig 
Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act. We included that in this 
bill.
  The bill includes important relief for ambulance providers, community 
health centers, and primary care physicians. They need some additional 
help. Primary care doctors represent the backbone of our health care 
system. This legislation, the House-passed bill and the Senate bill, 
does make those provisions.
  This Medicare bill would make important improvements in pharmacy 
payments. It would make payments under the Part D drug benefit fairer 
and more timely, especially to those who dispense drugs to our Nation's 
senior citizens.
  This bill would save valuable Medicare dollars by providing a single 
bundled payment for all the services related to treating end-stage 
renal disease. That is a reform. And for the first time, dialysis 
facilities would receive a permanent, market-based update to their 
payments each year, something they have been asking for and deserve. 
This would make sure Medicare payments keep up with their costs.
  I wrote the legislation on which this Medicare bill was based to make 
sure the seniors in my home State of Montana and everywhere in our 
country can get quality, affordable health care. This Medicare bill 
would do right by low-income and rural seniors.
  This bill would expand emergency health care for veterans in rural 
areas. We all talk about helping our veterans who are coming home. This 
helps do that, particularly in rural areas where the networks are not 
there. It needed special attention. It is there in the urban areas on 
the margin but even less in rural areas. It would increase payments for 
doctors who work in rural areas. It would stop payment cuts to 
providers, and it would give them a decent increase in reimbursement. 
All of this would ensure that seniors will be able to keep seeing the 
doctors they need to see.
  I have worked for months to write a strong Medicare bill that could 
pass both Chambers with wide support. Tuesday's overwhelming House vote 
makes clear that this bill can be that bipartisan vehicle. In a sense, 
it is being taken up just in time, just before July 1. The House will 
not take up another vehicle. This is it. The House has gone home for 
its Fourth of July recess. There is not time left to craft a viable 
alternative. Even if there were, the House cannot pass it in time. The 
clock is ticking. This Medicare bill can be a slam dunk at the buzzer 
for 44 million American seniors who depend on Medicare. Let's do what 
is right. Let's ensure that seniors have access to doctors. Let's avert 
the impending payment cut to doctors, and let's pass this bipartisan 
Medicare bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have been talking to the physicians in 
my State who take Medicare patients, and frankly, this is a terrible 
way for Congress to do business. We see a 6-month patch on the 
physician reimbursement formula that will expire July 1, and 
unfortunately we are looking at what amounts to a partisan proposal 
here that we are basically being told to take or leave.
  As all of our colleagues know, the ranking member on the Finance 
Committee, Senator Grassley, got together with Senator Baucus after 
cloture was denied previously and pretty well had things worked out in 
a bipartisan way until the House passed their version, and then, of 
course, those negotiations broke down, leading us to this cloture vote 
we are going to have here in just a few minutes. But I have to say that 
in 1996 when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act and contemplated 
these Draconian cuts in the physician reimbursement payments, Congress 
should have known and should have told the truth that it never intended 
that any of those cuts would ever take place--and for good reason they 
should never take place, because even under the current Medicare 
reimbursement rates, doctors--for example, in Travis County where 
Austin, TX, is located, only about 18 percent of the physicians in that 
county will actually take new Medicare patients because the 
reimbursement rates are already so low.
  Then we have this unbelievably bad way of doing business. I don't 
know anybody else who could get away

[[Page 14024]]

with--other than the Congress--passing temporary patches on the 
reimbursements that are paid to physicians. They last for a year, they 
last for 6 months, such as this last one that leads us up to the edge 
of a cliff here on July 1, and then we are told by the distinguished 
chairman of the Finance Committee that we have to take it or leave it 
or the cuts will occur. Well, frankly, no one believes the cuts will 
actually occur because Congress will act.
  I suggest that rather than this terrible way of doing business that 
nobody else could ever get by with and rather than frightening the 
Medicare beneficiaries who need access to the doctors who are paid 
using this Medicare reimbursement formula, we ought to scrap the entire 
method of reimbursing doctors for Medicare and start over again, 
recognizing that we are not going to allow these Draconian cuts to 
occur, this 10-percent-plus cut that goes into effect July 1 and the 
20-percent-plus cut that will occur 18 months from now. I think we 
ought to acknowledge that we are not going to let those cuts go into 
effect and scrap the sustainable growth rate formula by which those 
Medicare reimbursements are calculated because it is just not honest. 
It is not honest. It is scaring not only the Medicare beneficiaries, it 
is impairing access to health care for those to whom we promised the 
Medicare Program would actually work.
  So I don't know what is going to happen on this vote on cloture. I 
suspect cloture may not be invoked. My hope is that there would be a 
bipartisan way to find our way forward. I believe it already exists in 
the form of a negotiation that Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus have 
undertaken here in the Senate and that we shouldn't use this kind of 
brinkmanship to scare not only the Medicare beneficiaries--the seniors 
who depend on this health care--but also the physicians who are 
reimbursed under this formula.

                          ____________________




                            GASOLINE PRICES

  Mr. CORNYN. I wish to talk just a minute about gasoline prices. I 
don't know of any subject I hear more about and more concern about from 
my constituents in Texas than high gasoline prices, whether it is 
parents driving their children to school or their afterschool 
activities or truckers who have to buy diesel, which is breaking the 
bank and which they are finding it harder and harder to pay for, or 
whether it is the airlines--Continental Airlines and American Airlines 
and Southwest Airlines, all three of which are located in the State of 
Texas. The price of aviation fuel made from petroleum products is 
making it almost impossible for them to do business under their current 
model, and prices are going up. It is becoming harder and harder for 
consumers to deal with.
  There is a way Congress could act to help bring down prices at the 
pump on a temporary basis, and it involves exploring for and producing 
more American energy. That is important from a number of perspectives.
  First of all, it is important from a national security perspective 
because right now we depend on 60 percent of our energy needs, our oil 
and gas needs, from foreign sources. What would happen if something 
were to occur that were to blockade the tankers that would prevent that 
oil from being transported? Well, it would mean in Iraq and Afghanistan 
that the Department of Defense vehicles owned by the Army, Marines, and 
others wouldn't have the petroleum products they need in order to 
function. It would exact a crippling blow against our economy. So why 
in the world would we continue to allow 60 percent of our dependency 
for oil to come from foreign sources when we have here in America 
enough oil under our own Outer Continental Shelf, in the oil shale in 
the West, and in the Arctic that could produce as much as 3 million 
additional barrels of oil a day? That is more than 10 percent of our 
current use here in the United States. As a matter of fact, it is a 
substantial amount--more than 10 percent, closer to 12 percent of what 
we use right here in the United States.
  We know the money we are paying--$135 a barrel--is enriching people 
such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and he is using that money to buy 
weapons from Russia and to arm himself as he continues to take in and 
protect the FARC, a narcoterrorist organization, to the detriment of 
our friends in Colombia and stability in South America.
  But it is absolutely crazy for this Congress to have in place, as it 
does--and it has since 1981 or 1982--a moratorium or ban on developing 
more of our own natural resources and becoming more self-reliant rather 
than more dependent on foreign sources of oil. It is up to Congress to 
get out of the way and to allow America to become more energy self-
sufficient. We can do it, and only Congress can get that done. It is 
completely inexcusable when gasoline is at $4 a gallon on average to do 
that, to be the impediment, to be the blockade, to be the cause of so 
much pain at the pump and so much sacrifice and hardship among hard-
working American families.
  We understand it is more than just a matter of producing oil, but 
that is a first and necessary step because we know when it comes to 
transportation fuel, we depend upon petroleum products right now to get 
that job done.
  But we also know we need to be more fuel efficient and we need to 
conserve. Indeed, that is one area where Congress has acted by passing 
corporate fuel efficiency standards for our cars. But we know that is a 
long-term effort because the average age of a car in America--of the 
250 million cars in America--is about 9 years. So let's assume that, in 
2010, everybody started buying a new car. It would take a long time, an 
average of 9 years, before that entire fleet of cars would be replaced 
with these new more fuel-efficient cars. So that is a long-term 
solution but a necessary and important one for us to take.
  We also need to make sure we use good old-fashioned American 
ingenuity and technology to help us as we transition from this 
petroleum dependence we have now. It is not going to happen overnight. 
But for our friends who say that if we started pumping oil out of ANWR 
or the Outer Continental Shelf or from the oil shale in the West today, 
it would be years before that oil would get online. Unfortunately, that 
is where we put ourselves, as a result of the irrational moratoria on 
the development of American natural resources. It is going to take some 
time to transition into greater energy independence.
  But for those of us who are concerned about the environment, we know 
we are going to have to continue to look for cleaner ways to drive and 
to fly and in terms of our energy needs. That is why it is so important 
that we use good old-fashioned American ingenuity and technology to 
help us find a way--development of things such as plug-in hybrid cars 
that can be plugged in and would charge a battery that could drive 40 
miles or so before it would need to be recharged. That would help a lot 
of people who would only need such a vehicle, with a plug-in, to avoid 
petroleum products altogether. Then we would need to worry about the 
electricity, which is another story altogether.
  There are some who have said that abusive speculation in the 
commodities futures markets is the cause of the problem. That is 
something we need to look at very closely. As a matter of fact, today, 
a number of us--43 Senators--have introduced legislation that we 
believe will create greater transparency and will finance more ``cops 
on the beat,'' so to speak, when it comes to the commodity futures 
market, to make sure that doesn't contribute to the reason for prices 
going through the roof.
  So we need to produce more energy right here at home so we don't have 
to depend so much on those who wish us harm or those who would use the 
money from oil to buy weapons to kill us or our troops in Iraq or 
Afghanistan or elsewhere--or in the case of Iran, which we know is 
supplying troops and training to special forces in Iraq and Afghanistan 
and has threatened and, in some cases, is responsible for killing 
troops. We find ourselves dependent, in part, on countries such as Iran 
for the very oil we use to refine into gasoline to drive our cars. Does 
that make sense to anybody? It doesn't make any sense to me.

[[Page 14025]]

  I think what we need to do is produce more and use less oil as we 
transition into a cleaner, more independent energy economy. It would be 
better for our national security, better for our economy, and it will 
actually help us control prices so hard-working American families will 
not be spending all the money they may have, which they would like to 
spend on other things, or which they need to spend on other things but 
cannot because of the increases in the high price of gasoline and oil, 
and they have to spend on those.
  In conclusion--and I see the Senator from Utah, my friend, Mr. Hatch, 
who wishes to speak--if we will not do this when gasoline is $4 a 
gallon, will we do this when gasoline is $5 a gallon? If we will not do 
it when oil is $135 a barrel, will we do it when oil is $150 a barrel, 
or even higher?
  The solution is not to sue OPEC to get them to open the spigot even 
wider to increase our dependency on foreign oil. The solution is not to 
raise taxes, which we know will reduce American production, while 
allowing foreign oil sources, such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and 
Iran, to continue to operate without those taxes. The solution is not 
to increase taxes and costs on the consumer, who is already paying too 
much. We have it within our power to do something that will actually 
help the American people when it comes to the thing that most of them 
care a lot about today and that is the high price of gasoline.
  Congress is the problem. It is high time our friends on the other 
side of the aisle, who control the agenda because they are in the 
majority, work with us to bring realistic solutions to this problem. We 
can do it but not if people play partisan games and refuse to cooperate 
on something that causes a lot of hardship to the average American 
family.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.

                          ____________________




                             TAX EXTENDERS

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a very important issue. 
First, I compliment the Senator from Texas. I agree with virtually 
everything he said. There are so many things we need to do around here, 
and we are not doing them.
  I will discuss an issue that each day becomes more troubling to me 
and also to many businesses and individuals in my home State of Utah--
and I am sure yours as well--the fact that this Congress has not yet 
acted to extend the tax provisions that expired at the end of last year 
and those that are set to expire at the end of 2008. This failure to 
act is rapidly reaching a state of crisis in some industries, and our 
continuing inability to take care of this basic problem only reinforces 
the public's low opinion of this institution.
  I believe that every member of this Senate recognizes the importance 
of the expired and expiring tax provisions. While there may be some 
items on the growing list of extenders that do not enjoy universal 
support, there are clearly plenty of votes to easily provide a majority 
or even a super-majority to pass them all, if it were not for the 
divisive question of offsetting the revenue loss.
  The list includes some important items for individuals and businesses 
in every State. For families, there is the election to deduct State and 
local sales taxes, the deduction for higher education expenses, and the 
deduction for the out-of-pocket expenses of school teachers.
  For businesses, expired or expiring provisions include those allowing 
faster depreciation write-offs for retail stores, restaurants, and 
other investment properties, a variety of important incentives that 
address our energy crisis, and the vital research credit, which I have 
championed here for many years.
  The expiration of the energy provisions and the research credit are 
particularly troubling, for they signal the loss of economic growth and 
jobs at the worst possible time. As with many of my colleagues and 
their constituents, I have Utahns telling me that important research 
and energy-related projects are going to be cancelled if these 
provisions are not quickly extended.
  Well, here we have a group of tax provisions that enjoys wide 
bipartisan support, and an economy that really needs to have access to 
these provisions at a time of slowdown and job loss. Many of my 
constituents do not get it. They are asking, why can't Congress just 
get it done? What is the problem?
  The problem is, as we all recognize, that my colleagues on the other 
side insist on attaching to the bill tax-raising measures in order to 
offset the revenue loss of the expiring provisions. And most Senators 
on my side of the aisle believe that tax increases are unnecessary and, 
in fact, ill-advised and harmful to our economy, both today and in the 
future. Unfortunately, we appear to have reached an impasse on this 
point.
  Contrary to what some proponents of offsets are saying about 
Republican motives in this matter, our stance is not about trying to 
protect a few wealthy hedge fund managers who are parking billions of 
dollars offshore in deferred compensation. Rather, we believe that this 
debate is about America's future prosperity.
  Democrats are saying that in order to be fiscally responsible, taxes 
need to go up to pay for the loss in revenue from keeping these tax 
provisions in place. Their so-called ``pay-as-you-go'' or ``pay-go,'' 
rules call for all revenue losses to be matched with revenue increases, 
or spending decreases, from somewhere else. Forget spending decreases; 
it just means tax increases.
  In theory, this sounds pretty good, and quite responsible. I am a 
strong believer in being fiscally responsible, and I am as loathe to 
pass on our huge national debt to our children as anyone in the history 
of the Congress.
  The problem is that to most Democrats, the word PAYGO is nothing more 
than a synonym for more taxes. We seldom, if ever, see the idea of 
reducing spending brought up by the other side as a way of offsetting 
the loss of revenue from extending these important tax provisions.
  In fact, there is a major flaw in the Democrats' pay-go requirement 
that you never hear them mention. Pay-go applies only to the revenue 
loss from extending the tax cuts, but not to the revenue loss from 
extending spending programs that expire. You might never know it from 
listening to the debate around here, but it is not just tax provisions 
that expire. Extending both tax benefits and spending programs costs 
Federal revenue. Why should not both be offset?
  However, the budget rules assume that the expiring spending 
provisions are automatically renewed as a matter of course, with 
absolutely no requirement that the lost revenue be offset. This 
mismatch in budget policy produces a huge bias toward bigger Government 
and more taxes--something my colleagues on the other side just love.
  Some may well ask, why shouldn't we pay for the lost revenue from 
extending the expired and expiring tax provisions?
  My answer to Utahns who ask me this question comes in three parts:
  First, it is wrong to raise taxes on one group of taxpayers in order 
to prevent another group of taxpayers from suffering an increase in 
taxes. Democrats and Republicans alike have resoundingly agreed with 
this principle in connection with the alternative minimum tax. Both 
parties in both Houses last year overwhelmingly passed the so-called 
``AMT patch'' without offsets, and it is widely expected that we will 
do the same thing again this year.
  Second, it is wrong to offset temporary extensions of current law 
with permanent tax increases. The fact that this has been done year 
after year does not make this practice a sound one. In fact, using 
permanent tax increases to offset temporary extensions simply means 
that, in the long run, the extenders have been paid for again and 
again.
  Finally, why should we increase taxes when we are already collecting 
more taxes as a percentage of gross domestic product than the 
historical average? Despite the large tax cuts passed by Congress and 
signed by the

[[Page 14026]]

President in the early part of this decade, the amount of tax collected 
as compared to the size of the economy just keeps increasing; yet, the 
majority insists on expanding the Government's pocketbook even further. 
At a time when gas prices have increased by 10 cents over the past two 
weeks to a national average of $4.07 and home foreclosures are on the 
rise, I believe we need to put money back in the taxpayer's pockets, 
not take more out.
  According to the other side, the pay-go rules require us to provide 
tax increases in order to keep the deficit from increasing. Time and 
again, however, the Democrats themselves admit that the pay-go rules 
are not practical. We all know that.
  For example, it was not deemed necessary to offset the revenue loss 
of the economic stimulus package we passed early this year. We did not 
offset the package of tax benefits for military personnel that was 
recently enacted. And there has been a long internal debate on the 
other side about whether unemployment benefits need to be offset. It 
appears to me that the Democratic pay-go requirement is more a slogan 
of convenience than a bedrock principle.
  Many in the business community are frustrated by our lack of action 
in extending the expired tax provisions. I understand and share this 
frustration with them. I have fought for years to improve, extend, and 
expand many of these provisions, such as the research credit.
  However, I believe those in the business community who are 
encouraging us to simply go along with the flawed bill the House of 
Representatives has sent us are being very shortsighted. Many in the 
business lobbies have looked at the offsets in that bill and have said 
that since they do not affect them very much, that we should go ahead 
and approve them.
  If we go along with these offsets to extend the expired provisions 
until the end of this year, what are we going to use to pay for next 
year's extension? Sure, the business community might be fine with these 
offsets now, but how long until we get to the offsets that really hit 
them hard? All of us, including the business community, need to take a 
longer view of this and examine the principles involved.
  We cannot drive our economy into the ground in the name of false 
fiscal responsibility. Tax increases are not the prescription to what 
ails our economy, particularly during this downturn and especially when 
revenue is already higher than the historical average. Yes, we should 
pass the extenders, but let us not sacrifice jobs on the altar of a 
flawed pay-go requirement in the process.
  The cost of living for Americans is becoming unbearable. In my home 
State of Utah, the average price of gas is $4.07, construction of new 
homes has ceased, and unemployment is on the rise. We should be 
spending less and lowering taxes, not holding back tax incentives that 
are vital to economic growth and job creation while raising taxes.
  If my colleagues on the other side want to be fiscally responsible, 
then I am all for it. Let us work together to identify enough spending 
cuts to offset the cost of extenders. But if we cannot do that, let us 
not hold these important tax provisions hostage to a false sense of 
fiscal responsibility.
  I notice the distinguished majority whip is here, so I will try to 
finish as quickly as I can.

                          ____________________




                         MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS

  Mr. HATCH. I wish to say a few words about why I oppose the cloture 
motion on the motion to proceed on H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements 
for Patients and Providers Act. As I said last week when we were 
considering the cloture motion on the Baucus Medicare bill, my goal is 
to have bipartisan legislation signed into law by the President on July 
1. Let me be clear, I wish to continue to work with my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle in order to get this done. We were so close 
to an agreement in the Senate earlier in the week, but after the House 
voted on Tuesday, those discussions basically stopped, although we can 
put this together in 10 minutes if we work in a bipartisan way.
  To be honest, the House Medicare bill, H.R. 6331, contains many 
provisions that both sides strongly support. These provisions include 
restoring Medicare reimbursement rates for physicians so their Medicare 
payments are not reduced by 10.6 percent on July 1.
  Let me be clear, no one wants to cut Medicare reimbursements for 
doctors. We want Medicare beneficiaries to continue to have access to 
high-quality health care and the ability to see their own doctors.
  There is not just one Medicare bill. The Baucus Medicare bill; the 
Grassley Medicare bill, which I cosponsored; and H.R. 6331 all include 
provisions to restore physician payments. All three bills include 
provisions on e-prescribing. Mandatory e-prescribing will significantly 
reduce medical errors, thus protecting beneficiaries.
  Another issue that has overwhelming support is the delay of the 
competitive bidding program. I was a member of the House-Senate 
conference committee on the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Even 
back then, Senator Grassley and I expressed grave concerns about the 
inclusion of the Medicare competitive bidding program. I worried about 
the impact it would have on small durable medical equipment companies, 
particularly those in rural areas. I am still concerned because there 
are many unanswered questions about the bidding process and how the 
winning bids were selected. If we do not come to an agreement by July 
1, this program will go into effect.
  A related issue that is included in all three Medicare bills is the 
elimination of the clinical lab competitive bidding program. There was 
broad support to repeal the clinical lab competitive bidding program as 
well.
  There are rural provisions included in all three bills that are very 
important to my home State of Utah, which has many rural areas.
  These provisions improve payments for sole community hospitals, 
critical access hospitals, and increase ambulance reimbursement rates 
in both rural and urban areas.
  All three bills include a policy to create a bundle payment system 
for end-stage renal disease, or ESRD, services provided to kidney 
dialysis patients. They also provide positive composite rate updates 
for 2 years until the bundled payment system is created.
  All three bills include Medicare reimbursement for six kidney disease 
education sessions.
  All versions of the Medicare legislation also include an expansion of 
telehealth services to skilled nursing facilities, hospital-based renal 
dialysis, and mental health centers.
  So as one can see, we agree on most all the issues. Unfortunately, 
there is one issue where we do not agree, and it is standing in the way 
of getting this legislation signed into law.
  H.R. 6331, the House Medicare bill, and the Baucus Medicare bill, 
include provisions that would reform the Medicare Advantage Program in 
a way that is unacceptable to both the White House and many of us who 
support the Medicare Advantage Program and I believe 90 percent of the 
people who do support that program.
  In 2003, I sat through hours of negotiations with administration 
officials, House Members, and Senate colleagues for days, weeks, and 
months, including Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, to create the 
Medicare Advantage Program to the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. 
Let me remind my colleagues, before 2003, the Medicare Advantage 
Program, then known as Medicare+Choice, was not working very well, 
especially in rural parts of our country because the Medicare payments 
were too low. The Medicare+Choice plans serving Utah simply left 
because they were in the red. They were not making money and, as a 
result, Utah Medicare beneficiaries could only be covered by 
traditional Medicare.
  Through the MMA, we finally figured out how to provide choice to 
Medicare beneficiaries in both rural and urban areas. Medicare 
beneficiaries in Utah now have a choice in Medicare coverage they did 
not have before the MMA was implemented.

[[Page 14027]]

  The biggest difference between the bill before us today and the 
Grassley Medicare bill is the House Medicare bill, if signed into law, 
will no longer allow private fee-for-service plans to deem. You are 
probably asking: What on Earth is deeming? It is quite simple.
  Deeming allows beneficiaries who have opted for private fee-for-
service plans the ability to see any Medicare provider because these 
plans do not have to establish networks.
  Private fee-for-service plans have provide coverage options to 
Medicare beneficiaries living in rural areas who previously did not 
have choice. In other words, the ability to deem has been especially 
important in rural areas, where it is difficult for network-based plans 
to persuade providers to contract with them and for employer groups 
that provide coverage for retirees living in areas across the country.
  The elimination of deeming could be the elimination of health care 
coverage choices for beneficiaries living in rural areas.
  It could also cause certain retirees to lose their health care 
coverage because employer health plans that provide coverage in all 50 
States will cease to exist because they cannot establish networks.
  My friends who support this bill will argue they are not cutting the 
Medicare Advantage Program by eliminating deeming. They also will try 
to say that the elimination of deeming will not have an impact on 
health care choices offered to beneficiaries living in rural areas.
  I have already been told by one employer in Utah that this provision 
will force them to stop offering health care coverage to almost 12,000 
retirees--12,000 retirees. I am worried it could hurt coverage for 
beneficiaries in rural areas as well. Quite honestly, we do not know 
the full impact of this specific policy.
  Therefore, I simply cannot support a provision that eliminates 
deeming for private fee-for-service plans, and that is one of the 
reasons I am going to vote against cloture.
  We must vote against cloture in order to ensure we can begin work on 
a bipartisan bill that will be signed by the President. We do not need 
to be wasting our time going back and forth on bills that do not have a 
chance of becoming law.
  Trust me, this bill will not be signed into law because, while the 
take-it-or-leave-it attitude may work over in the House, it does not 
work in the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against cloture so we may begin work on 
a bipartisan bill that will continue to protect choice of coverage for 
all beneficiaries--and I think that work would take all of 10 minutes--
including those living in urban and rural areas and those who are 
covered through an employer retirement plan.
  This motion must be defeated so we can prove to Medicare 
beneficiaries, Medicare providers, and our House colleagues that 
bipartisanship is alive and well in the Senate and that we are willing 
to keep working on this bill until we get it right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The majority leader.

                          ____________________




          UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 6331 AND H.R. 2642

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, and the pendency of a motion, that a motion to proceed to 
Calendar No. 836, H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and 
Providers Act, be considered made by virtue of this agreement and there 
be 60 minutes of debate on the motion, with the time equally divided 
and controlled between the leaders or their designees; that upon the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on a motion to 
invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, with the mandatory quorum 
waived; that if cloture is invoked on the motion to proceed, then all 
postcloture time be yielded back, the motion to proceed be agreed to, 
and the Senate proceed to the consideration of the bill; that the bill 
be read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon 
the table, without further intervening action or debate; that if 
cloture is not invoked, then the motion to proceed be withdrawn and the 
bill returned to the calendar; that upon the disposition of H.R. 6331, 
the Senate then consider the message from the House with respect to 
H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act; that by virtue of this 
consent being agreed to, the motion to concur in the House amendments 
to the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment 
to the bill be considered made; that Senator Coburn be recognized to 
raise a point of order and that there be 15 minutes of debate, with 5 
minutes each for Coburn and the majority leader and the Republican 
leader, or their designees; that upon the use of that time, a motion to 
waive the Budget Act be considered made and the Senate then vote on the 
motion to waive; that if the waiver is successful, the Senate proceed 
to vote on the motion to concur; that upon disposition of the motion to 
concur, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, with 
no further motions in order; provided further, that if the motion to 
waive fails, then this agreement be null and void.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I, obviously, am not going to. I ask my good friend, 
the majority leader, if he thinks we need 60 minutes of debate. Is 
there some chance time will be yielded back?
  Mr. REID. We would be happy to limit that--the supplemental 
appropriations bill we are talking about?
  Mr. McCONNELL. No.
  Mr. REID. On Medicare. I say to my friend, I think Senator Hatch 
wants to finish his statement, Senator Durbin is here. I think we 
should do the 60 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. There was no objection to the request; is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having presented under rule 
XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  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 H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients 
     and Providers Act.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Patty Murray, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Mark L. Pryor, John F. Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Richard Durbin, Daniel K. Inouye, Bill Nelson, Bernard 
           Sanders, Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Frank R. Lautenberg.

                          ____________________




                 UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--H.R. 6304

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, 
July 8, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following 
consultation with Senator McConnell, all postcloture time be yielded 
back and the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 827, H.R. 6304, be 
agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and the 
Senate then proceed to the consideration of the bill; that once the 
bill is reported, the only amendments in order be the following: Dodd-
Feingold-Leahy amendment to strike immunity; a Specter amendment which 
is relevant; a Bingaman amendment re: staying court cases against 
telecom companies; that no other amendments be in order; that debate 
time on the Bingaman amendment be limited to 60 minutes, equally 
divided and controlled in the usual form, and 2 hours each with respect 
to the Dodd and Specter amendments, equally divided and controlled, 
with 10 minutes of the Dodd time under the control of Senator

[[Page 14028]]

Leahy; that upon the use or yielding back of all time, the Senate 
proceed to vote on the pending amendments; there be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided and controlled in the usual form prior to each vote; 
that after the first vote in the sequence, succeeding votes be limited 
to 10 minutes each; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the 
bill, as amended, if amended, be read a third time and the Senate then 
proceed to vote on a motion to invoke cloture on the bill, with the 
mandatory quorum waived; that prior to the cloture vote, there be 60 
minutes plus the time specified below for debate time, equally divided 
and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with 10 
minutes under the control of Senator Leahy, with an additional 30 
minutes under the control of Senator Feingold, with an additional 15 
minutes under the control of Senator Dodd; further, that if cloture is 
invoked on H.R. 6304, then all postcloture time be yielded back, and 
without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to 
vote on passage of the bill, as amended, if amended; further, that it 
be in order to file the cloture motion on the bill at any time prior to 
the cloture vote, with the mandatory quorum waived, notwithstanding 
rule XXII, if applicable, and that if applicable, postcloture time be 
charged during this agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




             FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on H.R. 6304, the FISA 
     Amendments Act of 2008.
         E. Benjamin Nelson, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Mark L. Pryor, Bill Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Robert P. Casey, Jr., Barbara A. Mikulski, Claire 
           McCaskill, Kent Conrad, Daniel K. Inouye, Mary L. 
           Landrieu, Joseph I. Lieberman, Sheldon Whitehouse, Evan 
           Bayh, Ken Salazar.

  Mr. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                   FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask that the 
Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives 
with respect to H.R. 3221.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the message with respect 
to H.R. 3221.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

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

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move that the Senate concur in the 
amendments of the House striking titles VI through XI to H.R. 3221, and 
I send a cloture motion to the desk.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the cloture motion.
  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 
     concur in the amendments of the House, striking title VI 
     through XI, to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3221, the 
     Foreclosure Prevention Act.
         Harry Reid, Christopher J. Dodd, John D. Rockefeller, IV, 
           Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, Ken Salazar, Joseph R. 
           Biden, Jr., Max Baucus, Patty Murray, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, Charles E. Schumer, Sheldon Whitehouse, 
           Sherrod Brown, Bill Nelson, John F. Kerry, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Benjamin L. Cardin, Frank R. Lautenberg.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote occur at 5 p.m., Monday, July 7, with the hour prior to the 
cloture vote equally divided and controlled between the chair and 
ranking member of the Banking Committee, and that no other motions be 
in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Chairs hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say this. I had one Senator come to 
me today and say: You know, why don't we spend more time here? We set 
out to accomplish certain things. We haven't been able to accomplish 
everything we wanted, but I say to everyone here, the procedures we 
just now went through would take, if we followed every step of the 
procedure of this body, well into late next week. So people should just 
be satisfied that we are going to be able to have whatever the action 
is on Medicare, whether it passes or doesn't. At least we are going to 
have final action on that now, we are going to be able to complete the 
supplemental, and we have a time set to complete FISA early next week, 
with people having all the opportunity they want to talk about how 
great it is and how horrible that bill is.
  We also have a pathway so that Senators Shelby and Dodd can complete 
the housing bill. I think it is a good piece of work. Was it as smooth 
as I would like? No. As I said when I came here this morning, when I 
gave the example of going out with my dad as a boy and gathering wood, 
and we would get stuck in those washes and those back tires would spin 
and spin, that vehicle was going a thousand miles an hour but going 
nowhere; it was stuck in sand and nothing would happen, and we would 
work and put stuff under the tires and push it, and it took a long time 
but we always got it unstuck. Well, we would have gotten unstuck here; 
it is just a question of when, and the ``when'' is now.
  So I say to the individual who asked me about this, is this something 
that is real pleasant to watch? Probably not. But for this country, the 
Senate has been doing this for 230-some-odd years, and that is how it 
works. We have heard a lot of times, as we watch the legislative 
process in action, that it is like watching the stuff they put into the 
hot dog: it is probably not too pleasant to watch, but it tastes pretty 
good when you chomp on it. That is what this legislation is all about.
  I think we are going to have the ability to work on issues important 
to the country. We know how important this supplemental is to lots of 
people in this country. We know how important the FISA legislation is. 
We know how important the housing bill is. And, of course, we know how 
important the Medicare bill is. Will they all wind up at a point where 
everyone in the Senate wants them? Probably not. But at least we have 
the opportunity to have finality on all of these.
  So I extend my appreciation to the people on my side who have agreed 
to drop amendments and work toward a common goal. As Senator McConnell 
and I have said here on the floor on a number of occasions, these are 
difficult times. The Senate is divided 51 to 49. Although we are in the 
majority, it is a slim majority. And our will has been tested this past 
year and a half. As we remember very clearly, one of our Senators got 
very ill before we were even able to swear in the Presiding Officer and 
others of the nine Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator. But 
we worked our way through that.
  We have worked our way through a lot of difficult issues, and I say 
to my friend the Republican leader, I know, frankly, that I get upset 
at him sometimes, but I always try to do it in a way that I hope brings 
dignity to this body. He has a job to do, I have a job to do, and we 
will continue to do that. I am happy we have been able to get to the 
point where we are today.

[[Page 14029]]


  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me add briefly that we are on a 
glidepath to completion here of a number of extremely important 
measures to our country, from the supplemental, which will fund the war 
in Iraq and Afghanistan, which also includes an important new veterans 
benefit program; to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which 
has helped protect us against attacks since 9/11; to an important 
Medicare bill, which will be resolved in one way or another in the next 
few weeks; to an important housing bill. In each of these instances, we 
will end up getting a bipartisan result at some point in the very near 
future on very important issues for the American people. So I think 
today has been very successful in crafting a pathway--a glidepath, if 
you will--to completion. I share the majority leader's view that this 
was a day of considerable accomplishment on major issues for the 
American people.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Republican leader has completed his 
statement, I would ask unanimous consent that the final 20 minutes--10 
minutes for Senator McConnell and 10 minutes for me--be reserved for 
us. If other people want to come and use that time, we will use leader 
time, but prior to the vote we would ask for the opportunity to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




MEDICARE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PATIENTS AND PROVIDERS ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO 
                                PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to H.R. 6331 is 
considered to have been made under the previous order.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 836 (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 PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 60 minutes for debate on that 
motion.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when we finally vote on the floor, it is 
on the Medicare Program. The Medicare Program is literally a life-and-
death program for 40 million Americans. For 40 million Americans who 
are either over the age of 65 or disabled, this is their health 
insurance program.
  It was created back in the 1960s. When it was created by President 
Lyndon Baines Johnson, its critics said: This is too big. This is too 
much government. This is socialized medicine, they said. And many voted 
against it, saying it was a mistake. Well, after 40 or more years, we 
know it wasn't a mistake. It may be one of the most thoughtful and 
important programs enacted since Social Security because it gave peace 
of mind to senior citizens. They knew when they reached that moment in 
life when they were likely to be more vulnerable to illness and 
disease, they would have health insurance. They could go to a hospital 
or doctor and get basic care and not worry about whether they were 
wealthy enough to have health insurance or enough savings to cover a 
medical catastrophe. So this program, which was derided and criticized 
for being too much government, has been one of the great success 
stories of this country, and the seniors value it. Every one of them 
values it.
  My brother, who retired from the private sector in his early 
sixties--a pretty conservative fellow when it comes right down to it, 
politically--turned out to have had some heart problems. And it turned 
out he also didn't have any health insurance after he retired. He was 
really waiting and hoping he could make it to the age of 65 before 
something else would happen because a few more trips to the hospital 
and a few more surgeries might have really hurt his retirement plans. 
He made it. He is covered by Medicare and doing well. And that is just 
one example of thousands that can be given.
  So we have a vote today which should be a pretty simple vote. It was 
a very simple vote in the House of Representatives. There is a proposal 
to cut the reimbursement, the compensation, for doctors under Medicare 
by about 10 percent on July 1. I think that is a bad idea. These 
providers don't get paid a lot of money for treating Medicare patients, 
and to cut their reimbursement may force many doctors to say: We just 
can't see as many Medicare patients or maybe none at all. So fewer 
doctors, if this pay cut goes through, are likely to treat Medicare 
patients. That is not a good outcome. It means that many of the 
Medicare patients won't be able to go to the doctors who have been 
treating them for long periods of time and there will be real 
uncertainty about their future. So we wanted to make sure this pay cut 
did not go into effect July 1.
  The House of Representatives considered this, and in an overwhelming 
bipartisan vote they voted not to cut the pay for doctors treating 
Medicare parents. The vote was 355 to 59. That is a 6-to-1 margin in 
the House of Representatives--totally bipartisan. You would think a 
bill with that kind of vote would come over here without much 
controversy. But, of course, those people don't know how to measure the 
Senate.
  In the Senate, there have been those on the other side of the aisle, 
the Republican side, who have found reason to object to this effort to 
make sure Medicare doctors get fair pay. It comes down to a lot of 
reasons they have given, but as they say in politics--or as one old 
fellow I used to work for by the name of Cecil Partee, a State senate 
president in Illinois, used to say--for every vote, there is a good 
reason and a real reason. Well, they are using as a good reason here to 
vote against this protection of Medicare doctors that, unfortunately, 
it might involve some increase in taxes or changes in private health 
insurance. The real reason? The real reason is that this bill goes 
after--in a small way--private health insurance companies that are 
selling Medicare coverage, the so-called Medicare Advantage companies.
  You see, there are many on the Republican side who haven't gotten 
over the debate in the 1960s. They still think Medicare is socialism. 
They still think this is too much government. They want to privatize 
this. They believe we could rest easy every night if we were in the 
loving arms of a health insurance company. They obviously haven't had 
to pick up the phone and talk to some clerk in the middle of nowhere 
who is denying your claim because of something in the policy you didn't 
know existed--which has happened to many people across America. No, on 
the Republican side, they are afraid that any cutback in the profit 
taking by these private health insurance companies will be 
uncomfortable for some of their friends. So they are prepared to allow 
this cut in pay for doctors under Medicare to go through to protect the 
private health insurance companies offering Medicare coverage.
  So I guess the honest question is, Are the private health insurance 
companies doing a better job than the Medicare Program? The honest 
answer is no. Do you know how much more they charge than the 
Government's Medicare Program? About 17 percent more. They will throw 
in a few bells and whistles, but about 17 percent more. So it isn't as 
if they are cheaper. They are not.
  Secondly, it turns out they are using bullying and strong-arm tactics 
to convince a lot of senior citizens to sign up for those so-called 
Medicare Advantage Programs, so much so that we have had to investigate 
this, and we are going to have to do everything we can to stop this 
from continuing.
  Third, we just had a report from the General Accounting Office. These 
so-called private health insurance companies--it turns out the medical 
care they were reporting for seniors was overstated. They weren't 
giving them the care that was promised. Instead, they were taking more 
profit out of the system.
  If you are a free market advocate who believes that it is caveat 
emptor--let the buyer beware--you can buy into this idea of private 
health insurance companies doing so well, making so

[[Page 14030]]

much money, bullying seniors, and not giving them medical care 
promised. I don't buy it and I think they ought to be held accountable. 
If there is one thing we ought to protect, it is the seniors in 
America, who have done so much for this country and now need our help 
in their retirement years. That is what Medicare is all about.
  We are going to have a vote in about 45 or 50 minutes. We need 60 
votes to protect these doctors who are providing help under Medicare. 
We only have 51 on our side of the aisle, the Democratic side. We need 
nine Republicans to cross the aisle to join us in this effort to do the 
right thing for Medicare.
  I don't think it is an unreasonable idea that 9 out of the 49 
Republicans would join us when in the House of Representatives the same 
measure passed by a vote of almost 6 to 1 in favor of it.
  This is a good bill, not only because it helps Medicare to continue 
to thrive because it helps beneficiaries pay their premiums if they are 
in a low-income category, it helps pharmacists, it helps many others. 
It has been endorsed by virtually every major organization of 
physicians, seniors, pharmacists, and hospitals. They know this bill is 
critically important.
  If the Republicans fail to give us the votes necessary to reach 60 
votes on the next rollcall, doctors across America treating Medicare 
patients will take a 10-percent cut in pay in a few days. That is the 
reality. Those who have voted that way are doing it in order to protect 
private health insurance companies who are trying to compete with 
Medicare. Those private health insurance companies have plenty of 
lobbyists. They are politically articulate. They can be found in the 
corridors of the Capitol day in and day out. But those folks are not 
speaking for the seniors. The seniors want us to stand up and make sure 
we keep Medicare strong and Medicare providers are there to make sure 
they get the very best care.
  I hope my Republican colleagues will not go in lockstep with the 
private health insurance companies but will, in fact, stand for the 
Medicare Program, join the overwhelming bipartisan majority in the 
House of Representatives who supported this bill. If it costs these 
private health insurance companies 1 or 2 percent, is that the end of 
the world, that they would have to give back a little bit of the money 
they are taking out of our Federal Treasury? I do not think it is. I 
think they have been shown to charge more than the Medicare Program, to 
provide less than they publicly disclose in terms of medical benefits, 
and to engage in marketing tactics which should not be condoned by the 
Senate.
  I hope we will have a good bipartisan rollcall here. It will be a 
great way to end the session as we break for the Fourth of July recess.
  I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I don't understand why this has to be 
characterized as a partisan issue as my colleague from Illinois has 
done. He said there is a proposal to cut doctors' pay. There is no such 
proposal. Nobody wants to cut physicians' pay. In fact, I daresay all 
100 Senators here are in support of ensuring that physicians get paid 
an increase in the pay next year from what they are paid this year. 
What happens is that the law provides an automatic pay cut so we have 
to pass a bill to prevent that automatic pay cut from taking effect.
  I am on the Finance Committee. A few weeks ago Senator Baucus, the 
chairman of that committee, who has a long history of working with 
Senator Grassley regardless of which party is in the majority, proposed 
that we work in a bipartisan way to draft a bill to ensure the 
physicians would be paid. Those discussions commenced. They produced a 
bipartisan agreement. Then, before that agreement was brought to the 
Senate floor, the majority announced it wanted instead to substitute a 
partisan bill that we would seek to consider on the Senate floor. We 
had a cloture vote on that bill and it failed to get cloture.
  My colleague says he hopes Republicans will not vote in lockstep. I 
can assure my colleagues here Republicans will not vote in lockstep. 
Democrats will vote in lockstep. There will not be a single Democrat 
who votes differently. Republicans will be divided.
  If this is a partisan issue, it is only a partisan issue because 
Democrats will vote in lockstep and because the Democrats insisted on 
bringing a partisan bill to the floor. That was rejected, so Senators 
Baucus and Grassley returned to their negotiations. Again they were 
about done with those negotiations 2 days ago when the House scheduled 
a vote on its own bill and that bill passed. Again that upset the 
bipartisan discussions that were occurring here in the Senate. As a 
result, the majority leader decided to bring the House bill to the 
Senate and ask us to support the House bill. Again, the negotiations 
stopped.
  The vote we are going to have today will either allow the Baucus-
Grassley negotiations, bipartisan negotiations, to be completed or send 
a bill to the President which he will veto--meaning a great deal of 
time will be lost by the time that bill gets to the President, he ends 
up vetoing it, he sends it back to the Congress and we presumably 
sustain the veto. Then what happens after that? Bipartisan negotiations 
resume.
  We can cut out all of that political folderol by simply returning 
this bill to the people who were negotiating it in the first place. 
Either way, July 1 will come with no solution. That is a problem for 
the physicians. The veto route virtually assures that physicians will 
feel the impact of a 10.6 percent cut in payment because of the amount 
of time it will take for us to complete our work.
  On the other hand, if cloture is defeated and the bipartisan 
negotiations can quickly resume, then, depending upon when we could 
pass something after July 4, it is possible that the reimbursement 
checks could reflect the new rates without the cuts ever being applied.
  If you are interested in a truly bipartisan solution in a body that 
is 51 to 49, if you are interested in minimizing the potential impact 
on physicians, do not vote for the House bill that we know will never 
become law.
  Let me conclude with this point. The House bill makes some radical 
changes in Medicare. It doesn't just reimburse physicians; it increases 
Medicare spending by $17 billion over 10 years. It makes larger cuts to 
Medicare Advantage, the highly successful insurance program for 
America's seniors. This will minimize patient choice in both rural and 
urban areas and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 2 
million seniors would lose their fee-for-service plans by the year 2013 
under the House bill. It would significantly restrict Part D plans' 
ability to negotiate prescription drug prices.
  We can do better than this. We should return to the bipartisan 
negotiations and pass a truly bipartisan bill which will ensure that 
physicians will be paid and Medicare patients will be served.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, here we are again. Once again the Senate 
is being asked to vote to proceed to a bill that is written on a 
partisan basis. As everybody knows who knows how the Senate functions, 
anything that is on a partisan basis does not get done.
  Once again we are being asked if we want to agree to a process where 
no amendments will be allowed. Once again we are being told to take it 
or leave it. The damage that is being done to the ability of this body 
to function is extraordinary. It should not be this way and it doesn't 
have to be this way.
  I say this from a lot of experience I have had on the Finance 
Committee and, most importantly, my experience working with Senator 
Baucus, the chairman of the committee. During the last several years, 
the Finance Committee has produced numerous bipartisan health care 
products.
  In 2003, Senator Baucus and I joined together, defied the long odds 
against it and produced a Medicare Prescription Drug bill.
  In 2005, we worked together on a relief package in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina.

[[Page 14031]]

  In 2006, we passed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act.
  In 2007, we worked together on a bipartisan Children's Health 
Insurance Program Reauthorization Bill. We also passed the Medicare, 
Medicaid, and Children's Health Insurance Program Extension Act of 
2007.
  I could go on and on. For years the Finance Committee has been the 
model of how a committee can work on a cooperative--and that basically 
means on a bipartisan--basis. I think we work best when we work 
together. For some reason that has not seemed to be the case this year 
and that is not Senator Baucus's fault.
  I have tried to work this year to get a bill that could get signed 
into law. I personally think the White House is drawing lines in the 
sand that are unreasonable. However, there is a fact of our 
Constitution: The President holds the veto pen and if this bill passes 
today, we will see it used, and that is regardless of this Senator's 
position that maybe the White House has been too strict.
  I tried to work toward a bill that can be signed by the President, 
because those are the facts of life. Obviously that was not the path 
the majority of the Senate--meaning the majority party--could follow. 
Even after the first cloture vote, even after it failed in the Senate, 
I tried to get a bipartisan compromise that could be signed into law. 
That effort was abandoned when the House voted to support the bill on 
which the Senate couldn't get cloture. That is not a realistic position 
for the other body to take but it doesn't matter; they took it, so we 
are here.
  When we were in charge around here, I can say we certainly didn't 
appreciate it when, under Republican control in the House of 
Representatives, the Ways and Means Committee tried to dictate terms to 
this body. When Ways and Means Chairman Thomas tried to roll the 
Senate, I think I successfully defended the bipartisan Senate position. 
When I was chairman of the Finance Committee, I don't recall our 
bipartisan efforts being determined by House votes. To the contrary, I 
think we worked together in spite of House votes. In fact, the House 
budget--or the congressional budget adopted in the year 2003 that had 
provisions in it for taxes when the President of the United States 
wanted a $700 billion tax cut--I told enough Republicans in the Senate 
that I would not bring out of conference a tax bill that had more than 
half that amount, $350 billion.
  I didn't tell the House of Representatives that before they voted on 
their budget, but they passed a budget that we could get enough votes 
to pass in the Senate because of the promise I made to some Republicans 
that we were not going to be dictated to by the White House or by the 
House of Representatives. And we didn't do more than a $350 billion 
package. Was there an uproar among House Republicans against me, when I 
had told enough Republicans in the House what we would do on that tax 
bill. So I think I have defended our position.
  But let's be clear about another thing. That House vote I referred to 
went the way it did because Members were assured that the Senate was 
going to fix the problem in this bill. But we are in a process where we 
cannot fix that problem. They are counting on us to fix it so we would 
have a bill the President would sign. They are right about one thing: 
This bill does need to be improved. The bill the Democrats are trying 
to pass is woefully lacking in what it provides for rural America as 
opposed to what Senator Baucus and I were agreeing to by 11 o'clock 
Tuesday of this week.
  I wish to call out one specific provision. Senator Harkin and I have 
worked extensively on a provision for so-called ``tweener'' hospitals. 
These are hospitals which are too large to be critical access hospitals 
but too small to do well under the current Medicare payment systems. We 
had a provision to improve payments to these hospitals. It is not in 
the House Democrats bill, so a vote for cloture misses an opportunity 
to provide critical assistance to rural hospitals all over the country. 
I am sure Senator Harkin and others are disappointed, as I am, with 
this omission. This is not something just for Iowa and for Senator 
Harkin and for Senator Grassley; this is something that affects 181 
hospitals in 31 different States in this country. But that was left out 
in the House of Representatives. Why? Because the House of 
Representatives is controlled by the big States, by the big cities, and 
they don't care about rural America.
  Voting for this bill accomplishes nothing. It will not become law. 
How much more clear can we be about that? To keep the pay cut of 
doctors from happening, we have to defeat this motion so we can sit 
down and finally produce a bill that can become law.
  To improve Medicare, we have to produce a bill that can become law, 
and that means being signed by the President of the United States. To 
make sure that beneficiaries continue to have access to essential 
therapy services, we have to produce a bill that can become law. To 
help beneficiaries, we have to produce a bill that can become law. How 
many times do I have to say that?
  To preserve access for durable medical equipment for seniors, we have 
to produce a bill that can become law. We have to be allowed to do our 
work in the Senate. And that work only gets done if we have 
bipartisanship.
  We have to be allowed to produce the best bill possible through 
bipartisan compromise. Let's show that we can work on a cooperative 
basis. We have to defeat this motion so that we preserve the right of 
the Senate to have input on legislation, that we are not simply a 
rubberstamp for the House.
  We should defeat this motion so that we can show that bipartisanship 
is not dead on important health care issues that matter to millions of 
people who depend on us as stewards of Medicare. Let's do the right 
thing and vote no. Vote no so this body does not abdicate its duties 
under the Constitution. Vote no so that we can get a bill done this 
week that can become law. Vote no so that we can get the job done.
  A ``yes'' vote accomplishes nothing because it is going to delay for 
2 weeks everything to be considered because of the President vetoing 
this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 20 minutes, of which 10 
minutes are reserved for the majority leader.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will use a maximum of 5 minutes to 
respond to some of the points that were made.
  First, let me say how much respect I have for Senator Grassley. He is 
the ranking member on our Finance Committee. He is a very conscientious 
and fair individual with whom I have enjoyed working on many matters.
  On this particular issue, I disagree with him. Let me point out there 
were three arguments made: First, that this is not bipartisan; it is 
clearly not the bipartisan agreement he and Senator Baucus were working 
to develop, but it is clearly a bipartisan agreement.
  I am informed that 129 Republicans in the House voted for this bill. 
That is two-thirds of the Republicans who serve in the House. The vote 
in the House was 355 in favor. So this is a bipartisan bill by any 
definition. The fact that it has come from the House of Representatives 
rather than originating in the Senate, of course, is another matter. 
But it is bipartisan.
  The second point, of course, is that there are important things that 
have been left out. I do not doubt that there are important things that 
have been left out and that I would like to see included. But the 
reality is, we have a bill that does important things; particularly, it 
heads off the expected cut in physician payments that is scheduled to 
occur next Tuesday. That is a very important provision. And I think it 
makes all the sense in the world for us to pass what we have in front 
of us, pass what the House of Representatives has passed, fix the 
problems that legislation fixes, and then come back at a future time 
and try to solve these other problems, many of which I am sure I would 
wind up agreeing with my colleague from Iowa.
  The third point is that we should oppose this because the President 
has

[[Page 14032]]

said he would veto it. Frankly, I am not clear as to the substantive 
reason the President thinks this bill should be vetoed.
  I believe strongly that the way the system is intended to operate is, 
Congress sends bills to the President. If he vetoes them, then Congress 
sees whether it has got enough votes to override the veto. If we do 
not, of course we have to take a different course.
  In this circumstance, it looks to me like at least the House of 
Representatives has enough votes to override a Presidential veto, if 
the President were to take that course. I do not know what we would 
have in the Senate. I hope very much we would have the necessary 67 
votes. I think it would certainly be in the interests of the people I 
represent in New Mexico to see this legislation enacted and enacted 
quickly.
  So I urge my colleagues to support it and hope that colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle will support the legislation.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Medicare Improvements for 
Patients and Providers Act, H.R.6331, which makes a number of needed 
changes related to Medicare reimbursement, including reimbursement for 
physicians' services.
  Medicare physician fee schedule payments are updated each year 
according to a complex formula based on a sustainable growth rate, SGR. 
Unfortunately, because of the way the formula is calculated, even if 
Congress prevents the cuts in a given year, scheduled reimbursements 
cuts are likely to increase in subsequent years unless Congress takes 
additional action, such as developing a permanent alternative to the 
SGR formula.
  I support efforts to ensure that physicians receive adequate 
reimbursement for their services. It could be financially unsound for 
physicians to continue to provide services to Medicare beneficiaries if 
reimbursement is inadequate. As a result, allowing reimbursement cuts 
to enter into effect could pose significant access problems as 
physician's are unable to afford providing services to Medicare 
beneficiaries in need of medical attention.
  While I believe past measures to alleviate this burden on physicians 
have been helpful, I know from my discussions with health care 
providers throughout Michigan that more needs to be done. For the long 
term, Congress must find an alternative to the SGR. The SGR is linked 
not to the cost of providing health services, but to the performance of 
the overall economy. The cost of health care has been rising much 
faster than inflation. Our Nation should address the rising costs of 
health care as part of a larger discussion on health care reform. 
Reimbursement should more accurately represent the cost of providing 
services.
  In the meantime, I support this legislation, which includes a delay 
on Medicare reimbursement cuts for physicians' services and replaces 
the cut with a 1.1-percent increase for 2009. I am hopeful that the 
Senate will pass this legislation and that the President will heed the 
will of Congress and the American people and sign this bill into law 
before the cuts enter into effect on July 1.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, today I wish to express my disappointment 
in the straight extension of the current temporary assistance for needy 
families, TANF, supplemental grant program, which is included in the 
Medicare bill. I oppose the extension of this program without updating 
the 10-year-old statistics that qualify States for participation in the 
program, and without the appropriate reauthorization and consideration 
of changes necessary to ensure that this assistance is being afforded 
to the States that need it most.
  The TANF Supplemental Grant program was created in 1996 to provide 
additional assistance to States that spend less money per poor person 
on TANF services. Seventeen States qualified for additional TANF 
benefits under this program based on certain statistics collected at or 
around that time. More than 10 years later, these States are still 
receiving supplemental grant benefits based on the same 10-year-old 
statistics. A straight extension of this program does not award this 
assistance based on current conditions in States.
  There is no doubt that our nation is facing challenging economic 
times. Rising gas prices, rising unemployment States, the housing 
crisis and rising food prices all place a particularly significant 
burden on less fortunate families. Some state TANF programs are seeing 
increased caseload pressure.
  South Carolina can only afford to spend 29 percent of the national 
average per poor child on TANF services compared to some States that 
spend well over the national average. To make matters worse, South 
Carolina did not and has not qualified for the supplemental grant 
program due to an old statistic that has since changed.
  Senator Rockefeller and I introduced a proposal to allow States that 
spend below the national average on TANF services to participate in the 
supplemental grant program. Using updated statistics, our legislation 
would ensure that the dollars spent on this program are appropriately 
directed to States that need it most so that they can help struggling 
families get on their feet and back to work.
  Unfortunately, the Senate Finance Committee chose to quickly pass 
this extension as a part of a larger bill in order to avoid the 
discussion of reauthorization and changes necessary to update the 
supplemental grant program. I am disappointed some States, like South 
Carolina, and families that might otherwise receive this additional 
assistance will not have the opportunity to benefit from a mere update 
of the current program, or from the consideration of Senator 
Rockefeller's and my proposal.
  I am committed to ensuring that Federal dollars spent on welfare 
services and benefits are spent efficiently. I am disappointed that the 
reauthorization of the supplemental grant program did not receive the 
attention it deserves, and I am hopeful that this can be addressed in 
the future.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support the Medicare Improvement for 
Patients and Providers Act of 2008. We must quickly enact this 
legislation in order to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries continue to 
have access to health care, enhance Medicare benefits, and extend 
Medicaid disproportionate share, DSH, allotments for Hawaii.
  This essential legislation will maintain Medicare physician payment 
rates for 2008 and provides a slight increase in 2009. If this 
legislation fails to pass, doctors will be faced with a 10.6-percent 
cut in Medicare reimbursements. Rising costs, difficulty in recruiting 
and retaining staff members, and declining reimbursement rates make it 
necessary to make improvements in Medicare reimbursements to ensure 
that Medicare beneficiaries have access to health care services.
  The bill will enhance Medicare benefits. It will increase coverage 
for preventive health care services and make mental health care more 
affordable. In addition, the Act will help low-income seniors access 
health care services that they need.
  In addition, this legislation includes a provision that extends 
Medicaid DSH allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee for another 18 months. 
Medicaid DSH resources support hospitals that care for Medicaid and 
uninsured patients.
  Hawaii and Tennessee are the only two States that do not have 
permanent DSH allotments. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created 
specific DSH allotments for each State based on their actual DSH 
expenditures for fiscal year 1995. In 1994, Hawaii implemented the 
QUEST demonstration program that was designed to reduce the number of 
uninsured and improve access to health care. The prior Medicaid DSH 
program was incorporated into QUEST. As a result of the demonstration 
program, Hawaii did not have DSH expenditures in 1995 and was not 
provided a DSH allotment.
  The Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection 
Act of 2000 made further changes to the DSH program, which included the 
establishment of a floor for DSH allotments. States without allotments 
were again left out.
  The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 
2003 made additional changes in the DSH program. This included an 
increase in DSH allotments for low DSH

[[Page 14033]]

States. States without allotments were again left out.
  In the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, DSH allotments were 
finally provided for Hawaii and Tennessee for 2007. The act included a 
$10 million Medicaid DSH allotment for Hawaii for 2007. The Medicare, 
Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 extended the DSH allotments 
for Hawaii and Tennessee until June 30, 2008.
  This extension authorizes the submission by the State of Hawaii of a 
State plan amendment covering a DSH payment methodology to hospitals 
which is consistent with the requirements of existing law relating to 
DSH payments. The purpose of providing a DSH allotment for Hawaii is to 
provide additional funding to the State of Hawaii to permit a greater 
contribution toward the uncompensated costs of hospitals that are 
providing indigent care. It is not meant to alter existing arrangements 
between the State of Hawaii and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services, CMS, or to reduce in any way the level of Federal funding for 
Hawaii's QUEST program.
  I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Baucus, Ranking 
Member Grassley, and Senators Alexander, Corker, and Inouye to 
permanently restore allotments for Hawaii and Tennessee. I thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee for all of their 
efforts on this issue of great importance to my home State of Hawaii.
  Mr. President, Hawaii's health care providers continue to struggle to 
care for our growing number of individuals that are uninsured. These 
DSH resources will strengthen the ability of our providers to meet the 
increasing health care needs of our communities.
  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. BINGAMAN. 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. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any time 
under a quorum call on this bill be equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, under the consent agreement that was 
entered, I have 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will yield back the remainder of my time, and then 
am I correct that the only remaining speaker is the majority leader?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me be clear, my side, led by 
Senator Grassley, has been willing to compromise to get a bill that 
could become law. Everyone agrees we need to fix the physician payment 
system. There is no disagreement on that. As Senator Grassley has 
pointed out, we have offered to negotiate. We have offered to extend 
current law. We have tried to find a way to solve the problem. 
Unfortunately, the majority apparently is not interested. The bill we 
are voting on would cause 2 million seniors to lose the extra benefits 
they currently get in their Medicare Advantage plans. It would rob 
millions of rural seniors of the ability to choose a private fee-for-
service plan. I worry about the impact that it would have on the 
Kentucky teacher retirement system.
  We have a solution that would protect seniors' access to care, that 
would prevent a 10.6-percent cut in physician payments in Medicare, 
that would provide billions of dollars to help rural beneficiaries 
access care. This is a solution that could become law right away. I 
hope the majority can find a way to take one of the solutions we are 
offering so that physician payments are not cut and seniors' Medicare 
benefits are not put in jeopardy.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, these are some of the organizations that 
support the Medicare bill now before the Senate. We have the American 
Association of Retired Persons, the AARP; Alzheimer's Association; the 
American Academy of Oncology; the American Academy of Audiology; the 
American Academy of Family Physicians; the American Academy of 
Opthalmology; American Ambulance Association; American Association of 
Nurses Anesthetists; American Cancer Society; American College of 
Cardiology; American Heart Association; American Hospital Association; 
American Medical Association, the AMA; American Medical Technologists; 
American Optometric Association; the American Osteopathic Association; 
American Psychological Association; American Society of Plastic 
Surgeons; Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; Cleveland Clinic--to name a 
few institutions--National Osteoporosis Foundation; National Renal 
Administrators Association; National Rural Health Association; 
Parkinson's Action Network; Schizophrenia and Related Disorders 
Alliance of America; Society for Thoracic Surgeons; Suicide Prevention 
Action Network; Medical Rights Center; National Community Pharmacists 
Association.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record more than 200 
organizations that want every Senator to vote to finish this 
legislation, to complete this legislation, to pass this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 H.R. 6331, ``Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 
                2008'' List of Supporting Organizations

       Alliance for Aging Research; Alliance for Retired 
     Americans; Alzheimer's Association; AMAG Pharmaceuticals, 
     Inc.; American Academy of Audiology; American Academy of 
     Dermatology; American Academy of Family Physicians; American 
     Academy of Ophthalmology; American Academy of Otolaryngology; 
     American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; 
     American Ambulance Association; American Association of 
     Bioanalysts; American Association of Cardiovascular and 
     Pulmonary Rehabilitation; American Association for Clinical 
     Chemistry; American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry; 
     American Association for Homecare; American Association of 
     Homes and Services; American Association of Medical Colleges; 
     American Association of Nurse Anesthetists; American 
     Association of Retired Persons (AARP).
       American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN); 
     American Clinical Laboratory Association; American College of 
     Cardiology; American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP); 
     American College of Nurse Midwives; American College of 
     Obstetricians and Gynecologists; American College of 
     Osteopathic Internists; American College of Physicians; 
     American College for Preventive Medicine; American College of 
     Radiology; American College of Surgeons; American Counseling 
     Association; American Diabetes Association; American 
     Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations 
     (AFL-CIO); American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees; American Geriatrics Society; American Health Care 
     Association; American Heart Association; American Hospital 
     Association; American Kidney Fund; American Lung Association; 
     American Medical Association (AMA); American Medical Group 
     Association.
       American Medical Technologists; American Mental Health 
     Counselors' Association; American Nephrology Nurses' 
     Association; American Occupational Therapy Association; 
     American Optometric Association; American Osteopathic 
     Association; American Pharmacists' Association; American 
     Physical Therapy Association; American Podiatric Medical 
     Association; American Psychiatric Association; American 
     Psychological Association; American Public Health 
     Association; American Regent, Inc.; American Renal 
     Associates, Inc.; American Society of Anesthesiologists; 
     American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery; American 
     Society for Clinical Laboratory Science.
       American Society for Clinical Pathology; American Society 
     for Microbiology; American Society of Nephrology; American 
     Society for Nutrition; American Society of Pediatric 
     Nephrology; American Society of Plastic Surgeons; American 
     Speech-Language-Hearing Association; American Stroke 
     Association; American Telemedicine Association; American 
     Thoracic Society; American Osteopathic Association; American 
     Urological

[[Page 14034]]

     Association; Amgen; Association of American Medical Colleges 
     (AAMC); Association for Community Affiliated Plans; Board of 
     Nephrology Examiners and Technology; California Dialysis 
     Council; California Medical Association; Campaign for Tobacco 
     Free Kids; Center for Clinical Social Work.
       Center for Medicare Advocacy; Centers for Dialysis Care; 
     Cleveland Clinic; Clinical Laboratory Coalition; Clinical 
     Laboratory Management Association; Clinical Social Work 
     Association; Coalition of State Rheumatology Organizations; 
     College of American Pathologists; Colorectal Cancer 
     Coalition; National Osteoporosis Foundation; National 
     Partnership for Women and Families; National Patient Advocate 
     Foundation; National Renal Administrators Association; 
     National Rural Health Association; Northwest Kidney Centers; 
     Parkinson's Action Network; Partnership for Prevention; 
     Prevent Cancer Foundation; Prostrate Cancer Coalition; Quest 
     Diagnostics.
       Renal Advantage, Inc.; Renal Physicians Association; Renal 
     Support Network; Renal Ventures Management, LLC; Roche 
     Diagnostics; Satellite Healthcare; Schizophrenia and Related 
     Disorders Alliance of America; Society of Gynecologic 
     Oncologists; Society of Hospital Medicine; Society of 
     Thoracic Surgeons; Society for Vascular Surgery; Suicide 
     Prevention Action Network USA (SPAN USA); Susan G. Komen for 
     the Cure Advocacy Alliance; U.S. Renal Care; Watson Pharma, 
     Inc.; Y-ME National Breast Cancer Organization.
       Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Health Task 
     Force, The Council for Quality Respiratory Care; Da Vita, 
     Inc.; Diabetes Access to Care Coalition; Dialysis Patient 
     Citizens; DSI, Inc.; Easter Seals; Emergency Department 
     Practice Management Association; Families USA; Federation of 
     American Hospitals; Food Marketing Institute; Fresenius 
     Medical Care North America; Fresenius Medical Care Renal 
     Therapies Group; Genzyme; Health Industry Distributors 
     Association; ITEM Coalition; Kidney Care Council; Kidney Care 
     Partners; Laboratory Corporation of America; Lance Armstrong 
     Foundation; Leadership Council of Aging Organizations.
       Lutheran Services in America; Marshfield Clinic; Mayo 
     Clinic; Medical Group Management Association; Medicare Rights 
     Center; Mental Health America; National Alliance on Mental 
     Illness; National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and 
     Associated Disorders; National Association of Chain Drug 
     Stores; National Association of Community Health Centers; 
     National Association for Medical Direction of Respiratory 
     Care; National Association of Nephrology Technicians and 
     Technologists; National Association of Social Workers; 
     National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsmen 
     Programs; National Association of State Mental Health Program 
     Directors; National Association for the Support of Long-term 
     Care.
       National Committee to Preserve Social Security and 
     Medicare; National Committee for Quality Assurance; National 
     Community Pharmacists Association; National Council on Aging; 
     National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare; 
     National Home Oxygen Patients Association; National 
     Independent Laboratory Association; National Kidney 
     Foundation; National MS Society.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, this bill has many items in it, one of which 
we call the doctors' fix, which prevents a 10.6-percent pay cut for 
physicians who participate in Medicare. It provides a payment freeze 
for 2008 and a 1.1-percent update for 2009. These are very important to 
the medical community.
  The reason this legislation is important is, sure, the doctors should 
not have to take a pay cut. But the main thing is, this bill does not 
protect physicians; it protects patients because doctors have been 
dropping out of Medicare for a long number of years. There are many 
physicians in America today who will not treat Medicare patients 
because the payments are too low. But it is a spiraling effect. It is a 
snowballing effect. Many reimbursements through insurance companies and 
other organizations are based on what the Medicare reimbursement is. If 
this is low, then doctors all over the country will be affected. 
Patients will be affected. People, I repeat, will no longer be able to 
be treated by their physicians.
  We know all these doctors' organizations that are part of this 200-
plus organizations I submitted, the reason they are in favor of it is 
they want their physicians to treat Medicare patients. This will drive 
people out of Medicare.
  We all recognize that President Bush does not like Social Security. 
He does not like Medicare. He wants them to go away. He wants to 
privatize Social Security, and he wants to do away with Medicare. This 
is his effort to do so. But it is the wrong thing to do. It is 
certainly the wrong thing to do.
  This legislation will provide help for rural health care deliverers. 
Beneficiary investments are significant. Yet there are additional 
provisions in this legislation for pharmacies, dialysis patients, 
community health centers, ambulances, rural providers, e-prescribing, 
psychologist, social workers, and many others.
  This is a fine piece of legislation. Remember, we already over here 
had an opportunity to do work on this bill. Every Democrat voted for 
it, and nine Republicans. Here is where we find ourselves tonight. 
Earlier this week, the House passed this identical legislation by a 
vote of 355 to 59. The Presiding Officer and I served in the House of 
Representatives. That is an overwhelming vote. It was a bipartisan 
vote. Democrats and Republicans voted for it. The legislation they 
passed would help, as I have stated, Medicare beneficiaries and head 
off looming cuts facing doctors.
  Why is Medicare important? My first elective job was on a hospital 
board. We ran countywide in Clark County, Las Vegas. It was my first 
elective job. During the time that I was on that hospital board was a 
transition period. During the time I was there, Medicare passed back 
here and became the law all over the country. So for a part of my term, 
there was no Medicare for patients coming into Southern Nevada Memorial 
Hospital. The rest of the term, it was.
  Prior to Medicare passing, 40 percent of the senior citizens who came 
to that hospital had no insurance. What happened is that wives, 
mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, neighbors, friends would have to 
sign that they would be responsible for their bill. If they didn't pay 
the bill, we had an extremely big collection department. It was a 
county hospital. It was an indigent facility. We would go after those 
people who would sign that these people needed hospital care.
  After Medicare came into being, 99-plus percent of the seniors who 
come into a hospital have health care through Medicare. It is a 
wonderful program. Is it a perfect program? No. But is it a program 
worth following President Bush over the ledge to destroy it? That is 
what is going to happen tonight, Mr. President. If the Republicans do 
not support this legislation, they are having Medicare go over the 
cliff. People will be devastated by what is happening.
  We have all had people visit our offices, I hope, this week. They 
visited mine, talking about how devastating this would be--not to the 
doctors. The doctors are going to survive with a 10-percent pay cut, 
most of them. But they are going to drop out of the system. It hurts 
the patients, and that is what this is all about.
  Medicare is an important program. It is part of the legacy of our 
country, and we know our health care delivery system is in trouble. 
Medicare is one of the strong parts of it. We should continue it, not 
destroy it. A ``no'' vote on this legislation tonight is destroying 
Medicare.
  The House bill was very similar to a bill drafted by Senator Baucus 
and supported by every Senate Democrat and many Senate Republicans 
earlier this month. We all know the issue must be resolved by July 1. 
It must be resolved by July 1. Our Republican colleagues argue, there 
will be other opportunities to address this issue. That, using a term 
of the marketplace, is a ``loss leader.'' There is no other way to do 
this. We have to do it tonight or it won't be done. July 1 comes next 
week. We are out of session next week. The House is out of session now. 
If not, they will be shortly. There are no other opportunities to 
address this issue. Some ask for a 30-day extension. A 30-day extension 
requires passage by this body and the House. The House, if they are not 
adjourned, soon will be. Both Speaker Pelosi and the House majority 
leader have issued statements that could not be more clear.
  Quoting Speaker Pelosi:

       The House will not consider any further Medicare 
     legislation.

  This means that the 30-day extension is not an option, a week 
extension is not an option, a 10-minute extension is not an option.
  The bill we seek to proceed to represents the only chance for 
Congress to head off the cuts that doctors will face

[[Page 14035]]

at the end of this month. This is a good piece of legislation.
  Some Republicans also say the Senate should have more time to speak 
on the bill and debate it. Yet the same Senators who make those claims 
are the ones who voted against proceeding it 2 weeks ago. You can't 
have it both ways. We asked to proceed to this 2 weeks ago. It was 
objected to.
  We have had an interesting situation in the Senate.
  I have a chart I have asked to be brought out here. Obviously, no one 
is running very hard to bring it, but it should be here quickly.
  We have had an unusual situation. This is, it appears, the 79th 
filibuster. That is too bad: to filibuster something to preserve 
Medicare? That is what this is all about. It is too bad. This is 
legislation that is important.
  I say to everyone within the sound of my voice, there are no excuses. 
This is it. You go home and explain to your family physician: Well, I 
wanted to talk about it more or I wanted a 20-day extension; they would 
not give it to me.
  We have had 79 Republican filibusters, and the sad part about it is, 
we are still counting. Remember, this is our Velcro chart. Remember, a 
short time ago, it was 78. We stuck on a ``9'' back there, and I guess 
when we come back after the recess we will have to peel that off and 
put on an ``8'' and a ``0.'' Seventy-nine filibusters: untoward. And 
people who refuse to vote to let this legislation pass are destroying 
Medicare in the near future--certainly during the next 6 months.
  Senate Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken, I guess. 
They have the audacity to say there are other ways of doing this. But 
in this game of chicken, the only losers will be Medicare patients--old 
people. Doctors will lose.
  The Republicans who choose to block this important bipartisan 
legislation are going to lose. If there was any doubt that Republicans 
will regret this path of blindly following on this legislation, one 
need only look at their own. One need only look at a Congressman by the 
name of Wally Herger. Wally Herger is a long-time experienced 
Congressman. He represents the Second District of California. Here is 
what he did when he realized how good this legislation was. He realized 
that by blindly following the Republicans--who he thought knew what 
they were doing in the House--he made a big mistake.
  Congressman Wally Herger was one of 59 Members in the entire 435 
Members of the House of Representatives--one of 59--to vote against 
this legislation. Now, this is not some new guy who made a mistake 
because he did not know what hole to punch in the deal over there. He 
voted, and as soon as dawn broke in the House, he was on the House 
floor saying: I made a big mistake. Help me out of the dilemma I am in.
  In fact, he was so concerned about this, he sent a letter to all of 
his constituents in his congressional district. He said, among other 
things:

       From my conversations with House Republican leaders, it was 
     my understanding that the bill--

  The bill we are debating right here tonight; this bill--

     voted on by the House was primarily a political exercise. . . 
     .

  It was ``primarily a political exercise.''
  And he said:

       Clearly, the outcome of today's vote changed the dynamics 
     of the situation.

  Now, this is a direct quote from someone in the House of 
Representatives, a couple days ago, who voted against this legislation. 
Here is what he said:

       Clearly, the outcome of today's vote changed the dynamics 
     of the situation. . . . Had I known the process would play 
     out this way, I would have supported the House bill. And if 
     the bill comes back to the House for final approval, I intend 
     to fully support it.

  Now, my friend, Wally Herger, whom I know--I used to see him in the 
House gym--recognizes he has made a big mistake, and he takes a full 
page and sends this letter to all his constituents saying: I made a big 
mistake. Forgive me.
  So Senate Republicans do not have the luxury of changing their minds 
like Congressman Herger did because right now you have to make a 
decision, and you know what the facts are. Wally Herger learned them 
later. And I am sure the other 58 who voted ``no'' feel the same way. 
This was an overwhelming vote in the House of Representatives on a 
totally bipartisan basis to do the right thing for the American people. 
We must decide now whether to stick with President Bush as lemmings 
going over the cliff, or should we do the right thing and pass this 
legislation?
  A ``no'' vote will wreak havoc on our health care delivery system in 
America. And who will it hurt the most? It will hurt the most senior 
citizens. And it would be too bad as we leave here for 10 days that 
this legislation will, in the vernacular, go down. It should not. This 
is legislation that is meritorious. As Wally Herger said, if he had 
understood the dynamics of this legislation, he would not have voted 
``no.''
  Mr. President, I believe it is time for the vote.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, 
which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients 
     and Providers Act.
         Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Debbie Stabenow, Jeff Bingaman, 
           Patty Murray, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Thomas R. 
           Carper, Mark L. Pryor, John F. Kerry, Dianne Feinstein, 
           Richard Durbin, Daniel K. Inouye, Bill Nelson, Bernard 
           Sanders, Jon Tester, Jim Webb, Frank R. Lautenberg.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call is waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients 
and Providers 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 160 Leg.]

                                YEAS--58

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dole
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McConnell
     Reid
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Specter
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 58, the nays are 
40. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have something that is long overdue. We

[[Page 14036]]

have an agreement to take care of this. Nelson Mandela will soon be 90 
years old, in a matter of days. The old organization he was a member of 
decades ago--and he is probably still a member, but I am not too sure--
the African National Congress is still treated as a terrorist 
organization. This takes care of that. We will eliminate that. So the 
people coming here from that great country, which has done so well for 
so long now, will be able to come in without being considered 
terrorists.

                          ____________________




 REMOVING THE AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS FROM TREATMENT AS A TERRORIST 
                              ORGANIZATION

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 852, H.R. 5690.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5690) to remove the African National Congress 
     from treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts 
     or events, provide relief for certain members of the African 
     National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other 
     purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
with an amendment, as follows:

                               H.R. 5690

       On page 2, strike line 12 through the end of line 21 and 
     insert the following:

       (a) Exemption Authority.--The Secretary of State, after 
     consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, or the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
     after consultation with the Secretary of State and the 
     Attorney General, may determine, in such Secretary's sole and 
     unreviewable discretion, that paragraphs (2)(A)(i)(I), 
     (2)(B), and (3)(B) (other than clause (i)(II)) of section 
     212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1182(a)) shall not apply to an alien with respect to 
     activities undertaken in association with the African 
     National Congress in opposition to apartheid rule in South 
     Africa.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased the Senate will pass this 
legislation to exempt the African National Congress from designation 
under the Immigration and Nationality Act as a ``terrorist'' 
organization.
  The historic role that the African National Congress played in ending 
the era of Apartheid in South Africa is well known, and I suspect that 
its designation as a terrorist organization is a surprise to many 
Americans. That the organization Nelson Mandela helped create to fight 
against an official policy of racism is deemed a terrorist organization 
is wrong and should be corrected.
  I commend Senator Kerry and Congressman Berman for their attention to 
this issue, and the Members of the Judiciary Committee--Senators Biden, 
Schumer, Whitehouse, Feingold, and Cardin--who have lent their support 
to this effort.
  The overly broad laws Congress passed in haste after September 11, 
2001, continue to unnecessarily bar legitimate asylum seekers from the 
sanctuary of the United States. I worked to ensure that the 
administration has the authority to waive these laws for organizations 
and individuals, but the administration has been unwilling to exercise 
this authority of its own accord.
  Secretary Rice quite rightly pointed out that her government 
counterpart in South Africa must apply for a waiver of the material 
support bar in order to enter the United States for an official visit, 
and that it is an embarrassment. I would hope and expect that this 
embarrassment is no less acute when victims of violent conflicts are 
denied asylum in the United States because of these same laws.
  The Judiciary Committee's recent oversight hearing with Secretary 
Chertoff was an example of an administration that will only make the 
tough, but correct decisions when the scrutiny or public embarrassment 
becomes too much. At this hearing, Secretary Chertoff announced that 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reversed its position on a 
green card denial for an Iraqi who had been admitted into the United 
States on a special visa from Iraq. Salam Kareem Ahmad entered the 
United States after working as a translator for U.S. Marines in Iraq, 
and after receiving commendation from General Petraeus, only to be 
denied a green card by the administration.
  Despite all of the administration's rhetoric about its commitment to 
freedom and democracy, DHS determined that Mr. Ahmad's involvement with 
an anti-Saddam Hussein group, the Kurdish Democratic Party, amounted to 
involvement with a terrorist organization. It should not take political 
pressure and media scrutiny to do the right thing. But in light of the 
administration's inattention to resolving injustices created by the 
material support bars, Congress is once again compelled to do what the 
administration can and should be doing on its own.
  There is much work to be done by Congress and the next administration 
to fully resolve the terrible consequences these laws have brought 
about. I intend to continue working toward ensuring that our 
immigration and asylum laws are not used in a manner to harm those who 
come to the United States seeking its refuge and assistance. Our 
policies concerning asylum seekers have demonstrated America's 
commitment to human rights. The material support and terrorism bars 
that have prevented so many from our protection are a blemish on this 
legacy.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to say a few words about the impending 
passage of H.R. 5690 and my amendment to that bill. My amendment 
narrows the individualized waiver provisions in the bill by excluding 
from waiver eligibility persons who are convicted of controlled-
substances offenses and those for whom there is reason to believe that 
they will engage in terrorist activity after entry into the United 
States. The amendment also requires that the activities for which 
waiver is sought have been conducted ``in association with the African 
National Congress.''
  With my amendment, the bill's grant of authority does not exceed that 
created by section 691 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, on 
which I commented on December 18 of last year. Separate legislation is 
not needed to exempt Class III groups that are eligible for a waiver 
under section 691, a class that surely includes the African National 
Congress. I hope that in the future such matters will be addressed 
administratively rather than legislatively. Nevertheless, by enacting 
today's bill we impress upon the executive the importance of exercising 
that authority in a prompt and thorough manner. We trust, of course, 
that the executive will not use such authority to grant waivers to 
persons who, for example, engaged in violence that was deliberately 
targeted at innocent civilians. But we do expect the relevant agencies 
to act to avoid the diplomatic embarrassments of the past. With the 
changes made by my amendment, I commend H.R. 5690 to my colleagues.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time, 
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the 
matter be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read the 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The bill (H.R. 5690), as amended, was passed.

                          ____________________




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 6331

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, with regard to the Medicare issue upon 
which we just voted, we have had a number of discussions in the course 
of the week about the way forward. Senator Grassley has made it clear 
he would like to lead us in negotiations with the majority, represented 
by Senator Baucus, to bring us together to get this Medicare extension 
completed. The way to do it is on a bipartisan basis.

[[Page 14037]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of a Senate bill, which I will send to the 
desk. It is a clean 30-day extension of the Medicare payments bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the 
third time, and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. We are seeing 
another partisan game being played on something that affects the 
American people.
  I have laid out in detail what this legislation does and what will 
happen to the American people if it doesn't pass. Obviously, the 
Republicans in the Senate have done what they feel is appropriate and 
that is to wipe out Medicare as we know it today.
  People can chuckle all they want, but the senior citizens in America 
today and the health care delivery system are not chuckling. This is 
very important.
  What has happened in this legislation tonight is detrimental to the 
health care delivery system, which is precarious at best even now.
  There are no winners in their game--the game of the Republicans. It 
is noteworthy here----
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is my good friend objecting to my request?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am objecting, and I will use leader time 
to make a statement.
  It is obvious that everybody can see there were 59 votes in favor of 
this. We needed 60. They have played this game before, going only to 
59, and they are going to try to wiggle out of it some way. The only 
way to wiggle out of this is to accept this legislation.
  My friend, the Republican leader, said he wants Ranking Member 
Grassley to lead us to a bipartisan agreement. We have a leader. He is 
called the chairman of the committee. He is the chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Max Baucus, one of the most experienced Members of this 
body. And he also has some experience in the other body. He led us to 
what is the right thing to do.
  The majority of the Senate--in fact, 59 Senators--approved what we 
are trying to do today. I say to all my friends, even if this request 
were granted and I laid this out in some detail, the House would not be 
able to pass it.
  I wish I could use a better term, but I did not graduate from 
Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. This is a phony excuse, this is a phony 
exercise and leads us only down one path--no help for patients and cuts 
for doctors.
  By the way, I don't mean to disparage those schools. They are OK.
  If my Republican friends truly wanted to prevent the physician fee 
cut from taking effect, they would have supported passage of this bill. 
In the record that is now before this body are more than 200 
organizations that are begging that this legislation pass. This is the 
only bill we can send to the President in time to meet the deadline, 
the deadline that is established by law, July 1. The House did its 
work. They passed a bipartisan compromise by a 6-to-1 margin, 355 House 
Members to 59.
  Moreover, even if the 31-day proposal could be passed, it does not 
solve any problems. It is an administrative nightmare. Medicare 
physicians and the beneficiaries they serve want the House-passed bill. 
They are not served by this false proposal.
  I, of course, object, as I hope the record reflects, to this request 
and hope that my Republican colleagues will finally--one more, we only 
need one, one more Republican will do the right thing. I have said we 
are all here by virtue of being elected by our respective States. I had 
out here earlier today our Velcro chart, 79 filibusters. Is it any 
wonder that the House seats that came up during the off year--Hastert's 
went Republican, a Republican district that went Democratic; a seat in 
Louisiana that was a longtime Republican seat went Democratic. Is it 
any wonder that the State of Mississippi sent us a Democratic House 
Member? It is no wonder because they see what is going on over here.
  I am very sorry for the people of our country that this legislation 
did not pass. But I want the record spread--Democrats to the number, 
every one of us, except Senator Kennedy, who is ill, voted for this 
legislation. If Senator Kennedy was not ill, he would have been here to 
vote. He would have been the 60th vote. We understand they probably 
would have peeled off 1 and it would have been 59.
  The record should reflect that Democrats support this legislation 
because it is good for the American people. A majority of the Senate, 
59 Members of the Senate, voted for this legislation. We will be back, 
and my colleagues will have another opportunity to vote for this bill. 
It will be led by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator 
Baucus.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe I have the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor.
  The path the majority leader just recommended we go down leads to a 
Presidential veto and an expiration of this law at the end of the week 
and a certain doc fix rejection. In other words, the doctors cut is 
going to go into effect at the end of this month because of this 
recalcitrant view, this excessively partisan approach that refuses to 
accept any input from this side of the aisle.
  We have all known the way forward. In fact, Senator Grassley and 
Senator Baucus working together started the way forward months ago by 
working together to get a bipartisan agreement, which is the way we 
have typically done these periodic Medicare bills. But, no, my good 
friend the majority leader jerks him back in and says: We want to do 
this on a strictly partisan basis. We don't care whether the President 
will veto the bill.
  Here we are a few days before the doctors receive this unconscionable 
cut, and the majority is saying it is more important to play politics 
with this issue, to brag about the fact there are 59 Democrats who 
voted to go forward, to talk, of all things, during the Medicare debate 
about who won special elections for the House of Representatives in 
Illinois, Mississippi, or Louisiana. What in the world does that have 
to do with the subject matter?
  The subject matter before us is not playing political games not 
bragging about the fact that every Democrat voted to go forward. We 
ought to be talking about the reality of this situation. And the 
reality is that the refusal of the majority to approach this issue on a 
bipartisan basis, as has been typically done in the past, will lead to 
a Presidential veto, a reduction in the reimbursement rates for 
doctors, an expiration at the end of the week. There is a way forward 
to get back together like we have typically done on this, and that is 
to approve a 30-day extension.
  My good friend the majority leader has just objected to an 
opportunity to prevent the physicians' reduction we all agree should 
not occur. He is objecting to it. So even the most casual observer 
could not miss the point.
  You have an opportunity to prevent the physicians' pay reimbursement 
reduction or let the law expire at the end of the week. That is the 
choice. It is perfectly clear.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am sure it was a Freudian slip--59 
Democrats voted for this. But next year at this time, there will be 59 
Democrats at least. We have a situation where we have a clear 
bipartisan piece of legislation. How bad could it be? Mr. President, 
355 Members of the House of Representatives.
  The Founding Fathers set up two equal branches within the legislative 
branch. The House is just as powerful as we are. They have every right 
to do what they think is right, as we do, and they, on a bipartisan 
basis, 6 to 1, passed this bill. We are not jamming anything down 
anyone's throat. The House of Representatives passed this on a 
bipartisan basis because it was the right thing to do. We have read 
into the Record the apology of one of the 59

[[Page 14038]]

who recognized he voted wrong, and he apologized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, will the majority leader yield for a 
question?
  Mr. REID. In just a minute. A veto by the President? Gee whiz, who 
would be afraid of him? He has a 29-percent approval rating. How in the 
world could anybody be afraid of him vetoing a bill? I cannot imagine 
why anyone would care about that.
  We have tried to pass tonight on the Senate floor a bill we received 
from the House of Representatives that was approved by Republicans and 
Democrats. It has been through the committee process over there and 
over here as a result of all the work that has been done. And to think 
at this late hour, recognizing the House is not going to do anything--
the Speaker has told us that. They passed a bill 6 to 1. Why would we 
even think they would take anything? The Speaker and the majority 
leader of the House said: We are not going to deal with this anymore.
  We are going to have another opportunity--I want everyone over here, 
all my friends to understand that during the next 10 days, think about 
how you are going to vote on this the next time because you are going 
to have that opportunity. You go home and explain to all the 200-plus 
organizations whose names are in this Record right now, explain to them 
how you were doing the right thing because you were afraid President 
Bush was going to veto a bill.
  I will be happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. McCONNELL. When the President of the United States vetoes a bill, 
it doesn't become law, right, unless it is overridden?
  Mr. REID. Absolute truth.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So if the President vetoes this bill, it is not likely 
that the fix will be prevented at the end of the week; is that right?
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend and I say I don't know how many people 
are up here for reelection, but I am watching a few of them pretty 
closely, I say to all these people who are up for reelection: If you 
think you can go home and say, I voted no because this weak President, 
the weakest political standing since they have done polling, I voted 
because I was afraid to override his veto--come on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We probably don't need to prolong it much further, but 
in spite of the political observations of my good friend, the fact is, 
the President, as a matter of principle, will not sign this bill. At 
the end of the week, the doctors' reduction in reimbursement will go 
into effect. There is a way to prevent that, and that is to do a short-
term extension to give us an opportunity to do what we have done in the 
past on these measures, and that is negotiate a settlement. That has 
been prevented by my good friend.
  I think we have discussed this issue long enough. We have others 
waiting to debate the supplemental.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
proceed to H.R. 6331 is withdrawn, and the bill is returned to the 
calendar.

                          ____________________




                 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate a message 
from the House.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the 
     Senate to the amendments of the House to the amendment of the 
     Senate to the bill (H.R. 2642) entitled ``An Act 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,'' with 
     amendments.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to concur 
in the House amendments to the Senate amendment to the House amendment 
to the Senate amendment to the bill is considered made.
  The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WEBB. Are we in order to proceed on the supplemental?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for up to 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I don't expect very many people to vote 
against this supplemental. It comes to us from the House with a vote, I 
recall, of 416 to 12. The President asked for most of the provisions in 
this bill. The one provision I would like to speak very briefly about 
tonight is the GI bill provision that is in this supplemental. This is 
not an expansion of veterans' benefits. This is a new program. This is 
the first wartime GI bill benefit since Vietnam.
  I wish to thank very much people on both sides of the aisle for all 
the work we have been able to do. There were 11 Republicans who 
cosponsored this provision, in addition to others who voted for it the 
first time around. There were more than 300 sponsors in the House. 
Those sponsors in the House included 90 Republicans.
  I especially express my appreciation to Senator Hagel and Senator 
Warner, as well as Senator Lautenberg, for being the principal 
cosponsors along with me on this measure, also Chairman Akaka of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee and the majority leader, who was with us 
early on.
  There are people on my staff who were working on this every day for 
18 months, it is a very complex bill: Paul Reagan, my chief of staff; 
Michael Sozan, my legislative director; William Edwards, my legislative 
assistant for veterans' affairs; Jacki Ball; Jessica Smith and Kimberly 
Hunter, who are on our communications staff; Phillip Thompson and Mac 
McGarvey, both former Marines, who worked hard early on. And those from 
the staff of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs: Bill Brew, staff 
director, and Babette Polzer.
  This is a landmark piece of legislation that will be in this 
provision. There are going to be a lot of veterans in the United States 
who are going to be very happy with the Senate tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Texas is 
recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I know the time is late. This is a 
very important bill. It is one that has many good features, and the 
good features certainly outweigh the bad features. I know we never get 
everything we want in Congress. We certainly heard a lot about that a 
few minutes ago. I wish to talk about a couple of very important parts 
of this bill.
  Also in the GI bill is something I worked very hard to put in that 
bill, which is the transferability of the education benefits that a 
person in the military now is able to transfer to a spouse or children.
  There are many people who don't want to leave the military to take 
that education opportunity, but they would love to give their spouse or 
their child that opportunity. It is now in this bill. Very important.
  It also incorporates a bill that I introduced early this year, again, 
for veterans. Who would have thought, Mr. President, that someone who 
dies serving our country in Iraq and leaves behind a $300 bill due the 
Veterans' Administration for education benefits--that they were not 
able to finish because they gave their life in the war--would then get 
a bill from the Veterans' Administration for that $385? In fact, Mr. 
President, that is what has been happening since we went into the war 
on terror.
  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs asked me to introduce a bill so he 
would not have to do that because he knew it was wrong and that we 
wouldn't want it being done. This bill we are voting on tonight will go 
retroactive to 9/11, 2001, and it will assure that every family who has 
been sent a bill and paid that bill, after their loved one has died in 
service to their country, will be reimbursed, and no bill will ever go 
out again. That is in this bill, and I am very proud we finally passed 
it.
  Also in this bill is the Merida Initiative, as part of the 
supplemental. In my home State, and all the border States with Mexico, 
we are seeing violence with drug cartels that are now targeting our law 
enforcement officers on our side of the border as well as those in 
Mexico. They are dying trying

[[Page 14039]]

to stop the drug cartels that are importing drugs into our country. The 
Merida Initiative that President Bush and President Calderon have put 
together is a part of this supplemental. I had hoped that we could also 
help our local law enforcement officials who do not have the equipment 
they need to deal with these more violent, more sophisticated drug 
cartels, but I am telling you right now I am going to pursue that in 
the next bill we pass that is an appropriations bill because our local 
law enforcement officials are certainly in need of our help.
  We didn't get that in this bill, and I am disappointed, but there 
will be another day. We have to do this together. We have to stop the 
drug infusion into our country and stop these heinous crimes that are 
being committed by the drug cartels in Mexico.
  So I support this bill. I hope we will all support it. It is a 
supplemental. Most of it is what the President asked for. We didn't all 
get what we wanted, but it is a worthy bill to support.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I plan to raise a point of order in a 
moment, but first I wish to make a statement.
  The emergency spending bill being considered by the Senate would 
provide $210 million for the 2010 Census. No strings are attached to 
the funding, giving the Census Bureau freedom to spend the money in any 
way it chooses. While the mission of the Census Bureau is vitally 
important because of its role in apportioning the House of 
Representatives and the distribution of billions of dollars in federal 
grants, the agency has proved to be notoriously bad at spending 
taxpayer money--and the last thing Congress should do is provide more.
  Emergency spending bills should be reserved only for true 
emergencies, and the 2010 Census is not one of them. The Census Bureau 
has spent hundreds of millions of dollars over the past 8 years 
preparing for the 2010 Census. Yet, even that much time and that much 
money has not been enough to prevent the Bureau from being woefully 
underprepared.
  One of the top priorities for the 2010 Census was modernizing the 
method for collecting census data so that technology would replace the 
traditional pen and paper method. One former Director of the Census 
Bureau called the modernization effort a ``significant improvement'' 
over the way data had been collected in the past.
  Modernization of the census would take two forms:
  First, allowing citizens to fill out census forms over the Internet, 
rather than on paper only.
  Second, equipping census workers who go door-to-door to collect 
information with handheld computers instead of paper forms.
  Two contracts were awarded to build the technology: one to Lockheed 
Martin for, among other things, the development of an online system and 
a second to the Harris Corporation for the development of the handheld 
computers. Unfortunately, mismanagement and incompetence forced the 
Census Bureau to abandon both the Internet in March 2006 and the 
handheld computers in April 2008 as a means of collecting data. In 
place of technology, the Bureau has decided to revert back to an 
entirely paper-based system--exactly the same way census data was 
collected 200 years ago.
  According to the Census Bureau, the reason for abandoning technology 
and reverting to paper was its own failure to communicate what it 
wanted to the contractors. The result was a great deal of confusion, 
schedule delays and irreversible cost overruns. According to the 
Government Accountability Office, the Census Bureau was warned 
repeatedly that problems would mount if it failed to define what it 
wanted the contractor to do. Instead of taking action, the Bureau kept 
changing its mind about what it wanted. As recently as January 16, 
2008--nearly 2 years after the contract was awarded--the Census Bureau 
made 400 changes to the contract for handheld computers. To this day, 
the Census Bureau has still not finalized the handheld computer 
contract with the Harris Corporation and may not do so until September.
  The Census Bureau's mismanagement of the handheld computer contract 
has become the poster-child for how not to run a large information 
technology contract. Poor management by the Bureau has diminished the 
role that technology will play in the 2010 census to the point of 
embarrassment. Americans will take their Census by paper at the same 
time that more than 80 million people are filing their Federal taxes 
online according to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 75 
percent of all adults are actively online. That percentage increases to 
between 85-90 percent for adults under the age of 50.
  According to the Census Bureau, the impact of abandoning technology 
in the 2010 Census will be a $3 billion overrun. This would bring the 
total price tag of the 2010 Census to roughly $14.5 billion--or more 
than double the cost in 2000. Congress should not reward mismanagement 
at the Census Bureau with an additional $210 million in emergency 
funding for FY 2008. It is unfair that Congress would ask taxpayers to 
bail out the Census Bureau for its incompetence in light of the 
repeated warnings that cost overruns would result from its poor 
management.
  Because the problems of the Census Bureau are of its own making, any 
additional funding needs for fiscal year 2008 should come out of the 
budget of the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce. The real 
``emergency'' with the 2010 Census is the failure, mismanagement and 
incompetence of the Census Bureau.
  According to Congress' own rules, emergency spending is only allowed 
for needs that truly cannot wait until the next spending cycle. These 
rules are not difficult to understand and lay out clearly what is and 
what is not an emergency.
  There are many activities funded in the bill that are not actual 
emergencies according to the rules, but at the top of the list of non-
emergencies is the $210 million for the 2010 Census. The 2010 Census 
may go down in history as one of the worst managed and most expensive 
of all time, primarily because it saw enormous problems on the horizon 
and chose to ignore them--leading to the emergency today.
  Problems at the Census Bureau have been obvious to auditors and to 
Congress for years, and the funding in this bill is nothing more than a 
taxpayer-subsidized bailout for a mismanaged and incompetent agency. 
The Senate should uphold a point of order against the $210 million 
included in this bill for the 2010 Census because it violates every 
definition of emergency spending and provides no accountability for how 
the money will be spent by an agency that has proven that it 
desperately needs accountability.
  According to the rules, spending can only qualify as an emergency if 
it meets all of the following criteria:
  It is a necessary expenditure--an essential or vital expenditure, not 
one that is merely useful or beneficial;
  It is sudden--coming into being quickly, not building up over time;
  It is urgent--a pressing and compelling need requiring immediate 
action;
  It is unforeseen--not predictable or seen beforehand as a coming 
need, although an emergency that is part of an overall level of 
anticipated emergencies, particularly when estimated in advance, would 
not be ``unforeseen''; and
  It is not permanent--the need is temporary in nature.
  Not only does funding for the Census fall short of meeting all of the 
criteria for emergency spending, it actually fails to meet any of the 
criteria.
  According to Senate Concurrent Resolution 21, any emergency funding 
for the Census would have to be ``necessary, essential, or vital--not 
merely useful or beneficial.'' The purpose of this rule is to separate 
true emergencies from needs that can wait for the regular 
appropriations process. An accurate count of the population is 
important for apportioning the House of Representatives, but that alone 
does not qualify it for emergency funding.
  One of the best ways to determine whether funding is ``necessary'' or 
``vital'' is to ask the following basic

[[Page 14040]]

question: ``How does the Census Bureau plan to spend $210 million?'' If 
funding is truly necessary then there should be a clear answer to that 
question in the form of a specific plan stating the emergency and how 
the money would be spent. So, what is the money for? The answer is: no 
one knows.
  The Census Bureau has not requested any emergency funding from the 
emergency supplemental appropriations bill, nor has it provided a plan 
for how the money would be spent if received. At a March 6, 2008, 
hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, 
and Science, Chairman Barbara Mikulski directly asked both the Commerce 
Secretary, Carlos Gutierrez, and the Census Director, Steven Murdock, 
whether they needed emergency funding. Sen. Mikulski gave them a 
deadline of April 10 to make their request, but both the Secretary of 
Commerce and the Director of the Census Bureau declined to request any 
funding. In response, the Commerce Department stated that it did not 
need emergency money because plenty of funding was available within the 
department's existing budget. On April 3, 2008--a week ahead of Sen. 
Mikulski's deadline--Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez instead sent 
Congress a request to allow the Department to reprogram the 
department's existing funds to cover the cost overruns at the Census 
Bureau. Reprogramming existing funds would force the Department of 
Commerce to offset an increase in Census funding and to bear the burden 
of its own mistakes rather than placing the burden on taxpayers. On 
June 9, the President sent a letter to Congress asking for an increase 
to its fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Census, but also 
provides offsetting decreases to other programs. The Administration has 
stated that it would like for all Census money to come from non-
emergency spending, which would ensure that the Census Bureau's needs 
are not paid for out of deficit spending.
  Unfortunately, Congress has chosen deficit spending over fiscal 
responsibility by including $210 million in this bill for the Census. 
Congress would rather spend additional taxpayer money than cut existing 
program budgets within the Department of Commerce. Including money in 
this bill for the census shows little regard for taxpayers, viewing 
them as a source of easy money rather than as people who work hard for 
their income. Congress is simply playing games with the budget rules 
and driving up the deficit.
  Senate rules require that emergency spending bills be reserved only 
for needs that are ``sudden, urgent and unforeseen'' in nature. The 
United States has been conducting a census every 10 years since 1790 as 
required by the Constitution and therefore is never unforeseen.
  The Census Bureau is, however, currently facing a likely $3 billion 
cost overrun for the 2010 Census because of its decision to abandon the 
use of handheld computers and rely exclusively on paper. Only by 
stretching the meaning of ``sudden, urgent and unforeseen'' beyond 
recognition can it be said that the Census Bureau did not see this 
problem coming. More than 18 months ago, the Census Bureau itself 
recognized that abandoning the handheld computers for paper would 
result in a cost increase for the 2010 Census of at least $1 billion.
  On August 31, 2006, Former Census Director Louis Kincannon wrote a 
letter to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management with the 
following warning about reverting to a paper-based census:
  ``In addition to significant cost increases to the 2010 Census, 
reverting to a paper-based operation will compromise efforts to 
improving coverage . . . and will significantly increase the risk of 
operational failure during the 2010 Census.''
  Even as that letter was written, the Census Bureau was being warned 
that its poor management of the handheld computer project could force 
the Bureau to revert to an all-paper census. The problems and cost 
overruns that are materializing today were predicted publicly for a 
long time, but the Census Bureau ignored the warnings and took no 
action to prevent the problems.
  Chairman Henry Waxman, of the House Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, has extensively documented the warnings that were given to 
the Census Bureau over several years. In addition, the Census Bureau 
was warned repeatedly by the Government Accountability Office, the 
Commerce Inspector General, the MITRE Corporation and Congress about 
its poor planning of the 2010 Census. Each step along the way, the 
Bureau systematically ignored every warning, leading to the schedule 
delays and cost overruns being experienced today. The following 
chronology shows clearly that the current problems being experienced by 
the Census Bureau are not ``sudden, urgent or unforeseen.''
  January 2004--GAG recommended that the Secretary of Commerce develop 
a ``single integrated project plan'' for executing the 2010 Census, 
including how to incorporate technology. The Census Bureau ignored the 
recommendation and moved forward without a plan.
  September 2004--The Commerce Inspector General warned that the Bureau 
should follow a number of key ``software engineering practices'' to 
avoid pitfalls with the handheld computers. These included doing a 
better job with ``system requirements'' and overseeing its contractor. 
The contract for the handhelds was awarded to the Harris Corporation 
with very few details about what should be produced--more than two 
years later the plans are still not finalized.
  June 2005--GAG warned the Census Bureau that the agency was ``at 
increased risk of not adequately managing major IT investments and is 
more likely to experience cost and schedule overruns and performance 
shortfalls.'' GAO made several recommendations aimed at improving 
weaknesses in the Bureau's management of information technology. The 
Census Bureau failed to adequately respond to these recommendations.
  March 2006--As the Bureau was getting ready to award the contract to 
the Harris Corporation, GAO warned that the agency did not have a 
``full set of capabilities they need to effectively manage the 
acquisitions.'' Unless the problem was to be addressed, GAO warned that 
technology problems could lead to ``cost overruns, schedule delays, and 
performance shortfalls.'' The Census Bureau ignored the warnings and 
still has not addressed them more than two years later.
  June 2006--The Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management 
held a hearing on the Census and then-Director Louis Kincannon was 
asked about whether there was a backup plan if the handheld computers 
did not work. Even as the GAO was raising concerns that technology for 
the 2010 Census was in jeopardy, the Director said that no backup plan 
was needed since the computers were guaranteed to work, and said the 
following:
  ``You might as well ask me what happens if the Postal Service refuses 
to deliver the census forms.''
  July 2006--GAO issued a report stating that if the Census Bureau did 
not do more to ensure the success of the handheld computers, it would 
be faced with the ``possibility of having to revert to the costly 
paper-based census used in 2000.''
  April 2007--GAO testified before Congress that ``uncertainty 
surrounded'' the handheld computers because the devices were not being 
properly tested and The Census Bureau ignored the warnings.
  June 2007--The Census Bureau's private, independent consultant--the 
MITRE Corporation--sounded a loud alarm and warned that the Bureau's 
continued refusal to make final specifications could put the entire 
census at risk of severe cost overruns. Census Bureau management 
dismissed the warning.
  July 2007--GAO testified again before a Senate subcommittee that 
there were ``technical problems with the handheld computing devices'' 
and that ``risk management activities'' were ``imperative.'' Failure to 
address these concerns could threaten to overtake the handheld computer 
project.
  October 2007--Once again GAO, with a rising sense of urgency, warned 
that the handheld contract faced ``an increased probability that 
decennial systems will not be delivered on schedule

[[Page 14041]]

and within budget.'' The Census Bureau did not disagree with this 
assessment.
  November 2007--MITRE Corporation executives called an emergency 
meeting with the Deputy Director of the Census to recommend that he 
develop a backup plan for paper because the problems with the handheld 
computers were so severe.
  December 2007--In the last days of the year on December 11, the 
outgoing Director of the Census Bureau testified at a House hearing 
about the handheld computers and brushed off any concerns raised by 
Members. He denied that any serious problems existed or that there were 
any significant delays or cost overruns.
  For years, there were warnings raised to the Census Bureau on nearly 
a monthly basis at times, but those warnings were patently ignored and 
disdained by Census management. Not until February 2008--when the media 
caught wind of the true situation--did the Census Bureau acknowledge 
publicly that there was a serious problem with the handheld computers 
and that large cost overruns were likely.
  In testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee on March 
5, 2008, the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, took it one step 
further and accepted responsibility for failing to act earlier. He 
said:
  ``Clearly the problem was more significant than had been conveyed in 
the December 11 hearing.
  In testimony before the Committee on April 15, Secretary Gutierrez 
admitted that the Bureau was aware of problems by early 2007, when he 
said:
  ``Concerns about the [handheld computer) program grew over time and 
Census and Commerce officials became increasingly aware of the 
significance of the problems through GAO and Office of Inspector 
General reviews, the 2007 dress rehearsal and internal assessments.''
  None of these concerns were relayed to Congress until it was too late 
and emergency funding was the only recourse. With this chronology of 
events, it is simply not possible to claim that any problems with the 
2010 Census being seen today are ``sudden, urgent and unforeseen.'' 
They have been just the opposite: unsurprising, longstanding and 
predictable.
  Without diminishing the importance of the 2010 Census, the funding in 
this bill does not meet the definition of an emergency by a long shot. 
The problems surfacing today were not only predicted many times in the 
past few years, but were documented publicly in numerous congressional 
hearings. A vote to waive the rules on emergency spending in this 
situation is a vote to render the emergency spending rules meaningless. 
A vote to waive the rules is also a vote to reward incompetent 
management at the Census Bureau despite its ignoring years of repeated 
warnings that problems were on the horizon.
  In order to qualify for emergency funding, it must be proved that 
funding for the 2010 Census is ``temporary in nature.'' The rule is 
intended to ensure that needs that are long-standing or ongoing do not 
get funding under emergency rules. Rather, only those needs that are 
short-lived can qualify as an emergency.
  No activity of the U.S. Government has existed for a longer period of 
time nor has an activity of the government been as predictable as the 
decennial census. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution states that 
``The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the 
first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every 
subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law 
direct.'' With these words, the Founding Fathers established that a 
census of the entire population would be taken every ten years in 
perpetuity. Since the birth of the Nation more than 230 years ago, a 
census has been taken every 10 years--few things in government are as 
permanent as the census.
  It should come as a surprise to no one that there will be a census in 
2010, least of all to Congress and to the Census Bureau. $210 million 
in emergency spending should not be included in a bill that is intended 
only for measures that are ``not permanent'' or ``temporary.''
  The Census Bureau finds itself today as the recipient of a bailout 
from Congress because it has been taught by past experience to expect a 
bailout whenever times get tough. The example of the 2000 Census 
provides an illustration of how the expectation of a congressional 
bailout drives up costs because it decreases concerns about getting the 
best price.
  By the late 1990s, census planners were operating under the 
assumption that the 2000 Census would cost $4 billion--then the most 
expensive of all time. At the time, the Census Bureau was planning to 
use a method of data collection known as ``sampling'' during the 2000 
Census. On January 25, 1999, only 15 months before Census Day 2000, the 
Supreme Court ruled that sampling was not allowable, and that the 
Census Bureau would have to redesign the 2000 Census.
  Although the issue was highly controversial, and subject to a ruling 
by the Supreme Court, the Census Bureau failed to make any plans 
whatsoever in the event that sampling would not be allowed. In 
September 1999, GAO reported that: ``The bureau did not begin detailed 
budgeting for a nonsampling-based census until after the Supreme Court 
ruled that the Census Act prohibited the use of statistical sampling.'' 
Thus, poor planning and mismanagement forced the Census Bureau to 
request an additional $2.6 billion from Congress during the final year 
of preparations.
  Congress was faced with the decision to either cut $2.6 billion from 
existing programs or designate the new funding as an emergency. Not 
surprisingly, Congress chose to designate the $2.6 billion as an 
emergency since it allowed the funding to get around the budget rules 
that would have otherwise required spending cuts. It is the worst kept 
secret in Washington that emergency spending is nothing more than a 
ploy by politicians to bust through the budget caps and spend more 
money. Although Members of Congress were spared from having to make any 
difficult choices, taxpayers were not so lucky.
  Today, for the 2010 Census, Congress is once again facing a decision 
about how to come up with $3 billion. And, once again it wants to pay 
for it on the backs of the American people. Management at the Census 
Bureau is smart enough to know that Congress will never hold the agency 
accountable for its mismanagement of taxpayer dollars, as evidenced by 
the $210 million in this bill. Congress should begin holding the Census 
Bureau accountable today and sustain the point of order against 
emergency funding for the census in this bill.


 members of congress have repeatedly noted that census problems were a 
         failure of management, not the result of an emergency

  By providing $210 million to the Census Bureau, Congress is 
disregarding the findings of its own committees. There have been no 
fewer than five committee hearings in the past 3 months detailing the 
long-standing failures of the Census Bureau to properly manage the 2010 
Census.
  Several members of Congress from both parties and both houses have 
commented over the past several months about the poor management of the 
Census Bureau and the shocking indifference it showed towards those 
that tried to raise a warning. The following statements have been made 
in recent months by various Members of Congress.
  On March 6, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Justice and State 
Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Barbara Mikulski, said that it was 
``shocking'' that the 2010 Census will be done the same way ``we've 
been doing censuses for 200 years.'' Senator Mikulski also stated that 
``a paper census in America borders on a scandal.''
  On June 18th, the ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee, Senator 
Richard Shelby, said that the $3 billion cost overrun is the result of 
``gross mismanagement of the Census Bureau in acquiring hand held 
computers.''
  In March 2008, Representative Carolyn Maloney called the management

[[Page 14042]]

of the 2010 Census a ``mess'' and said that ``what we're facing is a 
statistical Katrina.'' In April 2008, upon hearing that the Census 
Bureau decided to abandon the handheld computers, she said: ``It brings 
little satisfaction to have been right about this, but we've said since 
last year the Census was in real peril.''
  Representative Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, blamed the cost overruns on ``serious 
mismanagement'' and said that ``the costly decision to return to a 
paper census was avoidable.''
  At a hearing in March, Senator Tom Carper, Chairman of the 
subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Census Bureau, said that ``the 
Census Bureau did not heed the warnings coming from GAO and others that 
their handheld project was troubled.''
  Representative Lacy Clay, who chairs the House Census Subcommittee 
said, ``This appalling failure of management oversight by both the 
Census Bureau and Harris Interactive, combined with ridiculous cost 
overruns is totally unacceptable.'' Representative Clay also said: 
``[Harris] is delivering half of the hand-held computers that the 
Census Bureau originally ordered. The machines can't do what we wanted 
them to do. And yet, Harris expects the taxpayers to provide more than 
$700 million more to pay for their failures. That is outrageous.''
  Senator Joe Lieberman said that ``it is inexcusable that the Census 
Bureau must still rely on paper and pencils to perform its most 
important function.''
  Senator Susan Collins, in discussing the management of the census, 
said that ``there is little to applaud and much to be concerned 
about.'' Senator Collins went to blame agency management for a 
``combination of wishful thinking, lax management, and tunnel vision.''
  Even the Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, who is ultimately 
responsible for the 2010 Census, said that the problems with the 
handheld computers are not the result of an unexpected emergency, but 
is ``a management problem.''


   The Census Bureau has a poor track record of using taxpayer money

  The Census Bureau has one of the worst track records of any federal 
agency when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Numerous accounts can 
be given to highlight the way in which the Census Bureau wastes money 
through negligence, mismanagement and incompetence. The $210 million in 
emergency funding in the bill is nothing more than rewarding bad 
behavior with more money and no accountability.
  Consider the following ways in which the Census Bureau has done a 
poor job of controlling the cost of the census:
  The cost of the census has doubled every time it has been taken since 
1970. In 1970, it cost only $248 million to count 200,000 American 
citizens, but in 2010, it will cost nearly $15 billion to count 300,000 
citizens--that means it will cost 60 times more to count 1\1/2\ times 
as many people. In the 1990 Census it cost $10 per person to count the 
population--in the 2010 Census, it will cost at least $47 per person.
  More recently, the Census Bureau awarded a $600 million cost-plus 
contract to the Harris Corporation for the development of handheld 
computers, which has skyrocketed above the original plan. The handheld 
computers were supposed to perform a number of functions, including two 
functions called Address Canvassing and Non-Response Follow Up:
  Address Canvassing is the process of plotting every American 
household with a GPS coordinate.
  Non-Response Follow Up is the process of collecting information door-
to-door from households that don't respond to the census by mail.
  Due to mismanagement by the Census Bureau, the project has not only 
been severely scaled back but the cost of the contract will likely 
double. In April, the Secretary of Commerce decided to eliminate Non-
Response Follow Up from the list of functions that the handheld 
computer would perform, leaving only Address Canvassing. The Harris 
Corporation estimated that the impact of that decision so close to the 
2010 Census would increase the cost of the contract from approximately 
$600 million to $1.3 billion--an overrun of $700 million to be funded 
by taxpayers.
  According to estimates based on the new contract, the unit cost for 
each handheld computer would be $600 for a device that can do nothing 
more than plot homes on a map using GPS coordinates. This means that 
the Census Bureau will pay $600 for a custom-made handheld device that 
can do less than an off-the-shelf BlackBerry that costs $200 or an 
iPhone that costs $275.
  One of the most glaring examples of wasted money at the Census Bureau 
is seen in the recent cost overrun for a technology help-desk planned 
for census takers going door-to-door in 2010. The original for the help 
desk--before the decision was made to abandon technology for a paper 
census--was $36 million. After the decision to use paper only, the 
estimated cost of the technology help desk increased to $217 million.
  Some will argue that without immediate emergency funding, the Census 
Bureau will not be able to pull off the 2010 Census, putting 
apportionment and important programs in jeopardy.
  This is not true. The next fiscal year is only 3 months away and any 
funding that the Census Bureau needs can be provided then. There is no 
compelling argument that emergency deficit spending on the 2010 Census 
is needed immediately. Perhaps the reason why $210 million is being 
included is because the Congress--like the Census Bureau--is once again 
mismanaging its constitutional duties to pass appropriations bills on 
time.
  Also, as I already stated earlier, it is not clear what this money 
would actually be used for and so it is impossible to say it is 
essential. It is incomprehensible why the Census Bureau needs an extra 
$210 million at this point when it is planning to spend an overall 
amount of $14.5 billion on the 2010 Census. That is more than twice as 
much as the cost of the 2000 Census that was done the exact same way--
by pencil and paper.
  There are plenty of deficit-neutral options available to provide 
funding for the 2010 Census, including transferring money already 
available within the Department of Commerce. Or, Congress could cut or 
eliminate less important programs to free up money for the 2010 Census.
  Furthermore, some may argue that the concerns about poor management 
at the Census Bureau can be dealt with another time--the most important 
thing is getting the 2010 Census done right and without delay.
  I would respond by noting that this country is always in the middle 
of preparations for the next decennial census--if management concerns 
are always pushed back then they will never be addressed. Providing a 
bailout for the Census Bureau now is tantamount to excusing the poor 
management that has prevailed at the agency for the better part of a 
decade.
  Report after report by the GAO and the Inspector General have called 
upon the Census Bureau to improve its poor management of the 2010 
Census. Each of those reports and warnings were ignored because, 
ultimately, the agency knew that Congress didn't care about 
accountability. Congress should deal with the management concerns 
immediately and start by withholding the bailout money in this bill.
  Mr. President, this is a simple point of order, but it has tremendous 
ramifications on whether we are going to effectively oversight the rest 
of the executive agencies.
  Three and a half years ago, Tom Carper and I started oversight 
hearings on the census. At that time, GAO said: They are not going to 
make it. They are not doing what they need to do. It was totally 
ignored, both by the Census Bureau as well as the Department of 
Commerce. Now we find that even though they have had two contracts--one 
with Lockheed and one with another company--to put the census online--
we are going to be the only modern country that doesn't have the census 
online--they have totally withheld, totally canceled that contract, and 
totally didn't perform. The other, to do with electronic data 
collection, is now a flop, and they admit the reason it is

[[Page 14043]]

a flop is because the Census Bureau did not communicate with the 
contractor.
  In this bill is $210 million to say: Oh, we are sorry. We are going 
to give you more money because you didn't do it well.
  Secretary Gutierrez says there is plenty of money in the Commerce 
Department to cover this cost, and I am going to raise a point of order 
that it is not an emergency. There is plenty of money there, and we are 
sending exactly the wrong message to every other agency in this 
Government by allowing an agency that is going to do the census the 
same way it did 200 years ago because of incompetency. We are going to 
give them $200 million on an emergency basis, and we are going to 
charge the next generation because we are not going to pay for it. We 
are going to borrow the money, and we are going to embrace and endorse 
incompetence.
  So, Mr. President, I raise a point of order, pursuant to section 
204(a)(5) of the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 21, 
against the emergency designation of $200 million for the Census Bureau 
in the message in the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and 
nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma has raised a 
point of order, and I want all our colleagues to know that his point of 
order lies against the emergency designations for the census funding, 
as he has just talked about, but in reality his point of order lies 
against all the emergency spending in this amendment, including the 
veterans education funding and the extension of unemployment benefits, 
and against the disaster relief.
  So I urge our colleagues to vote with us on the point of order. It 
has already been part of the agreement. I ask for the yeas and nays on 
the motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to waive 
the Budget Act is considered made.
  Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 21, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 161 Leg.]

                                YEAS--77

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed (RI)
     Reid (NV)
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--21

     Allard
     Barrasso
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Sessions
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     McCain
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 77, the nays are 
21. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 1 year ago, Congress sent the President a 
war funding supplemental that included clear direction to bring our 
troops home by December of 2007. The President chose to veto that bill. 
If he had signed that bill, most of our troops would be home today.
  Instead of bringing our troops home, the President decided to 
increase our commitment of U.S. troops and treasure to a war that has 
now entered its sixth year. Over 4,100 U.S. servicemembers have died. 
Over 30,000 U.S. servicemembers have been wounded. This year, the 
President asked Congress to approve another $178 billion for this 
endless war. With enactment of this supplemental, Congress will have 
approved over $656 billion for the war in Iraq.
  Once again, the President threw down the gauntlet and said he would 
veto the supplemental bill if Congress added funding for anything other 
than the war. He made this demand at a time when the U.S. economy is in 
trouble.
  Under the President's failed fiscal leadership, deficits and debt are 
on the rise. Unemployment is on the rise, with the largest 1 month 
increase in 20 years. Economic growth came to a virtual halt at the end 
of last year. Food and fuel costs are dramatically climbing. Mr. 
President, 8.8 million home owners have mortgages that exceed the value 
of their homes, and foreclosures have increased 57 percent.
  While saying no to funds for America, the President wanted this 
Congress to approve more funding to reconstruct Iraq. We have already 
approved $45 billion for reconstruction projects in Iraq. Despite the 
fact that the Iraqi government is running a huge surplus due to excess 
oil revenues, the President asked this Congress to spend another $3 
billion of American taxpayer dollars on reconstructing Iraq.
  The President wants money to build schools in Sadr City but not in 
Seattle. He wants money for roads in Ramadi but not Richmond. The 
President wants money for Mosul but not Minneapolis. He wants to 
reconstruct Baghdad but not Baltimore or Birmingham.
  Congress listened to the President. We had hearings on his request, 
and we concluded that, notwithstanding his ill-considered veto threat, 
we would include funding to help our citizens here at home.
  The amendment that is before the Senate extends unemployment benefits 
for 13 weeks. Over the past year, the number of unemployed workers in 
this country has grown by 1.6 million to a level of 8.5 million people.
  I am pleased that the amendment includes critical funding for our 
veterans. I commend Senator Webb and Senator Warner for their 
leadership in drafting legislation that provides our veterans with an 
education benefit that they have earned.
  We also have a moratorium on six burdensome Medicaid regulations. The 
President wanted to pass billions of dollars of expenses on to the 
States for rehabilitation services and school-based services for 
children with special needs. Congress said no.
  We have included $2.65 billion for disaster assistance to help the 
victims of the Midwest floods, as well as other disasters that have 
happened over the last year for which the President sought no 
additional funding. We have added funding for the Food and Drug 
Administration to help protect our food and drug supplies. We also 
modified the President's request for the war by adding $160 million to 
his request for funding DOD efforts in Afghanistan. We must never 
forget that those who attacked us on 9/11 trained in Afghanistan, not 
Iraq. We also include language mandating that Iraq match, dollar for 
dollar, further U.S. contributions to reconstructing Iraq.
  This year, the Appropriations Committee has held, and will continue 
to hold, oversight hearings looking at waste, fraud and corruption in 
Iraq. Unchecked corruption in Iraq is providing much of the funding for 
the very enemy our servicemen and women are fighting--and President 
Bush has demonstrated either unwillingness or an inability to check the 
flow of funds and weapons from these sources to the enemy. This 
amendment requires the

[[Page 14044]]

Secretary of State to develop a comprehensive anticorruption strategy 
and submit to Congress the identities of Iraqi officials believed to 
have committed corrupt acts. I am also pleased that this legislation 
continues to provide funding, funding not requested by President Bush, 
for the Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction. As a result 
of our recent hearings on fraud and corruption in Iraq, we learned that 
there are only five FBI agents assigned to investigate fraud in Iraq 
and Afghanistan. For this administration, look no evil, see no evil. 
Well, it is time to take our blinders off. This amendment includes $5 
million to increase FBI investigations, and the committee will continue 
to hold hearings on fraud and waste in Iraq.
  Despite the positive measures for struggling Americans, our veterans, 
and their families included in this amendment, I deeply regret that 
this legislation will go to President Bush without the necessary checks 
to ensure that the war in Iraq is not open-ended. The majority of the 
American people have come to see this war as a costly mistake that 
needs to be brought to a close. This legislation brings us no closer to 
that goal.
  However, with this legislation, we will once again take care of our 
troops. We also invest in America here at home.
  There is more to do. I am disappointed that the White House blocked 
our efforts to add funding to help the Gulf States recover from 
Hurricane Katrina, to provide additional low-income home energy 
assistance, and to invest in our infrastructure. I have consulted with 
the leadership, and next month, the committee will consider a second 
supplemental to deal with the Midwest floods, Hurricane Katrina, and to 
make critical investments in America.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that an explanatory statement be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

Explanatory Statement Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman of 
 the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Regarding the House Amendment 
   to the Senate Amendment to House Amendment Number 2 to the Senate 
                         Amendment to H.R. 2642

       Following is an explanation of the fiscal year 2008 
     supplemental appropriations and fiscal year 2009 
     appropriations in the further amendment of the House to 
     Senate amendment numbered 2 to House amendment numbered 2 to 
     the amendment of the Senate to H.R. 2642, the Military 
     Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2008, including disclosure of 
     congressionally directed spending items as defined in rule 
     XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
       The further House amendment provides that, in lieu of the 
     matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate, language be 
     inserted providing supplemental appropriations for military 
     construction, international affairs, disaster assistance, and 
     other security-related and domestic needs, as well as 
     language providing for accountability in contracting, 
     improved veterans education benefits, temporary extended 
     unemployment compensation, and a moratorium on certain 
     Medicaid regulations. The amendment also strikes lines 1 
     through 3 on page 60 of the Senate engrossed amendment of 
     September 6, 2007.
       Unless otherwise noted, all appropriations in the amendment 
     are designated as emergency requirements and necessary to 
     meet emergency needs pursuant to section 204(a) of S. Con. 
     Res. 21 and section 301(b)(2) of S. Con. Res. 70, the 
     congressional budget resolutions for fiscal years 2008 and 
     2009.


                 NOTIFICATION OF EMERGENCY LEGISLATION

       The congressional budget resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) 
     agreed to by Congress for fiscal year 2008 includes a 
     provision relating to the notification of emergency spending. 
     This provision requires a statement of how the emergency 
     provisions contained in the bill meet the criteria for 
     emergency spending as identified in the budget resolution. 
     The amendment contains emergency funding for fiscal year 2008 
     for overseas deployments and other activities, for hurricane 
     recovery in the gulf coast region, for the 2008 Midwest 
     floods, and other natural disasters, and for other needs. The 
     funding is related to unanticipated needs and is for 
     situations that are sudden, urgent, and unforeseen, 
     specifically the global war on terror, the hurricanes of 
     2005, the ongoing floods in the Midwest and other natural 
     disasters, and rising unemployment. The amendment also funds 
     the costs of ongoing military deployments and other 
     requirements through the beginning months of the next fiscal 
     year. These needs meet the criteria for emergency funding.

    TITLE I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL 
              AFFAIRS, AND OTHER SECURITY-RELATED MATTERS

                         CHAPTER 1--AGRICULTURE

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                      Foreign Agricultural Service


                     PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS

       The amended bill provides a total of $850,000,000 to remain 
     available until expended for Public Law 480 Title II Grants 
     for fiscal year 2008. The amended bill provides $350,000,000, 
     as requested, for the urgent humanitarian needs identified by 
     the administration. Further, the amended bill provides an 
     additional $500,000,000 for unanticipated cost increases for 
     food and transportation to be made available immediately.
       In addition, because the need for urgent humanitarian food 
     assistance and continuing volatility of food and 
     transportation costs are expected to continue into fiscal 
     year 2009, the amended bill provides a total of $395,000,000, 
     as requested, to be made available beginning October 1, 2008.

                           CHAPTER 2--JUSTICE

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                      Office Of Inspector General

       The amended bill includes $4,000,000 for the Office of 
     Inspector General. The Inspector General is directed to 
     continue its audit and oversight activities of the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation's use of National Security Letters 
     (NSLs) and orders for business records, pursuant to Section 
     215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.

                            Legal Activities


            SALARIES AND EXPENSES, GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES

       The amended bill includes $1,648,000 for General Legal 
     Activities for the Criminal Division to provide litigation 
     support services to the Special Inspector General for Iraq 
     Reconstruction for its ongoing investigations and cases 
     involving corruption in the reconstruction of Iraq. The 
     amended bill does not include funding requested to create 
     Iraq and Afghanistan support units within General Legal 
     Activities, Criminal Division. These worthy activities should 
     be supported through funds made available to the Departments 
     of State or Defense.


             SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

       The amended bill includes $5,000,000 for the U.S. Attorneys 
     for extraordinary litigation expenses associated with 
     terrorism prosecutions in the United States.

                     United States Marshals Service


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill includes $28,621,000 for the U.S. Marshals 
     Service. Within this funding level is $7,951,000 to provide 
     security at high-threat terrorist trials in the United States 
     and $3,700,000 to improve court and witness security in 
     Afghanistan.

                    Federal Bureau of Investigation


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill provides $106,122,000 for the Federal 
     Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This funding level includes 
     $101,122,000 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and for 
     enhanced counterterrorism activities and $5,000,000 to 
     increase the FBI's capacity to investigate fraudulent 
     contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The FBI is directed to 
     provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     with a detailed plan for the obligation of these funds no 
     later than 30 days after the enactment of this Act and to 
     update this plan on a quarterly basis with actual 
     obligations.
       The amended bill also provides $82,600,000 in bridge 
     funding for the FBI to maintain the operations described 
     above into fiscal year 2009.

                    Drug Enforcement Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill includes $29,861,000 for the Drug 
     Enforcement Administration to further its narco-terrorism 
     initiative and Operation Breakthrough; to conduct financial 
     investigations and to support intelligence activities, such 
     as signals intelligence, to assist the Government of 
     Afghanistan's counter-narcotics and narco-terrorism programs; 
     and to purchase a helicopter for Foreign-deployed Advisory 
     Support Team transportation.

          Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill includes $4,000,000 for the Bureau of 
     Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for necessary costs 
     of operations in Iraq.

                         Federal Prison System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill provides $9,100,000 for the Bureau of 
     Prisons to monitor communications of incarcerated terrorists, 
     collect intelligence, and disseminate relevant information to 
     other Federal law enforcement agencies.

                    GENERAL PROVISION, THIS CHAPTER

       The amended bill includes a provision authorizing the use 
     of funds appropriated in

[[Page 14045]]

     this chapter, or available by the transfer of funds in this 
     chapter, for activities pursuant to section 504 of the 
     National Security Act of 1947.

         CHAPTER 3--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

       Iraq.--The Administration's request has been reviewed for 
     military construction in Iraq to ensure that the recommended 
     projects are consistent with contingency construction 
     standards. The establishment of permanent bases in Iraq is 
     not supported, and the amended bill does not include any 
     funds to establish any such base, or convert any base in Iraq 
     from a temporary to permanent status. The amended bill 
     includes language prohibiting the obligation or expenditure 
     of funds for Iraq construction projects provided under 
     Military Construction, Army, and Military Construction, Air 
     Force, until the Secretary of Defense certifies that none of 
     the funds are to be used for the purpose of providing 
     facilities for permanent basing of U.S. military personnel in 
     Iraq. The Secretary of Defense is further directed to provide 
     to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of 
     Congress, no later than 30 days after enactment of this act, 
     an updated Master Plan for U.S. basing in Iraq, including an 
     inventory of installations that have been closed; those that 
     are scheduled to close, and the timeline for their closure; 
     and a finite list of potential enduring locations describing 
     the mission, military construction requirements, and 
     projected population of these locations.
       Child Development Centers.--The amended bill recommends a 
     total of $210,258,000 to design and build twenty new child 
     development centers for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 
     Force. The Department should be commended for following the 
     lead of Congress by requesting funds for additional child 
     development centers.
       Army Barracks Improvements.--The deplorable conditions that 
     have recently been uncovered in some permanent party Army 
     barracks, including those which house soldiers returning from 
     the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, have raised numerous 
     concerns about the adequacy of living conditions for military 
     personnel. The Army created a permanent party barracks 
     modernization program in 1994 to eliminate inadequate 
     barracks. However, this program is not projected to be 
     completely funded until 2013. Given this timeline, it is 
     unacceptable that the Army has allowed some of its existing 
     permanent party barracks to fall into disrepair. While many 
     of the repairs and upgrades to existing barracks can be 
     accomplished with Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization 
     (SRM) funds, there is a need for additional military 
     construction funds to expedite barracks replacements. The 
     amended bill includes a total of $200,000,000 for the Army to 
     accelerate the construction of new barracks, or to provide 
     major renovations to existing barracks. The funding is 
     provided subject to the development of an expenditure plan to 
     be submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of both 
     Houses of Congress.

                      MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

       The amended bill recommends $1,108,200,000 for Military 
     Construction, Army. The funds are provided as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                        Protect description            Request         Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK: Fort Wainwright........................  Child Development Center \1\.             17,000             17,000
CA: Fort Irwin.............................  Child Development Center \1\.             11,800             11,800
CO: Fort Carson............................  Child Development Center \1\.              8,400              8,400
CO: Fort Carson............................  Soldier Family Assistance                  8,100              8,100
                                              Center.
GA: Fort Gordon............................  Child Development Center \1\.              7,800              7,800
GA: Fort Stewart...........................  Soldier Family Assistance                  6,000              6,000
                                              Center.
HI: Schofield Barracks.....................  Child Development Center.....             12,500             12,500
KS: Fort Riley.............................  Transitioning Warrior Support             50,000             50,000
                                              Complex.
KY: Fort Campbell..........................  Child Development Center \1\.              9,900              9,900
KY: Fort Campbell..........................  Soldier Family Assistance                  7,400              7,400
                                              Center.
KY: Fort...................................  Knox Child Development Center              7,400              7,400
LA: Fort Polk..............................  Soldier Family Assistance                  4,900              4,900
                                              Center.
MO: Fort Leonard Wood......................  Starbase Complex 6, Phase 1..  .................             50,000
NC: Fort Bragg.............................  Child Development Center \1\.              8,500              8,500
NY: Fort Drum..............................  Warrior in Transition                     38,000             38,000
                                              Facilities.
OK: Fort Sill..............................  Child Development Center \1\.              9,000              9,000
TX: Fort Bliss.............................  Child Development Center \1\.              5,700              5,700
TX: Fort Bliss.............................  Child Development Center \1\.              5,900              5,900
TX: Fort Bliss.............................  Child Development Center \1\.              5,700              5,700
TX: Fort Hood..............................  Child Development Center \1\.              7,200              7,200
TX: Fort Hood..............................  Warrior In Transition Unit                 9,100              9,100
                                              Ops Facilities.
TX: Fort Sam Houston.......................  Child Development Center \1\.              7,000              7,000
VA: Fort Lee...............................  Child Development Center \1\.              7,400              7,400
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Administrative Building \1\..             13,800             13,800
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Aircraft Maintenance Hangar..              5,100              5,100
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Ammunition Supply Point......             62,000             62,000
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply,             23,000             23,000
                                              Phase 3.
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Bulk Fuel Storage and Supply,             21,000             21,000
                                              Phase 4.
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  New Roads....................             27,000             27,000
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Power Plant..................             41,000             41,000
Afghanistan: Ghazni........................  Rotary Wing Parking..........              5,000              5,000
Afghanistan: Kabul.........................  Consolidated Compound........             36,000             36,000
Afghanistan: Various Locations.............  Counter IED Road--Route                   16,500             16,500
                                              Alaska.
Afghanistan: Various Locations.............  Counter IED Road--Route                   54,000             54,000
                                              Connecticut.
Iraq: AI Asad AB...........................  Hot Cargo Ramp...............             18,500             18,500
Iraq: AI Asad AB...........................  Landfill.....................              3,100              3,100
Iraq: AI Asad AB...........................  Power Plant..................             40,000  .................
Iraq: AI Asad AB...........................  South Airfield Apron (India               28,000             28,000
                                              Ramp).
Iraq: AI Asad AB...........................  Urban Bypass Road............             43,000  .................
Iraq: Baghdad IAP..........................  Water Supply, Treatment &                 13,000             13,000
                                              Storage Ph III.
Iraq: Camp Adder...........................  Convoy Support Center                     39,000             39,000
                                              Relocation, Phase II.
Iraq: Camp Adder...........................  Multi-Class Storage Warehouse             17,000  .................
Iraq: Camp Adder...........................  POL Storage Area.............             10,000             10,000
Iraq: Camp Adder...........................  Power Plant..................             39,000  .................
Iraq: Camp Adder...........................  Wastewater Treatment &                     9,800              9,800
                                              Collection System.
Iraq: Camp Anaconda........................  Hazardous Waste Incinerator..              4,300              4,300
Iraq: Camp Anaconda........................  Landfill.....................              6,200              6,200
Iraq: Camp Anaconda........................  Power Plant..................             39,000  .................
Iraq: Camp Constitution....................  Juenile TIFRIC...............             11,700             11,700
Iraq: Camp Cropper.........................  Brick Factory................              9,500  .................
Iraq: Camp Marez...........................  Landfill.....................                880                880
Iraq: Camp Ramadi..........................  Landfill.....................                880                880
Iraq: Camp Speicher........................  Aviation Navigation                       13,400             13,400
                                              Facilities.
Iraq: Camp Speicher........................  Landfill.....................              5,900              5,900
Iraq: Camp Speicher........................  Military Control Point.......              5,800              5,800
Iraq: Camp Speicher........................  Power Plant..................             39,000  .................
Iraq: Camp Speicher........................  Rotary Wing Parking Apron....             49,000  .................
Iraq: Camp Taqqadum........................  Landfill.....................                880                880
Iraq: Camp Warrior.........................  Landfill.....................                880                880
Iraq: Fallujah.............................  Landfill.....................                880                880
Iraq: Mosul................................  Urban Bypass Road............             43,000  .................
Iraq: Qayyarah West........................  North Entry Control Point....             11,400             11,400
Iraq: Qayyarah West........................  Perimeter Security Upgrade...             14,600             14,600
Iraq: Qayyarah West........................  Power Plant..................             26,000  .................
Iraq: Scania...............................  Entry Control Point..........              5,000              5,000
Iraq: Scania...............................  Water Storage Tanks..........              9,200              9,200
Iraq: Victory Base.........................  Landfill.....................              6,200              6,000
Iraq: Victory Base.........................  Level 3 Hospital.............             13,400             13,400
Iraq: Victory Base.........................  Wastewater Treatment &                     9,800              9,800
                                              Collection System.
Iraq: Victory Base.........................  Water Treatment &. Storage                18,000             18,000
                                              Phase II.
Iraq: Various Locations....................  Facilities Replacement.......             72,000  .................
Iraq: Various Locations....................  Overhead Cover--eGlass.......            135,000            135,000

[[Page 14046]]

 
Kuwait: Camp Arifjan.......................  Communication Center.........             30,000             30,000
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (GWOT)...             64,200             52,800
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (WIT)....             14,600             14,600
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (COG) \1\              6,000              6,000
                                                                           -------------------------------------
      Total................................  .............................          1,486,100         1,108,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested by the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2008 and/or the March 2008 Adjustments package.

              MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

       The amended bill recommends $355,907,000 for Military 
     Construction, Navy and Marine Corps. The funds are provided 
     as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                        Project description            Request         Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  11th Marine Regiment HQ,                  34,970             34,970
                                              Armory, BEQ.
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  5th Marine Regiment Addition,             10,890             10,890
                                              San Mateo.
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  Armory Intelligence                        4,180              4,180
                                              Battalion, 16 Area.
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  Armory, Regiment & Battalion               5,160              5,160
                                              HQ, 53 Area.
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  BEQ & Mess Hall HQ (13) Area.             24,390             24,390
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  EOD Operations Facility......             13,090             13,090
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  ISR Camp--Intelligence                     1,114              1,114
                                              Battalion.
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              9,270              9,270
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  Military Police Company                    8,240              8,240
                                              Facilities.
CA: Twentynine Palms.......................  Regimental Combat Team HQ                  4,440              4,440
                                              Facility.
CA: China Lake NAWS........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              7,210              7,210
CA: Point Mugu.............................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              7,250              7,250
CA: San Diego..............................  Child Development Center \1\.             17,930             17,930
CA: Twentynine Palms.......................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....             11,250             11,250
FL: Whiting Field NAS......................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....                780                780
MS: Gulfport NCBC..........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              6,570              6,570
NC: Camp Lejeune...........................  Child Development Center \1\.             16,000             16,000
NC: Camp Lejeune...........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....             11,980             11,980
NC: Camp Lejeune...........................  Maintenance/Operations                    43,340             43,340
                                              Complex 2/9..
SC: Parris Island MCRD.....................  Recruit Barracks.............  .................             25,360
VA: Yorktown NWS...........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              8,070              8,070
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  CJTF-HOA HQ Facility.........             29,710  .................
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Dining Facility..............             20,780             20,780
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Fuel Farm \1\................              4,000              4,000
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Full Length Taxiway \1\......             15,490             15,490
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Network Infrastructure                     6,270              6,270
                                              Expansion.
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Water Production.............             19,140             19,140
Djibouti: Camp Lemonier....................  Western Taxiway \1\..........              2,900              2,900
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (GTF)....              7,491              7,491
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (GWOT)...              4,300              4,300
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (CDC) \1\              1,101              1,101
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (JIEDDO)               2,951              2,951
                                              \1\.
                                                                           -------------------------------------
      Total................................  .............................            360,257            355,907
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested by the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2008 and/or the March 2008 Adjustments package.

       Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) Battle Courses.--The 
     amended bill recommends $65,331,000 to construct facilities 
     for enhanced counter-improvised explosive device training in 
     furtherance of the goals of the Joint IED Defeat 
     Organization. These funds address a technical correction in 
     the Administration's fiscal year 2008 Global War on Terror 
     budget request and are offset by a rescission in title IX.

                    Military Construction, Air Force

       The amended bill recommends $399,627,000 for Military 
     Construction, Air Force. The funds are provided as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                        Project description            Request         Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA: Beale AFB..............................  Child Development Center \1\.             17,600             17,600
FL: Eglin AFB..............................  Child Development Center \1\.             11,000             11,000
NJ: McGuire AFB............................  JIEDDO Battle Courses \1\....              6,200              6,200
NM: Cannon AFB.............................  Child Development Center \1\.              8,000              8,000
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  East Side Helo Ramp..........             44,400             44,400
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  ISR Ramp.....................             26,300             26,300
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Parallel Taxiway Phase 2.....             21,400             21,400
Afghanistan: Bagram AB.....................  Strategic Ramp...............             43,000             43,000
Iraq: Balad AB.............................  Fighter Ramp.................             11,000             11,000
Iraq: Balad AB.............................  Foxtrot Taxiway..............             12,700             12,700
Iraq: Balad AB.............................  Helicopter Maintenance                    34,600             34,600
                                              Facilities..
Kyrgyzstan: Manas AB.......................  Strategic Ramp...............             30,300             30,300
Oman: Masirah AB...........................  Expeditionary Beddown Site...              6,300              6,300
Qatar: AI Udeid AB.........................  Facility Replacements........             40,000             30,000
Qatar: AI Udeid AB.........................  Northwest (CAS) Ramp \1\.....             60,400             60,400
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (GWOT)...             35,000             35,000
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (CDC) \1\              1,427              1,427
                                                                           -------------------------------------
      Total................................  .............................            409,627            399,627
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested by the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2008 and/or the March 2008 Adjustments package.

       Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO) Battle Courses.--The 
     amended bill recommends $6,200,000 to construct facilities 
     for enhanced counter-improvised explosive device training in 
     furtherance of the goals of the Joint IED Defeat 
     Organization. These funds address a technical correction in 
     the Administration's fiscal year 2008 Global War on Terror 
     budget request and are offset by a rescission in title IX.

                  Military Construction, Defense-Wide

       The amended bill recommends $890,921,000 for Military 
     Construction, Defense-Wide. The funds are provided as 
     follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                        Project description            Request         Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA: Fort Benning...........................  Hospital Replacement.........  .................            350,000
KS: Fort Riley.............................  Hospital Replacement.........  .................            404,000
NC: Camp Lejeune...........................  Hospital Addition............  .................             64,300
TX: Fort Sam Houston.......................  Burn Rehabilitation Center...             21,000             21,000
Qatar: AI Udeid AB.........................  Logistics Storage Warehouse..              6,600              6,600
Worldwide: Unspecified.....................  Planning and Design (MTF)....  .................             45,021
                                                                           -------------------------------------
      Total................................  .............................             27,600            890,921
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 14047]]

       Medical Treatment Facilities Construction.--There is a 
     great concern with the large backlog of needed 
     recapitalization for medical treatment facilities for 
     military service members and their families. The current 
     Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP) for Tricare Management 
     Activity military construction averages $412,000,000 per year 
     for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, and much of this amount 
     is accounted for by medical research facilities. With the 
     services identifying recapitalization requirements ranging in 
     the several billions of dollars, the current FYDP for medical 
     construction is obviously and severely insufficient. The 
     Department's inventory of medical treatment facilities is 
     riddled with aging hospitals, clinics, and other facilities 
     that do not meet current standards for medical care. Adding 
     to this problem is the fact that several installations are 
     adding thousands of personnel and dependents due to Base 
     Realignment and Closure, the relocation of units from Europe 
     and Korea to the United States, and the Growing the Force 
     initiative that will add 92,000 active duty personnel to the 
     Army and Marine Corps. The amended bill therefore recommends 
     $863,321,000 for additional medical treatment facility 
     construction. These funds will provide for the Army's top two 
     priority hospital replacement projects in the United States 
     as well as a top priority hospital addition for the Marine 
     Corps.
       The Department of Defense is also directed to develop a 
     comprehensive master plan for medical treatment facilities 
     construction, to include both recapitalization and new 
     requirements. This plan shall include a comprehensive 
     priority list of projects for all services, provide a cost 
     estimate for each project, supply data on the current state 
     of facilities and the projected change in demand for services 
     due to growth for each location on the list, indicate the 
     extent to which identified construction requirements are 
     programmed in the FYDP, and indicate the resources required 
     for associated planning and design work. This report shall be 
     submitted to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses 
     of Congress no later than December 31, 2008.

           Family Housing Construction, Navy and Marine Corps

       The amended bill recommends $11,766,000 for Family Housing 
     Construction, Navy and Marine Corps. The funds are provided 
     as follows:

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Location                        Project description            Request         Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA: Camp Pendleton.........................  Public-Private Venture, Phase             10,692             10,692
                                              6B.
CA: Twentynine Palms.......................  Public-Private Venture, Phase              1,074              1,074
                                              2A.
                                                                           -------------------------------------
      Total................................  .............................             11,766             11,766
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Department of Defense Base Closure Account 2005

       The amended bill recommends $1,278,886,000 for Department 
     of Defense Base Closure Account 2005 instead of 
     $1,202,886,000 as requested by the Administration. The amount 
     provided fully funds the Administration's request to expedite 
     medical facility construction at Bethesda and Fort Belvoir, 
     and provides an additional $862,976,000 for BRAC 2005 
     implementation.

                     DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

                      Departmental Administration


                       general operating expenses

       The amended bill recommends $100,000,000 for General 
     Operating Expenses to implement the provisions of title V of 
     this Act.


                     information technology systems

       The amended bill recommends $20,000,000 for Information 
     Technology Systems to implement the provisions of title V of 
     this Act, including support for any personnel increases 
     within the Veterans Benefits Administration.


                      construction, major projects

       The amended bill recommends $396,377,000 for Construction, 
     Major Projects to accelerate and complete planned major 
     construction of Level I polytrauma rehabilitation centers as 
     identified in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Five Year 
     Capital Plan.
       Polytrauma Center Initiative.--The nature of combat in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan has resulted in new patterns of polytraumatic 
     injuries and disabilities requiring specialized intensive 
     rehabilitation and high coordination of care. Operating under 
     a national Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of 
     Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
     polytrauma rehabilitation centers continue to provide 
     treatment and care to severely injured combat personnel 
     requiring polytrauma inpatient rehabilitation. The medical 
     care the VA is providing to military personnel is 
     exceptional. However, space in the existing polytrauma 
     facilities is dated, with cramped quarters and treatment 
     facilities scattered throughout hospital campuses. These 
     inefficiencies prove to be difficult for patients with 
     mobility issues, compromised immune systems, and those 
     suffering from psychological wounds. In an effort to 
     accelerate the VA's planned expansion and consolidation of 
     polytrauma rehabilitation centers on existing hospital 
     campuses as outlined in the Department's February 2008 Five 
     Year Capital Plan, the amended bill recommends providing 
     $396,377,000 to fully fund the design and construction of 
     these crucial projects.

                    GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER

       The amended bill includes the following general provisions 
     for this chapter:
       Section 1301 provides an additional appropriation for 
     Military Construction, Army for the acceleration of barracks 
     improvements at Army installations.
       Section 1302 relates to the Armed Forces Institute of 
     Pathology.
       Section 1303 relates to the collection of certain debts 
     owed to the Department of Veterans Affairs by service members 
     killed in a combat zone.

         CHAPTER 4--DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS

     SUBCHAPTER A--SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008

                              Introduction

       The budget request totals $5,073,608,000 in emergency 
     supplemental funds for fiscal year 2008, and the Department 
     of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) provided 
     $1,473,800,000 for immediate requirements. The amended bill 
     provides for Department of State, Foreign Operations and 
     Related Programs a total of $5,164,108,000, which is 
     $90,500,000 above the pending budget request.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    diplomatic and consular programs

       The budget request included $2,283,008,000 for Diplomatic 
     and Consular Programs, of which $575,000,000 was appropriated 
     in the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) for 
     operations and security at the United States Embassy in Iraq.
       The amended bill includes an additional $1,465,700,000 for 
     Diplomatic and Consular Programs, which is $242,308,000 below 
     the pending request. Within the amount provided, $210,400,000 
     is for worldwide security protection. Funds for diplomatic 
     and consular programs are to be allocated as follows:

                                        DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change from
                        Activity                          Pending  request    Amended  bill         request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Diplomatic Operations.............................          1,545,608          1,150,000           -395,608
Afghanistan--Operations and Worldwide Security                     162,400            200,200            +37,800
 Protection............................................
Pakistan--Operations...................................  .................              7,500             +7,500
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative...................  .................              1,000             +1,000
Worldwide Security Protection..........................  .................             48,000            +48,000
Civilian Workforce Initiative..........................  .................             55,000            +55,000
Public Diplomacy.......................................  .................              4,000             +4,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Diplomatic and Consular Programs..........          1,708,008          1,465,700           -242,308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Afghanistan.--Within the total, the amended bill includes 
     $200,200,000, which is $37,800,000 above the request, for 
     necessary expenses for diplomatic and security operations in 
     Afghanistan. Of this amount, $162,400,000 is for enhanced 
     security operations, including additional high threat 
     protection teams, increased overhead cover and physical 
     security measures, replacement of

[[Page 14048]]

     armored vehicles, and local guard service. In addition, 
     $19,000,000 is for the establishment of a Department of 
     State-managed air transport capability in Afghanistan for 
     Department of State and United States Agency for 
     International Development (USAID) personnel to manage country 
     programs, provide support for medical evacuation, and other 
     security-related operations. Finally, $18,800,000 is for 
     support of operations and personnel for Provincial 
     Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) in Afghanistan.
       Iraq.--Within the total, $1,150,000,000 is for the 
     diplomatic and security operations of the United States 
     Mission in Iraq, which is $395,608,000 below the pending 
     request. The cost of operations of the United States Mission 
     in Iraq totals $2,141,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, including 
     $1,150,000,000 provided in this Act, $575,000,000 provided as 
     bridge funding in Public Law 110-161 and $416,000,000 in 
     funds carried over from prior year appropriations. Nearly 
     $900,000,000 is requested for supporting security 
     requirements for diplomatic and development personnel in 
     Iraq.
       The amended bill includes funding for mission operations, 
     security, logistics support, information technology, and 
     operations of PRTs. Congress has provided an additional 
     $196,543,000 since fiscal year 2006 for follow-on facilities 
     requirements identified by the Department of State, as 
     follows: extend the perimeter wall; construct a dining 
     facility; construct additional housing; construct a tactical 
     operations center for Diplomatic Security; construct a static 
     guard camp; and construct overhead cover. The actual cost of 
     building the New Embassy Compound (NEC) has reached a total 
     of $788,543,000 to date.
       The number of permanent and temporary personnel assigned to 
     Iraq, with the exception of USAID, should be decreased to 
     accommodate all personnel within the NEC and any improvements 
     can be made with previously appropriated funds. USAID will 
     play a critical role in assisting the Government of Iraq in 
     effectively allocating its budgetary resources.
       The additional $43,804,000 requested for follow-on projects 
     for the NEC in Baghdad is not included. At least $77,027,000 
     in prior year funding programmed for follow-on projects is 
     available for obligation and these funds should be used to 
     provide additional secure housing for a smaller number of 
     personnel.
       None of the funds provided under this heading in this Act 
     shall be made available for follow-on projects, other than 
     the proposed funding for overhead cover. The Department of 
     State should include a detailed plan for the use of funds for 
     follow-on projects as part of the spending plan required by 
     this Act.
       Due to an extended accreditation and verification process 
     and the addition of follow-on projects, occupancy of the NEC 
     offices and housing has been delayed. This rigorous process 
     to address and validate whether the NEC was constructed to 
     code and contract specifications was supported. Now that the 
     process is complete, occupancy of the offices and housing 
     should proceed without delay in order to provide the maximum 
     protection to United States personnel.
       The rationale for co-location of the Departments of State 
     and Defense in the NEC is recognized. However, the proposed 
     New Office Building and the Interim Office Building 
     reconfigurations are projected to delay occupancy of NEC 
     offices by up to one year. Given the difficult security 
     environment in Baghdad, this lengthy delay is not acceptable. 
     The Departments of State and Defense are expected to consult 
     with the Committees on Appropriations on options for moving 
     forward with limited co-location plans in the most 
     accelerated, secure, and cost-effective manner. Any future 
     construction in Iraq shall be subject to the Capital Security 
     Cost Sharing Program, in the same manner as all other embassy 
     construction projects worldwide.
       There is a concern that private security contractors have 
     been utilized without the necessary authority, oversight, or 
     accountability. The Department of State is directed to 
     provide a report to the Committees on Appropriations not 
     later than 45 days after enactment of this Act on the 
     implementation status of each of the recommendations of the 
     October 2007 report of the Secretary of State's Panel on 
     Personal Protective Services. The Department of State is 
     encouraged to aggressively review security procedures and 
     seek the necessary authority to ensure that increased 
     security is achieved with effective oversight and 
     accountability.
       The Secretary of State should take appropriate steps to 
     ensure that assistance for Iraq is not provided to or through 
     any individual, private entity or educational institution 
     that the Secretary knows or has reason to believe advocates, 
     plans, sponsors, or engages in, terrorist activities.
       Pakistan.--The amended bill includes $7,500,000 for 
     operations, security, and personnel engaged in diplomatic 
     activities to promote economic and political development in 
     the Federally Administered Tribal Areas along the Pakistan 
     and Afghanistan border.
       Sudan.--The amended bill includes resources to support the 
     diplomatic mission in Sudan including the United States 
     Special Envoy for Sudan.
       Buying Power Maintenance Account.--The amended bill 
     provides authority to transfer funds available in this Act, 
     and in a prior Act, to the Buying Power Maintenance Account 
     in accordance with section 24 of the State Department Basic 
     Authorities Act, to manage exchange rate losses in fiscal 
     year 2008.
       Civilian Workforce Initiative.--The amended bill provides 
     $55,000,000 to increase the civilian diplomatic capacity of 
     the Department of State to meet the increasing and complex 
     demands of diplomacy in the 21st century. Within the total, 
     $30,000,000 is for the initial development and deployment of 
     a civilian capacity to respond to post-conflict stabilization 
     and reconstruction challenges and $25,000,000 is to 
     strengthen capabilities of the United States diplomatic corps 
     and promote broader engagement with the rest of the world, 
     including expanding training and enhanced interagency 
     collaboration.
       The amended bill includes funds to replace Foreign Service 
     positions worldwide, which were previously moved to Iraq and 
     to increase the number of positions participating in critical 
     needs foreign language training. The Department of State has 
     transferred approximately 300 Foreign Service positions from 
     embassies around the world to Iraq and to associated language 
     training, leaving key posts understaffed. These funds are to 
     be used to support United States foreign policy in priority, 
     understaffed regions, particularly South and East Asia, the 
     Western Hemisphere, and Africa.
       Funds made available for the civilian stabilization 
     initiative are for the Active and Standby Response Corps 
     portion of the initiative and to enhance operations of the 
     Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and 
     Stabilization. In addition to the funds provided to the 
     Department of State, $25,000,000 is appropriated in this Act 
     under the heading ``Operating Expenses of the United States 
     Agency for International Development'' to implement the USAID 
     portion of the civilian stabilization initiative. The funding 
     request for the Civilian Response Corps will be considered as 
     part of the fiscal year 2009 appropriations process and none 
     of the funds provided in this Act are to be used to implement 
     the Civilian Response Corps portion of the initiative.
       Diplomatic Security-Worldwide Security Protection.--The 
     amended bill also includes $48,000,000 above the request for 
     worldwide security protection. The amount provided is 
     available to restore 100 positions in the diplomatic security 
     personnel that were redirected to Iraq to address urgent 
     security requirements for United States personnel elsewhere 
     in the world.
       Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.--Increased demands 
     on the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls' Office of 
     Defense Trade Controls Licensing have led to delays in 
     license processing. The Secretary of State is directed to 
     review the workload demands and staffing needs of the office 
     and report any recommendations to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment of this 
     Act.
       Middle East Peace Process.--The security and support 
     requirements for the personnel and operations that accompany 
     the Middle East peace process have been, and should continue 
     to be, supported through the operations funds available in 
     fiscal year 2008. Any additional requirements associated with 
     these activities will be considered during the fiscal year 
     2009 appropriations process.
       Public Diplomacy.--The amended bill includes $4,000,000 for 
     the Office of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs to expand 
     new media for targeted Arabic language television programs 
     for the purpose of fostering cultural, educational, and 
     professional dialogues through indigenous Arabic language 
     satellite media.
       Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.--The amended bill 
     recommends not less than $1,000,000 to expand public outreach 
     efforts related to implementation of the Western Hemisphere 
     Travel Initiative (WHTI). With WHTI implementation occurring 
     as early as June 2009, there is concern about the lack of a 
     comprehensive, coordinated plan between the Department of 
     State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the United 
     States Postal Service to broadly disseminate information to 
     the traveling public concerning the final WHTI implementation 
     requirements at the Nation's land and sea ports. The 
     Department of State is encouraged to provide significantly 
     increased outreach to border communities, including through 
     radio, print media, and additional passport fairs.


                      office of inspector general

                     (including transfer of funds)

       The amended bill includes an additional $9,500,000 for 
     Office of Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of State, 
     which is $9,500,000 above the pending request. Of the total, 
     $5,000,000 is to enhance the Department of State Inspector 
     General's oversight of programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
     $2,500,000 is for operations of the Special Inspector General 
     for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), and $2,000,000 is for 
     operations of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan 
     Reconstruction (SIGAR).
       The Department of State OIG, USAID OIG, SIGIR, and SIGAR 
     each have independent oversight responsibilities in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan. The inspectors general should, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, coordinate, and de-conflict all 
     activities related to

[[Page 14049]]

     oversight of assistance programs for the reconstruction of 
     Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that oversight resources are 
     used effectively and are not unnecessarily duplicative.
       To ensure continuity of oversight of permanent United 
     States Missions, the USAID OIG and the Department of State 
     OIG are expected to actively participate in oversight of all 
     programs funded by this Act and prior Acts making 
     appropriations for the Department of State and foreign 
     operations, in particular oversight of diplomatic and 
     development operations and facilities. Joint oversight with 
     SIGIR or SIGAR is strongly encouraged; however once fully 
     staffed, the Department of State OIG or the USAID OIG should, 
     to the maximum extent practicable, be designated as the lead 
     for any joint oversight conducted with SIGIR or SIGAR of 
     funds involving diplomatic operations and facilities in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan.


            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       The amended bill includes an additional $76,700,000 for 
     urgent embassy security, construction, and maintenance costs, 
     which is $83,300,000 below the request. The funds are to 
     construct 300 secure apartments and a secure office building, 
     including the necessary perimeter security, utility, and 
     dining facilities, for United States Mission staff in 
     Afghanistan. Currently, there are a small number of permanent 
     construction apartments and the majority of diplomatic and 
     Mission personnel live in structures with limited protection. 
     Additional funds for this purpose are provided in subchapter 
     B.

                      International Organizations


              contributions to international organizations

       The amended bill includes $66,000,000 for Contributions to 
     International Organizations, which is for United States 
     contributions to the U.N. Assistance Mission in Afghanistan 
     and the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq. Funding is also 
     provided to meet fiscal year 2008 assessed dues to 
     organizations whose missions are critical to protecting 
     United States national security interests, including the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency, and the Organization for the Prohibition of 
     Chemical Weapons.
       The Department of State is directed not later than 45 days 
     after enactment of this Act, to provide a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations detailing total United States-
     assessed contributions, any arrears from prior years and 
     potential arrears for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 for each of 
     the organizations funded under this heading.


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       The budget request included $723,600,000 for Contributions 
     for International Peacekeeping Activities, of which 
     $390,000,000 of funds designated as an emergency was provided 
     in the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) for 
     the United States contribution to the United Nations/African 
     Union (UN/AU) hybrid peacekeeping mission to Darfur (UNAMID).
       The amended bill includes an additional $373,708,000 for 
     assessed costs to U.N. peacekeeping operations. Within the 
     total under this heading, not less than $333,600,000 is 
     provided for UNAMID, which is the same as the request. 
     Additionally, the amended bill includes $40,108,000 to meet 
     unmet fiscal year 2008 assessed dues for the international 
     peacekeeping missions to countries such as the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Haiti, Liberia, and 
     Sudan.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors


                 international broadcasting operations

       The amended bill includes an additional $2,000,000 for 
     International Broadcasting Operations to continue increased 
     broadcasting to Tibet.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                   international disaster assistance

       The budget request included $80,000,000 for International 
     Disaster Assistance. The Department of State, Foreign 
     Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-161) provided $110,000,000 for emergency 
     humanitarian requirements.
       The amended bill includes $220,000,000 for International 
     Disaster Assistance, which is $220,000,000 above the pending 
     request. These funds should be used to respond to urgent 
     humanitarian requirements worldwide, including in Burma, 
     Bangladesh, the People's Republic of China, and countries 
     severely affected by the international food crisis.
       USAID is directed to substantially increase food assistance 
     for Haiti to address critical food shortages and 
     malnutrition. Preventing hunger and combating poverty in 
     Haiti should be a USAID priority.
       As the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has 
     compounded the humanitarian crisis in Burma by failing to 
     respond to the needs of the Burmese people in the wake of 
     Cyclone Nargis and by refusing offers of assistance from the 
     international community, the Department of State and USAID 
     should seek to avoid providing assistance to or through the 
     SPDC.
       The amended bill also includes funds under this heading and 
     the heading ``Development Assistance'' in subchapter B to 
     help address the international food crisis. Programs should 
     address both rural and urban food requirements.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                              development

       The budget request included $61,800,000 for Operating 
     Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development, of which $20,800,000 was provided in the 
     Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) for operations 
     in Iraq.
       The amended bill includes $150,500,000 for Operating 
     Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development.
       Of the funds provided under this heading, the amended bill 
     includes $41,000,000 to continue support for security needs 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is the same as the request. In 
     addition, $30,000,000 is included to increase support for 
     staffing, security, and operating needs in Afghanistan and 
     Sudan, and $19,500,000 in Pakistan.
       The amended bill also includes $25,000,000 to support the 
     development and deployment of a civilian capacity to respond 
     to post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction needs. 
     Funds made available for the civilian stabilization 
     initiative are for the Active and Standby Response Corps 
     portion of the initiative and none of the funds provided in 
     this Act may be used to develop the Civilian Response Corps. 
     Additional funding for this initiative is provided in the 
     ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' account for the 
     Department of State portion of the initiative.
       In addition, the amended bill includes $35,000,000 to 
     enable USAID to hire above attrition in fiscal year 2008. The 
     Administration's request for fiscal year 2009 includes 
     $92,000,000 for hiring 300 USAID foreign service officers as 
     part of a three-year initiative. Funding provided in this Act 
     is intended to support the hiring of additional Foreign 
     Service officers in fiscal year 2008 in order to begin 
     rebuilding the capacity of the Agency to carry out its 
     mission. USAID is directed to consult with the Committees on 
     Appropriations on the use of these funds and to recruit mid-
     career personnel. As USAID seeks to strengthen its workforce, 
     USAID is encouraged to consult with the Department of Defense 
     on ways to benefit from the experience of retiring officers, 
     including establishment of a transition program.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                development office of inspector general

       The amended bill includes an additional $4,000,000 for the 
     United States Agency for International Development Office of 
     Inspector General to support increased oversight of programs 
     in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                  OTHER BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE


                         ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND

       The budget request included $2,217,000,000 for Economic 
     Support Fund (ESF), of which $208,000,000 was provided in the 
     Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) for emergency 
     requirements in the West Bank and in North Korea, as 
     requested.
       The amended bill includes $1,882,500,000 for ESF, which is 
     $126,500,000 below the request. An additional $75,000,000 is 
     provided under the heading Democracy Fund for political 
     development programs for Iraq. Funds are to be allocated as 
     follows:

                          ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amended
                     Country and region                          bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................................      859,000
Bangladesh.................................................       25,000
Central America............................................       25,000
Central African Republic...................................        1,000


                    ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND--Continued
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amended
                     Country and region                          bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chad.......................................................        2,000
Democratic Republic of the Congo...........................       12,500
Iraq.......................................................      424,000
Jordan.....................................................      175,000
Kenya......................................................       12,000
Mexico.....................................................       20,000
Nepal......................................................        7,000
North Korea................................................       53,000
Philippines................................................       15,000
Sri Lanka..................................................        6,000
Sudan......................................................       45,000
Thailand...................................................        2,500
Uganda.....................................................       17,500
West Bank and Gaza.........................................      171,000
Zimbabwe...................................................        5,000
Exchanges Africa...........................................        5,000
                                                            ------------
      Total................................................    1,882,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Iraq.--The amended bill includes $424,000,000 for Iraq, 
     which is $373,000,000 below the request. The sums provided 
     enable the Department of State and USAID to continue programs 
     in Iraq through the end of fiscal year 2008 and into the 
     first two quarters of fiscal year 2009. After providing more 
     than $45,000,000,000 to help rebuild Iraq, the United States 
     should reduce bilateral assistance levels and reduce the 
     number of Department of State personnel involved in the 
     reconstruction effort who are located in Iraq. Funds provided 
     for Iraq are to be allocated as follows:

[[Page 14050]]



                                                  IRAQ PROGRAMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change  from
                        Activity                          Pending  request    Amended  bill         request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs).................            165,000            139,000            -26,000
    Provincial Reconstruction Development Councils.....            100,000             85,000            -15,000
    Local Governance Program...........................             65,000             54,000            -11,000
Community Stabilization Program (CSP)..................            155,000            100,000            -55,000
Community Action Program (CAP).........................  .................             75,000            +75,000
Infrastructure Security Protection for Oil, Water and               70,000  .................            -70,000
 Electricity...........................................
Operations and Maintenance of Key USG-Funded                       134,000             10,000           -124,000
 Infrastructure........................................
Iraqi-American Enterprise Fund.........................             25,000  .................            -25,000
Provincial Economic Growth (including Agriculture and    .................             25,000            +25,000
 Microfinance).........................................
National Capacity Development..........................            248,000             70,000           -178,000
Marla Fund.............................................  .................              5,000             +5,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................            797,000            424,000           -373,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Community Action Program (CAP).--The amended bill includes 
     $75,000,000 for continued support for the Community Action 
     Program.
       Community Stabilization Program (CSP).--The amended bill 
     includes $100,000,000 for the CSP, which is $55,000,000 below 
     the request. Recent findings of a March 18, 2008 USAID 
     Inspector General audit (E-267-08-001-P) of possible fraud 
     and misuse of some CSP funds are of concern. Therefore the 
     amended bill withholds 50 percent of funding until the 
     Secretary of State certifies and reports that USAID is 
     implementing recommendations contained in the audit to ensure 
     proper use of funds.
       Enterprise Fund.--The amended bill does not include any 
     funding for the creation, capitalization, operation, or 
     support of any enterprise fund in Iraq. The Department of 
     State is directed not to reprogram any funds made available 
     by this or prior Acts for an enterprise or enterprise-related 
     fund in Iraq.
       Infrastructure Security Protection for Oil, Water, and 
     Electricity.--The amended bill does not include funding for 
     these functions, which should be supported by the Government 
     of Iraq.
       Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund.--The amended bill 
     includes $5,000,000 for the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims 
     Fund for continued assistance for Iraqi civilians who suffer 
     losses as a result of the military operations.
       National Capacity Development (NCD).--Within the amount 
     provided in ESF for Iraq, $70,000,000 is provided for NCD, 
     which is $178,000,000 below the request. The Government of 
     Iraq should assume increasing responsibility for the cost of 
     these activities.
       Operations and Maintenance of Key U.S. Government-Funded 
     Infrastructure.--The amended bill includes $10,000,000 for 
     operations and maintenance of key United States government-
     funded infrastructure, which is $124,000,000 below the 
     request. These functions should be funded by the Government 
     of Iraq and this Act includes sufficient funding to allow the 
     United States to provide technical assistance and training. 
     In addition, the amended bill conditions the funds on the 
     signing and implementation of an asset transfer agreement 
     between the United States and Iraq.
       Provincial Economic Growth.--The amended bill includes 
     $25,000,000 for provincial economic growth activities.
       Vulnerable Groups.--Up to $10,000,000 of funds made 
     available for Iraq in this chapter, including from the 
     Migration and Refugee Assistance and International Disaster 
     Assistance accounts, should be made available for programs to 
     assist vulnerable Iraqi religious and ethnic minority groups, 
     including Christians. The Secretary of State should designate 
     staff at United States Embassy Baghdad to oversee and 
     coordinate such assistance.
       Afghanistan.--The amended bill includes $859,000,000 in ESF 
     for Afghanistan, which is $25,000,000 above the request. 
     USAID is directed to review its reconstruction efforts in 
     Afghanistan; focus its assistance, including capacity 
     building, through local Afghan entities; give greater 
     attention to accountability and monitoring to minimize 
     corruption; and emphasize programs which directly improve the 
     economic, social, and political status of Afghan women and 
     girls. Funds provided for Afghanistan are to be allocated as 
     follows:

                                              AFGHANISTAN PROGRAMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Change  from
                        Activity                          Pending  request    Amended  bill         request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Civilian Assistance Program............................  .................             10,000            +10,000
Governance and Capacity Building.......................            135,000            165,000            +30,000
2009 Elections.........................................            100,000             70,000            -30,000
National Solidarity Program............................             40,000             65,000            +25,000
Health and Education...................................             50,000             75,000            +25,000
North Atlantic Treaty Organization POHRF...............  .................              2,000             +2,000
Power..................................................            175,000            150,000            -25,000
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)/Provincial        .................             50,000            +50,000
 Governance............................................
Roads..................................................            329,000            200,000           -129,000
Rural Development/Alternative Livelihoods..............  .................             65,000            +65,000
Trade and Investment...................................              5,000              7,000             +2,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................            834,000            859,000            +25,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Civilian Assistance.--The amended bill includes $10,000,000 
     for USAID's Afghan Civilian Assistance Program to continue 
     assistance for civilians who have suffered losses as a result 
     of the military operations, and $2,000,000 for the NATO/ISAF 
     Post-Operations Humanitarian Relief Fund.
       Governance and Capacity Building.--The amended bill 
     provides $165,000,000 for governance and capacity building 
     programs, which is $30,000,000 above the request, to fund 
     rule of law, human rights, and local and national capacity 
     building.
       National Solidarity Program.--The amended bill includes 
     $65,000,000 for the National Solidarity Program to support 
     small-scale development initiatives. The funding shall be 
     programmed in a manner consistent with the Afghan National 
     Development Strategy.
       Power.--The amended bill includes $150,000,000 for power, 
     which is $25,000,000 below the request. The request includes 
     funding for gas and diesel power projects and there is a 
     concern that diesel generators are costly to maintain and 
     will exacerbate Kabul's already heavily polluted air. The 
     completion of the north-south transmission line to enable 
     Afghanistan to purchase electricity from its northern 
     neighbors for distribution to other areas of the country is 
     supported. Funding for the Northern Electrical Power System 
     or the Shebergan Gas-Fired Plant is not included. The World 
     Bank should play a larger role in financing such 
     infrastructure projects.
       It is noted that Afghanistan has considerable potential for 
     small hydro and solar power development to service 
     Afghanistan's many remote communities that have no other 
     access to electricity, and not less than $15,000,000 of the 
     funds shall be used for renewable energy projects in rural 
     areas.
       Provincial Reconstruction Teams.--The amended bill provides 
     $50,000,000 for PRTs in Afghanistan.
       Roads.--The amended bill includes $200,000,000 for roads, 
     which is $129,000,000 below the request.
       Rural Development and Alternative Livelihoods.--The amended 
     bill includes $65,000,000 for rural development and 
     alternative livelihood programs and an additional $35,000,000 
     for counternarcotics under the ``International Narcotics 
     Control and Law Enforcement'' account to expand 
     counternarcotics programs in Afghanistan. The Secretary of 
     State is directed to consult with the Committees on 
     Appropriations on the use of these funds.
       2009 Elections.--The amended bill includes $70,000,000 for 
     preparations for the 2009 elections.

[[Page 14051]]

       Bangladesh.--The amended bill includes $25,000,000 for 
     assistance for Bangladesh for cyclone recovery and 
     reconstruction assistance.
       Central America.--The amended bill includes $25,000,000 for 
     the countries of Central America in fiscal year 2008, in 
     addition to funds otherwise made available for assistance for 
     these countries, for a program to be called the ``Economic 
     and Social Development Fund for Central America'', of which 
     $20,000,000 is to be administered by USAID, in consultation 
     with the Department of State. The purpose of the program is 
     to promote economic and social development and good 
     governance in targeted, low-income areas, including rural 
     communities that are particularly vulnerable to drug 
     trafficking and related violence and organized crime. These 
     funds should support programs that emphasize community 
     initiatives and public-private partnerships. United States 
     funds should be matched with contributions from public and 
     private sources to the maximum extent practicable. USAID is 
     directed to consult with the Committees on Appropriations 
     prior to the obligation of these funds. Of the funds 
     available, $5,000,000 shall be administered by the Bureau of 
     Educational and Cultural Affairs for educational exchanges 
     with the countries of Central America.
       Democratic Republic of the Congo.--The amended bill 
     includes $12,500,000 for assistance for eastern Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo for urgent conflict mitigation and 
     recovery programs and for programs relating to sexual 
     violence against women and girls. Of this amount, not less 
     than $1,000,000 is to establish and support a training center 
     for health workers who provide care and treatment for victims 
     of sexual violence, and not less than $2,000,000 is for 
     training military and civilian investigators, prosecutors, 
     and judges to bring the perpetrators of such crimes to 
     justice.
       Exchanges with Africa.--The amended bill includes 
     $5,000,000 for educational exchanges with countries in 
     Africa, specifically to counter extremism. These funds should 
     be administered by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural 
     Affairs.
       Jordan.--The amended bill includes a total of $200,000,000 
     for economic assistance for Jordan, of which $175,000,000 is 
     appropriated under this heading, and $25,000,000 is 
     appropriated through a general provision. The Government of 
     Jordan remains a key ally and has played a leading role in 
     supporting peace initiatives in the Middle East. Programming 
     of these resources should be done in consultation with the 
     Government of Jordan and refugee relief organizations and 
     funds should be used to meet the needs of Iraqi refugees. The 
     Secretary of State, after consultation with the Government of 
     Jordan, the United Nations, and international organizations 
     and non-governmental organizations with a presence in Iraq, 
     is directed to submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations not later than 45 days after enactment of this 
     Act detailing (1) short- and medium-term options the United 
     States and other countries and organizations could pursue to 
     assist Iraqis in Jordan to maintain their educational and 
     vocational skills and earn income; and (2) longer term 
     options that the United States and the Government of Jordan 
     can take to address the economic, social and health needs of 
     refugees from Iraq, including the feasibility of extending 
     temporary residence status for Iraqis registered with the 
     United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
       Kenya.--The amended bill includes $12,000,000 for 
     assistance for Kenya for political, ethnic and tribal 
     reconciliation activities.
       Mexico.--The amended bill includes $20,000,000 for 
     assistance for Mexico for institution building and support of 
     civil society. Funding for these purposes was requested 
     through the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 
     (INCLE) account. The amended bill includes $5,000,000 for 
     human rights training for police, prosecutors, and prison 
     officials; $3,000,000 for victim and witness protection; and 
     $3,000,000 to support NGOs and civil society. The amended 
     bill also includes $5,000,000 for a literacy program for 
     local police. USAID is encouraged to work with non-
     governmental organizations, civil society, and local police 
     to replicate the literacy program being implemented in 
     Nezahualcoyotl, Mexico. The amended bill also includes 
     funding for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human 
     Rights in Mexico (OHCHR). The Department of State is directed 
     to work with the Mexican Government, the OHCHR, and civil 
     society organizations in Mexico to promote respect for human 
     rights by Mexican police and military forces.
       Nepal.--The amended bill includes $7,000,000 for assistance 
     for Nepal to strengthen democracy and support the peace 
     process, including the demobilization and reintegration of 
     ex-combatants, and for economic development programs in rural 
     communities affected by conflict.
       North Korea.--The amended bill includes up to $53,000,000 
     for energy-related assistance for North Korea in support of 
     the goals of the Six-Party Talks Agreement, in addition to 
     the $53,000,000 appropriated in division J of Public Law 110-
     161, which is the same as the total amount requested. Prior 
     to the obligation of assistance for North Korea, the 
     Secretary of State is directed to report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations that North Korea is continuing to fulfill its 
     commitments under the Six-Party Talks Agreement.
       Pakistan.--The amended bill does not include funding for 
     assistance for Pakistan in this subchapter. These needs are 
     addressed in funding appropriated in the fiscal year 2009 
     bridge.
       Philippines.--The amended bill includes $15,000,000 for 
     assistance for the Philippines for programs to further peace 
     and reconciliation in the southern Philippines, and 
     recognizes the shared interest between the United States and 
     the Philippines in combating terrorism in this region.
       Sri Lanka.--The amended bill includes $6,000,000 for 
     assistance for Sri Lanka to be provided through USAID to 
     support economic development programs in the eastern region 
     of Sri Lanka to solidify recent gains against the Liberation 
     Tigers of Tamil Eelam. These funds should be used to assist 
     Tamil and Muslim minorities in Sri Lanka.
       Sudan.--The amended bill includes $45,000,000 for 
     assistance for Sudan to support election-related activities.
       Thailand.--The amended bill includes $2,500,000 for 
     assistance for Thailand to address economic and social 
     development needs in southern Thailand. The Department of 
     State is directed to consult with the Committees on 
     Appropriations prior to the obligation of these funds.
       Uganda.--The amended bill includes $17,500,000 for 
     assistance for northern Uganda. These funds should be used to 
     support economic development, governance, assistance for war 
     victims, and reintegration of ex-combatants.
       West Bank and Gaza.--The amended bill includes not more 
     than $171,000,000 for economic assistance for the West Bank 
     and Gaza, which is $24,000,000 below the request. The 
     Department of State is directed to provide a report to the 
     Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days after the 
     enactment of this Act on how United States economic 
     assistance for the West Bank supports the larger Palestinian 
     Reform and Development Plan as well as a description of other 
     donor support of this plan. The report should describe how 
     assistance from the United States and other donors will 
     improve conditions in the West Bank, including through job 
     creation and housing programs.
       Zimbabwe.--The amended bill includes $5,000,000 for 
     assistance for Zimbabwe to support political reconciliation 
     activities.

                          Department of State


                             DEMOCRACY FUND

       The amended bill includes $76,000,000 for Democracy Fund 
     programs, requested under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'', to be made available as follows:
       Chad.--The amended bill includes $1,000,000 for democracy 
     activities in Chad.
       Iraq.--The amended bill includes $75,000,000 for democracy 
     activities in Iraq. These funds are intended to be available 
     through nongovernmental organizations, including the National 
     Endowment for Democracy, and not less than $8,000,000 for the 
     United States Institute of Peace. These funds should be 
     awarded expeditiously to prevent interruption of current 
     operations.


          INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

       The amended bill includes $390,300,000 for International 
     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) activities in 
     Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Central America, Haiti, the 
     Dominican Republic, and the West Bank, which is $343,700,000 
     below the request. The Secretary of State is directed to 
     consult with the Committees on Appropriations on the use of 
     these funds.
       Iraq.--The amended bill includes $85,000,000 for Iraq for 
     justice and rule of law programs, which is $74,000,000 below 
     the request. Funding for prison construction is not included.
       Afghanistan.--The amended bill includes $35,000,000, which 
     is $35,000,000 above the request, to support programs to 
     strengthen counternarcotics efforts, to improve the training 
     of the Afghan police, including border police, to advance the 
     development of institutional capacity professionalism of the 
     justice sector, and to help facilitate cooperation between 
     the police and the judiciary at both the national and 
     regional levels. The Department of State is directed to 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 180 
     days after enactment of this Act on the level of 
     counternarcotics cooperation by the Government of Afghanistan 
     at the national and regional level and should detail, 
     nationally and by province, the steps that the Government of 
     Afghanistan is taking to arrest and prosecute leaders of 
     Afghan drug cartels; disarm and disband private militias; and 
     end corruption among national and provincial police forces.
       Central America.--The amended bill includes $24,800,000 for 
     assistance for Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
     Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama, and an additional $5,000,000 
     for Haiti and the Dominican Republic under the Merida 
     Initiative. Although funding was requested only through the 
     INCLE account, funding for the Merida Initiative is provided 
     in the accounts from which such activities are traditionally 
     funded. The amended bill provides funding for specialized 
     police training and non-lethal

[[Page 14052]]

     equipment to strengthen the law enforcement and criminal 
     justice institutions for the purpose of combating drug 
     trafficking and related violent crime and increasing the 
     capacity and professionalism of Central American police 
     forces.
       Impunity within the military and police forces of several 
     of these countries and corruption within their justice 
     systems is of concern. The Secretary of State is directed to 
     submit a report in writing on mechanisms in place to ensure 
     eligibility of recipients of United States assistance.
       The omission of Haiti and the Dominican Republic from the 
     request for the Merida Initiative makes it more likely that 
     these vulnerable countries would become increasingly favored 
     transit routes for drug traffickers. The amended bill 
     includes $2,500,000 for Haiti and $2,500,000 for the 
     Dominican Republic as part of the Merida Initiative to 
     support counternarcotics and border security programs, anti-
     corruption, judicial reform, institution-building, and rule 
     of law programs.
       Mexico.--There is a shared responsibility between the 
     United States and Mexico to combat drug trafficking and 
     related violence and organized crime. The amended bill 
     includes $215,500,000 to support programs to enable the 
     Government of Mexico to respond to these threats in 
     accordance with the rule of law. The amended bill includes 
     $10,000,000 for demand reduction and drug rehabilitation 
     activities; $3,000,000 to provide technical and other 
     assistance to enable the Government of Mexico to put into 
     service a unified national police registry; and not more than 
     $24,000,000 for program development and support. To the 
     extent possible, any equipment and technology purchases 
     should be interoperable based on open standards with the 
     equipment and technology being used by their United States 
     Government counterparts.
       Corruption and impunity within Mexico's military and police 
     forces are of concern. Recommendations of the National Human 
     Rights Commission have been ignored and investigations of 
     violations of human rights by Mexican military and police 
     forces rarely result in convictions. The Secretary of State, 
     in consultation with relevant Mexican Government authorities, 
     is directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations 
     that mechanisms are in place to ensure eligibility of 
     recipients of United States assistance.
       There is concern with the failure to investigate and 
     prosecute the police officers responsible for human rights 
     violations, including rape and sexual violence against women, 
     at San Salvador Atenco on May 3-4, 2006, and in Oaxaca 
     between June and December 2006. These and other such 
     violations by members of the Mexican military and police 
     forces have been documented and require thorough, credible 
     and transparent investigation and prosecution by the Mexican 
     Attorney General.
       The state and Federal investigations into the October 27, 
     2006, killing in Oaxaca of American citizen Bradley Will have 
     been flawed and the Secretary of State is directed, not later 
     than 45 days after enactment of this Act and 120 days 
     thereafter, to submit a report to the Committees on 
     Appropriations detailing progress in conducting a thorough, 
     credible, and transparent investigation to identify the 
     perpetrators of this crime and bring them to justice. The 
     Department of State should work with Mexican Government 
     authorities and relevant Federal government agencies of the 
     United States to assist in the investigation of this case.
       West Bank.--The amended bill includes $25,000,000 for 
     ongoing training of vetted units of the Palestinian National 
     Security Forces, which is the same as the request.


                    MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

       The budget request included $230,000,000 for Migration and 
     Refugee Assistance, of which $200,000,000 was provided in the 
     Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs 
     Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) for emergency 
     refugee requirements in Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza.
       The amended bill includes $315,000,000 for Migration and 
     Refugee Assistance, which is $285,000,000 above the pending 
     request. Funds should be made available to meet unmet global 
     refugee needs, including to assist Iraqi refugees in Jordan, 
     Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt, and the surrounding region, as 
     well as internally displaced persons in Iraq. Funds may also 
     be used, if necessary, for the admissions costs of Iraqis 
     granted special immigrant status under the Special Immigrant 
     Visa program authorized by the National Defense Authorization 
     Act of 2008. In addition, funds may be used to offset 
     administrative costs associated with the expanded 
     requirements of the Iraqi refugee program, in consultation 
     with the Committees on Appropriations.
       The humanitarian crisis involving Iraqi refugees and 
     internally displaced persons is of concern and the Government 
     of Iraq has dedicated insufficient resources to assist this 
     most vulnerable segment of the Iraqi population. The 
     Department of State shall urge the Government of Iraq to 
     provide a substantial increase in funding for humanitarian 
     assistance to the Iraqi refugee population residing in the 
     region and within the country. In addition, the Secretary of 
     State should ensure that the Senior Coordinator for Iraqi 
     Refugee Issues gives particular attention to the needs of 
     vulnerable minority groups, including ethnic and religious 
     minorities.
       The welfare and security of the 7,900 Lao Hmong in the Thai 
     military camp in Petchaboon, northern Thailand is of concern 
     and the Department of State is directed to urge the 
     Government of Thailand to support a transparent screening 
     process to identify those who have a legitimate fear of 
     return to Laos. Any attempt to force the return of Hmong 
     refugees to Laos is strongly opposed.


     UNITED STATES EMERGENCY REFUGEE AND MIGRATION ASSISTANCE FUND

       The amended bill includes $31,000,000 for the United States 
     Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to prevent 
     depletion of this emergency fund.


    NONPROLIFERATION, ANTI-TERRORISM, DEMINING AND RELATED PROGRAMS

       The amended bill includes $13,700,000 for Nonproliferation, 
     Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs (NADR), which 
     is $8,700,000 above the request.
       Of these funds, $5,000,000 is for presidential protective 
     service support in Afghanistan, which is the same as the 
     request, and $2,500,000 is for a United States contribution 
     to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty International Monitoring 
     System.
       Central America.--The amended bill also includes $6,200,000 
     for the Merida Initiative for the countries of Central 
     America, which is $6,200,000 above the request. Although 
     funding for these purposes was requested only through the 
     INCLE account, funding has been provided in the NADR account, 
     from which such activities are traditionally funded.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                   FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING PROGRAM

       The amended bill includes $137,500,000 for Foreign Military 
     Financing Program, which is $137,500,000 above the request.
       Central America.--The amended bill includes $4,000,000 to 
     augment the ongoing naval cooperation program and maritime 
     security assistance to strengthen the ability of the 
     countries of Central America to improve maritime security and 
     interdiction capabilities, including to complement existing 
     regional systems and programs.
       Jordan.--The amended bill includes a total of $50,000,000 
     for military assistance for Jordan, of which $17,000,000 is 
     appropriated under this heading and $33,000,000 is 
     appropriated through a general provision.
       Mexico.--The amended bill includes $116,500,000 in support 
     of military-to-military cooperation between the United States 
     and Mexico.

 SUBCHAPTER B--BRIDGE FUND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 
                                  2009

       The budget request totals $3,605,000,000 in emergency 
     supplemental funds for fiscal year 2009. The amended bill 
     provides a total of $3,679,500,000 for the Department of 
     State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs for fiscal 
     year 2009 emergency supplemental requirements, which is 
     $74,500,000 above the request.

                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

                   Administration of Foreign Affairs


                    DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS

       The amended bill includes $704,900,000 for Diplomatic and 
     Consular Programs. Within this amount, $78,400,000 is 
     available for worldwide security protection and not more than 
     $550,500,000 is available as a bridge fund for Iraq 
     operations.
       To meet increased security and personnel requirements, the 
     amended bill includes $89,400,000 for Afghanistan, $7,000,000 
     for Pakistan, $3,000,000 for Somalia, and $15,000,000 for 
     Sudan. In addition, the amended bill includes $40,000,000 to 
     continue the support of new positions to develop language and 
     other critical skills of the diplomatic corps and for 
     civilian post-conflict stabilization initiatives.


                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       The amended bill includes $57,000,000 for Office of 
     Inspector General at the Department of State, of which 
     $15,500,000 is to continue oversight of programs in Iraq and 
     Afghanistan, and the Middle East.
       Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction 
     (SIGIR).--The amended bill includes $36,500,000 for SIGIR for 
     continued oversight of United States reconstruction programs 
     in Iraq, as authorized by section 3001 of Public Law 108-106.
       Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction 
     (SIGAR).--The amended bill includes $5,000,000 for SIGAR, 
     which is $5,000,000 above the request, and which is 
     authorized by section 1229 of Public Law 110-181. Such funds 
     shall be used for oversight of United States reconstruction 
     programs in Afghanistan. None of the funds shall be used to 
     duplicate investigations that have been conducted or to 
     support offices or systems of inspectors general at the 
     Department of State or USAID. SIGAR should co-locate staff 
     and ``back office'' support systems with other inspectors 
     general to the extent feasible.

[[Page 14053]]




            embassy security, construction, and maintenance

       The amended bill includes $41,300,000 for urgent embassy 
     security, construction, and maintenance costs. Funds should 
     be used to construct safe and secure office space for the 
     increasing number of diplomatic and development personnel 
     living and working in Kabul, Afghanistan.

                      International Organizations


              contributions to international organizations

       The amended bill includes $75,000,000 for Contributions to 
     International Organizations.


        contributions for international peacekeeping activities

       The amended bill includes $150,500,000 for Contributions 
     for International Peacekeeping Activities to fund the 
     Administration's revised estimate of the United States-
     assessed contribution to international peacekeeping.

                             RELATED AGENCY

                    Broadcasting Board of Governors


                 international broadcasting operations

       The amended bill includes $6,000,000 for International 
     Broadcasting Operations.

                     BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                    global health and child survival

       The amended bill includes $75,000,000 for Global Health and 
     Child Survival to continue programs to combat avian 
     influenza.


                         development assistance

       The amended bill includes $200,000,000 for Development 
     Assistance, which is for a new Food Security Initiative to 
     promote food security in countries affected by significant 
     food shortages, such as programs to assist farmers to 
     increase crop yields, including in Darfur. Of this amount, up 
     to $50,000,000 should be used for local and regional 
     purchase. The Secretary of State is directed to submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 45 
     days after enactment of this Act, and prior to the initial 
     obligation of funds, on the proposed uses of funds to 
     alleviate starvation, hunger, and malnutrition overseas, 
     including a list of those countries facing significant food 
     shortages.


                   international disaster assistance

       The amended bill includes $200,000,000 for International 
     Disaster Assistance to meet urgent humanitarian requirements 
     worldwide, including support for critical needs in 
     Bangladesh, Burma, and the People's Republic of China. A 
     portion of these funds should be used for assistance for 
     internally displaced persons in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 
     addition, funds are available under this heading to assist in 
     the response to the international food crisis.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                              development

       The amended bill includes $93,000,000 for Operating 
     Expenses of the United States Agency for International 
     Development to address staffing, security, and operating 
     needs.


   operating expenses of the united states agency for international 
                development office of inspector general

       The amended bill includes $1,000,000 for Operating Expenses 
     of the United States Agency for International Development 
     Office of Inspector General.

                  Other Bilateral Economic Assistance


                         economic support fund

       The amended bill includes $1,124,800,000 for Economic 
     Support Fund to address critical health, economic, and 
     security needs. These funds are to be allocated as follows:

                          ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Amended
                     Country and region                          bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan................................................      455,000
Bangladesh.................................................       50,000
Burma......................................................        5,300
Central African Republic...................................        2,000
Chad.......................................................        5,000
Democratic Republic of the Congo...........................       10,000
Iraq.......................................................      102,500
Jordan.....................................................      100,000
Kenya......................................................       25,000
North Korea................................................       15,000
Pakistan...................................................      150,000
Sudan......................................................       25,000
Uganda.....................................................       15,000
West Bank and Gaza.........................................      150,000
Zimbabwe...................................................       15,000
                                                            ------------
      Total................................................    1,124,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Afghanistan.--The amended bill includes $455,000,000 for 
     assistance for Afghanistan.
       Governance and Capacity Building.--The amended bill 
     includes $20,000,000 for the National Solidarity Program to 
     support small-scale development initiatives; and not less 
     than $35,000,000 for preparations for the 2009 elections. The 
     funding shall be programmed in a manner consistent with the 
     Afghan National Development Strategy.
       Rural Development and Alternative Livelihoods.--The amended 
     bill includes not less than $35,000,000 for rural development 
     and alternative livelihoods.
       Bangladesh.--The amended bill includes $50,000,000 for 
     cyclone recovery and reconstruction assistance.
       Burma.--The amended bill includes $5,300,000 for assistance 
     for Burma for humanitarian programs along the Thai-Burma 
     border.
       Iraq.--The amended bill includes $102,500,000 for 
     assistance for Iraq.
       Community Action Program (CAP).--The amended bill includes 
     $32,500,000 for continued support for the Community Action 
     Program.
       Community Stabilization Program (CSP).--The amended bill 
     includes $32,500,000 for continued support for the Community 
     Stabilization Program.
       Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund.--The amended bill 
     includes $2,500,000 for the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims 
     Fund for continued assistance for Iraqi civilians who suffer 
     losses as a result of the military operations.
       Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs).--The amended bill 
     includes $35,000,000 for continued support for the Provincial 
     Reconstruction Teams.

                          Department of State


          international narcotics control and law enforcement

       The amended bill includes $199,000,000 for International 
     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities in Iraq, 
     Afghanistan, the West Bank, Mexico, and Africa. The Secretary 
     of State is directed to consult with the Committees on 
     Appropriations on the use of these funds.


                    migration and refugee assistance

       The amended bill includes $350,000,000 for Migration and 
     Refugee Assistance to respond to urgent humanitarian and 
     refugee admissions requirements, including those involving 
     refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, and central Africa.


    nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs

       The amended bill includes $4,500,000 for Nonproliferation, 
     Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related Programs, for 
     humanitarian demining in Iraq.

                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE

                  Funds Appropriated to the President


                   foreign military financing program

       The amended bill includes $302,500,000 for Foreign Military 
     Financing Program, of which $100,000,000 is for assistance 
     for Jordan, $170,000,000 is for assistance for Israel, and 
     $32,500,000 is for assistance for Lebanon.


                        peacekeeping operations

       The amended bill includes $95,000,000 for Peacekeeping 
     Operations for programs in Africa to address needs beyond 
     those projected in the fiscal year 2009 budget request, 
     including for Darfur and $10,000,000 for Peacekeeping 
     Operations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). 
     These funds are made available to support infantry battalions 
     of the DRC armed forces, to protect vulnerable civilians in 
     the eastern region of the country, and should be made 
     available in accordance with thorough vetting procedures. The 
     Department of State should ensure that trained units are 
     being provided professional leadership, appropriate training 
     in human rights, and adequate pay.

             SUBCHAPTER C--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS CHAPTER

       The amended bill includes the following general provisions 
     for this chapter:


                        extension of authorities

       Section 1401 extends certain authorities necessary to 
     expend Department of State and foreign assistance funds.


                                  IRAQ

       Section 1402 imposes certain conditions and limitations on 
     assistance for Iraq and requires reports.


                              AFGHANISTAN

       Section 1403 imposes certain conditions and limitations on 
     assistance for Afghanistan and requires a report.


                               WEST BANK

       Section 1404 directs the Department of State to provide a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 
     days after enactment of this Act, and 180 days thereafter, on 
     the Palestinian security assistance program.


            WAIVER OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS AGAINST NORTH KOREA

       Section 1405 grants waiver authority to the President with 
     respect to certain assistance to North Korea and the ``Glenn 
     Amendment,'' which established automatic sanctions in the 
     Arms Export Control Act on non-nuclear weapon states that 
     detonate a nuclear device.


                                 MEXICO

       Section 1406 sets a ceiling on funding for Mexico at 
     $400,000,000. The provision also provides a restriction on 
     the use of funding for budget support or cash payments and 
     restricts obligation of 15 percent of the funding provided 
     under the headings ``Foreign Military Financing Program'' and 
     ``International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' until 
     the Secretary of State submits a report in writing.


                            CENTRAL AMERICA

       Section 1407 states that $65,000,000 may be made available 
     for the countries of Central America, Haiti and the Dominican 
     Republic and prohibits the use of funding for budget support 
     or cash payments. The provision restricts obligation of 15 
     percent of the funding provided under the headings ``Foreign 
     Military Financing Program'' and ``International

[[Page 14054]]

     Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement'' for the military and 
     police forces until the Secretary of State submits a report 
     in writing.


                    BUYING POWER MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

       Section 1408 provides authority to utilize $26,000,000 from 
     appropriations for Diplomatic and Consular Programs from a 
     prior Act and authority to transfer up to an additional 
     $74,000,000 of the funds made available by this Act to the 
     Buying Power Maintenance Account to manage exchange rate 
     losses in fiscal year 2008. The Department of State shall 
     consult on any proposed transfers resulting from this 
     authority. The Department of State estimates the impact of 
     currency fluctuations to be at least $260,000,000 on United 
     States diplomatic operations worldwide.
       In addition, the provision includes authority to transfer 
     unobligated and expired balances after fiscal year 2008 into 
     the Buying Power Maintenance Account to address future 
     exchange rate losses. The Secretary of State shall submit a 
     report to the Committees on Appropriations not later than 
     October 15, 2008, on the amount transferred by this authority 
     in this or any fiscal year, the total amount of exchange rate 
     losses in fiscal year 2008, and the accumulated impact of 
     losses from prior years.
       Finally, authority is granted to the Broadcasting Board of 
     Governors to transfer unobligated and expired balances after 
     fiscal year 2008 into its Buying Power Maintenance Account.


                                 SERBIA

       Section 1409 authorizes the Secretary of State to withhold 
     funds related to reimbursement of costs associated with 
     damage to the United States Embassy in Belgrade resulting 
     from the February 21, 2008, attack.


                              RESCISSIONS

       Section 1410 rescinds prior year funds and makes them 
     available for a contribution to the World Food Program and 
     for programs in the INCLE account. The provision also 
     rescinds prior year funds from the Iraq Relief and 
     Reconstruction Fund.


                          DARFUR PEACEKEEPING

       Section 1411 authorizes the President to utilize prior year 
     Foreign Military Financing Program and Peacekeeping 
     Operations funds for transfer or lease of helicopters or 
     related equipment necessary for operations of the AU/UN 
     hybrid peacekeeping mission in Darfur.


                                 TIBET

       Section 1412 provides up to $5,000,000 for the 
     establishment of a United States Consulate in Lhasa, Tibet, 
     under the headings ``Diplomatic and Consular Programs'' and 
     ``Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance'' in this 
     and prior Acts, and recommends certain actions regarding the 
     opening of such a consulate.
       The Secretary of State is directed to submit a report to 
     the Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days after 
     enactment of this Act detailing efforts taken by the 
     Department of State to establish a United States Consulate in 
     Lhasa, Tibet, and a description of any policies or programs 
     by the Government of the People's Republic of China aimed at 
     undermining public support for Tibet including in the media, 
     academia, and political arenas.


                                 JORDAN

                    (INCLUDING RESCISSION OF FUNDS)

       Section 1413 provides $58,000,000 for assistance for 
     Jordan, which is offset by a rescission of an equal amount 
     from the Millennium Challenge Corporation.


                              ALLOCATIONS

       Section 1414 requires that funds in the specified accounts 
     shall be allocated as indicated in the respective tables in 
     this explanatory statement. Any change to these allocations 
     shall be subject to the regular notification procedures of 
     the Committees on Appropriations.


                        REPROGRAMMING AUTHORITY

       Section 1415 allows for reprogramming of funds made 
     available in prior years to address critical food shortages, 
     subject to prior consultation with, and the regular 
     notification procedures of, the Committees on Appropriations.


               SPENDING PLANS AND NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES

       Section 1416 requires the Secretary of State to provide 
     detailed spending plans to the Committees on Appropriations 
     on the uses of funds appropriated in subchapters A and B. 
     These funds are also subject to the regular notification 
     procedures of the Committees on Appropriations.


                          TERMS AND CONDITIONS

       Section 1417 establishes that unless designated otherwise 
     in this chapter, the terms and conditions contained within 
     the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related 
     Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161) shall 
     apply to funds appropriated by this chapter, with the 
     exception of section 699K.

                       TITLE II--DOMESTIC MATTERS

                CHAPTER 1--FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                      Food and Drug Administration


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill provides an additional $150,000,000 for 
     Food and Drug Administration, Salaries and Expenses, 
     available until September 30, 2009. FDA is directed to 
     provide the Committees on Appropriations monthly expenditures 
     reports on the use of these funds.

               CHAPTER 2--COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                          Bureau of the Census


                     PERIODIC CENSUSES AND PROGRAMS

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       The amended bill includes $210,000,000 for increased costs 
     associated with the poor management of the 2010 Decennial 
     Census. Within the funds provided, not less than $50,300,000 
     shall be used to restore funding associated with the approved 
     March 26, 2008 reprogramming within the Bureau of the Census. 
     Funds transferred pursuant to the reprogramming to address 
     immediate shortfalls within the Field Data Collection 
     Automation contract from the American Community Survey, 
     Census Coverage Measurement activities, and other Census 
     activities may result in increased risk and other unintended 
     consequences to other parts of the Census. The $50,300,000 
     shall be available solely to complete previously planned 
     activities and address vacancies in the aforementioned areas 
     in order to reduce risk and ensure a successful 2010 
     Decennial Census.
       The Census Bureau shall submit to the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the House of 
     Representatives, within 30 days of enactment of this Act, a 
     detailed plan showing a timeline of milestones and 
     expenditures for the 2010 Decennial Census, and shall include 
     a quantitative assessment of the associated risk to the 
     program as it is currently constituted. In addition, the 
     Inspector General shall submit quarterly reports to the 
     Committees on Appropriations, until the conclusion of the 
     2010 Decennial Census, detailing the progress of the revised 
     plan for the execution of the 2010 Decennial Census and any 
     unanticipated slippages from the revised 2010 milestones, as 
     well as reassessing the associated risk to the program. The 
     Census Bureau is directed to provide the Inspector General 
     with any required information so that the quarterly reports 
     can begin 60 days after submission of the plan.
       Because rising costs associated with the 2010 Decennial 
     Census and the Department's and the Bureau's lack of contract 
     oversight are cause for particular concern, the bill includes 
     not less than $3,000,000 for the Department's Office of the 
     Inspector General for Census contract oversight activities 
     and not less than $1,000,000 solely for a reimbursable 
     agreement with the Defense Contract Management Agency to 
     review and improve Census contract management.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         Federal Prison System


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

       The amended bill includes $178,000,000 for additional costs 
     of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) related to the custody and 
     care of inmates and the maintenance and operation of 
     correctional and penal institutions. The BOP has been 
     chronically underfunded in recent budget requests, due to 
     consistently underestimated growth in inmate populations and 
     inadequate funding requests for medical expenses. As a 
     result, BOP facilities face rising staff-to-inmate ratios, 
     placing corrections officers and inmates at unacceptable risk 
     of violence. The amended bill includes funding for FCI 
     Pollock activation costs and for inmate drug abuse treatment 
     required by law. The Administration is urged to re-estimate 
     BOP fixed costs and prisoner population for fiscal year 2009 
     and to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
     Appropriations with those estimates no later than August 1, 
     2008. Further, the BOP is directed to notify the Committees 
     of current staff-to-inmate ratios at all Federal prisons on a 
     monthly basis.

                             OTHER AGENCIES

             National Aeronautics and Space Administration


                  SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND EXPLORATION

       The amended bill includes $62,500,000 for Science, 
     Aeronautics and Exploration.

                      National Science Foundation


                    RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

       The amended bill includes $22,500,000 for Research and 
     Related Activities, of which $5,000,000 shall be available 
     solely for activities authorized by section 7002(b)(2)(A)(iv) 
     of Public Law 110-69.


                     EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

       The amended bill includes $40,000,000 for Education and 
     Related Activities of which $20,000,000 is for section 10 of 
     the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 
     U.S.C. 1862n-1) and $20,000,000, is for activities authorized 
     by section 10A of the National Science Foundation 
     Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1a).

                           CHAPTER 3--ENERGY

                          DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

                            ENERGY PROGRAMS

                                Science

       The amended bill includes an additional $62,500,000 for 
     Science. The Department of

[[Page 14055]]

     Energy is instructed to utilize this funding to eliminate all 
     furloughs and reductions in force which are a direct result 
     of budgetary constraints. Workforce reductions which are a 
     result of completed work or realignment of mission should 
     proceed as planned. This funding is intended to maintain 
     technical expertise and capability at the Office of Science, 
     and may be used for National Laboratory Research and 
     Development including research related to new neutrino 
     initiatives. Funding for research efforts shall not be 
     allocated until the Office of Science has fully funded all 
     personnel requirements.

               ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

                     Defense Environmental Cleanup

       The amended bill includes an additional $62,500,000 for 
     Defense Environmental Cleanup.

             CHAPTER 4--LABOR AND HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

                 Employment and Training Administration


     STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE OPERATIONS

       The amended bill provides $110,000,000 for Unemployment 
     Compensation State Operations to compensate the States for 
     the administrative costs of processing the Unemployment 
     Insurance (UI) claims workload for the balance of fiscal year 
     2008. New UI claims are increasing, reaching a level in April 
     2008 nearly 18 percent greater than the previous year. States 
     are beginning to experience service degradation in the form 
     of call center delays for claimants, waiting times for 
     adjudication of disputed claims, and reductions in program 
     integrity activities, tax collection, and tax audits. While 
     funding in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 is 
     sufficient to cover the costs of processing 2.4 million 
     Average Weekly Insured Unemployment (AWIU), claims have 
     already climbed above 2.9 million AWIU. The amount provided 
     will compensate States for the claims workload estimated by 
     the Department of Labor up to the point where additional 
     funds are released under a legislated trigger.

                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                     National Institutes of Health


                         OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       The amended bill provides $150,000,000 in additional 
     funding for the National Institutes of Health to support 
     additional scientific research. This funding is to be 
     distributed on a pro-rata basis across the NIH institutes and 
     centers.

                     CHAPTER 5--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

      Payment to Widows and Heirs of Deceased Members of Congress

       The amended bill provides the customary death gratuity to 
     Annette Lantos, widow of Tom Lantos, late a Representative 
     from the State of California.

            TITLE III--NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF AND RECOVERY

                         CHAPTER 1--AGRICULTURE

                       DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                          Farm Service Agency


                     EMERGENCY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

       The amended bill provides $89,413,000 for the Emergency 
     Conservation Program for disaster relief. The recent Midwest 
     floods and tornadoes have added to disaster relief funding 
     needs. Therefore, these funds are provided to meet these and 
     other disaster relief funding needs.

                 Natural Resources Conservation Service


                 EMERGENCY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM

       The amended bill provides $390,464,000 for the Emergency 
     Watershed Protection Program for disaster relief. The recent 
     Midwest floods and tornadoes have added to disaster relief 
     funding needs. Therefore, these funds are provided to meet 
     these and other disaster relief funding needs.

                          CHAPTER 2--COMMERCE

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                  Economic Development Administration


                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

       The amended bill provides $100,000,000 for economic 
     development assistance in Presidentially-declared disaster 
     areas to provide disaster relief, long-term recovery and 
     restoration of infrastructure.

                     CHAPTER 3--CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--CIVIL

                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                       Corps of Engineers--Civil

       Public Law 109-148, the 3rd emergency supplemental 
     appropriations act of 2006, Public Law 109-234, the 4th 
     emergency supplemental appropriations act of 2006, and Public 
     Law 110-28, the emergency supplemental appropriations act of 
     2007, provided funds to repair and restore hurricane damaged 
     projects, accelerate completion of New Orleans area flood and 
     storm damage reduction projects, and provide 100-year storm 
     protection for the greater New Orleans area. The scope and 
     magnitude of the work required has increased with time. The 
     current cost estimate requires $5,761,000,000 in additional 
     Federal funds and a non-Federal cost-share of $1,527,000,000.
       The Administration requested this funding under the 
     Construction account in the fiscal year 2009 budget. The 
     amended bill provides the full amount of the request as a 
     supplemental appropriation to ensure the existing schedule 
     for completion of 100-year protection for the greater New 
     Orleans area by 2011 is met. However, $2,926,000,000 is 
     provided under Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies in order 
     to provide continuity in appropriations for projects to 
     repair, restore, and accelerate completion of the levels of 
     protection authorized prior to Hurricane Katrina. None of the 
     funds recommended for this purpose shall be available until 
     October 1, 2008.
       In addition, the amended bill provides $605,988,800 to 
     respond to recent natural disasters. The funding included 
     under the Construction; Mississippi River and Tributaries; 
     Operation and Maintenance; and Flood Control and Coastal 
     Emergency accounts that reference natural disasters are 
     provided to address nationwide disaster recovery and 
     emergency situations and should not be construed to pertain 
     exclusively to any single disaster event. The Corps shall 
     prioritize all projects to ensure that the most critical 
     health and safety risks are addressed.


                              CONSTRUCTION

       The amended bill includes $2,896,700,000 for Construction. 
     Within the recommended funds, $1,077,000,000 is provided to 
     complete the 100-year storm protection for the Lake 
     Pontchartrain and Vicinity project; $920,000,000 is provided 
     to complete the 100-year storm protection for the West Bank 
     and Vicinity project; and $838,000,000 is provided for 
     elements of the Southeast Louisiana Urban Drainage project 
     that are within the geographic perimeter of the West Bank and 
     Vicinity projects and the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 
     project.
       The amended bill includes a provision which requires the 
     Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity, West Bank and Vicinity and 
     Southeast Louisiana projects be cost shared 65 percent 
     Federal and 35 percent non-Federal as proposed by the 
     Administration with a resulting Federal cost of 
     $2,835,000,000 and a non-Federal cost of $1,527,000,000. 
     While the amended bill includes specific statutory dollar 
     amounts for the three projects, statutory language has been 
     included that would allow the Administration to request a 
     reprogramming of funds, if required. However, the Corps 
     should use this reprogramming ability sparingly.
       Due to recent natural disasters, the Corps of Engineers has 
     identified a number of projects that are currently under 
     construction that have been damaged by storm and flood 
     events. The amended bill includes $61,700,000 for the Corps 
     to repair and rehabilitate these construction projects that 
     were affected by natural disasters.


                   MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES

       Due to recent natural disasters, the Corps of Engineers has 
     identified a number of Federally-maintained construction and 
     maintenance projects that have been damaged or otherwise 
     impacted by storm and flood events. The amended bill includes 
     $17,590,000 for the Corps to repair and rehabilitate these 
     projects that were affected by natural disasters.


                       OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

       Due to recent natural disasters, the Corps of Engineers has 
     identified a number of navigation and flood damage reduction 
     projects that have been impacted by storm and flood events. 
     The amended bill provides $298,344,000 for the Corps to 
     restore navigation channels and harbors to pre-storm 
     conditions; and to repair eligible flood damage reduction and 
     other projects in States affected by natural disasters.


                 FLOOD CONTROL AND COASTAL EMERGENCIES

       The amended bill provides $3,152,854,800 for Flood Control 
     and Coastal Emergencies. The funding includes, at full 
     Federal expense, the following amounts: $704,000,000 to 
     modify the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue 
     drainage canals and install pumps and closure structures at 
     or near the lakefront; $90,000,000 for storm-proofing 
     interior pump stations to ensure the operability of the 
     stations during hurricanes, storms, and high water events; 
     $459,000,000 for armoring critical elements of the New 
     Orleans hurricane and storm damage reduction system; 
     $53,000,000 to improve protection at the Inner Harbor 
     Navigation Canal; $456,000,000 to replace or modify certain 
     non-Federal levees in Plaquemines Parish to incorporate the 
     levees into the existing New Orleans to Venice hurricane 
     protection project; $412,000,000 for reinforcing or replacing 
     flood walls, as necessary, in the existing Lake Pontchartrain 
     and Vicinity project and the existing West Bank and Vicinity 
     project to improve the performance of the systems; 
     $393,000,000 for repair and restoration of authorized 
     protections and floodwalls; and $359,000,000 to complete the 
     authorized protection for the Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity 
     Project, for the West Bank and Vicinity Project and the New 
     Orleans to Venice Project. While the Committee has 
     recommended specific statutory dollar amounts for the 
     projects identified under this heading, statutory language 
     has been included that would allow the Administration to 
     request a reprogramming of funds,

[[Page 14056]]

     if required. However, the Corps should use this reprogramming 
     ability sparingly.
       Due to recent natural disasters, the Corps of Engineers has 
     identified a number of projects that have been damaged by 
     storm and flood events. The amended bill includes 
     $226,854,800 for the Corps to prepare for flood, hurricane 
     and other natural disasters and support emergency operations, 
     repairs, and other activities in response to flood and 
     hurricane emergencies, as authorized by law; to repair and 
     rehabilitate eligible projects that were affected by natural 
     disasters; and to fund claims processing and discovery costs 
     associated with Hurricane Katrina lawsuits.
       The amended bill includes a provision directing the Corps 
     to continue the NEPA alternative evaluation of all options 
     for permanent pumping of storm water in the New Orleans 
     metropolitan area with particular attention to Options 1, 2 
     and 2a and within 90 days of enactment of this Act provide 
     the House and Senate Appropriation Committees cost estimates 
     to implement Options 1, 2 and 2a of the above cited report. 
     Current plans do not fully account for the operational 
     challenges that arise during major storm events and are not, 
     therefore, fully protective of public safety.


                                EXPENSES

       The amended bill includes $1,500,000 for additional 
     oversight and management costs associated with Hurricane 
     Katrina recovery efforts.

                       CHAPTER 4--SMALL BUSINESS

                     Small Business Administration


                     DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

       Based on early estimates of damages due to severe storms 
     and flooding in a number of states, the amended bill includes 
     $164,939,000 in loan subsidy for the costs of providing 
     direct loans for homeowners and business-owners so that they 
     can recover from the effects of these disasters. The amended 
     bill also includes a total of $101,814,000 for the 
     administrative costs for carrying out the loan program. These 
     funds will provide for the on site presence of Small Business 
     Administration (SBA) employees to assist disaster victims in 
     obtaining low interest loans from the SBA. Funding will 
     support additional to staff in call centers, disaster 
     resource sites, and loan processing centers and for field 
     inspections to verify damages and losses of homes and 
     businesses. Funding is also necessary to hire additional 
     attorneys to carry out the loan closing process, as well as 
     staff to service the loans. Of this amount, $6,000,000 may be 
     transferred to the Salaries and Expenses account for indirect 
     administrative expenses and $1,000,000 is for the Office of 
     Inspector General for audits and reviews of disaster loans.

                    CHAPTER 5--FEMA DISASTER RELIEF

                    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

                  Federal Emergency Management Agency


                            DISASTER RELIEF

       The amended bill provides an additional $897,000,000 for 
     Disaster Relief. The recent Midwest floods and tornadoes have 
     added to disaster relief funding needs. The 1993 Midwest 
     floods cost FEMA over $1.1 billion fifteen years ago and the 
     current damage is likely to cost at least this amount, but in 
     inflated dollars. This funding is provided to partially meet 
     these and other disaster relief funding needs.

                CHAPTER 6--HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

              DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

                      Permanent Supportive Housing

       The amended bill includes funding for Louisiana Permanent 
     Supportive Housing, in the amount of $73,000,000. This is a 
     new program, and the money is split between two accounts in 
     the bill--the Homeless Assistance Grants and the Project-
     Based Rental Assistance programs. This program will provide 
     funding for the 3,000 units of permanent supportive housing 
     that are envisioned in the HUD-approved Louisiana Road Home 
     Program. This will enable the promise of the Road Home 
     Program to address the housing needs of our most vulnerable 
     citizens, in particular extremely low-income homeless, 
     disabled and frail elderly persons, to be fulfilled. Of the 
     $73,000,000 provided, $20,000,000 will fund 2,000 project-
     based vouchers (funded for 1-year terms) with $3,000,000 in 
     administrative fees, and $50,000,000 will fund 1,000 Shelter 
     Plus Care units (funded for five-year terms). These are the 
     ideal and proven housing programs for creating permanent 
     supportive housing for the populations in question. The 
     program funds are provided to the State of Louisiana or its 
     designee or designees, and language is included stating that 
     the administering entity or entities can act as a public 
     housing agency for purposes of administering the funding.

                   Community Planning and Development

                       Community Development Fund

       The amended bill provides $300,000,000 for the Community 
     Development Fund for necessary expenses related to disaster 
     relief, long-term recovery, and restoration of infrastructure 
     in areas for which the President declared a major disaster.

             TITLE IV--EMERGENCY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

       The amended bill includes language providing a temporary 
     extension of unemployment benefits to workers who have lost 
     their jobs. Specifically, the amended bill provides up to 13 
     weeks of extended unemployment benefits in every State to 
     workers exhausting regular unemployment compensation. The 
     extended benefits program will terminate on March 31, 2009. 
     The percentage of workers exhausting unemployment benefits is 
     currently 37 percent, which is higher than at the beginning 
     of any of the past five recessions. Not only will workers and 
     their families benefit from extended benefits, providing this 
     financial assistance also can reduce the severity and 
     duration of an economic downturn. Experts agree that 
     extending unemployment benefits is one of the most cost-
     effective and fast acting forms of economic stimulus because 
     workers who have lost their paychecks have little choice but 
     to spend these benefits quickly.

                TITLE V--VETERANS EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

       Title V of the amended bill includes provisions designed to 
     expand the educational benefits for men and women who have 
     served in the armed forces since the terrorist attacks of 
     September 11, 2001. The provisions will closely resemble the 
     educational benefits provided to veterans returning from 
     World War II.
       The benefits included in title V would apply to all members 
     of the military who have served on active duty, including 
     activated reservists and National Guard. To qualify, veterans 
     must have served at least three months of qualified active 
     duty, beginning on or after September 11, 2001. The amended 
     bill provides for benefits to be paid in amounts linked to 
     the amount of active duty service.
       In addition to tuition and other established charges, the 
     benefit includes a monthly stipend for housing costs as well 
     as tutorial assistance and licensure and certification tests.
       The amended bill would create a new program in which the 
     government will agree to match, dollar for dollar, any 
     voluntary additional contributions to veterans from 
     institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum 
     educational assistance provided in the amended bill.
       In addition, title V allows for members of the armed 
     services to transfer their benefits to their spouse or 
     children.
       Finally, the amended bill provides for the veterans to have 
     up to fifteen years after they leave active duty to use their 
     educational assistance entitlement. Veterans would be barred 
     from receiving concurrent assistance from this program and 
     another similar program.

  TITLE VI--ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING

             CHAPTER 1--CLOSE THE CONTRACTOR FRAUD LOOPHOLE

       Chapter 1 of title VI is identical to the language of H.R. 
     5712, ``Close the Contractor Fraud Loophole Act,'' passed by 
     the House on April 23, 2008 and was in the Senate amendment 
     adopted on May 22, 2008. It closes a loophole in a proposed 
     rule so that mandatory fraud reporting requirements would 
     apply to U.S. contractors working overseas as well as to 
     contractors working here at home.

               CHAPTER 2--GOVERNMENT FUNDING TRANSPARENCY

       Chapter 2 of title VI is identical to the language of H.R. 
     3928, ``Government Funding Transparency Act of 2007,'' passed 
     by the House on April 23, 2008 and was in the Senate 
     amendment adopted on May 22, 2008. It requires any company or 
     organization receiving at least $25 million and 80 percent or 
     more of their revenue from federal payments to disclose the 
     compensation of their most highly-compensated officers.

                     TITLE VII--MEDICAID PROVISIONS

       Title VII of the amended bill includes language extending 
     the current moratorium to April 2009 on four Medicaid 
     regulations pertaining to: graduate medical education 
     payments; limits on payments to government safety net 
     providers; rehabilitation services; and school-based 
     administrative and specialized medical transportation 
     services for children. The amended bill also establishes a 
     moratorium for the same period for two Medicaid regulations 
     pertaining to: health care provider taxes and targeted case 
     management. The cost of the moratoria is fully offset over 
     five and ten years in the amended bill by provisions that 
     extend an asset verification demonstration to all fifty 
     States and reduce balances in the Physician Assistance and 
     Quality Initiative Fund. These six moratoria are identical to 
     those included in H.R. 5613, which was approved by the House 
     by a 349-62 vote and were in the Senate amendment adopted on 
     May 22, 2008.
       The moratorium on these six regulations is included in the 
     amended bill due to concerns about their potential negative 
     impact on essential medical services for millions of people, 
     particularly for seniors, people with disabilities, and 
     children, and on the providers of these safety net services. 
     These regulations also would have a far-reaching impact

[[Page 14057]]

     on graduate medical education, outreach and supportive 
     services designed to help individuals get the medical care 
     they need, and foster care services.
       According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these 
     regulatory changes would reduce Federal Medicaid spending by 
     more than $17,500,000,000 over the next five years, shifting 
     these costs to States and localities. These cuts would occur 
     during an economic downturn when States and localities are 
     least able to restore services. Further, the authorizing 
     committees indicate that many of these regulations alter 
     longstanding Medicaid policy without specific Congressional 
     authorization.
       Additional time is required to examine the potential impact 
     of these regulations. Accordingly, the amended bill includes 
     $5,000,000 for a study to be completed no later than 
     September 2009 by an independent entity to assess the 
     prevalence of the problems in the Medicaid program the 
     regulations were intended to address and their impact on each 
     State. The amended bill also includes $25,000,000 for the 
     purpose of reducing fraud and abuse in the Medicaid program.

                TITLE VIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS, THIS ACT

       The amended bill includes the following general provisions:
       Section 8001 establishes the period of availability for 
     obligation for appropriations provided in this Act.
       Section 8002 provides that, unless otherwise noted, all 
     appropriations in this Act are designated as emergency 
     requirements and necessary to meet emergency needs pursuant 
     to section 204(a) of S. Con. Res. 21 and section 301(b)(2) of 
     S. Con. Res. 70, the congressional budget resolutions for 
     fiscal years 2008 and 2009.
       Section 8003 provides for a reduction of $3,577,845,000 
     from the Procurement; Research, Development, Test and 
     Evaluation; and Defense Working Capital headings within 
     chapter 1 of title IX of this Act. The section also provides 
     that the reduction shall be applied proportionally to each 
     appropriation account under such headings, and to each 
     program, project, and activity within each such appropriation 
     account.
       Section 8004 amends section 9310 of this Act, which 
     prohibits the obligation or expenditure of funds available to 
     the Department of Defense to implement any final action on 
     joint basing initiatives. The amendment excepts funds 
     deposited in the Department of Defense Base Closure Account 
     2005 from this restriction.
       Section 8005 makes funds provided in Public Law 110-28, 
     which remain available for obligation, within the operation 
     and maintenance portion of the Defense Health Program for 
     Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury 
     (TBI) available for psychological health and traumatic brain 
     injury.
       Section 8006 provides that this Act may be referred to as 
     the ``Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008''.

[[Page 14058]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.001
     


[[Page 14059]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.002
     


[[Page 14060]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.003
     


[[Page 14061]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.004
     


[[Page 14062]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.005
     


[[Page 14063]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.006
     


[[Page 14064]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.007
     


[[Page 14065]]

     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TS26JN08.008
     
      

[[Page 14066]]

         Disclosure of Congressionally Directed Spending Items

       Following is a list of congressionally directed spending 
     items (as defined in rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the 
     Senate) included in the House amendment discussed in this 
     explanatory statement, along with the name of the Senator who 
     submitted a request to the Committee of jurisdiction for the 
     items so identified. The items were contained in the Senate-
     passed amendment. Neither the amendment nor the explanatory 
     statement contains any limited tax benefits or limited tariff 
     benefits as defined in rule XLIV.

                                                                                      MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
                                                                                    [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Account                        State                          Location                                Project Title                        Amount              Requested By
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army.............................  Alaska...................  Fort Wainwright....................  Child Development Center.......................           17,000  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  California...............  Fort Irwin.........................  Child Development Center.......................           11,800  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Armory--5th Marine Regiment....................           10,890  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Bachelor Quarters & Armory.....................           34,970  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Bachelor Quarters & Dining Facility............           24,390  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Company Headquarters--Military Police..........            8,240  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Explosive Ordinance Detachment--Ops............           13,090  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance.......            1,114  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Armory--Regimental & Battalion HQ..............            5,160  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  Armory--Intelligence Battalion.................            4,180  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Camp Pendleton.....................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................            9,270  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  California...............  China Lake.........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................            7,210  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  California...............  Point Mugu.........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................            7,250  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  California...............  San Diego..........................  Child Development Center.......................           17,930  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  California...............  Twentynine Palms...................  Regimental Headquarters Addition...............            4,440  The President
Navy.............................  California...............  Twentynine Palms...................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................           11,250  The Administration \1\
Air Force........................  California...............  Beale AFB..........................  Child Development Center.......................           17,600  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Colorado.................  Fort Carson........................  Child Development Center.......................            8,400  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Colorado.................  Fort Carson........................  Soldier Family Assistance Center...............            8,100  The President
Navy.............................  Florida..................  Eglin AFB..........................  JIEDDO Battle Course Additions.................              780  The Administration \1\
Air Force........................  Florida..................  Eglin AFB..........................  Child Development Center.......................           11,000  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Georgia..................  Fort Gordon........................  Child Development Center.......................            7,800  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Georgia..................  Fort Stewart.......................  Soldier Family Assistance Center...............            6,000  The President
Defense-Wide.....................  Georgia..................  Fort Benning.......................  Hospital Replacement...........................          350,000  ( \2\ )
Army.............................  Hawaii...................  Schofield Barracks.................  Child Development Center.......................           12,500  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Kansas...................  Fort Riley.........................  Transitioning Warrior Support Complex..........           50,000  The President
Defense-Wide.....................  Kansas...................  Fort Riley.........................  Hospital Replacement...........................          404,000  ( \2\ )
Army.............................  Kentucky.................  Fort Campbell......................  Child Development Center.......................            9,900  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Kentucky.................  Fort Campbell......................  Soldier Family Assistance Center...............            7,400  The President
Army.............................  Kentucky.................  Fort Knox..........................  Child Development Center.......................            7,400  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Louisiana................  Fort Polk..........................  Soldier Family Assistance Center...............            4,900  The President
Navy.............................  Mississippi..............  Gulfport...........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................            6,570  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Missouri.................  Fort Leonard Wood..................  Starbase Complex 6, Phase 1....................           50,000  ( \2\ )
Air Force........................  New Jersey...............  McGuire AFB........................  JIEDDO Training Facility.......................            6,200  The Administration \1\
Air Force........................  New Mexico...............  Cannon AFB.........................  Child Development Center.......................            8,000  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  New York.................  Fort Drum..........................  Warrior in Transition Facilities...............           38,000  The President
Army.............................  North Carolina...........  Fort Bragg.........................  Child Development Center.......................            8,500  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  North Carolina...........  Camp Lejeune.......................  Child Development Center.......................           16,000  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  North Carolina...........  Camp Lejeune.......................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................           11,980  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  North Carolina...........  Camp Lejeune.......................  Maintenance/Operations Complex.................           43,340  The President
Defense-Wide.....................  North Carolina...........  Camp Lejeune.......................  Hospital Addition/Alteration...................           64,300  ( \2\ )
Army.............................  Oklahoma.................  Fort Sill..........................  Child Development Center.......................            9,000  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  South Carolina...........  Parris Island......................  Recruit Barracks...............................           25,360  ( \2\ )
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Bliss.........................  Child Development Center.......................            5,700  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Bliss.........................  Child Development Center.......................            5,900  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Bliss.........................  Child Development Center.......................            5,700  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Hood..........................  Child Development Center.......................            7,200  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Hood..........................  Warrior in Transition Facilities...............            9,100  The President
Army.............................  Texas....................  Fort Sam Houston...................  Child Development Center.......................            7,000  The Administration \1\
Defense-Wide.....................  Texas....................  Fort Sam Houston...................  Burn Rehab Unit................................           21,000  The President
Army.............................  Virginia.................  Fort Lee...........................  Child Development Center.......................            7,400  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  Virginia.................  Yorktown...........................  JIEDDO Battle Courses..........................            8,070  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Administrative Building........................           13,800  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  New Roads......................................           27,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Ammunition Supply Point........................           62,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Power Plant....................................           41,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Bulk Fuel Storage & Supply, Phase 3............           23,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Bulk Fuel Storage & Supply, Phase 4............           21,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Various Locations..................  CIED Road--Rte Alaska..........................           16,500  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Aircraft Maintenance Hangar....................            5,100  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Ghazni.............................  Rotary Wing Parking............................            5,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Kabul..............................  Consolidated Compound..........................           36,000  The President
Army.............................  Afghanistan..............  Various Locations..................  CIED Road--Rte Connecticut.....................           54,000  The President
Air Force........................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Strategic Ramp.................................           43,000  The President
Air Force........................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  Parallel Taxiway, Phase 2......................           21,400  The President
Air Force........................  Afghanistan..............  Bagram.............................  East Side Helo Ramp............................           44,400  The President
Air Force........................  Afghanistan..............  Kandahar...........................  ISR Ramp.......................................           26,300  The President
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Network Infrastructure Expansion...............            6,270  The President
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Dining Facility................................           20,780  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Water Production...............................           19,140  The President
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Full Length Taxiway............................           15,490  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Fuel Farm......................................            4,000  The Administration \1\
Navy.............................  Djibouti.................  Camp Lemonier......................  Western Taxiway................................            2,900  The Administration \1\
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Adder.........................  Petro Oil & Lubricant Storage..................           10,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Adder.........................  Waste Water Treatment & Collection.............            9,800  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Adder.........................  Convoy Support Center Relocation, Phase 2......           39,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Al Asad............................  Landfill Construction..........................            3,100  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Al Asad............................  Hot Cargo Ramp.................................           18,500  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Al Asad............................  South Airfield Apron (India Ramp)..............           28,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Anaconda......................  Landfill Construction..........................            6,200  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Anaconda......................  Hazardous Waste Incinerator....................            4,300  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Constitution..................  Juvenile TIFRIC................................           11,700  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Fallujah...........................  Landfill Construction..........................              880  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Marez.........................  Landfill Construction..........................              880  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Q-West.............................  North Entry Control Point......................           11,400  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Q-West.............................  Perimeter Security Upgrade.....................           14,600  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Ramadi........................  Landfill Construction..........................              880  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Scania.............................  Entry Control Point............................            5,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Scania.............................  Water Storage Tanks............................            9,200  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Speicher......................  Military Control Point.........................            5,800  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Speicher......................  Landfill Construction..........................            5,900  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Speicher......................  Aviation Navigation Facilities.................           13,400  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Taqqadum......................  Landfill Construction..........................              880  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Victory.......................  Landfill Construction..........................            6,200  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Victory.......................  Level 3 Hospital...............................           13,400  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Victory.......................  Waste Water Treatment & Collection.............            9,800  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Victory.......................  Water Supply, Treatment & Storage, Phase 3.....           13,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Victory.......................  Water Treatment & Storage, Phase 2.............           18,000  The President

[[Page 14067]]

 
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Camp Warrior.......................  Landfill Construction..........................              880  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Various Locations..................  Overhead Cover--eGlass.........................           30,000  The President
Army.............................  Iraq.....................  Various Locations..................  Overhead Cover--eGlass, Phase 4................          105,000  The President
Air Force........................  Iraq.....................  Balad AB...........................  Helicopter Maintenance Facilities..............           34,600  The President
Air Force........................  Iraq.....................  Balad AB...........................  Foxtrot Taxiway................................           12,700  The President
Air Force........................  Iraq.....................  Balad AB...........................  Fighter Ramp...................................           11,000  The President
Army.............................  Kuwait...................  Camp Arifjan.......................  Communications Center..........................           30,000  The President
Air Force........................  Kyrgyzstan...............  Manas AB...........................  Strategic Ramp.................................           30,300  The President
Air Force........................  Oman.....................  Masirah AB.........................  Expeditionary Beddown Site.....................            6,300  The Administration \1\
Air Force........................  Qatar....................  Al Udeid...........................  Facilities Replacement.........................           30,000  The Administration \1\
Air Force........................  Qatar....................  Al Udeid...........................  Close Air Support Parking Apron................           60,400  The Administration \1\
Defense-Wide.....................  Qatar....................  Al Udeid...........................  Special Operations Forces Warehouse............            6,600  The President
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These projects were requested by the Department of Defense subsequent to the submission of the President's budget request and were not included in the official budget request.
\2\ These projects were added by the House Committee on Appropriations as a result of hearings, site visits, and departmental briefings on trainee and recruit facilities and medical treatment
  facilities.


                                                                             CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING ITEMS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Account                                                            Project                                                  Funding                       Member
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                          SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corps of Engineers--Construction......  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity, LA....................    $1,077,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                          Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Construction......  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, West Bank and Vicinity, LA............................       920,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                          Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Construction......  In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Southeast Louisiana, LA...............................       838,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
                                                                                                                                                          Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, 17th Street, Orleans, and London Avenue Canal pumps          704,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    and closures, LA.                                                                                                Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Stormproofing interior pump stations, LA..............        90,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                                                                                                                                     Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Levee and critical element armoring, LA...............       459,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                                                                                                                                     Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Navigable closure at the Inner Harbor Navigation              53,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    Canal, LA.                                                                                                       Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Incorporation of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, Non-         456,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    Federal levee.                                                                                                   Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, reinforcing or Replacing Floodwalls in the existing          412,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity, and West Bank and Vicinity Projects in New Orleans, LA.                          Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, repair and restoration of authorized protections and         393,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    floodwalls in New Orleans, LA.                                                                                   Vitter
Corps of Engineers--Flood Control and   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, complete authorized Lake Ponchartrain and Vicinity and       359,000,000  The President, Senators Landrieu,
 Coastal Emergencies.                    West Bank and Vicinity projects in New Orleans, LA.                                                              Vitter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Housing and Urban         Permanent Supportive Housing vouchers for the State of Louisiana for elderly, disabled and           73,000,000  Senator Landrieu
 Development: Permanent Supportive       other at-risk homeless individuals directly impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
 Housing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
reported the fiscal year 2009 Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. In this bill, the 
Senate Committee has continued its aggressive efforts to improve the 
safety of miners in the coal fields.
  After the deadly tragedy at the Sago Mine in 2006, the Congress 
passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response, MINER, Act, 
which I was pleased to cosponsor. Among other things, that bill 
required the immediate installation of emergency breathing devices and 
also the installation of wireless communications and tracking equipment 
by June 2009. The MINER Act also required the Mine Safety and Health 
Administration, MSHA, to draft several new regulations, including rules 
on penalties, mine rescue teams, and the sealing of abandoned areas. It 
also required a report from the National Institute for Occupational 
Safety and Health, NIOSH, on refuge alternatives, as well as a report 
on belt-air ventilation and the fire-retardant properties of belt 
materials from a technical study panel. I would note that the 
Appropriations Committee included two amendments to the MINER Act in 
the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill directing MSHA to 
finalize regulations later this year that would implement the 
recommendations on refuge alternatives and belt safety provided by 
NIOSH and the Technical Study Panel. MSHA issued the proposed rules 
this month for comment.
  In order to meet these new mandates and so that MSHA can fulfill its 
other important health and safety responsibilities, like completing 100 
percent of statutory inspections, the Senate Appropriations Committee 
increased funding for coal enforcement from $117 million in fiscal year 
2006, to $150 million in fiscal year 2008. In May 2006, the Senate 
Appropriations Committee also directed MSHA to hire 170 new coal 
inspectors and provided $25.6 million to accomplish that task. Since 
then, MSHA has hired 322 coal enforcement personnel--increasing the 
number of inspectors from 587 in June 2006, to 750 in May 2008.
  I also proudly note that the committee has added funding for mine 
safety research at NIOSH, increasing to $50 million the budget for the 
development of health and safety technologies. The committee also 
provided $23 million in the fiscal years 2006 and 2007 Supplemental 
Appropriations Acts in order to expedite the deployment of safety 
technologies. With the funding the committee has provided since Sago, 
NIOSH has unveiled an improved self-contained, self-rescuer, SCSR, that 
allows miners to replace their oxygen supply without removing their 
SCSR. NIOSH has also announced progress on more durable and survivable 
communications systems, and completed critical studies of seals and 
refuge alternatives, which MSHA has used as the basis for its 
regulatory proposals.
  Having increased funding in previous years, the Appropriations 
Committee focused this year on ensuring that the administration does 
not back away from its commitment to mine safety. In his fiscal year 
2009 budget, President Bush proposed cutting coal enforcement by $10 
million. The committee-reported fiscal year 2009 bill rejects this 
proposal, and increases the budget for coal enforcement to $155 
million. This is $4.4 million above the fiscal year 2008 enacted level, 
and when you discount $6 million of one-time expenditures last fiscal 
year, the total increase is more than $10 million.
  This funding would enable MSHA to continue to hire inspectors, 
specialists, and support staff, and to implement the MINER Act. It 
would also enable MSHA to achieve 100 percent compliance with its 
statutory mandates. In addition, the fiscal year 2009 committee-
reported bill includes $2 million above the president's budget request 
for MSHA to minimize coal dust levels through increased spot 
inspections. This is a new funding priority for the committee, in light 
of NIOSH reports in 2007 about alarming clusters of rapidly progressing 
black lung around southern West Virginia. The bill also

[[Page 14068]]

includes language requiring by March 31, 2009, a report from MSHA on 
the feasibility and efficacy of MSHA assuming responsibility for 
collecting dust samples and using single, full-shift measurements 
instead of averages to ensure compliance with the law.
  Mr. President, I praise the work of the dedicated enforcement 
personnel laboring in the coal fields. With funding from the 
Appropriations Committee, they have been working overtime and putting 
in long and hard hours. After too many years of neglect in the 
President's budgets, I am proud to note that there are visibly and 
noticeably more inspectors in the coal fields today, and additional 
inspectors are on the way. That is real, tangible progress. We must 
continue it. The argument that MSHA can now afford to cut back its 
budget for coal enforcement must not be allowed to take root. We must 
provide MSHA personnel with everything they need to do their job. As 
coal production increases across the Nation and MSHA struggles to 
implement the mandates of the MINER Act, the Congress must ensure 
sufficient funding to ensure that each and every mandate of the Coal 
Act is enforced.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, over the past few months I have spoken 
several times in this Chamber about the need to approve a supplemental 
request from the President for appropriations to fund activities and 
operations of the Department of Defense. Progress on this request has 
been terribly slow. It has now been more than 500 days since the 
President submitted his request.
  In a hearing before the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee last 
month, Secretary of Defense Gates testified that the military personnel 
accounts that pay our soldiers, and the operations and maintenance 
accounts that fund readiness, training and salaries of civilian 
employees were running dry. Secretary Gates has been able to forestall 
this depletion of funds for a short period of time, but only by 
employing measures that are disruptive to the operations and management 
of the Department of Defense.
  Secretary Gates has had to transfer funding from Air Force, Navy and 
Marine accounts to the Army to enable the Army to meet its military and 
civilian payroll, and to fund current operations. It is incredible to 
think that to be able to pay military personnel who are on the 
frontlines, engaged in combat, the Secretary of Defense has had to 
transfer funding between accounts because the Congress will not act on 
a supplemental request that has been pending for almost a year and a 
half.
  The delay in providing supplemental funding has caused the Defense 
Department to divert thousands of man hours from focusing on how best 
to support our men and women in uniform to figuring out how to cash 
flow the Defense Department so our men and women in uniform will 
receive a paycheck. We will probably never know how many millions of 
dollars have been wasted during this shell game. And we will probably 
never know how many sailors, soldiers, airmen or marines have been put 
at greater risk because Defense Department leaders and managers have 
had to shift their attention from supporting the warfighter to figuring 
out how to make the payroll, or deciding what activities are ``exempt'' 
from cessation because the Department's funding has been depleted.
  The delay in providing funding for our troops has disrupted 
operations in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified at a Defense Appropriations 
Subcommittee hearing that during his visit to the front lines he 
learned that the soldiers were unable to allocate funds from the 
Commander's Emergency Response Program because all the money had 
essentially already been allocated. We are more than two-thirds of the 
way through the fiscal year, yet Congress has provided less than one-
third of the funds requested for this emergency response. Admiral 
Mullen said, and I quote,

       I'm especially concerned about the availability of funds 
     into the Commander's Emergency Response Program, authority 
     for which expires next month. (The program) has proven in 
     most cases more valuable and perhaps more rapid than bullets 
     or bombs in the fight against extremism . . .

  I worry that the Congress is becoming an impediment to the efficiency 
and the capability of our government, and to our Department of Defense 
particularly. I worry that we are not acting as expeditiously as we 
should to protect our troops in the field that are conducting dangerous 
missions. The delays we have experienced with this supplemental were as 
unnecessary as they are inexcusable.
  I am also disappointed that the supplemental before the Senate means 
that the gulf coast's ongoing recovery from Hurricane Katrina will be 
slowed. Mississippi's gulf coast suffered tremendous devastation as 
Senators know as a result of Hurricane Katrina. There was significant 
loss of life as well as significant damage to property. In last year's 
supplemental spending bill, the Congress tasked the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers to recommend measures to protect the Mississippi gulf coast 
from future storms. The Corps of Engineers has drafted its 
recommendations, and the Senate responded by including funding for 
these important Corps-recommended projects in our version of the 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  One of the projects included in the Senate-passed supplemental is the 
restoration of Mississippi's Barrier Islands. These islands, which are 
federally owned, suffered terrible damage after Hurricane Camille in 
1969 and are now so vulnerable that even a relatively small hurricane 
may destroy them completely. These are my State's last line of defense 
before a major hurricane moves inland. Continued delay leaves my state 
more vulnerable.
  The Corps of Engineers also concluded that homeowner relocation 
assistance would be the most effective alternative for reducing the 
risk from future hurricane surge events by relocating structures and 
population centers from the high risk zones. This voluntary program 
would assist those who are looking to locate outside the high-hazard 
area. It is vital not only to recovery but also for protection from a 
future disaster. We are now in the midst of another hurricane season, 
and every day this Congress does not act is 1 more day that 
Mississippians are at risk.
  Unfortunately, all of these items were dropped from the bill by the 
other body, and because of the long delay in acting on the supplemental 
there is now no time or opportunity to consider the matter further. I 
share the President's concerns about excessive spending. But 16 months 
have passed since the President's supplemental request was submitted, 
and 6 months have passed since the 2008 bills were enacted. In that 
time natural disasters have occurred and additional disaster-related 
needs have become apparent.
  In March of this year, three barracks at Camp Shelby in Mississippi 
suffered significant damage and destruction after violent weather. 
Fourteen soldiers were hospitalized; four of the soldiers sustained 
serious injuries. Many other structures were damaged. The Senate-passed 
spending bill contained funding to rebuild these barracks, but the 
continued delays in funding prevent this important work from being 
started. Floodwaters continue to inflict damages to farms, homes, and 
businesses along the Mississippi River. There is little question that 
additional resources will be required to respond to this continuing 
disaster.
  I am speaking today in part to draw attention to what I feel has been 
a poor performance by Congress on this bill. But I also come to the 
floor because there is no other venue to express my views on the 
supplemental. There was no conference committee appointed to resolve 
differences between the House and Senate. There were no meetings of the 
chairmen and ranking members of the Appropriations Committees or of the 
subcommittees involved. And there has been virtually no opportunity for 
Members of this body to offer amendments to the bill. I regret that. It 
is not the way we should discharge our responsibilities. I think there 
is little question that had we followed regular order we could have 
enacted a supplemental a month ago, and spared our men and women in the 
field a great deal of uncertainty.

[[Page 14069]]

  I support this supplemental and urge my colleagues to do the same, 
but hope that we can do better next time.
  Mr. REID. Mr President, momentarily, the Senate will move to pass the 
domestic portion of the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  After months of negotiation, I am confident that we will pass this 
legislation by an overwhelming bipartisan margin.
  For our troops, for the unemployed, and for those who have suffered 
from natural disasters and economic hardship, this legislation is a 
long-overdue victory.
  I am glad we have reached this point, but it has not come easily.
  My colleagues will recall that when President Bush requested yet 
another supplemental war funding bill, he said to Congress--give me my 
war money and not a penny more.
  He said that even after appropriating $660 billion for war, any 
effort by Congress to address our needs here at home would be met with 
a veto.
  Some of our Republican colleagues said--why bother trying--why take 
the time to legislate--when the President has made his veto plans 
clear?
  Our answer then was it is our job to legislate.
  The Constitution calls for three separate but equal branches of 
government.
  A President's veto threat must not stop us from doing what we think 
is right.
  So we did not blink or back down. We said that after $600 billion 
spent on Iraq, it is long past time to take care of some problems right 
here in America.
  We did exactly what the Congress is meant to do: we legislated. We 
negotiated. We compromised.
  And because we did, we now stand ready to deliver a major victory for 
the American people.
  After months of inching ever closer--despite some Republicans who 
said it wasn't worth the cost--we are delivering a new GI bill to our 
courageous troops.
  Some on the other side of the aisle started out opposing this effort. 
My Republican colleagues from Arizona, South Carolina, and North 
Carolina opposed it, apparently because they and others felt it was too 
generous to the troops who serve.
  They pursued their own bill, which in my view was but a pale shadow 
of the GI bill we vote on tonight.
  It would have fallen far short of providing our troops what they 
deserve. In the face of their opposition, we persisted.
  President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the original GI bill into 
law 64 years ago.
  He said at the time that the bill ``Gives emphatic notice to the men 
and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to 
let them down.''
  Since President Roosevelt affixed his name to that historic 
legislation, nearly 8 million veterans have advanced their education, 
gotten better jobs, and blazed a path to a brighter future for 
themselves and their families.
  Those 8 million men and women have gone on to become teachers, 
doctors, entrepreneurs and public servants.
  Several of our colleagues are among them--Dan Akaka, Chuck Hagel, Dan 
Inouye, Frank Lautenberg, Ted Stevens, John Warner and Jim Webb.
  I don't think it is presumptuous to say that each one of them would 
credit the GI bill as one reason for what they have achieved.
  In his time, President Roosevelt promised to never let our troops 
down, and today we stand poised to renew and reinvigorate his pledge.
  The new GI bill will increase educational benefits for all members of 
the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 
including reservists and National Guard.
  The years since September 11 have seen our troops strained to a level 
not seen since Vietnam, so these benefits are hard-earned and well-
deserved.
  This new GI bill so covers college expenses to match the full cost of 
an in-state public school, plus books and a stipend for housing.
  For those who have said it costs too much, I say our troops have more 
than earned it.
  And every dollar we invest in educating our veterans today comes back 
to our economy seven times over.
  But, new GI bill is not the only important investment this 
supplemental legislation makes.
  It also extends unemployment insurance for all states by 13 weeks and 
an additional 13 weeks for States with the highest unemployment.
  The Congressional Budget Office and many economists say that 
extending unemployment insurance is among the most effective steps we 
can take to stimulate the economy.
  We have talked for months about the need to help struggling Americans 
keep their heads above water as our economy continues to flounder. We 
could have passed this extension months ago, but passing it today is an 
important step.
  This supplemental appropriations bill also: Provides long overdue 
assistance to victims of Hurricane Katrina with matching funds for 
levee construction, law enforcement, hospitals, homelessness and 
reconstruction projects in Mississippi; comes to the aid of victims of 
other natural disasters like floods and droughts that have devastated 
certain crops; rolls back the Bush administration's attempts to 
regulate Medicaid into oblivion by blocking six of seven administration 
regulations aimed at depriving children, the elderly and people with 
disabilities of critical services; and, this legislation invests in a 
variety of other critical priorities, including infrastructure repair, 
food and drug safety, and firefighters' assistance.
  It is no secret that many Democrats--myself included--wish that there 
was no such thing as an emergency supplemental appropriations bill.
  We wish that the urgent domestic needs of the American people had 
been addressed by President Bush and funded in the ordinary budget 
process.
  And we wish that the $660 billion we have already spent on the war in 
Iraq could have gone toward eliminating our record deficit, and 
investing in schools, hospitals, roads, job training and public safety.
  But despite the crushing weight of a war that will cost us well more 
than $2 trillion when all is said and done--it is our responsibility to 
always put the needs of the American people first.
  This supplemental appropriations bill fulfills that responsibly. I 
urge all of my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I strongly support the extension of 
unemployment insurance benefits. Extending unemployment insurance 
benefits would fairly and rightly extend much needed assistance to 
Americans who are struggling to find jobs. While I was disappointed 
that the provision in this bill does not include extra benefits for 
states with high unemployment rates, I believe this unemployment 
insurance extension, or benefits of an additional 13 weeks for all 
States, is an important step forward. If the trend of rising 
unemployment rates continues, it is my hope that Congress will consider 
another emergency unemployment insurance package that will do more to 
help states struggling with the highest rates of unemployment.
  The Nation's unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May from 5 
percent in April--the biggest jump in 1 month in 22 years. Since the 
beginning of the Bush administration, Michigan has suffered significant 
jobs losses and the State's unemployment rate has increased from 4.5 
percent in January 2001 to 8.5 percent in May of this year, the highest 
unemployment rate in the Nation. Michigan has not seen an unemployment 
rate this high since October of 1992. For too long, the administration 
has stood idle as 3.3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, and as 
working families have felt the squeeze of the rising costs of energy, 
health care and food. An estimated 428,000 Michigan residents were 
unemployed in May. Between May 2007 and May of this year, over 170,000 
residents exhausted their unemployment benefits and could not find 
jobs. This year, on average each month about 15,000 more Michigan 
residents face this same predicament.
  President Bush's opposition to an extension of unemployment benefits 
is

[[Page 14070]]

apparently based on his belief that, somehow, the availability of 
unemployment benefits would discourage people from looking for a job. I 
am disappointed that President Bush would repeat this tired and 
inaccurate excuse for failing to provide Americans the help they need 
in these tough times. The devastating reality is that about 7.6 million 
Americans are unemployed and cannot find jobs, not because they are 
refusing to look, but because the labor market simply does not have the 
jobs. Millions of workers have been searching for a job for over 6 
months, to no avail. The number of long-term unemployed workers is now 
higher than when it was when we provided an unemployment insurance 
extension in 2002. The high rate of unemployment has disproportionately 
affected veterans, minorities, and young people. While Americans 
continue to search high and low for a job, their unemployment benefits 
are running out.
  Our people face tremendous economic pressures, from a rate of home 
foreclosures that is up 130 percent from 2006, soaring costs of health 
care, to skyrocketing prices for food and gas. Unfortunately, this 
situation is unlikely to improve soon. Since President Bush took 
office, the price of health insurance is up 44 percent, the price of 
college tuition is up 47 percent, the price of gas is up 95 percent, 
the Federal debt has almost doubled and the dollar has lost a third of 
its value.
  Meanwhile, American families are facing a cost crunch. According to a 
study by a prominent Harvard Law School professor, the median household 
income fell by $1,175, in 2007 dollars, between 2000 and 2006. During 
that same period, consumer expenditures for basic family needs such as 
mortgage payments, gas, food, phone bills, household appliances, and 
health insurance increased by $3,552, also in 2007 dollars. Available 
data in 2008 suggest that the cost of basic needs has continued to 
increase since 2006, and, between a lower real income and higher basic 
costs, families are facing as much as a $5,700 shortfall, as compared 
with 2000 figures.
  Extending unemployment insurance during times of recession is nothing 
new. In the past 30 years, Congress has acted three times to establish 
temporary extended unemployment benefits, each time during a recession. 
On average, the length of time that Americans have struggled to get by 
without a job is longer than it has been in the 30 years since Congress 
first extended unemployment insurance benefits.
  Extending unemployment insurance during tough times is one of the 
most effective ways to stimulate the economy, dollar for dollar, and 
this money can be distributed within weeks. Extending unemployment 
insurance is essential to provide much-needed support to those who have 
lost their jobs and are struggling to reenter the job market. Workers 
who receive these unemployment benefits are likely to spend them 
quickly, making this one of the fastest ways to infuse money into our 
economy in the short term.
  I supported an economic stimulus package considered in the Senate, 
which included important provisions including an unemployment insurance 
extension. Unfortunately, this legislation was blocked due to a 
filibuster by Senate Republicans. It was deeply disappointing that the 
Senate was forced to pass a short-term stimulus package that did not 
include an unemployment insurance extension. On May 22, 2008, the 
Senate overwhelmingly supported an amendment to the Emergency 
Supplemental bill that included a 13-week extension for unemployment 
benefits, with an additional 13 weeks for states like Michigan with 
high levels of unemployment. While the latter important provision is 
not included in the bill before us, I believe Congress must act with 
urgency to provide an emergency unemployment extension and therefore I 
support this legislation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I support the amendment to the emergency 
supplemental funding bill that provides needed assistance for Wisconsin 
and other flood-stricken Midwestern States, unemployed workers, and 
veterans.
  As a result of the horrifying floods that have ravaged the Midwest 
over the last 3 weeks, a number of people have lost their lives, 
including two residents of Wisconsin, and many more have lost homes or 
suffered other harm.
  I joined a number of my colleagues from affected States in asking 
that flood relief money be included in the supplemental, and I am very 
pleased to support the $2.65 billion in disaster relief in the 
amendment for States suffering from record flooding. I cannot emphasize 
enough how crucial this disaster relief is to the people of Wisconsin. 
Beginning on June 5, Wisconsin was struck by 7 to 9 inches of rain that 
fell over a 24-hour period, followed by destructive winds and 
tornadoes. So far, 28 counties in Wisconsin have been declared disaster 
areas and we expect that at least 2 more will be declared disasters 
shortly. This water is draining into the Mississippi as we speak and 
has inundated communities throughout Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri 
and surrounding States.
  With damage assessments underway, over $400 million of damage has 
been identified in the State of Wisconsin alone. Over 15,000 residents 
have registered for individual assistance in the 22 declared Wisconsin 
counties. An estimated 4,000 wells have been contaminated. The damage 
to crops will be considerable. We have not seen devastation like this 
in my State since 1993.
  The assistance provided in this amendment will go a long way to help 
families and businesses get back on their feet, but additional funds 
may be needed down the road. I will continue to work with my colleagues 
in the Senate to ensure that the Federal Government's response is 
prompt and complete.
  I am also pleased that this amendment provides thirteen weeks of 
extended unemployment insurance benefits to workers who have exhausted 
their regular unemployment insurance benefits. At this critical time in 
our Nation's economy, it is important that Congress do what it can for 
workers and families who are struggling. Earlier this month, the 
Department of Labor released its unemployment figures for the month of 
May showing a 1-month increase of half a percentage point in the 
unemployment rate to 5.5 percent, which was one of the biggest 1-month 
increases in over two decades. I joined a number of my Senate 
colleagues in requesting an extension of unemployment benefits as part 
of the stimulus package Congress passed earlier this year due to the 
fact that increasing unemployment benefits has a high stimulative 
effect on the economy. It is clear that an extension of unemployment 
benefits is needed in our States and local communities now.
  I strongly support the provisions of this amendment that update the 
GI bill to provide comprehensive educational benefits for this 
generation of veterans. This legislation will help thousands of 
servicemembers transition back to civilian life as they return from 
demanding tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will also benefit the 
entire Nation as veterans' contributions to the workforce are enhanced 
through higher education. While these provisions should have been paid 
for, passing them is the least we can do for a brave generation of 
Americans who have served their country honorably.
  There are other provisions in the amendment that I support, including 
a moratorium on six rules proposed by the administration that would 
undermine the Medicaid Program. I am disappointed, however, that the 
bill no longer includes vital funding for Byrne grants, LIHEAP and 
other domestic priorities. And I continue to be extremely disappointed 
at the willingness of too many of my colleagues to provide the 
President with funds to continue the misguided war in Iraq. While that 
funding is not included in the amendment we will vote on today, I will 
continue to oppose efforts to fund a war that is damaging our national 
security.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the spending bill we consider today 
contains many provisions that address urgent needs facing our Nation's 
economy, our Nation's families, and our Nation's troops.
  Among the most important, this legislation extends unemployment 
insurance benefits at a time where too many

[[Page 14071]]

Americans are struggling to find jobs, it postpones six Medicaid 
regulations that would have impeded access to health care for those who 
need it most, and it provides veterans returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan with a new level of educational benefits that will cover 
the full costs of an education at a State institution.
  We have an obligation to respond to the growing economic crisis and 
the needs it has created for American families. People are losing their 
homes and their jobs, and along with those jobs, their health care. 
Since March 2007, the number of unemployed has increased by 1.1 million 
workers. We learned a few weeks ago that the unemployment rate in our 
country shot up by a half a point, from approximately 5 to 5.5 percent. 
The Baltimore Sun reported last week that the Goodwill Industries of 
the Chesapeake's Baltimore center has seen an estimated 50 percent 
increase in clients seeking job placement assistance.
  This bill includes provisions that respond to these growing needs. It 
extends unemployment benefits by 13 weeks for all the Nation's workers. 
Extending unemployment insurance this way helps families. That is 
critically important. But it will also help our economy. Economists 
estimate that every dollar spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic 
growth. With this extension, we will provide critical stimulus to our 
slowing economy.
  The bill also extends a freeze on six Medicaid rules issued by the 
administration that would have put a tremendous burden on State and 
local budgets already under pressure and affected access to services 
for many Marylanders and Americans all around the country.
  I want to talk about the impact of just two of those rules: one that 
would eliminate Medicaid coverage of transportation services required 
by students with special needs and the second that would change 
benefits for case management services that help some of our most 
vulnerable individuals access needed medical, social, and educational 
services. In addition to impeding access to care, these two rules alone 
would have cost Maryland $67 million in their first year. I was a proud 
cosponsor of S. 2819 that would have prohibited the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services from implementing these rules and am glad to see 
that a moratorium on these rules will become law.
  I am especially pleased to support provisions that provide veterans 
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan with a new level of educational 
benefits that will cover the full costs of an education at a State 
institution. Some of my colleagues have argued that the benefit is too 
generous. But this country provided our troops a similar opportunity 
after World War II. That investment created a generation of great 
leaders and an economic boom that transformed our country.
  A new GI bill allows a new generation of brave men and women to 
fulfill their dreams and adjust to civilian life. Just today a young 
man came into my office, a Maryland National Guardsman, who had served 
two tours of duty in Iraq. While overseas on his second tour, he missed 
the birth of his first child. Now that he is home, he wants to pursue 
an education. Although interested in a program at my State's flagship 
institution, the University of Maryland at College Park, the tuition 
was beyond his means and he enrolled in a community college instead 
where he will shortly complete his associate's degree program. He came 
into my office to explain his situation and ask whether there was any 
way we could help him continue his education at a 4-year institution.
  That is an opportunity we owe the service men and women, including 
activated reservists and National Guard, who this administration has 
asked to serve extended and repeated combat tours. I am so proud that 
we will live up to that obligation today. But a new GI bill is also a 
wise investment; it allows our economy to fully benefit from these 
veterans' talent, leadership, and experience.
  There are other critical provisions in this bill. It provides funding 
to address the devastating Midwest flooding and other natural 
disasters. It addresses critical quality of life and medical care 
issues for our troops including funding to improve barracks, build VA 
hospitals and polytrauma centers, and create new military child care 
centers. It provides the funding we need to implement the 2005 BRAC 
recommendations.
  The bill makes critical investments to improve our competitiveness by 
funding research and other programs at the National Institutes of 
Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, and the Department of Energy. At a time we are 
all avoiding tomatoes, this bill makes a major investment in food 
safety by providing additional resources to the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  I want to commend my colleagues who refused to give up on these 
priorities even in the face of initial opposition and a veto threat 
from our President. I am encouraged that we may have a chance in the 
near future to act on other domestic priorities including increased 
energy assistance to low-income Americans facing skyrocketing fuel 
prices and commercial fishery disaster assistance that could help 
Maryland's watermen.
  Former President John F. Kennedy said, ``To govern is to choose.'' In 
this bill, this Congress is choosing to prioritize those issues that 
affect Americans' lives every day, our access to jobs, to health care, 
to education, to safe food. I am proud to offer this bill my support.


                  national synchrotron light source II

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to ask my colleague, the 
chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, about a 
matter that may become an issue if we do not pass the fiscal year 2009 
appropriations bills in a timely manner. As you know, there are several 
critically important projects in the Department of Energy's Office of 
Science budget in various stages of development. One of the projects is 
the National Synchrotron Light Source II at Brookhaven National 
Laboratory. This project is in the design phase and is expected to 
begin construction in the early part of 2009.
  The fiscal year 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill provided 
approximately $20 million less than the budget request, and the fiscal 
year 2009 budget request has a substantial increase, which is 
consistent with the funding profile. I am concerned about the impact a 
continuing resolution for several months may have on the schedule and 
overall cost for the National Synchrotron Light Source II project. One 
issue is that under a continuing resolution less money would be 
available than if the budget request were enacted. A more pressing 
issue is that under some previous continuing resolution rules 
construction would not be allowed to begin as that would be a new 
activity.
  Could my colleague please comment on these matters?
  Mr. DORGAN. I thank the gentleman from New York for the question. 
There are several projects in the Office of Science and in the 
Department of Energy that are in various stages of planning, design, 
and construction. Like the National Synchrotron Light Source II 
project, these other projects may also be impacted if a long-term 
continuing resolution is enacted.
  I very much appreciate my colleague's concern about the project at 
Brookhaven National Laboratory and will work with him to attempt to 
address these issues if a long-term continuing resolution becomes a 
reality.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the emergency 
supplemental bill that we are considering in the Senate.
  This new version of the emergency supplemental bill represents a 
change from the previous version. It is less expensive--$3 billion less 
in domestic, nonmilitary spending that didn't belong in this bill in 
the first place.
  The bill is also better for overall defense than the last version. I 
am speaking of the GI bill provisions in this legislation. Changes have 
been made to try and address the transferability of benefits. These 
changes also attempt to deal with the concern the Department of Defense 
raised about the retention of

[[Page 14072]]

our servicemembers by requiring extended service for extended 
transferable benefits. It does not fully address the concerns, but it 
is a step forward.
  Congressional leaders have sat down with the administration and 
developed a bill that President Bush can sign.
  I recently had the opportunity to address Wyoming's American Legion 
convention in Riverton, WY. They support improvements in the GI bill 
but never want to see any veterans, from World War II to our current 
operation, be used for gotcha politics. I think they will be pleased 
that changes and improvements were made.
  This isn't a perfect bill. There is still some overspending on non-
military matters. The bill was force fed through the process. 
Amendments that could improve the bill further were shunned by the 
majority leadership.
  The fact remains, however, that we need to fund our troops. We need 
to provide our men and women in uniform with the best possible 
equipment and the funding they need to do their job fighting the wars 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to make this happen 
in an expeditious manner. Sending this legislation to President Bush is 
the only way that will happen and so I will support the supplemental 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to the motion to concur.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion 
to concur.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily. absent: the Senator 
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The result was announced--yeas 92, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]

                                YEAS--92

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

                                NAYS--6

     Allard
     Coburn
     Craig
     DeMint
     Kyl
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Kennedy
     McCain
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is made and laid upon the table.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.

                          ____________________




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 2766

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 832, 
S. 2766, the Clean Boating Act, the bill be read a third time and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I ask 
that the unanimous consent request be modified, that my amendment which 
is at the desk be agreed to, and that the bill be read a third time and 
passed.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think the 
Senator from Alaska knows full well the amendment she is seeking to 
attach to our bill, or the substitute she is putting forward, never was 
approved in the committee of jurisdiction, the EPW Committee.
  The committee worked long and hard at getting a compromise. Because 
of Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez and others, we have a bill at 
the desk that Senator Nelson tried to get done now that passed our 
committee by an overwhelming vote.
  As a matter of fact, 13 million boaters, 13 million boaters are going 
to wake up very unhappy in the morning if Senator Murkowski objects to 
this bill. Her substitute was never voted on by the committee.
  As a matter of fact, the individual she asked to offer an amendment 
never offered it. There was a reason; this was a delicate compromise.
  I object to Senator Murkowski's amendment to the request. I support 
strongly Senator Nelson's request to move this Clean Boating Act. It 
means that 13 million recreational boaters will not have to get a 
permit to discharge their water pollution, and 13 million recreational 
boaters are counting on us.
  I hope Senator Nelson's unanimous consent will be granted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original unanimous 
consent from the senior Senator from Florida?
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the evening is getting late, and we have 
taken some significant action tonight. But I wish to speak for a moment 
and ask unanimous consent to speak up to 10 minutes on the supplemental 
bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                      SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, we passed, by an overwhelming margin, a 
supplemental emergency spending bill that will fund our ongoing 
operations in Iraq and in other parts of the world and will send some 
money stateside.
  In the view of this Senator, we have shortchanged, even with our good 
effort that was just made, shortchanged some real ongoing serious 
emergencies here at home.
  As far as the gulf coast is concerned, I voted for the bill because I 
have always believed that half a loaf is better than none.
  In the bill, in large measure because of the work of Members on both 
sides of the aisle, we have a significant amount of money toward the 
construction of levees that failed and put a great city and region and 
regions throughout the gulf coast at risk, particularly the New Orleans 
metropolitan area. I know people get tired of reviewing the details, 
but less than 3 years ago, several significant levees along the great 
port system in the city of New Orleans, levees that should have held 
collapsed, and 80 percent of the city went under water. The water is 
long gone, but the pain is still there. The rebuilding is still going 
on. The anxiety of homeowners, renters, small business owners and large 
business owners, and industrial investors is still there, questioning 
whether the Federal Government's commitment to not only fix the levees, 
restore the levees and bring them up to the standards that were 
promised decades ago, if that promise is going to be kept.
  This bill gets us part of the way there, but we still have an awfully 
long way to go. In the underlying bill we passed, in large measure 
crafted by House leadership--and I am disappointed in this view of the 
House leadership--they put in only a portion of the very critical levee 
funding that is needed for us to go forward, to restore these levees to 
100-year flood protection. I don't know how to explain this, but 100-
year flood protection is the bare minimum for the United

[[Page 14073]]

States. There are a few areas that are enjoying 200- and 300-year flood 
protection in this country, but very few. Most do not have, as you can 
tell by the flooding going on now in States such as Missouri and Iowa 
and parts of Illinois, most places don't have the 100-year protection.
  For a reference point, I wish to impress upon my colleagues that this 
is a minimum standard. The country of the Netherlands, which is so 
small it could fit inside of Louisiana, a powerful economy but a small 
nation, has flood protection for its people against storms that happen 
once every 10,000 years. We, the United States of America, cannot claim 
that we have flood protection for 99 percent of our people against 
floods once every 100 years. I am going to say again, as I have said 
100 times on this floor, incremental funding, nickles and dimes, a few 
hundred million here or there, is not going to get the job done. In the 
long run, it is going to cost the American taxpayer billions and 
billions of dollars more.
  So here we go again, after the flood, after the storm, after the 
promises, after the speeches, after the lights, after the photographs, 
the bill is passed, but we do not have the whole amount of money 
necessary to reconstruct the levees as promised by the President and as 
spoken to on numerous occasions by many Members of the House and 
Senate. We do have $5.8 billion in this bill, $1.16 billion for the 
Lake Pontchartrain vicinity which is a long, ongoing project, I think 
started back in the 1960s. We do have $920 million in for west bank 
levee which was started back in the 1960s. We have $967 million in the 
southeast Louisiana flood control project that was started in the 
1990s. We have $2.9 billion of flood control and emergency projects, 
modifying drainage canals, installing pumps, armoring levees, improving 
protection at the inner harbor canal, federalizing certain non-Federal 
levees in Plaquemine Parish, the long parish that sits at the toe of 
the boot in Louisiana, reinforces and replaces floodwalls, repairs and 
restores floodwalls. The problem is the match that is required because 
of the House action. The Senate reduced the match required by the State 
of Louisiana and extended our payment terms. Instead of requiring the 
State of Louisiana to pay a higher level of 35 percent, the Senate had 
suggested, I think wisely, that we revert back to the historic share, 
which is 25 percent. No one in Louisiana thinks we have to get these 
projects for free. Everyone in Louisiana understands we have to step up 
and pay our share. No one is objecting. What we simply asked for was a 
reasonable share, a historic share, not 35 percent but something like 
20 or 25 percent. And most importantly, we had asked that we be allowed 
to pay it over 30 years.
  But, no, under the House version that was very ill-conceived and very 
poorly thought out, the terms are tougher than historical standards and 
will require the State to come up with a greater match, 35 percent, and 
require us to pay it over 3 years.
  I submit for the Record a letter from the president of Jefferson 
Parish, Aaron Broussard, a parish now of a half million people, as well 
as a letter from Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana. I ask 
unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Jefferson Parish, Louisiana,

                                     Jefferson, LA, June 23, 2008.
     Hon. Mary Landrieu,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: We are concerned that language 
     contained in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill, 
     as passed by the House of Representatives last week, creates 
     an unfair and unacceptable new cost share on the citizens of 
     Jefferson Parish and Orleans Parish and creates a new 
     financial burden that will unduly delay the SELA project and 
     impose significant new risks to Southeast Louisiana.
       As you know, the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control 
     Project, SELA, was authorized by WRDA of 1996 to provide for 
     urban flood control in Southeast Louisiana on an expedited 
     basis. The SELA Project has been a true partnership between 
     local governments and the Army Corps of Engineers for over a 
     decade. A major and very important feature of SELA has been a 
     cost share of 75/25. The non-Federal sponsors of SELA have 
     sought and received the approval of the electorate for the 
     revenues needed to meet this 75/25 cost sharing requirement.
       Now, without the benefit of legislative hearing or 
     committee oversight, the House of Representatives has 
     unilaterally changed the traditional cost share for the 
     project. This fundamental change in the SELA project will 
     create unprecedented delay in the delivery of the benefits of 
     SELA Project. Specifically:
       The change in the cost sharing for SELA from the presently 
     authorized 75/25 to 65/35 equates to an additional $121M in 
     payments for the SELA sponsors.
       This increase will have an impact on the economic recovery 
     of Jefferson Parish as $50M in new revenue sources must be 
     approved and/or revenues now slated for other recovery work 
     will have to be diverted to SELA.
       The impact on Orleans Parish will be even greater as their 
     share of the SELA work will increase by approximately $70M.
       All of these increases are on top of the $331M that 
     Jefferson Parish has agreed to pay under the presently 
     authorized 75/25 cost sharing.
       It will be very difficult, if not impossible, to maintain 
     our construction schedule as the Administration will 
     undoubtedly request that a new Project Cost Agreement be 
     executed to reflect the higher cost sharing formula. This 
     will in turn, require that Jefferson Parish submit a new 
     financing plan showing adequate capability to meet these 
     increased obligations. We may be forced to seek revenue 
     bonding or seek new revenue sources, such as additional taxes 
     from our citizens. This could further delay the completion of 
     the SELA Project and the delivery of its benefits.
       Senator Landrieu, I believe you will agree that the House 
     of Representatives should not be allowed to unilaterally 
     change the cost sharing authorized by WRDA '96 in an 
     Emergency Supplemental Bill without the benefit of hearing, 
     senate committee oversight or conference committee 
     negotiations. In fact, as you know, the Senate Bill had 
     language that maintained the historic cost sharing and 
     directed the Secretary of the Army to use a 30 year pay out 
     so that we could maintain the rapid pace of our recovery from 
     Katrina. Now in light of the House actions, long term 
     financing of the new cost share is the least that will be 
     needed to address this unprecedented new cost share 
     obligation.
       I implore the Senate leadership and the Energy and Water 
     Appropriations Sub-committee to retain its language on the 
     Emergency Appropriations Bill and send the amended bill back 
     to the House of Representatives for final passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Aaron Broussard,
     Parish President.
                                  ____

                                               State of Louisiana,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                   Baton Rouge, LA, June 25, 2008.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Senate Majority Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Republican Leader, The Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations, The Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Reid, Leader McConnell, Chairman Byrd and 
     Ranking Member Cochran: Our state appreciates the strong 
     support that you have demonstrated for the Gulf Coast victims 
     of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The emergency supplemental 
     appropriations bill soon to be considered by the U.S. Senate 
     attempts to fulfill an important commitment to Louisiana--the 
     restoration of the 100-year level of hurricane protection by 
     2011. I support the inclusion of these funds in the final 
     bill; however. I remain concerned that the goal of the 
     funding is jeopardized by the unprecedented cost share 
     required under the legislation.
       As proposed in the House bill, the State of Louisiana would 
     be faced with a $1.8 billion cost share over the next three 
     years for hurricane protection. This would result in a 4000 
     percent increase over the state's pre-Katrina contribution 
     toward hurricane protection efforts. As we understand, 
     Louisiana could be faced with paying up to $1.1 billion in 
     2010 alone. This is nearly one-third of the state's 
     discretionary budget. Burdening Louisiana with an 
     unprecedented cost share in this compressed time frame will 
     cause irreparable harm to our ongoing recovery efforts and 
     stall our coastal restoration efforts.
       The emergency supplemental bill also proposes to increase 
     the overall percentage of funds provided by the state. Under 
     the House proposal, Louisiana's cost share responsibilities 
     would actually increase by over $200 million above the cost 
     share required under current law. Considering the 
     extraordinary impact the 2005 hurricanes and the various 
     aspects of recovery ongoing, it is alarming that Congress 
     would choose to require a higher cost share at this time.
       As you know, the Senate version of the emergency 
     supplemental allowed Louisiana

[[Page 14074]]

     the opportunity to pay its share of these important hurricane 
     protection efforts over a longer period of time as allowed 
     under current law. The Senate bill also used the traditional 
     cost share requirements that reflect current law.
       The Senate is right. Placing this extraordinary burden upon 
     the backs of Louisiana citizens would set back our recovery 
     for years. The large cuts to budgets, services and programs 
     required to make $1.8 billion available for levees would have 
     a profound impact on Louisiana families across our state.
       To be clear, Louisiana is willing to partner with the 
     federal government on these important protection efforts. We 
     are not asking for a waiver. The Senate bill requires our 
     state to pay its share for hurricane protection under 
     reasonable terms and in compliance with current law. I 
     strongly urge you to support our Congressional delegation's 
     efforts to retain the Senate provisions related to hurricane 
     protection. If not possible to include this language in the 
     supplemental, I encourage you to adopt this legislation on 
     its own or through another legislative instrument.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Bobby Jindal,
                                                         Governor.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to read part of the Governor's letter:

       As proposed in the House bill, the State of Louisiana would 
     be faced with a $1.8 billion cost share over the next three 
     years for hurricane protection. This would result in a 4000 
     percent increase [not 4, not 40, not 400] over the state's 
     pre-Katrina contribution toward hurricane protection efforts.

  I know it is not the intention of the chairman of the House 
Appropriations Committee or the Speaker of the House or the majority 
and minority leaders in the House to make Louisiana pay 4,000 percent 
more than we were paying before the storm, when we are in an economic 
situation that is far more challenging than we were before the city and 
many of our parishes went under water and 1 million people were 
displaced in the southern part of our State, but that is exactly what 
they did.
  I am going to leave here, along with my colleagues, but I am going to 
come back and find a way, with the goodwill on the floor of this 
Senate, working with Republicans and Democrats, to come to some 
reasonable terms for the people of Louisiana so we can pay a reasonable 
share and have a longer period to pay it back.
  I know we are one Nation and we all have to support each other's 
projects, but to put this in perspective, many of us here have funded 
over the last maybe 15 years a project that is rather famous and well 
known called the big dig in Boston. That project is an eight-lane 
highway under the city of Boston that extends for 3.5 miles. We all 
spent money to do it. It cost $14.8 billion for the big dig. I asked in 
this supplemental for $8 billion to help build 200 miles of levee to 
protect up to 2 million, roughly, people from losing everything they 
have worked for and their parents and their grandparents have worked 
for, because when those levees break, nothing is saved, and insurance 
does not even begin to cover the cost of what people have lost. We had 
to be told in this supplemental discussion that we weren't a priority 
or we needed to wait. It couldn't fit in this bill. Sorry, we couldn't 
do it. Sorry, we couldn't find the appropriate cost share.
  I am happy for projects like the big dig and other projects around 
the country. I know some people think I am wearing out my welcome, but 
it is my job to represent the people of my State. I intend to do it as 
fairly as I can. I have to say, the President was the one who came to 
Jackson Square. I didn't go to Jackson Square and turn the lights on 
and make a promise to the American people that these levees would be 
rebuilt. He did. Then many Members of Congress came down, Republicans 
and Democrats, and took shots with a lot of people and said they would 
rebuild these levees. We want to rebuild our levees. We are willing to 
put up our share. But the people of Louisiana, under no circumstance, 
can pay a 4,000-percent increase. Under no circumstance can our State 
come up with $1.8 billion every year for the next 3 years out of our 
general fund.
  I want to make one more point about the levees. The people on the 
other side of the levee are not in high-rise condominiums. They are not 
lying on the beach sunbathing, and they are not frolicking in 2 feet of 
water for recreational purposes. The people on the other side of these 
levees are running the greatest port system in North America. They are 
engaged in fisheries and transportation and oil and gas. They are the 
men and women who unload the ships that come from all over the world to 
support the economy of this Nation.
  We have work to do when we get back here. I am going to go home for a 
week. Then I am going to come back, and we are going to work on finding 
a better way for us to reduce the cost share and extend the time for us 
to repay our portion so we can get these levees built and give comfort 
and keep our promise to the people before we have to mark the third 
anniversary of Katrina, which will be August 29.
  We have time, but we don't have a lot of it. It is almost July. The 
third anniversary will be August 29. I want to put the Senate on notice 
that I am going to do everything in my power not to allow us to go home 
for August until some provisions have been made. There are two options. 
The President can, by executive order, do this. I am asking him to. I 
am sending him a letter tomorrow asking him to do it. If he doesn't, 
then every bill that comes to this floor will be subject to an 
objection by me until this situation is corrected. It is as if you did 
not give us any levee money, because without us being able to put up a 
match, the project can't go forward. Some provision will have to be 
made. I wanted to go on the record tonight saying I am willing to work 
toward any compromise that will be reasonable and look forward to doing 
that when we return.
  In addition, there were provisions that the Senate graciously, under 
Senator Byrd's leadership, had put in this bill to continue to help us 
with other elements of our recovery. The criminal justice provision was 
stripped out by the House. The health care provision was stripped out 
by the House. These amounted to literally a few hundred million dollars 
in the scheme of things.
  It is not a great deal of money, as these bills go, that are hundreds 
of billions of dollars. But it was important money to the city of New 
Orleans and the region and to hospitals that have never closed from the 
time that hurricane swept through and destroyed so much in its path. 
Oschner Hospital stayed open. West Jeff and East Jeff opened very soon, 
as soon as they could, and have continued to provide indigent care, 
losing millions and millions and millions of dollars, and yet cannot 
get the proper reimbursement necessary because of what they did.
  FEMA only provides help to public entities. Oschner is technically 
not a public entity, but it was the only hospital that stayed open, and 
the doctors and the nurses did the right thing. All they have been--
since doing the right thing--is punished because their board has lost 
money, money, money, month after month after month. I have pleaded 
their case on any number of occasions. Senator Leahy, Senator Harkin, 
and others have been very gracious to try to include help. But it seems 
as though at certain points it always gets stripped out.
  So we are going to come back, and I am going to ask again for some 
health care funding and some criminal justice funding and work with 
Senator Grassley, Senator Harkin, Senator McCaskill, and others to 
fashion better remedies for the thousands of homeowners in other parts 
of this country who have also been disappointed by levee systems that 
should have held and failed, by Federal bureaucracies that promised 
help and did not show up.
  I know only too well the pain that is going on right now in other 
parts of the country. I have lived this nightmare for 3 years in south 
Louisiana and in Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas. So we do have some 
work to do when we get back, and I look forward to working with you and 
others to accomplish that.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 minutes to extend my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page 14075]]



                          ____________________




                   TRIBUTE TO JUSTICE REVIUS ORTIQUE

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have come to the floor of the Senate 
tonight to pay tribute to a man who had a significant impact on the 
civil rights movement in my State and our Nation. Justice Revius O. 
Ortique, a native New Orleanian, passed away on Sunday, June 22, 2008.
  At the height of his long and distinguished career in 1992, he was 
the first African American elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court. But 
the road was not easy nor was the path to success clear.
  Justice Ortique served his country for 4 years as an Army officer in 
the Pacific theater during World War II. He returned home as part of a 
great generation his longtime friend Sybil Morial notes for its 
``desire to bring about change.'' He attended college at Dillard 
University, earned a master's degree in criminology from Indiana 
University, and then earned a law degree from Southern University.
  It was a challenging time, to say the least, to be a young, African-
American attorney in our South, but Revius Ortique rose to the 
challenge with determination to change the landscape for African 
Americans in our city--helping to desegregate lunch counters and 
neighborhoods, city halls and corporate boardrooms, throughout 
Louisiana and the South. He served his community as the president of 
the Urban League of Greater New Orleans for five terms and was also 
president of the Community Relations Council, a group of local leaders 
focused on bridging the racial divide and making our city stronger.
  Justice Ortique's efforts to heal the divisions of our community soon 
garnered rightful national attention. He became president of the 
National Bar Association in 1959. From that post, he had President 
Johnson's ear--a direct voice to power, speaking for millions of 
African-Americans. Moved in some measure by Ortique's urging, President 
Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall to be the first African-American 
U.S. Supreme Court Justice and appointed eight other distinguished 
African Americans to Federal judgeships.
  The first African American to be appointed to the Civil District 
Court bench in New Orleans, in 1978, Justice Ortique continued to be 
reelected and later served as chief judge. His friends and colleagues 
remember him as holding himself and his courtroom to the pinnacle of 
decorum. He was also an inspiring mentor to many young lawyers and 
judges. ``He really taught you how to be a good lawyer,'' said Judge 
Michael G. Bagneris, who serves on the Civil District Court in New 
Orleans. ``He always instilled in young lawyers that they had to show 
respect for the court.'' It is a respect Justice Ortique earned through 
his demonstrated wisdom on the bench and the gentlemanly standards he 
held.
  Justice Ortique was elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1992 
but could only serve 2 years due to a State age restriction. He was not 
ready to retire. He remained as hungry to serve as that young man who 
went off to defend our country a half century earlier. Mayor Marc 
Morial appointed him to the New Orleans Aviation Board where he quickly 
became its chairman, serving for 8 years.
  Over the course of his career, five U.S. Presidents learned of his 
stellar reputation as a jurist and as a leader, appointing him to 
various Commissions, including the investigation into the killings at 
Kent State University.
  At the end of his life, Justice Ortique and his loving wife of 60 
years, Miriam, were living in Baton Rouge. Their New Orleans house had 
been destroyed by Hurricane Katrina, and like so many Louisianians, 
they were working to soon return home. He is also survived by his 
daughter, Rhesa Marie McDonald, and three grandchildren. From the 
struggles of the civil rights era, to the successes that come with hard 
work and resolve, Justice Ortique's American story is one of great 
promise and determination. His legacy will live on through the 
generations he has inspired to bring about change of their own.
  Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer and suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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.

                          ____________________




                             HOUSING CRISIS

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to review very briefly before we 
close out this evening and head back to our respective States for the 
Independence Day recess sort of where we are on the housing issue which 
has dominated a good part of the debate over the last week or so in the 
Senate.
  I wish to begin by thanking the majority leader and the minority 
leader for the ability to raise a number of issues which have been 
debated and discussed over the last week or so regarding the effort to 
get this housing crisis back on track. I have said this so often, for 
those who have had to listen to it, it would be redundant, but for 
those who are hearing it the first time: The heart of the economic 
crisis is the housing crisis, and for anyone who doubts it, the heart 
of the housing crisis is the foreclosure crisis. We now have roughly 
8,500 foreclosures a day occurring in the United States.
  This is no longer a question that has merely affected the subprime 
lending market. It has now spread to the prime market area as well. It 
is affecting student loans, municipal finance, commercial financing. It 
has had a tremendous impact on global markets as well. As we all today 
recognize, we live in a world where major economic conditions affect 
not only those of us who live here but elsewhere as well.
  So when we return a week or so from tonight, we will be back on this 
housing bill along with other measures but certainly the housing bill. 
It is with a deep sense of regret that I speak this evening about the 
disappointment I feel over the inability to conclude this matter. It 
would not have taken this Chamber much more than 2 or 3 hours to 
consider all of the amendments that were being offered by Democrats and 
Republicans to this housing measure. But for the actions of one or two 
Members who refused to allow us to go to the debate--not even 
considering amendments we would have disagreed with, it is very 
disappointing to me when you consider that we are now leaving for 
another 8 or 10 days.
  I will remind my colleagues and those who may be interested in this 
that every day we are not in session, and every day we fail to act on 
this measure, somewhere between 8,000 and 9,000 homes, not to mention 
the individuals affected by it, will be filing for foreclosure. So as 
we leave tomorrow and head back to our respective States across the 
country, some 8,000 to 9,000 people will be put at great jeopardy for 
their long-term economic security and potentially losing their homes.
  As we go off and spend our time next week, whether we are spending 
our time with our families or engaging in activities with our 
constituents, on every day we are not here, another 8,000 to 9,000 
people will find their long-term financial security at further risk 
because we could not convince a couple of Members to allow us to debate 
the issues of housing and what we might do. Let me also point out that 
it is only a handful of people.
  Two days ago when we considered the motion to proceed to this matter, 
the vote was 83 to 9. For every vote we have had on this housing 
measure over the last week, the lowest number of votes we have had in 
favor of our proposals was 77. So it is disappointing with that kind of 
a majority, which rarely occurs on any issue let alone one as 
potentially controversial as the housing issue, because we have had 
overwhelming support to move forward. Yet I find myself this evening as 
we conclude our debates on all of these matters unable to conclude this 
issue because of one or two Members who refuse to allow us to even get 
to this issue at all.
  Let me read, if I can, a headline from the business section of the 
Washington

[[Page 14076]]

Post this morning: ``Delinquencies Rise at Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac.'' Now let me read the headline from Monday's section of USA Today: 
``New Faces Join Ranks of Nation's Homeless: Renters, Middle Class Hit 
Hard by Rising Foreclosures.''
  The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 would address both of 
these very serious concerns, and more. Our bill establishes a strong, 
new, world class regulator to make sure the housing GSEs are well 
regulated and financially sound. Our legislation provides for a 
voluntary new program that could help anywhere from 400,000 to 500,000 
distressed homeowners avoid foreclosure. The legislation has proven 
time and time again to enjoy strong, bipartisan support, and we have 
made enormous progress over the last number of months. We have worked 
very hard, Senator Shelby and I, my Republican colleague from Alabama, 
the ranking Republican on the committee, and 19 of the 21 members of 
that committee--only 2 dissenters out of the 21 members--to put 
together this package. We worked through a number of amendments, 
accepting some, defeating others. In fact, last night the bill passed 
on the overall Dodd-Shelby proposal 79 to 16. Yet because of a 
technicality involving procedural hurdles that will not let us get to 
final passage, this measure is now being held up by one or two Senators 
because they want yet another vote on a completely unrelated matter.
  Let me review very briefly, if I can, for my colleagues before we go 
into recess exactly what it is we are working so hard to achieve. It 
has a number of key elements, all of which have been supported by 
strong bipartisan votes in either the Banking Committee or the full 
Senate.
  First, the HOPE for Homeowners Act. I have said over and over again, 
this bill, HOPE for Homeowners, is not guaranteed to produce the 
results we want, but what it does do is make it possible for both 
lenders and borrowers to reach an agreement whereby borrowers can stay 
in their homes with mortgages they can afford. The lenders are going to 
reduce their earnings--there is no question about that--but it is not 
going to be zero. So there is an advantage for the lender to be 
involved in this voluntary program. Speculators are not allowed to 
participate. It is only owner occupied residences. It is a temporary 
program. It is a purely voluntary one, but it is one that has been 
tried.
  It was actually tried many years ago, back in the 1920s and the 1930s 
when we had the Great Depression in this country, and the Federal 
Government actually purchased distressed mortgages. We are not doing 
anything like that. We are actually insuring these mortgages, allowing 
these people who are running the risk of losing their homes to stay in 
those homes, and thus bring us to a floor, if you will--a bottom--of 
this housing market, this mortgage market that would allow capital to 
begin to flow again. It is a very important proposal.
  I must tell my colleagues that we have listened to countless 
witnesses in over 50 hearings over the last year and a half of the 
Banking Committee. Witnesses have come from the entire breadth of the 
political spectrum and all of them have concluded that this idea is 
worthy of a try.
  So while I cannot stand here this evening and promise miraculous 
results, it is our best judgment--this is our best effort--of what we 
can do in this body to offer some relief at this moment.
  The second proposal that is part of this bill is the GSE reform, 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These are important sources of liquidity in 
the residential mortgage market. They have provided a great source of 
relief during this time. Our bill reforms these institutions in such a 
way that we have a strong regulator requiring certain capital 
requirements and the like. It has been tried for the last 6 years to 
achieve what we have in this bill. It has failed in every other 
attempt. This final proposal, which we crafted over the last number of 
weeks, enjoys broad-based bipartisan support.
  The third feature of this bill, which has received less attention 
than the two points I have made, may be the provision which has more 
lasting implications than anything else we have done.
  The homeowners bill is a temporary one. It dies in 2 or 3 years; it 
will go out of existence. But the affordable housing provisions of the 
bill are permanent. We will generate revenues that will make it 
possible for people to have rental housing in the future that they 
could not even begin to imagine under present circumstances. That is a 
very important part of the bill as well.
  We include, as a result of the work of the Finance Committee, under 
the leadership of Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley, of Iowa, 
mortgage revenue bonds, relief for first-time home buyers, tax credits 
that would allow them to purchase foreclosed properties or others.
  We have provisions dealing with counseling services, which are very 
important as people try to work out arrangements with lenders to stay 
in their homes. It has been called the most broad-sweeping housing 
legislation in more than a generation. All because of one or two 
Senators, I was unable to complete that bill this evening. As a result 
of the leadership of Harry Reid, our majority leader, we will be back 
on this bill when we return Monday, July 7. We will have a cloture vote 
that day and then move, 48 hours later or so, to a second cloture 
motion, which should allow us to come to a final conclusion on the 
bill.
  I am deeply saddened that, as we go into this Independence Day 
recess, we were not able to complete action on this proposal. I say to 
the American people, as we leave for 10 days, we have done something 
that will offer you some hope, some sense of optimism, some sense of 
confidence that your Senate, your Congress was not unmindful of your 
concerns and worries. Nothing provides greater stability to a family, 
to a neighborhood, to a community than home ownership. It is one of the 
great dreams of most American families to be able to have their own 
home, to watch equity increase in those homes, to be able to provide a 
stable environment for your family and children. Yet we see with the 
ever-increasing foreclosure crisis in the country, as I mentioned, some 
8,400 foreclosures every day in the country--that dream, that hope is 
evaporating for too many American families. So this bill would have 
provided real relief. Unfortunately, we could not get to it.
  I would be remiss if I didn't mention at the same time, of course, we 
are simultaneously or are about to provide economic relief to 17 
telecom companies who were engaged in activities that were highly 
questionable in the vacuuming up of private information of millions of 
Americans and their families, private telephone conversations, e-mails, 
faxes, and the like. That is part of the so-called Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act. While I have deep concern about those who would do us 
great harm, I am deeply disturbed that that issue seems to be taking 
greater priority than this home ownership issue, Medicare relief, and 
the families across the country.
  I wish to conclude my remarks this evening, as we prepare to leave 
this city and return to our respective States, by saying that at a time 
when we could have done something meaningful for an awful lot of 
people, to offer them some hope, some renewed sense of confidence and 
optimism, we missed that opportunity. I didn't want the evening to end 
without expressing my disappointment.
  Simultaneously, I offer a note of optimism. When we come back 10 days 
from now, this will be a priority item. The majority leader, to his 
credit, talked about this eloquently and often over the last several 
days. He is committed that this issue will be a priority item when we 
return. As such, we will eventually conclude passage of this bill, and 
we will work with the House of Representatives to adopt a compromise 
measure and be able to offer some hope that people can remain in their 
homes--at least many will--with the hope that they can stay there, 
raise their families, and that we can once again see capital begin to 
flow in critical areas of investment in this country.

[[Page 14077]]

  I am grateful to the Presiding Officer and to others who are here to 
hear these concluding remarks. Again, I felt it was important to 
identify exactly what the situation was as we concluded our business 
this evening.
  With that, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________




                   CAPITOL GUIDE SERVICE RETIREMENTS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I call to your attention today the 
contributions of three outstanding individuals who will be retiring 
from the U.S. Capitol Guide Service at the end of the week. Tom 
Stevens, Sharon Nevitt, and Jeannie Divine have served the Congress-- 
House and Senate alike--with a dedication to duty that allowed the 
guide service to fulfill the mission of providing our constituents with 
an educational and enjoyable experience while visiting our Nation's 
Capitol.
  Tom Stevens first came to the guide service in March of 1985. Tom's 
contributions toward managing the expanded role of the guide service 
following the events of September 11, 2001, were instrumental in his 
selection as Director of the Capitol Guide Service in 2003. Tom's 
commitment to the employees of the Capitol Guide Service and the 
Congressional Special Services Office is well known. Under his 
leadership, this team has skillfully provided assistance to hundreds of 
thousands of visitors who come to the Capitol each year. Tom has been a 
mainstay in the effort to prepare for the operations of the Capitol 
Visitor Center. We recognize and appreciate his extraordinary 
contributions to the Capitol Visitor Center and indeed the entire 
Congress.
  Sharon Nevitt, the Assistant Director of the Capitol Guide Service, 
came to the Service in 1977, working her way up through a number of 
management and supervisory roles. Her efficiency, quiet competence, and 
fierce loyalty to the employees of the guide service have been 
invaluable to the day to day operations of the Capitol Guide Service. 
Sharon has also contributed a wealth of time and effort to various 
working groups aimed at establishing operational procedures for the new 
Capitol Visitor Center. Sharon's efforts and her many contributions are 
recognized and appreciated.
  Jeannie Divine has been a fixture here in the Congress since 1975. I 
would venture to say that each and every one of our offices has been 
assisted by Jeannie at one time or the other over her career. Jeannie 
is the one who takes all our calls and works with our staffs to 
accommodate the growing number of tour requests from our constituents 
who visit our Capitol each year. She handles each request with 
efficiency and courtesy. Her kindness and lighthearted nature have 
allowed her to form lasting friendships with people from both sides of 
the aisle and both sides of the Hill. Her efforts to help all of us are 
recognized and appreciated.
  We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to this dedicated team whose 
combined tenure equals 87 years of exemplary service to the Congress of 
the United States. Please join me in wishing Tom, Sharon, and Jeannie 
never-ending success in their future endeavors.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING NEA PRESIDENT REG WEAVER

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to honor a man who has spent the 
greater part of his life as an advocate for quality public education.
  Reg Weaver has said, ``There is no feeling like seeing children's 
eyes brighten up as they discover the world of opportunity.''
  He should know. For more than 30 years, as a teacher and a national 
education leader, Reg Weaver has helped countless children discover the 
world of opportunity. He has enriched children's lives and helped to 
improve America's public schools. And in doing so, he has helped to 
make America better and stronger.
  This week, after two terms, Reg Weaver is retiring as president of 
the 3.2 million-member National Education Association, America's 
largest teachers union. I know that many of my colleagues join me in 
thanking Mr. Weaver for his dedicated service. We wish him well as he 
begins his next chapter in life. I won't say ``retirement'' because, if 
you know Reg Weaver, you know he is going to continue to champion 
children and teachers--it is who he is.
  Reg Weaver grew up in the central Illinois town of Danville, about 
120 miles south of Chicago. When he started grade school, the U.S. 
Supreme Court had not yet passed its landmark Brown v. Board of 
Education ruling. Reg attended a predominately White public school 
through the third grade. Then his family moved across town, and Reg 
found himself in a mostly Black public school. The differences between 
the two schools were stark.
  Two years later, his mother reenrolled Reg in the mostly White 
school, telling school officials the family lived with Reg's 
grandmother.
  That first-person experience with ``separate but equal'' public 
schools in his hometown made a deep impression on Reg Weaver. He has 
spent his life working to guarantee all children the opportunity to 
attend a good public school, no matter where they live.
  The idea of dedicating his life to that goal evolved gradually.
  In high school, Reg Weaver shied away from science, despite the 
urgings of his homeroom teacher, Mr. Sanders, to take a chemistry 
class. He says he feared the class would be too difficult and other 
students might ridicule him. Instead, he concentrated on Spanish and 
wrestling, both of which he excelled in. He thought of becoming an 
interpreter or maybe even a physical therapist.
  His wrestling won him a scholarship to Illinois State University. 
Only after accepting the scholarship did Reg Weaver realize he was 
attending a teachers college. He couldn't major in Spanish or physical 
therapy at Illinois State so he majored in special education for 
students with disabilities.
  Some might say that Reg Weaver fell into teaching by accident. I 
think it was fate. He discovered quickly that he loved teaching and 
went on to earn a master's degree from Roosevelt University in Chicago.
  In another twist of fate, Reg Weaver found his niche teaching 
science--the very subject he had once avoided--to middle school 
students in suburban Chicago. It was there that he first got involved 
in the Illinois Education Association, the State chapter of the 
National Education Association.
  In 1981, Reg Weaver became the first African American ever elected 
president of the Illinois Education Association. During his 6 years as 
IEA president, the organization increased its membership by 50 percent. 
IEA was also the driving force behind passage in 1983 of a 
comprehensive collective bargaining law for Illinois teachers and other 
school personnel. To this day, Reg Weaver keeps a photo of the bill 
signing in his office.
  In 1996, Mr. Weaver was elected vice president of the National 
Education Association. He was elected president of the national 
organization in 2002. As we all well remember, that was a time of major 
change for public education in America. Less than a year before, 
President Bush had signed the No Child Left Behind Act, the most 
comprehensive overhaul of Federal education law in 40 years.
  As NEA President, Reg Weaver has not only worked to highlight flaws 
in the new law, he has tried to suggest ways the law can be 
strengthened.
  Reg Weaver fought to improve the achievement for all students and 
close the achievement gaps that leave too many low-income and minority 
students behind. He has worked to increase teacher pay so schools can 
attract and retain qualified staff. He has worked to encourage parents' 
involvement in their children's education, always mindful of the 
difference his own mother's involvement in his education made in his 
life.
  From his days as a middle school science teacher in suburban Chicago 
to his tenure as president of the Nation's largest professional 
employee association, Reg Weaver has been a tremendous asset to 
Illinois and to our Nation.
  Over the years, he has received many accolades and awards. Ebony 
magazine

[[Page 14078]]

named him one of the 100 most influential Black Americans. He is also 
the recipient of People for the American Way's 2005 Spirit of Liberty 
Award and the U.S. Hispanic Leadership Institute's 2006 George Meany 
Latino Leadership Award.
  One award that has special meaning for him is his inclusion in the 
Danville, IL, High School Wall of Fame. In the same high school where 
he once feared to take a science class, Reg Weaver now serves as an 
inspiration for students to study hard and go as far in life as their 
talents and passions will take them.
  In closing, I want to thank Reg Weaver's family--especially his wife 
Betty--for sharing so much of Reg with America for so long. Above all, 
I want to thank Reg Weaver for his passionate advocacy on behalf of 
America's students, teachers and public schools.

                          ____________________




                            GLOBAL AIDS BILL

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, many of us on the Democratic side have 
disagreed with the President's policies--on the war in Iraq, on the 
economy, on education, and health care.
  But an overwhelming majority of us, on both sides of the aisle, find 
common ground in our support for the President's Emergency Plan for 
AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.
  The President believes this program is one of the hallmarks of his 
administration. I agree. I think it is his most positive achievement as 
President of the United States.
  In fact, I believe it is an important illustration of American smart 
power, a resource we have both squandered and underutilized in recent 
years.
  Smart power is the idea that America's strength resonates not only 
from its military power but from the power of its ideas, the power of 
its values, its generosity and diplomacy.
  I worry that a measure of this leadership has been lost recently. We 
are in a struggle of ideas across the world. Many of our harshest 
critics paint a picture of the United States that is not even close to 
reality.
  When you consider the purpose of this bill--to prevent 12 million new 
infections; support treatment for at least 3 million people; and 
provide care for another 12 million, including 5 million vulnerable 
children--it is easy to see it as an expression of American values--of 
generosity and caring for those in need.
  The success of the PEPFAR program has brought us a long way since 
2003, when only 50,000 people in sub-Saharan Africa were receiving 
treatment. Today, PEPFAR and the Global Fund jointly support nearly 2 
million people on treatment, primarily in Africa.
  That is remarkable progress in just 5 years. The situation on the 
ground has been literally transformed through the support and 
generosity of the American people.
  We should be proud of this achievement. But, as U.S. Global AIDS 
coordinator Dr. Mark Dybul has reminded us many times, ``We cannot 
treat our way out of this epidemic.'' To build on this progress, we are 
going to have to integrate our treatment efforts with other prevention 
activities.
  Epidemics do not occur in isolation. If a person goes hungry or 
doesn't have safe water to drink, her antiretroviral drugs will not be 
effective. If there are not enough doctors or nurses in her village, 
she will not receive the care she needs to overcome this terrible 
disease.
  It is essential to integrate treatment with prevention, health 
workforce capacity development, and other important public health 
efforts on the ground. We need to move away from an emergency posture 
to one that encourages sustainability for the long term.
  This bill--the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global 
Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization 
Act of 2008--helps us do that.
  The President has urged Congress to send him this important bill 
before the end of the year.
  In March, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the bill on 
an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 18 to 3. Our colleagues in the House 
passed a similar measure with a resounding vote--308 to 116--a few 
weeks later.
  Some of the most vulnerable parts of the world have been ravaged by 
AIDS, TB and malaria. Through this bill, we have an opportunity to turn 
the tide on these terrible diseases.
  Around the world, all eyes are on the U.S. Senate.
  Although it has been a long 2\1/2\ months of negotiation with those 
who placed holds on the bill--and I applaud Senator Biden and Senator 
Lugar on their tenacity and leadership in reaching an agreement last 
night to finally advance this bill.
  I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and to support this vital, 
life-saving legislation.

                          ____________________




                           CRISIS IN ZIMBABWE

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have repeatedly come to the floor to 
talk about the genocide in Darfur, a tragedy that is now entering its 
sixth year, with little end in sight. Senator Snowe and 27 other 
Senators joined me last month in writing to the President saying that 
his legacy would be largely affected by whether definitive action is 
taken to halt this humanitarian crisis on his watch.
  Unfortunately, I fear President Bush will leave office and hand the 
crisis in Darfur to the next President.
  Sadly, there is another African crisis that also demands the world's 
attention--this one in Zimbabwe.
  On March 29, the country held a presidential election in which 
opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai won over incumbent Robert Mugabe by 
nearly 5 percent. Official results were withheld by the government for 
more than a month, raising concerns of official manipulation. 
Opposition leaders and supporters, election observers, and reporters 
were harassed and in some cases detained. Some were tortured, others 
killed.
  Under those results, in which neither candidate received more than 50 
percent, a runoff was scheduled for June 27.
  The period leading up to this runoff has been a tragedy for the 
people of Zimbabwe, for democracy, for the rule of law, and for the 
entire southern African region.
  President Mugabe, once a hero of Zimbabwe's independence, has used 
violence to destroy his country's democratic process.
  Opposition supporters are harassed, attacked, and threatened if they 
do not vote for Mugabe. Tsvangirai has been detained repeatedly and has 
survived three assassination attempts. His party's secretary general, 
Tendai Biti, was arrested earlier this month and charged with treason.
  And then this week, government thugs raided opposition party 
headquarters, rounding up supporters, including women and children.
  Mugabe even said in regards to the next round of voting, ``We are not 
going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint 
pen fight with a gun?''
  Mugabe has driven Zimbabwe's economy into the ground, starved his own 
people, and brought sweeping international condemnation upon his 
government. He has further added to his people's suffering by 
manipulating the distribution of international food aid.
  The process has been so undermined by President Mugabe that on 
Monday, Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew from the race and sought refuge in 
the Dutch embassy.
  The man who won the most votes in the first round of Zimbabwe's 
election now has to seek the protection of a foreign embassy out of 
fear the government will take his life.
  This is outrageous.
  The situation in Zimbabwe is a tragedy that the international 
community must address. The world cannot stand idly by anymore while 
petty dictators destroy the lives and ignore the democratic will of 
their own populations.
  What message are we sending when murderous governments such as those 
in Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe are allowed to thumb their noses at basic 
human rights and the international community?
  The UN Security Council said this week that it would be ``impossible 
for a free and fair election to take place.''

[[Page 14079]]

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also strongly condemned the situation 
in Zimbabwe, saying that an election under current conditions ``would 
lack all legitimacy.''
  And recently 14 former African presidents, two former UN Secretaries-
General and 24 other prominent African leaders signed a joint letter to 
Mugabe, calling for an end to the pre-election violence and for a free 
and fair election.
  But where pressure has not been strong enough is from the democracies 
neighboring Zimbabwe. Recently Senators Feingold, Kerry, and Whitehouse 
joined me to meet with the ambassadors from the southern African 
nations of Botswana, Zambia, and South Africa to discuss the need for 
greater attention to the crisis in Zimbabwe.
  While I am pleased that Botswanan and Zambian leaders have spoken 
more forcefully on Zimbabwe in recent days, these nations must do much 
more to help the people of Zimbabwe. Many African leaders have argued 
over the years that they must take greater responsibility for political 
and human rights reform on their own continent. I suggest Zimbabwe is 
an urgent opportunity for just such action.
  South Africa in particular, a nation that the world stood behind to 
end the tragic injustice of apartheid, has been noticeably quiet in its 
responsibility to halt Mugabe's rein of destruction. President Mbeki 
has tried quiet diplomacy, but it is clear that Mugabe does not respect 
these efforts.
  The South African ruling party said this week that ``any attempts by 
outside players to impose regime change will merely deepen the 
crisis.'' That argument misses the point.
  It is the people of Zimbabwe that are demanding change.
  The right to associate freely, to vote without intimidation or 
violence, to peacefully choose one's leader--these are all basic 
democratic values shared around the world. They are the values that 
brought a peaceful end to apartheid.
  In fact, election protocols agreed to by the members of the Southern 
African Development Community demand certain benchmarks for elections 
to be considered legitimate--benchmarks which are certainly not being 
met in Zimbabwe.
  South Africa, more than any other nation in Africa, has the ability 
and the moral responsibility to rein in Mugabe. The rest of the global 
community stands ready to help South Africa with this urgent need.
  The world must step up against the injustices in Zimbabwe. The Mugabe 
regime must not conduct a runoff election until conditions allow for a 
free and fair process, including an end to political violence and 
intimidation, the release of political detainees, free access of 
election observers, the freedom to associate and hold political 
rallies, and a transparent and honest vote counting process.
  Without such minimal steps, the world must not recognize the results 
of a rigged process in which Mugabe will simply proclaim himself 
president for another term.

                          ____________________




                       HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES


                 Lance Corporal Andrew Francis Whitacre

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the 
life of the brave lance corporal from Bryant, Indiana. Andrew Whitacre, 
21 years old, died on June 19, 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, G Company, 2nd 
Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division from Twentynine Palms, CA.
  Andrew graduated from Jay County High School in 2005. Andrew loved 
sports and was an avid snowboarder. Those who knew him best recall a 
brave young man with an extraordinary sense of generosity. He enlisted 
in the Marines at the age of 17, telling his family that if he served, 
another would be spared that decision. Anderw left for boot camp in 
July of 2005, shortly after graduating from high school. Proud of his 
service and patriotic in spirit, Andrew never wavered in his decision 
to enlist. His family said it was the surest decision he ever made.
  In March of this year, Andrew proposed to his fiancee, Casey McGuire 
of Parker, AZ. He was due to return in November. Casey described Andrew 
as her ``hero,'' and said that he asked her to encourage everyone to 
send letters to American servicemembers abroad, thanking them for their 
service and showing their support. Andrew truly had the needs of others 
always at heart.
  Today, I join Andrew's family and friends in mourning his death. 
Andrew will forever be remembered as a son, brother and friend to many. 
He is survived by his his father and stepmother, Ernie and Norma 
Whitacre; his mother and her fiancee, Susan Nunly and Michael Perry; 
his fiancee, Casey McGuire; his brothers, Ryan Murphy and Justin 
Miller; his sister, Ashley Williams; and his grandmothers, Mildred 
Whitacre, Caroline Huffman, Beulah Murphy, and Mary Scott.
  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 Andrew. Today and always, Andrew 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 Andrew'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 Andrew's actions will live on far longer that any 
record of these words.
  It is my sad duty to enter the name of Andrew Francis Whitacre in the 
Record of the U.S. 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 Andrew.

                          ____________________




                       SAVING THE AMERICAN DREAM

  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, the effects of the housing crisis have 
rippled through our economy, affecting every state in the country. 
There are currently 1 million homes in foreclosure and in the next 2 to 
3 years it is estimated that 2 million Americans may lose their homes 
to foreclosure. Few States have felt these effects more than in my 
State of Michigan. Michigan has one of the highest foreclosure rates in 
the country at 3.6 percent with 1 in every 353 households receiving a 
foreclosure filing during the month of May. The high levels of 
foreclosures, coupled with growing inventories of houses, significant 
declines in house prices, and a decline in building activity have made 
efforts for recovery even more difficult. Americans are being squeezed 
from the grocery store to the gas pump and they desperately need 
relief. That is why I am pleased to support this bipartisan housing 
legislation. This bill is a significant step to provide relief to 
struggling homeowners throughout the country and to stabilize our 
economy.
  It would strengthen the regulatory oversight of government sponsored 
enterprises, GSEs, and provide FHA modernization reforms to help 
stabilize the housing finance system and begin to restore confidence to 
the market. The bill also contains the HOPE for Homeowners FHA 
refinancing program for at-risk homeowners. The Congressional

[[Page 14080]]

Budget Office estimates that the program is expected to help 400,000 
homeowners at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure. The bill also 
seeks to keep people in their home by providing $150 million in 
additional funding for housing counseling. These funds will help as 
many as 250,000 additional families connect with their mortgage lender 
to explore options that will keep them in their homes.
       Foreclosures not only affect individual homeowners, but 
     have community-wide ramifications. These properties attract 
     crime and vandalism, which drag down local property values 
     and create losses in wealth built up through home equity. 
     Estimates show that more than 40 million households will see 
     their property values decline as a result of a foreclosed 
     home in their neighborhood. To help communities mitigate 
     these impacts, this bill would provide almost $4 billion for 
     State and local governments to purchase and rehabilitate 
     foreclosed properties. In Michigan, this would provide $345 
     million in additional economic activity and 3,220 new jobs. 
     It would help restore 5,695 properties and raise $11 million 
     in taxes for the state.
  The bill also includes important tax benefits targeted to help the 
recovery of the housing market. It includes a simplification and 
temporary increase of the low-income housing tax credit to promote the 
construction of affordable rental housing. To reduce the growing 
inventory of unoccupied housing, the bill includes a one-time homebuyer 
tax credit of $8,000 to stimulate buyer demand. I am also pleased that 
the package includes my provision to allow struggling American 
businesses to invest in the economy and create jobs here at home. It 
would allow those companies hurting the most to utilize already 
accumulated tax credits to make critical investments in their 
businesses and create jobs.
  As the housing market continues to deteriorate, I applaud the work of 
our leadership in crafting this much-needed housing package. I would 
especially like to thank Chairman Dodd and Ranking Member Shelby for 
their leadership and work on this important issue. However, I am 
concerned with two provisions of the legislation that, if enacted, 
could have far reaching implications for our Nation's housing policy.
  The bill as currently drafted provides for an effective date upon 
enactment, immediately granting the new GSE regulator power over three 
very diverse and complex entities. The new oversight system must allow 
for a transition to ensure there are no lapses in regulatory authority 
or unnecessary market disruptions. The House-passed version of the bill 
establishes an effective date of 6 months after enactment, which allows 
all stakeholders in the housing finance system adequate time to adjust 
to the new system.
  I am also concerned with the language that would restrict the use of 
the GSEs mortgage portfolios as a source of liquidity for the housing 
market. The current language includes a bias in favor of the GSEs 
securitizing loans, which predisposes the regulator from being open to 
all available options. The portfolios are a critical tool to help 
struggling borrowers refinance risky mortgages and meet the needs of 
underserved communities. It is imperative that GSEs have flexibility 
over their portfolio authority. Without this flexibility, subprime, 
multi-family and other affordable lending could be hindered during a 
time when GSE investment is needed most for families and our economy. I 
look forward to a timely and appropriate resolution to both of these 
concerns.
  This housing package is an important first step to address the crisis 
facing our Nation and it cannot wait another day. In Michigan, we have 
been in a recession for too long. Our American dream is turning into an 
American nightmare for too many families. Working together today, we 
must save the American dream for the future.

                          ____________________




                      HONORING THE FOURTH OF JULY

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, next week Friday will be Fourth of July, 
2008.
  In 1776, our forefathers forged our country's independence, marking 
the Fourth of July as our Nation's birthday. Today, 232 years later, we 
commemorate the democratic freedoms set forth by the signing of the 
Declaration of Independence. Historically, many before me have taken 
this moment to reflect upon and celebrate the accomplishments of years 
passed and the promise of years to come. And while there is much to 
reflect upon and celebrate, I would like to take this moment to 
recognize all Americans who, in their own way, work to preserve our 
liberties and promote democracy.
  Today, while we remember the day that 56 individuals gathered in 
Pennsylvania at Independence Hall--we are reminded of a critical moment 
in time when our forefathers shaped a new union, one that broke from 
the traditional. Our Nation was built on the fundamental principle: 
``That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, 
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' As our forefathers endured a 
life of struggle, but envisioned a life of freedom, we as a Nation must 
keep in mind the sacrifices that they and others made and the hardships 
that preserve them.
  As we honor individuals who contribute to upholding our civil 
liberties, we must also take this opportunity to appreciate them for 
the courage they have displayed to preserve our independence and our 
freedom. From our armed servicemembers who stand ready to defend our 
Nation, to 18-year-olds perpetuating our democracy by registering to 
vote, and to people of all backgrounds around the Nation reaffirming 
the principle of our union on a daily basis--to all, I pay tribute. 
Their individual contribution allows us to celebrate our independence 
every day.

                          ____________________




                 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF BELIN-BLANK CENTER

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, 20 years ago this summer, the Connie 
Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education 
and Talent Development was established at the University of Iowa. 
Originally created by the Iowa Board of Regents as the Belin National 
Center for Gifted Education, the center was made possible by a million-
dollar endowment that established the Myron and Jacqueline Blank Chair 
in Gifted Education, which is held to this day by Professor Nicholas 
Colangelo. In 1995, the center was renamed the Connie Belin & 
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and 
Talent Development, honoring a longtime leader in gifted education and 
a Des Moines philanthropist. In 2008, the Belin-Blank Center celebrates 
two decades of service to the international gifted education community.
  The Belin-Blank Center has earned a strong national and international 
reputation for its work on behalf of gifted and talented children, 
which my colleagues know is a subject of great interest to me. Since 
its inception, the center has pioneered unique and innovative 
opportunities for students, including academic talent searches designed 
to discover gifted students; weekend and summer programs on everything 
from algebra, art, and 3D design to chemistry, creative writing and 
LEGO robotics; and the National Academy of Arts, Sciences, and 
Engineering, which provides early admission to the university.
  Professional development for educators has been the foundation upon 
which the work of the center has been built. Examples of the center's 
work in this area include producing internationally acclaimed research 
symposia and developing specially designed coursework for Iowa's 
teachers to earn a State of Iowa endorsement in gifted education. As a 
result of the Belin-Blank Center's efforts, more educators today 
understand that supporting high-achieving students is an important 
aspect of successful teaching.
  The Belin-Blank Center has successfully competed for private, 
Federal, and State grants. I am proud to say that this includes two 
Federal Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Grants. This 
program, which I have championed, is designed to improve our ability to 
meet the unique learning

[[Page 14081]]

needs of gifted students nationwide. The limited funding is quite 
competitive and it is a testament to the quality of the Belin-Blank 
Center's work that it has secured two such grants. The first grant, for 
the years 2003 to 2006, focused on the discovery and development of 
giftedness in students who attend alternative high schools and the 
second, for the years 2005 to 2008, focused on twice-exceptional 
students, which are students who are gifted and also have a disability. 
These projects have contributed substantially to our ability to serve 
these populations of students, who are often overlooked for gifted 
education programming.
  In 2004, the director and associate director of the Belin-Blank 
Center, Nicholas Colangelo and Susan Assouline, along with Miraca U.M. 
Gross, a colleague from Australia, published ``A Nation Deceived: How 
Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students.'' The landmark report 
helped move the subject of gifted education and accelerated programs 
for high-achieving students into the educational mainstream, drawing 
notice from Time, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and hundreds 
of other media venues.
  An important milestone for the center also occurred in 2004 when the 
Belin-Blank Center and the University of Iowa's Honors Program moved 
into a new building, the Myron and Jacqueline N. Blank Honors Center, 
which is located in the heart of the University of Iowa campus. In 
bringing the two programs together, the University of Iowa became one 
of the Nation's first schools to offer kindergarten-through-college 
support for gifted students under one roof.
  As an Iowan and an advocate for gifted and talented education, I am 
very proud to have such a highly esteemed center in Iowa. For its 
tremendous contribution to the field of gifted education 
internationally and for its positive impact on the lives of countless 
gifted and talented students, the Belin-Blank Center is truly deserving 
of recognition on the occasion of its 20th anniversary.

                          ____________________




                 TRIBUTE TO GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize an outstanding 
military leader and fellow Texan, GEN T. Michael Moseley. For nearly 3 
years, General Moseley has served as the Chief of Staff of the United 
States Air Force, functioning as the senior uniformed Air Force officer 
responsible for the organization, training, and equipage of more than 
710,000 Air Force personnel--active duty, Guard, and Reserve airmen, 
and civilians both in the United States and overseas. His service to 
our Air Force and to the American people has been both distinguished 
and admirable; he is, by all accounts, an exceptional American, a 
dedicated public servant, and an outstanding defender of the principles 
of democracy and liberty for which this Nation stands.
  General Moseley was born in Dallas, TX, and grew up just south of 
there, in the city of Grand Prairie. His family has a long history of 
serving the people of Texas, and the United States as a whole. General 
Moseley's father, as a mason, helped build several well-known and 
prominent buildings in Dallas. His grandfather served the Texas law 
enforcement community as a member of the Texas Rangers, that legendary 
organization established in 1835 to range and guard the Texas Frontier. 
General Moseley hails from a long line of proud and noble Texans, and 
has greatly added to that legacy with his own distinguished service in 
the Air Force.
  His impressive military career began in the Corps of Cadets at Texas 
A&M University, where he earned both a bachelor's and master's degree 
in political science. On his way to becoming Air Force Chief of Staff, 
he held key staff positions running the gamut from operational to joint 
to personnel assignments. He served as commander of numerous units and 
organizations, including the F-15 Division of the Air Force Fighter 
Weapons School at Nellis AFB, the 33rd Operations Group at Eglin AFB, 
and the 57th Wing--the Air Force's largest, most diverse flying wing--
also at Nellis AFB. He is a member of the prestigious Council on 
Foreign Relations, and he was even knighted in 2006 at the suggestion 
of Queen Elizabeth II, in recognition of his outstanding contributions 
to U.S.-United Kingdom relations while in command of air operations 
over Afghanistan and Iraq in the early days of the global war on 
terrorism. His list of medals, other awards, and accomplishments is so 
long as to preclude mentioning them all here.
  Without a doubt, General Moseley's selfless service to the United 
States, especially in this arduous and vital fight against global 
terrorism, has been instrumental in securing the safety and liberty of 
all Americans. And while he will be leaving behind his noble and 
exemplary career with the Air Force, his contributions and the impact 
of his leadership will be felt for years to come, both throughout the 
halls of the Pentagon, and by each and every person that had the honor 
of serving next to him.
  It is my privilege to commend the honorable and faithful service of 
GEN T. Michael Moseley, and to thank him for his commitment to our 
country and the principles upon which it is founded.
  I wish General Moseley and his wife Jennie all the best as they 
prepare for the future, and I thank them both for the sacrifices they 
have willingly made in the defense of freedom and our great Nation.

                          ____________________




                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:

       Hello Senator Crapo: The impact of the high gas and energy 
     prices is affecting my wife and I quite a bit. My wife is 
     disabled with severe arthritis, Crohn's Disease, and vision 
     problems from glaucoma, and I am the only income provider for 
     our household. I earn just enough to cancel out my wife's 
     SSI, so we have to cover all her medical expenses that the 
     insurance I receive from work does not cover; that is $250.00 
     to $300.00 plus. I am an employee of Kootenai County, so due 
     to budget restraints and laws, I do not see much in the line 
     of raises to offset cost of living expenses. My job requires 
     that I have transportation available, and that cuts 
     carpooling and riding a bus.
       I drive 30 miles round trip for work, with a 1988 Mazda 
     pickup that has 190,000 miles on it. If there is a good tail 
     wind, I may get 18 mpg. Due to medical expenses and price 
     increases for food, heating, etc., I cannot afford to 
     purchase a newer vehicle that gets better gas mileage. With 
     costs for gas, energy and products affected by the increases, 
     it takes away from an already tight budget, and we have no 
     choice but to cut back where we can. Some people say get 
     another job, but a lot of my off time is used to assist my 
     wife around the house, and take her for errands and medical 
     appointments. At this point, I am concerned about what I will 
     do when the pickup gets to the point of needing high-dollar 
     repair work. We also live in a mobile home that uses electric 
     heat. Sometimes my wife gets depressed that she cannot 
     contribute financially to our household, which does not help 
     her condition.
       The two things that would help our situation would be that 
     my income does not count against my wife's SSI, which would 
     be a tremendous help to the budget for medical bills and 
     possibly a better vehicle, and, of course, the lower prices 
     for fuel and energy.
       Thanks for your assistance; it is greatly appreciated.
     Bob, Post Falls.
                                  ____

       Due to increased gas prices (and some unexpected medical 
     bills), we are now a one car family. I primarily bike to work 
     (it is only two miles away) and I have taught my son to ride 
     the bus. He attends TVMSC at Riverglen, and we live on the 
     East side of

[[Page 14082]]

     town (one-half hour away), so that has helped as well. My 
     husband works out in Meridian, and he occasionally uses 
     public transportation, but has found that the inter-county 
     routes are underfunded and unreliable. Twice the bus has not 
     shown up at all (due to repairs), and it can only handle two 
     bikes, so if the bus bike rack is full, you are out of luck. 
     I believe reducing our reliance on foreign oil is important; 
     it will require advancement in green energy as well as 
     personal changes. However, before the public will use 
     alternative transportation, it has to be reliable and that 
     requires money. Boise does a great job maintaining the green 
     belt and I have noticed on the BSU campus, the bike racks are 
     always full. This was not the case a year ago. This is a 
     positive change. Now if we could work on public 
     transportation and advancing technology to create more fuel 
     efficient cars that are affordable. I also believe tax 
     credits (many of which already exist) to encourage people to 
     weatherproof (insulate/buy better windows) their homes or 
     that encourage them to purchase energy efficient appliances 
     would help.
       Overall, I hope we reduce the amount of oil we use, not 
     just increase oil production. I think this will help in the 
     long run.
           Thank you,
     Tiffany, Boise.
                                  ____

       Thank you for trying to stop the insanity. The high gas 
     prices have made it difficult for me to take the 20 some mile 
     drive to Parma from Caldwell to visit my 95-year-old 
     grandmother. Normally I go once a week. I've had to miss a 
     week now and then because I didn't have enough money for gas. 
     I've cut corners elsewhere to do my best to get those visits 
     in since I know we are living on borrowed time. She's had 
     several strokes lately, and we do not know how long she'll be 
     with us.
       It cost $97.00 to fill my vehicle a few days ago. With my 
     6-year-old in baseball and my teenager in baseball, that 
     takes a lot of gas to travel to games. I missed my teenager's 
     games at tournament because I could not afford to drive to 
     North Idaho and stay in a hotel. His first tournament ever--
     that was really hard.
       I am convinced that the gas prices are affecting our 
     grocery prices, too. My husband works in construction. The 
     economy has slowed so much that his company is having a hard 
     time finding work. This is a very established, well-known 
     company. Because our income has gone down and gas and food 
     have gone up, I'm trying to feed a family of 5 on less than 
     $100.00 a month. The only way I've managed to do this is 
     because we are all hunters and have lots of meat and fish in 
     the freezer from last year.
       I'm tired of hearing how much the oil companies make!!! It 
     is wrong to make such a huge profit off of something we 
     really have to have in order to work and function!! If you 
     live in a city, you can get by using the bus system or 
     subway. I live 5 miles from the grocery store, and there is 
     no bus system to ride. I cannot walk or ride my bike to get 
     groceries. My husband works 100 miles from home. He comes 
     home on weekends. The type of work he does wouldn't benefit 
     from public transportation either. Something has to be done 
     about these prices.
           Sincerely,
     Kristi.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Crapo: Thank you for giving me an opportunity 
     to share my story of how this price of gas is touching my 
     life. First, I want to share my story as a consumer and also 
     as a health care administrator. I run a good-sized nursing 
     home in a small rural Idaho community. I was recruited to run 
     this facility from a good distance away. I travel 130 miles a 
     day round trip on my daily commute. I love my job and the 
     employees I manage love me but as you can imagine 130 miles a 
     day is a lot of gas even with a very fuel efficient vehicle, 
     which I have. Between my wife (who is a stay-at-home mother 
     of five children) and I, we are now spending close to $500.00 
     a month on gas alone. I have a good salary but even with 
     that, we are looking at ways to save on all we spend money 
     on. The problem is the higher gas prices make everything else 
     increase in price. There is no way around this as it is 
     causing us to change our life style. It feels unfair that I 
     worked so hard to be able to have my wife stay home, but now 
     if the price does not go down soon, she may be forced to work 
     just so we can survive. People would consider me well in the 
     middle class, but we are not living that life style today. 
     Everything is going up in price, but my salary is not and I 
     am a lucky one. I am grateful for what I have, and I am a 
     proud American and Idahoan. I am not complaining, but I 
     really believe more can be done because many more than me are 
     suffering much worse.
       As an Administrator of a Healthcare Facility in a small 
     town, the energy crisis is huge. Our costs are have doubled 
     in many cases, but our reimbursement has not. All of my 
     employees need a raise to combat the increase in cost of 
     living, but this is just not feasible. Many of the employees 
     are very low income, and I really do not see how they make 
     it. I have many who have told me they have just stopped 
     driving because they just cannot afford it. My heart goes out 
     to them, and I do whatever I can to help but the neat thing 
     is they do not blame me. They know I care, and I pay them the 
     best I can. These are great people who care for people who 
     cannot care for themselves. They have one of the most 
     thankless jobs in the world, but they are true heroes in my 
     eyes. These are the people I want you to fight for and beat 
     this crisis. They are a true example of why this country is 
     great. Thank you for fighting for Idaho and all America.
           Sincerely,
     Gerald, Weiser.
                                  ____

       I am an employee of Idaho State University and I live in 
     Blackfoot, 20 miles north of Pocatello. I am averaging 
     $400.00 a month in just gasoline expenses and I do not drive 
     on the weekends unless absolutely necessary. I started this 
     position as a 1 year temporary to hold the job open for an 
     employee who had been offered a 1 year contract as an 
     instructor. I was allowed to work 10 hour days and have a 3 
     day weekend to help with gasoline consumption but within 2 
     months of being awarded the position full time I was told I 
     had to work 5 days a week at the office even though the 
     Health Occupations chair offered me an opportunity to fill 
     some Fridays at the Outreach in Blackfoot proctoring tests 
     for students in my programs. To add insult to injury our 
     political representatives that decide pay raises for state 
     employees gave us a 1% raise which for most classified 
     employees amounts to between ten and fifteen cents an hour 
     and my medical benefits, which only cover my husband and 
     myself, went up around 34.35%. Because of this I am forced to 
     seek employment closer to home at a significantly lower wage 
     just to continue to go into debt. Being unable to keep up 
     with the higher energy costs not associated with travel such 
     as for cooking, heating and cooling a house as well as the 
     maintenance for the residence. I know I am speaking for many 
     low to middle income families when I implore the political 
     representatives of the citizens of this state to help find a 
     solution. This is such a rural state that public 
     transportation is not justifiable and impractical. Please 
     help.
     Myrna.
                                  ____

       Senator Crapo: While I can fully appreciate your efforts in 
     trying to keep energy prices down, it is a bit late as the 
     damage has already been done. I have run a small business in 
     Idaho for 25 years. Currently I have 8 employees and I live 
     in constant fear that I will be put out of business. Why? 
     Because EVERY YEAR, we have yet another out-of-control 
     economic crisis in this country.
       Now we have 4+ dollar per gallon gasoline. As you know, 
     Idaho has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the U.S. 
     (ranked 41st), yet the cost of living has skyrocketed in the 
     metropolitan areas over the last 10 years. Because of this, 
     and also from increased pressure from the Internet and chain 
     stores, I have had to downsize my operation from a high of 35 
     employees to what I have now. With the additional increased 
     pressures now in place due to gasoline prices, I expect our 
     sales to decline even further. To be perfectly honest, I 
     cannot survive yet another business downturn and will simply 
     have to go under, putting myself and 7 other people out on 
     the streets. I talk to many other small business owners who 
     are feeling the pinch as well.
       If you examine what has happened in this country, we keep 
     talking about 3 major issues but no significant proactive 
     steps have been taken:
       First, reducing our dependence on foreign oil by increasing 
     domestic production. This has been debated for 30 years but 
     essentially nothing has been done about it. It would have 
     been a relatively simple matter to open up domestic 
     exploration but Congress will have nothing of it because of 
     lobbyists and environmentalists.
       Second, alternative energy. Again this has been talked 
     about for 3 decades but relatively little has been done. The 
     U.S., which should be at the forefront in this area, has 
     lagged far behind much smaller countries such as Spain, 
     France, and the Netherlands.
       Third, more fuel efficient transportation. The technology 
     exists TODAY to almost DOUBLE gas mileage in vehicles, but 
     our government can't even get the car manufacturers to comply 
     with federal fuel consumption guidelines which are a 
     pittance. There has not been a significant breakthrough in 
     vehicle gas mileage from the major U.S. carmakers for over 10 
     years. This is not only inexcusable, it is a major factor in 
     the reason that GM and Ford have fallen on hard times the 
     last several years.
       In addition to all of this, we have been embroiled in 
     overseas conflicts in both Iraq and Kuwait, two of the most 
     oil-rich countries on earth, but we have not held them 
     accountable in any way for our help. The costs of our aiding 
     just those two countries, by the time we eventually get out 
     of Iraq, will easily exceed one trillion U.S. taxpayer 
     dollars, not to mention ongoing costs associated with taking 
     care of returning veterans. For this obscene amount of money 
     we will receive nothing in return because we have failed to 
     negotiate oil treaties at the outset. We could have better 
     spent this money on energy research and production here at 
     home.
       There is a time for talking and a time for action. We need 
     action NOW to help solve these issues.
           Regards,
                                                       Bob, Boise.

[[Page 14083]]

     
                                  ____
       I am a single mother of three children. Two are disabled. I 
     live in Wilder Idaho and commute to Nampa. The round trip is 
     about 50 miles. I also have to take my children, especially 
     the two disabled ones, to doctor's appointments quite often.
       We are now nearly destitute due in part to the cost of 
     commuting. I have been living on credit cards part of the 
     time. I do not know what I'll do about the cost of gas except 
     look into a hydrogen unit for my vehicle. That seems to be 
     the only solution on the horizon as I cannot afford to get 
     another vehicle. Any other ideas?
     Unsigned.
                                  ____

       Mike: As American citizens we are sick and tired of 
     Congress doing nothing to remove our dependency on foreign 
     oil. We are no longer able to travel, except in emergencies 
     to visit family. Almost everything we consume has gone up in 
     price, from shipping goods and services to products made from 
     oil. We either need to get current members of Congress out of 
     office or demand you hold a special session to do the 
     following:
       1. Remove legislation that limits drilling offshore and in 
     Alaska to help increase supply (Drill Now, Drill Everywhere, 
     Save America).
       2. Remove all the red tape with opening and producing more 
     nuclear energy power plants.
       3. Continue research on alternative fuels that do not 
     deplete our food supply.
       4. Take advantage of wind, solar, and hydro power and 
     provide reasonable tax incentives for use of these energy 
     sources.
       Please pass this on to all our elected representatives and 
     continue to push Congress to do what we elected them for, 
     putting in place sound legislation that will move this 
     country forward, not backward. We have waited too long, now 
     we must react rather than act. I am counting on you Mike to 
     make this happen, leave a legacy Idaho can be proud of.
     M., Rexburg.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Crapo: This is not what you asked for, but I 
     felt obliged to note that the energy price problem will solve 
     itself through economics. As oil gets more expensive, 
     alternative energies become relatively cheap. Thus, economics 
     will drive up the development of those energies. 
     Unfortunately, one of those alternate energies is food. What 
     this means is that as oil gets more expensive, food will get 
     more expensive, because more food will go toward powering 
     cars (e.g. ethanol). To prevent this from happening, I 
     believe that the federal government must assist in the 
     development of nuclear power.
       There is only one source of energy in the universe, and 
     that is nuclear power. All other forms of energy derive from 
     nuclear power. Wind, solar, biomass, oil all of these 
     previously came or are now coming from a very large nuclear 
     power plant in the sky called the sun. Fortunately, most of 
     the detrimental radiation we receive from that nuclear power 
     plant can be safely avoided with sunscreen. Jokes aside, this 
     is an important fact to publicly recognize. Nuclear power is, 
     in fact, our only source of power. We can either try to 
     capture the nuclear power coming from the sun, or we can make 
     it ourselves here on earth. While both are viable avenues, 
     the former will lead to higher food prices because fields of 
     wheat and corn are essentially huge solar power panels that 
     can be used to propel rich people's jets instead of feeding 
     poor people, and economics will make that happen. I've been 
     told that it takes enough corn to feed a person for a year to 
     fill an SUV gas tank once. Think carefully about what that 
     means. To be feasible and safe, nuclear power will require 
     federal government intervention, but it can be done and will 
     result in a cheap, very long term source of power for the 
     United States.
       Nuclear power is the cleanest, cheapest long term solution 
     answer to America's power problems.
                                  ____

       Mike: As financially devastating as gas prices have been to 
     our family budget over the past several years, I can not 
     understand how anyone can determine it is a problem that 
     stands by itself. There are several devastating intimately 
     related issues that if our elected officials insist on 
     continuing their tunnel vision over them, we will never have 
     a meaningful solution. When will it be recognized that 
     burning fossil fuels no matter what their source is or how 
     much it costs to get them to the pump, the Earth is also 
     degrading from their use every day with every gallon we 
     consume. So the real question is, why are we still 
     subsidizing oil production when we need to be gearing up our 
     industrial infrastructure and workers to expand our fuel 
     resources to solar, wind, industrial hemp oil and all the 
     related necessities which would be so constructive, effective 
     and economically advantageous, not to mention how remedial to 
     our environment these most rational efforts would be.
       What the hell are you waiting for? Why are you so focused 
     on what gas costs? Do you have any idea what it is going to 
     cost to live anything like a human being after all the oil in 
     the word is burned and we need to live in biospheres in order 
     to breathe--and if we go at this your way, we will still need 
     to develop alternative resources when all the oil is gone--if 
     we can still live on the Earth. Wake up! These problems are 
     not just your problem to solve; this problem belongs to us 
     all and would not be too big for all of us to solve 
     collectively--stop trying to commandeer the solutions--start 
     helping us to solve them meaningfully, constructively and 
     effectively. All you have to do is facilitate the people 
     getting together to organize their solutions into rational 
     plans. Selling your power to solve these problems to the 
     highest bidding lobbyist is NOT the right thing for you to 
     do. There is help available when you come around to doing the 
     right thing. I will be able to help a lot.
       Sincerely,
     DM.
                                  ____

       Thanks for a chance to respond. We do not go to the gym 
     every day because it is across town. Our air conditioner is 
     set at 78 degrees, and even though we're hot and 
     uncomfortable, we do not want the bill that turning it down 
     will bring. We have doubled up our reunion with vacation, so 
     we only have to ``head out'' as a family once this summer.
     F.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Crapo: I am a retired USDA Forest Service 
     employee, my career covered 40 years with assignments in 
     Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, California, New Mexico, and Nevada. I 
     read your newsletter and request for comments regarding the 
     serious effects of run-away energy prices. I do not want to 
     focus on the effects, but would rather emphasize my support 
     for using energy supplies and other natural resources within 
     our own national borders to help reduce the cost and our 
     dependency on Arab oil and other foreign natural resources.
       My career with the Forest Service included the Arab Embargo 
     on petroleum products in the late seventies. At the time I 
     was working in Wyoming, on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. 
     This Forest includes part of a geologic formation called an 
     ``over-thrust belt''. These are areas where layers of 
     sedimentary deposits that include organic matter have been 
     covered over by other geologic layers, often as the result of 
     shifting of the earth's surface. In this process, organic 
     matter gets trapped underneath the layering. Eventually, it 
     gets changed into hydrocarbons--oil and gas.
       During the Reagan era the Bridger-Teton National Forest, 
     and other Forests that included over-thrust geology issued 
     hundreds of leases to industry to explore for oil and gas. 
     Many exploratory wells were drilled on the Bridger-Teton 
     Forest, some in very sensitive habitat (one within the view-
     shed of Jackson, Wyoming). At the time, no fields were 
     developed for commercial use on the Bridger-Teton Forest, but 
     I am aware some deposits were found. With today's prices, it 
     is highly likely some of it would be economic to develop. 
     But, given the current environmental concerns no politician 
     is willing to risk their careers to even suggest 
     environmental constraints be lifted to further explore the 
     potential there or anywhere else within our borders, e.g., 
     ANWR or off shore.
       A key point I want to make regarding my experience is 
     industry did a very good job of being sensitive to the 
     environment in the exploration I was involved with. In fact, 
     many of the old exploratory well sites are included in areas 
     environmentalists are currently proposing for Wilderness 
     designation by Congress. Of course, they wish to close off 
     any options to further explore and perhaps develop our own 
     resources for their own ideological reasons. But, because of 
     my experience I know it can be done without destroying any 
     significant sensitive ecosystem values, especially with the 
     new technology available with is much better than we had 
     available in the seventies.
       I appeal to you to approach Senator McCain and encourage 
     him to truly be a ``change'' candidate for President by 
     making a part of his platform energy independence for our 
     nation. And, have part of that program opening up and use of 
     the energy and other natural resources our own nation has to 
     help accomplish that goal and less overall dependency on 
     foreign imports. DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW, PAY LESS!!
           Sincerely,
     Carl, Nampa.
                                  ____

       Baloney!! You are an oil company sellout like the rest the 
     GOP. American needs to diversify its energy sources, not 
     drill for more petroleum. Even the best estimates of U.S. 
     reserves do not come close to meeting U.S. energy demands. 
     This issue is central to our economy, national security, and 
     the environment and it is the reason why I have abandoned the 
     Republican Party . . . or rather why you have abandoned me. 
     Change, or America and the rest of the world will leave you 
     behind!!
     Kirk.
                                  ____

       I do not think our story is unique, but we are both in our 
     70's and on Social Security. However my husband, who will 
     soon be 73, still must work to get us through every month. We 
     no longer travel any where. Our children and grandchildren 
     are all out of state, and they also find it hard to make ends 
     meet, so they do not travel either. We no longer have the 
     chance to enjoy the much sought after ``retirement'' that we 
     have all come to expect. Some still can, but very

[[Page 14084]]

     many can just keep their head above water. We have cut back 
     on thinking about the usual plans for enjoyment we were 
     looking forward to and are gratefull that we can at least, at 
     the moment, afford our food, utility's, a few bills, and 
     still squeeze out enough gas money for my husband to go 60 or 
     so miles roundtrip to work each day. We know it will get 
     worse, and we're not alone.
     Patty.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator Crapo: I can't imagine anyone, anywhere in the 
     USA who is not mightily upset over the exorbitant increase in 
     fuel prices. I know my wife and I, our family of 4 couples 
     and their children totaling 15, have already started making 
     plans to reduce our vacation travel this summer to within a 
     100-mile radius of our homes in Twin Falls. We will take day 
     trips to the South Hills and take a 4-5 day Labor Day trip. 
     As a family, we have been planning a trip to Disneyland in 
     the fall so that our older grandchildren could enjoy a few 
     days in the park. We were planning on using our refund money, 
     coming from Washington DC, to fund the trip which would have 
     included fuel for the trip, lodging, meals and entrance into 
     the park. I speak for my wife, our adult children and myself 
     when I say that the current energy situation is inexcusable.
       Being a good Reagan Republican, I wholeheartedly endorse 
     the drilling for more oil in Alaska, allowing additional 
     drilling for oil off both coasts and exploring for additional 
     shale oil in Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Colorado. I 
     know that many existing oil pumps have been capped; they need 
     to be uncapped. This will upset the environmentalist crowd 
     tremendously, but I feel it is about time that they are put 
     in their place. The Sierra Club and others like them are 
     prime examples.
       Thank You for all you're doing to assist us here in Idaho.
           Regards,
     Grant, Twin Falls.
                                  ____

       Dear Senator: Thanks for your common sense approach to 
     energy issues now facing our country, and Idaho in 
     particular. It completely escapes me as to why Congress 
     continues to bow to the shouts of a few (environmentalists) 
     while ignoring the overwhelming desires of the majority. 
     Latest polls indicate over 60% of Americans want us to use 
     our natural resources to help solve our short term energy 
     requirements.
       We have a small company with a fleet of 4 service vehicles. 
     The vehicles are all small, compact hatchback type autos that 
     are quite fuel efficient. We average about 2000 miles per 
     week for all 4 vehicles. When gas was $2.00 per gallon, we 
     could expect to spend about 650.00 per month on fuel. Now we 
     are approaching $1500.00 per month for the same mileage with 
     no end in sight. Like most companies our size, we choose to 
     absorb some of those costs for the sort term, but as it 
     becomes clear that the prices we see today are the prices we 
     will see in the foreseeable future, we will have to pass on 
     the additional (and unexpected) costs to our clients. Our 
     clients are made up mostly of small retail and service 
     businesses who will, in turn, pass on their increased 
     expenses to their customers and clients, the everyday citizen 
     and the base of your constituency.
       Our story is a small one but one I believe is 
     representative of the vast collection of small businesses 
     across the country. This energy issue will cut deep into 
     everyone's pocket, and not just at the pump!
       It is time to pass legislation that will encourage 
     responsible use of our natural resources in our own country. 
     It is absurd that the Red Chinese can legally exploit natural 
     resources within 50 miles of our shores when U.S. companies 
     are prohibited by federal law to do the same thing. What 
     happened to practicality and commonsense in our U.S. Congress 
     and Senate? Can we actually sacrifice what amounts to a 
     breach in our national security over environmental issues 
     that may have been valid in the 1960s but are absolutely 
     outdated (by superior technology) today.
       I believe (as do the majority of Americans) that we can use 
     the natural resources God has provided our great nation in a 
     responsible and conscientious way that will leave a clean 
     environment and a strong economy.
           Sincerely,
     Tom, Boise.

                          ____________________




      DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION CELEBRATES 35TH ANNIVERSARY

  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I offer these remarks in recognition 
of 35 years of excellence by the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, 
in combating organizations responsible for the flow of illicit 
narcotics into the United States. The DEA was created by Executive 
order on July 1, 1973, in order to establish a single unified command 
to conduct ``an all-out global war on the drug menace.'' DEA is 
presently mounting this global attack in 21 divisions throughout the 
United States and in 87 offices in 63 countries--the largest 
international presence of any Federal law enforcement agency.
  The mission and purpose of the DEA remain as vital today as they were 
in 1973. After months of hearings and testimony in the U.S. Senate and 
the House of Representatives, the Senate Committee on Government 
Operations issued a report in October 1973 noting among other benefits 
that the creation of DEA as a superagency would provide the momentum 
needed to coordinate all Federal efforts related to drug enforcement 
outside the Justice Department, especially the gathering of 
intelligence on international narcotics smuggling. The DEA has 
steadfastly served this Nation to that end, mounting an intelligence-
driven attack against the most notorious and ruthless international 
drug cartels and kingpins. DEA's global reach also has been a key 
component of combating terrorism, as these ideologically-motivated 
groups have been shown by DEA to fund some of their activities and 
weapons purchases through drug trafficking proceeds. The agency's re-
entry into the intelligence community in 2006 is tacit acknowledgement 
of the value of DEA to the Nation's security.
  For the past 35 years, DEA has identified, targeted, and methodically 
disrupted and dismantled the operations of those responsible for the 
illicit drug traffic. Whether it is crack and powder cocaine, 
methamphetamine, opiates, marijuana, or prescription drugs, DEA agents 
have courageously infiltrated drug trafficking organizations and 
brought to justice the most significant and despicable criminals this 
Nation has faced. The cost of this fight has been tremendous in terms 
of treasure, but no cost has been greater or more pointed than the 
price of life and suffering paid by the men and women of DEA and their 
families. Since establishment, a combination of 57 special agents, task 
force officers, and support staff have valiantly given their lives for 
the Nation in support of DEA's noble mission.
  On behalf of the citizens of Missouri, I want to remind the DEA that 
the agency is not alone in this fight. Missourians and their 
communities have stood strong against the scourge of drug trafficking 
and abuse, and our law enforcement agencies have stood shoulder to 
shoulder with the DEA. Our commitment to protecting young people from 
the inherent danger of addiction and keeping the ideal of hope strong 
is unwavering.
  I am proud to offer my congratulations to the DEA not only for its 
marked achievements, but also for its commitment to excellence. The 
agency has served as a model for interagency collaboration and 
information sharing across the Federal law enforcement community. Its 
workforce is both talented and diverse, with the most recent 
Administrator and Administrator-nominee being women. Additionally, the 
agency was ranked in the Top 20 best places to work in the Federal 
Government, placing 18 out of 222 agencies in the Partnership for 
Public Service's 2007 rankings of ``The Best Places to Work in the 
Federal Government.''

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

                                 ______
                                 

               CONGRATULATING MS. BAILEE CARROLL MAYFIELD

 Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, today I congratulate Ms. Bailee 
Carroll Mayfield on receiving the American Veterans, AMVETS, 
scholarship award. The AMVETS National Scholarship Committee has 
awarded Ms. Mayfield a $4,000 scholarship after competing successfully 
against nearly 200 applicants. AMVETS has recognized Ms. Mayfield as an 
outstanding high school senior exhibiting academic excellence, promise 
and merit.
  The AMVETS organization awards only six scholarships per year. Each 
scholarship is awarded to a high school senior who is the child or 
grandchild of a United States veteran, and is seeking a postsecondary 
education. Ms. Mayfield plans to utilize her scholarship at Eastern 
Kentucky University to pursue a career in psychology.
  Ms. Mayfield has proven herself to be an exemplary student, 
rightfully receiving the AMVETS Scholarship Award. She is an 
inspiration to the

[[Page 14085]]

citizens of Kentucky and to students everywhere. I look forward to 
seeing all that she will accomplish in the future.

                          ____________________




                         SALUTE OF TERRY DeVINE

 Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, to those who live in Fargo, ND, 
Terry DeVine has been a prominent and steady voice for decades. DeVine 
was hired by my State's biggest newspaper, the Fargo Forum, in 1981. 
DeVine was known as a consummate newsman. It has been said that, if a 
big story was brewing, DeVine wanted it. His readers know that he got 
it more often than not.
  Throughout his 27 years as managing editor, and later as a columnist, 
he maintained an integrity and dedication to journalism that was self-
evident, spread every morning across the pages of the Forum for all to 
see.
  As a marine during Vietnam, he escorted wounded journalists off the 
battlefield. He began work with the Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper 
after the war, followed by a time with the Associated Press in Sioux 
Falls, before finally landing at the Forum, where his presence has been 
unmistakable.
  DeVine's recent retirement saddened many. Justly, the conclusion of 
his tenure has been seen in Fargo as the end of an era.
  In North Dakota, community matters. People share a connection and a 
concern that is not to be found in all places. But community cannot 
flourish in a vacuum. It requires a dialogue. It takes a willingness to 
be truthful and involved. It calls for an understanding of events that 
is untarnished and open. Perhaps Terry DeVine's greatest contribution 
has been to consistently furnish these qualities, and through this, to 
support the community he lives and works in.

                          ____________________




                       IN HONOR OF MICHAEL WYNNE

 Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, as cochair of the 
Senate Air Force Caucus, I wish to speak about former Air Force 
Secretary, Michael Wynne.
  The Air Force has three core values: integrity first, service before 
self, and excellence in all we do. I believe Secretary Wynne has 
striven to live up to these values throughout his illustrious career. 
Upon graduating from the U.S. Military Academy in 1966, Wynne served in 
the Air Force for 7 years, concluding his uniformed career as a captain 
and assistant professor of astronautics at the U.S. Air Force Academy. 
He then joined the ranks of General Dynamics, working on revolutionary 
programs such as the F-16 and M1A2 Main Battle Tank. After 23 years of 
service with General Dynamics, rising to the rank of senior vice 
president, Wynne joined the U.S. Department of Defense and served as 
the Principal Deputy Under Secretary, then Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. In 2005, he was confirmed as 
the 21st Secretary of the Air Force--assuming responsibility for 
organizing, training, equipping, and providing for the welfare of its 
nearly 370,000 men and women on active duty; 180,000 members of the Air 
National Guard and the Air Force Reserve; 160,000 civilians; and their 
families.
  On his first day in office, Secretary Wynne issued a new mission 
statement for the Air Force, declaring that the ``mission of the United 
States Air Force is to deliver sovereign options for the defense of the 
United States of America and its global interests--to fly and fight in 
Air, Space and Cyberspace.'' He then declared three priorities for the 
Air Force: winning today's fight; taking care of the Air Force family; 
and preparing for tomorrow's challenges. In terms of today's fight, 
Wynne oversaw the deployment of more than 25,000 airmen to the Middle 
East. He worked to ensure that over 3,000 Rover kits were deployed to 
the theater so that ground forces could receive full motion video 
directly from unmanned aerial systems flying orbits around the clock. 
He also realized the critical importance of intelligence, surveillance, 
and reconnaissance. Wynne doubled the number of Predator orbits in Iraq 
and Afghanistan in less than a year, while simultaneously exceeding the 
Department of Defense requirements for Predator orbits, by 2 years and 
four orbits.
  Secretary Wynne can also take great pride in the support he provided 
for those who sacrifice so much on the front lines. He was instrumental 
in facilitating the aero-medical evacuation program, which led to a 
vastly improved survival rate for wounded troops who were able to reach 
aid stations over previous wars. Additionally, Wynne also supported an 
initiative to create a seamless transfer of medical records from 
theater to stateside and then to the Veterans Administration. Lastly, 
he understood the need to look after the entire Air Force family--
active duty, Guard, Reserve, and civilian--through instilling a culture 
of empowerment, accountability, and continuous improvement.
  In terms of America's future, Secretary Wynne worked hard to fulfill 
his tremendous responsibility to ensure that the U.S. Air Force would 
be well postured to address future potential threats. I would like to 
thank Secretary Michael Wynne for his service to our country and wish 
him the best in all his future endeavors.

                          ____________________




                 IN HONOR OF GENERAL T. MICHAEL MOSELEY

 Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, as cochair of the 
Senate Air Force Caucus, I have been afforded a unique opportunity to 
get to know GEN T. Michael Moseley, former Air Force Chief of Staff. I 
believe he is best defined by three distinct traits: a commitment to 
excellence, compassion for those with whom he serves, and a deep 
appreciation for history.
  Whether reviewing his time in the cockpit, eventually commanding the 
prestigious F-15 division of the Air Force's Fighter Weapons School; 
his service as a professor at the illustrious National War College; his 
command of distinguished units, such as the 33rd Operations Group and 
57th Wing; his pivotal role in executing the air wars over Afghanistan 
and Iraq as head of the 9th Air Force; or his service as Air Force 
Chief of Staff, it is obvious that General Moseley has applied himself 
with incredible dedication and commitment. He truly understands the 
capabilities afforded through air, space, and cyberspace and has worked 
tirelessly to ensure that the Air Force excels in these critical 
domains.
  In addition, General Moseley is deeply aware that it takes a team to 
launch a jet in the air and that every pilot needs a wingman; and he 
has, therefore, consistently sought to support the Air Force family. 
Most recently, these efforts have manifested themselves through 
ensuring predictable deployment schedules for Air Force personnel and 
their families, strengthening family wellness programs, upgrading 
family housing, increasing educational opportunities, and reaching out 
directly to Airmen through a variety of mediums to help promote an 
exchange of ideas.
  It is also important to recognize that throughout his nearly four 
decades of service, General Moseley has displayed a deep appreciation 
for history and lessons learned from past events. This historical 
insight and perspective is critical as the U.S. Air Force looks to 
succeed in today's missions while simultaneously cultivating a force 
which will excel in the future. General Moseley worked to ensure that 
this informed approach will continue to flourish in the Service through 
the creation of the Analysis, Assessment, and Lessons-Learned 
Directorate on the Air Staff.
  These achievements represent just a fraction of General Moseley's 
accomplishments; but one thing is clear--he has shown a tremendous 
commitment to his country. I would like to thank GEN T. Michael 
``Buzz'' Moseley for his dedication to duty over these past 36 years, 
and I wish him all the best in his future endeavors.

                          ____________________




                      TRIBUTE TO DR. THAYNE DUTSON

 Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today I wish to highlight the 
importance of acknowledging and celebrating extraordinary efforts by 
ordinary Americans who have led the way in protecting and preserving 
America's natural resources. I am honored to commend a

[[Page 14086]]

natural resource hero in my home State of Oregon, Dr. Thayne Dutson. 
After a lifetime of service to farmers and ranchers in this country, 
Dr. Dutson is hanging up his hat and I honor his service.
  Dr. Dutson has been dean of the College of Agricultural Sciences at 
Oregon State University since 1993 and has acted as director of the 
Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station since 1987. As head of Oregon's 
College of Agriculture Sciences, Dr. Dutson has dedicated the past two 
decades of his life to Oregon's farmers and ranchers.
  Along with being Oregon Agriculture's resource for cutting-edge 
research, knowledge about food systems, environmental quality, natural 
resources and rural communities, Dr. Dutson has also led a team of 
public servants to administer the extension service throughout the 
State. Dr. Dutson and his team led Oregon State University's outreach 
mission by engaging with Oregon's people and communities and focusing 
his efforts on community livability, strengthening the economic 
vitality of rural communities and maintaining Oregon's natural resource 
base. Based on these positive impacts and the leadership of Dean 
Dutson, the OSU Extension Service is recognized as one of America's 
top-5 land-grant university extension systems in the country. Dr. 
Dutson was also instrumental in Oregon State University's selection as 
one of five regional centers for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's 
Sun grant initiative, which is working to advance the development of 
new biobased fuels and products.
  I have had the pleasure of working with Dr. Dutson on many projects 
over the years. Dean Dutson has worked tirelessly on behalf of Oregon's 
farmers and ranchers. Under Dr. Dutson's watch, Oregon State University 
has secured critical Federal research funding for grass seed, potatoes, 
livestock grazing, small fruits, barley genome mapping, soil and air 
quality, organic Agriculture, nursery crops and biofuels. It is because 
of his leadership that Oregon agriculture and Oregon State University 
continue to lead the nation as innovators in all agricultural sciences.
  As a young Boy Scout, I was taught that one's duty was to respect and 
protect the world around you. I believe that we have a responsibility 
to encourage efforts in conserving our natural resources by responsibly 
using them, not abusing them. Dr. Thayne Dutson has made major 
contributions to a proud Oregon pioneering spirit of innovation and 
responsible management of our natural resources. What Dean Dutson has 
given back to the Oregon agriculture community is invaluable, for he 
has taught us that everyone doing their small part can achieve huge 
successes. I wish Thayne, his wife, Missy, and their family all the 
best as they pursue future endeavors. Oregon's farmers and ranchers owe 
him a debt of gratitude.

                          ____________________




               TRIBUTE TO DR. CHARLES CONSTANTINE MOSKOS

 Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on May 31, 2008, the Nation lost a 
great patriot, an avid student and supporter of the military, and a 
true friend of the enlisted soldier--Northwestern University professor 
emeritus of sociology, Charles Constantine Moskos.
  But he wasn't ``professor'' or ``doctor'' Moskos. He was always known 
as ``Charlie.'' He was ``Charlie'' to admirals and generals; he was 
``Charlie'' to his students; and he was ``Charlie'' to the enlisted 
soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines he loved so much. He was 
``Charlie'' to many Members of Congress who worked with and admired 
him.
  After graduating with honors from Princeton University in 1956, 
Charlie was drafted into the Army. He quickly became enamored with the 
amazing cross-section of Americans who served in the Armed Forces and 
decided the military institution would be his lifelong, academic focus. 
After he received his doctorate from UCLA in 1963, Charlie taught for 2 
years at the University of Michigan before moving on to Northwestern 
University. At Northwestern, Charlie began a storied 40-year career as 
a professor of sociology and traveled to war zones, military bases 
across the globe, the Pentagon, and the Congress. Over those four 
decades he became known as one of the world's foremost military 
sociologists and a key adviser to policymakers.
  Charlie's field was political sociology, and he studied the Caribbean 
and the Greek-American community, but his biggest contribution was in 
addressing the civil-military bond, the integration of the military and 
our society. He wrote extensively about the culture in the military, 
the success story of racial integration in the services, particularly 
the Army. He also focused his writings on the changing nature of the 
military as we moved from Vietnam to the end of the Cold War and into 
today's conflicts against terrorists around the globe. As one of the 
preeminent military sociologists of his time, he was a founding member 
of the prestigious Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and 
Society, an international association of academics and military 
scholars.
  Charlie's research took him to combat units in Vietnam, Kuwait, 
Somalia, Kosovo, and Iraq. For over three decades, he also served as an 
independent adviser to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Always concerned that 
the All-Volunteer Force could separate the military from its larger 
society as it draws from more narrow segments of the population, 
Charlie is also credited with inspiring President Clinton to create the 
AmeriCorps Program.
  Among other awards, Charlie received the Distinguished Service Medal, 
the highest honor the Army awards to civilians. He is survived by his 
beloved wife of 41 years, Ilca Hoan Moskos, of Santa Monica, CA; two 
sons, Andrew Moskos of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and Peter Moskos of 
Astoria, NY; and two grandchildren.

                          ____________________




                      MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

  Messages from the President of the United States were communicated to 
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, 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.)

                          ____________________




    REPORT ON THE ISSUANCE OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTINUING CERTAIN 
 RESTRICTIONS ON NORTH KOREA AND NORTH KOREAN NATIONALS IMPOSED UNDER 
                 THE TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT--PM 55

  The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message 
from the President of the United States, together with an accompanying 
report; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
Urban Affairs:

To the Congress of the United States:
  Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as 
amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have 
issued an Executive Order continuing certain restrictions on North 
Korea and North Korean nationals imposed pursuant to the exercise of 
authorities under the Trading With the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C. App. 1 et 
seq.) (TWEA). In the order, I declared a national emergency to deal 
with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and 
foreign policy of the United States posed by the current existence and 
risk of the proliferation of weapons-usable fissile material on the 
Korean Peninsula. I ordered the continuation of certain restrictions on 
North Korea and North Korean nationals as we deal with that threat 
through multilateral diplomacy.
  These restrictions were first imposed pursuant to authorities found 
in section 5(b) of TWEA, following the declaration of a national 
emergency in 1950 in Proclamation 2914 (15 FR 9029), and continued 
annually, after the enactment of IEEPA in 1977, in accordance with 
section 101(b) of Public Law

[[Page 14087]]

95-223 (91 Stat. 1625; 50 U.S.C. App. 5(b) note). The most recent 
continuation of such TWEA authorities is found in Presidential 
Determination 2007-32 of September 13, 2007. In a proclamation, which I 
signed the same day as the order, I terminated, effective the following 
day, the exercise of TWEA authorities with respect to North Korea.
  The order I have issued continues the blocking of certain property 
and interests in property of North Korea or a North Korean national 
that were blocked as of June 16, 2000, and that remained blocked 
immediately prior to the date of my order. Absent this order, my 
proclamation terminating the exercise of TWEA authorities with respect 
to North Korea would have resulted in the unblocking of that property.
  The order also continues restrictions relating to North Korea-flagged 
vessels that would otherwise have been terminated by my proclamation. 
These restrictions prohibit United States persons from owning, leasing, 
operating, or insuring any vessel flagged by North Korea and from 
registering vessels in North Korea or otherwise obtaining authorization 
for a vessel to fly the North Korean flag. For the reasons set forth 
above, I found that it was necessary to continue these restrictions.
  I delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury, after consultation with 
the Secretary of State, the authority to take such actions, including 
the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers 
granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the 
purposes of my order.
  I am enclosing a copy of the Executive Order and proclamation I have 
issued.
                                                      George W. Bush.  
The White House, June 26, 2008.

                          ____________________




                        MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE

  At 12:22 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. 3195. An act to restore the intent and protections of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       H.R. 3546. An act to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels 
     through 2012.
       H.R. 6275. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
     alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes.
       H.R. 6358. An act to require certain standards and 
     enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in 
     residential programs, and for other purposes.

                          ____________________




                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  The message also announced that the Speaker has signed the following 
enrolled bills:

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

  The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro 
tempore (Mr. Byrd).
                                  ____

  At 12:49 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has 
agreed to the following concurrent resolution, in which it requests the 
concurrence of the Senate:

       H. Con. Res. 377. Concurrent resolution 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.

                          ____________________




                         ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED

  At 1:09 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered 
by Mrs. Cole, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker has 
signed the following enrolled bills:

       H.R. 6040. An act 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.
       H.R. 6327. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the 
     Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

  The enrolled bills were subsequently signed by the President pro 
tempore (Mr. Byrd).
                                  ____

  At 8:19 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, in which it requests the concurrence of the 
Senate:

       H.R. 6377. An act to direct the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission to utilize all its authority, including its 
     emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive 
     speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction 
     and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on 
     or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to 
     eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or 
     unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, 
     or other unlawful activity that is causing major market 
     disturbances that prevent the market from accurately 
     reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy 
     commodities.

                          ____________________




                           MEASURES REFERRED

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

       H.R. 6275. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the 
     alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
       H.R. 6358. An act to require certain standards and 
     enforcement provisions to prevent child abuse and neglect in 
     residential programs, and for other purposes; to the 
     Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

                          ____________________




                    MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

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

       H.R. 3546. An act to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels 
     through 2012.

                          ____________________




                      MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME

  The following bills were read the first time:

       H.R. 3195. An act to restore the intent and protections of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
       S. 3202. A bill to address record high gas prices at the 
     pump, and for other purposes.
       S. 3213. A bill to designate certain land as components of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize 
     certain programs and activities in the Department of the 
     Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes.

                          ____________________




                        ENROLLED BILL PRESENTED

  The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 26, 2008, 
she had presented to the President of the United States the following 
enrolled bill:

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

     

                          ____________________


                   EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS

  The following communications were laid before the Senate, together 
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as 
indicated:

       EC-6746. A communication from the Under Secretary of 
     Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics), 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, an annual report relative to 
     the

[[Page 14088]]

     conduct of the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program for 
     fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on Armed Services.
       EC-6747. A communication from the General Counsel, 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, transmitting, 
     pursuant to law, the report of action on a nomination for the 
     position of Secretary, received on June 25, 2008; to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-6748. A communication from the Chief Counsel, Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Final Flood Elevation Determinations'' (73 FR 33321) 
     received on June 25, 2008; to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs.
       EC-6749. A communication from the Senior Vice President and 
     Chief Financial Officer, Federal Home Loan Bank of San 
     Francisco, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Bank's 2007 
     Management Report; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
       EC-6750. A communication from the Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Department of 
     Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of 
     Critical Habitat for Southern Resident Killer Whale'' 
     (RIN0648-AU38) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-6751. A communication from the Acting Assistant 
     Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department 
     of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a 
     rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
     Plants: Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population 
     Segment of North American Green Sturgeon'' (RIN0648-AT02) 
     received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation.
       EC-6752. A communication from the Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for Operations, Department of Commerce, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled 
     ``Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Protective 
     Regulations for Threatened Upper Columbia River Steelhead'' 
     (RIN0648-AU18) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-6753. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Department of 
     Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Species: Revision of 
     Critical Habitat for the Northern Right Whale in the Pacific 
     Ocean'' (RIN0648-AT84) received on June 24, 2008; to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-6754. A communication from the Acting Deputy Assistant 
     Administrator for Regulatory Programs, Department of 
     Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing 
     Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West 
     Coast Steelhead'' (RIN0648-AR93) received on June 24, 2008; 
     to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
       EC-6755. A communication from the Attorney, Office of 
     Assistant General Counsel for Legislation and Regulatory Law, 
     Department of Energy, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     report of a rule entitled ``Energy Planning and Management 
     Program; Integrated Resource Planning Rules'' (RIN1901-AB24) 
     received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on Energy and 
     Natural Resources.
       EC-6756. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Reporting of ESOP Dividends and Section 
     404(k)'' (Announcement 2008-56) received on June 25, 2008; to 
     the Committee on Finance.
       EC-6757. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Auction Rate Preferred Stock--Effect of 
     Liquidity Facilities on Equity Character'' (Notice 2008-55) 
     received on June 25, 2008; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-6758. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``China Earthquake Designated as Qualified 
     Disaster Under Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code'' 
     (Notice 2008-57) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee 
     on Finance.
       EC-6759. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Guidance Under Section 956 for Determining 
     Basis or Property Acquired in Certain Nonrecognitions 
     Transactions'' ((RIN1545-BH58)(TD 9402)) received on June 24, 
     2008; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-6760. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Appeals Settlement Guidelines: Methane Gas 
     Project, Credit for Fuel From a Nonconventional Source'' 
     (UIL: 0029.06-00) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee 
     on Finance.
       EC-6761. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Claims for Recovery of Overpayments of 
     Arbitrage Rebate and Similar Payments on Tax-Exempt Bonds'' 
     (Rev. Proc. 2008-37) received on June 25, 2008; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
       EC-6762. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Guidance Under Section 664 Regarding the 
     Effect of UBTI on Charitable Remainder Trusts'' (TD 9403) 
     received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on Finance.
       EC-6763. A communication from the Chief of the Publications 
     and Regulations Branch, Internal Revenue Service, Department 
     of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Applicable Federal Rates--July 2008'' (Rev. 
     Rul. 2008-33) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on 
     Finance.
       EC-6764. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of an 
     application for a license for the manufacture of the AH-64 
     LONGBOW Fire Control Radar Accelerometers for the Apache 
     Attack Helicopter Program; to the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations.
       EC-6765. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a 
     proposed manufacturing license agreement for the export of 
     defense articles to Mexico for the production of electronic 
     assemblies for automated equipment for the United States; to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-6766. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a nomination and 
     action on a nomination for the position of Under Secretary of 
     State for Public Diplomacy, received on June 24, 2008; to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations.
       EC-6767. A communication from the Assistant Secretary, 
     Office of Legislative Affairs, Department of State, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, the certification of a 
     proposed manufacturing license agreement for the export of 
     technical data to Turkey for the manufacture and repair of 
     the upgradeable AN/APX-117 Transponder; to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations.
       EC-6768. A communication from the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the 
     Performance Report relative to the Animal Drug User Fee Act 
     for fiscal year 2007; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-6769. A communication from the Director, Regulations 
     Policy and Management Staff, Department of Health and Human 
     Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule 
     entitled ``Medical Devices; Medical Device Reporting; 
     Baseline Reports'' (Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0310) received on 
     June 25, 2008; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions.
       EC-6770. A communication from the Chief, Division of 
     Coverage, Reporting and Disclosure, Department of Labor, 
     transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the re-
     designation of a previously submitted rule, which has been 
     assigned Regulation Identification Number 1210-AB10, as a 
     ``non-major rule''; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.
       EC-6771. A communication from the Acting Chief Acquisition 
     Officer and Senior Procurement Executive, General Services 
     Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of 
     a rule entitled ``Federal Acquisition Regulation'' (FAC 2005-
     26) received on June 24, 2008; to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs.
       EC-6772. A communication from the Acting Assistant Legal 
     Adviser, Office of Treaty Affairs, Department of State, 
     transmitting the text of the 2008 Prohibited List of 
     Substances which is to replace the 2007 Prohibited List of 
     Substances that was originally transmitted to the Senate as a 
     part of Annex I of the International Convention Against 
     Doping in Sport (TD 110-14, 110th Congress, 2nd Session); to 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations.

                          ____________________




                        PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS

  The following petition or memorial was laid before the Senate and was 
referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated:

       POM-409. A concurrent resolution adopted by the Senate of 
     the State of Louisiana urging Congress to allow immediate 
     family to visit military personnel on extended deployment 
     overseas who are in a rest and relaxation period; to the 
     Committee on Armed Services.

                  Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 101

       Whereas, on April 12, 2007, when Defense Secretary Robert 
     M. Gates announced that all active-duty soldiers currently 
     deployed would see their one-year tour extended to a fifteen 
     months tour, the war-weary Army

[[Page 14089]]

     faced its longest combat tours since World War; and
       Whereas, although Defense Secretary Gates termed this a 
     ``difficult but necessary'' order, many referred to it as the 
     decision that would break the Army because of the chilling 
     effect it would have on the recruiting, retention, and 
     readiness of troops; and
       Whereas, the reunion plans of troops and their families 
     were suddenly placed on hold because of the deployment 
     extension orders; and
       Whereas, such orders unleashed a flood of emotions 
     including feelings of sadness, disappointment, worry, 
     anxiety, anger, stress, and a sense of betrayal or of 
     promises being broken for service men, women, and their 
     families; and
       Whereas, mental health experts agree that deployment 
     extensions are extremely difficult on service members and 
     their families; and
       Whereas, extended deployment submerges our service men, 
     women, and their families under tremendous economic, 
     employment, and emotional sacrifices; and
       Whereas, service men and women do receive a period of rest 
     and relaxation (R&R); and
       Whereas, the continued development of strong family 
     relationships for our service men and women who have repeatly 
     placed themselves in harm's way in the name of freedom, duty, 
     and honor for us and our country should be supported. 
     Therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Legislature of Louisiana memorializes 
     the Congress of the United States to make provisions to allow 
     immediate family to visit military personnel on extended 
     deployment overseas when they are in a period of rest and 
     relaxation (R&R). 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. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
     amendment:
       H.R. 5690. To remove the African National Congress from 
     treatment as a terrorist organization for certain acts or 
     events, provide relief for certain members of the African 
     National Congress regarding admissibility, and for other 
     purposes.
       By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without 
     amendment and with a preamble:
       S. Res. 594. A resolution designating September 2008 as 
     ``Tay-Sachs Awareness Month''.
       By Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, without 
     amendment:
       S. 2979. A bill to exempt the African National Congress 
     from treatment as a terrorist organization, and for other 
     purposes.

                          ____________________




                     EXECUTIVE REPORT OF COMMITTEE

  The following executive report of committee was submitted:

       By Mr. BIDEN, from the Committee on Foreign Relations:

      [Treaty Doc. 110-9; Protocol of Amendments to Convention on 
      International Hydrographic Organization (Ex. Rept. 110-10)]

       The text of the committee-recommended resolution of advice 
     and consent to ratification is as follows:

       Resolved (two-thirds of the Senators present concurring 
     therein), That the Senate advises and consents to the 
     ratification of the Protocol of Amendments to the Convention 
     on the International Hydrographic Organization done at Monaco 
     on April 14, 2005 (Treaty Doc. 110-9).

                          ____________________




                    EXECUTIVE REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

  The following executive reports of nominations were submitted:

       By Mr. LEVIN for the Committee on Armed Services.
       *Army nomination of Gen. David H. Petraeus, to be General.
       *Army nomination of Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, to be 
     General.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Colonel William J. 
     Bender and ending with Colonel Timothy M. Zadalis, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record on March 31, 2008.
       Air Force nomination of Maj. Gen. Paul J. Selva, to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Army nomination of Col. Kenny C. Montoya, to be Brigadier 
     General.
       Army nomination of Brig. Gen. Errol R. Schwartz, to be 
     Major General.
       Army nomination of Maj. Gen. Ricky Lynch, to be Lieutenant 
     General.
       Army nomination of Col. Patricia D. Horoho, to be Major 
     General.
       Army nominations beginning with Brigadier General Timothy 
     E. Albertson and ending with Colonel Larry W. Triphahn, which 
     nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in the 
     Congressional Record on June 16, 2008.
       Marine Corps nomination of Maj. Gen. John R. Allen, to be 
     Lieutenant General.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Moira N. Flanders, to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Karen A. Flaherty, to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. (lh) Raymond P. English, to be 
     Rear Admiral.
       Navy nomination of Capt. Scott A. Weikert, to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nomination of Capt. Bruce A. Doll, to be Rear Admiral 
     (lower half).
       Navy nomination of Capt. Steven M. Talson, to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half).
       Navy nominations beginning with Capt. Mark J. Belton and 
     ending with Capt. Nicholas T. Kalathas, which nominations 
     were received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on March 11, 2008.
       Navy nomination of Rear Adm. Dirk J. Debbink, to be Vice 
     Admiral.
       *Nelson M. Ford, of Virginia, to be Under Secretary of the 
     Army.
       *Joseph A. Benkert, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
     Secretary of Defense.
       *Sean Joseph Stackley, of Virginia, to be an Assistant 
     Secretary of the Navy.
       *Frederick S. Celec, of Virginia, to be Assistant to the 
     Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological 
     Defense Programs.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I 
report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in 
the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save 
the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these 
nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of 
Senators.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

       Air Force nomination of Andrew P. Armacost, to be Colonel.
       Air Force nomination of Hans C. Bruntmyer, to be Lieutenant 
     Colonel.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Dwight Peake and 
     ending with Trevor S. Petrou, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 3, 2008.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Christine Cornish and 
     ending with David G. Watson, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 3, 2008.
       Air Force nomination of John L. Baeke, to be Major.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Joseph C. Lee and 
     ending with Brad A. Nieset, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Air Force nominations beginning with Robert B. Kohl and 
     ending with Alvin W. Rowell, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Air Force nominations beginning with James D. Barber, Jr. 
     and ending with Mark John Zechman, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 16, 2008.
       Army nominations beginning with Marvin P. Anderson and 
     ending with Mark V. Vail, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     February 5, 2008.
       Army nominations beginning with John P. Albano and ending 
     with D060387, which nominations were received by the Senate 
     and appeared in the Congressional Record on February 5, 2008.
       Army nomination of John Kissler, to be Major.
       Army nominations beginning with Mark A. Arturi and ending 
     with Dana F. Campbell, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 4, 
     2008.
       Army nominations beginning with Kathleen Agoglia and ending 
     with James R. Taylor, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 4, 
     2008.
       Army nominations beginning with Robert J. Egidio and ending 
     with Alan Z. Siedlecki, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     4, 2008.
       Army nomination of Daisie D. Boettner, to be Colonel.
       Army nomination of Thomas C. Powell, to be Colonel.
       Army nomination of John M. Anderson, to be Colonel.
       Army nomination of Rowell A. Stanley, Jr., to be Colonel.
       Army nominations beginning with Michael E. Dunn and ending 
     with Kevin J. Murphy, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16, 
     2008.
       Army nominations beginning with Todd D. Kostelecky and 
     ending with Leesa J. Papier, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 16, 2008.

[[Page 14090]]

       Army nomination of Christopher C. Everitt, to be Major.
       Army nomination of Dennis P. Collins, to be Major.
       Army nominations beginning with Christopher W. Baker and 
     ending with Christina M. Long, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 16, 2008.
       Army nominations beginning with Eric J. Albertson and 
     ending with D060628, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 16, 
     2008.
       Marine Corps nominations beginning with John E. Bilas and 
     ending with Alan R. Singleton II, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 16, 2008.
       Marine Corps nominations beginning with Joseph R. Cornell 
     and ending with John J. Swincinski, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 16, 2008.
       Navy nomination of Adam J. Coghan, to be Captain.
       Navy nomination of John E. Pasch III, to be Captain.
       Navy nominations beginning with Richard C. Boehm and ending 
     with Michael D. Conger, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with James R. Dunworth and 
     ending with Michael A. Sano, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with William K. Davis and ending 
     with Kathleen R. Wright, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Kathleen Gromilovitz and 
     ending with James M. Mancher, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Thomas E. Follo and ending 
     with Sarah M. Standard, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with David J. Harach and ending 
     with Patrick R. Mulcahy, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Donald R. Burns and ending 
     with William D. Michael, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Robert J. Barton II and 
     ending with Christopher M. Waaler, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Drew G. Flavell and ending 
     with Paul F. Weckman, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Teri J. Barber and ending 
     with Lori A. Yost, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Eric B. Anderson and ending 
     with George N. Whitbred IV, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Clayton R. Allen and ending 
     with Eric F. Zanin, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 15, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Tammy M. Baker and ending 
     with Leonard A. Zimmermann I, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 15, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Charles E. A. Baker and 
     ending with Richard N. Soucie, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Raymond E. Chartier, Jr. 
     and ending with Robin D. Tyner, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Robert C. Buzzell and 
     ending with Eduardo E. Wheeler, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Kevin G. Aandahl and ending 
     with David E. Werner, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 28, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with David A. Bondura and ending 
     with Wilburn T. J. Strickland, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jon D. Albright and ending 
     with Michael W. Zarkowski, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with James E. Aull and ending 
     with Edward B. Warford, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Christian D. Becker and 
     ending with Donald L. Zwick, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with William J. Brougham and 
     ending with Jerome Zinni, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 
     28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Voresa E. Booker and ending 
     with Pat L. Williams, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on April 28, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Danelle M. Barrett and 
     ending with Boyd T. Zbinden, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Christopher P. Anklam and 
     ending with Steven J. Yoder, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     April 28, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with John L. Franklin and ending 
     with Norman C. Petty, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on May 20, 
     2008.
       Navy nomination of Michael J. McCormack, to be Captain.
       Navy nominations beginning with Gregg P. Lombardo and 
     ending with Charles J. Newbury, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 3, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Daniel L. Gard and ending 
     with William A. Wildhack III, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 3, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Mark S. Bellis and ending 
     with Steven R. Wolfe, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 3, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Frederick H. Boyles and 
     ending with Allison M. Weldon, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 3, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Esther E. Burlingame and 
     ending with Kimberly K. Pellack, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 3, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Kenneth D. Lapolla and 
     ending with Joseph R. Willie II, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 3, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Bruce Bennett and ending 
     with Scott K. Rineer, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 3, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Daniel K. Bean and ending 
     with Ted Y. Yamada, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 3, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Gloria M. Baisey and ending 
     with Patricia L. West, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 3, 
     2008.
       Navy nomination of Michael J. Maselly, to be Captain.
       Navy nominations beginning with Hillary King, Jr. and 
     ending with James E. Watts, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Roosevelt H. Brown and 
     ending with Dale C. White, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with David R. Bustamante and 
     ending with Rodney O. Worden, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Vida M. Antolinjenkins and 
     ending with Jonathan S. Thow, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Angelica L. C. Almonte and 
     ending with Nancy J. Walker, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Smith C. E. Barone and 
     ending with Curtis M. Werking, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Roland E. Arellano and 
     ending with Marva L. Wheeler, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Christopher Bower and 
     ending with Andrew F. Wickard, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Debra A. Arsenault and 
     ending with Clifton Woodford, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Michael L. Baker and ending 
     with Chad G. Wahlin,

[[Page 14091]]

     which nominations were received by the Senate and appeared in 
     the Congressional Record on June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Brent T. Channell and 
     ending with Michael J. Supko, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Allen C. Blaxton and ending 
     with Joel R. Tessier, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 4, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Marc E. Boyd and ending 
     with Elissa J. Smith, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 4, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Todd E. Barnhill and ending 
     with Dominick A. Vincent, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Edward F. Bosque and ending 
     with Kim C. Williams, which nominations were received by the 
     Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 4, 
     2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with John D. Bandy and ending 
     with Jeffrey L. Williams, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Claude W. Arnold, Jr. and 
     ending with Michelle G. Young, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Timothy A. Barney and 
     ending with Vincent C. Watson, which nominations were 
     received by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional 
     Record on June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Albert Angel and ending 
     with Thomas P. Wypyski, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Jonathan Q. Adams and 
     ending with Mark T. Zwolski, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 4, 2008.
       Navy nominations beginning with Michael A. Bemis and ending 
     with Michael J. Uyboco, which nominations were received by 
     the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on June 
     5, 2008.
       Navy nomination of Paul E. Levy, to be Lieutenant 
     Commander.
       Navy nomination of Robert N. Ladd, to be Lieutenant 
     Commander.
       Navy nominations beginning with Ramon J. Berrocal and 
     ending with Brian A. Merritt, which nominations were received 
     by the Senate and appeared in the Congressional Record on 
     June 16, 2008.
       By Mr. LEAHY for the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Kelly Harrison Rankin, of Wyoming, to be United States 
     Attorney for the District of Wyoming for the term of four 
     years.
       Clyde R. Cook, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States 
     Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina for the 
     term of four years.

  * Nomination was reported with recommendation that it be confirmed 
subject to the nominee's commitment to respond to requests to appear 
and testify before any duly constituted committee of the Senate.
  (Nominations without an asterisk were reported with the 
recommendation that they be confirmed.)

                          ____________________




              INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

           By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Coleman, 
             and Mr. Akaka):
       S. 3200. A bill to develop capacity and infrastructure for 
     mentoring programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Sununu, 
             and Mr. Vitter):
       S. 3201. A bill to reauthorize the Mosquito Abatement for 
     Safety and Health Act for mosquito-borne disease prevention 
     and control; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
     and Pensions.
           By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. 
             Allard, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
             Brownback, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. 
             Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Corker, Mr. 
             Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. Dole, 
             Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
             Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
             Inhofe, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
             Martinez, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Sessions, 
             Mr. Shelby, Mr. Specter, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Sununu, Mr. 
             Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
             Wicker):
       S. 3202. A bill to address record high gas prices at the 
     pump, and for other purposes; read the first time.
           By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
       S. 3203. A bill to prohibit the use of funds by the 
     Department of Defense on the KC-X tanker contract, and for 
     other purposes related to that contract; to the Committee on 
     Armed Services.
           By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Carper):
       S. 3204. A bill to amend title 46, United States Code, to 
     establish requirements to ensure the security and safety of 
     passengers and crew on cruise vessels, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation.
           By Ms. CANTWELL:
       S. 3205. A bill to direct the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission to utilize all its authority, including its 
     emergency powers, to curb immediately the role of excessive 
     speculation in any contract market within the jurisdiction 
     and control of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, on 
     or through which energy futures or swaps are traded, and to 
     eliminate excessive speculation, price distortion, sudden or 
     unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in prices, 
     or other unlawful activity that is causing major market 
     disturbances that prevent the market from accurately 
     reflecting the forces of supply and demand for energy 
     commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
     Forestry.
           By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. 
             Kennedy):
       S. 3206. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the 
     Social Security Act to promote cessation of tobacco use under 
     the Medicare program, the Medicaid program, and the maternal 
     and child health services block grant program; to the 
     Committee on Finance.
           By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Burr, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
             Stevens, and Mr. Ensign):
       S. 3207. A bill to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United 
     States Code, to allow citizens who have concealed carry 
     permits from the State in which they reside to carry 
     concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed 
     carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of 
     the State; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
       S. 3208. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide tax incentives for clean coal technology, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
           By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Stevens, 
             Mr. Voinovich, Ms. Murkowski, Mrs. Dole, and Mr. 
             Cornyn):
       S. 3209. A bill to amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act 
     of 1964 to clarify the filing period applicable to charges of 
     discrimination, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
     Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
           By Mr. CASEY:
       S. 3210. A bill to establish the Centennial Historic 
     District in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Tester, 
             and Mr. Thune):
       S. 3211. A bill to amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, 
     Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability 
     Appropriations Act, 2007, to clarify eligibility for 
     livestock indemnity payments; to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
           By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. Bennett):
       S. 3212. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 
     to provide for auditable, independent verification of 
     ballots, to ensure the security of voting systems, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
           By Mr. BINGAMAN:
       S. 3213. A bill to designate certain land as components of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize 
     certain programs and activities in the Department of the 
     Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes; read the first time.
           By Mr. BARRASSO:
       S. 3214. A bill to provide for a program for circulating 
     quarter dollar coins that are emblematic of a national park 
     or other national site in each State, the District of 
     Columbia, and each territory of the United States, and for 
     other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs.
           By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Ms. 
             Landrieu, and Ms. Murkowski):
       S. 3215. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to enter 
     into cooperative agreements with private entities to share 
     the cost of obtaining construction and operating licenses for 
     certain types of recycling facilities, and for other 
     purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
           By Mr. McCONNELL:
       S. 3216. A bill to provide for the introduction of pay-for-
     performance compensation mechanisms into contracts of the 
     Department of Veterans Affairs with community-based 
     outpatient clinics for the provision of health care services, 
     and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs.
           By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
             Kerry, Mr.

[[Page 14092]]

             Cornyn, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
             Cochran, Mr. Carper, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mrs. 
             Feinstein):
       S. 3217. A bill to provide appropriate protection to 
     attorney-client privileged communications and attorney work 
     product; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
           By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
       S. 3218. A bill to extend the pilot program for volunteer 
     groups to obtain criminal history background checks; 
     considered and passed.

                          ____________________




            SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

           By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. 
             Cardin, Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Menendez):
       S. Res. 603. A resolution expressing the sense of the 
     Senate on the restitution of or compensation for property 
     seized during the Nazi and communist eras; to the Committee 
     on Foreign Relations.
           By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein):
       S. Res. 604. A resolution congratulating the California 
     State University, Fresno Bulldogs baseball team for winning 
     the 2008 National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I 
     College World Series; considered and agreed to.
           By Mr. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Bayh):
       S. Res. 605. A resolution commemorating the 60th 
     anniversary of the Berlin Airlift and honoring the veterans 
     of Operation Vittles; considered and agreed to.
           By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune):
       S. Con. Res. 92. A concurrent resolution recognizing the 
     importance of homeownership for Americans; to the Committee 
     on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

                          ____________________




                         ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS


                                 S. 334

  At the request of Mr. Wyden, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 
Smith) was added as a cosponsor of S. 334, a bill to provide 
affordable, guaranteed private health coverage that will make Americans 
healthier and can never be taken away.


                                 S. 612

  At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 612, a bill to improve 
the health of women through the establishment of Offices of Women's 
Health within the Department of Health and Human Services.


                                 S. 937

  At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Illinois 
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 937, a bill to improve 
support and services for individuals with autism and their families.


                                S. 1212

  At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the name of the Senator from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1212, a bill to 
amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to permit direct payment 
under the Medicare program for clinical social worker services provided 
to residents of skilled nursing facilities.


                                S. 1492

  At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1492, a bill to 
improve the quality of federal and state data regarding the 
availability and quality of broadband services and to promote the 
deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of the Nation.


                                S. 1748

  At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from Louisiana 
(Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1748, a bill to prevent the 
Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness 
doctrine.


                                S. 1842

  At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1842, a bill to amend title 
XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for patient protection by 
limiting the number of mandatory overtime hours a nurse may be required 
to work in certain providers of services to which payments are made 
under the Medicare Program.


                                S. 1996

  At the request of Mr. Bunning, his name was added as a cosponsor of 
S. 1996, a bill to reauthorize the Enhancing Education Through 
Technology Act of 2001, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2067

  At the request of Mr. Martinez, the name of the Senator from South 
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2067, a bill to 
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to recreational 
vessels.


                                S. 2238

  At the request of Mr. Akaka, the name of the Senator from Maryland 
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2238, a bill to amend the 
National Dam Safety Program Act to establish a program to provide grant 
assistance to States for the rehabilitation and repair of deficient 
dams.


                                S. 2504

  At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2504, a bill 
to amend title 36, United States Code, to grant a Federal charter to 
the Military Officers Association of America, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2510

  At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from Oregon 
(Mr. Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2510, a bill to amend the 
Public Health Service Act to provide revised standards for quality 
assurance in screening and evaluation of gynecologic cytology 
preparations, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2608

  At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Georgia 
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2608, a bill to make 
improvements to the Small Business Act.


                                S. 2645

  At the request of Mr. Smith, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
2645, a bill to require the Commandant of the Coast Guard, in 
consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and 
Atmosphere, to conduct an evaluation and review of certain vessel 
discharges.


                                S. 2668

  At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) 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. 2731

  At the request of Mr. Biden, the name of the Senator from Michigan 
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2731, a bill to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to provide assistance 
to foreign countries to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, and 
for other purposes.


                                S. 2760

  At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2760, a bill to 
amend title 10, United States Code, to enhance the national defense 
through empowerment of the National Guard, enhancement of the functions 
of the National Guard Bureau, and improvement of Federal-State military 
coordination in domestic emergency response, and for other purposes.


                                S. 2773

  At the request of Mr. Brown, the name of the Senator from Kentucky 
(Mr. Bunning) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2773, a bill to amend 
title IV of the Public Health Service Act to provide for the 
establishment of pediatric research consortia.


                                S. 2920

  At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2920, a bill to reauthorize and 
improve the financing and entrepreneurial development programs of the 
Small Business Administration, and for other purposes.


                                S. 3007

  At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms. 
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3007, a bill to hold the 
surviving Nazi war criminals accountable for the war crimes, genocide, 
and crimes against

[[Page 14093]]

 humanity they committed during World War II, by encouraging foreign 
governments to more efficiently prosecute and extradite wanted 
criminals.


                                S. 3073

  At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from Tennessee 
(Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3073, a bill to amend 
the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to improve 
procedures for the collection and delivery of absentee ballots of 
absent overseas uniformed services voters, and for other purposes.


                                S. 3080

  At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3080, a bill 
to ensure parity between the temporary duty imposed on ethanol and tax 
credits provided on ethanol.


                                S. 3143

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


                                S. 3150

  At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the 
Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) were added as cosponsors of S. 
3150, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Transportation or the 
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration from conducting 
auctions, implementing congestion pricing, limiting airport operations, 
or charging certain use fees at airports.


                                S. 3167

  At the request of Mr. Burr, the names of the Senator from Alaska (Ms. 
Murkowski) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) 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. 3185

  At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from New York 
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3185, a bill to provide 
for regulation of certain transactions involving energy commodities, to 
strengthen the enforcement authorities of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission under the Natural Gas Act and the Federal Power Act, and for 
other purposes.


                                S. 3186

  At the request of Mr. Sanders, the names of the Senator from Maine 
(Ms. Snowe), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu), the Senator 
from Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kerry), the Senator from Maine (Ms. Collins), the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Smith) 
were added as cosponsors of S. 3186, a bill to provide funding for the 
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.


                              S.J. RES. 43

  At the request of Mr. Wicker, the name of the Senator from Wyoming 
(Mr. Enzi) was added as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 43, a joint resolution 
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
relating to marriage.


                            S. CON. RES. 75

  At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from South 
Dakota (Mr. Johnson) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 75, a 
concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress that the 
Secretary of Defense should take immediate steps to appoint doctors of 
chiropractic as commissioned officers in the Armed Forces.


                              S. RES. 580

  At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Florida 
(Mr. Nelson) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) 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.
  At the request of Mr. Dorgan, his name was added as a cosponsor of S. 
Res. 580, supra.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 4979

  At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Bingaman), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the Senator 
from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. 
Martinez) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 4979 intended to be 
proposed to S. 3001, an original bill to authorize appropriations for 
fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department 
of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal 
year, and for other purposes.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 5040

  At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the names of the Senator from 
Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), the 
Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. 
Nelson) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Bayh) were added as 
cosponsors of amendment No. 5040 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. McCONNELL (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Allard, Mr. 
        Barrasso, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bunning, 
        Mr. Burr, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Coleman, 
        Mr. Corker, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mr. DeMint, Mrs. 
        Dole, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Graham, Mr. 
        Grassley, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
        Isakson, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Martinez, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
        Roberts, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Specter, Mr. Stevens, 
        Mr. Sununu, Mr. Thune, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Warner, 
        and Mr. Wicker):
  S. 3202. A bill to address record high gas prices at the pump, and 
for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 3202

       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 ``Gas Price 
     Reduction Act of 2008''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

                     TITLE I--DEEP SEA EXPLORATION

Sec. 101. Publication of projected State lines on outer Continental 
              Shelf.
Sec. 102. Production of oil and natural gas in new producing areas.
Sec. 103. Conforming amendments.

             TITLE II--WESTERN STATE OIL SHALE EXPLORATION

Sec. 201. Removal of prohibition on final regulations for commercial 
              leasing program for oil shale resources on public land.

              TITLE III--PLUG-IN ELECTRIC CARS AND TRUCKS

Sec. 301. Advanced batteries for electric drive vehicles.

                   TITLE IV--ENERGY COMMODITY MARKETS

Sec. 401. Study of international regulation of energy commodity 
              markets.
Sec. 402. Foreign boards of trade.
Sec. 403. Index traders and swap dealers; disaggregation of index 
              funds.
Sec. 404. Improved oversight and enforcement.

                     TITLE I--DEEP SEA EXPLORATION

     SEC. 101. PUBLICATION OF PROJECTED STATE LINES ON OUTER 
                   CONTINENTAL SHELF.

       Section 4(a)(2)(A) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1333(a)(2)(A)) is amended--
       (1) by designating the first, second, and third sentences 
     as clause (i), (iii), and (iv), respectively;

[[Page 14094]]

       (2) in clause (i) (as so designated), by inserting before 
     the period at the end the following: ``not later than 90 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Gas Price Reduction Act of 
     2008''; and
       (3) by inserting after clause (i) (as so designated) the 
     following:
       ``(ii)(I) The projected lines shall also be used for the 
     purpose of preleasing and leasing activities conducted in new 
     producing areas under section 32.
       ``(II) This clause shall not affect any property right or 
     title to Federal submerged land on the outer Continental 
     Shelf.
       ``(III) In carrying out this clause, the President shall 
     consider the offshore administrative boundaries beyond State 
     submerged lands for planning, coordination, and 
     administrative purposes of the Department of the Interior, 
     but may establish different boundaries.''.

     SEC. 102. PRODUCTION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS IN NEW PRODUCING 
                   AREAS.

       The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 32. PRODUCTION OF OIL AND NATURAL GAS IN NEW PRODUCING 
                   AREAS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Coastal political subdivision.--The term `coastal 
     political subdivision' means a political subdivision of a new 
     producing State any part of which political subdivision is--
       ``(A) within the coastal zone (as defined in section 304 of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453)) of 
     the new producing State as of the date of enactment of this 
     section; and
       ``(B) not more than 200 nautical miles from the geographic 
     center of any leased tract.
       ``(2) Moratorium area.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `moratorium area' means an area 
     covered by sections 104 through 105 of the Department of the 
     Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2118) (as in effect 
     on the day before the date of enactment of this section).
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `moratorium area' does not 
     include an area located in the Gulf of Mexico.
       ``(3) New producing area.--The term `new producing area' 
     means any moratorium area within the offshore administrative 
     boundaries beyond the submerged land of a State that is 
     located greater than 50 miles from the coastline of the 
     State.
       ``(4) New producing state.--The term `new producing State' 
     means a State that has, within the offshore administrative 
     boundaries beyond the submerged land of the State, a new 
     producing area available for oil and gas leasing under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(5) Offshore administrative boundaries.--The term 
     `offshore administrative boundaries' means the administrative 
     boundaries established by the Secretary beyond State 
     submerged land for planning, coordination, and administrative 
     purposes of the Department of the Interior and published in 
     the Federal Register on January 3, 2006 (71 Fed. Reg. 127).
       ``(6) Qualified outer continental shelf revenues.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' means all rentals, royalties, bonus bids, and 
     other sums due and payable to the United States from leases 
     entered into on or after the date of enactment of this 
     section for new producing areas.
       ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues' does not include--
       ``(i) revenues from a bond or other surety forfeited for 
     obligations other than the collection of royalties;
       ``(ii) revenues from civil penalties;
       ``(iii) royalties taken by the Secretary in-kind and not 
     sold;
       ``(iv) revenues generated from leases subject to section 
     8(g); or
       ``(v) any revenues considered qualified outer Continental 
     Shelf revenues under section 102 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy 
     Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-
     432).
       ``(b) Petition for Leasing New Producing Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Beginning on the date on which the 
     President delineates projected State lines under section 
     4(a)(2)(A)(ii), the Governor of a State, with the concurrence 
     of the legislature of the State, with a new producing area 
     within the offshore administrative boundaries beyond the 
     submerged land of the State may submit to the Secretary a 
     petition requesting that the Secretary make the new producing 
     area available for oil and gas leasing.
       ``(2) Action by secretary.--Notwithstanding section 18, as 
     soon as practicable after receipt of a petition under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall approve the petition if 
     the Secretary determines that leasing the new producing area 
     would not create an unreasonable risk of harm to the marine, 
     human, or coastal environment.
       ``(c) Disposition of Qualified Outer Continental Shelf 
     Revenues From New Producing Areas.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 9 and subject to 
     the other provisions of this subsection, for each applicable 
     fiscal year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit--
       ``(A) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in the general fund of the Treasury; and
       ``(B) 50 percent of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
     revenues in a special account in the Treasury from which the 
     Secretary shall disburse--
       ``(i) 75 percent to new producing States in accordance with 
     paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) 25 percent to provide financial assistance to States 
     in accordance with section 6 of the Land and Water 
     Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460l -8), which 
     shall be considered income to the Land and Water Conservation 
     Fund for purposes of section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 460l-
     5).
       ``(2) Allocation to new producing states and coastal 
     political subdivisions.--
       ``(A) Allocation to new producing states.--Effective for 
     fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year thereafter, the amount 
     made available under paragraph (1)(B)(i) shall be allocated 
     to each new producing State in amounts (based on a formula 
     established by the Secretary by regulation) proportional to 
     the amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf revenues 
     generated in the new producing area offshore each State.
       ``(B) Payments to coastal political subdivisions.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall pay 20 percent of 
     the allocable share of each new producing State, as 
     determined under subparagraph (A), to the coastal political 
     subdivisions of the new producing State.
       ``(ii) Allocation.--The amount paid by the Secretary to 
     coastal political subdivisions shall be allocated to each 
     coastal political subdivision in accordance with the 
     regulations promulgated under subparagraph (A).
       ``(3) Minimum allocation.--The amount allocated to a new 
     producing State for each fiscal year under paragraph (2) 
     shall be at least 5 percent of the amounts available for the 
     fiscal year under paragraph (1)(B)(i).
       ``(4) Timing.--The amounts required to be deposited under 
     subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) for the applicable fiscal 
     year shall be made available in accordance with that 
     subparagraph during the fiscal year immediately following the 
     applicable fiscal year.
       ``(5) Authorized uses.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), each new 
     producing State and coastal political subdivision shall use 
     all amounts received under paragraph (2) in accordance with 
     all applicable Federal and State laws, only for 1 or more of 
     the following purposes:
       ``(i) Projects and activities for the purposes of coastal 
     protection, including conservation, coastal restoration, 
     hurricane protection, and infrastructure directly affected by 
     coastal wetland losses.
       ``(ii) Mitigation of damage to fish, wildlife, or natural 
     resources.
       ``(iii) Implementation of a federally approved marine, 
     coastal, or comprehensive conservation management plan.
       ``(iv) Funding of onshore infrastructure projects.
       ``(v) Planning assistance and the administrative costs of 
     complying with this section.
       ``(B) Limitation.--Not more than 3 percent of amounts 
     received by a new producing State or coastal political 
     subdivision under paragraph (2) may be used for the purposes 
     described in subparagraph (A)(v).
       ``(6) Administration.--Amounts made available under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall--
       ``(A) be made available, without further appropriation, in 
     accordance with this subsection;
       ``(B) remain available until expended; and
       ``(C) be in addition to any amounts appropriated under--
       ``(i) other provisions of this Act;
       ``(ii) the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (16 
     U.S.C. 460l-4 et seq.); or
       ``(iii) any other provision of law.
       ``(d) Disposition of Qualified Outer Continental Shelf 
     Revenues From Other Areas.--Notwithstanding section 9, for 
     each applicable fiscal year, the terms and conditions of 
     subsection (c) shall apply to the disposition of qualified 
     outer Continental Shelf revenues that--
       ``(1) are derived from oil or gas leasing in an area that 
     is not included in the current 5-year plan of the Secretary 
     for oil or gas leasing; and
       ``(2) are not assumed in the budget of the United States 
     Government submitted by the President under section 1105 of 
     title 31, United States Code.''.

     SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       Sections 104 and 105 of the Department of the Interior, 
     Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 
     (Public Law 110-161; 121 Stat. 2118) are amended by striking 
     ``No funds'' each place it appears and inserting ``Except as 
     provided in section 32 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act, no funds''.

             TITLE II--WESTERN STATE OIL SHALE EXPLORATION

     SEC. 201. REMOVAL OF PROHIBITION ON FINAL REGULATIONS FOR 
                   COMMERCIAL LEASING PROGRAM FOR OIL SHALE 
                   RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LAND.

       Section 433 of the Department of the Interior, Environment, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 
     110-161; 121 Stat. 2152) is repealed.

              TITLE III--PLUG-IN ELECTRIC CARS AND TRUCKS

     SEC. 301. ADVANCED BATTERIES FOR ELECTRIC DRIVE VEHICLES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page 14095]]

       (1) Advanced battery.--The term ``advanced battery'' means 
     an electrical storage device that is suitable for a vehicle 
     application.
       (2) Engineering integration costs.--The term ``engineering 
     integration costs'' includes the cost of engineering tasks 
     relating to--
       (A) the incorporation of qualifying components into the 
     design of an advanced battery; and
       (B) the design of tooling and equipment and the development 
     of manufacturing processes and material for suppliers of 
     production facilities that produce qualifying components or 
     advanced batteries.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (b) Advanced Battery Research and Development.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       (A) expand and accelerate research and development efforts 
     for advanced batteries; and
       (B) emphasize lower cost means of producing abuse-tolerant 
     advanced batteries with the appropriate balance of power and 
     energy capacity to meet market requirements.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $100,000,000 
     for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014.
       (c) Direct Loan Program.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriated funds, not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall carry out a 
     program to provide a total of not more than $250,000,000 in 
     loans to eligible individuals and entities for not more than 
     30 percent of the costs of 1 or more of--
       (A) reequipping a manufacturing facility in the United 
     States to produce advanced batteries;
       (B) expanding a manufacturing facility in the United States 
     to produce advanced batteries; or
       (C) establishing a manufacturing facility in the United 
     States to produce advanced batteries.
       (2) Eligibility.--
       (A) In general.--To be eligible to obtain a loan under this 
     subsection, an individual or entity shall--
       (i) be financially viable without the receipt of additional 
     Federal funding associated with a proposed project under this 
     subsection;
       (ii) provide sufficient information to the Secretary for 
     the Secretary to ensure that the qualified investment is 
     expended efficiently and effectively; and
       (iii) meet such other criteria as may be established and 
     published by the Secretary.
       (B) Consideration.--In selecting eligible individuals or 
     entities for loans under this subsection, the Secretary may 
     consider whether the proposed project of an eligible 
     individual or entity under this subsection would--
       (i) reduce manufacturing time;
       (ii) reduce manufacturing energy intensity;
       (iii) reduce negative environmental impacts or byproducts; 
     or
       (iv) increase spent battery or component recycling
       (3) Rates, terms, and repayment of loans.--A loan provided 
     under this subsection--
       (A) shall have an interest rate that, as of the date on 
     which the loan is made, is equal to the cost of funds to the 
     Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable 
     maturity;
       (B) shall have a term that is equal to the lesser of--
       (i) the projected life, in years, of the eligible project 
     to be carried out using funds from the loan, as determined by 
     the Secretary; or
       (ii) 25 years; and
       (C) may be subject to a deferral in repayment for not more 
     than 5 years after the date on which the eligible project 
     carried out using funds from the loan first begins 
     operations, as determined by the Secretary.
       (4) Period of availability.--A loan under this subsection 
     shall be available for--
       (A) facilities and equipment placed in service before 
     December 30, 2020; and
       (B) engineering integration costs incurred during the 
     period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act and 
     ending on December 30, 2020.
       (5) Fees.--The cost of administering a loan made under this 
     subsection shall not exceed $100,000.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out 
     this subsection for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013.
       (d) Sense of the Senate on Purchase of Plug-in Electric 
     Drive Vehicles.--It is the sense of the Senate that, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government should 
     implement policies to increase the purchase of plug-in 
     electric drive vehicles by the Federal Government.

                   TITLE IV--ENERGY COMMODITY MARKETS

     SEC. 401. STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL REGULATION OF ENERGY 
                   COMMODITY MARKETS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Treasury, the 
     Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System, the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission, and the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission shall jointly conduct a study of the international 
     regime for regulating the trading of energy commodity futures 
     and derivatives.
       (b) Analysis.--The study shall include an analysis of, at a 
     minimum--
       (1) key common features and differences among countries in 
     the regulation of energy commodity trading, including with 
     respect to market oversight and enforcement;
       (2) agreements and practices for sharing market and trading 
     data;
       (3) the use of position limits or thresholds to detect and 
     prevent price manipulation, excessive speculation as 
     described in section 4a(a) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 
     U.S.C. 6a(a)) or other unfair trading practices;
       (4) practices regarding the identification of commercial 
     and noncommercial trading and the extent of market 
     speculation; and
       (5) agreements and practices for facilitating international 
     cooperation on market oversight, compliance, and enforcement.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the heads of the Federal agencies 
     described in subsection (a) shall jointly submit to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress a report that--
       (1) describes the results of the study; and
       (2) provides recommendations to improve openness, 
     transparency, and other necessary elements of a properly 
     functioning market.

     SEC. 402. FOREIGN BOARDS OF TRADE.

       Section 4 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Foreign Boards of Trade.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Commission shall not permit a 
     foreign board of trade's members or other participants 
     located in the United States to enter trades directly into 
     the foreign board of trade's trade matching system with 
     respect to an agreement, contract, or transaction in an 
     energy commodity (as defined by the Commission) that settles 
     against any price, including the daily or final settlement 
     price, of a contract or contracts listed for trading on a 
     registered entity, unless--
       ``(A) the foreign board of trade makes public daily 
     information on settlement prices, volume, open interest, and 
     opening and closing ranges for the agreement, contract, or 
     transaction that is comparable to the daily trade information 
     published by the registered entity for the contract or 
     contracts against which it settles;
       ``(B) the foreign board of trade or a foreign futures 
     authority adopts position limitations (including related 
     hedge exemption provisions) or position accountability for 
     speculators for the agreement, contract, or transaction that 
     are comparable to the position limitations (including related 
     hedge exemption provisions) or position accountability 
     adopted by the registered entity for the contract or 
     contracts against which it settles; and
       ``(C) the foreign board of trade or a foreign futures 
     authority provides such information to the Commission 
     regarding the extent of speculative and non-speculative 
     trading in the agreement, contract, or transaction that is 
     comparable to the information the Commission determines is 
     necessary to publish its weekly report of traders (commonly 
     known as the Commitments of Traders report) for the contract 
     or contracts against which it settles.
       ``(2) Existing foreign boards of trade.--Paragraph (1) 
     shall become effective 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this subsection with respect to any agreement, contract, or 
     transaction in an energy commodity (as defined by the 
     Commission) conducted on a foreign board of trade for which 
     the Commission's staff had granted relief from the 
     requirements of this Act prior to the date of enactment of 
     this subsection.''.

     SEC. 403. INDEX TRADERS AND SWAP DEALERS; DISAGGREGATION OF 
                   INDEX FUNDS.

       Section 4 of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6) (as 
     amended by section 3) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(f) Index Traders and Swap Dealers.--
       ``(1) Reporting.--The Commission shall--
       ``(A) issue a proposed rule regarding routine reporting 
     requirements for index traders and swap dealers (as those 
     terms are defined by the Commission) in energy and 
     agricultural transactions (as those terms are defined by the 
     Commission) within the jurisdiction of the Commission not 
     later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     subsection, and issue a final rule regarding such reporting 
     requirements not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection; and
       ``(B) subject to the provisions of section 8, disaggregate 
     and make public monthly information on the positions and 
     value of index funds and other passive, long-only positions 
     in the energy and agricultural futures markets.
       ``(2) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall submit to 
     the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of 
     the Senate a report regarding--

[[Page 14096]]

       ``(A) the scope of commodity index trading in the futures 
     markets;
       ``(B) whether classification of index traders and swap 
     dealers in the futures markets can be improved for regulatory 
     and reporting purposes; and
       ``(C) whether, based on a review of the trading practices 
     for index traders in the futures markets--
       ``(i) index trading activity is adversely impacting the 
     price discovery process in the futures markets; and
       ``(ii) different practices and controls should be 
     required.''.

     SEC. 404. IMPROVED OVERSIGHT AND ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) crude oil prices are at record levels and consumers in 
     the United States are paying record prices for gasoline;
       (2) funding for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission 
     has been insufficient to cover the significant growth of the 
     futures markets;
       (3) since the establishment of the Commodity Futures 
     Trading Commission, the volume of trading on futures 
     exchanges has grown 8,000 percent while staffing numbers have 
     decreased 12 percent; and
       (4) in today's dynamic market environment, it is essential 
     that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission receive the 
     funding necessary to enforce existing authority to ensure 
     that all commodity markets, including energy markets, are 
     properly monitored for market manipulation.
       (b) Additional Employees.--As soon as practicable after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Commodity Futures Trading 
     Commission shall hire at least 100 additional full-time 
     employees--
       (1) to increase the public transparency of operations in 
     energy futures markets;
       (2) to improve the enforcement in those markets; and
       (3) to carry out such other duties as are prescribed by the 
     Commission.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--In addition to any 
     other funds made available to carry out the Commodity 
     Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this 
     section for fiscal year 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr Lautenberg, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 3206. A bill to amend titles V, XVIII, and XIX of the Social 
Security Act to promote cessation of tobacco use under the Medicare 
program, the Medicaid program, and the maternal and child health 
services block grant program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
help millions of Americans overcome a deadly addiction: the addiction 
to tobacco. The Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion 
Act of 2008 will help make smoking cessation therapy available to 
recipients of Medicare, Medicaid, and the Maternal and Child Health, 
MCH, Program.
  More than 45 million adults in the United States smoke cigarettes. 
Approximately 90 percent started smoking before the age of 14. Despite 
the fact that we have known for decades that cigarette smoking are the 
leading preventable cause of death, 1,600 adults become regular smokers 
each day, including 4,000 kids. Depending on your race/ethnicity, 
socioeconomic status, even where you live, the likelihood that you are 
a smoker varies greatly. African-Americans are twice as likely as the 
general population to smoke. Communities in the South are more likely 
to be smoker-friendly than other communities in the U.S. While 22.5 
percent of the general adult population in the U.S. are current 
smokers, the percentage is about 50 percent higher among Medicaid 
recipients. Thirty-six percent of adults covered by Medicaid smoke.
  We have a moral argument and an economic argument to end the 
addiction to nicotine. Morally, how do we ignore the deaths of 438,000 
smokers or 8.6 million Americans living with serious smoking-related 
illnesses? Smoking causes virtually all cases of lung cancer and 
contributes to primary heart disease, peripheral vascular disease, 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, and other deadly health 
ailments. It is too often a bleak future for smokers and their 
families. An American Legacy Foundation report reminds us that second-
hand smoke in children of smokers leads to asthma and chronic ear 
infections in children but also that 43,000 children are orphaned every 
year because of tobacco-related deaths.
  We are not only paying a heavy health toll, but an economic price as 
well. According to the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, health care 
expenditures caused by smoking is approaching $100 billion. Our federal 
government pays $17.6 billion in smoking-caused Medicaid payments and 
$27.4 billion in smoking-caused Medicare expenditures.
  Ironically, we do not hear that much about how many smokers America--
70 percent--want to quit. Unfortunately, they face long odds--in 2000, 
only about 5 percent of smokers were successful in quitting long-term. 
Overcoming an addiction to tobacco is arguably one of the single most 
important lifestyle changes that can improve and extend lives. However, 
most smokers who want to quit don't appreciate how hard it really is to 
break an addition to nicotine.
  This is why it is essential that we make this decision and the 
courage that it takes as easy as possible. States are already stepping 
up to the plate when it comes to smoking cessation. Last year in my 
home State of Illinois, a record-breaking 36 cities and counties 
enacted smoke-free laws, more than any other State in the Nation. More 
and more Illinoisans and Americans nationwide are realizing that life 
without smoking is possible. And the support for cessation does not end 
there. In fact, in 2003, 37 States had some form of coverage under 
Medicaid for at least one evidence-based treatment for smoking 
addiction. States like New Jersey and Oregon now have some of the 
lowest smoking-related Medicaid costs.
  Studies have shown that reducing adult smoking through tobacco use 
treatment pays immediate dividends, both in terms of health 
improvements and cost savings. Shortly after quitting smoking, blood 
circulation improves, carbon monoxide levels in the blood decrease, the 
risk of heart attack decreases, lung function and breathing are 
improved, and coughing decreases.
  Pregnant women who quit smoking before their second trimester 
decrease the chances that they will give birth to a low-birth-weight 
baby. Over the long term, quitting will reduce a person's risk of heart 
disease and stroke, improve symptoms of COPD, reduce the risk of 
developing smoking-caused cancer, and extend life expectancy.
  We are fortunate to have identified clinically proven, effective 
strategies to help smokers quit. Advancements in treating tobacco use 
and nicotine addiction using pharmacotherapy and counseling have helped 
millions kick the habit. An updated clinical practice guideline 
released in May of 2008 by the U.S. Public Health Service urges health 
care insurers and purchasers to include counseling and FDA-approved 
pharmacologic treatments as a covered benefit. The Guideline also 
emphasizes the role that counseling, especially in conjunction with 
medication, increases the odds of success in quitting. As we urge 
healthcare insurers and purchasers to offer this important benefit, so 
too should our government sponsored health programs keep pace.
  I am proud to be joined by my colleagues Senators Kennedy and 
Lautenberg to introduce the Medicare, Medicaid and MCH Smoking 
Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 and require government-sponsored health 
programs to cover this important benefit. The Medicare, Medicaid, and 
MCH Smoking Cessation Promotion Act of 2008 makes it easier for people 
to have access to smoking cessation treatment therapies. It does three 
meaningful things.
  First, this bill adds a smoking cessation counseling benefit and 
coverage of FDA-approved tobacco cessation drugs to Medicare. By 2020, 
17 percent of the U.S. population will be 65 years of age or older. It 
is estimated that Medicare will pay $800 billion to treat tobacco 
related diseases over the next 20 years.
  Second, this bill provides coverage for counseling, prescription and 
non-prescription smoking cessation drugs in the Medicaid program. The 
bill eliminates the provision in current federal law that allows States 
to exclude FDA-approved smoking cessation therapies from coverage under 
Medicaid. Despite the fact that the States

[[Page 14097]]

have received payments from their successful Federal lawsuit against 
the tobacco industry, less than half the States provide coverage for 
smoking cessation in their Medicaid program. Even if Medicaid covered 
cessation products and services exclusively to pregnant women, we would 
see significant cost savings and health improvements. Children whose 
mothers smoke during pregnancy are almost twice as likely to develop 
asthma as those whose mothers did not. Over 7 years, reducing smoking 
prevalence by just one percentage point among pregnant women would 
prevent 57,200 low birth weight births and save $572 million in direct 
medical costs.
  Third, this bill ensures that the Maternal and Child Health Program 
recognizes that medications used to promote smoking cessation and the 
inclusion of anti-tobacco messages in health promotion are considered 
part of quality maternal and child health services.
  As Congress begins to examine more closely the impact of tobacco on 
our country--considering regulation by the FDA or raising taxes to pay 
for public health priorities--we must make sure we assist those 
fighting this deadly addiction. I hope my colleagues will join me in 
cosponsoring this legislation and taking a stand for the public health 
of our Nation.
  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. 3206

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicare, Medicaid, and MCH 
     Tobacco Cessation Promotion Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF COUNSELING FOR CESSATION OF 
                   TOBACCO USE.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (Z), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (AA)(iii), by inserting ``and'' at the 
     end; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(BB) counseling for cessation of tobacco use (as defined 
     in subsection (ddd));''.
       (b) Services Described.--Section 1861 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(ddd) Counseling for Cessation of Tobacco Use.--(1)(A) 
     Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `counseling for 
     cessation of tobacco use' means diagnostic, therapy, and 
     counseling services for cessation of tobacco use for 
     individuals who use tobacco products or who are being treated 
     for tobacco use which are furnished--
       ``(i) by or under the supervision of a physician;
       ``(ii) by a practitioner described in clause (i), (iii), 
     (iv), (v) or (vi) of section 1842(b)(18)(C); or
       ``(iii) by a licensed tobacco cessation counselor (as 
     defined in paragraph (2)).
       ``(B) Such term is limited to--
       ``(i) services recommended in `Treating Tobacco Use and 
     Dependence: A Clinical Practice Guideline', published by the 
     Public Health Service in May 2008, or any subsequent 
     modification of such Guideline; and
       ``(ii) such other services that the Secretary recognizes to 
     be effective.
       ``(2) In this subsection, the term `licensed tobacco 
     cessation counselor' means a tobacco cessation counselor 
     who--
       ``(A) is licensed as such by the State (or in a State which 
     does not license tobacco cessation counselors as such, is 
     legally authorized to perform the services of a tobacco 
     cessation counselor in the jurisdiction in which the 
     counselor performs such services); and
       ``(B) meets uniform minimum standards relating to basic 
     knowledge, qualification training, continuing education, and 
     documentation that are established by the Secretary for 
     purposes of this subsection.''.
       (c) Payment and Elimination of Cost-Sharing for Counseling 
     for Cessation of Tobacco Use.--
       (1) Payment and elimination of coinsurance.--Section 
     1833(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``(V)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``, and (W) with respect to counseling for 
     cessation of tobacco use (as defined in section 1861(ddd)), 
     the amount paid shall be 100 percent of the lesser of the 
     actual charge for the service or the amount determined by a 
     fee schedule established by the Secretary for purposes of 
     this subparagraph''.
       (2) Elimination of coinsurance in outpatient hospital 
     settings.--
       (A) Exclusion from opd fee schedule.--Section 
     1833(t)(1)(B)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(t)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``and diagnostic 
     mammography'' and inserting ``, diagnostic mammography, or 
     counseling for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in 
     section 1861(ddd))''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--Section 1833(a)(2) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(2)) is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (G)(ii), by striking the comma at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (G)(ii) the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(H) with respect to counseling for cessation of tobacco 
     use (as defined in section 1861(ddd)) furnished by an 
     outpatient department of a hospital, the amount determined 
     under paragraph (1)(W),''.
       (3) Elimination of deductible.--The first sentence of 
     section 1833(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``(8)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
     (9) such deductible shall not apply with respect to 
     counseling for cessation of tobacco use (as defined in 
     section 1861(ddd))''.
       (d) Application of Limits on Billing.--Section 
     1842(b)(18)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395u(b)(18)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(vii) A licensed tobacco cessation counselor (as defined 
     in section 1861(ddd)(2)).''.
       (e) Inclusion as Part of Initial Preventive Physical 
     Examination.--Section 1861(ww)(2) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(M) Counseling for cessation of tobacco use (as defined 
     in subsection (ddd)).''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after the date that 
     is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF TOBACCO CESSATION 
                   PHARMACOTHERAPY.

       (a) Inclusion of Tobacco Cessation Agents as Covered 
     Drugs.--Section 1860D-2(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma at the end 
     and inserting ``; or''; and
       (3) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(C) any agent approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration for purposes of promoting, and when used to 
     promote, tobacco cessation that may be dispensed without a 
     prescription (commonly referred to as an `over-the-counter' 
     drug), but only if such an agent is prescribed by a physician 
     (or other person authorized to prescribe under State law),''.
       (b) Establishment of Categories and Classes Consisting of 
     Tobacco Cessation Agents.--Section 1860D-4(b)(3)(C) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-104(b)(3)(C)) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) Categories and classes of tobacco cessation 
     agents.--There shall be a therapeutic category or class of 
     covered part D drugs consisting of agents approved by the 
     Food and Drug Administration for cessation of tobacco use. 
     Such category or class shall include tobacco cessation agents 
     described in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 1860D-
     2(e)(1).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1860D-2(e)(2)(A) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(2)(A)) is amended 
     by striking ``, other than subparagraph (E) of such section 
     (relating to smoking cessation agents),''.

     SEC. 4. PROMOTING CESSATION OF TOBACCO USE UNDER THE MEDICAID 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Coverage of Tobacco Cessation Counseling Services.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in paragraph (28), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (28) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(29) at the option of the State, counseling for cessation 
     of tobacco use (as defined in section 1861(ddd)),''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is 
     amended by inserting ``or (29)'' after ``(24)''.
       (b) Elimination of Optional Exclusion From Medicaid 
     Prescription Drug Coverage for Tobacco Cessation 
     Medications.--Section 1927(d)(2) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(d)(2)) is amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (E);
       (2) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (J) as 
     subparagraphs (E) through (I), respectively; and
       (3) in subparagraph (F) (as redesignated by paragraph (2)), 
     by inserting before the period at the end the following: ``, 
     other than agents approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration for purposes of promoting, and when used to 
     promote, tobacco cessation''.

[[Page 14098]]

       (c) Removal of Cost-Sharing for Tobacco Cessation 
     Counseling Services and Medications.--Subsections (a)(2) and 
     (b)(2) of section 1916 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396o) are each amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or'' after the comma 
     at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``; and'' and 
     inserting ``, or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(F)(i) counseling for cessation of tobacco use described 
     in section 1905(a)(29); or
       ``(ii) covered outpatient drugs (as defined in paragraph 
     (2) of section 1927(k), and including nonprescription drugs 
     described in paragraph (4) of such section) that are 
     prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to 
     promote, tobacco cessation; and''.
       (d) Increased FMAP for Tobacco Cessation Counseling 
     Services and Medications.--The first sentence of section 
     1905(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' before ``(4)''; and
       (2) by inserting before the period the following: ``, and 
     (5) for purposes of this title, the Federal medical 
     assistance percentage shall be 80 percent with respect to 
     amounts expended as medical assistance for counseling for 
     cessation of tobacco use described in subsection (a)(29) and 
     for covered outpatient drugs (as defined in paragraph (2) of 
     section 1927(k), and including nonprescription drugs 
     described in paragraph (4) of such section) that are 
     prescribed for purposes of promoting, and when used to 
     promote, tobacco cessation''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after the date that 
     is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. PROMOTING CESSATION OF TOBACCO USE UNDER THE MATERNAL 
                   AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) Quality Maternal and Child Health Services Includes 
     Tobacco Cessation Counseling and Medications.--Section 501 of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) For purposes of this title, quality maternal and 
     child health services include the following:
       ``(1) Counseling for cessation of tobacco use (as defined 
     in section 1861(ddd)).
       ``(2) The encouragement of the prescribing and use of 
     agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration for 
     purposes of tobacco cessation.
       ``(3) The inclusion of messages that discourage tobacco use 
     in health promotion counseling.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 3208. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax incentives for clean coal technology, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss a bill that I am 
introducing along with Senator Hatch today, the Carbon Reduction 
Technology Bridge Act of 2008.
  This bill is designed to develop the technologies that will enable us 
to use coal in a manner that helps address the threat of climate 
change.
  Our country depends on coal to provide half of our electricity. In 
North Dakota, coal accounts for over 90 percent of our power. This is 
the power we need for lighting and heating our homes, powering our 
businesses, and, in the future, charging our cars.
  The U.S. has vast resources of coal, enough to last over 250 years. 
We need to ensure that we can continue to enjoy the affordable 
electricity provided by coal, while developing technologies that will 
lower the greenhouse gas emissions that result from coal use.
  We need to advance carbon capture and storage technologies to address 
the reality of climate change. The scientific evidence is clear that 
human activity is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in 
the atmosphere, which contributes to warming temperatures. The 
increased occurrence of severe weather and other effects that we have 
seen to date are small in comparison to what scientists say are the 
likely consequences of continued warming.
  This bill will help jumpstart investment in technologies to capture 
and store carbon. It provides tax credits to the first generation of 
highly efficient advanced coal plants that capture carbon dioxide. It 
helps companies make the first investments in carbon capture and 
storage equipment on the first existing plants. It also provides 
credits for each ton of carbon dioxide captured and stored underground. 
It provides a number of other incentives to advance coal technology.
  The science on climate change is clear, but what is not proven is the 
technology that can provide the solution. This bill sets ambitious but 
achievable goals for those companies willing to be the first to address 
this challenge head-on and build and install these technologies. Under 
this bill, a typical new coal plant would be required to capture 65 
percent of its carbon dioxide emissions. After the first generation of 
projects supported by this bill, we will have tested and refined the 
technologies to enable an even higher rate of capture on future plants.
  This bill will provide an important step toward affordable, low-
carbon power. I welcome comments from my colleagues on this proposal 
and hope that they will join me in sponsoring this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 3213. A bill to designate certain land as components of the 
National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs 
and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of 
Agriculture, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Omnibus 
Public Land Management Act of 2008, a collection of over 90 individual 
bills that have been reported by the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources. This legislation follows enactment of the Consolidated 
Natural Resources Act, Public Law 110-229, which was signed into law 
last month. That act was successful in combining together several bills 
which were not able to pass the Senate individually. It is my hope that 
the Omnibus Public Land Management Act will similarly facilitate the 
passage of the remaining bills which have been reported by the Energy 
and Natural Resources Committee during this Congress.
  For the information of the Senate and the public, I ask unanimous 
consent that the table of contents listing the various measures 
included in this bill be printed in the Record.
  There bein no objection, the material as ordered to be placed in the 
Record, as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title
Sec. 2. Table of Contents

   TITLE I--ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM

Subtitle A Wild Monongahela Wilderness, West Virginia (H.R. 5151)
Subtitle B Virginia Ridge and Valley Wilderness (S. 570)
Subtitle C Mt. Hood Wilderness, Oregon (S. 647)
Subtitle D Copper Salmon Wilderness, Oregon (S. 2034)
Subtitle E Cascade--Siskiyou National Monument, Oregon (S. 2379)
Subtitle F Owyhee Public Lands Management, Idaho (S. 2833)
       Subtitle G Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness 
           Adjustment (S. 1802)
       Subtitle H Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness, 
           Colorado (S. 1380)

           TITLE II--BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT AUTHORIZATIONS

       Subtitle A National Landscape Conservation System (S. 1139)
       Subtitle B Prehistoric Trackways National Monument (S. 275)
       Subtitle C Fort Stanton--Snowy River Cave National 
           Conservation Area (S. 260)
       Subtitle D Renaming of Snake River Birds of Prey National 
           Conservation Area (S. 262)
       Subtitle E Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program (S. 
           1940)
       Subtitle F Land Conveyances and Exchanges
       Sec. 251 Pima County, Arizona Land Exchange (S. 1341)
       Sec. 252 Southerm Nevada Limited Transition Area Conveyance 
           (S. 1377)
       Sec. 253 Nevada Cancer Institute Land Conveyance (H.R. 
           1311)
       Sec. 254 Turnabout Ranch Land Conveyance, Utah (S. 832)
         Sec. 255 Boy Scouts Land Exchange, Utah (S. 900)

[[Page 14099]]

       Sec. 256 Douglas County, Washington, Land Conveyance (H.R. 
           523)

                TITLE III--FOREST SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS

       Subtitle A Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Agreements 
           (S. 232)
       Subtitle B Wildland Firefighter Safety (S. 1152)
       Subtitle C Wyoming Range Withdrawal
       Subtitle D Land Conveyances and Exchanges
       Sec. 331 Land Conveyance to City of Coffman Cove, Alaska 
           (S. 202)
       Sec. 332 Beaverhead-Deerlodge N.F. Land Conveyance, Montana 
           (S. 2124)
       Sec. 333 Santa Fe National Forest Pecos National Historical 
           Park Land Exchange, New Mexico (S. 216)
       Sec. 334 Santa Fe National Forest Land Conveyance, New 
           Mexico (S. 1939)
       Sec. 335 Kittitas County, Washington Land Conveyance (H.R. 
           1285)
       Sec. 336 Mammoth Community Water District Use Restrictions 
           (H.R. 356)

            TITLE IV--FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION (S. 2593)

                       TITLE V--RIVERS AND TRAILS

       Subtitle A Additions to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 
           System
       Sec. 501 Fossil Creek, Arizona (S. 86)
       Sec. 502 Snake River Headwaters, Wyoming (S. 1281)
       Sec. 503 Taunton River, Massachusetts (S. 868)
       Subtitle B Additions to the National Trails System
       Sec. 511 Arizona National Scenic Trail (S. 1304)
       Sec. 512 New England National Scenic Trail (RR. 1528)
       Sec. 513 Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail (S. 268)
       Sec. 514 Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route National 
           Historic Trail (S. 686)
       Subtitle C National Trail System Amendments
Sec. 521  National Trail System Willing Seller Authority (S. 168)
Sec. 522  National Historic Trails Feasibility Studies (S. 580)

          TITLE VI--DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A  National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Pass Discount 
              (S.617)
Subtitle B  Competitive Status for Federal Employees in Alaska (S. 
              1433)
Subtitle C  National Tropical Botanical Gardens (S. 2220)
Subtitle D  Baca National Wildlife Refuge Amendments (S. 127)
Subtitle E  Paleontological Resource Preservation (S. 320)

            TITLE VII--NATIONAL PARK SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A  Additions to the National Park System
Sec. 701  Paterson National Historical Park, New Jersey (H.R. 189)
Sec. 702  Thomas Edison National Historical Park, New Jersey (H.R. 
              2627)
Subtitle B  Amendments to Existing Units of the National Park System
Sec. 711  Keweenaw National Historical Park Funding (S. 189)
Sec. 712  Weir Farm National Historic Site Visitor Center (S. 1247)
Sec. 713  Little River Canyon National Preserve Addition (S. 1961)
Sec. 714  Hopewell Culture National Historical Park Addition (H.R. 
              2197)
Sec. 715  Jean Lafitte National Historical Park Addition (S. 783)
Sec. 716  Minute Man National Historical Park (S. 2513)
Sec. 716  Everglades National Park Addition (S. 2804)
Sec. 718  Kalaupapa National Historical Park Memorial (H.R. 3332)
Sec. 719  Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area (S. 1365)
Subtitle C  Special Resource Studies
Sec. 721  William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home, Arkansas (S. 245)
Sec. 722  Walnut Canyon National Monument, Arizona (S. 722)
Sec. 723  Tule Lake Segregation Center, California (S. 1476)
Sec. 724  Estate Grange, St. Croix (S. 1969)
Sec. 725  Harriett Beecher Stowe House, Maine (S. 662)
Sec. 726  Battle of Shepherdstown, West Virginia (S. 1633)
Sec. 727  Green McAdoo School, Tennessee (S. 2207)
Sec. 728  Harry S Truman Birthplace, Missouri (H.R. 3998)
Sec. 729  Battle of Matewan, West Virginia (H.R. 3998)
Sec. 730  Butterfield Overland Trail (H.R. 3998)
Subtitle D  Program Authorizations
Sec. 741  American Battlefield Protection Program (S. 1921)
Sec. 742  Preserve America Program (S. 2262)
Sec. 743  Save America's Treasures Program (S. 2262)
Subtitle E  Advisory Commissions
Sec. 744  Na Hoa Pili O Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission (S. 1728)

                  TITLE VIII--NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS

Subtitle A  S. 278 National Heritage Area Program
Subtitle B  Designation of National Heritage Areas
Sec. 821  Sangre de Cristo National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 443)
Sec. 822  Cache La Poudre River National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 
              128)
Sec. 823  South Park National Heritage Area, Colorado (S. 444)
Sec. 824  Northern Plains National Heritage Area, North Dakota (S. 
              2098)
Sec. 825  Baltimore National Heritage Area, Maryland (S. 2604)
Sec. 826  Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, Massachusetts and N.H. 
              (S. 827)
Sec. 827  Mississippi Hills National Heritage Area (S. 2254)
Sec. 828  Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area (S. 2512)
Sec. 829  Muscle Shoals National Heritage Area, Alabama (H.R. 1483)
Sec. 830  Santa Cruz Valley National Heritage Area, Arizona (H.R. 1483)
Subtitle C  Studies
Sec. 841  Chatahoochee Trace, Alabama and Georgia (S. 637)
Sec. 842  Northern Neck, Virginia (H.R. 1483)
Subtitle D  Amendments Relating to National Heritage Corridors
Sec. 851  Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage 
              Corridor (S. 1182)
Sec. 852  Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Corridor (S. 817)
Sec. 853  Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor (H.R. 1483)
Sec. 854  John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage 
              Corridor (H.R. 1483)

             TITLE IX--BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AUTHORIZATIONS

Subtitle A  Feasibility Studies
Sec. 901  Snake, Boise, and Payette River Systems, Idaho (S. 542)
Sec. 902  Sierra Vista Subwatershed, Arizona (S. 1929)
Subtitle B  Project Authorizations
Sec. 911  Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project, Oregon 
              (S. 1037)
Sec. 912  Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, California (H.R. 
              1855)
Sec. 913  Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, New Mexico (S. 2814)
Sec. 914  Rancho California Water District, California (H.R. 1725)
Subtitle C  Title Transfers and Clarifications
Sec. 921  Transfer of McGee Creek pipeline and facilities (H.R. 2085)
Sec. 922  Albuquerque Biological Park, New Mexico, title clarification 
              (S. 2370)
Subtitle D  San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (H.R. 123)
Subtitle E  Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Fund (H.R. 
              2515)

                       TITLE X--WATER SETTLEMENTS

Subtitle A  San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement (S. 27)
Subtitle B  Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects (S. 1171)

        TITLE XI--UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AUTHORIZATIONS

Sec. 1101  Reauthorization of National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992 (S. 
              240)
Sec. 1102  New Mexico Water Resources Study (S. 324)

                        TITLE XII--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 1201  Management of Public Land Trust Funds in the State of North 
              Dakota (S. 1740)
Sec. 1202  Amendments to the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation 
              Mitigation Act of 2000 (S. 1522)
Sec. 1203  Amendments to the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Act (S. 1809)
Sec. 1204  Additional Assistant Secretary for Department of Energy (S. 
              1203)
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Landrieu, and Ms. 
        Murkowski):
  S. 3215. A bill to require the Secretary of Energy to enter into 
cooperative agreements with private entities to share the cost of 
obtaining construction and operating licenses for certain types of 
recycling facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, on behalf of 
myself and Senators Sessions, Murkowski, and Landrieu, a bill that 
establishes the foundation for a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle for the 
U.S. A sustainable nuclear fuel cycle is the key to nuclear energy 
reaching its full potential to provide the large scale base load 
electrical generating capacity our country needs, while reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions. Today, nuclear energy provides nearly 20 
percent of our electricity generation capacity and does so more 
reliably, and with a lower cost per kilowatt hour than coal, with 
essentially no greenhouse gas emissions. In the decades to come, we 
will

[[Page 14100]]

need nuclear energy to play an even greater role, not only in 
electrical generation, but also in the transportation and industrial 
sectors, if we are to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions needed to address the challenge of global climate change. The 
Strengthening Management of Advanced Recycling Technologies Act, or 
SMART Act, represents the first important step in building the bridge 
to that future.
  The SMART Act promotes the establishment of privately owned and 
operated used nuclear fuel storage and recycling facilities. These 
facilities will help resolve the current deadlock in spent nuclear fuel 
management while providing a means to extract additional energy from 
used nuclear fuel. I believe that a commercially viable used fuel 
recycling strategy, combined with a responsible waste disposition 
strategy, will enable the expansion of nuclear energy necessary to meet 
all our goals for the future of nuclear energy. The SMART Act advances 
this vision through incentives--rather than mandates--for both industry 
and local communities.
  The SMART Act establishes a competitive 50-50 cost share program 
between the Department of Energy and private industry to finance 
engineering and design work and the development of license applications 
for up to 2 spent fuel recycling facilities. The SMART Act restricts 
facility designs to commercial scale facilities that do not separate 
pure plutonium. The recycling technology must also reduce the burden on 
geologic repositories used for ultimate disposal of waste and promote 
extraction of additional energy from used fuel stocks. Beyond these 
restrictions, the choice of recycling technology is left up to 
industry.
  The resulting reference licenses for recycling facilities may then be 
used by industry to construct domestic used nuclear fuel recycling 
capacity. To assist industry in securing the necessary financing for 
these facilities, the SMART Act authorizes DOE to offer long term 
contracts for spent fuel recycling services. All construction and 
financing costs, however, would be born by industry.
  Although ultimate geologic disposition of waste will always be 
needed, interim storage of used nuclear fuel is a necessary component 
of the nuclear fuel cycle infrastructure. To encourage development of 
interim storage facilities the SMART Act establishes an economic 
incentive program for communities and states that wish to host a 
facility within their jurisdiction. All interim storage facilities 
would be privately owned and operated and licensed by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. The SMART Act incentives are designed to 
encourage the development of two large scale facilities with enough 
capacity to accommodate our annual domestic used nuclear fuel 
generation.
  As with the used fuel recycling facilities, the SMART act authorizes 
the Department of Energy to enter into long term contracts with storage 
facility operators. In addition, the SMART Act allows the Department of 
Energy to enter into agreements with utilities for the settlement of 
all future claims against the department for failure to take title to 
spent nuclear fuel by 1998.
  Currently, the Nuclear Waste Fund established by the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982 has a balance of approximately $20 billion and is 
growing by nearly $1.8 billion annually from fees paid by the utilities 
and interest on the fund. Unfortunately, this fund is currently ``on 
budget'' and amounts to little more than an IOU to the U.S. ratepayers. 
The SMART Act will allow access to a small portion of this fund so that 
it can begin working to resolve the nuclear waste issue as it was 
intended.
  The SMART Act establishes a revolving fund from $1 billion of the 
current waste fund as well as the annual interest on the fund. The 
remaining 95 percent of the current waste fund, as well as all future 
fees, would be placed in a legacy fund for the purposes of constructing 
a geologic repository. Expenditures from the revolving fund for the 
provisions of the act could be made without further appropriations but 
would be subject to limitations in appropriations acts. In this way the 
revolving fund could be put to use without being subject to the 
uncertainty of the annual appropriations process while still retaining 
the authority of Congress to oversee the fund.
  The resolution of the used nuclear fuel issue has been deadlocked for 
decades. Fortunately time has been on our side since nuclear energy 
produces so little waste. For example the nuclear waste generated by a 
family of four during their entire lives is only a couple of pounds. 
Some have even said that we do not need to begin recycling used nuclear 
fuel for 30 or 40 years. I do not believe we can wait that long before 
we resolve the used nuclear fuel issue, however. We must begin taking 
steps today that will place us on the path to a secure and sustainable 
nuclear energy industry in the future. We must demonstrate to industry 
and financial institutions the Government's commitment to resolving the 
used nuclear fuel issue. The SMART bill will place us on that path to 
the future.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL:
  S. 3216. A bill to provide for the introduction of pay-for-
performance compensation mechanisms into contracts of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs with community-based outpatient clinics for the 
provision of health care services, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 3216

       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 ``Veterans Health Care 
     Improvement Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Veterans of the Armed Forces have made tremendous 
     sacrifices in the defense of freedom and liberty.
       (2) Congress recognizes these great sacrifices and 
     reaffirms America's strong commitment to its veterans.
       (3) As part of the on-going congressional effort to 
     recognize the sacrifices made by America's veterans, Congress 
     has dramatically increased funding for the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs for veterans health care in the years since 
     September 11, 2001.
       (4) Part of the funding for the Department of Veterans 
     Affairs for veterans health care is allocated toward 
     community-based outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
       (5) Many CBOCs are administered by private contractors.
       (6) CBOCs administered by private contractors operate on a 
     capitated basis.
       (7) Some current contracts for CBOCs may create an 
     incentive for contractors to sign up as many veterans as 
     possible, without ensuring timely access to high quality 
     health care for such veterans.
       (8) The top priorities for CBOCs should be to provide 
     quality health care and patient satisfaction for America's 
     veterans.
       (9) The Department of Veterans Affairs currently tracks the 
     quality of patient care through its Computerized Patient 
     Record System. However, fees paid to contractors are not 
     currently adjusted automatically to reflect the quality of 
     care provided to patients.
       (10) A pay-for-performance payment model offers a promising 
     approach to health care delivery by aligning the payment of 
     fees to contractors with the achievement of better health 
     outcomes for patients.
       (11) The Department of Veterans Affairs should begin to 
     emphasize pay-for-performance in its contracts with CBOCs.

     SEC. 3. PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE UNDER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 
                   AFFAIRS CONTRACTS WITH COMMUNITY-BASED 
                   OUTPATIENT HEALTH CARE CLINICS.

       (a) Plan Required.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall submit to Congress a plan to introduce pay-for-
     performance measures into contracts which compensate 
     contractors of the Department of Veterans Affairs for the 
     provision of health care services through community-based 
     outpatient clinics (CBOCs).
       (b) Elements.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) Measures to ensure that contracts of the Department for 
     the provision of health care services through CBOCs begin to 
     utilize pay-for-performance compensation mechanisms for 
     compensating contractors for the provision of such services 
     through such clinics, including mechanisms as follows:
       (A) To provide incentives for clinics that provide high-
     quality health care.

[[Page 14101]]

       (B) To provide incentives to better assure patient 
     satisfaction.
       (C) To impose penalties (including termination of contract) 
     for clinics that provide substandard care.
       (2) Mechanisms to collect and evaluate data on the outcomes 
     of the services generally provided by CBOCs in order to 
     provide for an assessment of the quality of health care 
     provided by such clinics.
       (3) Mechanisms to eliminate abuses in the provision of 
     health care services by CBOCs under contracts that continue 
     to utilize capitated-basis compensation mechanisms for 
     compensating contractors.
       (c) Implementation.--The Secretary shall commence the 
     implementation of the plan required by subsection (a) unless 
     Congress enacts an Act, not later than 60 days after the date 
     of the submittal of the plan, prohibiting or modifying 
     implementation of the plan. In implementing the plan, the 
     Secretary may initially carry out one or more pilot programs 
     to assess the feasability and advisability of mechanisms 
     under the plan.
       (d) Reports.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and every 180 days thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the 
     recommendations of the Secretary as to the feasability and 
     advisability of utilizing pay-for-performance compensation 
     mechanisms in the provision of health care services by the 
     Department by means in addition to CBOCs.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Pryor, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Cochran, 
        Mr. Carper, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3217. A bill to provide appropriate protection to attorney-client 
privileged communications and attorney work product; to the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act of 2008, which is a modified 
version of my earlier legislation by the same name. This legislation, 
which adds original cosponsors, continues to address the Department of 
Justice's corporate prosecution guidelines. Those guidelines, last 
revised by former Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty in December 
2006, erode the attorney-client relationship by allowing prosecutors to 
request privileged information backed by the hammer of prosecution if 
the request is denied.
  Like my previous bill, S. 186, this bill will protect the sanctity of 
the attorney-client relationship by prohibiting federal prosecutors and 
investigators from requesting waiver of attorney-client privilege and 
attorney work product protections in corporate investigations. The bill 
would similarly prohibit the government from conditioning charging 
decisions or any adverse treatment on an organization's payment of 
employee legal fees, invocation of the attorney-client privilege, or 
agreement to a joint defense agreement.
  The new version of the bill makes many subtle improvements, including 
defining ``organization'' to make clear that continuing criminal 
enterprises and terrorist organizations will not benefit from the 
bill's protections. The bill also clarifies language that the 
Department of Justice had previously criticized as ambiguous. The bill 
also makes clear in its findings that its prohibition on informal 
privilege waiver demands is far from unprecedented. The bill states: 
``Congress recognized that law enforcement can effectively investigate 
without attorney-client privileged information when it banned Attorney 
General demands for privileged materials in the Racketeer Influenced 
and Corrupt Organizations Act. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1968(c)(2).''
  There is no need to wait to see how the McNulty memorandum will 
operate in practice. There is similarly no need to wait for another 
internal Department of Justice reform that will likely fall short and 
be the fifth policy in the last 10 years. Any such internal reform will 
not address the privilege waiver policies of other government agencies 
that refer matters to the Department of Justice and allow in through 
the window what isn't allowed through the door.
  As I said when I introduced S. 186, the right to counsel is too 
important to be passed over for prosecutorial convenience. It has been 
engrained in American jurisprudence since the 18th century when the 
Bill of Rights was adopted. The 6th Amendment is a fundamental right 
afforded to individuals charged with a crime and guarantees proper 
representation by counsel throughout a prosecution. However, the right 
to counsel is largely ineffective unless the confidential 
communications made by a client to his or her lawyer are protected by 
law. As the Supreme Court observed in Upjohn Co. v. United States, 
``the attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for 
confidential communications known to the common law.'' When the Upjohn 
Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege protections apply to 
corporate internal legal dialogue, the Court manifested in the law the 
importance of the attorney-client privilege in encouraging full and 
frank communication between attorneys and their clients, as well as the 
broader public interests the privilege serves in fostering the 
observance of law and the administration of justice. The Upjohn Court 
also made clear that the value of legal advice and advocacy depends on 
the lawyer having been fully informed by the client.
  In addition to the importance of the right to counsel, it is also 
fundamental that the Government has the burden of investigating and 
proving its own case. Privilege waiver tends to transfer this burden to 
the organization under investigation. As a former prosecutor, I am well 
aware of the enormous power and tools a prosecutor has at his or her 
disposal. The prosecutor has enough power without the coercive tools of 
the privilege waiver, whether that waiver policy is embodied in the 
Holder, Thompson, McCallum, McNulty--or a future Filip--memorandum.
  As in S. 186, this bill amends title 18 of the United States Code by 
adding a new section, Sec. 3014, that would prohibit any agent or 
attorney of the U.S. Government in any criminal or civil case to demand 
or request the disclosure of any communication protected by the 
attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The bill would also 
prohibit government lawyers and agents from basing any charge or 
adverse treatment on whether an organization pays attorneys' fees for 
its employees or signs a joint defense agreement.
  This legislation is needed to ensure that basic protections of the 
attorney-client relationship are preserved in Federal prosecutions and 
investigations.

                          ____________________




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

   SENATE RESOLUTION 603--EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE ON THE 
RESTITUTION OF OR COMPENSATION FOR PROPERTY SEIZED DURING THE NAZI AND 
                             COMMUNIST ERAS

  Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Cardin, Mr. 
Coleman, and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following resolution; which 
was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

                              S. Res. 603

       Whereas many East European countries were dominated for 
     parts of the last century by Nazi or communist regimes, 
     without the consent of their people;
       Whereas victims of Nazi persecution included individuals 
     persecuted or targeted for persecution by the Nazi or Nazi-
     allied governments based on their religious, ethnic, or 
     cultural identity, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 
     disability;
       Whereas the Nazi regime and the authoritarian and 
     totalitarian regimes that emerged in Eastern Europe after 
     World War II perpetuated the wrongful and unjust confiscation 
     of property belonging to the victims of Nazi persecution, 
     including real property, personal property, and financial 
     assets;
       Whereas communal and religious property was an early target 
     of the Nazi regime and, by expropriating churches, synagogues 
     and other community-controlled property, the Nazis denied 
     religious communities the temporal facilities that held those 
     communities together;
       Whereas, after World War II, communist regimes expanded the 
     systematic expropriation of communal and religious property 
     in an effort to eliminate the influence of religion;
       Whereas many insurance companies that issued policies in 
     pre-World War II Eastern Europe were nationalized or had 
     their subsidiary assets nationalized by communist regimes;

[[Page 14102]]

       Whereas such nationalized companies and those with 
     nationalized subsidiaries have generally not paid the 
     proceeds or compensation due on pre-war policies, because 
     control of those companies or their East European 
     subsidiaries had passed to the government;
       Whereas East European countries involved in these 
     nationalizations have not participated in a compensation 
     process for Holocaust-era insurance policies for victims of 
     Nazi persecution;
       Whereas the protection of and respect for private property 
     rights is a basic principle for all democratic governments 
     that operate according to the rule of law;
       Whereas the rule of law and democratic norms require that 
     the activity of governments and their administrative agencies 
     be exercised in accordance with the laws passed by their 
     parliaments or legislatures and such laws themselves must be 
     consistent with international human rights standards;
       Whereas the Paris Declaration of the Organization for 
     Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Parliamentary 
     Assembly in July 2001 noted that the process of restitution, 
     compensation, and material reparation of victims of Nazi 
     persecution has not been pursued with the same degree of 
     comprehensiveness by all of the OSCE participating States;
       Whereas the OSCE participating States have agreed to 
     achieve or maintain full recognition and protection of all 
     types of property, including private property and the right 
     to prompt, just, and effective compensation for the private 
     property that is taken for public use;
       Whereas the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly has called on the 
     OSCE participating States to ensure that they implement 
     appropriate legislation to secure the restitution of or 
     compensation for property losses of victims of Nazi 
     persecution and property losses of communal organizations and 
     institutions during the Nazi era, irrespective of the current 
     citizenship or place of residence of victims or their heirs 
     or the relevant successor to communal property;
       Whereas Congress passed resolutions in the 104th and 105th 
     Congresses that emphasized the longstanding support of the 
     United States for the restitution of or compensation for 
     property wrongly confiscated during the Nazi or communist 
     eras;
       Whereas certain post-communist countries in Europe have 
     taken steps toward compensating victims of Nazi persecution 
     whose property was confiscated by the Nazis or their allies 
     or collaborators during World War II or subsequently seized 
     by communist governments after World War II;
       Whereas, at the 1998 Washington Conference on Holocaust-Era 
     Assets, 44 countries adopted Principles on Nazi-Confiscated 
     Art to guide the restitution of looted artwork and cultural 
     property;
       Whereas the Government of Lithuania has promised to adopt 
     an effective legal framework to provide for the restitution 
     of or compensation for wrongly confiscated communal property, 
     but so far has not done so;
       Whereas successive governments in Poland have promised to 
     adopt an effective general property compensation law, but so 
     far the current Government of Poland has not adopted one;
       Whereas the legislation providing for the restitution of or 
     compensation for wrongly confiscated property in Europe has, 
     in various instances, not always been implemented in an 
     effective, transparent, and timely manner;
       Whereas such legislation is of the utmost importance in 
     returning or compensating property wrongfully seized by 
     totalitarian or authoritarian governments to its rightful 
     owners;
       Whereas compensation and restitution programs can never 
     bring back to Holocaust survivors what was taken from them, 
     or in any way make up for their suffering; and
       Whereas there are Holocaust survivors, now in the twilight 
     of their lives, who are impoverished and in urgent need of 
     assistance, lacking the resources to support basic needs, 
     including adequate shelter, food, or medical care: Now, 
     therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) appreciates the efforts of those countries in Europe 
     that have enacted legislation for the restitution of or 
     compensation for private, communal, and religious property 
     wrongly confiscated during the Nazi or communist eras, and 
     urges each of those countries to ensure that the legislation 
     is effectively and justly implemented;
       (2) welcomes the efforts of many post-communist countries 
     to address the complex and difficult question of the status 
     of confiscated properties, and urges those countries to 
     ensure that their restitution or compensation programs are 
     implemented in a timely, non-discriminatory manner;
       (3) urges the Government of Poland and the governments of 
     other countries in Europe that have not already done so to 
     immediately enact fair, comprehensive, and just legislation 
     so that victims of Nazi persecution (or the heirs of such 
     persons) who had their private property looted and wrongly 
     confiscated by the Nazis during World War II and in turn 
     seized by a communist government are able to obtain either 
     restitution of their property or, where restitution is not 
     possible, fair compensation;
       (4) urges the Government of Lithuania and the governments 
     of other countries in Europe that have not already done so to 
     immediately enact fair, comprehensive, and just legislation 
     so that communities that had communal and religious property 
     looted and wrongly confiscated by the Nazis during World War 
     II and in turn seized by a communist government (or the 
     relevant successors to the communal and religious property or 
     the relevant foundations) are able to obtain either 
     restitution of their property or, where restitution is not 
     possible, fair compensation;
       (5) urges the countries of Europe which have not already 
     done so to ensure that all such restitution and compensation 
     legislation is established in accordance with principles of 
     justice and provides a simple, transparent, and prompt 
     process, so that it results in a tangible benefit to those 
     surviving victims of Nazi persecution who suffered from the 
     unjust confiscation of their property, many of whom are well 
     into their senior years;
       (6) calls on the President and the Secretary of State to 
     engage in an open dialogue with leaders of those countries 
     which have not already enacted such legislation to support 
     the adoption of legislation requiring the fair, 
     comprehensive, and nondiscriminatory restitution of or 
     compensation for private, communal, and religious property 
     that was seized and confiscated during the Nazi and communist 
     eras; and
       (7) welcomes a country in Europe to host in 2009 a follow-
     up international conference a decade after the Washington 
     Conference on Holocaust-Era Assets, for governments and non-
     governmental organizations, which would--
       (A) address the issues of restitution of or compensation 
     for real property, personal property (including art and 
     cultural property), and financial assets wrongly confiscated 
     by the Nazis and their allies or collaborators and the 
     subsequent wrongful confiscations by communist regimes; and
       (B) review issues related to the opening of archives and 
     the work of historical commissions, review progress made, and 
     focus on the next steps required on these issues.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, last month I chaired a hearing 
in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to consider a difficult but 
extremely important issue--compensating Holocaust survivors and their 
heirs for the value of Holocaust-era insurance policies they held 
before the war but lost or had stolen from them by the Nazi regime.
  Although this hearing was the first time a Senate committee had met 
specifically to consider Holocaust-era insurance compensation issues, I 
have been involved in the issue for more than a decade. As Florida's 
insurance commissioner in the late 1990's, I helped lead an 
international effort by regulators and Jewish groups that ultimately 
forced many European insurers to come to the table and for the first 
time begin paying restitution to survivors. Florida is a State with a 
large population of Holocaust survivors--one of the largest 
concentrations of Holocaust survivors in the world. Most are in their 
80s or 90s. The very youngest are in their 70s. They are valued 
constituents, and while I recognize that no amount of financial 
compensation or property restitution can ever make up for the 
indescribable wrong of the Holocaust, I have been and remain committed 
to doing what I can to assist survivors to obtain without delay 
meaningful compensation for assets that they lost during the war.
  The primary purpose of the hearing was to examine what remains to be 
done to compensate Holocaust survivors and their heirs for the 
insurance policies, now that the decade-long compensation process 
undertaken by the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance 
Claims, ICHEC, has ceased operations and paid out some $306 million to 
48,000 Holocaust victims and their heirs for Holocaust-era insurance 
policies that belonged to them and never were paid.
  While Western European countries and insurance companies participated 
in and contributed to ICHEIC, there was undisputed testimony at the 
hearing that Eastern European countries and companies did not, and 
should be called upon to compensate Holocaust survivors for the unpaid 
value of their insurance policies.
  Millions of Jews lived in Eastern European countries before the war. 
While many of them lived in rural areas and were too poor to afford 
insurance, there were certainly Jews who purchased insurance policies 
from subsidiaries of Western European companies whose assets were taken 
by the communist governments that came into

[[Page 14103]]

power, or by Eastern European companies that were nationalized. 
Unfortunately, the Eastern European countries neither participated in 
ICHEIC nor contributed to any of the insurance compensation efforts 
that have taken place. ICHEIC nonetheless paid claims on those Eastern 
European policies from out of the humanitarian funds that were 
contributed by the ICHEIC companies, ultimately distributing $31 
million on more than 2,800 such claims.
  Unfortunately, Eastern European countries have not taken nearly 
enough action on restitution for insurance and other private and 
communal property taken from Jews and other victims of Nazi 
persecution, and then seized by the communist governments that ruled 
Eastern Europe after the war. Poland, for example, is the sole member 
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe not to have 
enacted property restitution legislation. And Lithuania has yet to 
enact promised legislation to compensate communities that had communal 
and religious property seized. This is unacceptable.
  Today, Senator Smith and I, joined by our colleagues Senators Cardin, 
Coleman, and Menendez, are introducing a bi-partisan resolution urging 
countries in Eastern Europe to enact fair and comprehensive private and 
communal property restitution legislation addressing the unjust taking 
of property by Nazi, communist, and socialist regimes, and to do so as 
quickly as possible. Given that the youngest Holocaust survivors are in 
their 70s, time is of the essence.
  Our resolution calls for the Secretary of State to engage in dialogue 
to achieve the aims of the resolution as well as for the convening of 
an international intergovernmental conference to focus on the remaining 
steps necessary to secure restitution and compensation of Holocaust-era 
assets.
  The resolution has received overwhelming support from the survivor 
community. Following the hearing, Holocaust survivors were notified of 
our intent to file this resolution and asked to provide input via e-
mail. Over the space of six weeks, we received more than 200 messages 
from Holocaust survivors and their children and relatives now living in 
nations around the world, supporting restitution. Many e-mails 
addressed specific claims to property in Eastern European countries 
including Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, 
Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, and Ukraine.
  The following message of support from a Holocaust survivor from 
England exemplifies the many heart-rending and compelling e-mails I 
received, recounting what was lost by survivors who had lived in 
Eastern Europe and their inability thus far to obtain restitution or 
compensation:

       I support your efforts to secure property restitution in 
     Eastern Europe for Holocaust Survivors.
       With my family, I was expelled from our apartment in Lodz, 
     Poland on December 11, 1939. We were allowed to take with us 
     only 3 rucksacks and all our material belongings had to be 
     left behind. These included a newly built apartment block 
     with 10 luxury flats, a textile factory employing over 100 
     people and magazines full of finished fabrics.
       My mother and I survived the Warsaw ghetto, my father was 
     killed by the Germans in December 1944 and we returned to 
     Lodz after liberation by the Russians in early 1945. Our 
     factory and our apartment belonged now to the Polish 
     authorities. We left Poland soon afterwards.
       After the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the communist 
     regime, I tried [to] get our possessions back without 
     success, my appeal having been dismissed by the Polish High 
     Court. No compensation was offered.

  We hope our resolution we are introducing today will spur our own 
government and governments in Eastern Europe into action and call 
attention to this important unfinished business. Justice and memory 
demand nothing less.
  I ask unanimous consent that this statement be placed in the 
appropriate place in the Record and ask that the text of the resolution 
be printed in the Record.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution with my 
friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Florida, urging the 
restitution of property looted from victims of the Holocaust.
  Though it was inflicted over 60 years ago, the persecution of 
Europe's Jews still defies belief. Never before in history had a nation 
committed the scope and breadth of the Holocaust's crimes against its 
own citizens, some of whom were even decorated German veterans of WWI. 
Never before had a state policy of atrocity encompassed such a 
horrifying thoroughness as it did during those terrible years of Nazi 
rule. Crimes against the Jews took all forms--from genocide to theft--
and for those who survived, the scars remain today.
  There are many of us now who look back, and wonder how the civilized 
world could have stood by, and let this thing happen; but we are not 
wholly without responsibility ourselves. Many of the victims of the 
Holocaust still seek property which was stolen from them during the 
years of Nazi and Nazi-allied rule in Germany and Eastern Europe. For 
these survivors and their kin, the persecution of the Jews is not a 60-
year-old horror story in a history textbook, but a constant struggle to 
extract justice from those who would prefer to forget. While some 
countries have taken active steps to recompense victims of the 
wholesale Nazi confiscation, others have not.
  I am proud to have been engaged in this issue throughout my tenure in 
the Senate, serving in 1999 as a Commissioner on the Presidential 
Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. I also 
introduced with Senator Clinton the Holocaust Victims Assets, 
Restitution Policy, and Remembrance Act in 2001 and again in 2003. This 
legislation aimed to establish a Foundation to research Holocaust-era 
property restitution, and promote innovative solutions restitution 
issues. I am confident that my resolution introduced today will help 
establish a follow-up conference to the previous Holocaust restitution 
conference in 1998. I would further like to thank the Claims Conference 
for all the great work they've done with us on this issue, and in 
furthering the cause of justice for Holocaust victims.
  I recognize that this issue is complex. It is a matter of enacting 
legislation for restitution in countries that do not yet have it, and 
using the existing legislation in those that do. Our resolution calls 
for such action. It also calls for a second conference on Holocaust 
restitution to be held in Europe next year, more than a decade after 
the first. These steps would represent meaningful action on an issue 
which has gone unaddressed for far too long.
  I also recognize that most of the countries in question have 
different governments than they did during the Nazi and Communist eras. 
As a result, I believe that the restitution process can be achieved in 
a positive spirit of cooperation with our European allies.
  I thus sincerely hope that these European friends will work with us 
to resolve some of the last loose ends of the Nazis' crimes; and so do 
our own small part to make redress for the inaction of those who came 
before.

                          ____________________




SENATE RESOLUTION 604--CONGRATULATING THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, 
FRESNO BULLDOGS BASEBALL TEAM FOR WINNING THE 2008 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE 
         ATHLETICS ASSOCIATION DIVISION I COLLEGE WORLD SERIES

  Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mrs. Feinstein) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 604

       Whereas on June 25, 2008, the student athletes of the 
     California State University, Fresno Bulldogs baseball team, 
     in the sixth elimination game faced by the Fresno State 
     Bulldogs, finished a true Cinderella story season, winning 
     the 2008 National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I 
     College World Series Championship (referred to in this 
     preamble as the ``2008 NCAA College World Series'') by 
     defeating the University of Georgia Bulldogs, 2 games to 1, 
     in a best-of-3 championship;
       Whereas the 2008 NCAA College World Series is the second 
     championship for the California State University;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs are the lowest-seeded 
     team in college sports history to win a championship;

[[Page 14104]]

       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs won 6 elimination games 
     to win the 2008 NCAA College World Series, which is a 
     testament to the resilience, fortitude, and ``never say die'' 
     attitude of the team;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs beat number 3-ranked 
     Arizona State University, number 6-ranked Rice University, 
     number 2-ranked University of North Carolina, and number 8-
     ranked University of Georgia to win the 2008 NCAA College 
     World Series;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs tied the record of most 
     runs, 62, in the College World Series;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs elimination game, a 19-10 
     win against Georgia just 1 day earlier, produced College 
     World Series records for most runs in a game by 1 team, most 
     combined runs, most hits by 1 team, most combined hits, and 
     longest game;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs played 78 games this 
     year, more than any other team in the United States;
       Whereas playing with a torn ligament in his left thumb, 
     right fielder Steve Detwiler had 4 hits in 4 at-bats, 
     including 2 home runs and 6 runs batted in, during the 
     championship game;
       Whereas Justin Wilson, the winning pitcher, pitching on 
     just 3 days rest, was able to pitch 129 pitches, 86 of which 
     were strikes over 8 strong innings, allowing just 5 hits, 1 
     run, and striking out 9 batters;
       Whereas Tommy Mendonca, third baseman for the 2008 NCAA 
     College World Series champion Fresno State Bulldogs, was 
     named the ``Most Outstanding Player'', tying the College 
     World Series record with 4 home runs;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have 5 players on the 
     2008 NCAA College World Series all-tournament team, including 
     third baseman Tommy Mendonca, second baseman Erik Wetzel, 
     outfielder Steve Susdorf, outfielder Steve Detwiler, and 
     pitcher Justin Wilson;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have shown great 
     character, comradery, resilience, and sportsmanship on the 
     way to winning the national championship;
       Whereas the fellow students, families, alumni, faculty, and 
     fans of the Fresno State Bulldogs have been a great part of 
     this championship, showing great support with many 
     individuals wearing ``Underdogs to Wonderdogs'' t-shirts; and
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have instilled within the 
     City of Fresno and the State of California great pride and 
     excitement: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) congratulates the California State University Fresno 
     Bulldogs baseball team for winning the 2008 National 
     Collegiate Athletics Association Division I College World 
     Series; and
       (2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, 
     students, and staff whose hard work and dedication made 
     winning the championship possible.

                          ____________________




SENATE RESOLUTION 605--COMMEMORATING THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BERLIN 
         AIRLIFT AND HONORING THE VETERANS OF OPERATION VITTLES

  Mr. DeMINT (for himself and Mr. Bayh) submitted the following 
resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

                              S. Res. 605

       Whereas in spring of 1948 Berlin was isolated within the 
     Soviet occupation zone and had only 35 days' worth of food 
     and 45 days' worth of coal remaining for the city;
       Whereas military planners in the United States and the 
     United Kingdom determined that 1,534 tons of flour, wheat, 
     fish, milk, and other food items would be required daily to 
     feed the 2,000,000 residents of Berlin;
       Whereas military planners determined that 3,475 tons of 
     coal and gasoline would be required daily to keep the city of 
     Berlin heated and powered;
       Whereas, on June 1, 1948, the United States Air Force 
     created the Military Air Transport Service, the predecessor 
     to Air Mobility Command, to organize and conduct airlift 
     missions;
       Whereas, on June 26, 1948, ``Operation Vittles'' began when 
     32 United States Air Force C-47 Dakotas departed West Germany 
     for Berlin hauling 80 tons of cargo, and the first British 
     aircraft launched on June 28, 1948;
       Whereas Major General William H. Tunner, a veteran of the 
     aerial supply line over the Himalayas in World War II, took 
     command of ``Operation Vittles'' on July 28, 1948;
       Whereas Major General Tunner pioneered many new and 
     innovative tactics and procedures for the airlift, including 
     the creation of air corridors for ingress and egress, 
     staggering altitudes of the aircraft, and implementing 
     instrument flight rules which allowed aircraft to land as 
     frequently as every 3 minutes;
       Whereas one pilot, 1st Lieutenant Gail S. Halvorsen, who 
     became known as the ``Candy Bomber'', initiated ``Operation 
     Little Vittles'' to bring hope to the children of Berlin, by 
     dropping handkerchief parachutes containing chocolate and 
     chewing gum as a symbol of American goodwill, ultimately 
     resulting in more than 3 tons of candy being dropped in more 
     than 250,000 miniature parachutes;
       Whereas, on Easter Sunday, April 17, 1949, airlifters 
     reached the pinnacle of ``Operation Vittles'' by delivering 
     13,000 tons of cargo, including the equivalent of 600 
     railroad cars full of coal, setting the single day record for 
     the Berlin Airlift;
       Whereas 39 British and 31 American airmen made the ultimate 
     sacrifice during the Berlin Airlift, and 8 British and 17 
     American aircraft were lost;
       Whereas airlifters delivered more than 2,300,000 tons of 
     food and supplies on 278,228 total flights into Berlin;
       Whereas the Soviet Union was forced to lift the blockade in 
     light of the success of the 15-month airlift operation;
       Whereas the Berlin Airlift marked the first use of airpower 
     to provide hope and humanitarian assistance, and to win a 
     strategic victory against enemy aggression and intimidation;
       Whereas the enormous effort and cooperation of the Berlin 
     Airlift laid the foundation for a deep and lasting friendship 
     between the people of the United States and the people of 
     Germany; and
       Whereas, today, air mobility continues to play a vital role 
     in United States foreign policy by helping to advance freedom 
     and alleviate suffering around the world: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That Congress--
       (1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift 
     as the largest and longest running humanitarian airlift 
     operation in history;
       (2) honors the service and sacrifice of the men and women 
     who participated in and supported the Berlin Airlift;
       (3) commends the close friendship forged between the 
     American, British, and German people through the Berlin 
     Airlift; and
       (4) applauds the men and women of the United States Air 
     Force's Air Mobility Command, who, in the best traditions of 
     the Berlin Airlift, still work diligently to provide hope, 
     save lives, and deliver freedom around the world in support 
     of the United States's foreign policy objectives.

                          ____________________




    SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 92--RECOGNIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF 
                      HOMEOWNERSHIP FOR AMERICANS

  Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted the following 
concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Banking, 
Housing, and Urban Affairs:

                            S. Con. Res. 92

       Whereas the United States promotes and encourages the 
     creation and revitalization of sustainable and strong 
     neighborhoods in partnership with States, cities, and local 
     communities and in conjunction with the independent and 
     collective actions of private citizens and organizations;
       Whereas establishing a housing infrastructure strengthens 
     neighborhoods and local economies and nurtures the families 
     who reside in them;
       Whereas an integral element of a strong community is a 
     sufficient supply of affordable housing;
       Whereas affordable housing may be provided in many forms, 
     including apartment buildings, transitional and temporary 
     homes, condominiums, cooperatives, and single family homes;
       Whereas, for many families, a home is not merely shelter, 
     but also provides an opportunity for growth, prosperity, and 
     security;
       Whereas homeownership spurs the production and sale of 
     goods and services, generates new jobs, encourages savings 
     and investment, promotes economic and civic responsibility, 
     and enhances the financial security of all people in the 
     United States;
       Whereas, although the United States is the first nation in 
     the world to make owning a home a reality for a vast majority 
     of families, \1/3\ of homeowners in the United States are 
     severely cost-burdened homeowners;
       Whereas Habitat for Humanity is able to sell homes to 
     working families at 30 percent to 60 percent of median 
     income;
       Whereas the community-building activities of neighborhood-
     based nonprofit organizations empower individuals to improve 
     their lives and make communities safer and healthier for 
     families;
       Whereas one of the best known nonprofit housing 
     organizations is Habitat for Humanity, which builds simple 
     but adequate housing for less fortunate families and 
     symbolizes the self-help approach to homeownership;
       Whereas studies show that homeownership has a positive 
     impact on the lives of family members, including improved 
     physical and mental health;
       Whereas Habitat for Humanity is organized in all 50 States 
     and the District of Columbia;
       Whereas Habitat for Humanity has built over 275,000 houses 
     worldwide and endeavors to complete another 100,000 homes by 
     the end of 2009;

[[Page 14105]]

       Whereas Habitat for Humanity provides opportunities for 
     people from every segment of society to volunteer to help 
     make the American dream a reality for families who otherwise 
     would not own a home; and
       Whereas June has been designated National Homeownership 
     Month: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 
     concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) everyone in the United States should have a decent home 
     in which to live;
       (2) Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives 
     should demonstrate the importance of volunteerism;
       (3) during the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses, Members 
     of the Senate and the House of Representatives are encouraged 
     to participate in Congress Building America, a program in 
     which congressional delegations work with Habitat for 
     Humanity affiliates to build homes in their districts and 
     States; and
       (4) these occasions should be used to emphasize and focus 
     on the importance of providing decent homes for all of the 
     people in the United States.

                          ____________________




                    AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

       SA 5060. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and 
     Mr. Nelson, of Florida) 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 5061. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. 
     Vitter, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Collins, 
     Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Reed) submitted an amendment intended to 
     be proposed by her 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 5062. Mr. CARPER submitted an amendment intended to be 
     proposed by him to the bill H.R. 2642, supra; which was 
     ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 5063. Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Nelson, 
     of Florida) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by 
     him to the bill S. 3001, to authorize appropriations for 
     fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, for military construction, and for defense 
     activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table.
       SA 5064. Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, 
     Mr. Reid, Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
     Kennedy, and Mr. Durbin) 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.

                          ____________________




                           TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

  SA 5060. Mr. WHITEHOUSE (for himself, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. Nelson 
of Florida) 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 line 13, and insert the following:
       ``(ii) determined to be lawful; and
       ``(C) provided based on the good faith and reasonable 
     belief of the electronic communication service provider that 
     compliance with a written request or directive described in 
     subparagraph (B) was lawful; or
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 5061. Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Vitter, Mr. 
Sununu, Mr. Cardin, Ms. Landrieu, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
Reed) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her 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; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


                  operations, research, and facilities

       For an additional amount for Operations, Research, and 
     Facilities for necessary expenses related to economic impacts 
     associated with commercial fishery failures, fishery resource 
     disasters, and regulations on commercial fishing industries, 
     $75,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 5062. Mr. CARPER 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; as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                 TITLE __--GI BILL FINANCING PROVISION

     SEC. ___. GI BILL FINANCING PROVISION.

       (a) In General.--Part I of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after 
     section 1 the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1A. INCREASE IN TAX ON HIGH INCOME INDIVIDUALS TO 
                   FINANCE THE GI BILL.

       ``(a) General Rule.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a 
     corporation, there is hereby imposed (in addition to any 
     other tax imposed by this subtitle) a tax equal to 0.47 
     percent of so much of modified adjusted gross income as 
     exceeds $500,000 ($1,000,000 in the case of a joint return or 
     a surviving spouse (as defined in section 2(a)).
       ``(b) Modified Adjusted Gross Income.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `modified adjusted gross income' means 
     adjusted gross income reduced by any deduction allowed for 
     investment interest (as defined in section 163(d)). In the 
     case of an estate or trust, a rule similar to the rule of 
     section 67(e) shall apply for purposes of determining 
     adjusted gross income for purposes of this section.
       ``(c) Nonresident Alien.--In the case of a nonresident 
     alien individual, only amounts taken into account in 
     connection with the tax imposed by section 871(b) shall be 
     taken into account under this section.
       ``(d) Marital Status.--For purposes of this section, 
     marital status shall be determined under section 7703.
       ``(e) Not Treated as Tax Imposed by This Chapter for 
     Certain Purposes.--The tax imposed under this section shall 
     not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of 
     determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or 
     for purposes of section 55.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part I 
     of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 1 the following 
     new item:

``Sec. 1A. Increase in tax on high income individuals to finance the GI 
              bill.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.
       (d) Section 15 Not to Apply.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (a) shall not be treated as a change in a rate of 
     tax for purposes of section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 5063. Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Bayh, and Mr. Nelson of Florida) 
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 
3001, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military 
activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and 
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe 
military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
       At the end of subtitle C of title VI, add the following:

     SEC. 634. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION OF FAMILY MEMBERS 
                   INCIDENT TO SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS OF MEMBERS 
                   OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a)(2)(B)(i) of section 411h of 
     title 37, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     ``(including having a serious mental disorder)'' after 
     ``seriously injured''.
       (b) Serious Mental Disorder Defined.--Subsection (b) of 
     such section is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) In this section, the term `serious mental 
     disorder', in the case of a member, means that the member has 
     been diagnosed with a mental disorder that requires intensive 
     mental health treatment or hospitalization.
       ``(B) The circumstances in which a member shall be 
     considered to have a serious mental disorder for purposes of 
     this section shall include, but not be limited to, the 
     following:
       ``(i) The member is considered to be a potential danger to 
     self or others as a result of a diagnosed mental disorder 
     that requires intensive mental health treatment or 
     hospitalization.
       ``(ii) The member is diagnosed with a mental disorder and 
     has psychotic symptoms that require intensive mental health 
     treatment or hospitalization.

[[Page 14106]]

       ``(iii) The member is diagnosed with a mental disorder and 
     has severe symptoms or severe impairment in functioning that 
     require intensive mental health treatment or 
     hospitalization.''.
                                 ______
                                 
  SA 5064. Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Reid, 
Mr. Harkin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. 
Durbin) 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:

                          ____________________




                           NOTICE OF HEARING


               COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the 
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been 
scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power. The hearing will 
be held on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-366 of the 
Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.
  The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following 
bills: S. 2842, to require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out 
annual inspections of canals, levees, tunnels, dikes, pumping plants, 
dams, and reservoirs under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, and for 
other purposes; S. 2974, to provide for the construction of the 
Arkansas Valley Conduit in the State of Colorado; H.R. 3323, to 
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey a water distribution 
system to the Goleta Water District, and for other purposes.; and S. 
3189, 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.
  Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may 
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written 
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 
20510-6150, or by e-mail to [email protected]
.gov.
  For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224-
5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

                          ____________________




                    AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET


                      Committee on Armed Services

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of 
the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 9:30 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Committee on Finance

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the 
Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the 
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


          Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to 
meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled 
``Protecting Children, Strengthening Families: Reauthorizing CAPTA'' on 
Thursday, June 26, 2008. The hearing will commence at 2:30 p.m. in room 
430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. 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 Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 
10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nuclear Terrorism: Providing 
Medical Care and Meeting Basic Needs in the Aftermath--the Federal 
Response.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Committee on Indian Affairs

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of 
the Senate on Thursday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. in room 562 of the 
Dirksen Senate Office Building.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Committee on the Judiciary

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on 
Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen 
Senate Office Building.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26. The Committee will meet in 
room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building, at 9:30 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


 Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
              Federal Services, and International Security

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee 
on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal 
Services, and International Security be authorized to meet during the 
session of the Senate on Thursday, June 26, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. to 
conduct a hearing entitled, ``In the Red: Addressing the Nation's 
Financial Challenges''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




   FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 833, S. 2565.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2565) to establish an awards mechanism to honor 
     exceptional acts of bravery in the line of duty by Federal, 
     State, and Local law enforcement officers.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an 
amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement 
     Congressional Badge of Bravery Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal agency head.--The term ``Federal agency head'' 
     means the head of any executive, legislative, or judicial 
     branch Government entity that employs Federal law enforcement 
     officers.
       (2) Federal board.--The term ``Federal Board'' means the 
     Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery Board 
     established under section 103(a).
       (3) Federal board members.--The term ``Federal Board 
     members'' means the members of the Federal Board appointed 
     under section 103(c).
       (4) Federal law enforcement badge.--The term ``Federal Law 
     Enforcement Badge'' means the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Congressional Badge of Bravery described in section 101.
       (5) Federal law enforcement officer.--The term ``Federal 
     law enforcement officer''--
       (A) means a Federal employee--
       (i) who has statutory authority to make arrests or 
     apprehensions;
       (ii) who is authorized by the agency of the employee to 
     carry firearms; and
       (iii) whose duties are primarily--

       (I) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, 
     detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the 
     incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or
       (II) the protection of Federal, State, local, or foreign 
     government officials against threats to personal safety; and

       (B) includes a law enforcement officer employed by the 
     Amtrak Police Department or Federal Reserve.

[[Page 14107]]

       (6) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the Congressional 
     Badge of Bravery Office established under section 301(a).
       (7) State and local board.--The term ``State and Local 
     Board'' means the State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Congressional Badge of Bravery Board established under 
     section 203(a).
       (8) State and local board members.--The term ``State and 
     Local Board members'' means the members of the State and 
     Local Board appointed under section 203(c).
       (9) State and local law enforcement badge.--The term 
     ``State and Local Law Enforcement Badge'' means the State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery 
     described in section 201.
       (10) State or local agency head.--The term ``State or local 
     agency head'' means the head of any executive, legislative, 
     or judicial branch entity of a State or local government that 
     employs State or local law enforcement officers.
       (11) State or local law enforcement officer.--The term 
     ``State or local law enforcement officer'' means an employee 
     of a State or local government--
       (A) who has statutory authority to make arrests or 
     apprehensions;
       (B) who is authorized by the agency of the employee to 
     carry firearms; and
       (C) whose duties are primarily--
       (i) engagement in or supervision of the prevention, 
     detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the 
     incarceration of any person for, any violation of law; or
       (ii) the protection of Federal, State, local, or foreign 
     government officials against threats to personal safety.

    TITLE I--FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF A BADGE.

       The Attorney General may award, and a Member of Congress or 
     the Attorney General may present, in the name of Congress a 
     Federal Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of Bravery to a 
     Federal law enforcement officer who is cited by the Attorney 
     General, upon the recommendation of the Federal Board, for 
     performing an act of bravery while in the line of duty.

     SEC. 102. NOMINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--A Federal agency head may nominate for a 
     Federal Law Enforcement Badge an individual--
       (1) who is a Federal law enforcement officer working within 
     the agency of the Federal agency head making the nomination; 
     and
       (2) who--
       (A)(i) sustained a physical injury while--

       (I) engaged in the lawful duties of the individual; and
       (II) performing an act characterized as bravery by the 
     Federal agency head making the nomination; and

       (ii) put the individual at personal risk when the injury 
     described in clause (i) occurred; or
       (B) while not injured, performed an act characterized as 
     bravery by the Federal agency head making the nomination that 
     placed the individual at risk of serious physical injury or 
     death.
       (b) Contents.--A nomination under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a written narrative, of not more than 2 pages, 
     describing the circumstances under which the nominee 
     performed the act of bravery described in subsection (a) and 
     how the circumstances meet the criteria described in such 
     subsection;
       (2) the full name of the nominee;
       (3) the home mailing address of the nominee;
       (4) the agency in which the nominee served on the date when 
     such nominee performed the act of bravery described in 
     subsection (a);
       (5) the occupational title and grade or rank of the 
     nominee;
       (6) the field office address of the nominee on the date 
     when such nominee performed the act of bravery described in 
     subsection (a); and
       (7) the number of years of Government service by the 
     nominee as of the date when such nominee performed the act of 
     bravery described in subsection (a).
       (c) Submission Deadline.--A Federal agency head shall 
     submit each nomination under subsection (a) to the Office not 
     later than February 15 of the year following the date on 
     which the nominee performed the act of bravery described in 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 103. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF 
                   BRAVERY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a Federal Law Enforcement Congressional 
     Badge of Bravery Board.
       (b) Duties.--The Federal Board shall do the following:
       (1) Design the Federal Law Enforcement Badge with 
     appropriate ribbons and appurtenances.
       (2) Select an engraver to produce each Federal Law 
     Enforcement Badge.
       (3) Recommend recipients of the Federal Law Enforcement 
     Badge from among those nominations timely submitted to the 
     Office.
       (4) Annually present to the Attorney General the names of 
     Federal law enforcement officers who the Federal Board 
     recommends as Federal Law Enforcement Badge recipients in 
     accordance with the criteria described in section 102(a).
       (5) After approval by the Attorney General--
       (A) procure the Federal Law Enforcement Badges from the 
     engraver selected under paragraph (2);
       (B) send a letter announcing the award of each Federal Law 
     Enforcement Badge to the Federal agency head who nominated 
     the recipient of such Federal Law Enforcement Badge;
       (C) send a letter to each Member of Congress representing 
     the congressional district where the recipient of each 
     Federal Law Enforcement Badge resides to offer such Member an 
     opportunity to present such Federal Law Enforcement Badge; 
     and
       (D) make or facilitate arrangements for presenting each 
     Federal Law Enforcement Badge in accordance with section 104.
       (6) Set an annual timetable for fulfilling the duties 
     described in this subsection.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--The Federal Board shall be 
     composed of 7 members appointed as follows:
       (A) One member jointly appointed by the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (B) One member jointly appointed by the Speaker and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (C) One member from the Department of Justice appointed by 
     the Attorney General.
       (D) Two members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers 
     Association appointed by the Executive Board of the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Officers Association.
       (E) Two members of the Fraternal Order of Police appointed 
     by the Executive Board of the Fraternal Order of Police.
       (2) Limitation.--Not more than--
       (A) 2 Federal Board members may be members of the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Officers Association; and
       (B) 2 Federal Board members may be members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police.
       (3) Qualifications.--Federal Board members shall be 
     individuals with knowledge or expertise, whether by 
     experience or training, in the field of Federal law 
     enforcement.
       (4) Terms and vacancies.--Each Federal Board member shall 
     be appointed for 2 years and may be reappointed. A vacancy in 
     the Federal Board shall not affect the powers of the Federal 
     Board and shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (d) Operations.--
       (1) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the Federal Board 
     shall be a Federal Board member elected by a majority of the 
     Federal Board.
       (2) Meetings.--The Federal Board shall conduct its first 
     meeting not later than 90 days after the appointment of a 
     majority of Federal Board members. Thereafter, the Federal 
     Board shall meet at the call of the Chairperson, or in the 
     case of a vacancy of the position of Chairperson, at the call 
     of the Attorney General.
       (3) Voting and rules.--A majority of Federal Board members 
     shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, but the 
     Federal Board may establish a lesser quorum for conducting 
     hearings scheduled by the Federal Board. The Federal Board 
     may establish by majority vote any other rules for the 
     conduct of the business of the Federal Board, if such rules 
     are not inconsistent with this title or other applicable law.
       (e) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings.--
       (A) In general.--The Federal Board may hold hearings, sit 
     and act at times and places, take testimony, and receive 
     evidence as the Federal Board considers appropriate to carry 
     out the duties of the Federal Board under this title. The 
     Federal Board may administer oaths or affirmations to 
     witnesses appearing before it.
       (B) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Federal Board may be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be 
     paid from funds appropriated to the Federal Board.
       (2) Information from federal agencies.--Subject to sections 
     552, 552a, and 552b of title 5, United States Code--
       (A) the Federal Board may secure directly from any Federal 
     department or agency information necessary to enable it to 
     carry out this title; and
       (B) upon request of the Federal Board, the head of that 
     department or agency shall furnish the information to the 
     Federal Board.
       (3) Information to be kept confidential.--The Federal Board 
     shall not disclose any information which may compromise an 
     ongoing law enforcement investigation or is otherwise 
     required by law to be kept confidential.
       (f) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     Federal Board member shall be compensated at a rate equal to 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which such Federal Board 
     member is engaged in the performance of the duties of the 
     Federal Board.
       (2) Prohibition of compensation for government employees.--
     Federal Board members who serve as officers or employees of 
     the Federal Government or a State or a local government may 
     not receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason 
     of their service on the Federal Board.
       (3) Travel expenses.--Each Federal Board member shall 
     receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 104. PRESENTATION OF FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BADGES.

       (a) Presentation by Member of Congress.--A Member of 
     Congress may present a Federal Law Enforcement Badge to any 
     Federal Law Enforcement Badge recipient who resides in such 
     Member's congressional district. If both

[[Page 14108]]

     a Senator and Representative choose to present a Federal Law 
     Enforcement Badge, such Senator and Representative shall make 
     a joint presentation.
       (b) Presentation by Attorney General.--If no Member of 
     Congress chooses to present the Federal Law Enforcement Badge 
     as described in subsection (a), the Attorney General, or a 
     designee of the Attorney General, shall present such Federal 
     Law Enforcement Badge.
       (c) Presentation Arrangements.--The office of the Member of 
     Congress presenting each Federal Law Enforcement Badge may 
     make arrangements for the presentation of such Federal Law 
     Enforcement Badge, and if a Senator and Representative choose 
     to participate jointly as described in subsection (a), the 
     Members shall make joint arrangements. The Federal Board 
     shall facilitate any such presentation arrangements as 
     requested by the congressional office presenting the Federal 
     Law Enforcement Badge and shall make arrangements in cases 
     not undertaken by Members of Congress.

   TITLE II--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF 
                                BRAVERY

     SEC. 201. AUTHORIZATION OF A BADGE.

       The Attorney General may award, and a Member of Congress or 
     the Attorney General may present, in the name of Congress a 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Congressional Badge of 
     Bravery to a State or local law enforcement officer who is 
     cited by the Attorney General, upon the recommendation of the 
     State and Local Board, for performing an act of bravery while 
     in the line of duty.

     SEC. 202. NOMINATIONS.

       (a) In General.--A State or local agency head may nominate 
     for a State and Local Law Enforcement Badge an individual--
       (1) who is a State or local law enforcement officer working 
     within the agency of the State or local agency head making 
     the nomination; and
       (2) who--
       (A)(i) sustained a physical injury while--

       (I) engaged in the lawful duties of the individual; and
       (II) performing an act characterized as bravery by the 
     State or local agency head making the nomination; and

       (ii) put the individual at personal risk when the injury 
     described in clause (i) occurred; or
       (B) while not injured, performed an act characterized as 
     bravery by the State or local agency head making the 
     nomination that placed the individual at risk of serious 
     physical injury or death.
       (b) Contents.--A nomination under subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) a written narrative, of not more than 2 pages, 
     describing the circumstances under which the nominee 
     performed the act of bravery described in subsection (a) and 
     how the circumstances meet the criteria described in such 
     subsection;
       (2) the full name of the nominee;
       (3) the home mailing address of the nominee;
       (4) the agency in which the nominee served on the date when 
     such nominee performed the act of bravery described in 
     subsection (a);
       (5) the occupational title and grade or rank of the 
     nominee;
       (6) the field office address of the nominee on the date 
     when such nominee performed the act of bravery described in 
     subsection (a); and
       (7) the number of years of government service by the 
     nominee as of the date when such nominee performed the act of 
     bravery described in subsection (a).
       (c) Submission Deadline.--A State or local agency head 
     shall submit each nomination under subsection (a) to the 
     Office not later than February 15 of the year following the 
     date on which the nominee performed the act of bravery 
     described in subsection (a).

     SEC. 203. STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CONGRESSIONAL BADGE 
                   OF BRAVERY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Congressional Badge of Bravery Board.
       (b) Duties.--The State and Local Board shall do the 
     following:
       (1) Design the State and Local Law Enforcement Badge with 
     appropriate ribbons and appurtenances.
       (2) Select an engraver to produce each State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Badge.
       (3) Recommend recipients of the State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Badge from among those nominations timely 
     submitted to the Office.
       (4) Annually present to the Attorney General the names of 
     State or local law enforcement officers who the State and 
     Local Board recommends as State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Badge recipients in accordance with the criteria described in 
     section 202(a).
       (5) After approval by the Attorney General--
       (A) procure the State and Local Law Enforcement Badges from 
     the engraver selected under paragraph (2);
       (B) send a letter announcing the award of each State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Badge to the State or local agency head 
     who nominated the recipient of such State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Badge;
       (C) send a letter to each Member of Congress representing 
     the congressional district where the recipient of each State 
     and Local Law Enforcement Badge resides to offer such Member 
     an opportunity to present such State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Badge; and
       (D) make or facilitate arrangements for presenting each 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Badge in accordance with 
     section 204.
       (6) Set an annual timetable for fulfilling the duties 
     described in this subsection.
       (c) Membership.--
       (1) Number and appointment.--The State and Local Board 
     shall be composed of 9 members appointed as follows:
       (A) One member jointly appointed by the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the Senate.
       (B) One member jointly appointed by the Speaker and 
     minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       (C) One member from the Department of Justice appointed by 
     the Attorney General.
       (D) Two members of the Fraternal Order of Police appointed 
     by the Executive Board of the Fraternal Order of Police.
       (E) One member of the National Association of Police 
     Organizations appointed by the Executive Board of the 
     National Association of Police Organizations.
       (F) One member of the National Organization of Black Law 
     Enforcement Executives appointed by the Executive Board of 
     the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
     Executives.
       (G) One member of the International Association of Chiefs 
     of Police appointed by the Board of Officers of the 
     International Association of Chiefs of Police.
       (H) One member of the National Sheriffs' Association 
     appointed by the Executive Committee of the National 
     Sheriffs' Association.
       (2) Limitation.--Not more than 5 State and Local Board 
     members may be members of the Fraternal Order of Police.
       (3) Qualifications.--State and Local Board members shall be 
     individuals with knowledge or expertise, whether by 
     experience or training, in the field of State and local law 
     enforcement.
       (4) Terms and vacancies.--Each State and Local Board member 
     shall be appointed for 2 years and may be reappointed. A 
     vacancy in the State and Local Board shall not affect the 
     powers of the State and Local Board and shall be filled in 
     the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Operations.--
       (1) Chairperson.--The Chairperson of the State and Local 
     Board shall be a State and Local Board member elected by a 
     majority of the State and Local Board.
       (2) Meetings.--The State and Local Board shall conduct its 
     first meeting not later than 90 days after the appointment of 
     a majority of State and Local Board members. Thereafter, the 
     State and Local Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson, or in the case of a vacancy of the position of 
     Chairperson, at the call of the Attorney General.
       (3) Voting and rules.--A majority of State and Local Board 
     members shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, but 
     the State and Local Board may establish a lesser quorum for 
     conducting hearings scheduled by the State and Local Board. 
     The State and Local Board may establish by majority vote any 
     other rules for the conduct of the business of the State and 
     Local Board, if such rules are not inconsistent with this 
     title or other applicable law.
       (e) Powers.--
       (1) Hearings.--
       (A) In general.--The State and Local Board may hold 
     hearings, sit and act at times and places, take testimony, 
     and receive evidence as the State and Local Board considers 
     appropriate to carry out the duties of the State and Local 
     Board under this title. The State and Local Board may 
     administer oaths or affirmations to witnesses appearing 
     before it.
       (B) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the State and Local Board may be paid the same fees as are 
     paid to witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United 
     States Code. The per diem and mileage allowances for 
     witnesses shall be paid from funds appropriated to the State 
     and Local Board.
       (2) Information from federal agencies.--Subject to sections 
     552, 552a, and 552b of title 5, United States Code--
       (A) the State and Local Board may secure directly from any 
     Federal department or agency information necessary to enable 
     it to carry out this title; and
       (B) upon request of the State and Local Board, the head of 
     that department or agency shall furnish the information to 
     the State and Local Board.
       (3) Information to be kept confidential.--The State and 
     Local Board shall not disclose any information which may 
     compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation or is 
     otherwise required by law to be kept confidential.
       (f) Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     State and Local Board member shall be compensated at a rate 
     equal to the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, for each day 
     (including travel time) during which such State and Local 
     Board member is engaged in the performance of the duties of 
     the State and Local Board.
       (2) Prohibition of compensation for government employees.--
     State and Local Board members who serve as officers or 
     employees of the Federal Government or a State or a local 
     government may not receive additional pay, allowances, or 
     benefits by reason of their service on the State and Local 
     Board.
       (3) Travel expenses.--Each State and Local Board member 
     shall receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, in accordance with applicable provisions under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code.

     SEC. 204. PRESENTATION OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   BADGES.

       (a) Presentation by Member of Congress.--A Member of 
     Congress may present a

[[Page 14109]]

     State and Local Law Enforcement Badge to any State and Local 
     Law Enforcement Badge recipient who resides in such Member's 
     congressional district. If both a Senator and Representative 
     choose to present a State and Local Law Enforcement Badge, 
     such Senator and Representative shall make a joint 
     presentation.
       (b) Presentation by Attorney General.--If no Member of 
     Congress chooses to present the State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Badge as described in subsection (a), the 
     Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, 
     shall present such State and Local Law Enforcement Badge.
       (c) Presentation Arrangements.--The office of the Member of 
     Congress presenting each State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Badge may make arrangements for the presentation of such 
     State and Local Law Enforcement Badge, and if a Senator and 
     Representative choose to participate jointly as described in 
     subsection (a), the Members shall make joint arrangements. 
     The State and Local Board shall facilitate any such 
     presentation arrangements as requested by the congressional 
     office presenting the State and Local Law Enforcement Badge 
     and shall make arrangements in cases not undertaken by 
     Members of Congress.

            TITLE III--CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY OFFICE

     SEC. 301. CONGRESSIONAL BADGE OF BRAVERY OFFICE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Justice a Congressional Badge of Bravery 
     Office.
       (b) Duties.--The Office shall--
       (1) receive nominations from Federal agency heads on behalf 
     of the Federal Board and deliver such nominations to the 
     Federal Board at Federal Board meetings described in section 
     103(d)(2);
       (2) receive nominations from State or local agency heads on 
     behalf of the State and Local Board and deliver such 
     nominations to the State and Local Board at State and Local 
     Board meetings described in section 203(d)(2); and
       (3) provide staff support to the Federal Board and the 
     State and Local Board to carry out the duties described in 
     section 103(b) and section 203(b), respectively.
         Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to establish an 
     awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts of bravery in the 
     line of duty by Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     officers.''.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be read the 
third time, and passed, the amendment to the title be agreed to, the 
motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening 
action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 2565), as amended, was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading, was read the third time, and passed.
  The title was amended so as to read:
  ``A bill to establish an awards mechanism to honor exceptional acts 
of bravery in the line of duty by Federal, State, and local law 
enforcement officers.''

                          ____________________




           JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 765, H.R. 3986.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3986) to amend the John F. Kennedy Center Act 
     to authorize appropriations for the John F. Kennedy Center 
     for the Performing Arts, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works, with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and 
insert in lieu thereof the following:

                               H.R. 3986

       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 ``John F. Kennedy Center 
     Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

     [SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       [Section 2(a)(2)(J)(ii) of the John F. Kennedy Center Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 76h(a)(2)(J)(ii)) is amended by striking ``Public 
     Works and Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
     Infrastructure''.

     [SEC. 3. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.

       [The John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 76h et seq.) is 
     amended by inserting after section 6 the following:

     [SEC. 7. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.

       [``(a) In General.--The Board is authorized to study, plan, 
     design, engineer, and construct a photovoltaic system for the 
     main roof of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing 
     Arts.
       [``(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days before beginning 
     construction of the photovoltaic system pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Board shall submit a report to the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works of the Senate on the feasibility and design of 
     the project.''.

     [SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       [Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 
     76r) is amended--
       [(1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       [``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Board to carry out 
     section 4(a)(1)(H)--
       [``(1) $20,200,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       [``(2) $21,800,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       [``(3) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2010.
       [``(b) Capital Projects.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and 
     (G) of section 4(a)(1)--
       [``(1) $23,150,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       [``(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2009; and
       [``(3) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.''; and
       [(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e), and 
     by adding after subsection (c) the following:
       [``(d) Photovoltaic System.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Board such sums as may be necessary to 
     carry out section 7, with such sums to remain available until 
     expended.''.

     [SEC. 5. EXISTING AUTHORITIES.

       [Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit or affect 
     the authority or responsibility of the National Capital 
     Planning Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts.]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``John F. Kennedy Center 
     Reauthorization Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 2(a)(2)(J)(ii) of the John F. Kennedy Center Act 
     (20 U.S.C. 76h(a)(2)(J)(ii)) is amended by striking ``Public 
     Works and Transportation'' and inserting ``Transportation and 
     Infrastructure''.

     SEC. 3. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.

       The John F. Kennedy Center Act is amended by inserting 
     after section 6 (20 U.S.C. 76l) the following:

     ``SEC. 7. PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM.

       ``(a) In General.--The Board may study, plan, design, 
     engineer, and construct a photovoltaic system for the main 
     roof of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
       ``(b) Report.--Not later than 60 days before beginning 
     construction of the photovoltaic system pursuant to 
     subsection (a), the Board shall submit to the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
     Works of the Senate a report on the feasibility and design of 
     the project.''.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 13 of the John F. Kennedy Center Act (20 U.S.C. 
     76r) is amended--
       (1) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Maintenance, Repair, and Security.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Board to carry out 
     section 4(a)(1)(H)--
       ``(1) $20,200,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $21,800,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(3) $22,500,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(4) $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(5) $24,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
       ``(b) Capital Projects.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Board to carry out subparagraphs (F) and 
     (G) of section 4(a)(1)--
       ``(1) $23,150,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       ``(2) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       ``(3) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(4) $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(5) $18,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (e); and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Photovoltaic System.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Board such sums as are necessary to carry 
     out section 7, to remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 5. EXISTING AUTHORITIES.

       Nothing in this Act limits or otherwise affects the 
     authority or responsibility of the National Capital Planning 
     Commission or the Commission of Fine Arts.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the 
third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements 
relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.

[[Page 14110]]

  The bill (H.R. 3986), as amended, was read the third time, and 
passed.

                          ____________________




               MARITIME POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 828, H.R. 802.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 802) to amend the Act to Prevent Pollution 
     from Ships to implement MARPOL Annex VI.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill 
which had been reported from the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation with an amendment to strike all after the enacting 
clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:

                                H.R. 802

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Maritime Pollution 
     Prevention Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

       Wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in 
     terms of an amendment to or a repeal of a section or other 
     provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a 
     section or other provision of the Act to Prevent Pollution 
     from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.).

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 2(a) (33 U.S.C. 1901(a)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the paragraphs (1) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (2) through (13), respectively;
       (2) by inserting before paragraph (2) (as so redesignated) 
     the following:
       ``(1) `Administrator' means the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency;'';
       (3) in paragraph (5) (as so redesignated) by striking ``and 
     V'' and inserting ``V, and VI'';
       (4) in paragraph (6) (as so redesignated) by striking `` 
     `discharge' and `garbage' and `harmful substance' and 
     `incident' '' and inserting `` `discharge', `emission', 
     `garbage', `harmful substance', and `incident' ''; and
       (5) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (13) (as 
     redesignated) as paragraphs (8) through (14), respectively, 
     and inserting after paragraph (6) (as redesignated) the 
     following:
       ``(7) `navigable waters' includes the territorial sea of 
     the United States (as defined in Presidential Proclamation 
     5928 of December 27, 1988) and the internal waters of the 
     United States;''.

     SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY.

       Section 3 (33 U.S.C. 1902) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) with respect to Annex VI to the Convention, and other 
     than with respect to a ship referred to in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) to a ship that is in a port, shipyard, offshore 
     terminal, or the internal waters of the United States;
       ``(B) to a ship that is bound for, or departing from, a 
     port, shipyard, offshore terminal, or the internal waters of 
     the United States, and is in--
       ``(i) the navigable waters or the exclusive economic zone 
     of the United States;
       ``(ii) an emission control area designated pursuant to 
     section 4; or
       ``(iii) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment;
       ``(C) to a ship that is entitled to fly the flag of, or 
     operating under the authority of, a party to Annex VI, and is 
     in--
       ``(i) the navigable waters or the exclusive economic zone 
     of the United States;
       ``(ii) an emission control area designated under section 4; 
     or
       ``(iii) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment; and
       ``(D) to any other ship, to the extent that, and in the 
     same manner as, such ship may be boarded by the Secretary to 
     implement or enforce any other law of the United States or 
     Annex I, II, or V of the Convention, and is in--
       ``(i) the exclusive economic zone of the United States;
       ``(ii) the navigable waters of the United States;
       ``(iii) an emission control area designated under section 
     4; or
       ``(iv) any other area that the Administrator, in 
     consultation with the Secretary and each State in which any 
     part of the area is located, has designated by order as being 
     an area from which emissions from ships are of concern with 
     respect to protection of public health, welfare, or the 
     environment.'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1) by striking ``paragraph (2),'' and 
     inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) With respect to Annex VI the Administrator, or the 
     Secretary, as relevant to their authorities pursuant to this 
     Act, may determine that some or all of the requirements under 
     this Act shall apply to one or more classes of public 
     vessels, except that such a determination by the 
     Administrator shall have no effect unless the head of the 
     Department or agency under which the vessels operate concurs 
     in the determination. This paragraph does not apply during 
     time of war or during a declared national emergency.'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (c) through (g) as 
     subsections (d) through (h), respectively, and inserting 
     after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Application to Other Persons.--This Act shall apply 
     to all persons to the extent necessary to ensure compliance 
     with Annex VI to the Convention.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), as redesignated--
       (A) by inserting ``or the Administrator, consistent with 
     section 4 of this Act,'' after ``Secretary'';
       (B) by striking ``of section (3),'' and inserting ``of this 
     section,''; and
       (C) by striking ``Protocol, including regulations 
     conforming to and giving effect to the requirements of Annex 
     V'' and inserting ``Protocol (or the applicable Annex), 
     including regulations conforming to and giving effect to the 
     requirements of Annex V and Annex VI''; and
       (5) by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(i) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to restrict in a manner inconsistent with 
     international law navigational rights and freedoms as defined 
     by United States law, treaty, convention, or customary 
     international law.''.

     SEC. 5. ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.

       Section 4 (33 U.S.C. 1903) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively, and inserting after subsection (a) 
     the following:
       ``(b) Duty of the Administrator.--In addition to other 
     duties specified in this Act, the Administrator and the 
     Secretary, respectively, shall have the following duties and 
     authorities:
       ``(1) The Administrator shall, and no other person may, 
     issue Engine International Air Pollution Prevention 
     certificates in accordance with Annex VI and the 
     International Maritime Organization's Technical Code on 
     Control of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxides from Marine Diesel 
     Engines, on behalf of the United States for a vessel of the 
     United States as that term is defined in section 116 of title 
     46, United States Code. The issuance of Engine International 
     Air Pollution Prevention certificates shall be consistent 
     with any applicable requirements of the Clean Air Act or 
     regulations prescribed under that Act.
       ``(2) The Administrator shall have authority to administer 
     regulations 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of Annex VI to 
     the Convention.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall, only as specified in section 
     8(f), have authority to enforce Annex VI of the 
     Convention.'';
       (2) in subsection (c), as redesignated, by redesignating 
     paragraph (2) as paragraph (4), and inserting after paragraph 
     (1) the following:
       ``(2) In addition to the authority the Secretary has to 
     prescribe regulations under this Act, the Administrator shall 
     also prescribe any necessary or desired regulations to carry 
     out the provisions of regulations 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 
     and 19 of Annex VI to the Convention.
       ``(3) In prescribing any regulations under this section, 
     the Secretary and the Administrator shall consult with each 
     other, and with respect to regulation 19, with the Secretary 
     of the Interior.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end of subsection (c), as 
     redesignated, the following:
       ``(5) No standard issued by any person or Federal 
     authority, with respect to emissions from tank vessels 
     subject to regulation 15 of Annex VI to the Convention, shall 
     be effective until 6 months after the required notification 
     to the International Maritime Organization by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 6. CERTIFICATES.

       Section 5 (33 U.S.C. 1904) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in section 4(b)(1), the 
     Secretary'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by striking ``Secretary under the 
     authority of the MARPOL protocol.'' and inserting ``Secretary 
     or the Administrator under the authority of this Act.''; and
       (3) in subsection (e) by striking ``environment.'' and 
     inserting ``environment or the public health and welfare.''.

     SEC. 7. RECEPTION FACILITIES.

       Section 6 (33 U.S.C. 1905) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary and the Administrator, after consulting 
     with appropriate Federal agencies, shall jointly prescribe 
     regulations setting criteria for determining the adequacy of 
     reception facilities for receiving ozone depleting 
     substances, equipment containing such substances, and exhaust 
     gas cleaning residues at a port or terminal, and stating any 
     additional measures and requirements as are appropriate to 
     ensure such adequacy. Persons in charge of ports and 
     terminals shall provide reception facilities, or ensure that 
     reception facilities are available, in accordance with those 
     regulations. The Secretary and the Administrator may jointly 
     prescribe regulations to certify, and may issue certificates 
     to the effect, that a port's or terminal's facilities for 
     receiving ozone depleting substances, equipment containing 
     such substances, and exhaust gas cleaning residues from ships 
     are adequate.'';
       (2) in subsection (b) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' 
     after ``Secretary'';

[[Page 14111]]

       (3) in subsection (e) by striking paragraph (2) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(2) The Secretary may deny the entry of a ship to a port 
     or terminal required by the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or 
     regulations prescribed under this section relating to the 
     provision of adequate reception facilities for garbage, ozone 
     depleting substances, equipment containing those substances, 
     or exhaust gas cleaning residues, if the port or terminal is 
     not in compliance with the MARPOL Protocol, this Act, or 
     those regulations.'';
       (4) in subsection (f)(1) by striking ``Secretary is'' and 
     inserting ``Secretary and the Administrator are''; and
       (5) in subsection (f)(2) by striking ``(A)''.

     SEC. 8. INSPECTIONS.

       Section 8(f) (33 U.S.C. 1907(f)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(f)(1) The Secretary may inspect a ship to which this Act 
     applies as provided under section 3(a)(5), to verify whether 
     the ship is in compliance with Annex VI to the Convention and 
     this Act.
       ``(2) If an inspection under this subsection or any other 
     information indicates that a violation has occurred, the 
     Secretary, or the Administrator in a matter referred by the 
     Secretary, may undertake enforcement action under this 
     section.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding subsection (b) and paragraph (2) of 
     this subsection, the Administrator shall have all of the 
     authorities of the Secretary, as specified in subsection (b) 
     of this section, for the purposes of enforcing regulations 17 
     and 18 of Annex VI to the Convention to the extent that 
     shoreside violations are the subject of the action and in any 
     other matter referred to the Administrator by the 
     Secretary.''.

     SEC. 9. AMENDMENTS TO THE PROTOCOL.

       Section 10(b) (33 U.S.C. 1909(b)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Annex I, II, or V'' and inserting ``Annex 
     I, II, V, or VI''; and
       (2) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act,'' after ``Secretary,''.

     SEC. 10. PENALTIES.

       Section 9 (33 U.S.C. 1908) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Protocol,,'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Protocol,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act,'' after ``Secretary,'' the first place it appears;
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, or the Administrator 
     as provided for in this Act,'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (C) in the matter after paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``or the Administrator as provided for in 
     this Act'' after ``Secretary,'' the first place it appears; 
     and
       (ii) by inserting ``, or the Administrator as provided for 
     in this Act,'' after ``Secretary'' the second and third 
     places it appears;
       (3) in subsection (c), by inserting ``, or the 
     Administrator as provided for in this Act,'' after 
     ``Secretary'' each place it appears; and
       (4) in subsection (f), by inserting ``or the Administrator 
     as provided for in this Act'' after ``Secretary,'' the first 
     place appears.

     SEC. 11. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       Section 15 (33 U.S.C. 1911) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 15. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

       ``Authorities, requirements, and remedies of this Act 
     supplement and neither amend nor repeal any other 
     authorities, requirements, or remedies conferred by any other 
     provision of law. Nothing in this Act shall limit, deny, 
     amend, modify, or repeal any other authority, requirement, or 
     remedy available to the United States or any other person, 
     except as expressly provided in this Act.''.

     SEC. 12. LEGAL ACTIONS.

       Section 11 (33 U.S.C. 1910) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (3) of subsection (a) as 
     paragraph (4), and inserting after paragraph (2) the 
     following:
       ``(3) against the Administrator where there is alleged a 
     failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under 
     this Act which is not discretionary; or'';
       (2) by striking ``concerned,'' in subsection (b)(1) and 
     inserting ``concerned or the Administrator,''; and
       (3) by inserting ``or the Administrator'' after 
     ``Secretary'' in subsection (b)(2).

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee 
substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a 
third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements 
related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill (H.R. 802), as amended, was read the third time and passed.

                          ____________________




    CONGRATULATING THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, FRESNO BULLDOGS 
                             BASEBALL TEAM

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 604, submitted 
earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 604) congratulating the California 
     State University Fresno Bulldogs baseball team for winning 
     the 2008 National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I 
     College World Series.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be 
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any 
statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 604) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 604

       Whereas on June 25, 2008, the student athletes of the 
     California State University, Fresno Bulldogs baseball team, 
     in the sixth elimination game faced by the Fresno State 
     Bulldogs, finished a true Cinderella story season, winning 
     the 2008 National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I 
     College World Series Championship (referred to in this 
     preamble as the ``2008 NCAA College World Series'') by 
     defeating the University of Georgia Bulldogs, 2 games to 1, 
     in a best-of-3 championship;
       Whereas the 2008 NCAA College World Series is the second 
     championship for the California State University;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs are the lowest-seeded 
     team in college sports history to win a championship;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs won 6 elimination games 
     to win the 2008 NCAA College World Series, which is a 
     testament to the resilience, fortitude, and ``never say die'' 
     attitude of the team;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs beat number 3-ranked 
     Arizona State University, number 6-ranked Rice University, 
     number 2-ranked University of North Carolina, and number 8-
     ranked University of Georgia to win the 2008 NCAA College 
     World Series;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs tied the record of most 
     runs, 62, in the College World Series;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs elimination game, a 19-10 
     win against Georgia just 1 day earlier, produced College 
     World Series records for most runs in a game by 1 team, most 
     combined runs, most hits by 1 team, most combined hits, and 
     longest game;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs played 78 games this 
     year, more than any other team in the United States;
       Whereas playing with a torn ligament in his left thumb, 
     right fielder Steve Detwiler had 4 hits in 4 at-bats, 
     including 2 home runs and 6 runs batted in, during the 
     championship game;
       Whereas Justin Wilson, the winning pitcher, pitching on 
     just 3 days rest, was able to pitch 129 pitches, 86 of which 
     were strikes over 8 strong innings, allowing just 5 hits, 1 
     run, and striking out 9 batters;
       Whereas Tommy Mendonca, third baseman for the 2008 NCAA 
     College World Series champion Fresno State Bulldogs, was 
     named the ``Most Outstanding Player'', tying the College 
     World Series record with 4 home runs;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have 5 players on the 
     2008 NCAA College World Series all-tournament team, including 
     third baseman Tommy Mendonca, second baseman Erik Wetzel, 
     outfielder Steve Susdorf, outfielder Steve Detwiler, and 
     pitcher Justin Wilson;
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have shown great 
     character, comradery, resilience, and sportsmanship on the 
     way to winning the national championship;
       Whereas the fellow students, families, alumni, faculty, and 
     fans of the Fresno State Bulldogs have been a great part of 
     this championship, showing great support with many 
     individuals wearing ``Underdogs to Wonderdogs'' t-shirts; and
       Whereas the Fresno State Bulldogs have instilled within the 
     City of Fresno and the State of California great pride and 
     excitement: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Senate--
       (1) congratulates the California State University Fresno 
     Bulldogs baseball team for winning the 2008 National 
     Collegiate Athletics Association Division I College World 
     Series; and
       (2) recognizes the achievements of the players, coaches, 
     students, and staff whose hard work and dedication made 
     winning the championship possible.

                          ____________________




                 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BERLIN AIRLIFT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed

[[Page 14112]]

to the consideration of S. Res. 605, submitted earlier today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 605) commemorating the 60th 
     anniversary of the Berlin Airlift and honoring the veterans 
     of Operation Vittles.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolution.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider 
be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 605) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

                              S. Res. 605

       Whereas in spring of 1948 Berlin was isolated within the 
     Soviet occupation zone and had only 35 days' worth of food 
     and 45 days' worth of coal remaining for the city;
       Whereas military planners in the United States and the 
     United Kingdom determined that 1,534 tons of flour, wheat, 
     fish, milk, and other food items would be required daily to 
     feed the 2,000,000 residents of Berlin;
       Whereas military planners determined that 3,475 tons of 
     coal and gasoline would be required daily to keep the city of 
     Berlin heated and powered;
       Whereas, on June 1, 1948, the United States Air Force 
     created the Military Air Transport Service, the predecessor 
     to Air Mobility Command, to organize and conduct airlift 
     missions;
       Whereas, on June 26, 1948, ``Operation Vittles'' began when 
     32 United States Air Force C-47 Dakotas departed West Germany 
     for Berlin hauling 80 tons of cargo, and the first British 
     aircraft launched on June 28, 1948;
       Whereas Major General William H. Tunner, a veteran of the 
     aerial supply line over the Himalayas in World War II, took 
     command of ``Operation Vittles'' on July 28, 1948;
       Whereas Major General Tunner pioneered many new and 
     innovative tactics and procedures for the airlift, including 
     the creation of air corridors for ingress and egress, 
     staggering altitudes of the aircraft, and implementing 
     instrument flight rules which allowed aircraft to land as 
     frequently as every 3 minutes;
       Whereas one pilot, 1st Lieutenant Gail S. Halvorsen, who 
     became known as the ``Candy Bomber'', initiated ``Operation 
     Little Vittles'' to bring hope to the children of Berlin, by 
     dropping handkerchief parachutes containing chocolate and 
     chewing gum as a symbol of American goodwill, ultimately 
     resulting in more than 3 tons of candy being dropped in more 
     than 250,000 miniature parachutes;
       Whereas, on Easter Sunday, April 17, 1949, airlifters 
     reached the pinnacle of ``Operation Vittles'' by delivering 
     13,000 tons of cargo, including the equivalent of 600 
     railroad cars full of coal, setting the single day record for 
     the Berlin Airlift;
       Whereas 39 British and 31 American airmen made the ultimate 
     sacrifice during the Berlin Airlift, and 8 British and 17 
     American aircraft were lost;
       Whereas airlifters delivered more than 2,300,000 tons of 
     food and supplies on 278,228 total flights into Berlin;
       Whereas the Soviet Union was forced to lift the blockade in 
     light of the success of the 15-month airlift operation;
       Whereas the Berlin Airlift marked the first use of airpower 
     to provide hope and humanitarian assistance, and to win a 
     strategic victory against enemy aggression and intimidation;
       Whereas the enormous effort and cooperation of the Berlin 
     Airlift laid the foundation for a deep and lasting friendship 
     between the people of the United States and the people of 
     Germany; and
       Whereas, today, air mobility continues to play a vital role 
     in United States foreign policy by helping to advance freedom 
     and alleviate suffering around the world: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That Congress--
       (1) recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Berlin Airlift 
     as the largest and longest running humanitarian airlift 
     operation in history;
       (2) honors the service and sacrifice of the men and women 
     who participated in and supported the Berlin Airlift;
       (3) commends the close friendship forged between the 
     American, British, and German people through the Berlin 
     Airlift; and
       (4) applauds the men and women of the United States Air 
     Force's Air Mobility Command, who, in the best traditions of 
     the Berlin Airlift, still work diligently to provide hope, 
     save lives, and deliver freedom around the world in support 
     of the United States's foreign policy objectives.

                          ____________________




       CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 379, which was 
received from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent 
resolution by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 379) providing for a 
     conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a 
     conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the 
concurrent resolution.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent 
resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 379) was agreed to, as 
follows:

                            H. Con. Res. 379

       Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
     concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative 
     day of Thursday, June 26, 2008, or Friday, June 27, 2008, on 
     a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by 
     its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 
     2 p.m. on Tuesday, July 8, 2008, or until the time of any 
     reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
     resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate 
     recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, June 26, 2008, 
     through Friday, July 4, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to 
     this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
     designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
     Monday, July 7, 2008, or such other time on that day as may 
     be specified in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the 
     time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
     concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
       Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly 
     after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and 
     the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members 
     of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at 
     such place and time as they may designate if, in their 
     opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

                          ____________________




     CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECKS PILOT EXTENSION ACT OF 2008

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 3218, introduced earlier 
today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3218) to extend the pilot program for volunteer 
     groups to obtain criminal history background checks.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be 
read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements 
relating to the bill be placed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 3218) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed, as follows:

                                S. 3218

       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 ``Criminal History Background 
     Checks Pilot Extension Act of 2008''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PILOT PROGRAM.

       Section 108(a)(3)(A) of the PROTECT Act (42 U.S.C. 5119a 
     note) is amended by striking ``a 60-month'' and inserting ``a 
     66-month''.

                          ____________________




     MEASURES READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 3202, S. 3213, AND H.R. 3195

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand there are three bills at the 
desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bills by title en 
bloc.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 3202) to address record high gas prices at the 
     pump, and for other purposes.

[[Page 14113]]

       A bill (S. 3213) to designate certain land as components of 
     the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize 
     certain programs and activities in the Department of the 
     Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes.
       A bill (H.R. 3195) to restore the intent and protections of 
     the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a second reading 
en bloc, and I object to my own request en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection having been heard, the bills will 
receive their second reading on the next legislative day.

                          ____________________




          UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION--H.R. 6304

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask that the consent be modified with 
respect to Calendar No. 827, H.R. 6304, in the following way: Provided 
that the Specter and Bingaman amendments be subject to an affirmative 
60-vote threshold; and that if they do not achieve that threshold, then 
they be withdrawn; if they achieve that threshold, then they be agreed 
to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                 THANKING THE MAJORITY LEADER AND STAFF

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me say before I read this last section, 
I commend the majority leader. He has had a very trying week. The floor 
staff and others have done a remarkable job in getting us to this 
point. I wouldn't want this evening to pass without noting they do not 
get the recognition they often deserve, but this institution functions 
because there are a lot of people whose names are never known who make 
this happen. It is important, as we begin this Independence Day break, 
that we recognize the remarkable people who function and work every 
single day in the Senate, the majority leader's staff, and others who 
have had to weave through this morass of procedural objections that 
have allowed us to reach the point we have.
  We are going to come back in 10 days. I mentioned the housing bill, 
but also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a source of 
significant controversy. While I have serious objections to it, and 
appreciate the opportunity I will have to strike section 2 of that bill 
dealing with retroactive immunity, I want the record to reflect the 
deep appreciation I have for the majority leader--I know others do as 
well--for the way in which he and his office have allowed us to achieve 
the results we have up to this point.

                          ____________________




                    ORDERS FOR FRIDAY, JUNE 27, 2008

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate 
completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:45 a.m. 
tomorrow, Friday, June 27; that following the prayer and pledge, the 
Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed 
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later 
in the day, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, 
with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each; I further 
ask that the cloture vote on the motion to concur with respect to H.R. 
3221 occur at 5:30 p.m. Monday, July 7, and that the postcloture time 
count as if the vote had occurred at 5 p.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________




                                PROGRAM

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, there will be no rollcall votes tomorrow. 
The next vote will occur at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, July 7.

                          ____________________




                  ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 9:45 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. DODD. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, 
I ask unanimous consent the Senate stand adjourned under the previous 
order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 10:58 p.m., adjourned until 
Friday, June 27, 2008, at 9:45 a.m.

                          ____________________




                              NOMINATIONS

  Executive nominations received by the Senate:


                       FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION

       MARK EVERETT KEENUM, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION BOARD, FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 
     FOR A TERM EXPIRING MAY 21, 2014, VICE NANCY C. PELLETT, TERM 
     EXPIRED.


                DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

       JOSEPH F. BADER, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE A 
     MEMBER OF THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD FOR A 
     TERM EXPIRING OCTOBER 18, 2012. (REAPPOINTMENT)


                       DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

       RICHARD A. ANDERSON, OF GEORGIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR A TERM EXPIRING 
     SEPTEMBER 14, 2013, VICE PAUL JONES, TERM EXPIRING.


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE

       MATTHEW A. REYNOLDS, OF MASSACHUSETTS, TO BE AN ASSISTANT 
     SECRETARY OF STATE (LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS), VICE JEFFREY THOMAS 
     BERGNER, RESIGNED.


             FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

       MARY LUCILLE JORDAN, OF MARYLAND, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION FOR A TERM 
     OF SIX YEARS EXPIRING AUGUST 30, 2014. (REAPPOINTMENT)


                    BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

       PETER ROBERT KANN, OF NEW JERSEY, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 
     13, 2010, VICE JAMES K. GLASSMAN, RESIGNED.
       MICHAEL MEEHAN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 
     13, 2010, VICE D. JEFFREY HIRSCHBERG, TERM EXPIRED.


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR REGULAR APPOINTMENT IN THE 
     GRADE INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 
     10, U.S.C., SECTION 531:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

TAMERA A. HERZOG
       THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE 
     GRADE INDICATED IN THE REGULAR AIR FORCE UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 531(A):

                              To be major

KERI L. AZUAR
JEREMY S. BRAGDON
ROBERTO D. CALDERON
STEPHEN J. FENTON
TODD W. GRAY
TODD R. GREGNER
GREGG G. MARTYAK
TIMOTHY M. ROWLAND
KHURRAM M. SHAHZAD
JONATHAN STREETER
DANIEL L. TARBOX
PAMELA P. WARDDEMO


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE GRADE 
     INDICATED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS UNDER TITLE 10, 
     U.S.C., SECTION 624:

                        To be lieutenant colonel

BRYAN K. WOOD

                          ____________________




                             CONFIRMATIONS

  Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate Thursday, June 26, 
2008:


                             THE JUDICIARY

       WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, OF INDIANA, TO BE UNITED STATES 
     DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA.
       G. MURRAY SNOW, OF ARIZONA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT 
     JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. 

                          ____________________




                               WITHDRAWAL

  Executive Message transmitted by the President to the Senate on June 
26, 2008 withdrawing from further Senate consideration the following 
nomination:
       D. JEFFREY HIRSCHBERG, OF WISCONSIN, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE 
     BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS FOR A TERM EXPIRING AUGUST 
     13, 2007, (REAPPOINTMENT), WHICH WAS SENT TO THE SENATE ON 
     JANUARY 9, 2007.
     
     
     


[[Page 14114]]

                          EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
                          ____________________


                            WHO DO WE FIGHT?

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. POE. Madam 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.'' The term terrorist is so general it could cover a 
multitude of individuals. My neighbor sometimes calls my Dalmatians 
``terrorists''. Does that mean our country is at war with my dogs? I 
really hope not. The term ``extremists'' could be applied to Global 
Warming Advocates, Health enthusiasts, NASCAR fanatics or anyone with 
strong opinions. Are we fighting all these people?
   Those terms: extremists and terrorists are so vague they don't 
indicate the war against us is waged in the name of a 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 they fight.
   And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO RICK KUHLMAN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of Mr. 
Rick Kuhlman, the principal of Fort Dodge Senior High in Fort Dodge, 
Iowa. I also want to express my appreciation for Rick's dedication and 
commitment to the youth of Iowa.
   For the past 34 years Mr. Kuhlman has contributed his time and his 
talents to improving youths' lives through education and mentoring. Mr. 
Kuhlman began as a physical education and health teacher with the Fort 
Dodge School District in 1974. He later became assistant principal of 
the high school from 1987 until 1999, when he was named the principal. 
During his career Mr. Kuhlman has been responsible for many 
accomplishments and successes, but the one that is most important to 
him was Fort Dodge Senior High being chosen as a model school in the 
State of Iowa, one of the first 20 schools in the State to receive such 
an honor.
   Mr. Kuhlman's dedication to the Fort Dodge School District has 
touched the lives of the many students, families and faculty members he 
has worked with over the years. His leadership will certainly be 
missed, but his accomplishments will have a lasting impact on the 
community for years to come. I consider it an honor to represent Mr. 
Rick Kuhlman in the United States Congress, and I wish him a happy and 
healthy retirement.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                           IN JOHNSON COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Johnson County:
  Forrest Sutton, Director, Emergency Management Agency
  Terry McLaughlin, Sheriff
  Town Council, City of Edinburgh
  Patrick Pankey, Chief of Police, City of Edinburgh
  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Johnson 
County will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




         THE 58TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OUTBREAK OF THE KOREAN WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the 
sacrifice of the men and women who bravely served in the Korean War in 
defense of freedom. Today, June 25th, we commemorate the 58th 
anniversary of the start of the Korean War; the so-called `Forgotten 
War', which claimed more than 36,000 American lives. Although the 
Korean War may receive less attention than other wars, it does not 
diminish the significance of the war and the freedom it preserved.
  I proudly served my wartime tour in Korea as a member of the 503d 
Field Artillery Battalion of the 2d Infantry Division. The 503d Field 
Artillery Battalion landed in Korea in August 1950, arriving in time to 
participate in hard-fought battles that defeated the North Korean 
offensives against the United Nations forces on the Pusan Perimeter. 
During the battalion's 15 months in Korea, members of the 503d received 
19 Silver Stars, four Distinguished Flying Crosses, and 79 Bronze 
Stars. The battalion suffered 512 casualties, including 150 men who 
died in Communist prison camps and 79 who remain listed as missing in 
action. The 503d, a Black unit, shattered the biased and unfair 
negative stereotypes attached to Black men and women fighting in Korea 
and earlier wars.
  Although today is a solemn reminder of the lives that were lost 
during the Korean War; it also serves as a reminder of the binding 
friendship we have forged with the Korean people. As a phoenix rises 
from the ashes, so has the U.S.-Korean alliance.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record the heart/felt 
comments from the wreath laying ceremony at the Korean War Memorial by 
the Korean Ambassador, The Honorable Tae-Sik Lee:

 Remarks by His Excellency Tae-Sik Lee, Ambassador of the Republic of 
Korea to the United States, on the Occasion of the 58th Anniversary of 
     the Outbreak of the Korean War, Korean War Veterans Memorial, 
                     Washington, DC, June 25, 2008

       Distinguished veterans, colleagues from the diplomatic 
     corps, and honored guests:
       June 25, 1950, began as a day like any other. But the 
     consequences of that day, and the War that ensued, have left 
     a lasting mark. Millions were killed, our country destroyed, 
     our nation divided. Yet freedom-loving governments stepped 
     forward, and alliances were formed.
       In the brutal heat of summer, and the bitter grip of 
     winter, over every kind of tough terrain--it was through 
     countless individual acts of courage, sacrifice, and faith--
     that

[[Page 14115]]

     South Korea's freedom was preserved. We are here today to 
     honor that courage, remember that sacrifice and, I hope, 
     reward the faith of every fighting man and woman--from 21 
     nations around the globe--who served to keep us free.
       Far too numerous to mention--but far too important to 
     forget--we remember and honor these heroes, not just today, 
     but every day.
       Some may say that the Korean War has been known as the 
     Forgotten War. But it has been my personal mission to try to 
     rectify that--as I have met with thousands of veterans in 
     dozens of cities across the country. And I know that, here 
     today, I am among many allies in this effort to remember.
       Clearly one of the most compelling monuments to the 
     veterans of this War is this moving memorial on the national 
     mall. I recently saw an interesting statistic--a list of the 
     top most-visited National Park Service memorials. As you 
     might expect, Arlington National Cemetery is first, followed 
     by the World War II and Vietnam memorials. But the Korean War 
     Veterans Memorial has risen to number 4--averaging more than 
     3.2 million visitors per year.
       I think people are remembering. And the priceless lesson 
     that ``Freedom Is Not Free'' could not be more appropriate 
     today.
       For Korea, freedom has meant the chance to energize our 
     economy; institutionalize democracy; and join the responsible 
     community of nations. Today, we are proud to do our part in 
     the war on terror, in peace-keeping operations, and in 
     international economic and social organizations as well. With 
     the United States, we are working to transform our alliance 
     for the challenges of the future--building on the legacy of 
     such forward-thinking leaders as General Riscassi, General 
     Tilleli and General Sennewald, who are here with us today.
       To all our friends from other nations who answered our call 
     for help--I would like to offer this verse from Ecclesiastes 
     that says: ``A faithful friend is a strong defense, and he 
     that hath found him, hath found a treasure.'' A friend in 
     need is a friend indeed. Certainly, the generous spirit of 
     your friendship we will continue to honor and treasure.
       To the veterans here today, you are our heroes and we 
     remember you. And we hope you believe that Korea was a 
     country worth saving--a people worth protecting--and a war 
     worth fighting. Thank you very much.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, on June 9, 2008, I missed 
rollcall votes numbered 438, a resolution honoring the life, musical 
accomplishments, and contributions of Louis Jordan on the 100th 
anniversary of his birth; 439, a resolution supporting the goals and 
ideals of Black Music Month, and 440, a resolution congratulating James 
Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 100 years of service 
and leadership to the United States.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 
numbered 438, 439, and 440.

                          ____________________




         CONGRESSIONAL ART COMPETITION WINNER: KAITLIN SURDOVAL

                                  _____
                                 

                           HON. SCOTT GARRETT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 
outstanding artistic talents of high school students from around our 
nation who have participated in the 2008 Congressional Art Competition: 
An Artistic Discovery.
  For the past 27 years Congress has had the distinct pleasure of 
hosting this nationwide competition. I am very proud of the students 
who have participated in this competition, and I would like to 
specifically recognize the finalist from each of the four counties that 
make up New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District: Kaitlin Surdoval of 
Warren County, Megan Dreisbach from Sussex County, Kaitlin Cibenko from 
Passaic County, and Megan Sherlock from Bergen County.
  Of these four finalists, Kaitlin Surdoval placed first for the entire 
district. Her outstanding artistic talent is truly remarkable and I am 
proud that her art will be displayed for the upcoming year here in our 
nation's capitol, representing New Jersey's Fifth Congressional 
District.
  I am also pleased to recognize the hard work of the Art Societies 
that have been so instrumental in the organization and judging of the 
Competition in my district: the Sussex County Art Society, the Sussex-
Warren Art Society, the Ringwood Manor Art Association, and the Bergen 
Museum of Art and Science.
  In addition to the tremendous support of the art societies, citizens 
and businesses around the fifth district have been wonderfully 
supportive of the Art Competition and Kaitlin Surdoval. I would like to 
recognize James McCracken of the House of the Good Shepherd, Michael 
Alfone from the Borough of Ramsey, and Sal Risalvato of the New Jersey 
Gasoline-C-store-Automotive Association for their generous donations to 
assist Ms. Surdoval with her travel to Washington, DC for the 
celebration of the culmination of this year's Competition.
  I am very pleased to be able to support this Competition which brings 
together so many citizens of the Fifth District to celebrate our 
talented youth.

                          ____________________




                     HONORING CHESTER GOSPEL CHURCH

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. TIMOTHY WALBERG

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chester Gospel 
Church in Charlotte, Michigan on the celebration of its sixtieth 
anniversary. It is with great admiration and pride that I congratulate 
Chester Gospel Church on behalf of all of those in south-central 
Michigan who have benefited from its steadfast commitment to faith, 
service and prayer.
  Chester Gospel Church began to serve the Charlotte community in 1958 
under the leadership of Pastor Merritt Johnson, and the church occupied 
a one room schoolhouse at that time. Over the years, Chester Gospel has 
undergone numerous renovations to its original building in order to 
accommodate its flourishing membership. Chester Gospel now serves over 
one hundred members with its sister church, Bright Hope Bible Church, 
in Potterville, Michigan.
  A spirit of humility and service has always been a mark of Chester 
Gospel Church as its congregation constantly seeks ways to reach out to 
the Michigan community. Roughly five years ago, Chester Gospel sent out 
six families to found the Bright Hope Bible Church in Potterville. In 
addition, each month Chester Gospel volunteers at the City Rescue 
Mission in Lansing, serving women and children at the Family Center. 
Chester Gospel has dedicated the entire month of August to Missions, 
and during the month, speakers come from all corners of the world to 
share the challenge of spreading the love of the Lord Jesus. 
Additionally, the church hosts Vacation Bible School each summer to 
encourage children's faith and promote the fellowship and love that is 
found throughout the halls of Chester Gospel Church.
  In celebration of its sixtieth anniversary, Chester Gospel Church 
will be hosting a homecoming celebration. Four previous pastors of the 
church will be in attendance, including Pastors Merritt Johnson (1958-
63), Elwood Norton (1966-70), Larry Pike (1971-82), and Barry Smith 
(1982-93). Currently, Pastor Marc S. Livingston faithfully leads 
Chester Gospel Church. The anniversary celebration includes a time for 
prayer, fellowship and sharing memories of the church's long and 
devoted history to service.
  Madam Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring 
Chester Gospel Church on the celebration of its sixtieth anniversary. 
May others know of my high regard for the inspiring faith of this 
vibrant church, as well as my best wishes for Chester Gospel Church and 
its congregation in the future.

                          ____________________




                    IN MEMORY OF HAZEL HARVEY PEACE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KAY GRANGER

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. GRANGER. Madam Speaker, rise today to honor Hazel Harvey Peace, a 
longtime friend of District 12 and a Fort Worth icon, who passed from 
this life on June 8, 2008, at the age of 100.
  Hazel Harvey Peace, while small in physical stature, was a giant of a 
Texan who had a huge influence not only on the individuals who were 
fortunate enough to come within her sphere of influence during her long 
and fruitful life, but on her community, the state and the country. A 
native of Fort Worth, Hazel Harvey Peace was born on August 4, 1907 at 
a time when segregation was still alive and when opportunities for 
African Americans were still limited. Hazel Harvey Peace always 
exhibited

[[Page 14116]]

that she was a special person. By the age of 13, she graduated from 
Fort Worth Colored High School, which later was renamed I.M. Terrell 
High School. By the age of 16, Mrs. Peace earned a bachelor's degree 
from Howard University, located in Washington, DC. She returned to Fort 
Worth to join the staff of her alma mater, I.M. Terrell High School, 
where she was a teacher and administrator for 46 years before retiring, 
for the first time. After her I.M. Terrell High School career, Mrs. 
Peace served nine years as the student affairs director and the 
financial aid coordinator of Bishop College in Dallas before retiring a 
second time. During her teaching career, Mrs. Peace earned a masters 
degree from Columbia University and did subsequent graduate work at 
other universities.
  While Hazel Harvey Peace may have retired from her professional 
career twice, she never retired from teaching, mentoring and kindly 
encouraging her former students, her neighbors, and her community. The 
cornerstone of her message and teaching was simple but powerful: attain 
the best education possible and always conduct yourself properly in 
your personal and professional lives. Generations of students fondly 
recall Mrs. Peace dedicating herself to arming them with knowledge that 
would enable each to be successful at whatever they chose in life, 
while also stressing what one student describes as ``proper conduct, 
proper diction, proper vocabulary, proper dress and proper carriage.'' 
Likewise, generations of community leaders, mayors, council members, 
city managers and other public stewards were the recipients of her wise 
counsel and of her vision to make the City of Fort Worth, the State of 
Texas and the United States of America a better place for generations 
to come. She rose to become the great dame of Fort Worth not because of 
wealth, not because of powerful position and not because of her station 
in life. Rather, she became one of the most influential women in Fort 
Worth's history because of her determination and dedication to inspire.
  Throughout the years, Mrs. Peace worked tirelessly not only for her 
students and the community's youth, but for the entire community. Her 
involvement included serving as co-chair for the City's Committee for 
the 150th Anniversary of Fort Worth, chairwoman of the Near Southeast 
Neighborhood Advisory Council and the United Community Centers, as well 
as service on other organizations such as the Tarrant County Housing 
Partnership, YWCA, Fort Worth Chapter of the NAACP and Women's Policy 
Forum Management Committee. Her numerous awards included Tarrant County 
Junior College Northeast Campus President's Cup Award, The Black 
Awareness Better Life Award, the Fort Worth School District's 
Distinguished Alumni Award and the Fort Worth Outstanding Women Award. 
In 2002 she was honored by being selected to be an Olympic Torchbearer 
as the torch made its way through Fort Worth.
  Because of her dedication to education and her belief that excellent 
libraries go hand in hand with education, the City of Fort Worth 
Central Library named its children's section the Hazel Harvey Peace 
Children's Library in 2002. To honor her life work, former students, 
friends and corporate citizens raised more than $350,000 in 2004 to 
create a Hazel Harvey Peace professorship at the University of North 
Texas in Denton, the first endowed professorship in Texas to be named 
for an African American woman at a four-year, publicly supported 
university.
  Our city, our state and our county are much better as a result of the 
life work of a wonderful, loving and dedicated woman-Hazel Harvey 
Peace.
  She will live forever in the thousands upon thousands of people she 
touched, from her students and children throughout the community, to 
her neighbors and public stewards. She will be missed but not 
forgotten.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO MAX GUSTAFSON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
Max Gustafson for his longtime service to the community of Perry, Iowa. 
He recently earned the 2008 Civil Servant of the Year award from the 
local Rotary Club as well as special recognition by the Firefighters 
Association for his 53 years of service with the Perry Fire Department.
   Soon after serving over four years in the Army with the NI Tank 
Company in the 34th Division, 133rd Infantry, Max began volunteering 
with Perry Fire Department. During his 53 years of service, Max served 
as fire chief for 10 years, and at the age of 93, Max continues to be 
active with the Perry Fire Department by contributing his mechanical 
skills. On his 90th birthday, he chose to celebrate by climbing to the 
top of the ladder on the ladder truck. Max has dedicated an immense 
amount of his time to the people of Perry and he is living proof that 
you are never too old to serve the community you love.
  Max's loyalty to the Perry Fire Department and community has earned 
him a great deal of admiration, and his service deserves to be 
commended. I consider it an honor to represent Max Gustafson in the 
United States Congress, and I know my colleagues join me in wishing him 
the best as he continues to serve the town of Perry and set a positive 
example for all to follow.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                           AT CAMP ATTERBURY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as government officials and military 
leaders at Camp Atterbury Joint Forces Maneuver Training Center, an 
important Army National Guard training site in my district which was 
devastated by the recent severe weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor Governor Mitch Daniels and his 
administration, as well as these outstanding individuals in the Indiana 
National Guard for their yeoman's work on behalf of Camp Atterbury:
  Major General R. Martin Umbarger, Adjutant General
  Brigadier General Clif Tooley, Assistant Adjutant General
  Colonel Barry Richmond, Post Commander
  Lieutenant Colonel Ronald A. Morris, Deputy Post Commander
  This area suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating a 
catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, and 
displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went above 
and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving lives and 
serving the personnel working at their post.
  Madam Speaker, as Hoosiers continue to recover from Mother Nature's 
fury, I feel confident that the military and civilian personnel of Camp 
Atterbury will be well served by these leaders.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING LOYD AND PHYLLIS MUSGRAVE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Loyd and Phyllis 
Musgrave, who are celebrating their 70th wedding anniversary.
  Loyd and Phyllis Musgrave grew up in southeastern Colorado. Both of 
their families were homesteaders, living in a small community about 25 
miles south of Fort Morgan. They met as children, when attending Sunday 
school together in a one-room schoolhouse. Later, both attended Fort 
Morgan High School.
  Phyllis laughingly recalls that Loyd proposed to her several times, 
but each time she told him ``I'll have to talk to my mother about 
that.'' When she finally did get around to speaking to her mom, he 
didn't bring up the subject again. She became impatient and decided to 
broach the subject herself ``Loyd has always teased me that I proposed 
to him,'' Phyllis says.
  On May 27, 1938, only one day after Phyllis graduated from high 
school, they were married. Afterwards, they moved to a farm near Hoyt, 
Colorado, and by the late 1940s, they completed the house where they 
continue to live today.
  Loyd and Phyllis have 2 sons, Jerard and Larry, who both live in 
Colorado, 6 grandchildren, and 11 great grandchildren.
  Phyllis recalls all the fun that she and Loyd have had together over 
the years. ``We did a lot of traveling,'' she said, including trips to 
Canada, Alaska, and Hawaii. The only states they haven't explored are 
Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
  The couple's life motto is Matthew 6:33: ``But seek ye first the 
kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be

[[Page 14117]]

added unto you.'' They have always been active in their local church, 
and today they remain involved in Hoyt Community Sunday School.
  I want to congratulate Loyd and Phyllis Musgrave on their 70 years of 
marriage, and to thank them for the blessing they have been to their 
family and community.

                          ____________________




                      TRIBUTE TO MRS. NANCY SUTTON

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN P. MURTHA

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MURTHA. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to 
recognize the accomplishments of Mrs. Nancy Sutton, as she celebrates 
her 93rd birthday on June 29. Mrs. Sutton is a selfless volunteer who 
constantly puts others ahead of herself. She is a valuable asset to 
Fayette County, Pennsylvania.
  Madam Speaker, Mrs. Sutton worked hard during her long and varied 
career, which included working in retail in Uniontown. Following her 
retirement, she began to volunteer at her local Social Security Office 
during the 1980s and 1990s for a period of over 10 years. She still 
actively volunteers for the American Cancer Society, where she has 
volunteered for many years. In addition, Mrs. Sutton has been an active 
member of the Marshall Manor Resident Council since she became a 
resident in February 1973. She has served as president of the council 
and has coordinated and cooked monthly dinners for the manor's 
residents. Mrs. Sutton helps her fellow residents by driving them to 
medical appointments, picking up prescriptions, and helping with 
grocery shopping.
  Mrs. Sutton was appointed as the tenant representative to the Fayette 
County Housing Authority's Board of Directors on February 8, 2001. She 
has served as the secretary of the board since her appointment.
  Madam Speaker, Mrs. Nancy Sutton is truly a great and caring 
American. I wish to end my remarks by congratulating her on her 93rd 
birthday and for all of her community accomplishments.

                          ____________________




                     TRIBUTE TO MAURICE A. CALDERON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEN CALVERT

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. CALVERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and pay tribute to 
an individual whose dedication and contributions to the Inland Empire 
in California are exceptional. The Inland Empire has been fortunate to 
have dynamic and dedicated community leaders who willingly and 
unselfishly give their time and talent and make their communities a 
better place to live and work. Maurice Calderon is one of these 
individuals. On June 27, 2008, there will be a ceremony for Maurice as 
he retires from the position of vice president of minority development 
at Arrowhead Credit Union in San Bernardino, California.
  Born and raised in Banning, California, Maurice learned the rich 
traditions and values of his Hispanic heritage and has used those 
lessons throughout his professional life. This treasured background 
guided Mr. Calderon in his unwavering commitment of professional and 
public service to the people of the Inland Empire. An elected school 
board member for 9 years in Banning, followed by an elective seat as a 
Mount San Jacinto Community College district trustee for another 9 
years, Mr. Calderon was in the wonderful position of public service.
  Maurice is an active member of numerous business, education, and 
community groups. He is a member of both the Inland Empire Hispanic, 
and African American, Chambers of Commerce. He is a member of the board 
of trustees of the University of California, Riverside Foundation, and 
the San Bernardino Valley College Foundation. Maurice is also a 
director for the Inland Empire Economic Partnership, president of 
Sinfonia Mexicana and chairman of the Inland Empire Hispanic Leadership 
Council.
  Maurice has been honored to receive many awards from community and 
service groups over the years including ``Father of the Year'' from the 
city of Banning. He has also received ``Citizen of the Year'' from the 
city of Beaumont and Phi Delta Kappa, Riverside. Maurice was named the 
inaugural ``Hispanic of the Year'' and ``Influential Latino of the 
Year'' in 1998 by the Inland Empire Hispanic Chamber, and Hispanic 
Lifestyle Magazine, respectively. Mr. Calderon was also named 
``Influential Latino of the Year'' and was a distinguished medal 
recipient for the Northside Impact Committee of Redlands in 1996. 
Maurice was also the inaugural recipient of the California Credit Union 
League Diversity Award, and was named to the Southern California Native 
American and Latino Hall of Fame. In April of 2004, Maurice was honored 
as the recipient of the 2004 Reconocimiento Ohtli Award, an award given 
by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which recognizes those who 
have proven their excellence, are role models for the society, and have 
contributed most successfully to the well-being of the communities of 
Mexican origin in the United States. Maurice was awarded the Black Rose 
Award for 2004 from the San Bernardino Black Culture Foundation for his 
dedication and service to the community. On September 1, 2005, the city 
of Banning acknowledged Maurice Calderon and the entire Calderon family 
for over 100 years of community service by naming a street Calderon Way 
in their honor. In November of 2005, Maurice received the California 
Credit Union League PAC 2005 Advocate of the Year Award during the 
League's annual meeting in Anaheim, California. In 2008 Maurice 
received the Sinfonia Mexicana Award for Service for serving as 
president from 2001 to 2008. In May of 2008 Maurice received the 
Esperanza Award from the California Chicano News Media Association.
  Mr. Calderon has received certificates from the University of Georgia 
and Indiana University in savings and loan graduate programs. He also 
received an associate of arts degree from Mount San Jacinto College 
with honors. Married to Dorothy Calderon for 47 wonderful years, 
Maurice has two children and four grandchildren. Maurice's tireless 
passion for community service has contributed immensely to the 
betterment of the Inland Empire. I am proud to call Maurice a fellow 
community member, American and friend. I know that many community 
members are grateful for his service and salute him as he retires.

                          ____________________




                 IN HONOR OF DEAN CARMEN TWILLIE AMBAR

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today in recognition of Dean Carmen Twillie Ambar. I join with 
President Richard L. McCormick and all of Rutgers University in 
honoring Dean Ambar for her outstanding tenure at Douglass and for her 
recent appointment as President of the Cedar Crest College.
  During her tenure as dean of Douglass, Dean Ambar demonstrated her 
commitment to the educational advancement of women by leading the fight 
to save Douglass College. Dedicated to women's success and leadership, 
Douglass is a unique institution that has enabled countless young women 
to receive an excellent education and fulfill their potential as 
leaders in public service, academia, and business.
  In addition, Dean Ambar's exemplary service and dedication to 
Douglass was evident in her pursuit of women's global leadership. Dean 
Ambar spearheaded programs that showcased and promoted women's 
leadership skills and encouraged young women to pursue careers in math, 
science, and technology.
  Madam Speaker, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me 
in honoring and recognizing Dean Ambar for her invaluable contributions 
to Douglass and the greater Rutgers University community.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                            IN HENRY COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Henry County:
  Ronald D. Huffman, Director, Emergency Management Agency
  Bruce Baker, Sheriff
  Jim Small, Mayor, City of New Castle
  James E. Nicholson, Chief of Police, City of New Castle

[[Page 14118]]

  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Henry County 
will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




ON KOREAN WAR MEMORIAL DAY, AMERICA IS URGED TO REMEMBER THE FORGOTTEN 
                                  WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Korean War 
Veterans Recognition Act in the United States House of Representatives 
to honor the great sacrifices and contributions made by the Korean War 
veterans to preserve our freedom.
  Fifty-eight years have passed since its outbreak on June 25, 1950, 
yet the Korean War has never formally ended. In lieu of a peace treaty, 
a cease-fire armistice was signed on July 27, 1953, leaving in its wake 
4 million military and civilian casualties. H.R. 6363 will commemorate 
the Korean War Armistice Day by displaying the flag at half-staff in 
remembrance and recognition of the Korean War veterans and a war that 
has yet to end.
  The truest heroes of the Korean War are the thousands who served 
without question and never returned home to their loved ones. This bill 
is to honor them, especially, as well as to salute their comrades who 
placed themselves in harm's way in defense of their country. Even as we 
place this spotlight on the fighting men and women in the Forgotten 
War, I also wish to remember the tens of thousands of families, both 
Americans and Koreans, who suffered through this bloody conflict.
  Indeed, the Korean War was one of the bloodiest wars fought in one of 
the coldest winters. In just 3 years, the United States suffered 54,246 
casualties and 8,176-plus POW/MIAs. A total of 26 nations were involved 
in the War (22 UN Allied, 1 Support; 3 Communist); yet few people 
understand that the lingering effects of the Korean War and the 
resulting stalemate continue to impact our world today.
  Sandwiched between World War II and the Vietnam War, the Korean War 
is often overlooked in the public consciousness and often referenced as 
the `Forgotten War'. The courageous service and sacrifice of our Korean 
War veterans must never be forgotten and deserves to be honored. Let us 
remember the 6.8 million American men and women who served during the 
Korean War period, June 27, 1950 to January 31, 1955. Only 2 million 
are surviving today and nearly 1,000 die each day.

                          ____________________




                          TRIBUTE TO BOB SANDY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Bob Sandy for 
reaching an important milestone of 60 years as a public servant to the 
people of Warren County, Iowa.
   For the past 60 years Bob has honorably served Warren County. His 
work with the county began when Bob took a job as a surveyor and bridge 
inspector for the county engineer's department at the age of 19. In 
1953 he earned a degree in civil engineering from Iowa State 
University. Five years later, in 1958, he was hired as the county 
engineer and remained in that position until 1997. In the following 
year, Bob was elected to the Warren County Board of Supervisors and is 
currently serving his third term.
   When Bob began working for the county, there were no paved roads in 
the entire county. Over 150 miles of roads were paved while Bob was the 
engineer. His friends say his success has come from getting along with, 
and earning the respect of those around him, including those who have 
shared their differences. In addition to his work with the county, Bob 
was a widely recognized and regarded sports announcer for local high 
school and Simpson College athletics with KBAB radio for 30 years. He 
also was the president of the Little League Association for many years.
   I know that my colleagues in the United States Congress join me in 
commending Bob Sandy for his six decades of leadership and service to 
Warren County. I consider it an honor to represent him in Congress, and 
I wish him the best in his future service.

                          ____________________




                   HONORING THE EYE CENTER OF LENAWEE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. TIMOTHY WALBERG

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the one 
hundredth anniversary of the Eye Center of Lenawee. It is with great 
admiration and pride that I congratulate the optometrists, both present 
and past, who have served the eye care needs of the Lenawee community 
over the past one hundred years. From its founding optometrist, Dr. J 
Berris, to today's practice that boasts three doctors and nine staff 
members, the Eye Center of Lenawee has long been a familiar and trusted 
business in Lenawee County, Michigan.
  The history of the Eye Center of Lenawee is full of quality care and 
dedication to the Lenawee County community. The eye care center was 
established in 1908 by a Canadian immigrant, Dr. J Berris, in Adrian, 
Michigan next to the Croswell Opera House. Over the years, the practice 
passed through generations of highly qualified optometrists. In 1939, 
Dr. Robert Birmingham bought the practice and hired an associate, Dr. 
Robert Davis. In the late 1940s, Dr. Davis moved the eye care center to 
Maple Avenue. Upon Dr. Birmingham's retirement in 1979, Dr. Edward 
Schenkel, former Air Force optometrist, entered the practice and 
eventually became a partner with Dr. Davis. The center was moved to 
larger quarters when the Adrian Optometrists merged with Dr. Rick Allan 
Snow's practice in 1986. Shortly after the merge the name was changed 
to Eye Center of Lenawee, P.C. Today, the Eye Center of Lenawee has 
three resident optometrists, partners Dr. Rick Allan Snow and Dr. Jodi 
Kordyzon, and associate Dr. Kelli Lambert.
  The Eye Center of Lenawee offers extensive and state-of-the-art eye 
care services for both adults and children. Services range from routine 
eye examinations and contact lenses, to treatment of eye injuries and 
laser vision correction. In addition to the numerous treatment options, 
the Eye Center of Lenawee is renowned for its knowledgeable and 
friendly staff that readily assists patients with scheduling 
appointments, arranging insurance coverage and the proper fitting of 
their eyewear. Over the past one hundred years, the Eye Center of 
Lenawee has never swerved from its firm commitment to first-rate 
patient service.
  Madam Speaker, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 
Eye Center of Lenawee for one hundred years of respected business and 
outstanding service to Lenawee County. May others know of my high 
regard for the exceptional quality of this business, as well as my best 
wishes for the Eye Center of Lenawee in the future.

                          ____________________




              URGING REFORM OF OUR INEPT IMMIGRATION LAWS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to 
review, and subsequently ameliorate, the current state of immigration 
law. After the failure of this Congress to enact sensible, 
compassionate, and effective immigration reform last year, selective--
and at times nonsensica--enforcement has been the rule. It has meant, 
in the face of inaction and silence on the part of the Federal 
Government, fragmented and contradictory responses from local 
municipalities, ranging from establishing sanctuary cities to 
conducting incessant, violent, and sometimes illogical raids and 
deportations. Waiting is no longer a suitable solution, particularly 
not for those hardworking undocumented immigrants, free of any criminal 
record, who live every day in fear, and certainly not for those legal 
immigrants who committed long-ago misdemeanors and become victims to 
the fervor for increased deportations.
  A New York CARIB News June 3 article, ``Deportation Hanging Over West 
Indian's Head,'' reports the case of the deputy chief of staff to a 
prominent New York City Council member--a legal resident--who now faces 
deportation because of a minor drug offense he committed 20 years ago 
as an 18-year-old.

[[Page 14119]]

The law was meant to apply to those immigrants who have committed 
serious offenses, but in today's climate, it is increasingly being used 
against persons convicted of rather small crimes, like shoplifting. 
These are legal residents, having now become model citizens, who have 
built lives in this country and have none elsewhere, committing small-
time crimes years ago as teenagers and finding themselves in 
deportation proceedings. This is just one example of an American 
immigration system that proves illogical, demands fixing, and provides 
blanket judgment as opposed to reasoned case-by-case due process.
  As we forestall meaningful action on immigration, good Americans 
suffer. I urge that we get back to work on this most imperative issue, 
and do what's right for this country and its residents.

                          ____________________




                           HONORING ART CHAN

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Arthur 
Chan, a dedicated staffer and an exceptional public servant, on his 
retirement from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Over the last 15 years, Art has undertaken a number of critical roles 
on the Committee, and has been integral to the passage of numerous 
landmark pieces of legislation designed to rebuild America. Throughout 
his service, protecting the public interest was paramount to Art as he 
worked to develop transportation policy.
  In 1993, Art joined what was then the Committee on Public Works and 
Transportation, serving as Chief Economist for the Full Committee under 
Chairman Norman Mineta. In the 104th Congress, Art made the transition 
to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment in order to 
focus on the passage of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. 
Art quickly learned the intricacies of the Army Corps of Engineers 
programs and was instrumental in the enactment of the legislation. Art 
continued to play a key role on the subcommittee, and was vital to the 
passage of a number of water infrastructure bills. In 2003, Art took on 
the role of Highway Policy Director for the Subcommittee on Highways 
and Transit, where he quickly became an expert on the Federal-aid 
highway program and was a lead negotiator during the creation of the 
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the 2005 surface transportation 
legislation.
  Prior to his public service, Art earned his Ph.D. in economics, 
master's degrees in both economics and political science, and his B.A., 
with distinction, all from the University of Nebraska. A true 
intellectual, Art stayed in academia, teaching students first at Boston 
University and then at New Mexico State University.
  When Art began his public service, first with GAO and then with the 
Committee, his teaching experience was quickly apparent to all who 
worked with him. Art always found the time to share his knowledge with 
anyone who asked, from Members of Congress to new Committee staffers. 
Throughout his career, he developed a command of a range of issues 
spanning the Committee's jurisdiction.
  Art's expertise is complemented by his dedication to defending the 
public interest. In his decade and a half of service, his first 
priority was always crafting sound public policy. The depth and breadth 
of his knowledge allowed Art to understand the benefits or shortfalls 
of the most complex legislative proposal, and to assess its potential 
impact on the users of our transportation system. The American public 
has been well-served by Art's insightful commitment to his work.
  Art is a true believer in the intents and ideals of our 
transportation programs, and has always sought to protect and improve 
upon them. As anyone who has sat across from him at the negotiating 
table knows, Art is relentless in his efforts to achieve the best 
possible policy solutions to address our transportation challenges. His 
devotion to this pursuit and his attention to detail led to many long 
days and late nights in the legislative counsel's office, and is 
reflected in the high quality of the work he produced. His commitment 
to maintaining the integrity of our transportation infrastructure 
programs has been a hallmark of Art's service.
  Madam Speaker, it is with wholehearted gratitude that I rise today to 
honor Art Chan's service to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, to the House of Representatives, and to the United 
States. Art's institutional knowledge, insightful counsel, and tenacity 
have earned him the well-deserved respect of Members and colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, and he will be greatly missed. I wish Art 
continued happiness and success in his future endeavors.

                          ____________________




                       TRIBUTE TO MINDY DAUGHERTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate 
Mindy Daugherty of Dallas Center, Iowa for earning the Hero of the 
Heartland honor presented by the Central Iowa chapter of the American 
Red Cross.
   Mindy is a legal nurse consultant with Bradshaw Law Firm in Des 
Moines, but during her free time she volunteers with the Mid-Iowa 
Sexual Assault Response Team, where she is able to utilize her forensic 
nursing background. Her duties involved with being a member of the team 
include extensive hours of being on call to administer assistance to 
sexual abuse victims at any given time. When a patient is sexually 
assaulted, Mindy does a history, physical and collects DNA evidence for 
the patient. At the same time she has the difficult task of comforting 
and giving reassurance to distressed victims.
   Mindy's willingness to utilize her strengths by volunteering and 
helping people involved in traumatic events is certainly an example to 
all of us. Her dedication to her community and commitment to serving 
those in a time of great need should be commended. I consider it an 
honor to represent Mindy Daugherty in the United States Congress, and I 
know my colleagues join me in congratulating her on this honor and 
wishing her the best in the future.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                         IN BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Bartholomew 
County:
  Dennis Moats, Director, Emergency Management Agency
  Mark Gorbett, Sheriff
  Jim Bickel, CEO, Columbus Regional Hospital
  Fred Armstrong, Mayor, City of Columbus
  Jim Worton, Chief of Police, City of Columbus
  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Bartholomew 
County will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




                   IN HONOR OF DR. LEATRICE RABINSKY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. RON KLEIN

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a 
distinguished member of the Jewish Community and a real role model in 
my life.
  Dr. Leatrice B. Rabinsky, an Adjunct Professor of Jewish Literature 
at the Siegal College of Judaic Studies and a board member of the Ohio 
Council on Education, has recently retired after 25 years of dedicated 
service, teaching Ohio youth about the Holocaust at Cleveland Heights 
High School.
  During her 25 years of service she pioneered Holocaust education and 
led eight

[[Page 14120]]

``Journeys of Conscience'' for students and survivors to the sights of 
the Holocaust in Europe and Israel.
  I was privileged be a student of Dr. Rabinsky. She instilled in me 
principles and knowledge that have had a lasting impact on my life. She 
shaped me as a person and as a public servant. One of my proudest 
moments as a state legislator in the Florida legislature was when we 
passed the Holocaust Education Act, legislation that I authored that 
mandated teaching about the lessons of the Holocaust in all of 
Florida's public schools. Because of this legislation, which grew out 
of Dr. Rabinsky's inspiration, more of America's children will know the 
consequences of bigotry and intolerance. Now, as a member of the United 
States Congress, and as the Chairman of the Congressional Taskforce 
Against Anti-Semitism, I continue to make Holocaust issues a priority.
  I am sure that each and every one of our colleagues can identify a 
teacher from their past who left a significant mark on their lives. I 
know that I would not be where I am today without the motivation and 
encouragement of Dr. Rabinsky.
  Finally, I would like to thank the Jewish National Fund for honoring 
Dr. Leatrice Rabinky as a ``Woman of Valor.'' She is a pillar in the 
Jewish community and, I am proud to honor her in the U.S. House of 
Representatives.

                          ____________________




 IN RESPONSE TO THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VS. 
                                 HELLER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ALLEN BOYD

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BOYD of Florida. Madam Speaker, I want to voice my support for 
the landmark Supreme Court decision to overturn the District of 
Columbia handgun ban. This was a long and hard-fought battle, one in 
which I signaled my support for the rights of gun owners by joining 
many of my colleagues in signing an amicus brief supporting gun rights. 
In the end, the Court's decision affirmed that all citizens have the 
right to keep and bear arms.
  I am pleased with this decision because now honest, law-abiding 
citizens of the District of Columbia, as well as those in Florida and 
across the Nation, can be assured of the right to self-protection in 
their homes. As a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights, I am 
glad to see this outcome from the Courts.

                          ____________________




     IN HONOR OF THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PROTECTIVES CO. 1 OF 
                             ROCHESTER, NY

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 
Protectives Co. 1 of Rochester, New York as they approach their 150th 
anniversary. Ever since their formation on August 23, 1858 these 
volunteer citizens have spent thousands of hours a year protecting the 
property of their neighbors from fire, smoke and water damage thereby 
reducing the costs to the businesses and citizens of Rochester in their 
most distressing times.
  Formed as part of a general reorganization of a fractured and 
dysfunctional Rochester Fire Department, the Protectives Property 
Protection and Salvage Company instilled a sense of security that the 
community it served had been missing. Before its inception, the 
citizens of Rochester relied on ten separate, and often bickering, fire 
departments to protect their homes and businesses from fires. The 
Protectives helped bring about a renewed commitment to protecting the 
community.
  The original Protectives Property Protection and Salvage Company has 
not only saved countless dollars in property damage over the years, but 
has also saved the lives of many individuals and firefighters from out 
of control fires. The Protectives No. 1 operates as a volunteer unit 
under the Rochester Fire Department assisting them with salvage, 
ventilation, lighting and holding fire hoses as ordered by the fire 
Chief, thereby relieving the firefighting manpower at the scene of an 
active fire.
  The Protectives have been there supporting the Greater Rochester 
community throughout some of its most trying times, including the Great 
Sibley Fire of 1904 which totaled 4 million dollars worth of damage at 
the time. And today they continue to work many of the most fundamental 
and underappreciated jobs including pumping out flooded basements, and 
setting up and operating fans and lighting during salvaging efforts. 
Each and every day they subscribe to their motto, ``we strive to 
save.''
  The Greater Rochester Area owes them a debt of gratitude for their 
dedicated work and thousands of hours of volunteer services. So it is 
with great pride and appreciation that I congratulate the Protectives 
Co. 1 for 150 years of great service, and may it continue to serve as a 
model of volunteer service and community activism for the citizens of 
Rochester, NY and across America.

                          ____________________




      IN RECOGNITION OF THE CENTENNIAL OF THE CITY OF POINT ARENA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE THOMPSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
commemorate the 100th anniversary of the incorporation of the City of 
Point Arena on the Mendocino Coast in Northern California. Located 
along magnificently rugged headlands overlooking the Pacific Ocean to 
the west and bordered by redwood forests to the east, California's 
sixth smallest city (current population 501) is precariously 
``surrounded'' by the San Andreas Fault and watched over by the stately 
Point Arena Lighthouse.
  Self-described as a ``town of booms and declines'' Point Arena has 
survived three major fires and fueled a variety of enterprising 
possibilities. Historical anecdotes trace its heritage from the native 
Pomos to traders, lumberjacks and sea captains, from oil drillers and 
bootleggers to hippies and nuclear energy protestors.
  Prior to 1906, Point Arena was the ``busiest town between San 
Francisco and Eureka.'' More than 200,000 board feet of lumber came 
from the town mills. Point Arena was the main shipping port for 
agricultural products on the south Mendocino coast. After the 
earthquake in 1906 every brick building collapsed and every chimney and 
timbered dwelling came down.
  In the meantime, William Hanon, the editor of the town newspaper, the 
Point Arena Record, was elected to a term in the state legislature. 
While there he saw money and services handed out to incorporated cities 
and wanted Point Arena to get a share. Due to his foresight and 
persistence tiny Point Arena became incorporated July 6, 1908.
  By 1910 more than two dozen saloons graced the dirt road next to the 
headlands overlooking the Pacific. Until 1912 horse-drawn stagecoaches 
brought visitors and provisions. The main source of supplies, however, 
was the SS Sea Foam until it sank off the coast in 1931. A fire, 
started at the Grand Hotel on July 2, 1927, wiped out the town once 
again. By the 1930s Point Arena was rebuilt and many art deco and arte 
moderne remnants still stand downtown.
  Since then roads have been paved and the scenic Coast Highway One 
turns into Point Arena's Main Street. The pier has been revitalized 
with restaurants and inns and harbors a small fishing fleet. Main 
Street sports historic facades, coffee shops, bars and a theater as 
well as a new public kiosk describing Point Arena's status as a 
California Coastal National Monument gateway.
  Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in recognizing the city 
of Point Arena for a hundred years of determination and success. I 
would also like to salute the energetic and conscientious city council, 
which chose ``Still Crazy After all These Years'' as the motto for its 
centennial. And for their new colorful city seal featuring the 
indigenous Point Arena Mountain Beaver.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO ALAN WOOTERS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of Alan 
Wooters, a native of Gowrie, Iowa, who has been a distinguished long 
time public servant in Webster County, Iowa.
   For the past 44 years, Alan has been working in the Webster County 
Auditor's office. After studying at the American Institute of Business 
in Des Moines, Alan began his non-elected position at the age of 19. 
Despite being a long-time Republican and a member of the Webster County 
Republican Central Committee, the three auditors he has worked for 
during his 44 year career have all been Democrats. In today's political 
climate, he certainly serves as a wonderful example of how

[[Page 14121]]

to work across the aisle to accomplish results for the greater good.
   Although Alan is stepping down from his First Deputy Auditor 
position, he hopes to continue serving the community by devoting more 
time to volunteering in programs such as Meals on Wheels and continuing 
as the president of the Gowrie Historical Society.
   I know that my colleagues in the United States Congress join me in 
congratulating Alan Wooters for his many years of service to Webster 
County, Iowa. I consider it an honor to represent Alan in Congress, and 
I wish him the best in his retirement and as he continues to serve his 
community.

                          ____________________




 RECOGNIZING THE OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE CARIBBEAN DEVELOPMENT 
                                  BANK

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the work and 
accomplishments of the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB). The CDB has 
most recently been ranked among the world's most effective 
international financial institutions by Standard & Poor's, with the 
highest possible foreign currency high credit rating.
  The CDB's mission is to promote economic growth and development among 
Caribbean member states by promoting economic cooperation and regional 
integration. Their work has helped to facilitate more efficient 
economic partnerships throughout the Caribbean by providing a number of 
financial services to the region.
  I would like to thank the CDB for its contribution to the development 
of the Caribbean and I would like to wish the bank continued growth and 
success.

                          ____________________




                        RECOGNIZING JOHN MILAZZO

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. CHARLIE MELANCON

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MELANCON. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today to recognize the retirement of John Milazzo as the chairman of 
the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU). Elected to 
the NAFCU Board in 1999, John has been a leader in the credit union 
community both nationally and within my great state of Louisiana.
  For the past nine years, Mr. Milazzo has been balancing his time as a 
NAFCU Board member, including the past two years as the chairman of the 
NAFCU Board, against his responsibilities at Campus Federal Credit 
Union, where he has been the president/CEO since 1985. Headquartered in 
Baton Rouge, Campus Federal Credit Union is a $320 million multibranch 
credit union serving 39,000 members that is known for its use of 
technology and innovation to improve operational efficiency.
  Throughout his tenure as chairman of the NAFCU Board of Directors, 
Mr. Milazzo worked tirelessly to enhance the federal credit union 
charter by working with Congress for regulatory relief legislation for 
credit unions. As chairman, he has also helped maintain NAFCU's status 
as a leading credit union trade association. John has been an active 
credit union advocate on local, state and national levels, having 
served on the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Financial Institutions 
Advisory Committee and as chairman of the Southern Financial Exchange 
and now serving as a member of Fannie Mae's National Advisory Council.
  Many would think that the work he does for credit unions would be 
enough to fill a day, but that is not the case. Mr. Milazzo is a 
dedicated family man who finds time to volunteer with the United Way 
Campaign and the Community Fund for the Arts. He is a current member of 
Kiwanis International and previously served as club president and 
former district lieutenant governor of the organization. He is also a 
Eucharistic minister and member of the finance committee of Saint 
Anne's Catholic Church. A graduate of Louisiana State, he may also be 
one of the most loyal LSU Tigers fans in the nation, and he continues 
to serve the LSU community through Campus Federal Credit Union.
  It is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate Mr. John 
Milazzo on his fine work throughout his illustrious tenure as chair of 
NAFCU. I have worked with him on issues that are important to the 
credit union community in the past, and I am committed to continuing 
this relationship. I have no doubt that, with Milazzo's more than 20 
years of experience in the credit union community, his departure will 
leave a great void. Congratulations on your retirement from the NAFCU 
Board, Mr. Milazzo.

                          ____________________




CELEBRATING THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST AMERICAN WOMAN IN SPACE--
DR. SALLY K. RIDE--AND HONORING HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SPACE PROGRAM 
                        AND TO SCIENCE EDUCATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. NICK LAMPSON

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution 
``Celebrating the 25th Anniversary of the First American Woman in 
Space--Dr. Sally K. Ride--and Honoring Her Contributions to the Space 
Program and to Science Education.'' On June 18, 2008 we mark the 
historic date, twenty-five years ago, when the STS-7 Space Shuttle 
mission flew the first American woman into space. Dr. Sally Ride, an 
accomplished athlete who once considered pursuing a professional career 
in tennis, holds this special distinction and has continued to be a 
passionate and inspiring advocate for space and for science throughout 
her career.
  Dr. Ride, who earned undergraduate degrees in both English and 
physics at Stanford University and who continued her academic training 
leading to a doctorate in physics, was selected as an astronaut 
candidate in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
(NASA's) eighth astronaut class, the first to include women. On the 
historic STS-7 mission, Dr. Ride served as a mission specialist; her 
work with the STS-7 crew included launching two communications 
satellites, conducting demonstration activities with the Shuttle 
robotic arm, and facilitating experiments in materials science.
  On October 5, 1984, Dr. Ride made her second spaceflight aboard the 
STS 41-G mission, which launched the Earth Radiation Budget Satellite 
and demonstrated the capability to refuel satellites in orbit, among 
other accomplishments. Sadly, training preparations for Dr. Ride's 
third spaceflight assignment, the STS 61-M mission, ended following the 
Challenger accident. She then was asked to serve on the Presidential 
Commission that investigated that accident, and later she served with 
distinction on the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.
  Madam Speaker, following her NASA career, Dr. Ride has focused her 
experience, talent, and dedication as a leader and advocate for 
educating the next generation of scientists and engineers--especially 
young women. As a professor and scientist, she has served on the 
faculty of the University of California San Diego and as director of 
the University of California's California Space Institute. She has 
authored scientific publications on free electron lasers. She has also 
authored several children's books about science and space.
  Dr. Ride's current focus has been through her efforts to provide 
hands-on learning about science, math, and technology for young 
students and teachers. She has been the principal investigator of Earth 
Knowledge Acquired by Middle School Students (EarthKAM), a NASA 
education program that allows students to control a digital camera that 
is attached to the International Space Station, to determine what to 
photograph, and to use the imagery for their science studies. The 
project also instills experience in teamwork, communication, and 
problem-solving. In addition, Madam Speaker, as the first American 
woman in space, Dr. Ride has used her fame constructively, mentoring 
and encouraging girls and young women to pursue careers in space, 
science, and engineering. To that end, she has developed science 
festivals, science camps and other opportunities for girls and young 
women to engage in science, math, and technology activities.
  Madam Speaker, as we celebrate the 25th anniversary of the first 
American woman in space we also celebrate the dawn of the space age a 
quarter of a century earlier. The historic milestone of Dr. Ride's 
flight encourages us to look forward to the additional ``firsts'' for 
our nation's space program in the coming decades. Dr. Ride's profound 
dedication to promoting opportunities for science and engineering 
learning is helping to build that exciting future.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this 
resolution celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first American woman 
in space and to extend our appreciation and gratitude for Dr. Ride's 
excellence in

[[Page 14122]]

service to the nation as an astronaut, educator, and advocate for the 
next generation of women scientists and engineers.

                          ____________________




                          EXTENSION OF REMARKS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. MARK STEVEN KIRK

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, in the past 10 years, the price of crude oil 
has risen by more than 400 percent, accounting for much of the nearly 
200 percent increase in gasoline prices during that time. America 
should have spent the past decade investing in renewable energy and 
infrastructure, but we instead remain the number one importer of oil. 
Foreign oil accounts for 23.5 percent of United States energy 
consumption, the largest component of our energy profile. To meet its 
needs, the U.S. spends over $100 billion on foreign oil, helping to 
sustain corrupt political systems and state terrorism. This will 
continue to persist as long as we are dependent on oil, as nearly two-
thirds of proved world oil reserves reside in countries considered 
``not free'' by leading human rights organizations.
  America's dependence on oil is a threat to our national security, 
economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.
  Forty-five years ago, President Kennedy pledged to send man to the 
moon. We need a similar ``moon shot'' program to end our dependence on 
foreign oil. The bill I stand here to introduce, the Apollo Energy 
Independence Act, taps the greatest asset of the United States, Yankee 
ingenuity and free markets, to boost alternative vehicles and increase 
renewable energies to get off foreign oil. By cutting funding for low-
priority programs, we can fund a massive effort to end our dependence 
on the Middle East.
  The Apollo Energy Independence Act first and foremost permanently 
extends investment tax credits for renewable energy such as wind; 
closed-loop biomass; open-loop biomass; geothermal; small irrigation; 
hydropower; landfill gas; marine power; trash combustion facilities; 
solar energy property; fuel cell property; microturbines; and nuclear 
energy. The bill also permanently extends a number of energy efficiency 
tax incentives.
  Each Congress, lawmakers scramble at the last minute to renew these 
effective incentives, then shortsightedly extend them for just a short 
period. This has undoubtedly stifled the growth of our renewable energy 
industry. Some studies estimate that renewable energy could supply up 
to 37 percent of our electricity needs by 2030, resulting in $700 
billion in economic activity and 5 million new U.S. jobs by 2025. Yet 
in years which the production tax credit is set to expire, investments 
significantly decline. In the wind energy sector alone, investments 
drop an average 80 percent every other year when the credits expire. In 
order to realize our full renewable potential, it is absolutely 
essential that we provide long-term incentives to engender enough 
market confidence to generate sustained investment.
  If the proposals established in the Apollo Energy Independence Act 
are implemented, renewable energy use could increase by more than 320 
percent and comprise the largest segment of U.S. energy use. Foreign 
oil use would plummet by more than 730 percent, based on estimates from 
the National Hydrogen Association (NHA), the American Council on 
Renewable Energy (ACORE) and the Energy Information Administration 
(EIA).
  The Apollo Energy Independence Act also establishes a number of 
permanent tax incentives to purchase and produce advanced vehicle 
technologies and alternative fuels, such as cellulosic and hydrogen 
fuel. The legislation also permanently extends the hybrid tax credit, 
increases it by 50 percent and eliminates the obstructive limitation. 
Since current law limits the hybrid tax credit to just the first 60,000 
vehicles, the full credit was available for the most popular vehicles 
for just 9 months after its establishment. The quarter in which the 
credit began to phase out, Toyota saw its hybrid vehicle sales decline 
by nearly 30 percent. My legislation repeals this limit to facilitate 
the constant proliferation of hybrid vehicles.
  In order to spur the development and deployment of even more advanced 
vehicles, we establish an advanced vehicle technology credit for plug-
in electric drive, fuel cell and flexible fuel vehicles. But our 
failure to fully deploy alternative fuels and vehicles is not simply a 
lack of development, it also stems from a lack of proper 
infrastructure. My legislation increases and makes permanent the 
alternative fueling property credit. It also provides a steady funding 
stream, via Corporate Average Fuel Economy penalties, to the Department 
of Energy's Clean Cities Initiative, which establishes local public-
private partnerships to find alternative fueling infrastructure 
solutions to reduce our oil consumption.
  Americans currently import 12 million barrels of oil daily. The 
policies of the Apollo Act could decrease foreign oil consumption by up 
to 10 million barrels per day by 2030, according to a study 
commissioned by the NHA. At today's crude oil prices, this would save 
America over $500 billion annually.
  The bill establishes a number of other measures to help consumers 
reduce their energy and gasoline costs, including providing market 
incentives to boost public transportation use, reducing costly boutique 
fuels, providing grants for green school improvements and eliminating 
ethanol tariffs.
  To fund this effort, the legislation cuts Federal funding for 
congressional earmarks and agriculture subsidies while consolidating a 
number of lower priority Government functions. By spurring new energy 
technology, resulting spin-offs promise to generate additional economic 
growth and jobs. According to NASA, since 1976 more than 1,500 
technologies emerged from the space program, creating thousands of new 
jobs and industries.
  The United States spent $19.5 billion to realize one of her most 
prestigious accomplishments--landing on the moon. We should invest in a 
similar national effort that will be equally important for the 
sustainability of our society and could have even far more reaching and 
long-term benefits than the Apollo program. I hope my colleagues will 
join Representatives Judy Biggert, Christopher Shays and me in taking 
the first step toward achieving this goal and support the Apollo Energy 
Independence Act.

                          ____________________




               TRIBUTE TO OFFICER ELSON ``SKIP'' EHRHARDT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recent 
heroic action of Eldora, Iowa Police Officer Elson ``Skip'' Ehrhardt.
   On March 5, 2008 at 12:48 a.m., while Officer Ehrhardt was on 
patrol, he received an emergency page indicating that a woman was in 
active labor a half block away in the Merritt Mobile Home Court. When 
Officer Ehrhardt arrived on the scene, he had to urge a hesitant woman 
to leave the bathroom where she had begun to go into labor. When she 
eventually came out, Ehrhardt realized that her water had broken and 
that there was no time to get her medical assistance. He noticed that 
the baby's head was on its way out, and about a minute later, at 12:57 
a.m., Officer Ehrhardt had the baby in his arms. He then quickly 
unwrapped the umbilical cord and rubbed the baby vigorously until the 
baby began to cry, just as an ambulance arrived with paramedics.
   Officer Ehrhardt's alertness and decisive decision making in such a 
critical situation goes above and beyond what we are asked of as 
citizens of this country. His courage illustrates the compassion of 
Iowans; willing to do whatever it takes for a neighbor in need. I know 
my colleagues in the United States Congress join me in congratulating 
Officer Ehrhardt on a job well done. It is an honor to represent such a 
compassionate Iowan in Congress, and I wish Officer Ehrhardt the best 
in his future endeavors.

                          ____________________




               HONORING THE WALKER TAVERN FARMER'S PICNIC

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. TIMOTHY WALBERG

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, it is my special privilege to recognize 
the one hundredth anniversary of the first Walker Tavern Farmer's 
Picnic held in Brooklyn, Michigan in 1908. It is with great enthusiasm 
that I honor the Farmer's Picnic on behalf of the many Michigan 
families who have experienced the joy of this unique event.
  Started by a group of business owners in 1907, the first Walker 
Tavern Farmer's Picnic was celebrated in the Irish Hills and quickly 
became a highly anticipated annual event. This day-long picnic, 
originally called the Businessmen's Picnic, brought families, friends, 
and visitors together to share food, partake in games, and exchange 
stories. The picnic offered over 25 summers of community entertainment 
from 1908 to 1935 until halted by the Depression.
  This historic event is known for the bringing together workers of 
many trades, such as

[[Page 14123]]

businessmen and farmers. A 1922 account reveals that the picnic drew a 
crowd of about 1,500 and featured a baseball game between the farmers 
and the businessmen. Friendly games among locals is part of what made 
this picnic the highlight of the summer for over a quarter century.
  This year the community spirit that inspired the picnic will be 
rekindled. In honor of its one hundredth anniversary, families and 
friends will gather once again at Walker Tavern to celebrate the 
traditions of the past. Folks will enjoy free family fun by sharing a 
potluck lunch and engaging in old time games including tug-of-war and a 
watermelon seed spitting contest. In addition, a vintage baseball game 
will be played according to Civil War era rules where the ball is only 
allowed to bounce once before it is counted as out and participants 
wear no mitts, just as those who participated before them did.
  Madam Speaker, today I honor the one hundredth anniversary of Walker 
Tavern Farmer's Picnic for its ability to draw this community together 
to celebrate a rich heritage all Michiganders can be proud of. May 
others know of my high regard for this celebrated event as well as my 
highest recognition for its storied past.

                          ____________________




         RECOGNIZING RICHARD PAUL ELLIS ON THIS 100TH BIRTHDAY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JEFF MILLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States 
Congress, I rise today in honor of Richard Paul Ellis on his 100th 
birthday.
  Mr. Ellis has watched his home town of Milton, Florida grow from a 
dirt-road countryside to a sizable city in the 100 years that he has 
lived there. He grew up on the east side of the area and attended the 
Greater Bethlehem African Methodist Episcopal Church and Magnolia 
School.
  Over the years, his life took root and blossomed into varying forms. 
He married in 1930 and proceeded to have eleven children. Mr. Ellis has 
been active in the Greater Bethlehem African Methodist Episcopal Church 
from early on. He strengthened his participation, serving as Class 
Leader, Stewart Board member, and Stewart Pro-Tem. Mr. Ellis also 
taught Sunday School and helped remodel the sanctuary.
  In 1951, Mr. Ellis joined the Shriner's organization and began 
participating in the Pride of Milton Lodge #12 location. In 1965, he 
was elected Worshipful Master and served in the position for thirty-
five years. Mr. Ellis was a charter member of the R.P. Ellis Royal Arch 
Masons and served as the High Priest for five years. After a fire badly 
damaged the Masonic Lodge, which was used as a school building at the 
time, he helped secure funds for the reconstruction of a new school.
  For a century Mr. Ellis has graced the residents of Milton with his 
charity and good deeds. The First District of Florida is greatly 
indebted to his service and is honored to have him as one of their own. 
Madam Speaker, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would like to 
wish Richard Paul Ellis a happy 100th birthday, and I wish him many 
more years of health and happiness.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                            IN SHELBY COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Shelby County:
  Mike Schantz, Director, Emergency Management Agency
  Michael Bowlby, Sheriff
  Scott Furgeson, Mayor, City of Shelbyville
  Bill Elliott, Chief of Police, City of Shelbyville
  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Shelby County 
will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




         INTRODUCTION OF CRUISE VESSEL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Cruise Vessel 
Security and Safety Act. This bicameral, comprehensive cruise safety 
reform legislation has been informed by 2 years of research and 
numerous Congressional hearings.
  Madam Speaker, over 12 million Americans will travel on cruise lines 
in 2008. Within 5 years, that number is expected to reach 20 million. 
Unfortunately, few of these passengers fully appreciate how vulnerable 
they are to crime while at sea. Cruise ships, which operate under 
foreign flags of convenience, are not required under U.S. law to report 
crimes that occur outside of U.S. territorial waters. Citizens who are 
victimized often do not know their legal rights or who to contact for 
help in the immediate aftermath of the crime.
  In recent years, the media has reported on a number of high profile 
cases of passengers falling overboard, passengers gone missing and 
passengers being raped and sexually assaulted. Sadly, many of these 
cases remain unresolved.
  My involvement in this issue began after a young woman from my 
district, Laurie Dishman, came to me for assistance after she had been 
a victim of a violent crime on a cruise ship. Laurie shared her 
shocking story with me in a letter 2 years ago. At its heart, this bill 
addresses the concerns brought to my office 2 years ago by my 
constituent, Laurie Dishman.
  As a passenger on board a Royal Caribbean cruise ship, Laurie was 
raped by a crew member. One of the most disturbing aspects of Laurie's 
case is that the cruise ship on which she was raped had inadequate 
security staff. As a result, the cruise line promoted someone with no 
training to perform security personnel duties. If a real security guard 
had been on duty that evening, Laurie may have been spared her awful 
ordeal. The tragedy that ensued is something that Laurie will never 
forget.
  Laurie was brave enough to report the incident to the crew 
authorities, even though they treated her poorly and with little 
sensitivity. She also reported the crime to the FBI. Unfortunately, the 
U.S. Attorney's office declined the case for prosecution just 4 days 
later.
  I have since learned that there have been no convictions for rape 
cases on cruise lines in four decades. This statistic takes on a new 
meaning through the lens of Laurie's experience.
  Laurie told her story at a Transportation and Infrastructure, Coast 
Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee hearing on crimes on 
cruise ships. At the hearing she spoke of her experience and also ways 
to improve prevention methods, including: peep holes and security 
latches on stateroom doors; instituting sensitivity training for crew 
members; and ensuring more CCTV cameras in hallways.
  After the hearing, I introduced the Protect Americans from Crimes on 
Cruise Ships Resolution on September 17, 2007, with Representatives 
Christopher Shays and Carolyn Maloney. The resolution has over 30 
cosponsors.
  The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee held a 
follow-up hearing on September 19, 2007. We heard from other victims, 
some who were raped or assaulted while on a cruise; others who lost 
family members at sea. Unfortunately, we did not hear that the cruise 
lines had changed many of their standard operating procedures to 
reflect the previous hearing. In fact, just a few weeks before the 
hearing, a young woman had been raped on a cruise ship and was not 
given access to proper care.
  These incidents beg the question: what is the process when a crime is 
committed on a cruise line and what recourse do victims have? The more 
Members of Congress have inquired, the more we have learned that there 
is no shortage of cases of rape, sexual assaults of minors, alcohol-
related fighting and abuse, and persons overboard.
  Most recently, Senator Kerry and Senator Lautenberg held a hearing on 
cruise safety.

[[Page 14124]]

Less than a month before the hearing, a constituent of Senator 
Lautenberg's went missing while on a cruise, and was believed to have 
gone overboard. The family was not immediately notified of the 
incident. This incident occurred 4 years after Ken Carver's daughter, 
Merrian, went missing on a Royal Caribbean cruise to Alaska. Since 
then, Ken has been instrumental in organizing victims to promote safety 
on cruise ships, including starting the International Cruise Victims 
organization and developing a 10-point program to improve safety on 
cruise ships.
  Today, as a result of Mr. Carver, Ms. Dishman, and all of the many 
families of victims who have suffered so greatly, I am introducing a 
comprehensive reform bill with my esteemed colleagues Chris Shays, 
Carolyn Maloney, Lloyd Doggett and John Lewis to address the public 
safety concerns on cruise ships.
  Our legislation seeks to improve ship safety, provide transparency in 
reporting, improve crime scene response, improve training procedures 
and enforce safety and environmental standards.
  Improve Ship Safety. Our legislation would improve ship safety by 
mandating guard rails to reach 54 inches in height and entry doors of 
each passenger stateroom and crew cabin to have peep holes, security 
latches, and time sensitive key technology. Ship owners would be 
required to implement fire safety codes as well as technology to detect 
when a passenger falls overboard. Procedures would also be established 
to determine which crew members have access to staterooms and when.
  Provide Transparency in Reporting. The legislation would establish a 
reporting structure based on the current voluntary agreement in place 
between the cruise industry, the FBI, and the Coast Guard. 
Additionally, each ship would be required to maintain a log book, which 
would record all deaths, missing individuals, alleged crimes, and 
passenger/crewmember complaints regarding theft, sexual harassment, and 
assault. The log books would be available to FBI and Coast Guard 
electronically, as well as to any law enforcement officer upon request. 
Statistical information would be posted on a public Web site maintained 
by the Coast Guard.
  Improve Crime Scene Response. Each ship would be required to maintain 
antiretroviral medications and medications used to prevent sexually 
transmitted diseases after assault, as well as equipment and materials 
for performing a medical examination to determine if a victim has been 
raped. A United States licensed medical practitioner would be on every 
ship to perform the necessary examinations and to administer treatment. 
Private medical information would be protected, and would require 
written authorization for release. Additionally, all passengers would 
be given free, immediate, and confidential access to a National Sexual 
Assault Hotline and the FBI.
  Improve Training Procedures. The legislation would establish a 
program designed by the Coast Guard and the FBI, and certified by the 
Administrator of the Maritime Administration, to train appropriate 
crewmembers in crime scene investigation. Each ship would be required 
to maintain one crewmember trained and certified under such a program.
  Enforce Safety and Environmental Standards. The Coast Guard is 
authorized to dispatch personnel to monitor discharge of waste, to 
verify logbook entries related to waste treatment and disposal, and to 
act as public safety officers by securing and collecting evidence of 
alleged crimes. Additionally, the Secretary of the Coast Guard shall 
conduct a study of passenger security needs and report findings to 
Congress.
  Established Equitable Remedies. The bill also establishes fair and 
equal remedies for persons injured in boating disasters.
  Madam Speaker, nearly all cruise ships operate under a foreign flag. 
U.S. citizens who are victimized onboard cruise ships often do not know 
their legal rights or who to contact for help in the immediate 
aftermath of crimes. Unfortunately, few U.S. nationals are aware that 
they are at risk of being the victims of crime while on their 
vacations. And, it is even more concerning that these victims have 
inadequate access to assistance or law enforcement in the aftermath of 
the crime. Cruises operate in a legal vacuum, where a lack of 
accountability empowers predators and obstructs their victims' pursuit 
of justice. That is an unacceptable situation, made worse by the cruise 
lines' own efforts to avoid scrutiny of and accountability for their 
own handling of the security of their passengers.
  My hope is that with increased Congressional oversight, the cruise 
lines will finally take these crimes seriously and enact necessary 
reforms. This comprehensive legislation will give Americans who are 
victims of crime on a cruise ship access to justice, and require that 
necessary steps are taken to bring the perpetrators of such crimes to 
justice. The legislation will also ensure that the cruise industry 
provides information to passengers about security risks and maintain 
necessary security personnel on each ship.
  The Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2008 addresses the 
ongoing safety concerns on cruise ships and will help ensure that the 
millions of men, women and children who cruise each year are informed, 
aware and safe on cruise ships. I urge all of my colleagues to 
cosponsor this important bicameral, comprehensive legislation.

                          ____________________




                        TRIBUTE TO LARRY HEDLUND

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Special Agent 
Larry Hedlund as a recipient of the Iowa Law Enforcement Victim Service 
Award. The awards were created by the Federal Law Enforcement Victim 
Task Force of the U.S. Attorneys' Offices for the Northern and Southern 
Districts of Iowa.
   Agent Hedlund was nominated by the Webster County Attorney's Office 
for his role in protecting a victim and successfully prosecuting the 
defendant in the State of Iowa vs. Perry Bender case. Agent Hedlund was 
able to gain the victim's trust and cooperation after she was 
threatened with physical harm by the defendant if she appeared for a 
deposition in the pending case. He used the information he gained from 
the victim to locate a digital recorder that included a conversation of 
the defendant threatening the victim. This evidence eventually led to 
the conviction of Mr. Bender.
   Agent Hedlund's 20 years of dedicated service to the Iowa Department 
of Public Safety has made a positive impact on the lives of many 
victims caught in dangerous circumstances. His courage illustrates the 
compassion of Iowans; willing to risk his own safety for people in 
need.
   I commend Special Agent Larry Hedlund for his outstanding service to 
his community and performance on the job. I am honored to represent 
Agent Hedlund in the United States Congress, and I wish him the best in 
his future work protecting the citizens of Iowa.

                          ____________________




                  IN RECOGNITION OF LT. RON HAUGSDAHL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WOLF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Lt. Ron Haugsdahl 
of the Fairfax County Police Department. Lieutenant Haugsdahl has 
helped lead the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force and has 
personally supervised the evolution of the task force from its 
beginning to today's nationally recognized unit dedicated to fighting 
gangs and crime. His tireless efforts coordinating the 15 participating 
agencies have led to marked achievements in the fight against violent 
gangs in northern Virginia.
  Lieutenant Haugsdahl has served in the Fairfax County Police 
Department since 1993, and previously served in the city of Falls 
Church Police Department from 1986 to 1993 as well as in the U.S. Army 
as a military police officer from 1983 to 1986. Over his many years in 
law enforcement, Lieutenant Haugdahl's duties have included patrol 
sergeant, gang detective, criminal investigator, and firearms 
instructor, in addition to his more recent leadership role with the 
task force.
  Madam Speaker, it is my honor to acknowledge today this fine public 
servant devoted to upholding the law and protecting the residents of 
northern Virginia. His service is greatly appreciated.

                          ____________________




                         HONORING HOUSE FELLOWS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN B. LARSON

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today to 
congratulate the participants of the House Fellows Program on the 
completion of their weeklong program. As an initiative of the Office of 
the Historian, this program has been a unique opportunity for a select 
group of secondary education teachers of American history and 
government to experience firsthand how Congress really works. They were 
chosen because they were educators with demonstrated excellence in the 
classroom.

[[Page 14125]]

  One of the goals of the program is to develop curricular materials on 
the history and practice of the House for use in schools. Each Fellow 
will prepare his or her brief lesson plan on a Congressional topic of 
their choosing, and these plans will become part of a teaching resource 
database on the House. During the school year following their 
participation in the House Fellows Program, each Fellow will have the 
responsibility to present their experiences and lesson plans to at 
least one in-service institute for teachers of history and government.
  With plans to select a teacher from every congressional district over 
the next 4 years, the House Fellows Program will be able to impact 
thousands of high school teachers and their students, providing an 
inside account of how the House of Representatives functions, 
energizing thousands of students to become informed and active 
citizens.
  I had the honor of meeting the Fellows this week and know that all 
Members will join me in congratulating the following teachers who have 
successfully completed the program:
  Ms. Gale Carter, East Chicago Central High School, East Chicago, 
Indiana (INOl, Visclosky); Ms. Jennifer Fine, New Canaan High School, 
New Canaan, Connecticut (CT04, Shays); Mr. Todd Hodkey, Wellington High 
School, Wellington, Ohio (OH09, Kaptur); Mrs. Amy Koelsch, Sterling 
Heights High School, Sterling Heights, Michigan (MIl2); Mrs. Gerry 
Kohler, Wood County Schools, Wood County, West Virginia (WVOl); Mr. 
Erik Korling, Willows High School, Willows, California (CA02); Mr. 
Steven Kwiatkowski, Clay High School, Oregon, Ohio (OH09); Ms. Evelyn 
Longino, Red River High School, Coushatta, Louisiana (LA04, McCrery); 
Mr. Jake Miller, Panther Valley High School, Lansford, Pennsylvania 
(PAll, Kanjorski); Mr. Tony Storch, Caldwell Academy, Greensboro, North 
Carolina (NC06, Coble); Mr. Jonathan Waldron, Mattawan High School, 
Mattawan, Michigan (MI06, Upton).
  As many of my colleagues already know, the first bill I sponsored 
upon becoming a Member of Congress in 1999 was the History of the House 
Awareness and Preservation Act, which directed the Librarian of 
Congress to oversee the writing of a history of the House of 
Representatives. Once this bill was signed into law (P.L. 106-99), the 
Librarian of Congress very wisely chose the eminent historian and 
author, Dr. Robert V. Remini, to write the history, which was published 
in 2006 under the title of The House. The project was so well received 
that the Speaker of the House reestablished the Office of the Historian 
in 2005 and appointed Dr. Remini as the House Historian.
  Madam Speaker, I would like to urge all of my colleagues to join me 
in thanking the Office of the Historian for sponsoring this program. 
Under the leadership of Dr. Remini and Dr. Fred Beuttler, along with 
their staff; Michael Cronin, Anthony Wallis, Andrew Dodge, and Dr. 
Charles Flanagan; interns George Dise, Parker Williams, and Mike 
Ferrin; the Office of the Historian is dedicated to fulfilling the 
goals of the History of the House Awareness and Preservation Act by 
conserving and presenting the history of the House of Representatives, 
the ``People's House.''

                          ____________________




 GRADUATE SPOTLIGHT, AT THE 37TH COMMENCEMENT CEREMONY OF MEDGAR EVERS 
                             COLLEGE, CUNY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Medgar 
Evers College of The City University of New York (CUNY) which recently 
celebrated its thirty-seventh Commencement Ceremony and to enter into 
the Record an article from the New York Carib News for the week ending 
June 24, 2008 titled ``Graduate Spotlight, At the 37th Commencement 
Ceremony Of Medgar Evers College, CUNY.''
  Medgar Evers College was founded as a result of collaborative efforts 
by community leaders, elected officials, the Chancellor, and the Board 
of Trustees of The City University of New York. The College, named for 
the late civil rights leader, Medgar Wiley Evers (1925-1963), was 
established in 1970 with a mandate to meet the educational and social 
needs of the Central Brooklyn community. Medgar Evers College is 
committed to the fulfillment of this mandate. Consequently, the 
College's mission is to develop and maintain high quality, 
professional, career-oriented undergraduate degree programs in the 
context of liberal education.
  Medgar Evers College has a history of educational partnerships with 
Caribbean nations; articulation agreements exist with institutions such 
as the University of the West Indies, the University of Guyana and 
Dominica State College. These arrangements have fostered student and 
faculty exchanges as well as curriculum development initiatives. The 
relationship between the College and the Caribbean was recognized and 
reaffirmed last week during the visit of the leaders of the CARICOM 
states with a new agreement to expand and strengthen cooperative 
relationships with educational institutions in the Caribbean.
  The future is bright for Medgar Evers College; graduates received 
degrees in an exciting array of disciplines and were awarded 
prestigious scholarships.
  It is my sincere hope that other Colleges and Universities around the 
world will join the Medgar Evers College in establishing successful 
student and faculty exchange with other countries, while simultaneously 
allowing minorities and people from lower income families to further 
their education.
  This Commencement ceremony offers us an occasion to thank the 
students and faculty of Medgar Evers College for their strength, their 
courage, and their invaluable contributions to U.S. and global 
communities. So, on this 37th Commencement ceremony, I proudly stand 
with Medgar Evers College to celebrate and appreciate the growth and 
change it continues to establish.

                [From the CUNY Newswire, June 12, 2008]

 Highlights of the 37th Commencement Ceremony of Medgar Evers College; 
                   Governor Paterson Delivers Keynote

       Medgar Evers College of The City University of New York 
     (CUNY) celebrated its thirty-seventh Commencement ceremony in 
     the College Amphitheater at 1650 Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn 
     on Saturday, June 7 at 10:00 a.m. Themed It's all about 
     M.E.--Aspiration, Devotion, & Culmination, the exercises 
     commemorated the culmination of years of academic dedication 
     by the Class of 2008.
       Following the College's Annual Alumni Breakfast and 
     traditional Presidential Reception for special invited 
     guests, the occasion opened with a grand procession comprised 
     of New York State Governor David A. Paterson, City University 
     of New York Chancellor Matthew Goldstein, College President 
     Edison O. Jackson, senior University and College officials, 
     honor guards, flag bearers, faculty, and the 975 students of 
     the graduating body.
       Amongst those donning caps and gowns that day were notable 
     graduates like business major Alan Newton, a 46-year-old 
     Bronx native who served 22 years in prison before DNA 
     evidence secured his release. Newton plans on continuing his 
     education in law school and later to work in a field that 
     allows him to give back. ``I want to carry the torch of 
     social justice. A lot of people are voiceless and even if 
     they have the power they don't know how to wield it,'' he 
     said.
       The graduates received words of congratulations and 
     encouragement from dignitaries like Brooklyn Borough 
     President Marty Markowitz and Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke.
       ``In life, as you know, you can either wait for things to 
     happen or make things happen. As a Medgar Evers graduate, I 
     know you've got the style, pizzazz, moxy, and chutzpah. I 
     know that you'll make things happen, said Markowitz. ``You 
     are the best of Brooklyn and the best of New York.''
       ``You [graduates] are the inspiration and motivation for 
     the work that I do,'' said Clarke. ``You are part of a legacy 
     of excellence. A legacy that reigns supreme and as long as 
     you remember that, as long as you are committed to that, our 
     future is secure.''
       In his keynote address, New York State's 55th, and its 
     first African American, governor, David A. Paterson said, 
     ``To all of you graduates I wish for you all that you desire 
     in your careers; but it is the responsibility of our 
     government to make sure that you have equal opportunities.'' 
     He went on to discuss his plans to help ensure such 
     opportunities through the issuance of an ``executive order 
     about the procurement of minority and women-owned businesses, 
     right here in the State of New York, for contracts, for 
     investment banking, for savings and bonds and insurance'' 
     this week.
       ``As you go forward in your lives, don't forget where you 
     came from,'' Paterson continued. ``Don't forget Medgar Evers. 
     Don't forget the younger people who will be coming to this 
     school. Contribute to the school. Come back.''
       The future is bright for Medgar Evers College; graduates 
     received associates and baccalaureate degrees in an exciting 
     array of disciplines that day. Additionally, three 
     scholarships, totaling twenty thousand dollars, were awarded 
     through the National Grid Charles Evans Inniss and Dr. Betty 
     Shabazz Awards.
       The hopeful nature of the day was best expressed by College 
     President Dr. Jackson, ``Yours is an extremely fortunate 
     generation. One that stands in the sunlight of a new 
     tomorrow.''

[[Page 14126]]



                          ____________________




  HONORING THE CITY OF LEON VALLEY'S ANNUAL FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. CHARLES A. GONZALEZ

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GONZALEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank the city 
of Leon Valley as they prepare to host their annual Fourth of July 
parade and celebration. This marks the 14 consecutive year in which 
Leon Valley has celebrated our Nation's independence.
  This historical significance of our independence is felt beyond our 
domestic borders as this holiday truly epitomizes the meaning of the 
word democracy. Centuries ago on this day, our Founding Fathers stood 
up for their cherished values and used them as a blueprint for the 
basis of our country's government. They believed in a citizen's right 
to freedom and equality, and they abandoned tyranny and oppression 
along the way to forming a bold new government.
  What started as a courageous experiment in democracy developed into a 
flourishing government that to this day symbolizes liberty and justice. 
Without their vision, our democracy would not be what it now is over 
200 years later. Along the way, our country has continuously 
represented the principles on which it was founded to the rest of the 
world. It is a tremendous responsibility that we carry not only as a 
government but also as citizens, and it is one that we should all be 
honored to fulfill.
  It is with great privilege that I commend the city of Leon Valley for 
recognizing these important principles of our democracy with their 
annual Independence Day celebration. The Leon Valley community should 
be proud of their efforts, both in the past and in the future, to honor 
our Nation's independence and the values this holiday represents.

                          ____________________




INTRODUCTION OF THE SEGAL AMERICORPS EDUCATION AWARD TAX RELIEF ACT OF 
                                  2008

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOHN LEWIS

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing 
legislation that will help people who have looked around their 
community and seen a great need. They have answered a call to national 
service. They are AmeriCorps volunteers.
  Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards are offered to volunteers after 
they complete their service so they can pay for an education. The award 
is $4,725 for a year of full-time service. It is prorated for part-
time. Unfortunately it is taxed as regular income. This legislation 
makes clear that the Segal AmeriCorps Education Awards are not income 
and should not be subject to income taxes. The AmeriCorps Education 
Award should be a source of inspiration to serve not a source of fear 
on tax day.
  People trying to pay for college cannot afford to be hit by extra 
taxes on this education benefit, not while they are still in school, 
and not when they are struggling to make ends meet through working 
their first job. People cannot afford an unjust tax bill at the same 
time their student loans are coming due. People cannot afford to 
receive less financial aid because this award is counted as income and 
makes student loan applicants appear to have more ability to afford 
college than they actually do.
  Now is the time to believe in people again. Now is the time to 
believe in the power of change. We must find every way to reinforce 
just how important it is that the American people engage in volunteer 
service to their country. We must make the future a better future. 
AmeriCorps volunteers are out there every day, leading the way, getting 
in the way and making good change. This bill invests in the power of 
change.

                          ____________________




                         TRIBUTE TO TOM COMFORT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Mr. Tom Comfort, 
principal of Emerson Elementary School in Indianola, Iowa, on the 
occasion of his retirement. I also want to express my appreciation for 
Tom's dedication and commitment to the youth of Iowa.
   For the past 35 years Mr. Comfort has contributed his time and 
talents to improving lives through education and mentoring. Tom began 
as a student teacher in the school district in 1972. He later taught 
second grade at Emerson for over 20 years and worked 5 years in 
administration before becoming principal. Mr. Comfort is well-known for 
his natural ability to connect with young students, parents, and fellow 
educators. His guidance, sense of humor, and many unique abilities 
including his story-telling, will certainly be missed by all at Emerson 
Elementary, as is evidenced by art projects organized by teachers and 
students at every grade level in his honor.
   Mr. Comfort has made a lasting impact on the many students and 
teachers he has worked with over his career. I consider it an honor to 
represent Tom in the United States Congress, and I know my colleagues 
join me in wishing him a long, happy and healthy retirement.

                          ____________________




                ESTABLISHING A CONGRESS 2012 COMMISSION

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce 
legislation which will continue my efforts of previous Congresses to 
work toward better representation for our constituents. My legislation 
will form a commission to examine how we, the people, may be best 
served by our representational democracy. This commission would analyze 
the current size of the membership of the House of Representatives and 
examine alternatives to the current method of electing Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on Rules Legislative and 
Budget Subcommittee, I find it absolutely necessary to continually 
update our mechanisms for representation and governance to best serve 
those constituents who have trusted us with representing them.
  The legislation I offer today will counter the unfortunate truth 
that, ironically, our land of the free is one of the most under-
representative democracies in the world. When considering elected 
federal representation per capita, many other countries throughout the 
world have parliaments which can more closely serve their constituents. 
Smaller ratios of elected officials to constituents allow for better 
engagement to more effectively address the needs of their districts. As 
a country that holds itself up as the standard bearer for the 
democratic process, we must be critical of our own standards to 
guarantee that we continue to give all citizens an equal and meaningful 
voice in our government.
  We have encountered an electoral crisis in recent years with low 
voter turnout and diminishing faith in the effectiveness of our 
electoral process. However, the energy of this current election cycle 
has exponentially increased voter registration. We owe it to our 
constituents to ensure that this increase in civic engagement is met 
with the most effective mechanism of representation possible. The 
Commission proposed in the legislation I introduce today will meet that 
need by determining the best way to ensure maximum participation in 
this great democracy by every American citizen.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and look forward to 
its expedient passage.

                          ____________________




                         HONORING DERRICK GREGG

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor 15-year-old Derrick 
Gregg from Highland, Illinois. For his Eagle Scout badge project, 
Derrick chose to raise funds for building a helipad in Highland.
  The $88,000 helipad that Derrick has raised the money to build is 
fully heated. Additionally, it also has radio controlled lighting. As 
the nearest trauma center to Highland is about 40 miles away, this 
landing pad will be used when critical patients need to be transported 
by helicopter.
  I congratulate Derrick for his efforts which will serve his community 
well. I wish him the best as he finishes this project and completes his 
Eagle Scout requirements.

[[Page 14127]]



                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ADAM H. PUTNAM

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PUTNAM. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, I was not 
present for recorded votes due to a funeral in Florida that I attended. 
Had I been present, I would have voted the following way: rollcall No. 
449--``no''; rollcall No. 450--``no''; rollcall No. 451--``no''; 
rollcall No. 452--``no''; rollcall No. 453--``no''; rollcall No. 454--
``aye''; rollcall No. 455--``no''; rollcall No. 456--``aye''; rollcall 
No. 457--``no''; rollcall No. 458--``no''; rollcall No. 459--``no''; 
rollcall No. 460--``aye''; rollcall No. 461--``aye.''

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                           IN RANDOLPH COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Randolph County:
  Rick Brown, Director, Emergency Management Agency
  Jay Harris, Sheriff
  Steven Croyle, Mayor, City of Winchester
  Michael Burke, Chief of Police, City of Winchester
  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Randolph 
County will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




   INTRODUCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PREPAREDNESS, 
 RESEARCH, AND EDUCATION PROGRAM ACT OF 2008, THE DHS PREP ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. AL GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, today, we live in a world where 
security threats have become more complex. For that reason, nurturing a 
field of educated and knowledgeable experts--trained and prepared to 
meet the security challenges before us--should be a priority of the 
United States Government. To accomplish this goal, opportunities within 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should be made available for 
students to participate in programs that allow them to help develop the 
solutions to the security challenges that our Nation confronts. It is 
equally important that participating students come from diverse 
backgrounds and are truly representative of all the communities across 
our homeland.
  My legislation, the Department of Homeland Security Preparedness, 
Research, and Education Program Act of 2008, or the DHS PREP Act of 
2008, would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out a 
program for fellowships and research to enhance domestic preparedness 
and the collective response to acts of terrorism, natural disasters and 
other emergencies.
  When natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated 
the Gulf Coast region, infrastructure and the most basic services too 
many take for granted were destroyed. The Department of Homeland 
Security is overseeing efforts to rebuild public infrastructure in the 
Gulf Coast region that was devastated by natural disasters. That is 
why, during the first year of the fellowship, participants will 
undertake research specifically focused on rebuilding and recovery of 
the Gulf Coast.
  It is the aim of this legislation to allow students receiving 
fellowships from this program to work closely with the National Center 
for Natural Disasters, Coastal Infrastructure, and Emergency Management 
to strengthen our Nation's overall response to natural disasters. The 
research conducted by the fellowship participants will also reinforce 
the efforts of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast 
Rebuilding at DHS. Additionally, the research conducted by the fellows 
will be shared with Congress.
  This important legislation will allow us to train experts and 
professionals to develop substantive policy solutions that will seek to 
solve the homeland security and disaster response challenges that 
confront our Nation. I ask my colleagues to support the Department of 
Homeland Security Preparedness, Research, and Education Program Act of 
2008, or the DHS PREP Act of 2008.

                          ____________________




                        HONORING GOD AND COUNTRY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GINNY BROWN-WAITE

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, for over 225 years 
the United States has been a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the 
world. Millions of people from every corner of the world have left 
their homelands to come to America and start a new life, one based on 
the rights and liberties enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, 
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  That freedom comes at a price, however. Whether it is the original 
fight for independence during the American Revolution, the drive to 
defeat communism during the cold war, or the current battle against 
global Islamic extremists, soldiers throughout our history have fought 
and given their lives to keep us safe here at home. I salute their 
sacrifice and dedication to their fellow man, and thank those veterans 
here today for your great military service.
  While our Nation has often had to defend itself from enemies, both 
foreign and domestic, it has been our shared commitment to faith and 
belief in a higher power that has given us the strength to soldier on 
during tough and trying times. America has seen both the good and the 
bad throughout our Nation's history, but in the end I firmly believe 
that each of us will heed the call to the better angels of our nature 
when forced to make decisions that affect our fellow man.
  Together we can continue the great success of the United States. 
Throughout our history, while our ancestors came from all over the 
globe, the great melting pot that is America meant that we have shared 
a common language and a common faith. Our Nation is firmly rooted in 
Christian principles that have made us strong and envied by the rest of 
the world. Whenever a crisis happens in a faraway land across the seas, 
it is men and women like you who pull together in the spirit of 
Christian charity and a desire to help your fellow man. It is our 
military that brings relief supplies to nations like Burma or Indonesia 
after their floods, and the United States Armed Forces that meets the 
challenge of liberating Europe from the Axis superpowers. The can-do 
spirit of our Nation means we never back away from a challenge, and 
that by working together we can accomplish anything we set our minds 
to.
  America is the greatest nation in the world. We have a proud history 
of service, faith and community ties that bind us to the common belief 
in the goodness of mankind. By working together we can continue that 
history and ensure that future generations of Americans will share the 
ideals and values that brought us here today. Thank you and God bless 
the United States of America.

[[Page 14128]]



                          ____________________




                       TRIBUTE TO CLEMMYE JACKSON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of 
Clemmye Jackson, the Ames, Iowa Community School District's accelerated 
learning program director, after 30 years of service to the Ames 
community.
   For the past 30 years Clemmye has contributed her time and talents 
to improving youths' lives through education and mentoring. She is a 
native of Ocala, Florida and moved with her husband George, to 
Rochester, Michigan when he was hired by Oakwood University in the 
1970's. She started working as a substitute teacher and found her niche 
in working with at-risk children, where she learned to teach using 
structured discipline, communication in a respectful manner, and a 
sense of humor. When George took a job at Iowa State University in 
1977, she became a counselor at Ames High School. She later became the 
director of the accelerated learning program for K-12 education in the 
Ames School District.
   Under her guidance, the Ames School district has applied for, and 
successfully received annual grants of over $2 million for at-risk 
accelerated learning programs including an intervention prevention 
department, Title I, a drug-free program, a program for homeless 
students, three separate preschool programs, and an English language 
learner program. Because of Clemmye's vision and hard work, the 
successful at-risk programs now utilize over 49 teachers and 
noncertified employees to assist students.
   Clemmye has made a lasting impact on students throughout her career, 
and her leadership will be missed. However, she leaves the future 
program director the inspiration to help youth dream big, work hard, 
and achieve great things.
   I consider it an honor to represent Clemmye Jackson in the United 
States Congress, and I know my colleagues join me in wishing her and 
her husband George, a long, happy and healthy retirement.

                          ____________________




                     CONNECTICUT CLEAN ENERGY FUND

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOE COURTNEY

                             of connecticut

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. COURTNEY. In December 2007, the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund 
(CCEF) Board announced a $1.18 million grant to the Lee Company's 
Westbrook production facility for the development of a solar 
photovoltaic system. On Friday, June 27, 2008 the Lee Company will 
celebrate the returns on these investments: Connecticut's largest solar 
photovoltaic system at a manufacturing facility. I rise today to 
recognize this monumental achievement and commend the Lee Company and 
the CCEF's leadership with facilitating a greener Connecticut for 
current and future generations.
  In 1948, the Lee Company was founded by Leighton Lee II in eastern 
Connecticut. Over the past six decades, the Lee Company has transformed 
the original Connecticut regional offices into a national presence. 
Today, the company remains one of the foremost developers and 
manufacturers of fluid control components for aerospace systems.
  The CCEF was established by Connecticut's General Assembly in 2000. 
Since inception, the CCEF, administered by Connecticut Innovations, has 
invested millions of dollars in renewable energy projects throughout 
Connecticut, focusing on solar, biomass, wind, hydro, and wave power. 
In my district alone, the Fund has provided nearly $14 million in 
incentive grants for 207 alternative energy projects. Current operating 
renewable energy projects are estimated to generate 5 million kWh and 
eliminate over 4.1 million pounds of greenhouse gas emissions over the 
course of each year.
  As important as the state's help was in this project, it was the 
vision and determination of the Lee Company that really made the 
project's exciting transformation of its energy system possible. The 
CCEF's incentive grant to the Lee Company, which covered half the cost 
of the 308-kilowatt photovoltaic system at the Westbrook production 
facility, is one of the largest in the state of Connecticut. Once 
operating, the photovoltaic system will provide 19 percent of the 
energy used at the facility. When the system is not in use, energy 
production credits will be deducted from the company's electric bill.
  In addition to reducing dependence on fossil fuels and greenhouse gas 
emissions, these investments will generate new economic growth and 
opportunity. The Lee Company employs more than 100 individuals at the 
Westbrook production facility and more than 800 people throughout the 
state. These investments will allow for the continued growth of the 
company and expanded employment opportunities throughout Connecticut.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation is at a critical turning point. For the 
strength of our economy and health of our environment, investments in 
clean, renewable energy are needed now more than ever. I ask my 
colleagues to join with me and my constituents in recognizing these 
renewable energy achievements and supporting similar initiatives in 
their districts.

                          ____________________




         CELEBRATION OF GOVERNOR BILL SHEFFIELD'S 80TH BIRTHDAY

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special 
tribute to a great American and outstanding Alaskan on the occasion of 
his 80th birthday. Born on June 26, 1928, in Spokane Washington, the 
Honorable Bill Sheffield has been a leader in business, government, and 
public policy for many of the 55 years he has resided in Alaska. He 
served as governor from 1982 to 1986 following an impressive and 
prosperous business career in which he built a company that became one 
of the largest private employers in Alaska and the Yukon Territory.
  Following a landslide victory in his 1982 election, Governor 
Sheffield focused his attention to curbing the runaway growth in state 
government, bettering the lives of rural Alaskans, and saving more of 
Alaska's energy revenues for future generations of Alaskans. As 
Governor he supported opening ANWR, a position I proudly share with him 
and one which we will continue to support until development begins.
  Since leaving public office in 1986, Governor Sheffield hasn't slowed 
down at all! He is a trustee of Alaska Pacific University; a member of 
the Advisory Board of ENSTAR Natural Gas; a charter member of 
Commonwealth North, Alaska's leading public affairs forum; Past 
Chairman of the Federal Salary Council; former Alaska Chairman of the 
United Nations 50th year celebration; received the 2006 Lifetime 
Achievement Award in Business from Alaska Business Monthly; former 
President & CEO of the Alaska Railroad Corporation and now serves on 
its Board of Directors.
  In addition to these many commitments, Governor Sheffield also serves 
as the Director of the Port of Anchorage. As Director, Sheffield has 
implemented a massive expansion that started in 2002 and will be 
completed in 2014. Governor Sheffield's vision for the much needed 
expansion of the State of Alaska's largest port will serve nearly the 
entire geographic area and population of our State as goods and 
materials are brought into Alaska. In addition, the Port will serve 
National Defense Objectives by providing vital, modernized 
transportation support and access to four major military installations 
and personnel in Alaska, including the Stryker Brigade at Ft. 
Wainwright. Furthermore, the expanded port will play a major role in 
the ongoing efforts to bring even more of Alaska's vast and much needed 
energy resources to the rest of the Nation. I am proud to support 
Governor Sheffield, the expansion of the Port and the fantastic job he 
is doing for Alaska and the Nation. His tireless energy and enthusiasm 
continues to amaze me!
  As a candidate for Governor in 1982, Bill's theme was ``Bringing the 
State Together.'' I learned from him that when we all work together we 
can achieve great things and I hope that others continue to follow in 
his path of bipartisanship. Most importantly, Madam Speaker, against 
the backdrop of today's partisan fighting, I have always tried to reach 
out to the other side, to reach out to Democrats who are dedicated to 
getting things done. Governor Sheffield, a lifelong Democrat, is one of 
the best examples I know of someone who is willing to work with anyone, 
regardless of political affiliation, who is also devoted to achieving 
important goals for the greater good.
  I like to remember great leaders by what they were able to accomplish 
while they served others. The legacy that Bill will leave behind 
someday is the vision he has had for the future of Alaska. I share his 
vision in investing now to prepare for the future. Sometimes this goes 
against the grain of popular opinion but a great leader is unafraid of 
rocking the boat of populism. I celebrate Bill's willingness to do this 
and wish more public servants were willing to stand up for what is 
right and not just popular.
  I would be remiss were I not to mention that while Bill works hard, 
he also knows how to

[[Page 14129]]

enjoy all that life has to offer. He is an excellent duck hunter, 
fisherman, golfer and an avid outdoorsman and his friends and family 
mean the world to him. He and I have shared countless hours together 
over the years and I truly value his unwavering friendship. Madam 
Speaker, I am honored to call Bill Sheffield my friend and I hope the 
entire Congress will join me and my wife Lu in wishing him well on this 
wonderful occasion. Happy birthday Bill! God bless you.

                          ____________________




   COMMEMORATING THE 58TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE START OF THE KOREAN WAR

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to honor the 
bravery and courage of American and Korean servicemen; and to celebrate 
the bonds of friendship between our two great countries. Fifty-eight 
years ago yesterday, forces from Communist North Korea launched an 
unprovoked invasion of their neighbors to the south, initiating what we 
now remember as the Korean War.
  Over the course of the following three years, millions of people were 
killed, wounded or forced from their homes and many more captured by 
the enemy. American troops of all colors and backgrounds gave their 
lives for freedom alongside thousands of Koreans. But ``The Forgotten 
War,'' as it is too often called because it was sandwiched between 
World War II and Vietnam, was necessary to stem the Communist tide in 
Asia and preserve the spirit of freedom for millions on the Korean 
Peninsula.
  The battle for Korea likely spared Japan from the threat of Communist 
invasion and showed the Communist world that the United States and its 
allies were prepared to vigorously resist Communist aggression. America 
and South Korea paid a dear price in blood and treasure but those who 
fell contributed much to the better world the people of South Korea 
enjoy today.
  Since the end of the War in 1953, South Korea has grown both 
economically and politically and has led as an example of democracy in 
East Asia, demonstrating our shared values of democratic governance, 
free enterprise and the rule of law. South Korea is a strong, 
unwavering ally in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror, having dispatched 
the third largest contingent of troops to Iraq, and to Afghanistan 
(where a South Korean soldier was killed during hostile action), and to 
Lebanon in support of peacekeeing operations there. In fact, South 
Korea has been one of only four partners and allies that stood with us 
through all four major conflicts since World War II. In addition, South 
Korea demonstrated her great friendship and generosity in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Katrina, pledging over $30 million in aid for relief and 
recovery efforts--the fourth largest amount donated by any foreign 
country.
  In contrast, Communist North Korea is in dire straits, unable to even 
feed its people. Like the struggles we see today in the newly liberated 
countries of Iraq and Afghanistan, when people have the freedom and 
will to determine their own fate, they will embrace democracy and 
freedom and the right of self-determination.
  I firmly believe that South Korea may be the premier success story of 
U.S. foreign policy in the post-World War II period. Having assisted 
South Korea in transforming itself from a war-torn, impoverished 
economy into a successful democracy with a free enterprise economy (the 
world's 11th largest), South Korea is now an indispensable partner with 
the United States in promoting democracy, a free market economy and 
respect for the rule of law around the world. Our economic relationship 
with South Korea is crucial as the seventh-largest trading partner with 
the United States. And almost sixty years later, the relationship 
between the United States and South Korea continues to be a very 
special one that builds upon a foundation of a friendship first laid in 
the 1882 Korean American Treaty of Peace, Amity, Commerce and 
Navigation.
  Unfortunately Madam Speaker, there is a question mark hanging over 
our relationship with South Korea. Monday, June 30, 2008, will mark the 
one year anniversary since representatives from our two governments 
signed the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement here in Washington. If 
implemented, this agreement could potentially be the most commercially-
significant free trade agreement signed by the United States in more 
than a decade. How we dispose of that Agreement will determine whether 
we are serious about enhancing the strong partnership between our two 
great democratic nations, and willing to open the door wider to the 
exchange of science and ideas that help us both to prosper.
  South Korea is already the United States' seventh largest export 
market and sixth largest market for U.S. agricultural products. In 
fact, according to the latest statistics, our annual bilateral trade 
totals nearly $80 billion. Koreans have invested nearly $20 billion in 
the United States, and have created American jobs through companies 
like Hyundai Motors, Samsung Electronics, and Kia Motors.
  As the largest investor in Korea, the United States already has a 
leading presence in that country. Any agreement that can open up more 
Korean markets to U.S. goods and services can only have a positive 
effect on the American economy by creating more and better jobs, 
enriching consumer choice, and boosting U.S. industry and 
manufacturing.
  But this FTA is more then simply a debate over economics; it is also 
recognition of our special relationship with South Korea and a strong 
statement that we will continue to stand with our allies, especially as 
we face continued uncertainty in regards to the nuclear ambitions of 
North Korea.
  No agreement or treaty is ever perfect, as it is always a product of 
compromise. And I agree that Congress has a legitimate right to debate 
the merits of the agreement; so let's have that debate; let's take this 
agreement out of legislative limbo, bring it to the House Floor, have 
an honest up or down vote, and let the chips fall where they may, Madam 
Speaker. I think we owe our South Korean friends that much respect.
  On the occasion of these twin anniversaries--the somber but proud 
commemoration of the beginning of the Korean War, and the forward-
looking commemoration of the signing of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade 
Agreement--I ask my colleagues to join with me to salute our veterans 
and to celebrate the strong and enduring friendship and alliance 
between the good people of the Republic of Korea and the United States.

                          ____________________




  IN HONOR OF THE ST. JOHN'S COUNCIL NO. 1345 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS OF 
                     DUMONT-BERGENFIELD CENTENNIAL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. SCOTT GARRETT

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to 
congratulate the Knights of Columbus of Dumont-Bergenfield St. John's 
Council, No. 1345 on their Centennial Rededication. St. John's Council 
No. 1345 is the fourth largest council out of 300 councils in my home 
State of New Jersey.
  Chartered on June 28, 1908, this council has been serving our 
community while faithfully upholding the Knights' founding principles 
of charity, unity, and fraternity. As a fraternal and charitable 
organization, part of the world's largest lay Catholic organization, 
the St. John's Council No. 1345 has given over $1.2 million dollars and 
has provided over five hundred thousand hours in service to those in 
need. This group is to be commended for providing 100 years of funding 
and manpower not just locally in northern New Jersey, but also in 
service to charitable activities nationally and globally.
  As the St. John's Council No. 1345 gathers to mark their centennial 
year, I rise in tribute and to say thank you for their contribution to 
making north Jersey such a fine place to live, work, and raise a 
family.

                          ____________________




     INTRODUCTION OF THE PROPERTY MITIGATION ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I would like to introduce 
legislation to help minimize the hardship of home and business owners 
who are most at-risk prepare for the next, inevitable natural disaster. 
As people from the gulf coast and those States bordering the Atlantic 
Ocean are only too well aware, this year's hurricane season officially 
began in recent days. Once again this year, weather experts are 
predicting several severe storms. While the reasons for the increased 
number of storms remains a subject of much argument and debate, their 
disastrous results lie beyond dispute.
  A better way exists, however, and that way is prevention. 
``Prevention,'' when it comes to

[[Page 14130]]

storm damage, takes many forms. At-risk home and business owners can 
take preventive measures by ``hardening'' their homes and other 
structures against preventable storm damage. They can strengthen their 
roofs, install storm shutters, elevate their electrical systems and 
even construct ``safe rooms'' within their homes.
  The ``Property Mitigation Assistance Act of 2008,'' would establish a 
homeowner mitigation loan program within the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to promote pre-disaster property mitigation measures. 
The bill would provide for grants of at least $500,000 to States based 
on the State's risk of natural disaster, and would authorize $200 
million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014 for the homeowner 
mitigation loan program.
  Although, the challenge to rebuild in the aftermath of a natural 
disaster remains, there must be legislation in place to assist 
homeowners and businesses that are located in areas that are at risk 
and subject to repeated hazards or natural disasters. I urge my 
colleagues to carefully consider The Property Mitigation Assistance Act 
of 2008 and enact this legislation into law.

                          ____________________




                      IN TRIBUTE TO J.D. POWER III

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ELTON GALLEGLY

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GALLEGLY of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in tribute to J.D. 
``Dave'' Power III, who is retiring from the day-to-day operations of 
the company he founded 40 years ago, a company that revolutionized 
market research.
  Dave Power's plunge into entrepreneurship was sparked by 
dissatisfaction with the way businesses then conducted market research. 
Armed with an MBA from Pennsylvania University's Wharton School of 
Business, Power went to work with big-name automotive and advertising 
agencies as a financial analyst and market researcher. Over the years, 
he became disillusioned with the quality of work he was asked to 
provide, likening it to ``torturing the data until it confessed'' 
instead of delving into customers' real opinions.
  In 1968, Dave Power launched his company with his wife, Julie, in a 
rented apartment in Los Angeles. It began to take off when Power talked 
himself into an impromptu meeting with a visiting Japanese executive. 
That meeting led to a collaboration with Toyota that continues unabated 
today. Using research focused on how potential customers perceived 
Toyota, Power and Toyota built a business model that changed that 
perception for Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.
  As Toyota began hiring internal marketers, Power began conducting 
smaller, independent and self-funded studies on individual products. By 
that time, Dave, Julie and their family were operating out of their 
family home in Calabasas, California. Julie's role was to tabulate data 
from the surveys. One survey had gone out to owners of Mazda's new 
Wankel rotary engine. Those owner surveys showed a problem with the 
engine's O-ring, which was causing the engines to self-destruct after 
30,000 miles. Julie showed the findings to Dave, Dave shared it with 
the 14 auto manufacturers who subscribed to his surveys, and one 
subscriber leaked it to the Wall Street Journal.
  J.D. Power was on his way to becoming a household name, and Mazda 
joined the growing legions of industries as a subscriber. Today, nearly 
every major global manufacturer is a J.D. Power and Associates client 
and the company provides research, analysis and consulting for a wide 
range of global industries with offices throughout the world.
  Madam Speaker, J.D. Power and Associates has made the ``voice of the 
customer'' a force to be listened to within industries around the 
world, providing benefits for consumers and businesses alike. While 
Dave has stepped away from the day-to-day operations of the firm, he 
will continue to be the face of J.D. Power and Associates. I know my 
colleagues will join me in wishing Dave and Julie well in their semi-
retirement and thank Dave for building better relationships between 
customers and companies, resulting in positive results for both.

                          ____________________




                TRIBUTE TO JAY LINDAHL AND MARTHA SPARKS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TOM LATHAM

                                of iowa

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LATHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize volunteer 
firefighter Jay Lindahl of Ogden, Iowa and Martha Sparks of Boone, Iowa 
for their swift and heroic actions that saved a fellow Iowan's life.
   While eating lunch at a restaurant in Ames, Iowa, a fellow patron 
began choking on her food. Martha quickly approached the distressed 
patron and administered the Heimlich maneuver. When it appeared as if 
the Heimlich wasn't working, Jay came over to the scene. He noticed the 
patron's color leaving her face and lack of pulse. Jay then began 
administering oxygen while Martha administered chest compressions. 
Within moments, the woman was breathing on her own and regained 
consciousness.
   Without Martha and Jay's alertness and quick actions, this woman 
would possibly not be with us today. It is heroic acts like this that 
make this nation and its people second to none.
   Martha and Jay's unselfish actions go above and beyond what we are 
asked of in our everyday lives, and I commend Jay Lindahl and Martha 
Sparks for their noble deed. I am honored to represent them both in the 
United States Congress, and I know my colleagues join me in recognizing 
their heroic actions and wishing them health and happiness in the 
future.

                          ____________________




                    IN REMEMBRANCE OF CHARLES SEBES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in remembrance and honor of 
Charles Sebes, a beloved figure in Cleveland area politics and a loving 
husband, father, and grandfather. This past June we gathered to 
celebrate Chuck's retirement as Parma Democratic City Ward Leader.
   Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and recognition of Charles 
Sebes, upon the occasion of his retirement after twenty years of 
service as the Parma Democratic City Ward Leader. His unwavering 
dedication to the Party, to his community, and to the rights of working 
men and women is framed by honor and integrity.
   Chuck has spent hundreds of hours volunteering on numerous political 
campaigns and causes throughout his life. During the past 30 years, 
Chuck has taken an active role in organizing the Northern Ohio Labor 
Day Parade. As Secretary of Parma Southwest Cope, Chuck has chaired the 
reverse raffle committee for the past twenty-five years. He has also 
been the Chairman of Parma's Democratic Steak Roast for twenty years. 
Chuck's devotion and enthusiasm consistently inspire those around him 
and has made all of these events successful.
   During his twenty-two years of employment with the National Tool 
Company, Chuck served as President of the United Steel Workers of 
America, Local 4827. Governor Richard Celeste appointed Chuck to the 
Ohio Regional Board of Review for Worker's Compensation. In 1991, 
Martin Vittardi, Clerk of Parma Municipal Court, appointed Chuck to be 
the Chief Deputy Clerk of Court. His friendship is coveted not only by 
myself and Marty, but by numerous individuals whose lives have been 
touched by his energetic spirit, kindness and loyalty.
   As Chief Deputy and Supervisor, his colleagues and staff know him to 
be a man who is passionate about all aspects of his life. They respect 
Chuck for his fairness and for being a man of his word. He believes 
that patience is a virtue and was reassuring that a task would get 
done, never hesitating to become part of the solution. They appreciate 
Chuck for always looking out for their best interest, fighting for what 
they deserve and for being valued by him. His reputation for being a 
prankster and for his colorful way of telling a joke is legendary. 
Chuck is a wise and generous man, and he is a true friend to the people 
in his life.
   Evelyn, his wife of 52 years, and their wonderful family have 
sustained Chuck with a lifetime of support. Joe, Jim, Janet and Joyce, 
have blessed them with seven grandchildren. Chuck and Evelyn's children 
and grandchildren continue to be their pride and joy.

[[Page 14131]]



                          ____________________




CONGRATULATING DR. LORI ARVISO ALVORD ON HER INDUCTION TO THE AMERICAN 
    INDIAN HALL OF HONOR AT MOUNT KEARSAGE IN WARNER, NEW HAMPSHIRE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. PAUL W. HODES

                            of new hampshire

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. HODES. Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate Dr. Lori 
Arviso Alvord, the world's first female Navajo surgeon, on being 
inducted into the American Indian Hall of Honor at Mount Kearsage in 
Warner, New Hampshire. Her selection is a testament to her hard work 
and dedication to the field of medicine.
   Dr. Alvord grew up in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small town where 
many families had no water or electricity. Yet her tenacity and hard 
work allowed her to follow her dream of becoming a surgeon. She is now 
affiliated with Dartmouth-Hitchcock, one of America's most prestigious 
hospitals, located in Lebanon, New Hampshire. Congratulations Dr. 
Alvord on your induction to the American Indian Hall of Honor.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                           IN DECATUR COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
   I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Decatur County:
   Pam Blasdel, Director, Emergency Management Agency
   Daryl Templeton, Sheriff
   Gary Herbert, Mayor, City of Greensburg
   Brian Heaton, Chief of Police, City of Greensburg
   These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, 
creating a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed 
property, and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these 
officials went above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise 
while saving many lives and serving the people of their communities.
   Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Decatur 
County will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




         HONORING ALFREDA PAULINE POSTELL ON HER 60TH BIRTHDAY

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. KENDRICK B. MEEK

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 60th 
birthday of Alfreda Pauline Postell, a magnificent woman who has made 
an indelible impact on the health of Americans and whose life is an 
inspiration to us all.
  Born in Miami, Florida, Ms. Postell is the oldest of four children 
born to Joyce Barry and the late Cleveland Barry, Sr. She is a proud 
graduate of Miami Northwestern Senior High School. Ms. Postell has two 
children, Joyce and Lamont Postell, Sr. She is a passionate individual 
who enjoys dancing and spending time with her family.
  During her more than 30-year career, Ms. Postell has worked at the 
Miami Veterans Affairs Hospital as a nurse aide and now as a medical 
support assistant. She enjoys volunteering for community projects and' 
gives freely of her time. Ms. Postell has continuously held a 
reputation as the type of volunteer you want on your team when you want 
the job done. Through her might, determination and passion, she works 
hard to bring about positive outcomes in whatever task she endures.
  Madam Speaker, in Miami we are fortunate to have Ms. Postell as a 
pillar of our community, and I am privileged to call her a friend. Not 
only is she a cherished friend, but she is also an extended member of 
my family. Ms. Postell's guidance, assurance and acts of kindness over 
the years have always been appreciated by me and my family. I join 
countless friends, family members and loved ones in South Florida in 
wishing Ms. Postell a wonderful birthday, and many more years of good 
health and happiness.

                          ____________________




   TRIBUTE TO CONGRESSIONAL ART COMPETITION WINNER: CLEOPATRA GRIFFIN

                                  _____
                                 

                            HON. JEFF MILLER

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, today, as co-chair of the 2008 
Congressional Art Competition, I would like to proudly recognize 
Cleopatra Griffin, the Congressional Art Competition winner from the 
First District of Florida. Cleopatra represents just one of the many 
talented artists in my district. Ever since she was a kid she enjoyed 
every art form, although printmaking and drawing are her favorites. She 
has continually excelled working with pencil, charcoal, and paints.
  This Congressional Art Competition is not the first time she has 
received public recognition for her abilities. Last year, her self-
portrait, which now hangs in the Capitol tunnel, won first place at 
State competition. She has also received first place in printmaking and 
second place in drawing for a similar portrait piece.
  Cleopatra is not only known for her artistic aptitude, but also for 
her involvement in school and community activities. In high school, 
while president of the Art Club, she raised money for Relay for Life, 
stuffed stockings for children around Christmas, and put a huge school-
wide art show on at the end of each year.
  Madam Speaker, as she moves forward in her education, I wish her 
continued success as she attends the California College of the Arts in 
San Francisco this fall and wait eagerly for her future creations.

                          ____________________




 CELEBRATING THE 80TH ANNIVERSARY OF ST. RICHARD PARISH IN CHICAGO, IL

                                  _____
                                 

                          HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 80th 
anniversary of St. Richard Parish in Chicago, IL. This upcoming Sunday, 
the church will hold a celebration to commemorate eight decades of 
community, faith, and service, and I am pleased to congratulate the 
parish on reaching this impressive milestone.
  As the Archer Heights community grew in the 1920s, George Cardinal 
Mundelein of the Archdiocese of Chicago recognized the need for a new 
Catholic parish in the area, and on June 8, 1928, St. Richard Parish 
was established.
  While services were temporarily held in a storefront, men from the 
parish built a church on Kostner Avenue. This type of hard work and 
commitment has been a hallmark of the church's parishioners ever since. 
In 1947 St. Richard Parish School was opened and to this day provides 
an outstanding Catholic education for children in Archer Heights. 
Today, the members of St. Richard Parish continue their dedication to 
the community, building meeting rooms and a new parish center to 
provide a safe environment for area children and a focal point for the 
community.
  From their first pastor, Reverend Horace Wellman, to their current 
pastor, Father Thomas Bernas, St. Richard's diverse group of 
parishioners continue to enrich the lives of their fellow citizens by 
providing the community with outreach programs, a strong school, and an 
unwavering commitment to their faith.
  It is with great honor and privilege that I recognize the 80th 
anniversary of St. Richard Parish, which continues to meet the needs of 
parishioners and the community through liturgies, programs, and 
services. The parish offers spiritual direction, hope, and compassion 
to all of its members. I am proud to have in the Third District of 
Illinois such a vibrant example of the values and good works that can 
be provided by a church with outstanding leadership and committed 
parishioners. May these first 80 years be only the beginning.

[[Page 14132]]



                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. VITO FOSSELLA

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 460, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________




   RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF SERGEANT WALTER J. 
                                 MORRIS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. CHARLES B. RANGEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RANGEL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to give homage to one of 
America's forgotten heroes, Sergeant Walter J. Morris, the first 
African-American U.S. Army paratrooper and a member of the 555 
Parachute Infantry Battalion or ``Triple Nickels''. The Triple Nickels 
succeeded in becoming the Nation's first African-American parachute 
infantry battalion and the first African-American unit to be integrated 
into the mainstream U.S. Army during WorId War II.
  Sergeant Morris is a pioneer who blazed a trail that many African-
American paratroopers proudly follow today. This wasn't an easy 
accomplishment in a totally segregated army. The U.S. Army had a 
tradition of relegating Blacks to menial jobs with very little chance 
for advancement. Sergeant Morris routinely required his soldier to 
exercise and do calisthenics after the White soldiers left the field; 
this led to increased stamina and confidence in the Black soldiers. 
These exercises led to the creation of a ``test'' company of Black 
soldiers. The Black soldiers under Sergeant Morris' leadership were so 
successful that the company soon became the now famous ``555 Parachute 
Infantry Battalion''. Sergeant Morris was masterful in instilling pride 
and a sense of accomplishments in the men he led. His efforts led to 
the diversity we see in the military today.
  His efforts are even more impressive when you fully consider the 
hardships and indignities Black soldiers had to endure. As a proud 
Black sergeant, Sergeant Morris, with polished boots and paratrooper 
wings, still had to use the ``colored'' toilets and drinking fountains, 
sit in segregated sections of theaters, go out of his way to avoid 
confrontations with racist police and was denied entry into the post's 
officers' club.
  After his military service, Sergeant Morris continued to live his 
civilian life with distinction. In keeping with his pioneering spirit, 
in 1968, he became the first African-American bricklayer foreman in the 
city of New York with the Planet Construction Company. This 
accomplishment was another for Sergeant Morris on the path of opening 
additional doors historically closed to African-Americans. In 1973, he 
became the first African-American construction supervisor in the city 
of New York, working for the Bedford-Stuyvesant Corporation in Brooklyn 
until his retirement in 1983.
  Sergeant Morris is truly a pioneer and has led a very distinguished 
life. His work to help end the color barrier in the U.S. Army and his 
fight to have the accomplishments of Black soldiers recognized paved 
the way for future generations to serve in an integrated U.S. Army. His 
legacy also includes being the proud father of Patricia Worthy of 
Washington, DC, and Crystal Poole of St. Petersburg, FL.
  I ask my colleagues in the House to join me in recognizing the 
lifelong accomplishments of Sergeant Walter J. Morris and his 
relentless pursuit to create new opportunities for African-Americans.

                          ____________________




                       ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. LOIS CAPPS

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3195, the ADA 
Amendments Act, I rise is strong support of the bill.
  One of the most fundamental principles of our great nation is that 
all people, regardless of color, gender, or ability have the right to 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  The ADA was passed to further this principle, and to ensure equal 
opportunity and access for individuals with disabilities.
  When Congress passed the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act in 
1990, it was intended to be interpreted broadly in order to protect the 
rights of all individuals, regardless of ability.
  Sadly, the Supreme Court ignored these intentions.
  Over the last ten years, the Supreme Court has ruled that those who 
use mitigating measures such as medication or eyeglasses to manage 
their disabilities are not ``disabled enough'' to qualify for relief 
under the ADA.
  Under the Court's ruling, people with conditions such as diabetes, 
epilepsy, heart disease, cancer, and mental illness are repeatedly 
denied employment based on their disability, only to be denied relief 
for not being disabled.
  This simply makes no sense.
  The ADA Amendments Act will restore the original intent behind the 
ADA, and clarify the definition of disability to prevent future 
mistakes by the courts.
  Americans with disabilities have been denied their civil rights for 
too long.
  The ADA Amendments Act will restore these rights, and help protect 
people with disabilities from future discrimination.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3195.

                          ____________________




 COMMENDING DR. RAY AUTHEMENT UPON HIS RETIREMENT AS PRESIDENT OF THE 
                  UNIVERSITY OF LOUISIANA AT LAFAYETTE

                                 ______
                                 

                     HON. CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR.

                              of louisiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, after 34 devoted years as president of 
the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Dr. Ray Authement retired 
this month. A legend in higher education, he stood as the longest 
serving university president in the country. The significant changes to 
the University of Louisiana at Lafayette and for the city of Lafayette 
demonstrate his invaluable service to the school and the greater 
community.
  As the university's chief, Dr. Authement is credited with producing 
nationally recognized programs for computer science, Francophone 
studies, and environmental and biological research at UL Lafayette 
during his tenure. He supervised the construction of a significant 
portion of the campus, including Lafayette's Cajundome and convention 
center. And, most notably, he is responsible for raising the 
university's stature academically, spearheading higher enrollment 
requirements and recruiting highly qualified faculty and staff.
  His vision and commitment for the school shaped lifetimes for the 
thousands of alumni, like myself, for which we are forever grateful.
  Dr. Authement's vision for UL Lafayette first manifested itself as he 
pushed to develop a computer science program during the new 
technology's infancy. His leadership drove the university to create the 
first Master's program in the United States for computer science, 
defining a cutting-edge path for the university's future growth. The 
nationally recognized computer science program continues to maintain 
this distinction since the 1980s.
  When Authement began his tenure in Lafayette, the school was 
officially known as the University of Southwestern Louisiana. Dr. 
Authement recognized the misperception by many of the institution as 
simply a regional school. Perspective students, potential employers and 
many across the State failed to consider the school as a top-tier 
university, and as a result, the school was unable to flourish fully.
  After a protracted fight with the State legislature and other State 
leaders, Authement successfully changed the school's name to the 
University of Louisiana at Lafayette in 1999. Most importantly, the new 
name conveys the prominence of the university. In bonding the 
university to the city in the title, Authement highlighted the 
connection between Lafayette and the school.
  Dr. Authement leaves the university a much better place. One of his 
final projects, the Capital Outlay program, which outlines construction 
and renovation for 5 years, enables UL Lafayette the opportunity to 
continue its growth. The plan increases the university's foundation 
endowment from $600,000 to $140 million. A chief component of the 
project's success was Authement's famed fiscal responsibility, which 
inspired enormous confidence that donations would be used wisely.
  Enabling the success and achievements of the University of Louisiana 
at Lafayette, Dr. Authement developed and maintained an impressive 
reputation for the school. His dedication to improving Lafayette 
encouraged the city to greater heights. The legacy Dr. Authement leaves 
behind at UL Lafayette and in the community is everlasting as the 
students who carry the university's banner are attributable to his good 
work.

[[Page 14133]]

  I wish he and his wife Barbara all the best as they begin a new 
chapter in their lives together, and I thank both of them for their 
commitment to the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

                          ____________________




       RECOGNIZING TOM STEVENS, SHARON NEVITT AND JEANNIE DIVINE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. ROBERT A. BRADY

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize 
the extraordinary congressional service of three individuals who will 
be leaving the United States Capitol Guide Service at the end of June. 
Tom Stevens, Sharon Nevitt and Jeannie Divine have together provided 87 
years of service to Congress, and their departure will certainly leave 
a void that is difficult to fill.
  Tom Stevens has served as the Director of Visitor Services, charged 
with managing our dedicated crew of Capitol Guide Service and 
Congressional Special Services employees. He first came to the Guide 
Service in March 1985, and has served as the head of this organization 
since 2003. Tom has done an outstanding job, managing the group that 
provides assistance to literally thousands of visitors who come to the 
U.S. Capitol from around this Nation and the world every day. In 
addition, Tom has worked tirelessly to help plan and prepare for the 
opening of the Capitol Visitor Center.
  Sharon Nevitt has served the Guide Service since November 1977, in a 
variety of management positions, and she currently is the Assistant 
Director of the Guide Service. Her commitment to this institution has 
been dedicated and extraordinary. Working side by side with Tom 
Stevens, Sharon has worked diligently over the past few years to ensure 
that the transition to operations in the Capitol Visitor Center will be 
successful and beneficial for all of our visitors.
  Jeannie Divine joined the Capitol Guide Service in May 1988, coming 
directly from 13 years of service with the Architect of the Capitol. 
Jeannie is part of the fabric of this institution, as she is one of the 
unheralded staffers who work with our offices every day to schedule 
tours and coordinate the many visits we have by constituents. She has 
done a difficult job with consummate professionalism and ceaseless good 
humor.
  Madam Speaker, we are indeed fortunate to have had the services of 
these dedicated individuals. Their work on the behalf of our 
constituents and visitors has been exemplary and I invite my colleagues 
to wish them well in their future endeavors.

                          ____________________




       INTRODUCTION OF HOMELAND SECURITY RELIEF CORPS ACT OF 2008

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. BENNIE G. THOMPSON

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, last Friday, 121 
truckloads of needed Household supplies arrived in the Gulf Coast for 
people displaced by Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Though these supplies 
are surely still welcome, they arrived 3 years late.
  Tragically, at the same time that 90,000 ``living kits'' were 
distributed by FEMA in Louisiana, other Americans, this time in the 
Midwest, have experienced a trauma of their own, as flood waters rose 
and levee after levee was breached. Resources-whether human, financial, 
or equipment-must be made available immediately to the American people 
in need, whether that need is a result of storms, floods, terrorist 
attacks, and other emergencies.
  A recent Mason Dixon poll indicates that some residents of hurricane-
vulnerable states say they will not evacuate and prefer to weather 
storms at home. Furthermore, the results of the poll indicate that many 
residents lack disaster plans and are still misinformed about how to 
protect themselves and their families during a storm. These results are 
particularly troubling when we consider how many citizens of the Gulf 
Coast did not have plans and were forced to accept relocation to toxic 
trailers.
  The Homeland Security Relief Corps Act of 2008 will ensure that the 
areas ravaged by Katrina will not go unattended by providing trained 
workers to engage in actual rebuilding efforts. This bill will assist 
us in addressing some of the harms caused by Katrina.
  As introduced, the Homeland Security Relief Corps Act will establish 
a much needed Response and Recovery Corps within the Department of 
Homeland Security. The Corps members will receive core training in 
emergency response, post-incident recovery, and rebuilding efforts. 
Equipped with the knowledge and preparation needed to make the disaster 
recovery process more efficient, the Corps members will be of 
tremendous assistance to the ravaged areas.
  With the floods in the Midwest and the other disasters this Nation 
has seen since Katrina, it is time for citizens to get more involved in 
disaster response and recovery. This bill provides a path to the 
rebuilding of the Gulf Coast and provides hope for quicker recovery for 
residents of other ravaged areas.

                          ____________________




RECOGNIZING EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, DISASTER RECOVERY AND RELIEF EFFORTS 
                             IN RUSH COUNTY

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MIKE PENCE

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend and recognize the 
extraordinary contributions of emergency management, disaster response, 
and recovery personnel as well as elected officials and community 
leaders in my district which was devastated by the recent severe 
weather in Indiana.
  I wish particularly to honor the Board of Commissioners and County 
Council, as well as these outstanding individuals in Rush County:
  Mike Ooley, Director, Emergency Management Agency.
  Jeff Sherwood, Sheriff.
  Merv Bostic, Mayor, City of Rushville.
  Ron D. Cameron, Chief of Police, City of Rushville.
  These areas suffered greatly from severe storms and weather, creating 
a catastrophe of nature that inflicted injuries, destroyed property, 
and displaced many of our citizens. In response, these officials went 
above and beyond the call of duty, showing great poise while saving 
many lives and serving the people of their communities.
  Madam Speaker, I commend these fine men and women for their 
tremendous dedication to the Hoosier families, businesses, farmers and 
communities that they serve. As Hoosiers continue to recover from 
Mother Nature's fury, I feel confident that the people of Rush County 
will be well served by these officials.

                          ____________________




     SUPPORTING THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN S. TANNER

                              of tennessee

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for the 
decision made by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an individual's right 
to keep and bear arms. Today, the Court rightly struck down the ban on 
handguns in the District of Columbia. Throughout my tenure in Congress, 
I have co-sponsored legislation to end this ban, which contradicts the 
Second Amendment rights guaranteed to all Americans by the U.S. 
Constitution.
  In issuing its decree, the Court protected the right of a sportsman 
to have a shotgun in his home and affirmed the right of a homeowner to 
keep a handgun to protect his family and property from intruders. Our 
Founding Fathers fought and died for the individual liberties we all 
enjoy--among them, the right of the citizens of this country to possess 
firearms.
  We are not given the latitude to pick which of those liberties we 
choose to follow or enforce, be it the freedom to speak or the freedom 
to worship. Like those fundamental freedoms, we cannot dismiss or 
dilute the right to keep and bear arms.
  As an avid hunter and strong gun rights advocate, I applaud the Court 
for its decision. I look forward to continuing our work in Congress to 
protect the integrity of the Second Amendment.

[[Page 14134]]



                          ____________________




 RECOGNIZING THE 2008 JEFFERSON AWARD FOR PUBLIC SERVICE HONOREES FROM 
                              MISSISSIPPI

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. TRAVIS W. CHILDERS

                             of mississippi

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. CHILDERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the recipients 
of the Jefferson Award for Public Service from the great state of 
Mississippi. Nancy Collins of Tupelo, Mississippi, one of only 5 
national honorees, and the 4 local winners Robert Davison of Steens, 
Mississippi, Claire Crawford, Armondo de la Cruz, and Cooper Kennard 
all of Starkville, Mississippi.
  The Jefferson Award for Public Service is presented to the most 
dedicated and hard working of our nation's volunteers. Last week, I had 
the tremendous honor of attending the 2008 National Jefferson Awards 
Ceremony in Washington, where Nancy Collins was awarded one of only 5 
national awards.
  Ms. Collins was instrumental in getting funding for Sanctuary Hospice 
House and was also a co-founder, realizing her goal of providing 
physical and spiritual care to the terminally ill. She was inspired by 
a visit to a similar hospice she visited in Mexico. To date the 
Sanctuary Hospice House, located in Tupelo, has served more than 600 
people and has been an invaluable resource for the families and 
patients in its care.
  Ms. Collins and her fellow honorees are the embodiment of public 
service. I am honored for Ms. Collins to represent North Mississippi 
with her dedication to the community. Please join me today in 
congratulating Ms. Collins for this prestigious recognition of her 
contributions to the greater good.

                          ____________________




   THE DAILY 45: A PYRRHIC VICTORY FOR SOME IN TODAY'S SUPREME COURT 
                                 RULING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, since February of this year, on virtually 
every day the House has been in session, I have decried the senseless 
loss of life, due to gun violence, for what I call the forgotten 
``Daily 45.'' This number refers to the fact that, on average, 45 
people are fatally shot in the United States at the hands of an 
assailant or, worse, a loved one with a gun.
  There's still no national outrage at the fact that this number dwarfs 
the number of fatalities--Iraqi and American--that lose their lives 
daily, or even weekly, in the Iraq war zone! And, in the midst of all 
this, Madam Speaker, today, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court 
has ruled that residents in the District of Columbia have an individual 
right to own and maintain a gun in their homes. This decision will 
negate the efforts made by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, and the 
Metropolitan Police Department, to reduce the skyrocketing murder rate 
as a result of firearms.
  I don't know what community the Justices live in but in my community, 
on the South Side of Chicago, there will be no celebrations in praise 
of this pyrrhic victory. Unfortunately, I can guarantee you that, 
tonight, some parent, some brother, some sister or some community 
leader will, once again, cry out in agony at the loss of yet another 
life from the violence wrought by a gun.
  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!''

                          ____________________




         RECOGNIZING LIEUTENANT GENERAL FRANK SACKTON (RETIRED)

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of retired 
Lieutenant General Frank J. Sackton in honor of his upcoming 96th 
birthday. Leading a life of service to his country and the State of 
Arizona, Frank has shown himself to be a man of honor, intelligence, 
and dedication.
  Frank served in the U.S. Army for 30 years, retiring as a Lieutenant 
General in 1970. In 1945, Sackton was personally decorated and promoted 
by General Douglas MacArthur to Colonel on the battlefield in the 
Philippines. He later served three years as Secretary of the General 
Staff for General MacArthur during the occupation in postwar Japan. 
Frank has fought valiantly to protect this Nation, and I am deeply 
grateful for his service.
  For 25 years, Sackton, a Ph.D., has served Arizona State University 
as honorably as he did our country. He was the founding dean of the 
College of Public Programs, vice president for business affairs, 
athletic director, and then professor. Although technically retired, 
Sackton still teaches a class every semester at ASU. He utilizes his 
creativity and passion for teaching to create classes that are popular 
among his students, opting for interactive case studies over the 
traditional format of textbook reading and lectures.
  He also helped secure a brighter environmental and economic future 
for Arizona, working for three years as Governor Jack Williams' special 
assistant for energy planning and economic development.
  Frank remains committed to contributing to his community. He is 
active at St. Barnabas Episcopalian Church, has addressed the Rotary 
Club on several occasions, and often visits the Children's Center at 
Scottsdale Healthcare to cheer up the children who are ill.
  Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Frank Sackton on 
nearly a century of service.

                          ____________________




                               JACK BROWN

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. SAM GRAVES

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jack Brown, 
of St. Joseph, Missouri. Mr. Brown will retire from the St. Joseph, 
Missouri Fire Department after an impressive 38-year career with the 
department.
   Chief Brown was named the 15th Fire Chief in the St. Joseph Fire 
Department's history in September of 2003. Previously he served in many 
capacities, including Battalion Chief and Captain. Chief Brown is also 
the recipient of three life-saving awards during his career.
   Jack is someone that I developed a personal friendship with, as we 
had the opportunity to work together on various issues. He is a 
sincere, honest individual that never wanted any of the accolades; he 
always felt he was just doing his job. You knew when visiting with Jack 
that firefighting was not a career, but rather a passion. Chief Brown 
is a stand-up individual, who will be truly missed by the St. Joseph 
Fire Department, the St. Joseph community and all those who had the 
opportunity to work with him.
   Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in recognizing Jack 
Brown, whose dedication and service to the citizens of St. Joseph, 
Missouri has been truly exceptional. It is truly an honor to serve 
Chief Brown in the United States Congress.

                          ____________________




                 HONORING COLONEL RICHARD J. MASON, JR.

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BEN CHANDLER

                              of kentucky

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. CHANDLER. Madam Speaker, COL Richard J. Mason, Jr. demonstrated 
exceptional meritorious service from 30 June 2005 to 10 July 2008 as 
Commander of Blue Grass Army Depot (BGAD), a 15,000 acre depot in 
Richmond, Kentucky. He was responsible for the production, receipt, 
storage, issue, maintenance and demilitarization of conventional 
munitions.
   Serving as the consummate depot commander, Colonel Mason oversaw an 
organization that supported the troops with ammunition and Chemical 
Defense Equipment. He safeguarded and ensured the operational readiness 
of a munitions stockpile while executing the shipping and receiving of 
over 250,000 short tons of munitions.
   As the sole provider chemical personnel equipment, Colonel Mason's 
untiring efforts to improve support to the troops were superb. By 
eliminating erroneous shipments to incorrect locations, the cost of 
transportation was reduced by over 30 percent and ability to provide 
equipment to soldiers on the battlefield increased significantly 
without requiring additional manpower. Specifically, Colonel Mason's 
efforts to support the fielding of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected 
(MRAP) armor kits to the troops were commendable.

[[Page 14135]]

   He contributed to the future of the BGAD by developing its first 
Strategic Business Plan which integrated all aspects of logistics and 
business processes while providing a clear vision for the Depot's 
future. He also initiated a continuous business improvement culture 
across the Depot by improving processes, reducing costs, eliminating 
waste and improving ergonomics and safety.
   A native of Oldtown, Maryland, Colonel Mason arrived at Blue Grass 
Army Depot in July 2005 as a highly regarded and decorated leader in 
the Army. Prior to arriving at BGAD, Colonel Mason served as the Chief 
of Support for Task Force Sinai in El Gora, Egypt among other 
leadership positions in the United States and Germany. Colonel Mason's 
Change of Command will take place July 10, 2008.

                          ____________________




                       IN HONOR OF E. PAT LARKINS

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a true 
friend and leader who is widely respected, and much loved by the 
citizens of Pompano Beach, Florida, The Honorable E. Pat Larkins. Pat 
was born in Pompano Beach in 1942. He graduated Blanche Ely High School 
in 1960 and enrolled in Tennessee State University. In 1962, he was 
hired as housing director for the local community action agency, and in 
1969, he was one of only two Florida recipients of a Ford Foundation 
fellowship to attend the National Housing Institute in Washington, DC.
  Pat was subsequently certified by HUD as a housing development 
specialist, and in 1970, he went to work for the Foundation for Co-Op 
Housing in Chicago, Illinois. In 1972, he returned to Florida and 
created the Broward County Minority Builders Coalition, Inc. where he 
still serves as C.E.O. He is also currently president and partner of 
Malar Construction, State licensed general contractors.
  In addition to these accomplishments, Pat has also had a long career 
in the public sector and has, helped to change the face of local 
politics. He was the first chairperson of the City of Pompano Beach 
Community Development Committee. In 1982, he was the second African-
American elected to the Pompano Beach City Commission. He was just the 
eighth African-American local elected official in Broward County and 
served 19 consecutive years as city commissioner. In that time, he 
served a record seven terms as mayor and three terms as vice-mayor, 
positions to which he was elected by his fellow Commissioners. He also 
served an unprecedented 14 consecutive years on the Broward County 
Planning Council and was the first African-American chair of that body.
  After an unsuccessful run for Broward County Commission in 2001, Pat 
Larkins was reelected to the Pompano Beach City Commission in 2003 
where he presently serves as vice-mayor. Pat is sometimes referred to 
as the dean of Broward black elected officials because of his 
remarkable leadership and role as one of the founders of that group.
  He is also recognized throughout the State as a leader and 
spokesperson for minority involvement in government and business. 
During his time as mayor of Pompano Beach, the city hired the first 
black fire chief and first black city clerk in Broward County. Pat 
initiated the city ordinance to promote minority small business 
concerns, and along with two others, helped to create the first 
minority business enterprise program for Broward County government.
  In addition to his many professional achievements, Pat Larkins has 
also taken an active role in countless public service, social, and 
religious organizations. He is a life member of the NAACP, serves on 
the Broward County Boys and Girls Club corporate board, the Juvenile 
Justice Intensive Halfway House, and the Florida black caucus local 
elected officials, and is a longtime member of Hopewell Baptist Church. 
He is a founding member of the Urban League board, as well as a leader 
in the Superintendents' Commission on Public Education, National Black 
Mayors' Conference, and U.S. Conference of Mayors.
  Madam Speaker, Pat Larkins has had an indelible impact on the well-
being of his community, as he has worked tirelessly to ensure that 
every individual has access to safe and adequate housing. Under his 
leadership, Pompano Beach recently demolished a 140-home development 
that had been rundown and falling apart and relocated the owners to a 
modern development of affordable homes on an even swap arrangement at a 
considerable cost savings to the city. Over the past 5 years, he has 
led his city in providing financial and other assistance that has 
resulted in the erection of more than 800 affordable multifamily units.
  Pat has often said that he wants to be remembered not for his 
personal longevity, but most of all for helping to improve the lives of 
others. In this, he has certainly succeeded. Few people I have known 
have accomplished so much for the good of their fellow citizens and 
their community. I am fortunate to call him my friend.

                          ____________________




 HONORING LARRY WILEY ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE MICHIGAN STATE POLICE

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BART STUPAK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Sgt. Larry Wiley of 
Grayling, Michigan. Sgt. Wiley will be retiring from the Michigan State 
Police on June 28, 2008. As a former Michigan State Trooper, I have a 
special appreciation for the service of public servants like Sgt. 
Wiley, and I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and the entire U.S. House of 
Representatives, join me in paying tribute to his 26 years of service 
for the Michigan State Police.
  Sgt. Wiley is happily married to his wife, Patty. Together, they have 
raised four wonderful daughters. Law enforcement runs thick in his 
blood, as his brother, James Wiley, was also a member of the Michigan 
State Police.
  Prior to joining the Michigan State Police, Sgt. Wiley served in the 
U.S. Air Force from 1975 to 1979. While in the Air Force, Sgt. Wiley 
worked as a dog handler for the security police. After his service in 
Texas, Illinois and the Philippines, Sgt. Wiley was honorably 
discharged and moved to Michigan, where he went to work for the 
Michigan State Police in 1982.
  Since joining the department, he has served at many posts and in many 
functions in his 26 years, and his dedicated service is truly 
commendable. He was stationed in Bridgeport and Detroit before being 
promoted to Sergeant at his post in L'Anse in 1988. After being 
stationed in Negaunee, Kalkaska and Houghton Lake, Sgt. Wiley served 
for 10 years with the Strike Team Investigate Narcotics Group in West 
Branch, helping to combat the flow of illegal drugs in five surrounding 
counties.
  Madam Speaker, the dedicated men and women who dutifully enforce the 
law to protect their communities rarely receive the praise they 
deserve. I ask that you and the entire U.S. House of Representatives 
join with me in congratulating Sgt. Larry Wiley on a job well done and 
in wishing him well in his retirement.

                          ____________________




ON INTRODUCTION OF THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE IMPROVEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, today I am joining with 18 other committee 
chairs to introduce legislation to strengthen the authority of the 
Government Accountability Office.
  GAO assists Congress in identifying waste, fraud, and abuse in 
federal programs and recommending ways to make government work better. 
Because of its vital role, GAO needs unfettered access to federal 
agencies. Efforts by executive branch officials to withhold information 
from GAO impedes Congress' ability to legislate effectively.
  One key provision in the bill clarifies that Congress authorizes GAO 
to pursue civil actions if federal agencies or the White House 
improperly withhold federal records.
  In litigation arising from GAO's efforts to obtain information about 
the operations of the Cheney energy task force, a federal district 
court held that the Comptroller General lacked standing to enforce 
GAO's right to information. This case, called Walker v. Cheney, was 
wrongly decided and misconstrued congressional intent regarding the 
role of the Comptroller General. The decision was also an improper 
invasion into Congress' constitutional prerogatives to determine how 
best to carry out its investigative responsibilities.
  While I am confident that another court considering this issue would 
reach a different decision, passing new legislation to clarify GAO's 
authority is the most expedient way to restore the authority of the 
Comptroller General. For this reason, this bill contains express 
authorization from Congress to the Comptroller General to pursue 
litigation if documents are improperly withheld from GAO. In effect, 
this provision represents a legislative repudiation of the court's 
decision in Walker v. Cheney.

[[Page 14136]]

  Other provisions of this important bill give GAO the express 
authority to interview federal employees when conducting evaluations 
and investigations and expand GAO's authority to administer oaths.
  The bill further enhances GAO authorities by clarifying its right to 
important records to which it has been denied access. These include 
records at the Federal Drug Administration, the Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services, and the Federal Trade Commission.
  Finally, the bill creates a reporting mechanism so that Congress will 
be more fully informed when federal agencies do not cooperate with GAO. 
These reports will be important tools to improve GAO's oversight 
capability.
  GAO provides invaluable assistance to Congress by helping Congress 
understand how federal agencies are performing their duties. This 
legislation helps ensure that GAO has the authorities it needs to carry 
out these crucial responsibilities.

                          ____________________




                      BOGUS WITHDRAWAL RESOLUTION

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, on June 25, 2008, the Committee 
on Natural Resources adopted a resolution directing the Secretary of 
the Interior to make an emergency withdrawal of more than one million 
acres of land in Arizona from the operation of the mining laws, 
jeopardizing significant reserves of critical high-grade sources of 
uranium for clean-burning nuclear power plants. The Committee passed 
this resolution without a quorum present in violation of House and 
Committee rules, as documented by the 20-2 roll call vote on the motion 
to adopt. In addition, the Republicans had vacated the markup in 
protest of what is an unconstitutional measure, and so this vote 
reflects only those of Democratic members. The resolution therefore 
clearly does not reflect the views of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  The majority marked up the resolution even though the use of this 
authority under section 204(e) of the Federal Land Policy Management 
Act is clearly unconstitutional. This view is supported by an informal 
opinion of the Justice Department issued in 1983 as well as a recent 
analysis by the Congressional Research Service. I reproduce the Justice 
Memorandum below and have appended the conclusion of the CRS American 
Law Division.
  There is no emergency. If there was, the Secretary of the Interior 
would use his own power to make an emergency withdrawal. The reality is 
that the majority could not pass actual legislation locking up these 
millions of acres of public lands from resource development--in an area 
where there are already many mining claims.
  This resolution is a toothless act of political theater. I hope that 
Interior Secretary Kempthorne gives it all the deference it deserves--
none.

     Subject: Legislative Veto Provision Contained in Sec. 204(e) 
         of FLPMA.
     Date: September 12, 1983.

       From: Name: Ralph W. Tarr, Office Symbol: OLC.
       Statement: This memorandum memorializes the oral advice I 
     recently conveyed to the Solicitor's Office of the Interior 
     Department concerning conclusions we reached as to the 
     legislative veto provision contained in Sec. 204(e) of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), 43 
     U.S.C. Sec. 1714(e). That section provides in pertinent part 
     that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs of either 
     House of Congress (subsequently designated as the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources in the Senate) may notify the 
     Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') that an emergency 
     situation exists and direct the Secretary to withdraw certain 
     public lands from disposition under laws pertaining to 
     mineral leasing.
       Previous litigation under this provision followed a 
     Resolution of May 21, 1981, by the House Committee, directed 
     to the Secretary, for the withdrawal of certain lands in the 
     Bob Marshall, Great Bear, and Scapegoat Wilderness Areas. 
     This Office determined, and the Department subsequently took 
     the position in that litigation, that Sec. 204(e) was 
     unconstitutional insofar as it authorized a Committee of 
     either House to direct the Secretary to take an action which 
     would change the status of public lands. It was our view that 
     the provision, as legislative action, violated the 
     Bicameralism and Presentment Clauses, Art. I, Sec. 1, and 
     Art. I, Sec. 7, cl. 2 and 3, and, as executive action, 
     violated principles of separation of powers and the 
     Incompatibility Clause, Art. I, Sec. 6. See generally 
     Memorandum in Support of Federal Defendants' Cross-Motion to 
     Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment and in Response to 
     Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Summary 
     Judgment in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil No. 81-
     141BLG, and Mountain States Legal Foundation v. Watt, Civil 
     No. 81-168-BLG (D. Mont.)
       The Department's Memorandum submitted to the court at that 
     time also concluded that the portion of Sec. 204( e), which 
     provided for the committee veto was severable from the 
     Secretary's leasing authority, which is contained in entirely 
     different and earlier statutes, and from the Secretary's 
     authority under Sec. 204(e) to withdraw lands on his own 
     initiative. Section 707 of FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 note, 
     provides that if any provision or its application of the Act 
     is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and its application 
     shall not be affected. See, e.g., Champlin Refining Co. v. 
     Corporation Commission of Oklahoma, 286 U.S. 210 (1932), 
     quoted with approval in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 108-109 
     (1976).
       In the court decision which resulted, the district court 
     upheld Sec. 204(e) against the separation of powers 
     challenge, on the ground that the scope and duration of a 
     withdrawal order under Sec. 204(e) were within the 
     Secretary's discretion, subject to judicial review. The court 
     did not view Sec. 204(e) as a veto provision and thus did not 
     address the bicameralism and presentment issues. The court 
     added, however, that if the section were interpreted to 
     permit a congressional committee, by majority vote, to direct 
     the Secretary to withdraw wilderness areas until the date 
     specified in the Resolution, the committee action would be, 
     in effect, an attempt to amend the Wilderness Act of 1964, 
     and would be unconstitutional under the Ninth Circuit's 
     decision in Chadha v. INS, 634 F.2d 408 (9th Cir. 1980). See 
     Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) v. Watt, 529 F. Supp. 982 (D. 
     Mont. 1982), on reconsideration, 539 F. Supp. 1194 (D. Mont. 
     1982) (final order of Aug. 31, 1982, unpublished).
       The constitutionality of the legislative veto device has 
     since been firmly and finally decided. INS v. Chadha, 51 
     U.S.L.W. 4907 (June 23, 1983); Consumer Energy Council v. 
     FERC, 673 F.2d 425 (D.C. Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935 
     (June 29, 1983), Consumers Union v. FTC, 691 F.2d 575 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1982), aff'd, 51 U.S.L.W. 3935 (June 29, 1983). There 
     remains no doubt that the power to direct withdrawal of lands 
     granted to a single Congressional Committee by Sec. 204(e) 
     is, by its terms, a legislative veto and is unconstitutional 
     under Chadha.
       At the request of Interior, this Office examined 
     Sec. 204(e) and the relevant case law in conjunction with a 
     Resolution of August 3, 1983, by the House Committee on 
     Interior and Insular Affairs, which purported to direct the 
     Secretary to withdraw lands in the Fort Union Coal Region of 
     Montana and North Dakota. We determined and advised Interior 
     that the Resolution passed pursuant to Sec. 204(e) purporting 
     to direct withdrawal was unconstitutional as a legislative 
     veto and was not salvageable under the construction of the 
     court in PLF v. Watt. We further determined and advised that 
     constitutional failure of the veto provision has no effect on 
     the substantive authority granted to the Secretary of 
     Interior by the statutes.
                                  ____

       Congressional Research Service, Memorandum, June 20, 2008.
       SUBJECT: Constitutional Issues with Sec. 204(e) of the 
     Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended.
       . . . For there to be a legal obligation to withdraw land 
     imposed on the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 
     Sec. 204(e), the [INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983)] 
     decision requires that actions of Congress comply with both 
     the bicameralism and presentment clauses of the Constitution. 
     The single committee resolution contemplated by Sec. 204(e) 
     does not satisfy these requirements and, therefore, cannot be 
     said to impose any legal obligation on the Secretary to 
     withdraw land. Accordingly, should such a resolution be 
     adopted it appears likely that the Secretary would be well 
     within his authority to interpret it as informational and/or 
     advisory in nature and, thus, will be able to avoid taking 
     the actions contemplated under the statute. Should Congress 
     wish to impose a binding legal obligation on the Secretary it 
     could opt either to pass a joint resolution or a bill, both 
     of which satisfy the bicameralism and presentment 
     requirements of Article I, as they would need to be presented 
     to the President for his signature or veto (and in the case 
     of a veto be overridden) to have the necessary effect of 
     mandating that the Secretary withdraw land.

                          ____________________




     RETIREMENT OF MR. RICARDO SANCHEZ FROM THE CORPUS CHRISTI RTA

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. ORTIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Mr. Ricardo 
Sanchez of Corpus Christi, TX on his retirement from the Corpus Christi 
Regional Transportation Authority.
  Ricardo has been an excellent public servant for the Coastal Bend and 
has dedicated his professional career to improve the transportation 
infrastructure of South Texas.
  Ricardo has over 27 years of professional and managerial experience 
in public transportation. He started his career in public 
transportation with Houston Metro in 1983 and moved

[[Page 14137]]

to the Corpus Christi RTA in 1986 to serve as Assistant to the General 
Manager.
  During his tenure with the Corpus Christi RTA, Ricardo worked in 
varying and extensive capacities serving as Assistant to the General 
Manager for Contracts and Procurement; Director of Contracts and 
Materials Management; Director of Maintenance Services, and Director of 
Special Projects.
  In May 2004, Ricardo was selected by the RTA Board of Directors to 
serve as Interim General Manager for the agency and later hired as the 
agency's General Manager.
  Ricardo has been a productive member of the community, serving in 
numerous leadership posts such as Board Member of the National Archives 
and Historical Foundation of the American GI Forum, Vice-Chair of the 
Corpus Christi Arts and Cultural Commission, and President of the 
Houston Chapter Association for the Advancement of Mexican Americans.
  Ricardo and his wife, Carmen, have three wonderful daughters--Yliana, 
Marisa, Teresa--and have one grandchild, Andrea.
  I congratulate Ricardo on his retirement and wish him and his family 
the best of luck during the next chapter of his life.

                          ____________________




  HONORING ROBERT BEATTY ON 50 YEARS WITH THE INDIAN RIVER LIONS CLUB

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BART STUPAK

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. STUPAK. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize Robert Beatty of 
Indian River, Michigan. Mr. Beatty has served as a member of the Indian 
River Lions Club for 50 years, and I ask that you, Madam Speaker, and 
the entire U.S. House of Representatives, join me in honoring his 50 
years of service to the Indian River community.
  Born in Marietta, Ohio, on April 24, 1923, Robert Beatty moved to 
Indian River in 1946. He and his wife, Edith, will have been married 61 
years this October. Together, they have raised three lovely children.
  Mr. Beatty's service with the Lions Club, the world's largest service 
organization, is truly commendable. His first contact with the Lions 
Club came in 1958 at a poker game with Anthony Schneider, the founding 
member of the Indian River Lions Club chapter. After discussing the 
mission of the Lions Club, he was so enthusiastic that he decided to 
join the next day.
  Mr. Beatty quickly rose through the ranks. After only 3 days of 
membership, he took on the role of treasurer. Since that time, he has 
held every position within the club except secretary and has been on 
the board of directors for all 50 years of his membership. With a 
reputation of being the first to volunteer for every community service 
project, his leadership in the Lions Club has been instrumental to 
their service for the Indian River community.
  Mr. Beatty's community service extends beyond his activities with the 
Lions Club. As a former member of the Indian River school board, he 
worked diligently to improve education within his community. A veteran 
of the U.S. Army, Mr Beatty is also a lifetime member of the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars, continuing to serve his community and assist his 
fellow veterans through his membership.
  Madam Speaker, as Robert Beatty celebrates his 50 years of faithful 
service with the Indian River Lions Club, I ask that you and the entire 
U.S. House of Representatives join with me in thanking Mr. Beatty's for 
his dedicated service. Indian River is no doubt a better place because 
of Mr. Beatty's years of involvement in the community.

                          ____________________




                   SUPPORTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN VIETNAM

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. AL GREEN

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, Respect for human rights and 
individual freedom is an important element of American foreign policy. 
Therefore, it must be the goal of the United States government to work 
towards enhancing human rights conditions, individual liberty and 
religious freedom in Vietnam. Moral imperatives such as freedom and 
individual rights are exceedingly important in establishing a mutually 
beneficial diplomatic relationship.
  The current human rights situation in Vietnam is unacceptable. I am 
greatly concerned about state sanctioned oppression that has left 
numerous Vietnamese citizens helpless in the face of a government that 
has chosen to exercise repressive rule over a population that seeks 
individual, political and religious freedom. There are numerous 
religious and political prisoners imprisoned in Vietnam. Political 
prisoners are placed in conditions that are unacceptable. The 
international community should not sit idly by and allow this behavior 
to continue without condemnation.
  In Vietnam, according to Human Rights Watch, ``2007 was characterized 
by the harshest crackdown on peaceful dissent in 20 years.'' 
Additionally, since gaining membership in the WorId Trade Organization, 
it has been reported that Vietnam moved to suppress all challenges to 
the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP) by arresting dozens of democracy 
and human rights activists, independent trade union leaders, 
underground publishers, and members of unsanctioned religious groups.
  The government of Vietnam should not be rewarded by the United States 
government and the international community for stifling the freedom of 
the press, arresting dissidents, and labeling religious activity as 
subversive. We need a bilateral relationship with Vietnam that enhances 
individual freedom, democracy, and freedom of speech. I will continue 
to work in Congress to help promote democracy and end oppression in 
Vietnam.

                          ____________________




         HONORING THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF MR. BASIL C. MARHOFER

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JERRY MORAN

                               of kansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize and 
celebrate the accomplishments and career of Mr. Basil C. Marhofer, a 
good friend from my home State of Kansas. Mr. Marhofer will be retiring 
Monday, June 30, from a successful career as a distinguished lawyer and 
public servant.
  Mr. Marhofer's contribution of service has spanned over six decades. 
After graduating from Ness City High School in Ness City, Kansas, in 
1942, Mr. Marhofer served his nation in the European theater in the 
Second WorId War. After returning from Europe, Mr. Marhofer enrolled in 
the University of Kansas Law School and graduated in 1951. He opened 
his first law office that same year in Ness City.
  Soon afterwards, Mr. Marhofer was appointed Ness County Attorney, a 
position that he held until 1959. After spending a short time in 
Boulder, Colorado, at the University of Colorado Law School, Mr. 
Marhofer returned to Ness City and to his position as county attorney, 
where he remained until 1968. In 1971, Mr. Marhofer was elected Mayor 
of Ness City where he served for 8 years.
  Mr. Marhofer has been actively involved in his community, including 
the local Masonic Lodge and Rotary International. He has held many 
offices in Rotary International, including District governor and 
director. In 1988, Mr. Marhofer was elected vice president and 
represented Rotary International on five continents.
  Mr. Marhofer has spent his life serving his community, State, and 
country. I am proud to know him and to have this opportunity to 
recognize him. To him, serving his community is not a burden--it is a 
calling and a way of life. Whenever I have the opportunity to visit 
Ness City, Mr. Marhofer is always there, greeting me with the utmost 
hospitality. He is a just scholar of law and an honest public servant 
who sets an example for us all. I wish him the best as he enters 
retirement.

                          ____________________




           TRIBUTE ON THE RETIREMENT OF CHIEF WILLIAM KIDWELL

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BILL FOSTER

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, I am submitting this statement to express 
congratulations and gratitude to Chief William Kidwell on the occasion 
of his retirement from the Geneva Police Department.
  On July 1, Chief Kidwell will end a 35-year career of distinguished 
service to his community. He joined the Geneva Police Department in 
1973 as a captain, and rose quickly through the ranks. During his 27-
year tenure as chief, the department expanded from a force of 13

[[Page 14138]]

officers and 4 patrol cars to 8 squads of 37 officers.
  Chief Kidwell is known in the department and throughout the community 
as a leader with high integrity. He exemplifies the devoted public 
service to which we all should strive.
  I offer my best wishes to Chief Kidwell and his family, and I thank 
him for more than three decades of service.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. XAVIER BECERRA

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 23, 2008, I was unable to 
cast my floor vote on rollcall vote 438.
  Had I been present for the votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for 
rollcall vote 438.

                          ____________________




                            SCHOOL TO WATCH

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ERIC CANTOR

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I am proud to congratulate Short Pump 
Middle School, located in Henrico County, VA, for their recognition as 
a School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades 
Reform. This forum is an alliance of more than 60 educators, 
researchers, and officers of national associations and foundations 
dedicated to improving schools for young adolescents across the 
country. They have identified Short Pump Middle as a high-performing 
school that excels in many areas of education. Congratulations to the 
administration, teachers and students on this tremendous honor. 
National organizations recognize what we in Richmond already know--that 
Short Pump Middle is first rate. As the parent of 3 Short Pump Middle 
School alumni, I congratulate the teachers, parents, administrators and 
students on this outstanding recognition.

                          ____________________




  INTRODUCTION OF THE ``AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN SECURITY AND PROSPERITY 
                           ENHANCEMENT ACT''

                                  _____
                                 

                         HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the 
Afghanistan-Pakistan Security and Prosperity Enhancement Act. The 
legislation is a national security bill aimed at protecting our 
homeland and those of our allies in the fight against AI-Qa'ida and the 
Taliban. This bill authorizes the President of the United States to 
designate Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) in Afghanistan and in 
certain regions of Pakistan. These ROZs will allow qualified businesses 
duty-free access into U.S. markets for designated products, thereby 
providing significant employment opportunities where none currently 
exist. A ROZ program could go a long way to bolster economic 
development in this critical region of the world where extremists have 
tried to exploit the lack of economic opportunities to gain recruits 
for their radical agenda.
  The countries of Afghanistan and Pakistan are key to the fight 
against AI-Qa'ida and its Taliban allies. Al-Qa'ida is the group that 
masterminded and carried out the deadly terrorist attacks of 9/11 that 
took the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. It would have had difficultly 
doing so if were not given safe-haven by the Taliban, then in control 
of the Afghan government and much of the country.
  The U.S.-led effort to topple the Taliban regime and pursue AI-Qa'ida 
terrorists in the aftermath of 9/11 initially weakened both of these 
groups but there are disturbing signs that they are regrouping and 
strengthening, particularly along the porous Afghanistan-Pakistan 
border. The declassified National Intelligence Estimate on ``The 
Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland,'' published in July 2007, 
stated: ``AI-Qa'ida is and will remain the most serious threat to the 
Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact 
plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its 
efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has 
protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack 
capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top 
leadership.''
  More recently, the State Department's ``Country Reports on Terrorism 
2007,'' published in April 2008, noted that ``Afghanistan remained 
threatened by Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminal gangs, 
some of whom were linked to [AI-Qa'ida] and terrorist sponsors outside 
the country.'' The same report also noted that ``Despite the efforts of 
both Afghan and Pakistani security forces, instability, coupled with 
the Islamabad brokered ceasefire agreement in effect for the first half 
of 2007 along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, appear to have 
provided [AI-Qa'ida] leadership greater mobility and ability to conduct 
training and operational planning, particularly targeting Western 
Europe and the United States.''
  Enhanced security efforts by the United States, Pakistan and 
Afghanistan are needed to disrupt and weaken AI-Qa'ida and the Taliban, 
but security measures alone will not rid them of these menacing 
groups--terrorists who continue to want to do us harm and are a threat 
to democracy and the rule of law. These extremist groups exploit the 
poor socioeconomic conditions, such as high unemployment, in the border 
areas, to gain adherents to their nefarious causes. With no meaningful 
alternatives, young men in particular are vulnerable to their 
entreaties.
  Creative ways must be found to give young Pakistanis and Afghans a 
positive vision of the future. One such way is to create sustainable 
jobs in these vulnerable areas so that the promise of a decent living 
makes more sense than following the warped ideology of the terrorists.
  The Reconstruction and Opportunity Zone legislation for Afghanistan 
and parts of Pakistan does just that. This legislation creates, in 
essence, special economic zones in these regions, enabling domestic and 
foreign firms to establish manufacturing enterprises that will bring 
thousands of good-paying jobs to the people of these areas.
  As these troubled regions develop economically, they will diminish 
the recruiting pool of the terrorists. And as the terrorists find it 
more difficult to find support and protection among the local 
populations, they will become more vulnerable to the security forces.

                          ____________________




     HONORING LIEUTENANT DANE R. HAYWARD OF LAKE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. MIKE THOMPSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize 
Lt. Dane R. Hayward on the occasion of his retirement as Commander of 
the Clear Lake Area Highway Patrol. Lt. Hayward has served his 
community and the State of California honorably for over 30 years.
  Lt. Hayward received his A.A. in Auto Technology from Ventura 
Community College, his B.A. in Police Science/Psychology at Lavern 
University and his M.A. in Counseling from the University of San 
Francisco.
  Lt. Hayward has had an illustrious career in public service. He has 
implemented progressive solutions that have saved countless lives in 
Lake County, part of California's 151 Congressional District. He helped 
secure a 2003 Pedestrian Corridor grant which has resulted in zero 
pedestrian fatalities to date. He was able to get SR-53 and SR-20 
controlled, which has also led to zero fatalities since, and the signal 
he was able to install at Highland Springs lowered fatalities by 50 
percent. He has built the force by establishing a Senior Volunteer 
Program and an Explorer Program, supplementing his officers on patrol.
  Lt. Hayward served as a motorcycle officer in the Central Los Angeles 
and West Valley offices in southern California. He then went on to 
become a Sergeant in south Los Angeles and Ventura and a Lieutenant in 
Baldwin Park, West Valley, and Clear Lake before earning the Commander 
position.
  Lt. Hayward is known as a generous, diligent and committed public 
servant who never hesitates to answer the call of his community. Among 
many other affiliations, Lt. Hayward is a member of the Coast Guard 
Auxiliary, the National Rifle Association, a member of Ventura County 
Peace Officers Association, and a member of the California Peace 
Officers Association. On top of all that, Lt. Hayward has been a peer 
support counselor for the CHP from 1990 to the present.
  Madam Speaker and colleagues, it is appropriate at this time that we 
thank Lt. Dane Hayward for his years of dedication and service on 
behalf of Lake County and the citizens of California. He has been a 
role model for anyone who wants to give back to his or her community. I 
join his wife Phill, their son Dane Jr., and daughter Nicole in 
thanking Dane and wishing him a lifetime of fulfillment.

[[Page 14139]]



                          ____________________




                     RECOGNIZING WORLD REFUGEE DAY

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALCEE L. HASTINGS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, last Friday was World Refugee 
Day, a day to reflect and address the growing problem of refugee 
populations worldwide.
  According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees 
(UNHCR), there are more than 11 million refugees living outside their 
countries. Another 26 million are estimated to be internally displaced 
due to conflict alone. I urge my colleagues to address this complex and 
tragic issue.
  Since the beginning of civilization, populations have fled to escape 
violence and persecution and have found sanctuary in foreign lands. In 
1951, the United Nations Refugee Convention was created in order to 
address this issue on an international level. The Convention is the key 
legal document defining who is a refugee, what their rights are, and 
the legal obligations of states to refugees.
  Since 1951, the issue of refugees has grown both in size and in 
complexity. While the Convention was designed to solve the problem of 
World War II refugees, it has broadly extended its scope as the number 
and nationality of refugees dramatically grew over time. For the first 
time in five years, the number of refugees has increased, primarily due 
to a large population exodus from Iraq into neighboring countries. 
Other significant population outflows that have contributed to this 
increase include: The Central African Republic, Chad, Sri Lanka, Sudan, 
and Somalia.
  As this issue grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to address it. 
Today, the reasons leading populations to flee are more diverse. While 
in 1951 the two main causes of departure were poverty and conflict, 
today the causes have expanded to bad governance, climate change, and 
competition for scarce resources. As barriers to human mobility have 
fallen in recent decades, protecting refugees has become even more 
difficult. These new challenges make it even more crucial to find 
adequate and efficient ways to address these issues.
  Moreover, with the increased number of refugees worldwide, many 
countries have started to reverse their policies on granting asylum and 
have begun closing their doors to vulnerable populations. As a result, 
refugees are forced to return to the terrible situations which they 
were originally trying to escape.
  I believe that we can alleviate suffering and save lives if the 
problem is addressed globally, and in cooperation with foreign 
countries and international organizations, such as the United Nations. 
The protection of refugees is an international duty. It is the United 
States' duty to lead these efforts.
  One of the most pressing examples of a burgeoning crisis is the Iraqi 
refugee crisis. Today, there are millions of displaced Iraqis both 
inside and outside of Iraq. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, the 
United States has only welcomed in 8,000 Iraqi refugees while Sweden 
alone has taken in 40,000. The United States has a tremendous 
responsibility to aid these populations. Even more, we have a specific 
obligation to protect our allies in Iraq who risked their lives to help 
our government and our Armed Forces.
  As Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, I have been deeply concerned 
and involved in this issue. Most recently, Senator Benjamin L. Cardin 
(D-MD), my Co-Chairman of the Helsinki Commission, Congressman John D. 
Dingell (D-MI), and I, along with 14 other Members of the House and 
Senate, sent a letter to President Bush questioning the Administration 
over delays in processing threatened Iraqis who have worked for the 
United States government and American organizations in Iraq. In 
particular, the letter urges President Bush to allow the Department of 
Defense to airlift Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants for 
expedited processing to a central processing center outside of Iraq.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me to assist not only 
Iraqi refugee populations but refugees across the globe. The United 
States, a beacon of freedom and democracy, has a longstanding tradition 
of providing aid and protection to refugee populations. I urge my 
colleagues to devote to this issue of growing refugee populations the 
attention and resources it needs and deserves.

                          ____________________




                 IN HONOR OF DEAN CARMEN TWILLIE AMBAR

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR.

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise 
today in recognition of Dean Carmen Twillie Ambar. I join with 
President Richard L. McCormick and all of Rutgers University in 
honoring Dean Ambar for her outstanding tenure at Douglass and for her 
recent appointment as President of the Cedar Crest College.
  During her tenure as Dean of Douglass, Dean Ambar demonstrated her 
commitment to the educational advancement of women by leading the fight 
to save Douglass College. Dedicated to women's success and leadership, 
Douglass is a unique institution that has enabled countless young women 
to receive an excellent education and fulfill their potential as 
leaders in public service, academia, and business.
  In addition, Dean Ambar's exemplary service and dedication to 
Douglass was evident in her pursuit of women's global leadership. Dean 
Ambar spearheaded programs that showcased and promoted women's 
leadership skills and encouraged young women to pursue careers in math, 
science, and technology.
  Madam Speaker, it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me 
in honoring and recognizing Dean Ambar for her invaluable contributions 
to Douglass and the greater Rutgers University community.

                          ____________________




   ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE U.S.-KOREA FREE TRADE 
                               AGREEMENT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. KEVIN BRADY

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, on Monday, June 30, we will mark 
the one-year anniversary since negotiators for the United States and 
the Republic of Korea signed the historic and landmark U.S.-Korea Free 
Trade Agreement, one of the most commercially significant free trade 
agreements to be signed by the United States in over a decade.
  The Republic of Korea and the United States are already major trading 
partners. South Korea has the world's 11th largest economy and stands 
as our 7th largest trading partner with more than $80 billion passing 
between our two nations each year.
  Today, Korea took a critical step toward implementing the recent 
agreement between the United States and Korea that will allow exports 
of high-quality U.S. beef to resume, based on internationally 
recognized standards that affirm the safety of U.S. beef.
  Before the import ban, South Korea was the third largest sales market 
for U.S. beef, valued at over $800 million a year. As the nation's 
fourth largest beef exporter, Texas would stand to benefit greatly from 
new opportunities in the Korean market. Under the FTA, Korea would 
remove tariffs of up to 40 percent levied on U.S. beef, giving U.S. 
ranchers an advantage over other foreign competitors.
  By eliminating tariffs and other trade barriers and strengthening 
protections for U.S. companies, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement 
will expand trade and investment further. The U.S. International Trade 
Commission has forecast that the elimination of tariffs on U.S. goods 
under the U.S.-Korea FTA would grow U.S. GDP by over $10 billion 
annually, upon full implementation. The agreement will also eliminate 
regulatory and other non-tariff barriers that have historically 
restricted access by U.S. farmers, manufacturers and service providers 
to the South Korean market.
  Should the United States Congress sit idle and continue to ignore the 
economic potential this historic agreement offers, I assure you South 
Korea will not stop efforts to liberalize its trade relations with 
other countries--putting Americans at a disadvantage when competing 
abroad. We cannot afford a time-out on trade while the rest of the 
world marches on.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, this week, we took a moment of pause on 
June 25, 2008, to remember the 58th anniversary of the outbreak of the 
Korean War. As that conflict, out of which was born the U.S.-Korea 
alliance, has often been referred to as the ``Forgotten War,'' it is 
our duty to honor and remember the noble sacrifices of our Korean War 
veterans.

[[Page 14140]]



                          ____________________




                            SUNSET MEMORIAL

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. TRENT FRANKS

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I stand once again before this 
House with yet another Sunset Memorial. It is June 26, 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, Mr. 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 12,938 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, Mr. 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.'' Mr. 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. Mr. 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 12,938 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 26, 2008, 12,938 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.

                          ____________________




                  HONORING MONSIGNOR RICHARD O'KEEFFE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA

                               of arizona

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Speaker, I would like to submit the following 
statement for the Record. The presentation was given by Colonel John 
Bullington, Commander with U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, in 
recognition of Monsignor Richard O'Keeffe's work in the community.

            Presentation to Msgr. O'Keeffe on June 13, 2008

  (By Col. John Bullington, Commander, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground)

       I'd like to take a few moments to extend a very sincere 
     tribute to a man who is a true treasure to those of us at 
     YPG--Monsignor Richard O'Keeffe.
       Since June 1978, thirty years ago this month, the 
     Monsignor, a man of great integrity, energy and sincerity, 
     has faithfully served YPG as Catholic chaplain. He drove from 
     town most Sundays to celebrate mass at the post chapel and is 
     here at least one weekday each week to make visits, perform 
     counseling, conduct baptisms, and perform other duties 
     carried out by a chaplain. He was instrumental in expanding 
     our religious education program and has been an inspiration 
     to all with whom he's come in contact.
       I might also mention that Monsignor O'Keeffe is one of the 
     most influential cheerleaders for YPG in the community. He 
     maintains a network of contacts from both political parties, 
     and his advice is always right on the mark. I personally 
     value his input and welcome what he has to say. He represents 
     a rare combination of judgment, fidelity to truth, 
     intellectual force, and clarity of interpretation.
       For thirty years, Monsignor O'Keeffe has been there without 
     fail for the people of YPG--of any faith. We could have asked 
     for no better friend, for no better man. Ireland's loss was 
     definitely our gain.

                          ____________________




     HONORING THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOHN D. DINGELL

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the University of 
Michigan Hospital and Health Center, UMHHC, Security and Entrance 
Services for receiving the 2008 Lindberg Bell Award. Bestowed annually 
by the International Association for Healthcare Security and Safety, 
IAHSS, the Lindberg Bell Award is given to the hospital with the best 
healthcare security program in the country. The IAHSS has over 1,600 
members and is the only healthcare security organization in the U.S. 
They provide valuable services to those in the field, including 
education and training programs. The award recognizes organizations 
that have vastly improved their services over the last year, and the 
UMHHC Security and Entrance Services should be commended for meeting 
this high standard.
  The UMHHC Security and Entrance Services is charged with protecting 
hospital personnel and property, in addition to providing excellent 
customer service. This is no small feat, considering that there are 
over 10,000 people in the hospital at any given time. Their leadership 
skills and innovative spirit have been demonstrated though the 
development of a badge system for the Mott Children's Hospital. Under 
this program, all visitors to the hospital must check in at a station 
to receive a badge to wear during their stay at the hospital. This 
system resulted in an increase in security and has spread to other 
sections of the hospital. I am confident the UMHHC will continue to 
provide a high level of security for patients.
  As a Lindberg Bell Awardee, it is my hope that the UMHHC Security and 
Entrance Services will continue to serve as an example to the community 
and its peers that the security of our patients should not be 
overlooked. Our hospitals open their doors each day to diagnose and 
care to the citizens of our community. It is imperative that while 
serving this mission our doctors and nurses are not distracted by 
outside issues. By going the extra mile, UMHHC is ensuring that every 
person who walks through their doors will know that both high quality 
care and safety comes first. Again, I commend UMHHC for their effort 
and tireless dedication to its patients. To the doctors, nurses and 
support staff, I congratulate

[[Page 14141]]

each one of you for being part of a health system who takes the mission 
of caring for patients to the next level. Congratulations UMHHC on 
winning the Lindberg Bell Award.

                          ____________________




                        HONORING GEORGETTE BROWN

                                  _____
                                 

                            HON. GREG WALDEN

                               of oregon

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share with you 
and my colleagues my pride in Georgette Brown. Georgette is a dedicated 
public servant, a good friend, and a stalwart guardian of the American 
election process.
  Georgette is retiring after 25 years of elected service as County 
Clerk in Josephine County, Oregon. As all of you know, to be elected to 
a position repeatedly for over two and a half decades, a person must be 
extremely well liked, dedicated, competent, and a proven leader. Those 
attributes truly personify Georgette Brown.
  In her career, Georgette has brought innovation and modernization to 
the Office of Josephine County Clerk since assuming office in 1983. She 
oversaw significant transitions that took the county from hand-counted 
paper ballots to punch cards to optical scan ballots, which are now in 
their third generation. She flawlessly facilitated the change from 
voting at polling places to a 100 percent vote-by-mail system today. 
Georgette has been a true professional as County Clerk, and I have 
relied on her many times to understand how proposed legislation might 
affect the local elections process.
  Georgette has continually modernized the recordkeeping and reporting 
functions of the County Clerk's office, now utilizing the Internet 
extensively. She has created a user friendly office where you can 
easily obtain passports and other public documents. As County Clerk, 
Georgette also performs marriages.
  To accomplish what Georgette has as County Clerk would be considered 
remarkable in and of itself, but Georgette also excelled at being a 
loving wife, mother, and now a grandmother. Her public service and 
leadership has gone beyond her elected position to include her long 
service in Rotary and Zonta. Georgette has served as president of both 
of those organizations dedicated to serving others. Georgette serves on 
the executive board of the International Association of Clerks, 
Recorders, Election Officials, and Treasurers. In her retirement, she 
plans to continue her international involvement in the elections 
process.
  For most of her adult life, Georgette was at the side of her husband, 
Larry, who was tragically taken from us all too soon a few years ago 
when a long battle with cancer ended his life. Larry was, in every 
sense of the word, a great American, patriot, and one who accomplished 
great things. Larry and Georgette were a very effective team working to 
better their community. When Larry passed away, it took great courage 
for Georgette to carry on without him, but she has been up to this 
ultimate personal test. She has kept the flame of public service 
burning brightly for which the Browns were so well known.
  Madam Speaker, with all of her significant accomplishments, Georgette 
would assuredly point with most pride to the two great daughters that 
she and Larry raised, Monique and Martie. Monique is married to Shane 
Anderson and they have presented Georgette with her first grandchild, 
Taylor Anderson.
  Even though Georgette Brown is retiring from public office, she will 
always be active in serving others, and she remains committed to making 
her country and her community a better place in which to live and work. 
Madam Speaker, we may pass laws, but people like Georgette Brown make 
those laws work for all of us. Although she will be missed as County 
Clerk, she can leave that phase of her public service knowing that she 
gave it her all and she made a real difference. With public service 
such a part of her moral fiber, we know that she will soon be serving 
in new and innovative ways and continuing to improve the lives of 
others.
  I highly value Georgette's service and her friendship. I ask you to 
join me in honoring this very special woman.

                          ____________________




   NAAYI YOUTH PROGRAM--ENCOURAGING MORE MINORITIES TO ENTER HEALTH 
                              PROFESSIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BARBARA LEE

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge and thank my good 
friend and colleague Dr. Donna Christensen, the chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust. As the only doctor in the 
CBC, Congresswoman Christensen--we all look to Donna for her advice and 
her insight on critical health issues that affect our communities.
  Whether it is finding ways to address racial and ethnic health 
disparities, helping our health care system provide culturally 
competent and culturally relevant care, or helping encourage young 
people, like you all, to enter the health professions, we rely on Donna 
to guide us.
  I want to thank her for her leadership and for helping to organize 
this event today.
  My background is as a psychiatric social worker. I know how important 
it is to have people of color in the health professions; people that 
can relate to their patients and who can provide help and advice in a 
way that is relevant for them.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and 
Human Services, and Education, I have been working with my colleagues 
to increase funding to increase diversity in the health professions.
  This year I'm pleased to report that we have developed a bill that 
would provide nearly $104 million to increase diversity training 
programs in the health professions. That's an increase of $34 million 
from last year.
  These funds will go towards programs and institutions that help train 
minority health professionals and provide scholarship support to help 
defray the costs of an education.
  As we move through the appropriations process I look forward to 
working with my colleagues to ensure that we keep and grow the money 
for these programs.

                          ____________________




 THE MEDICAL DEVICE SAFETY ACT: PROVIDING CRITICAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Medical Device Safety Act of 2008, which has been introduced today by 
my colleagues Representatives Frank Pallone and Henry Waxman. I am 
proud to be original cosponsor of this legislation, which will restore 
consumer protections that were eliminated in the Supreme Court's recent 
Riegel v. Medtronic decision.
  The Riegel v. Medtronic decision ignored congressional intent and 
disregarded 30 years of experience under the 1976 Medical Device 
amendments, during which FDA regulation and State tort law worked 
together to protect consumers from dangerous devices. The Riegel 
decision gives total immunity to device manufacturers who fail to 
adequately warn consumers about device risks. It is now the 
responsibility of Congress to correct the Court's dangerous mistake.
  Patients who are injured by medical devices often suffer permanent, 
debilitating injuries or even death. They need the ability to hold the 
negligent medical device manufacturer accountable for their injuries. 
If not, private health insurance companies and Medicare or Medicaid 
would be left footing the bill to pay for those injuries; and, 
ultimately, the taxpayer pays for the medical device manufacturer's 
mistake.
  This narrow piece of legislation is necessary to address the Riegel 
decision and to ensure that it is not then applied to afford total 
immunity to medical device manufacturers throughout the country. It 
also will make certain that patients injured by medical devices can 
have their claims heard by a judge and jury and will prevent courts 
from summarily dismissing claims without ever hearing the facts. 
Finally, it restores congressional intent by explicitly stating that 
actions for damages under State law are preserved.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring and enacting the 
Medical Device Safety Act so that we can restore long-standing consumer 
protections.

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. TIM MAHONEY

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, June 25, 2008, I 
was unable to be in Washington, D.C. due to my attendance at the 
funeral of a personal friend in my district.
  Had I been able to vote, I would have voted the following ways on the 
below listed rollcall

[[Page 14142]]

votes: 449--``yea''; 450--``yea''; 451--``yea''; 452--``yea''; 453--
``yea''; 454--``nay''; 455--``nay''; 456--``yea''; 457--``yea''; 458--
``nay''; 459--``yea''; 460--``yea''; 461--``yea.''

                          ____________________




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                  HON. HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, JR.

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to 
vote on the evening of Wednesday, the 25th of June. Had I been present, 
I would have voted:
  ``Yea'' on rollcall vote No. 460, the H.R. 3195, the Americans with 
Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008, which restores the intent and 
protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. I deeply 
regret that I was unable to vote in support of an issue which I feel 
very strongly about. And I remain proud of this body, under the 
leadership of the Speaker and Majority leader, in guaranteeing that 
tens of millions of Americans with disabilities now enjoy equal rights 
under the law while being empowered to better our nation with their 
incredible, inherent talents without fear of discrimination or bias.

                          ____________________




 RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTION OF SUFFOLK LIFE NEWSPAPERS TO LONG ISLAND

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2008

  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, I rise to commemorate a sad occasion in my 
district: Suffolk Life Newspaper will publish its last edition this 
week. David Willmott published the first edition of what would become 
Suffolk Life on August 17, 1961.
  His paper, which started out serving a small community in Suffolk 
County, eventually became the largest weekly paper east of the 
Mississippi. For more than 40 years, Dave Willmott covered the local 
issues that didn't receive attention elsewhere. He had a style all his 
own--with political views that I often disagreed with. But he took on 
the issues others wouldn't touch and he and his staff took great pride 
in the service they provided to our community with the newspaper. They 
held those of us who serve in public office to a high standard with 
rigorous questionnaires and biting weekly columns.
  Suffolk Life will shut its doors, but the impact of Dave Willmott's 
enterprise will live on long after the paper is gone.
  Madam Speaker, Suffolk Life will be missed but not forgotten. I'm 
proud to honor this Long Island institution on the House floor.