[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.
____________________