[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 14]
[Issue]
[Pages 19356-19566]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 19356]]
SENATE--Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was called to order by the Honorable
Benjamin L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland.
______
prayer
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
``O God, our help in ages past, our hope for years to come. Our
shelter from the stormy blast, and our eternal home. Before the years
in order stood, or Earth received her frame, from everlasting, You are
God, to endless years the same.'' Isaac Watts, 1719.
Lord, today we praise You for Your justice and the impartiality of
Your love and mercy.
Shower our lawmakers with Your matchless favor as You enfold and
sustain them with Your gracious love. Lord, quicken their minds to seek
Your wisdom and infuse them with the desire to do Your will. Give them
decisive guidance in the relationships and responsibilities ahead of
us. Speak so clearly to them that their utterances will reflect the
tenor and tone of Your truth.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
____________________
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin led the Pledge of Allegiance, as
follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:
U.S. Senate,
President pro tempore,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable Benjamin
L. Cardin, a Senator from the State of Maryland, to perform
the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.
Mr. CARDIN thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro
tempore.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
SCHEDULE
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the scheduled termination date of this
Congress is a week this coming Friday--a week after the day after
tomorrow. We have a lot to do. We are going to finish, sometime today,
the Defense authorization bill. I am in conference with Senator Levin
to see if there is something we can work out. If not, this matter will
be completed, no matter what anyone does, at 9:30 tonight. The vote
tonight is on passage of the bill. It is not 60 votes. We just have to
get a simple majority.
I will file cloture on the Coburn package, which has scores of bills
in it that have been held up. I had a very good conversation with him
yesterday. I will meet with him later today to see if we can work
something out and move forward on that without a cloture vote. I hope
that can be done. Senator Coburn said he thought it could be. I hope
that is, in fact, the case. I will be as reasonable as I can be, and I
am hopeful and confident that he will be.
After that--whatever is determined on that--we are going to move to
the tax extenders. We need a vehicle to do that. Any of the 99 Senators
can object to having a vehicle to do that. We, of course, procedurally,
could move to something, but it could take a couple extra days. Of
course, everyone should understand that we may have to be working the
next week or so with no time off. If we have people who are trying to
slow things up, stall things, then we are going to have to use the time
that we have to use, procedurally, to get to an instrument. Once we get
to that, Senator McConnell and I have an agreement that we are going to
try to effectuate where we would vote on paying for all the tax
extenders as it relates to renewables. Then we would have a vote on
whether we are going to pay for AMT, and then a vote on the package and
send that to the House.
Of course, after that, there are other things we need to do. We have
an economic recovery package. The House will be sending us that. We
have a CR that we have to complete to fund the Government. There is one
thing I didn't mention by oversight.
When we finish the tax extenders, we have to do the rest of our
energy legislation. That is the bill the House passed last night. We
can use that for a vehicle. Everybody is expecting--rightfully so--that
there would be a vote on Senator Bingaman's alternative, there would be
a vote on the Republican alternative, and there would be a vote--if, in
fact, they decide to move forward on it--on the Gang of 10's so-called
bipartisan legislation. So there is the House-passed bill, the Bingaman
bill, the Republican alternative, and the bipartisan bill. All of them
include drilling. So people can vote their hearts out on drilling.
Someone could actually vote for all four of those.
As I indicated, we have the CR. There are a lot of other things the
CR may take care of that we have not finished, including MilCon, VA,
and Homeland Security appropriations; and there are people out there
who are concerned about things we should do before we leave here, such
as LIHEAP. Hopefully, that could be included in either the stimulus
package or the CR. Oil prices are not as high as they have been, but
fuel oil in the Northeast is expected to be high this winter. We hope
to work something out on mental health parity, the Ledbetter issue. We
could have another vote on that, if I decide that. We have a lot to do.
This morning, we are going to have a period for morning business for
up to 1 hour, as soon as I complete my statement. The majority will
control the first 30 minutes. My understanding is that Senator Dorgan
is here and available, and he will speak for about 15 minutes. The
Republicans will control the last 30 minutes.
Following that, we will resume consideration of S. 3001, the Defense
authorization. Yesterday, cloture was invoked on the Defense bill, and
I announced at that time I was appreciative of the help we got from the
Republicans. All postcloture debate time will expire about 9:30
tonight.
____________________
RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order,
leadership time is reserved.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there
will now be a period for the transaction of morning business for up to
1 hour, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes
each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two
leaders or their designees, with the majority controlling the first
half and the Republicans controlling the second half.
____________________
RECOGNITION OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
[[Page 19357]]
____________________
HURRICANE IKE
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the impact of Hurricane Ike, as we all
know, devastated part of the United States, including my State of
Kentucky. This past Sunday, 70-mile-per-hour winds blew through the
State, leaving thousands of people with damaged or destroyed property.
I could give my own personal observation about it. My wife and I were
out at lunch Sunday when the storm came through. There were very high
winds, as I indicated--70-mile-an-hour winds--which we are certainly
not accustomed to in Louisville, KY. We drove home and saw that one way
into our house was blocked because a tree in our own yard had fallen
across the road. We took another route around to try to get into the
back of the house, and another tree had fallen across the road. That
was replicated across Louisville, KY. The power in my own house is
still out--to personalize it--as it is in a huge number of houses in
Louisville and northern Kentucky, which is across from Cincinnati. This
had a severe impact on a lot of people. The good news is that the
hospitals and major facilities do have power.
As many as 170,000 homes are still without power. And schools in
several counties remain closed today as the cleanup continues.
State and local officials are working as hard as they can to survey
the destruction and get help to anyone who needs it.
I expect the State will soon ask the Federal Government for disaster
assistance, which I will strongly support.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, families all across America are
concerned about their financial security. As Congress, the
administration and Federal Reserve consider the appropriate measures to
strengthen our capital markets, I believe it is imperative that we do
so in a bipartisan manner.
Now more than ever is the time to rise above politics and work
together. Our constituents do not want campaign speeches and
hyperpartisan accusations--they want security for their home and
savings. They want energy security and lower costs for gas and oil. And
they want protection from future tax hikes on their income.
Government should be focused on bipartisan efforts to address the
fundamental problems in the credit markets and must be cautious in
putting taxpayer dollars at risk. And we should work together to help
all Americans.
____________________
CONSTITUTION DAY
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in giving these remarks, I am saluting
Senator Byrd.
Just a few short blocks from this Capitol at the National Archives
lies an old and yellowing document, encased under heavy glass.
It is the Constitution of the United States, signed on this day in
1787 by 39 brave Americans. They and their countrymen had just fought a
war for liberty. And they understood that the highest goal of a
government is to preserve and protect that liberty.
The oldest delegate, Benjamin Franklin, was already revered by his
colleagues as one of America's greatest statesmen. They wanted to hear
his opinion on their work. Franklin told his compatriots in
Philadelphia, ``I consent, sir, to this Constitution, because I expect
no better, and because I am not sure that it is not the best.''
Over two centuries later, we can say proudly that the system of
Government those great men devised is the best--simple in form, elegant
in function, and firmly devoted to the preservation of liberty. Amended
many times but never abandoned, our Constitution is the oldest still in
use today.
We celebrate, every year, the brilliant document our Founders gave us
by marking September 17 as Constitution Day. Senator Byrd was the one
who suggested that we do that. It is a day for all Americans, but
especially schoolchildren, to learn more about the Constitution, to
understand how it works, and to appreciate how it has guided our Nation
through growth and change.
I want to thank the senior Senator from West Virginia for sponsoring
the legislation 4 years ago to mark this day and to celebrate this
seminal document. We all know the love Senator Byrd has for American
history, and the history of the Senate.
He knows that you cannot truly understand how liberty is preserved in
our country without understanding the Constitution. Thank you, Senator
Byrd for your efforts.
Constitution Day serves to promote civic awareness. In Kentucky, we
take this charge seriously, and through important efforts like the
Civic Literacy Initiative of Kentucky and other projects, we are
working to increase civic awareness across the Bluegrass State.
So on this day, we recognize the students, teachers, and community
leaders in Kentucky and across the Nation who promote and protect the
ideals of our glorious Constitution.
And we say a special thanks for our men and women in uniform, who
defend it.
More than two centuries ago, the 39 signers of our Constitution gave
us a more perfect Union through a document that endures and guides us
here today. They understood, as we all must, that above all, Government
serves to secure the blessings of liberty for the people of our great
Nation.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I applaud my colleague for the statement he
made. The Constitution is our guiding document in this great country.
There isn't too much emphasis we can place on it. I respect the words
of my colleague. I am confident that he speaks for all Senators.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is now Wednesday of a week that began
with a 504-point collapse in the stock market on Monday. The American
economy, I think most people would understand, is in serious trouble.
These are not ordinary times for our country. We have been the economic
engine of the world. We have built an economic engine that is
unparalleled. It has been an unbelievable economy, and created great
jobs. Yet we now run into some very significant problems.
The financial wreckage that has occurred in recent months in this
country is almost staggering. Very large investment banks that have
been around for a long while are gone. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers,
Merrill Lynch, venerable old investment firms. Bear Stearns, a 158-year
firm, survived the Civil War, the Great Depression, but it could not
survive today.
What has happened? What is causing all this? We understand in the
months of this year up to $1 trillion of taxpayers' money has been
offered in support--loan guarantees and various things--to try to
contain the growing financial difficulty in this country.
I am not going to second-guess those who are working day and night
trying to figure out how we stem the damage. I don't know the figures.
I am not in the engine room to know all of the dials, gauges, and knobs
that they are working on to try to figure out how we stem the damage.
So I am not going to be critical today of guarantees and takeovers and
so on.
I am going to say to the American people that they should not worry
about their bank account in an insured bank. I don't think anybody
should be concerned or run down and try to take their deposits out of
their local banks where their deposits are insured by the FDIC. Those
are sound, and those deposits are not in jeopardy.
Even in the middle of a financial storm of the type we are
experiencing, I think it is reasonable for the American people, when
midnight meetings are proposing tens of billions, $30 billion or $85
billion of taxpayers' money to try to shore up institutions and deal
with this spreading problem, to ask the question: How on Earth did this
happen, and why did it happen?
There are two reasons, and it is important to talk about them even in
the
[[Page 19358]]
middle of the storm. One is greed, unbelievable greed; and the second
is, in my judgment, deliberate neglect. I will talk about each.
The reason I want to talk about them is because we have to make sure
we understand what has caused this problem in order to fix it and to
make sure it doesn't happen again. It is not as if this country hasn't
seen banks collapse. We saw banks collapse in the 1930s in the Great
Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt put together the New Deal and put
together very specific, very stringent provisions dealing with banking
and the safety and soundness of banks. Not just the safety and
soundness in numbers but the safety and soundness with respect to
perception of that safety and soundness.
They said we learned a lesson in the 1920s, and that lesson is we
ought not merge and fuse together inherently risky items such as
securities, real estate, insurance, and other things with banking,
whose entire existence depends on the perception of safety and
soundness.
Glass-Steagall and other legislative provisions were created that
separated traditional banking from the more risky enterprises. That
existed for many decades until about 9 years ago when the Financial
Modernization Act, as it was inappropriately named and led by Senator
Gramm from Texas, was passed by the Congress. I was one of eight
Senators to vote against it because it repealed the elements of the
Glass-Steagall Act and created the opportunities for large financial
holding companies to once again fuse and merge together banking with
inherently risky enterprises of securities, real estate, and others.
I know they said: No, no, we are building firewalls. The firewalls,
it turns out, are not very thick. We learned a lesson and forgot it.
Let me describe what happened. Once all of this happened, at the root
in this country that deals with greed, we had investment banks,
mortgage brokers, hedge funds, and mortgage banks, all of them up to
their neck in cash, barrels full of cash they were making. Let me
describe how they were doing it, and most people will understand this
wreckage is not a surprise at all.
Here is what they were doing in this country: As the housing bubble
was building, caused in part by easy money advertised to people who had
bad credit, we saw bad loans put out there in what was called then--the
new lexicon--subprime lending. Here is what Countrywide, the largest
mortgage banker said:
Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late
mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders?
Call us . . .
Isn't that unbelievable? Countrywide doesn't exist anymore because it
was bought by another firm before it went belly up.
It wasn't just Countrywide. Here is an ad I pulled off the Internet.
It was running on television and radio. Millennia Mortgage:
12 months, no mortgage payment. That's right. We will give
you the money to make your first 12 months' payments if you
call in the next 7 days. We pay it for you. Our loan program
may reduce your current monthly payments by 50 percent and
allow you no payments for the first 12 months.
Isn't that unbelievable? That is nothing compared to these kinds of
advertisements, and most of us have heard them.
Zoom Credit, here is what it said:
Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track
at Zoom Credit. At the speed of light, Zoom Credit will
preapprove you for a car loan, a home loan, or a credit card.
Even if your credit's in the tank. Zoom Credit's like money
in the bank. Zoom Credit specializes in credit repair and
debt consolidation, too. Bankruptcy, slow credit, no credit--
who cares?
Is this business? No, this is insanity. This is not business. Zoom
Credit: Your credit is in the tank, there is money in the bank for you.
On top of that, in addition to putting mortgages out to people who
had bad credit, here is what they advertised: You want to get a loan
with no documentation so you don't even have to document your income,
that is no problem. We will give you a no-doc loan. You don't have to
document your loan. We will give you low-doc loan so you do minimum
documentation of your income. By the way, you don't have to make any
payments the first 12 months, or you can make payments the first 12
months and pay no principal or you can pay no principal and only
partial interest. Unbelievable. All of these companies, shame on them.
Unbelievable, unfettered greed making money by the barrel, leaving the
rest of us with the financial wreckage that occurred.
Here is what happened. They put out all these bad mortgages, called
subprime mortgages. They mixed them with good mortgages and securitized
them because these days they securitize everything. They discovered
these new exotic financial instruments and put them all together like
sawdust and sausage, as they used to do, and put bad loans in with good
loans. With all these loans, they put in prepayment penalties saying:
We are going to stick you with a reset with a much higher interest rate
despite the fact we did a teaser rate at the front end. And when the
higher interest rate happens 3 months from now, you may not be able to
pay it, but it doesn't matter. You can flip your property because you
will make money. Home prices are going up.
So they put in prepayment penalties, and the prepayment penalties
made these little securities seem like this was a sure thing and big
money. The broker got the mortgage, got a big bonus, went to the
mortgage companies--Countrywide and others. They securitized them and
set them up in a hedge fund and moved them around the world.
Now they sit with these pieces of security, and they don't have the
foggiest idea what is in them. All of a sudden, they go belly up. Mr.
President, $1 billion, $10 billion, $100 billion, $1 trillion, and the
carnage spreads across this country's economy.
Greed, unbelievable greed. This is all about making big money in a
manner that defies good business sense, and even more, deliberate
neglect by regulators in this town. This is no time for politics, but
let me say this. At the start of this administration, regulators came
to this town and served notice: It's a business-friendly place. Don't
worry, be happy. We don't intend to regulate. One regulator in one
agency said: It's a new day here, a new sheriff in town. This is a
business-friendly place.
When the regulators decide they are not going to regulate, it is like
taking the cop off the beat. Regulators represent the referee or the
cop. I have used the referee analogy--a striped shirt and whistle, and
they call the fouls. There have been no fouls here. When you have a
mortgage company that says: You have bad credit, you have been
bankrupt. You can't pay your bills? Come to us. The regulator should
say: What are you doing? They say: We want to give you a mortgage that
has an unbelievably low rate, 1\1/4\ percent and resets at 10 percent
and you don't have to document your loan. We will make the first 12
payments for you. Unbelievable, in my judgment.
Regulators sat by and watched, and it has cost this country $1
trillion as a result of the unfettered greed that moved across this
country.
The fact is, Senator McCain recently said the economy is
fundamentally sound. It is not. What has happened here is the erosion
of economic strength as a result of unbelievable greed with the
subprime mortgage that has spread all over the country.
By the way, I mentioned that what took away Financial Modernization
Act Glass-Steagall and the protections we put in place was Financial
Modernization Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. That is
Senator Phil Gramm who led the fight here to do that. I didn't vote
with him. He is out still advising Senator McCain on the economy.
Again, this is not about politics, but it is about what happened, how
it happened, why it happened, and what we ought to do to make sure it
doesn't happen again. We need effective regulators who decide they are
going to do, in the interest of the American taxpayers, what they
should do. We ought to go back and plug the loophole that was opened by
Senator Gramm and
[[Page 19359]]
others who said: You know what. Let's forget the lessons of the past.
Let's let big holding companies gather up big financial enterprises and
put them into one big sack, and they will run just fine.
They are not running just fine. They are undermining this country's
economic strength.
Mr. President, how much time have I consumed?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 13 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I will say again, as I said when I
started, this is no ordinary time. Our economy is in peril. We will
recover. I hope the kinds of things that are being done by good people
who are working 24 hours a day to try to deal with this wreckage will
help our economy recover. We are a very strong country, and we have had
some people who have undermined this country's economic strength, but I
believe we will overcome it. But we won't overcome it unless we
understand what happened, how it happened, and why it happened.
I say again, as I said yesterday on the floor of the Senate, this is
not some mysterious illness for which we don't have a cure. It is
pretty obvious what happened, and it is pretty obvious what we have to
do to fix it.
I have been on the floor of the Senate talking for some years about
this issue, about the unbelievable amount of leverage and the exotic
financial instruments. Does anybody out there know that we have some
$40 trillion in notional derivative values of credit default swaps?
Most people who have them don't even know what they are. Most people
didn't understand what kind of infection existed deep in these
securitized issues that were being sold back and forth and everybody
making money. They had no idea what was in them that was going to blow
up at some point. And it has blown up with a significant force at this
point that, so far, has cost the American people, by my calculation, up
to $1 trillion.
This ought to be an indelible lesson learned for this institution and
for the American people. Greed must be constrained.
The market system is a wonderful system, but you must have a traffic
cop on the beat. You must have regulators who regulate. When you begin
to take apart things that were protecting this country, such as the
Glass-Steagall Act, and promising all kinds of nirvana for tomorrow,
when it comes apart, you need to go back and do it over again and do it
right.
Mr. President, as I said, these are difficult days, and I want to end
as I started. I don't want people who listen to this discussion to
believe they should run to the bank and take their deposits out.
Insured deposits in American banks are sound, and the American people
should understand and not worry about that. That is very important.
What we should worry about are the political calculations that led us
to take apart the protections, such as Glass-Steagall and others, and
second, the unfettered greed that was going on under the noses of
regulators who came to this town in 2001 and who decided they didn't
have any interest in regulating anything. Those are lessons we need to
learn and learn well.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Montana.
____________________
ENERGY
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I first wish to thank the Senator from
North Dakota for his comments. I think it is particularly important, as
we get the news day after day about what is going on in the financial
markets of this country, that we don't panic. The fact is, I think the
investments we have in our banks are secure. There is no doubt about
that. But the truth is, we have gotten here by an administration that,
quite honestly, has not done its job with commonsense oversight, and
greed has stepped in. The bottom line is that it is costing the
Government a lot of money--$85 billion yesterday--to basically
nationalize AIG. So I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I think his
comments are on point.
Today, I want to talk about something that has been on our minds for
some time and will be on our minds for some time; that is, the cost of
energy. It is an incredibly pressing issue, and it is long past due for
a commonsense energy policy with short-term and long-term solutions--
critically important. America deserves no less, and Americans deserve
no less. It is a matter of national and economic security.
Securing our energy future will free America from being held hostage
by foreign producers, and quite honestly, most of them don't like us
much--countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. Renewable
energy projects will generate good new jobs here in America while
creating a sustainable energy supply at affordable prices for American
consumers.
I have spoken many times on this floor about the need to drill for
oil in places that make sense in this country. One of them in
particular is a formation called the Bakken formation in eastern
Montana. I have called on my colleagues to work together to crack down
on oil speculators who artificially drive up the price of oil, and, of
course, I have spoken about the need to conserve--the low-hanging
fruit, conserve, conserve, conserve--and to invest in alternative and
renewable energy for the future to make this country energy
independent.
That is why I rise today. In Montana, several alternative energy
projects have been held up by the Federal Government. Why? Because of
too much redtape. And this administration has cut staff and resources
just when we need them the most in the area of renewable energy. That
is why I am introducing legislation, along with Senator Feinstein, that
will help get renewable energy projects approved faster. The measure
will cut through the redtape that slows down too many of these
innovative and important projects. My bill will make it easier for
folks who are figuring out how to use new technology to solve the
energy crisis while also cutting down on the emissions of greenhouse
gases. It would also create as many as six renewable energy pilot
project offices across the country to coordinate Federal permits for
renewable energy projects and transmission lines with State
governments.
This legislation is only a part of the puzzle, but it is a very
important piece. In the 2005 Energy bill, we created an oil and gas
pilot project to speed up onshore gas and oil exploration drilling, and
it is working. If we had put the same focus on renewable energy that we
have on oil and gas, we would be in a different spot today. And we
won't run out of renewables as we will with oil.
I very much appreciate the work many of my colleagues have been doing
to develop a bipartisan energy proposal, and I support their work. I
call on the Senate to work together to pass commonsense solutions to
this energy crisis. We can't put all our eggs in one basket energy-
wise. Energy security will take a mix of solutions, and it is not going
to happen overnight. But every day we delay is another day we continue
to rely on foreign energy.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader is
recognized.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, yesterday evening, in room 219 just off
the Senate Chamber, there was a historic meeting where Mr. Bernanke,
Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and Mr. Paulson, Secretary of
the Treasury, gathered at a large conference table with the leaders of
both the House and the Senate, of both political parties. The
information he gave us was serious, and we listened carefully as Mr.
Bernanke explained that the Federal Reserve was about to loan $85
billion to the largest insurance company in America--AIG.
Mr. Bernanke spelled out what would happen if AIG failed, which he
believed was imminent, absent intervention by the Government; that this
insurance company had 180 subsidiaries, a $1 trillion operation, and
the impact of its demise would be felt across America and around the
world. He explained it
[[Page 19360]]
is more than just an insurance company, it is a company that has
insured many contracts, and if that insurance failed, it would call
into question contractual obligations involving financial institutions
and individuals across America.
It was very clear by the end of his explanation that we had few
alternatives, few options other than to step in. Although I understand
this to be unprecedented, it appears to be one of the few things we can
do to stop AIG from collapsing and bringing down a large part of the
American economy with it.
This, of course, comes on the heels of announcements earlier in the
week that Lehman Brothers was going to fold. I understand a substantial
portion of it may be taken over by Barclays, and I think that is a good
thing, particularly for the 10,000 employees whose jobs may be
preserved. We also heard that Merrill Lynch, one of the traditional
giants on Wall Street, had to close down business and accept purchase
by the Bank of America. That was a week after Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the two giants of the housing industry in America, reached a point
where the Federal Government had to take over the responsibility for
their future so that the housing market could be stabilized. And it was
just a few weeks after that same administration stepped in to take over
Bear Stearns.
This sequence of events has caused concern across America and around
the world. I believe the response by the administration, at least
through the Federal Reserve, is the best of the bad alternatives that
were available to it. But it raises some extraordinary questions we
have to face, and Congress has to accept the challenge these events
present to us. The challenge was expressed by Mr. Bernanke last night
when I asked him: What can we do now to avoid further collapses of
giant companies and institutions? He said: We have to step back and
look at the whole system of regulation.
I think that was a very candid analysis because we know what has
happened. The traditional basis for our financial dealings in America
has been banks and other credit institutions, which are regulated by
the Government. But in recent times, an additional credit world has
emerged. It is a dark and shadowy world without the disclosure of these
traditional institutions and with little or no regulation. It is that
world which is coming down. It turns out that if these institutions are
not carefully monitored, if there is not appropriate oversight and
accountability, greed overtakes common sense, and that is what has
happened. So many of these institutions are failing, and with their
failure comes added responsibilities for taxpayers.
It is curious to me that when we reach these disastrous situations,
it is the taxpayers--the average family in America--who need to ride to
the rescue. It is their tax dollars that are going to keep these
institutions afloat for some period of time. They didn't reap the
profits of these institutions in their glory days, but now their tax
dollars are sustaining the skeletons that are left so that there will
at least be some continuity.
I think we need to step back and take an honest look at this and
realize we have gone too far when it comes to this notion that we have
to ``get Government off our back.'' It turns out there are moments in
history and there are situations where individuals, families, and even
businesses alone cannot manage this economy. We need to have the
American family--we need to have our Government that we have elected
and chosen in a position of oversight to stop the excesses. We need to
make sure we have agencies with the appropriate statutory authority to
ask the right questions, to disclose the right information, and to stop
wrongdoing. That has not happened, and that failure has led to the
situation we see at this moment.
Senator McCain and his inspiration, former Senator Phil Gramm of
Texas, are part of the deregulation school--get Government out of the
business of regulation. In fact, Senator McCain prides himself on being
a leader when it comes to deregulation. Well, it is that concept of
deregulation that has brought us to this moment. We have to have
appropriate regulation. I don't want the Government to go too far, but
clearly, when the Government steps aside and says: Let 10,000 flowers
bloom, let this economy emerge, let's see the miracle of capitalism,
sadly, those miracles turn into tragedies, as they did over the last
several weeks. We need to make sure we have agencies of Government
doing the right thing.
In the darkest economic moment in American history--the Great
Depression of the 1920s--it took a new President and a new way of
thinking to turn America around and to get the economy back on its
feet. That President, Franklin Roosevelt, came in and established
Federal agencies that would demand accountability, and in return he
said that we will stand behind the banks of America. It is a promise we
have kept now for over 75 years.
Of course, there is regulation of financial institutions and there is
also a guarantee that your deposits at your bank are going to be
protected by the Government--the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
That is a good tradeoff. We will provide rescue if we can regulate. But
currently we are coming to the rescue of unregulated entities for
activities that the Government has had nothing to do with, and that has
to change. We have to have accountability across the board in our
economy. That is a critical element when it comes to the future. This
Congress is not going to do it. The President is ending his term with
only a few months left. He is not in a position to suggest major reform
legislation in these closing months, and Congress is not in a position
to pass it. But we have a responsibility in the new Congress to accept
that challenge and to put in appropriate regulation.
The era of Phil Gramm deregulation is an era that has not only
declined but fell over the last several weeks. That may have inspired
John McCain years ago, but that cannot lead our country in the future.
We have to have a much more honest appraisal that if the taxpayer
dollars are going to be on the line to rescue these corporations, the
Federal Government should have some oversight and demand accountability
in the operation of these institutions before it reaches that point.
There is one other element that I think is important which we brought
up in the meeting last night. Despite all this conversation about all
the turmoil on Wall Street and all of the turmoil in our economy, there
seems to be a hands-off attitude when it comes to the Americans facing
mortgage foreclosure. What started this economic tumble was the
subprime mortgage mess, where financial institutions were derelict in
their responsibility, enticing people into mortgage debt way beyond
their means, giving them these exotic financing packages which exploded
when the ARMs reset, and now many of them are facing foreclosure.
This last August, we hit another record high in foreclosures--304,000
homes in some stage of default and 91,000 families losing their homes,
according to RealtyTrac, an online marketer of foreclosed properties. I
think this is the rot at the base of the economy, and when I have
appealed to my colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side, the
Secretary of the Treasury, and even the Chairman of the Federal
Reserve, that we need to look at these mortgage foreclosures in a
specific way to see how many of these families, if given a reasonable
opportunity, could stay in their homes, they have said: No, we don't
want to put our hands on that; we have to let the market work its will.
Well, we didn't let the market work its will with Bear Stearns. We came
to their rescue. We didn't let the market work its will with Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. We rescued them. We certainly didn't let the market
work its will with AIG. We decided that for the good of our economy we
had to step in. I believe those were reasonable efforts to stabilize
our economy, but helping the families facing foreclosure is also
reasonable. Now that our Government is taking over Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, I think it ought to step in with a new policy when it
comes to renegotiating the mortgages of people who are facing
foreclosure.
[[Page 19361]]
I have had a proposal before the Senate, which was rejected on a
largely partisan basis, which basically said that if you go into
bankruptcy in foreclosure, the court will have a chance to rewrite the
terms of your mortgage to keep you in your home. It is done now for
investment property, vacation property, farms and ranches. But it does
not apply to your primary residence, and that makes no sense
whatsoever. I think the court ought to step back and say this family
can make the payments they have made for the last 5 years and ought to
be allowed to stay in their home as a result of it rather than
foreclose the property. If the property is foreclosed, there are losers
in every direction. First, the families are on the street; second, the
financial institution; and then the neighborhoods and the community
around them will see their property values go down because of the
foreclosure.
If we want to staunch the bleeding going on at the base of our
economy, it should start with those who are facing foreclosure. If we
are coming to the rescue of major institutions, why do we turn our
backs on the families facing foreclosure?
One of our colleagues in the meeting yesterday said we have to let
the market find the bottom when it comes to foreclosure. We didn't let
that happen with respect to giants. We shouldn't let it happen to
families who deserve a second chance.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 20 minutes
out of the allotted 30 minutes on this side be allotted to me and the
remaining 10 minutes allotted to the Senator from Louisiana, Mr.
Vitter.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
DISASTER RELIEF
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday I had the chance, once again, to
tour the devastated area in my State of Texas caused by Hurricane Ike,
this time with the President of the United States and the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, Secretary Mike Levitt, along with David
Paulson, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
It had been 2 days before that, on Sunday, that I had done the same
thing in southeast Texas, in the Beaumont area, talking to the mayors
and county judges in that afflicted part of the State, as well as
having been to Galveston. Those two places, particularly Orange County
and Galveston County, in the southeast part of our State, took the
brunt of Hurricane Ike.
There are a lot of people hurting now in Texas. We have roughly 2
million people without power. Many people have left their homes under
evacuation orders and do not know what the condition of their home is
and certainly are dying to get back so they can assess where they are--
whether they have been wiped out or whether there is something they
will be able to rebuild, whether this is something from which they can
recover.
At the same time, we know there are people who are in evacuation
shelters set up by the Red Cross with FEMA's help, and others, where
they are getting the necessities of life--food, water, and shelter. But
these are the very same people who are eager to get back to their homes
to see whether their houses are still standing, to see whether they can
rebuild, as I say, or whether they are going to have to start from
scratch.
The emergency response by the State of Texas, primarily the Governor
and his team, as well as the leaders at the local level--county judges
and the mayors--was about as good as I can imagine it could have been.
Unfortunately, because of Hurricane Gustav, when it did not turn out to
be as severe as many thought, and millions, literally, had evacuated, I
don't think many people believed Ike was going to turn out to be as bad
as it turned out to be. So many people hunkered down in place and did
not take the advice of the local and State leadership to evacuate.
Unfortunately, now they find themselves--roughly 2 million people--
without power.
Yesterday, Mayor Thomas, in Galveston, pointed out that the toilets
have not flushed since last Friday in Galveston. That not only presents
an inconvenience and hardship, but it is also a public health hazard.
We have many people who, yesterday, decided to give people a chance to
look and leave. In other words, if they were worried about their home,
give them a chance to come back on Galveston Island, check it out, and
then leave because the air-conditioning, the refrigeration, the basic
services provided by power were not available.
Unfortunately, if you saw, as I did, the entry and exit into
Galveston Island, it was jammed with people wanting to come back under
that look-and-leave policy. But the mayor decided, and I think wisely
so, to suspend that because of the logjam.
In the worst of disasters, usually you find the greatest examples of
the human spirit, neighbors helping neighbors. Faith-based
organizations, for no other cause than serving their very basic
mission, are out there making sure people are fed, making sure they are
sheltered, doing everything they can to help people rebuild their
lives.
We were fortunate in one sense that the storm was not as bad as
originally predicted. At one point, there was an estimate that 125,000
homes would be lost; that the surge would reach up to 25 feet; that is,
the water being pushed ahead of the storm would actually come all the
way up the Houston Ship Channel and cause massive destruction and
flooding and possibly loss of human life. While too many people did, in
fact, lose their lives, fortunately it was not as bad as it could have
been. Texans remember and history reminds us it was just 1900 when
Galveston was hit by another hurricane where anywhere between 6,000 and
8,000 people died. Fortunately, the numbers were in the single digits
in Texas. That is because of not only the preparation but because of
modern building codes which created stronger houses for people who did
decide to hunker down, and also because of the search-and-rescue
operation conducted by the State and Federal authorities working
together to try to get people out who had been trapped, literally,
without electricity, without power, without gasoline. We were able to
get many people out to safety in the shelters.
I think it is important for the people of this country to know that
no matter who you are or where you live, we do have the systems in
place both at the local and State level but also the Federal level to
be of assistance to you if you need help. Of course, as I mentioned,
many people are trapped, really, where they are. Maybe they went to a
hotel. Maybe they went to a friend or relative's house.
Yesterday, the President announced the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the Federal Emergency Response Agency, had authorized people to
basically stay in the hotel or motel, if that is where they are
located, for up to 30 days while the power gets restored and while
cleanup is ongoing and maybe downed power lines are removed. That ought
to give people some relief, that they are not going to have to look for
money they do not have just to be able to pay the bill to stay in place
if they are in a hotel or motel for the next 30 days, if they come from
the affected counties.
Because of the major disaster declaration that occurred, both public
assistance in terms of helping to rebuild the affected areas in the
State and also personal assistance is available through FEMA. We tried
to announce the first step to the public yesterday. But, obviously,
people do not have Internet access when their power is down. They do
not have televisions to watch the announcements or maybe even radios to
be able to know what to do. But it is important for the public to know,
and I think not just in the affected regions, that they need to
register with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, for
personal assistance. That is the first step to getting back to their
houses, making sure any damages are appropriately assessed, and making
sure the affected people get the help they are entitled to under the
law.
[[Page 19362]]
I would add, in addition to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
Web site and their 1-800 number, if my constituents will call any one
of my offices, either here in Washington, DC, which we kept open 24-7
during the storm, and also any of my regional offices in Tyler, Dallas,
Houston, San Antonio, Harlingen, Lubbock, or Austin, we will reach them
and get them the help they need and to which they are entitled.
I have heard some rumors from the other side of the Capitol that
Speaker Pelosi was talking about moving a stimulus package, a huge
additional spending package of roughly $50 billion, and there were
going to be some provisions in it for disaster recovery and wild fires
and other things.
I would welcome that with this caution: that we not allow politics
and the opportunity to use this as a sort of Christmas tree for a bunch
of bloated spending that is not necessary to restore people to their
homes and to repair the damaged infrastructure; that this not be used
as an occasion for politics. To me, the most cynical thing possibly
that could happen in Congress is we look past the people in immediate
need, and we look for political opportunities to perhaps spend the
taxpayers' money on programs that would not otherwise pass because they
are somehow bundled up with emergency spending for storm relief.
There is one other thing I learned in this disaster that I think is
very important as we look at dealing with our energy crisis generally,
with the high price of gasoline, and high price of oil, which, perhaps,
is the No. 1 economic concern of the American people today. The gulf
coast is indeed a laboratory of energy that supplies the daily needs of
our country. When a big hurricane comes in, like this one did, of the
25 refineries--these are the places that actually make gasoline out of
oil--representing more than one-quarter of the Nation's refining
capacity, 17 of the 25 had to be taken offline because of the storm. In
addition, nine different oil pipelines--these are the major oil
pipelines that transmit oil from the gulf to various parts of the
country--also had to be shut down because of Hurricane Ike. That is
going to have an impact on America's oil and gas supply.
Hopefully, the first indications are going to prove to be true, and
there were no major environmental spills or problems associated with
this hurricane. To me, it was just another reminder of how much
Congress needs to remember that we cannot put all of the Nation's
energy--or at least 25 percent of it--in one place. It is literally
like putting all of our eggs in one basket. As the saying goes, if you
put all your eggs in one basket, you better take care of that basket.
The fact is, as we look forward to hopefully removing the moratorium
on Outer Continental Shelf drilling and exploration and production of
oil and building of refineries at home so we have to depend less on
imported energy from the Middle East, that we will remember the lessons
of Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav and Hurricane Katrina and
Hurricane Rita.
Frankly, I think putting so much of our Nation's energy capacity in
an area that is from time to time going to be affected by these natural
disasters is something we ought to take note of and do something about.
By producing the ability, or at least allowing the ability, for more
exploration and development and building of pipelines, building of
refineries in other parts of the country and, producing more at home,
we, as we use less by conservation measures, can produce more American
energy so we are less reliant on imported oil from the Middle East.
There have been a lot of interesting proposals being made. I want to
caution my colleagues against some of the proposals that claim to do
more about drilling but which in fact create further obstacles to
further American oil exploration and drilling. As a matter of fact, one
of the initial proposals we saw--I know this was in good faith. I am
not questioning the good faith of the proponents. But the effect of it
would actually be to raise taxes and diminish domestic oil production
and actually limit energy exploration.
It is true, we would go from 85 to roughly 70 percent of the Outer
Continental Shelf that would be available for drilling under this
proposal, but what we would in effect be doing is putting a 60-vote
barrier on going into that other 70 percent in the future. I do not
know why, if we are willing to acknowledge the fact that modern
drilling technology will allow for the exploration and production of
oil in one place, such as the Outer Continental Shelf, why we would
restrict it in other places on the Outer Continental Shelf, or
developing the oil shale out West or perhaps even in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge--in a 2,000-acre piece of frozen tundra in the
middle of a 19 million-acre wildlife refuge--something that can be
developed, I believe, in an environmentally responsible way.
Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 6 minutes
remaining.
____________________
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
Mr. CORNYN. I thank the Chair.
I want to move to another topic and say I am pleased that an
amendment which I have offered that will protect military voting rights
has been apparently accepted as a part of the managers' package on the
Defense authorization bill.
This is a provision which I offered last week and we had been
unsuccessful getting a vote on that. But I am pleased that through
negotiations in a bipartisan effort between the bill managers, Senator
Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Senator Warner,
the former chairman, who is the minority bill manager, that has been
accepted as part of the managers' package.
The fact is, according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Election
Assistance Commission, only 992,000 of the 6 million eligible military
and overseas voters were able to request an absentee ballot for the
2006 election, and only 330,000 of those ballots were filled out and
actually reached election officials.
That means, in other words, that only 5.5 percent of eligible
military and overseas voters were able to fill out a ballot and mail it
in and have it counted. To me that is a scandalous statistic, one I am
glad that this body, in a bipartisan fashion, is going to respond to
and say ``no more.''
We are going to deal with this issue in a way that makes sure that
the ballot of those who are fighting, deployed in very dangerous
places, is going to count as much as our ballots here in the
continental United States.
____________________
CONSTITUTION DAY 2008
Mr. CORNYN. I have some remarks, this being Constitution Day, that I
want to make in closing. It was 221 years ago today when the delegates
of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed their work;
39 of them signed it and gave us the very Government we have come to
know, we have come to love, and, sometimes, there are those who say
they have come to loathe it.
But today, we celebrate the very fact that we live in a country where
people have the freedom of speech, that we have our political rights to
petition Government, where Government's power is acknowledged to come
from the governed, ``we the People'' as Lincoln said, ``Government of
the people, by the people and for the people.'' It is not the decision
of a small group of people here in Washington, DC that somehow has to
be fed to us like castor oil and we have to take it. This literally is
a government of the people representing all 300 million of us who live
in this country that was created that day by that Constitution.
Mr. President, it was on this day, September 17, 1787, that the
delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed
their work. Thirty-nine of them signed the U.S. Constitution, setting
up the government system that we have come to know, love, and sometimes
loathe.
As Senators, we have sworn an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States. This is a duty and a responsibility
that does not discriminate based on our party ideology. Still,
[[Page 19363]]
it is our mutual love for and defense of the Constitution that often
provokes our most vigorous debates in this chamber. This spirited
debate is vital to liberty and the continued survival of our Nation.
If you read Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention, you
will see that the delegates themselves engaged in a lively debate about
how to best implement the principles of liberty, equality, and justice
established in the Declaration of Independence. Years later, during the
jubilee celebration of the Constitution, John Quincy Adams said, ``The
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States
are parts of one consistent whole, founded upon one and the same theory
of government.''
With population growth, increasing diversity, agricultural and
economic development and massive technological advancement, our Nation
has changed tremendously in the 221 years since the Constitution was
signed. Yet, despite these changes, there remains a fundamental
consistency in human nature.
James Madison expressed it best in the Federalist Papers, Number 51:
``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were
to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government
would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered
by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first
enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place
oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt,
the primary control on the government; but experience has taught
mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.''
You see, we are indebted to the Founding Fathers for their wisdom and
foresight. They understood that human nature would be unlikely to
change, and that 18th century and contemporary American policymakers
would be pressured to promote policy solutions that may not serve the
public interest.
According to Madison, ``Complaints are everywhere heard from our most
considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and
private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments
are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts
of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not
according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party,
but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. .
. . These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness
and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public
administrations.''
Madison was concerned about the effect of special interest groups on
the policy process. In Federalist 10 he wrote, ``The latent causes of
faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere
brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different
circumstances of civil society. . . .''
``So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual
animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the
most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle
their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But
the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and
unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are
without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those
who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like
discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests,
grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into
different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The
regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the
principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party
and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the
government.''
In a pure democracy, Madison argues, ``A common passion or interest
will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a
communication and concert result from the form of government itself;
and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker
party or an obnoxious individual. . . . Such democracies have ever been
spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have
in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in
their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species
of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a
perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same
time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions,
their opinions, and their passions.''
Since it is impossible to force everyone to share the same opinion
and intensity of opinion, Madison seeks to control the effects of
factions by creating a republican form of government.
``The two great points of difference between a democracy and a
republic are,'' he writes, ``First, the delegation of the government,
in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;
secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of
country, over which the latter may be extended''.
``The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine
and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true
interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice
will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial
considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the
public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be
more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people
themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may
be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of
sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means,
first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the
people''.
Madison was skeptical that elected representatives would always act
in the public interest. ``Enlightened statesmen will not always be at
the helm,'' he wrote in Federalist 10.
Today, we have only to see the parade of huge spending bills that
find their way to the floor to know that it is a herculean task to
whet, much less control the appetites of the hundreds of organized
interest groups who want their piece of the federal pie made with tax
dollars collected from hard working American families.
The entitlement mentality of many of these organized groups, many of
which cannot lay claim to a substantial number of members, has
pressured an all too receptive Congress to grow the size of government,
increase spending to new heights, while we ignore insolvency of large
entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and hope that
our children and grandchildren will bail us out for our bad decisions.
In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution that
establishes a system of separate institutions that share policymaking
and political power. This was a clear effort to control the effects of
factions and to guard against despotic rulers.
The public elections established by the Constitution encourage the
electorate to select their representatives wisely.
For those of us privileged to be elected by the people, we have a
sworn obligation to protect and defend the Constitution and to show
ourselves worthy of this great trust.
On any given day, not just anniversary dates like today, it is
something we ought to think more about.
I see my colleague from Louisiana here. I am going to yield the rest
of our time that we have in morning business to him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska.) The Senator from
Louisiana is recognized.
____________________
ENERGY
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I stand to join with all other Senators,
in fact, to join with all the American people, in offering our strong
support for all of
[[Page 19364]]
the hurricane victims Senator Cornyn talked about.
In fact, there is enormous devastation, enormous loss and continuing
suffering in those parts of the country, particularly in southeast
Texas, hit hard by Ike, following right on the heels of Hurricane
Gustav. Our hearts go out to all of those folks. Our best wishes, our
prayers are with them and our intent and focus here in Congress to meet
their basic needs, their key needs, is here as well.
Representing Louisiana, of course, I have spent most of the last 3
weeks touring Louisiana and looking at hurricane damage there. Of
course we were first hit by Hurricane Gustav, which had enormous winds,
caused major power outages, significant wind damage in many parts of
the State. And then right on the heels of that came Hurricane Ike.
While Hurricane Ike slammed into southeast Texas, it pushed floodwaters
in the Gulf all through coastal Louisiana, from the western edge at the
Texas border all the way to the eastern edge, Plaquemines Parish, where
Louisiana meets Mississippi.
We are still struggling with those challenges. But again, I want to
acknowledge the even greater suffering, the even greater devastation
that others face from Hurricane Ike, particularly folks in Galveston
and southeast Texas. Our hearts and prayers go out to them and our
commitment to help in every reasonable way possible goes out to them as
well. I trust Congress will act on that key priority as those folks
face a true moment of crisis and extreme need.
As we act in that regard in the next couple of weeks, I also hope we
notice something Senator Cornyn mentioned, that part of our country,
the gulf coast, the Gulf of Mexico, particularly the western gulf, is
enormously vital in terms of meeting our nation's energy needs. We are
proud to offer that service to the Nation. We have a long, storied
tradition in terms of that. We are very proud of that tradition. We
want it to continue. But, quite frankly, we do not want to continue to
be the only part of the country that meets our Nation's energy needs
right here at home. We need to expand that activity. We need to bring
that same activity to other parts of the country, diversify, if you
will, have more activity and more places so we are not so singularly
vulnerable to gulf hurricanes and storms as we are now, as we have
lived through with the experiences of Katrina and then Rita, and now
Gustav and now Ike.
So as this Congress responds to the immediate needs of hurricane
victims in southeast Texas in the gulf coast, including Louisiana, I
hope we also continue to focus and start acting on energy, and what
remains a top priority for all of America.
I know there is a great rush to get out of here for the elections. I
know the leadership is pushing to adjourn for the elections as early as
the end of next week. But before we do that, we need to address the
Nation's business. We need to pass immediate relief for suffering
hurricane victims, and we need to act, not just talk, not just debate,
certainly not fight or finger-point, but act on energy. Even in that
limited time period, I believe we can do all of those things in a
substantial way.
With regard to developing an aggressive national energy plan, I have
four key priorities, and all of those priorities, I believe, are
absolutely achievable, even in that very tight timeframe.
No. 1, we must lift the current moratorium on offshore oil and gas
production. The American people have spoken in a clear and resounding
way. They think that current moratorium is crazy. They think we are
nuts to take 85 percent or more of our domestic energy resources off
the table, not allow energy companies and producers to access or touch
them.
The way you change that is lifting the current moratorium under
Federal law. Now, as we all know, that does not take action by
Congress, it simply takes inaction by Congress. We need to make sure
that that moratorium, which expires on its own October 1, is not
renewed.
I urge all of my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to listen to
the clear, crystal clear, clarion call of the American people: Do not
extend that moratorium. We cannot put that moratorium in any continuing
law such as a continuing resolution. We must lift that moratorium and
allow the American people to access their own energy resources right
here at home.
No. 2, I think we should match aggressive action in that regard with
aggressive action with regard to new forms of energy, including
renewables. And the most significant, quickest thing we can do with
regard to that is pass the major tax incentives that virtually all of
us support with regard to new technology, new forms of energy,
renewables.
As we all know, that robust package of tax incentives is a major
component of the so-called tax extenders bill. We need to come together
around a bipartisan version of that tax package, including those
important incentives for new technology and renewable energy and pass
that into law.
Again, even in this very tight timeframe in which we operate, we can
do that. We must do that. We must act for the American people.
Third, I believe we should pass revenue sharing for offshore
production to create an incentive for more States to get into that
business. As we lift the moratorium, as we open up all of our offshore
to potential energy production, we should give participating States an
incentive. And that powerful incentive would be royalty sharing,
revenue sharing, so they get 37.5 percent of the royalties produced
from offshore production.
We set that policy, we set that precedent 2 years ago, with regard to
new production in the Gulf of Mexico. We should expand that precedent.
We should expand that policy as we allow and encourage offshore
production in all parts of the country: the western gulf, the east
coast, the west coast, and elsewhere.
Finally, let me end with a fourth key point. My fourth key priority
is something that is very important. It is not something we should do,
it is something we should not do. If we are serious about domestic
energy production, if we are serious about energy independence, getting
away from our reliance on foreign sources, we should not raise taxes on
domestic energy production.
The first rule of economics is that if you want more of something,
you do not tax it. Because when you tax something, you get less of it,
not more. I urge my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, not to
increase taxes in a significant way on domestic energy production. We
want more domestic energy production, we do not want less. So it is
simple economics that we do not tax what we want more of in a more
onerous way because that will produce less of it.
This is not an economics theory, this is history and practice. This
is our experience. President Jimmy Carter passed a windfall profits tax
during his tenure as President. What did that produce? It produced
exactly what one might expect, less domestic production, less energy.
The proposals that are being floated now with regard to section 199
and other energy tax provisions are a windfall profits tax by another
name. They will have precisely the same effect. They will drive down
domestic energy production when we want to drive it up. They will
discourage activity at home in the energy sector when we want to
encourage and expand it. It simply does not make any sense.
So I urge us not just to talk, not just to debate, certainly not to
argue and finger-point and play partisan politics. I urge us to act. I
urge us to come together in a bipartisan, responsible way and act as
the American people want us to act.
They support hurricane victims in East Texas and elsewhere who are
devastated by these storms, and we should support those victims too
through concrete, responsible action. The American people support
energy independence. They support doing more for ourselves right here
in this country with regard to energy. We should reflect
[[Page 19365]]
their wisdom and act in that regard as well.
Specifically with regard to the four points I mentioned, No. 1, we
must ensure that the current moratorium on offshore production is
lifted, that it is not renewed. All we have to do there is let the
moratorium expire and not renew it.
No. 2, we need to encourage new technology, renewables, through a
robust set of tax incentives in the tax bill. We need to pass that and
do it now. We need to act.
No. 3, we must create an incentive for more States to get into the
business of offshore oil and gas production through revenue sharing. We
must expand that policy which we started 2 years ago in new production
in the gulf.
No. 4, the last thing we should do if we want to increase domestic
energy production is tax it at higher and higher rates. Let us not pass
a new windfall profits tax by another name. Let us not discourage the
domestic energy sector and discourage domestic energy production, when
we all profess that we want to do the opposite.
I will be fighting for these four key priorities. We can accomplish
all of them in the next 10 days. Let us show the American people we do
get it, that we are responsible, that we can come together and work
together, and that we can act in positive ways for their benefit.
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. NELSON of Florida. 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. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to
speak in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I want to bring to the
attention of the Senate a little known fact, as the clock continues to
tick for us to take up drilling legislation off the Outer Continental
Shelf, in particular, the proposal that has been cast by the so-called
Gang of 10 as a compromise, which is looking at a comprehensive
approach, which I applaud, that includes revenues. But it also includes
tax incentives for alternative fuels and so forth.
The part the two Senators from Florida extremely object to is the
fact of intruding in the military mission, the only testing and
training area that is the largest for our U.S. Department of Defense,
and all other agencies, including for classified and black programs
that go on for testing and evaluation in this training range.
But what is particularly egregious is that in opening up all of that
area that is now closed pursuant to the statute we passed 2 years ago,
the 2006 statute--that we closed all of that area to drilling because
of the military--in the opening of that area, and in the so-called
giving of revenue to the adjacent State--in this case Florida--well, lo
and behold, all the revenue allocated to the State does not go to the
State of Florida, even though it is the waters of the Gulf of Mexico
off of the State of Florida.
What happens in the complicated formula that is there is that 10
percent of all the revenues from the leasing of Federal lands for oil
and gas production goes to each State on the gulf. That would include
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. In other words, the revenue
does not go to the State of Florida, even though it is off the coast of
Florida. Forty percent of that State revenue due to the State would go
to the other States instead of Florida.
That is simply not fair. When I explain that to Senators, they are
surprised, and in some cases aghast, because common sense would tell
you it is not fair. That is another reason this Senator has put his
foot down that we are not going to let Florida, nor the Department of
Defense, be the sacrificial lamb for some kind of proposal so people
can say we are drilling out there.
I want to drill. I want to drill offshore. But I want to drill where
it makes sense. The formula that has been concocted certainly does not
make sense.
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.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
HURRICANE IKE
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
devastation inflicted by Hurricane Ike. It is the worst hurricane to
hit Texas in almost 50 years and probably the fourth costliest
hurricane of all time.
Last week, when Hurricane Ike entered the Gulf of Mexico and started
moving toward Texas, State, local, and Federal officials came together
and moved into action. We had reason to fear the worst. In the year
1900, the island of Galveston was destroyed by a hurricane that claimed
over 6,000 lives, the deadliest natural disaster in U.S. history. I was
born on Galveston Island. I was raised in Galveston County. When I was
growing up, I heard stories about 1900. There have been books written
about that hurricane of 1900. And we also faced on a yearly basis
hurricane warnings. Of course, some of them hit.
While preparing for this storm, the people of Texas had fresh
memories from Hurricane Rita, another violent hurricane that came
ashore around Sabine Pass in 2005. While Hurricane Rita only caused
seven direct fatalities, the evacuation and recovery efforts along the
gulf coast were not without difficulties, and for that reason, everyone
who could possibly be helpful in this wanted to improve the emergency
preparedness in advance of the next storm.
So in the days leading up to Hurricane Ike, Texas was prepared. Over
1 million Texans successfully evacuated from their homes. However, when
the skies cleared on Saturday afternoon, it was clear that Hurricane
Ike had caused an appalling amount of property damage. From the early
estimates, the cost of Hurricane Ike could reach almost $30 billion.
Forty-nine people are now confirmed dead. That number will surely rise.
Thousands are homeless. Many communities remain under water and are
completely inaccessible due to the significant amount of debris.
Yesterday, 2.2 million Texans still lacked electricity. Emergency
workers are struggling to distribute food, water, and ice. Offshore oil
platforms are damaged and many refineries are without electricity. So
it is likely that before the region's oil and gas industry return to
capacity, we will see some shortages in gasoline and, therefore, some
higher prices.
Gulf refineries and ports are the source of 50 percent of the fuel
and crude used in the eastern half of the United States. Disruption of
that infrastructure underscores the urgent need for us to expand
refinery capacity. Indeed, we need to expand our entire energy supply
so that America's economy is never undermined by acts of nature or
foreign adversaries.
On Sunday, I joined with Senator John Cornyn, my colleague, and the
Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, and many members of
our congressional delegation to survey the hardest-hit regions. We came
to listen to the concerns raised by the mayors and the county judges,
after we had been on the telephone with them for the 4 days before,
trying to determine that people were as prepared as they could be in an
instance such as this and, of course, we wanted to try to correct any
concerns that had been raised. Some were raised. I will say that the
mayors of our cities and the county judges have done a terrific job of
representing their constituents at the
[[Page 19366]]
local level. I met with Mayor Bill White of Houston, Mayor Lyda Ann
Thomas from Galveston, Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, I talked on the
phone with the mayor of Port Arthur, Beaumont, the county judge of
Orange County, trying to help in every way we could from the Federal
level.
Yesterday, I joined with the members of the Texas delegation who were
here. Many were still in Houston touring with the President to see the
damage and determine what more could be done. I talked to Senator
Landrieu and Senator Vitter yesterday about their concerns about
Hurricane Ike which hit them very hard. We all know Louisiana has
suffered so much in the last few years with Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. Texas joined them in suffering from the evacuees in Katrina and
then Rita, and now we have Ike. We jointly must have the support of all
of our colleagues in Congress to help our constituents. We are working
together--our Texas delegation, our Louisiana delegation--to have a
supplemental appropriation so that FEMA will be fully funded to address
the concerns.
The Corps of Engineers will have repairs to make throughout the gulf
coast. There are shelters that are going to be needed for families who
have nothing to go back to. As I passed over Bolivar Peninsula and I
saw what used to be a wonderful group of homes on stilts, today they
are stilts. The homes are completely gone--completely gone--as if there
was never anything there but sticks. It was amazing to me because I
have been there so many times and seen these communities. So we are
going to come together and we are going to help the people who have
been afflicted.
I wish to speak for a moment about the people of Texas. We are known,
I guess, around the country for being a hearty bunch and usually a
happy bunch and always resilient. We have a great spirit in Texas. I
never have seen it any more so than right now. Colleagues in Galveston
and Bolivar Peninsula, Port Arthur, Beaumont, Orange, Harris County,
Houston, many are down because they have not been able to get back in
to see their homes. On Galveston Island the health conditions are so
bad that they are not letting people come back on the island, so people
have not even seen their homes. They are very frustrated.
But the generous spirit of Texans is surrounding those who are
afflicted. The spirit, the pride, the resilience is there. I have seen
our citizens do everything they can on a personal level. One of my
regional directors of Harris County, Jason Fuller, has 12 Texans living
with him right now, including three new dogs and a cat. He is doing his
part on a personal level. He is also going out to the shelters and
representing our constituents and trying to make sure that the points
of distribution are open, things he can do. Some communities that don't
have power organized block parties and they are having barbeques and
cookouts because they have no electricity in their homes. Local
churches, the Baptist Men, the Second Baptist Church in Houston has an
incredible outpouring. The local churches are providing staff support.
Volunteers are distributing the water and ice and food to surrounding
communities. There are so many good things happening. Neighbors are
coming together to help neighbors.
I wish to ask my colleagues to help us. Because we do have an
emergency disaster bill coming through for many areas of the Midwest
that have suffered from previous disasters, I am going to ask, along
with my colleague John Cornyn and my colleagues Mary Landrieu and David
Vitter that we be included in this. We don't have the exact assessments
yet, but we know it is going to be big. We know we have given for
Katrina. We have given to other disasters. What we ask is to be treated
in the same way so we can recover and get our economies going again,
get our jobs going again, get our schools open, which are not yet done
in many parts of our State, so that we can recover, clean up, and begin
contributing again to the economy as we have done so much in the past.
I thank my colleagues for listening. My heart goes out to my
constituents who are suffering right now in Texas. I am going to stay
in constant contact with them. I wish to say particularly how much I
appreciate our Secretary of Homeland Security who has so many
responsibilities, who has already been to Texas and Louisiana once, who
is going back today as we speak, and will be there to try to solve any
problems that have arisen. As well prepared as we were, there were
things that had not been done. Some lack of coordination has occurred.
He is going down there personally to try to fix that. We appreciate
that very much and we want to work with him hand in hand to assure that
our communities get up and going and that my beloved Galveston Island
will once again be able to bring in tourists because of its beauty and
its historic value, its ports and its beautiful beaches. I am going to
work tirelessly to make sure that happens, along with all of the other
areas of our coast that have been damaged.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor. I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. REID. Mr. President, last night, just a short ways off the Senate
Chamber, I met with Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, and others.
The meeting came at the request of the administration. These two men
expressed their views on the deepening economic turmoil and laid out a
plan that has now been reported in the media this morning.
AIG, arguably the largest insurance company in the world, was in the
process of going bankrupt. The deadline was 8 o'clock last night. The
board of directors met to see if they would accept the offer made by
the Federal Government to attempt to save parts of the company.
Obviously, the meeting ended with the board of directors approving the
bailout. The Secretary and the Chairman promised to provide more
details of their plans in the near future, which I believe must address
the broader underlying structural issues in the financial markets.
I just completed a press conference with a number of other Senators,
and the press was asking question after question: What is the Senate
going to do? The answer is very clear: This is a multitrillion dollar
problem which has been ongoing for a long time. We are going to have to
get some committee hearings underway, which is why we are not going to
adjourn. We will be in pro forma session so committees can still meet,
though we won't have any activities here on the floor as relates to
these markets.
Secretary Paulson has said this will have to take place in the next
administration because there is so much to be determined in the
direction we need to go. They gave every impression, these two good
men, that they are attempting to do the best they can to understand
America's financial institutions and the problems with them. But the
good intentions of these two decent men cannot escape the reality that
the Bush administration's willful neglect of oversight and an
overzealous embrace of big business are directly responsible for the
crisis we now face.
The most important job of our country is to safeguard the American
people from physical and financial harm. This was the role of the great
Franklin Roosevelt. That is the role of any President. But it seems
this President has focused only on protecting us from physical harm.
The financial harm needs to be part of the duties of the President.
When it comes to the financial sector, this means ensuring that
institutions do not impose systematic risks on the entire system
because of the ripple effect that can have on our economy.
Democrats and Republicans who have served before our current
President have all understood that providing oversight--oversight of
everything but also of our financial sector--is not
[[Page 19367]]
somehow anticapitalistic. Just the opposite--it helps capitalism
flourish. But that all changed with George Bush and Dick Cheney. When
they came to power, there was no more oversight. They are such devout
followers of the top-down, big-business-first, Herbert Hoover approach
to the economy that they see any oversight as a threat to their greed.
They put cronies and ideologues in charge of the most critical
agencies, including the Justice Department. Alberto Gonzales is the
poster child of that, hiring people who only graduated from certain
select religious universities. I repeat, they put cronies and
ideologues in charge of our most critical regulatory agencies, who
ensured that special interests would always come before the common
good. They refused to exercise their regulatory authority over the
mortgage industry, allowing massive fraud and widespread predatory
lending.
Now, what is predatory lending? Look it up in the dictionary. I did.
It is the practice of preying on borrowers with deceptive, dishonest
loan offers. This paved the way for the largest mortgage crisis in
American history--a bigger crisis than during the Great Depression. And
the reason for that is the great work done by President Roosevelt and
the New Deal and the work done by President Johnson with the great
things he did so people could buy homes. So of course more people own
homes now than then. Republicans, though, continued to ignore the
problem long after the extent of the plundering and pillaging of the
mortgage market became widely known.
I have a friend, Mr. President. I have known him a long time. We did
work together. His name is Joe Alioto, Jr. His father was a famous
lawyer and mayor of San Francisco. In my estimation, Joe Alioto, Jr.,
is one of the most legal scholars and the finest antitrust lawyer in
the country--doing plaintiffs work, not defense work. He has done some
great things to help our society. He is so concerned about what has
happened these past 8 years. The Justice Department has not touched
these economic conspiracies going on. They have ignored it. It has to
change.
Mr. President, talking about regulation, remember last Christmas? It
started around this time, a couple weeks from now. What were people
concerned about? Kids getting sick and dying from toys. Why? Because 80
percent of our toys are manufactured in other places, most of them in
China.
We discovered, during that period of time, that the Bush
administration, in their zealousness to do away with regulation--they
hate oversight so much that the Consumer Product Safety Commission had
literally one man in a cubbyhole, a windowless cubbyhole, in charge of
testing every toy in America for the safety of our children. Our
children were not protected by a team of engineers or by consumer
experts but by a single employee who could do little more than to drop
a toy from his desk on the floor to see if it would break. And that is
the truth.
The financial turmoil we are now seeing is a direct outcome of the
irresponsible Bush-Cheney approach to governing--which, by the way,
John McCain has supported every step of the way. As he said day before
yesterday: The fundamentals of this economy are strong.
There is a cartoon today running in the Las Vegas Sun newspaper. The
cartoon is by syndicated columnist Mike Smith. You see all his cartoons
in all the newspapers and magazines in the country. It shows a ship in
the ocean. Three-quarters of it is underwater, but the caption is: The
hull is fundamentally strong.
This administration's fervor to favor big business has crippled the
very big companies they sought to strengthen, and now the American
consumer is the one hurt the most. When the history books are written,
they will show that while Bush and Cheney were giving away the keys to
the castle to big business, Democrats in Congress were trying to
restore fiscal sanity.
In 2000, Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, a senior Democrat on the
Banking Committee and one of America's all-time great Senators,
introduced the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act to restrict
abusive lending practices. The same year, Senator Schumer introduced
the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act. In 2002, Senator
Sarbanes reintroduced his bill.
When we came with the rewrite of the bankruptcy law, Senator Durbin
offered an amendment to say, if you have predatory lending practices
you cannot recover that matter in Bankruptcy Court. That was defeated
by the Republicans by one vote.
In 2004, Senator Sarbanes and the current chairman of the Banking
Committee, Senator Dodd, called on the Federal Reserve to take action
on alternative mortgages. Senator Dodd called them a ``nightmare'' for
low-income Americans--4 years ago.
In 2005, the House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation
to reform the regulation of government-sponsored enterprises such as
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After passing the House 331 to 90, the
Democratic minority in the Senate tried to pass it but were blocked by
the White House and Senate Republicans. This was one of the many
Republicans have put out.
Representative Mike Oxley, one-time chairman of the House Banking
Committee and a devout Republican, brought this legislation to the
White House. As he put it, these are his words, the administration gave
the legislation the ``one-finger salute.''
In February 2008 Senate Democrats introduced the Foreclosure
Prevention Act, which was blocked by Senate Republicans after a veto
threat from the White House. This is one of the Republicans' 94
filibusters in the last 20 months.
In June 2008 the White House threatened to veto the Federal Housing
Finance Regulatory Reform Act, which would have improved oversight of
Fannie and Freddie. The reason for the veto threat is here. This is
what they said--they didn't want to help communities struggling with
foreclosed properties. That is what I said, not what they said, but
that is what it boiled down to. They wanted the market to take care of
it.
If the President had signed that bill this past June, we perhaps
could have saved billions--I won't say ``perhaps.'' We would have saved
billions we will now have to spend to bail out Fannie and Freddie. In
every one of these instances, Democrats saw the storm clouds gathering
and attempted to pass legislation that could have steered our course
away from the crisis we now face. But every time the White House and
Senate Republicans chose to continue along their irresponsible path.
Think about how irresponsible this is.
Even this year, with the housing market fully in turmoil and crisis,
Republicans broke all Senate records by filibustering the housing
bill--not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, not five
times, not six times--seven times. Every day the Republicans blocked us
from finally passing housing legislation at least 9,000 Americans went
into foreclosure. People in Pennsylvania, people in Maryland, all over
this great country, went into foreclosure. During the Republicans'
seven-time filibusters more than 160,000 homes went into foreclosure.
When Republicans had a chance to help, they wanted the status quo.
One thing has happened here the last few weeks. Republicans can no
longer have the status quo. That is gone. They tried for almost 8 years
to maintain the status quo, and it is not going to be the status quo
anymore. After 8 years of a failed approach, President Bush is ready to
leave office and have the financial nightmare given to the next
President. President Bush's preferred candidate is a disciple of the
Bush-Cheney school of economics. If there is any doubt about it, just
look to the man John McCain hired to tell him what to say on this
economy, former Senator Phil Gramm.
This is the same Phil Gramm who pushed through legislation that
allowed firms such as Enron to avoid regulation and destroy the life
savings of its employees and now allows Wall Street traders today to
bid up the price of oil without oversight, leaving us the bill to pay--
and some bill it is to pay.
An eminent economist at the University of Texas, James Galbraith,
said
[[Page 19368]]
Gramm was ``the most aggressive advocate of every predatory and
rapacious element the financial sector has. . . . He's a sorcerer's
apprentice of instability and disaster in the financial system.''
Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world, called the
result of Gramm's legislation ``weapons of mass destruction.''
I don't know about you, but after all that has gone on in the
financial sector, the last person I want whispering in the ear of the
next President of the United States is the chief architect and No. 1
cheerleader for the elimination of responsible oversight.
My office received a call: I don't know if you should say anything
about Senator Gramm because there was something called the Gramm-Leach-
Bliley Act that said one holding company could own more than one
financial services company. They said you better look how you voted.
I voted against that bill. I remember very clearly. I was the person
handling this floor during that period of time for Senator Daschle. I
voted against that bill. We took that matter to conference, and we
improved the bill in conference. The main issue at that time, for we
Democrats, was they were red-lining people. The banks would just red-
line places. They wouldn't make loans outside of a certain area.
It happened in Pennsylvania. The Presiding Officer is aware of that.
We spent a lot of time trying to change that. Did we get everything we
wanted? No, we didn't. But it came back from conference, and it passed
by an overwhelming vote. I voted against the bill. But the main point
of that legislation is that it still allowed regulation. It didn't say
the regulators could no longer regulate. The problem is regulators,
during that period of time, had been asleep at the switch. They have
not enforced what is on the books, and that should be the focus: that
McCain's philosophy and Bush's philosophy are the same.
I am going to continue talking about the fact this man, John McCain,
is taking a lot of advice from a person who eminent economists and
business people say has been a disaster for our economy.
After 8 years of this failed approach, we have what we have. On
Monday, with one major investment bank headed for bankruptcy, another
sold at a bargain price to avoid the same fate, tens of thousands of
people losing their jobs, and one of the largest insurance companies
teetering, John McCain declared that the fundamentals of the economy
are strong.
The straight talk express is really in bad shape. This vehicle has
fenders ripped off of it. There are very few seats left inside it. It
hit another big wall on Monday, hit another big wall on Tuesday, and
today it hit another big wall. The wall today is that John McCain said
today--this just came out in the Associated Press--he said today the
reason for all this stuff is lack of good regulation.
How in the world could the straight talk express say that? I think
that is one reason I am not sure the straight talk express is even
running after the last three collisions. It is in very bad shape. But
yesterday even John McCain finally acknowledged what everyone else
already knew. I guess he no longer thought the fundamentals of the
economy were great, as he said a day or so before that. What he said is
the economy is broken. That is some switch, isn't it--from being sound
fundamentally to broken? But who does McCain think broke it? Was it
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Phil Gramm, McCain's own Republican Congress?
The economy is not going to turn around overnight. We can't snap our
fingers or pass a bill and expect the problems to be solved instantly.
We were told that last night by Chairman Bernanke and Secretary
Paulson. This whole situation is not going to be easy. It is going to
take bipartisan cooperation. I know for certain we are not going to fix
our economy with a candidate who only yesterday woke up and realized
there is a problem.
Last month, 606,000 jobs were lost. I don't know how many will be
lost this month. I know Hewlett-Packard gave it a good start by laying
off 25,000 people yesterday. I don't know how many people lost their
jobs with Lehman Brothers. I don't know how many people are going to
lose their jobs with AIG.
I would like for once this administration to come to me with a
problem that they would like to help us work on to help the middle
class. They come to us all the time to bail out that big company or
that big company or that big company or this big conglomerate. But
where are they for emergency meetings to help people who can't afford
gas or health insurance or can't afford to keep their kids in college?
We are paying record prices for gas, groceries, health care. That
didn't happen yesterday. Millions of families are losing their homes to
foreclosure or seeing their home equity disappear. That didn't happen
yesterday.
Monday's McCain said our economy is strong. Tuesday's McCain said our
economy is broken. Wednesday's McCain said it is because of lack of
regulation. Try to figure that out. This is the straight talk express
which is broken and in bad shape, and he can't find passengers anymore.
Perhaps today's McCain will explain how a candidate who spent 30
years in Washington siding with Wall Street over Main Street, who
changed his view on the economy 180 degrees in 24 hours--I think he is
running into himself--is prepared to lead us on the road to economic
recovery? I don't think he is.
The extraordinary economic challenges we now face demand leadership
and a new approach. The Senate will continue to listen intently to any
proposal the administration offers, but we know the real change we need
will come only when we have a President who will act as a guardian for
the American people--not only their physical protection but their
fiscal protection--rather than as a guarantor for the titans of Wall
Street.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his
comments. I agree completely with him that the circumstances have
reached a point that we need to change direction, and we need
leadership that will move us from the policies of the past to deal with
the economic problems that we currently confront.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I can proceed as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the problems we have been talking about on
Main Street America have reached Wall Street. I have taken the
opportunity to speak on the floor on several occasions about the fact
that the problems homeowners were facing in losing their homes in
foreclosure were not just the problems of those particular homeowners,
that it affects each and every one of us, that it was a housing crisis
in America that would affect our entire economy. I talked about the
fact that we have an obligation to try to do something to help.
Foreclosure rates are now at historically high levels. In August of
this year, there were over 300,000 foreclosures in America. In my own
State of Maryland, we have had over 3,000 foreclosures each and every
month. Maryland is normally a quiet State. Homeowners are wondering
whether they are going to be able to hold on to their homes. Homeowners
have suffered from a significant reduction in property values. All
homeowners have suffered through this. When there is a foreclosure in a
neighborhood, it affects every house in that community.
The real estate industry is suffering through declining home sales.
We know the numbers are dramatically lower. We know what that means as
far as the economy is concerned. Housing starts are at their 17-year
low.
We know the impact these economic conditions are having on middle-
income families. Their wages have been stagnant--in fact, in real
terms, have fallen--and yet their needs have increased; the high cost
of energy, the high cost of health care, the cost of trying to afford a
college education for their children, even affording their
[[Page 19369]]
food budget. So we know middle-income families are hurting. We know
Main Street is hurting.
But now we see that these problems have gone to Wall Street. We
learned a few months ago about Bear Stearns and that the Government had
to come to the rescue of Bear Stearns in order to make sure the jitters
on Wall Street would be contained. That was followed by the Government
coming in and standing behind Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, putting tens
of billions of dollars of U.S. Government potential expenditures at
risk. This past week, we saw that Lehman Brothers, an entity that had
survived the stock market crash of 1929, went bankrupt. Merrill Lynch
was sold at a bargain-basement price. AIG now has Government
involvement. This past Monday, the stock market fell by over 500
points--the Dow Jones average--which is the largest single drop since
the terrorist attacks of September 2001. The taxpayers are being asked
to stand behind these financial institutions. Individuals who depended
upon their investments for retirement or for savings have seen a large
part of that evaporate.
The administration says the economy is basically sound. John McCain
says the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Well, it is the
economic policies of this administration that have made it much more
vulnerable. It was the former Secretary of HUD, Alphonso Jackson, who
said, ``Let's take a hands-off approach.'' The lack of Federal
regulation and the lack of this administration's oversight of the
financial institutions in our country have certainly led to where we
are today.
Our economy is much more vulnerable because of the economic policies
of this administration. Let me give you a few examples.
We have seen that during the past 8 years this administration has
taken an economy with large budget surpluses to an economy with large
budget deficits. This administration took a national debt that was a
little over $5 trillion and we are now approaching $10 trillion. They
took a surplus of a couple of hundred billion dollars a year and turned
it into a deficit of over $400 billion a year. They have grown the
trade deficit to over $700 billion a year, costing us jobs here in
America. They have had a policy that yielded to the oil companies this
oil dependency where we are not energy independent, so gasoline prices
approach $4 a gallon. The health care system has seen 6 million more
Americans lose their health insurance and become uninsured as a result
of the administration's policies. And the unemployment rate that was a
little over 4 percent has grown to over 6 percent.
Now, Congress has taken some steps in order to try to deal with this.
Quite frankly, we could have taken those steps a little faster if it
were not for the Republican filibusters. But we need to do a lot more.
We have taken steps to try to help families save their homes. Yes, I
think we should be doing more. I was listening to the assistant
majority leader talking about ways we could do that through changes in
the bankruptcy laws. I think we need to do that. There are things we
can do to help homeowners save their homes.
We can certainly do more to help families deal with the consequences
of this economy, whether it is the high cost of energy and air-
conditioning their homes or, in the winter, heating their homes or
whether there are other areas we can help those who are suffering
through this economy.
I hope our colleagues will not filibuster those opportunities so we
can help those who have lost their jobs. I think we have a
responsibility. That is what Government should be doing. The economy is
not producing the jobs they need. They cannot find jobs through no
fault of their own; it is the economic problems. That is where
Government can help.
We could certainly have the right regulatory and oversight system to
deal with what is happening with our financial institutions.
But we need to get back to basics. We need to get back to fiscal
responsibility. You cannot cut taxes, go to war, and not pay for the
war or pay for the tax cuts and get these huge deficits and expect our
economy to be strong. Fiscal responsibility starts with balancing the
budget, by recognizing that tax cuts have to be paid for and this war
spending has to be paid for. Quite frankly, I believe the right course
is to get our troops out of Iraq and save those dollars.
We have to help deal with a trade policy, a trade policy that will
give American workers a level playing field so they can compete. They
can compete with any country in the world, with their workforce, if it
is a level playing field. But we need an administration that is going
to fight for environmental and labor standards so that we have that
level playing field and that will eliminate the tax breaks we give in
our own code for companies that take their jobs overseas. That makes no
sense at all. We need to fight for those changes.
We need an energy policy that will make this country truly
independent. We need to do that not just for our economy--and we know
the cost of energy and what has happened because of countries halfway
around the world changing their production, and it affects the price
here in America. It affects our economy. But we have to do it for our
own security so we do not have to go to war because we are in danger of
losing oil. We have to do it for our environment because global climate
change is real. We can accomplish all three of those goals by energy
independence and help our economy.
But we are not going to achieve it through drilling. I know there are
a lot of people here who want to drill. We have 3 percent of the
world's reserves; we use 25 percent of the world's oil. You are not
going to get energy independence through drilling. Yes, we support
drilling where it can be done in a sensible way because we need the
oil, certainly in the short term, but we need to develop alternative
and renewable energy sources. That makes the most sense for this
country. That is what we have to do. We have to use less energy.
We can become energy independent if we set our minds to do it. I hope
we will take this as the last wake-up call and at least enact policies
that will truly make us energy independent. We are going to have a
chance to do that later this week--at least move in that direction--and
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting that legislative
effort.
We have to take on the health care system. It is too costly in
America. We spend too much money on health care. We do not have the
results to indicate that. It is a national disgrace that we have 47
million without health insurance in America. And each of us is paying
for it. We are paying for it through higher taxes and through higher
premium costs. It is time that every American has access to affordable,
quality health care, and that means we have to deal with the 47 million
who are uninsured. They need to have insurance.
We need to deal with preventative health care. It saves a lot of
money to make sure people are able to get the test and lab work
necessary to have early intervention into diseases.
It makes sense for us to take on the pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Why are we paying three times what the consumers of the industrialized
world are paying for the same medicines that are manufactured here? Our
taxpayers are paying for that. And those of us who pay our bills are
also paying more for pharmaceuticals than we should.
In short, we have to get back to basics. We have to get back to
basics. We need to change the economic policies of this administration,
get back to fiscal responsibility, get back to energy independence, and
get back to health care reform.
Let's do the things that will make this Nation competitive. And if we
do, our economy will not be as vulnerable as it is today. That is why
what started as a mortgage problem grew into a housing crisis, grew
into an economic problem for working families, and now it is affecting
Wall Street. It does not make any difference whether you are an
employee or employer, company or worker, you are being hurt badly by
the economic policies of this administration.
[[Page 19370]]
It is time for us to work together, Democrats and Republicans. This
is not a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan issue. Energy
independence should not be a partisan issue. Health care reform should
not be a partisan issue. Balancing the budget should not be a partisan
issue. So let's work together, Democrats and Republicans. Let's help
those who are looking to their Government in this time of need to be
there to help them. Let's do the right thing for the people who need
our help. But then let's rebuild our economy so we are never as
vulnerable as we are today, so that we have the economic basis to be
able to deal with the normal cycles in the economy without so many
families losing their homes and so many families being wiped out on
their savings. We can do this if we work together. I urge my colleagues
to do this.
____________________
EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. CARDIN. On behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent
that the period for morning business be extended to 2:15 p.m. today,
with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, my colleague has made a case for more
Government intervention into the problems on Wall Street and in our
economy, basically blaming the free markets for our failures.
I would like to make it clear what I think most Americans already
know, which is that many of the problems we are having today,
particularly the problems with AIG, the failures on Wall Street, the
mortgage industry, actually go back not to greed in the private market
but political greed--the problems that were created when this Congress
and this Government set up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as government-
sponsored enterprises with the implied and now very explicit backing of
the American people. It provided so much cheap credit to the market,
securities that were bought and sold by many companies. AIG is in
trouble because of these bad mortgages that basically originated with
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
My point is that the problems we are having are caused by the wrong
kind of Government intervention. This is not a failure of free
enterprise; this is a failure of Government solutions and the lack of
Government oversight into enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac that were started.
Now, in a situation where we already have debt as a nation, we are
borrowing excessively and our economy is slowing down. We are in a
situation where we have to continue to spend money to bail out these
companies because of bad Government decisions decades ago. A lot of
money is being spent and a lot is being wasted by this Congress.
We have had a debate over the last 2 years about wasteful spending
and earmarks. There has been a lot of talk about creating more
transparency and stopping this wasteful spending. We had an ethics bill
that passed with a lot of fanfare where we talked about making these
earmarks more transparent, putting them in the bills themselves so that
the American people could see what we are spending, and that if we were
going to have a ``bridge to nowhere,'' at least the American people
knew we were spending that money.
We have talked about this for the past 2 years, and even the
President has recognized that so much of this earmarking has resulted
in wasteful spending in transportation, and especially in the military,
that he has issued an Executive order that has made it clear that when
we produce a bill, such as the Defense authorization bill, and then, as
an aside, we produce what we call report language, with oftentimes
thousands of earmarks, politically directed spending all over the
country--few that the military asked for, most they did not.
A lot of these are meritorious projects. The fact is, if we want to
look up the bill itself, the text, and search for different types of
spending, it is not available because it is not in the bill itself. For
many years in the Senate and the Congress as a whole we have produced
spending and authorization bills and then did the report language on
the side with hidden earmarks that people didn't know were there. The
President said in his Executive order that when we send a bill over
with report language on the side, he is going to direct his agencies
not to honor these earmarks unless they are meritorious, unless they
agree with the mission of the agency and the purpose of the
legislation. It doesn't mean these are all taken out and lost, which is
what has been presented on the Senate floor today. What it means is
they have scrutiny; that the administration, if it sees wasteful
projects, does not feel obligated to spend the money, which is a good
thing.
In this Defense authorization bill, some Senators, my Democratic
colleagues, have decided they want to go around the Executive order.
They want all of these earmarks to have the force of law, which means
whether they are meritorious or not the administration has to honor
them. The way they have done this, which sets us back years as far as
earmark reform in the Senate, is they have put a little section in this
bill that references all of these earmarks and in effect makes them
law. What I have offered is an amendment. I asked to have one amendment
on this bill. There is a tradition in the Senate that Senators are
allowed to offer an amendment. I have been waiting a week to offer the
amendment. It strikes that section that tries to secretly attach all of
the earmarks to the actual law. It is a simple amendment of three
words: ``Strike section 1002.'' It does not eliminate all of the
earmarks, but it gives the administration the right they should have
not to spend money on projects in this green book that are not needed
by the military or to defend this country and that the military
considers wasteful. We should not allow Members of the Senate to
pretend to have reformed the earmark process, to pretend to have a more
ethical process, when, in fact, what they have done is the most
unethical thing we have ever done with earmarks: to try to make
something secret actually have the force of law with a little section
written here.
My amendment would change that and put it back to the way it has been
for years. I ask my colleagues not to go backwards as far as earmark
reform, not to defy what the American people have told us increasingly
about wasteful spending at a time of an economic downturn, a time of
war, a time of heavy debt, when we have 5 billion dollars' worth of
earmarks in this little green book that Americans won't see, and we
can't bring it up, as we talked about in the ethics reform bill, in a
searchable format where people can find all this wasteful spending. It
is hidden, and it is not right.
I encourage my colleagues to appeal to the majority leader to give me
this amendment so that we can at least have a vote. I encourage all
colleagues to vote for it.
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. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
CONSTITUTION DAY
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I think that September 17 should be honored
equally with the Fourth of July. Both dates mark bedrock, fundamentally
important events in the life of our country. Most Americans know that
July 4, 1776, marks the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but
far fewer could say what is so important about September 17.
I am sure that you are not scratching your head over this date, but
perhaps
[[Page 19371]]
some who are listening are doing just that. September 17--does it mark
the end of the American Revolution? Was it the date of George
Washington's inauguration? Did Christopher Columbus spot land or the
passengers of the Mayflower disembark on this date? The answer to all
of the above is no. Those are important historical events, to be sure,
but none of those dates reaches out to touch the daily lives in as many
ways as September 17.
On September 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution was signed. Our great
national experiment in representative democracy began nearly 2 years
later with the approval and entry into force of the Constitution on
March 4, 1789, after New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify it.
September 17, 1787, however, marks the ``miracle in Philadelphia'' when
the Constitutional Convention gave birth to its masterpiece.
We all know that the Declaration of Independence describes in soaring
oratory the grand goals for the new Republic, chief among them the
``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' that most people
recognize. It is also full of more specific examples of things the
Founders could no longer tolerate, such as taxation without
representation, having British troops quartered in private homes, and
lack of access to fair trials. In the Constitution, the Founders
created the structures of government to implement both the grand
visions of a free republic and to prevent the abuses of government they
had suffered under British rule and outlined in the Declaration. As a
result, the Constitution generally makes for less compelling reading
material than the Declaration of Independence. It is not full of
stirring prose, but rather, it is like an assembly and repair manual,
straightforward and commonsense. Yet it supports the framework for
freedom and justice. Its words, and those of its amendments, are as
critically important to every American as instructions on how to
operate a lifeboat are to the passengers of a storm-tossed ship.
The Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia managed to
build an entire government in just seven articles and a preamble. One
article for the legislative branch, one for the executive branch, one
for the judicial branch, one for the States, one for the amendment
process, one to define Federal power, and one to set forth the
requirements for ratification--the Constitution is shorter than many
instruction manuals for new cars, even if you add the 27 amendments.
Yet, for over 200 years, the Constitution and the Government it created
have overcome the challenges of insurrection, war, depression, growth,
and technologies that could never have been anticipated by the Founding
Fathers.
This fall and winter, Americans will again witness their Constitution
in action. We will elect a new President and many new Members of the
House and Senate as well. Through the processes outlined in the
Constitution and honed through years of practice, the Nation will
peacefully transition to a new government. It seems routine to us, but
the peaceful transition of government is a precious thing. Our system
of checks and balances is a precious thing.
On September 17, I hope that all Americans who love our country and
cherish our flag will take just a few minutes to read and think about
our remarkable Constitution. Keep it close to your heart, as I do.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a Washington Post article entitled ``Cheney Shielded Bush From
Crisis.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post Sept. 15, 2008]
Cheney Shielded Bush From Crisis
(By Barton Gellman)
Vice President Cheney convened a meeting in the Situation
Room at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, March 10, 2004, with just one
day left before the warrantless domestic surveillance program
was set to expire. Around him were National Security Agency
Director Michael V. Hayden, White House counsel Alberto R.
Gonzales and the Gang of Eight--the four ranking members of
the House and the Senate, and the chairmen and vice chairmen
of the intelligence committees.
Even now, three months into a legal rebellion at the
Justice Department, President Bush was nowhere in the
picture. He was stumping in the battleground state of Ohio,
talking up the economy.
With a nod from Cheney, Hayden walked through the program's
vital mission. Gonzales said top lawyers at the NSA and
Justice had green-lighted the program from the beginning. Now
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was in the hospital, and
James B. Comey, Ashcroft's deputy, refused to certify that
the surveillance was legal.
That was misleading at best. Cheney and Gonzales knew that
Comey spoke for Ashcroft as well. They also knew, but chose
not to mention, that Jack L. Goldsmith, chief of the Office
of Legal Counsel at Justice, had been warning of major legal
problems for months.
More than three years later, Gonzales would testify that
there was ``consensus in the room'' from the lawmakers, ``who
said, `Despite the recommendation of the deputy attorney
general, go forward with these very important intelligence
activities.' '' By this account--disputed by participants
from both parties--four Democrats and four Republicans
counseled Cheney to press on with a program that Justice
called illegal.
In fact, Cheney asked the lawmakers a question that came
close to answering itself. Could the House and Senate amend
surveillance laws without raising suspicions that a new
program had been launched? The obvious reply became a new
rationale for keeping Congress out.
The Bush administration had no interest in changing the
law, according to U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth,
chief of the federal government's special surveillance court
when the warrantless eavesdropping began.
``We could have gone to Congress, hat in hand, the judicial
branch and the executive together, and gotten any statutory
change we wanted in those days, I felt like,'' he said in an
interview. ``But they wanted to demonstrate that the
president's power was supreme.''
* * * * *
Late that Wednesday afternoon, Bush returned from
Cleveland. In early evening, the phone rang at the makeshift
FBI command center at George Washington University Medical
Center, where Ashcroft remained in intensive care. According
to two officials who saw the FBI logs, the president was on
the line. Bush told the ailing Cabinet chief to expect a
visit from Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H.
Card Jr.
A Senate hearing in 2007 described some of what happened
next. But much of the story remained untold.
Alerted by Ashcroft's chief of staff, Comey, Goldsmith and
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III raced toward the hospital,
abandoning double-parked vehicles and running up a stairwell
as fast as their legs could pump.
Comey reached Ashcroft's bedside first. Goldsmith and his
colleague Patrick F. Philbin were close behind. Now came Card
and Gonzales, holding an envelope. If Comey would not sign
the papers, maybe Ashcroft would.
The showdown with the vice president the day before had
been excruciating, the pressure ``so great it could crush you
like a grape,'' Comey said. This was worse.
Was Comey going to sit there and watch a barely conscious
man make his mark? On an order that he believed, and knew
Ashcroft believed, to be unlawful?
Unexpectedly, Ashcroft roused himself. Previous accounts
have said he backed his deputy. He did far more than that.
Ashcroft told the president's men he never should have
certified the program in the first place.
``You drew the circle so tight I couldn't get the advice
that I needed,'' Ashcroft said, according to Comey. He knew
things now, the attorney general said, that he should have
been told before. Spent, he sank back in his bed.
Mueller arrived just after Card and Gonzales departed. He
shared a private moment with Ashcroft, bending over to hear
the man's voice.
``Bob, I'm struggling,'' Ashcroft said.
``In every man's life there comes a time when the good Lord
tests him,'' Mueller replied. ``You have passed your test
tonight.''
* * * * *
Goldsmith was out the door. He telephoned Ed Whelan, his
deputy, who was at home bathing his children.
``You've got to get into the office now,'' Goldsmith said.
``Please draft a resignation letter for me. I can't tell you
why.''
All hell was breaking loose at Justice. Lawyers streamed
back from the suburbs, converging on the fourth-floor
conference room. Most of them were not cleared to hear the
details, but a decision began to coalesce: If Comey quit,
none of them were staying.
At the FBI, they called Mueller ``Bobby Three Sticks,''
playfully tweaking the Roman numerals in his fancy
Philadelphia name. Late that evening, word began to spread.
It wasn't only Comey. Bobby Three Sticks was getting ready to
turn in his badge.
Justice had filled its top ranks with political loyalists.
They hoped to see Bush reelected. Had anyone explained to the
president what was at stake?
Whelan pulled out his BlackBerry. He fired off a message to
White House staff secretary
[[Page 19372]]
Brett Kavanaugh, a friend whose position gave him direct
access to Bush.
``I knew zilch about what the matter was, but I did know
that lots of senior DOJ folks were on the verge of
resigning,'' Whelan said in an e-mail, declining to discuss
the subject further. ``I thought it important to make sure
that the president was aware of that situation so that he
could factor it in as he saw fit.''
Kavanaugh had no more idea than Whelan, but he passed word
to Card.
The timing was opportune. Just about then, around 11 p.m.,
Comey responded to an angry summons from the president's
chief of staff. Whatever Card was planning to say, he had
calmed down suddenly.
What was all this he heard, Card asked, about quitting?
``I don't think people should try to get their way by
threatening resignations,'' Comey replied. ``If they find
themselves in a position where they're not comfortable
continuing, then they should resign.''
``He obviously got the gist of what I was saying,'' Comey
recalled.
It was close to midnight when Comey got home, long past the
president's bedtime. Bush had yet to learn that his
government was coming apart.
* * * * *
Trouble was spreading. The FBI's general counsel, Valerie
E. Caproni, and her CIA counterpart, Scott W. Mueller, told
colleagues they would leave if the president reauthorized the
program over Justice Department objections.
Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Wray, who ran
Justice's criminal division, stopped Comey in a hallway.
``Look, I don't know what's going on, but before you guys
all pull the rip cords, please give me a heads-up so I can
jump with you,'' he said.
James A. Baker, the counselor for intelligence, thought
hard about jumping, too. Early on, he got wind of the
warrantless eavesdropping and forced the White House to
disclose it to Lamberth. Later, Baker told Lamberth's
successor that he could not vouch that the Bush
administration was honoring its promise to keep the chief
surveillance judge fully informed.
``I was determined to stay there and fight for what I
thought was right,'' Baker said in an interview, declining to
say what the fight was about, on or off the record. He had
obligations, he said, to the lawyers who worked for him in
the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. ``If it had
come to this, if people were willing to go to the mat and
tolerate the attorney general and deputy attorney general
resigning, that's pretty serious. God knows what else they
would have come up with.''
* * * * *
At the White House on Thursday morning, the president moved
in a bubble so tight that hardly any air was getting in. It
was March 11, decision day. If Bush reauthorized the program,
he would have no signature from the attorney general. By now
that was nowhere near the president's biggest problem.
Many of the people Bush trusted most were out of the
picture. Karl Rove was not cleared for the program. Neither
was Dan Bartlett or Karen Hughes.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice had the
clearance, but Cheney did not invite her to the meetings that
mattered.
Bush gave a speech to evangelicals that morning and left
the White House for an after-lunch fundraiser in New York. In
whatever time he took to weigh his options, the president had
only Cheney, Card and Gonzales to advise him.
The vice president knew exactly where he stood, unswerving
in his commitment to keep the program just as it was.
Gonzales later told two confidants that he had broken with
David S. Addington, Cheney's lawyer, urging Bush to find
common ground with Justice. Card, too, told colleagues that
he had urged restraint.
``My job was to communicate with the president about the
peripheral vision, not just the tunnel vision of the
moment,'' he said, deflecting questions about the details.
Did peripheral vision mean a broader view of the
consequences?
``Yes,'' Card replied. ``It was like--I don't want to limit
it to this particular matter, but that's part of a chief of
staff's job. A lot of people who work in the White House have
tunnel vision, and not an awful lot of people have peripheral
vision. And I think the chief of staff is one of the people
who should have peripheral vision.''
Card didn't really need the corner of his eye to see a
disaster at hand. Even so, Bush didn't know what his
subordinates knew that Thursday morning.
Cheney, Addington, Card and Gonzales had plenty of data.
Card had heard the news directly from Comey the night before.
On Thursday, the FBI director delivered much the same
warning.
For Cheney, it didn't matter much whether one official or
10 or 20 took a walk. Maybe they were bluffing, maybe not.
The principle was the same: Do what has to be done.
``The president of the United States is the chief law
enforcement officer--that was the Cheney view,'' said
Bartlett, Bush's counselor, who was later briefed into the
program and the events of the day. ``You can't let
resignations deter you if you're doing what's right.''
Cheney and Addington ``were ready to go to the mat,'' he
said, and the vice president's position boiled down to this:
`` `That's why we're leaders, that's why we're here. Take the
political hit. You've got to do it.' ''
* * * * *
Addington opened the code-word-classified file on his
computer. He had a presidential directive to rewrite.
It has been widely reported that Bush executed the March 11
order with a blank space over the attorney general's
signature line. That is not correct. For reasons both
symbolic and practical, the vice president's lawyer could not
tolerate an empty spot where a mutinous subordinate should
have signed. Addington typed a substitute signature line:
``Alberto R. Gonzales.''
What Addington wrote for Bush that day was more
transcendent than that. He drew up new language in which the
president relied on his own authority to certify the program
as lawful. Bush expressly overrode the Justice Department and
any act of Congress or judicial decision that purported to
constrain his power as commander in chief. Only Richard M.
Nixon, in an interview after leaving the White House in
disgrace, claimed authority so nearly unlimited.
The specter of future prosecutions hung over the program,
now that Justice had ruled it illegal.
``Pardon was in the air,'' said one of the lawyers
involved.
It was possible to construct a case, he said, in which
those who planned and carried out the program were engaged in
a criminal conspiracy. That would be tendentious, this lawyer
believed, but with a change of government it could not be
ruled out.
``I'm sure when we leave office we're all going to be
hauled up before congressional committees and grand juries,''
Addington told one colleague in disgust.
* * * * *
Bush signed the directive before leaving for New York
around lunchtime on Thursday, March 11, 2004.
Comey got word a couple of hours later. He sat down and
typed a letter.
``Over the last two weeks . . . I and the Department of
Justice have been asked to be part of something that is
fundamentally wrong,'' he wrote. ``As we have struggled over
these last days to do the right thing, I have never been
prouder of the Department of Justice or of the Attorney
General. Sadly, although I believe this has been one of the
institution's finest hours, we have been unable to right that
wrong. . . . Therefore, with a heavy heart and undiminished
love of my country and my Department, I resign as Deputy
Attorney General of the United States, effective
immediately.''
David Ayres, Ashcroft's chief of staff, pleaded with Comey
to wait a few days. He was certain that Ashcroft would want
to quit alongside him. Comey agreed to hold his letter
through the weekend.
Bush was not a man to second-guess himself. By Friday
morning, he would need new facts to save him. Somebody,
finally, would have to tell him something.
It was Rice, largely in the dark herself, who threw the
president a lifeline. She had a few minutes alone with him,
shortly before 7:30 a.m., on the day after he renewed the
surveillance order. She told Bush about Comey's agitated
approach, the day before, to Frances Fragos Townsend, the
deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism.
This was no way to keep a secret.
``It was a compartmented issue,'' Rice recalled in an
interview. ``Obviously, there was a security issue here and
not just a legal one, because you didn't want this sort of
bumping around.''
Rice made a suggestion.
Comey is ``a reasonable guy,'' she told the president.
``You really need to make sure that you are hearing these
folks out.''
An hour later, Comey and Robert Mueller arrived at the
White House for the regular 8:30 terrorism briefing. They had
a lot to cover: Bombs aboard commuter trains in Madrid had
killed 191 people.
Both men told aides that this would be their last day in
government. There would be no door-slamming, but the
president had made his choice and they had made theirs.
Bush stood as the meeting ended, crossing behind Cheney's
chair. Comey moved in the opposite direction, on his way out.
He had nearly reached the grandfather clock at the door, two
witnesses said, when the president said, ``Jim, can I talk to
you for a minute?''
Bush nodded toward the private dining room a few steps from
his desk, the one he shared with Cheney once a week. This
time the vice president was not invited.
``I'll wait for you downstairs,'' Mueller told Comey.
* * * * *
By now, around 9:15 Friday morning, Bush knew enough to be
nervous about what the acting attorney general might do. That
did not mean he planned to reverse himself. One high-ranking
adviser said there was still an ``optimism that maybe you can
finesse your way through this.''
Afterward, in conversations with aides, the two men
described the meeting in similar terms.
[[Page 19373]]
``You don't look well,'' Bush began.
Oldest trick in the book. Establish dominance, put the
other guy off his game.
``Well, I feel okay.''
``I'm worried about you. You look burdened.''
``I am, Mr. President. I feel like there's a tremendous
burden on me.''
``Let me lift that burden from your shoulders,'' Bush said.
``Let me be the one who makes the decision here.''
``Mr. President, I would love to be able to do that.''
Bush's tone grew crisp.
``I decide what the law is for the executive branch,'' he
said.
``That's absolutely true, sir, you do. But I decide what
the Department of Justice can certify to and can't certify
to, and despite my absolute best efforts, I simply cannot in
the circumstances.''
Comey had majored in religion, William and Mary Class of
1982. He might have made a connection with Bush if he had
quoted a verse from Scripture. The line that came to him
belonged to a 16th-century theologian who defied an emperor.
``As Martin Luther said, `Here I stand; I can do no other,'
'' Comey said. ``I've got to tell you, Mr. President, that's
where I am.''
Now Bush said something that floored Comey.
``I just wish that you weren't raising this at the last
minute.''
The last minute! He didn't know.
The president kept talking. Not the way it's supposed to
work, popping up with news like this. The day before a
deadline?
Wednesday. He didn't know until Wednesday. No wonder he
sent Card and Gonzales to the hospital.
``Oh, Mr. President, if you've been told that, you have
been very poorly served by your advisers,'' Comey said. ``We
have been telling them for months we have a huge problem
here.''
``Give me six weeks,'' Bush asked. One more renewal.
``I can't do that,'' Comey said. ``You do say what the law
is in the executive branch, I believe that. And people's job,
if they're going to stay in the executive branch, is to
follow that. But I can't agree, and I'm just sorry.''
If they're going to stay.
Comey was edging toward a breach of his rule against
resignation threats.
This man just needs to know what's about to happen.
``I think you should know that Director Mueller is going to
resign today,'' Comey said.
Bush raised his eyebrows. He shifted in his chair. He could
not hide it, or did not try. He was gobsmacked.
``Thank you very much for telling me that,'' he said.
Comey hurried down to Mueller, who sat in the foyer outside
the Situation Room. A Secret Service agent followed close
behind. The president would like to see you, the agent told
Mueller.
Comey pulled out his BlackBerry and sent a note to six
colleagues at 9:27 a.m.
``The president just took me into his private office for a
15 minute one on one talk,'' he wrote. ``Told him he was
being misled and poorly served. We had a very full and frank
exchange. Don't know that either of us can see a way out. . .
. Told him Mueller was about to resign. He just pulled Bob
into his office.''
The FBI director was no more tractable than Comey. This was
a rule-of-law question, he told the president, and the answer
was in the Justice Department. The FBI could not participate
in operations that Justice held to be in breach of criminal
law. If those were his orders, he would respectfully take his
leave.
And there it was, unfinessable. Bush was out of running
room, all the way out. He had only just figured out that the
brink was near, and now he stood upon it.
Not 24 hours earlier, the president had signed his name to
an in-your-face rejection of the attorney general's ruling on
the law. Now he had two bad choices. March on, with all the
consequences. Or retreat.
The president stepped back from the precipice. He gave
Mueller a message for Comey.
``Tell Jim to do what Justice thinks needs to be done,'' he
said.
Seven days later, Bush amended his March 11 directive. The
legal certification belonged again to the attorney general.
The surveillance program stopped doing some things, and it
did other things differently. Much of the operation remained
in place. Not all of it.
* * * * *
Because Bush did not walk off the cliff, and because so
much of the story was suppressed, an extraordinary moment in
presidential history passed unrecognized.
``I mean, it would be damn near unprecedented for the top
echelon of your Justice Department to resign over a position
you've taken,'' Bartlett said.
There might be one precedent, he allowed. He did not want
to spell it out.
``Not a good one,'' he said.
During the Watergate scandal, the attorney general and
deputy attorney general resigned, refusing to carry out
Richard Nixon's order to fire the special prosecutor. Nixon
lost his top two Justice officials, and that was called the
Saturday Night Massacre.
Bush had come within minutes of losing his FBI director and
at least the top five layers at Justice. What would they call
that? Suicide, maybe?
``You don't have to be the smartest guy to figure out that
[mass resignations] would be pretty much the most devastating
thing that could happen to your administration,'' said Mark
Corallo, Ashcroft's communications director and, during
Bush's first race for the White House, chief spokesman for
the Republican National Committee. ``The rush to hearings on
the Hill, both in the House and Senate, would be
unbelievable. The media frenzy that would have ensued would
have been unlike anything we've ever seen. That's when you're
getting into Watergate territory.''
Long after departing as chief of staff, Card held fast to
the proposition that whatever happened was nobody's business,
and no big deal anyway.
``I think you're writing about something that's
irrelevant,'' Card said. ``Voyeurism.''
Because?
``Nobody resigned over this,'' he said. It all boiled down
to trash talk: `` `Oh, I was gonna swing at the pitch but it
was too high.' ''
That seems unlikely to stand as history's verdict. In the
fourth year of his presidency, a man who claimed the final
word was forced by subordinates to comply with their ruling
on the law. Ashcroft, Comey, Goldsmith, Philbin--believers,
one and all, in the ``unitary executive branch''--obliged the
commander in chief to stand down. For the first time, a
president claimed in writing that he alone could say what the
law was. A rebellion, in direct response, became so potent a
threat that Bush reversed himself in a day.
``This is the first time when the president of the United
States really wanted something in wartime, and tried to
overrule the Department of Justice, and the law held,'' said
Goldsmith, after studying similar conflicts under Abraham
Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
In the aftermath, the White House senior staff asked
questions. Was the president getting timely information and
advice? Had he relinquished too much control to Cheney?
Bush, aides said, learned something he would not forget.
Cheney was the nearest thing to an anti-politician in elected
office. Bush could not afford to be like that. In his second
term, his second chance, the president would take greater
care to consult his own instincts.
``Cheney was not afraid of giving pure, kind of principled
advice,'' Bartlett said. ``He thinks from a policy
standpoint, and I think he does this out of pure intentions.
He thinks of the national security interest or the
prerogatives of the executive. The president has other
considerations he has to take into account. The political
fallout of certain reactions--he's just going to calculate
different than Cheney does.''
``He grew accustomed to that,'' Bartlett said.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I thank all Senators.
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. SANDERS. 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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words in thanking
Senator Byrd, not only for his years of illustrious service to the
American people but for reminding us about the importance of the
Constitution. It is incredible that year after year he has come up
here--and perhaps more than any other Member of the Congress--to
instruct the American people about that great document and to urge
people--children, old people, people from all over this country--to
once again study what the Constitution is about.
I would hope, as a result of Senator Byrd's efforts, classrooms all
over this country--our young people--will understand the importance of
the Constitution.
So I say to Senator Byrd, thank you so much for your service in that
regard.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as we observe Constitution Day today, we
do not have to look very far to be reminded why it is important for us
to reflect on the 221st birthday of the Constitution, which was signed
by the Framers in Philadelphia on this date in 1787. I think the reason
why it is so important to take a hard look at the Constitution today is
because of what has happened over the last 8 years, because in many
respects we have had a President who did not do as Senator Byrd urged
us to do: Study the Constitution.
[[Page 19374]]
We all know that international terrorism is a very serious issue. We
take it terribly seriously, and all of us are pledged to do everything
we can to protect the American people from international terrorism.
However, many of us believe we can do it within the context of the
United States Constitution and the separation of powers----
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Brought forth in that Constitution.
Unfortunately, over the last 8 years under the Bush administration,
we have seen a tragic effort on the part of the executive branch to
impose on the people of this country a vision of government where,
instead of three coequal branches of government as laid out by our
Constitution--the executive, the legislative, and the judicial
branches--we have moved toward one dominant branch, that of the
executive ruling under the theory of the unitary executive.
Mr. BYRD. King.
Mr. SANDERS. In my view, that is not what the Constitution of our
great country is about, nor is it what the Framers wanted it to be. The
theory of unitary executive states that since the Constitution
inherently gives the President the power to do all kinds of things--
especially within the military and defense context beyond what is
detailed in article II, then the President essentially can make up
whatever he wants to justify for this or that action. In other words,
he can say: We are threatened by international terrorism and I, as the
President of the United States, can do anything I want to fight
international terrorism. I don't have to worry about separation of
powers. I don't have to worry about the laws of the land. I don't have
to worry about the Constitution. I am the President. In my judgment, I
can do what I want. I think the Senator from West Virginia would agree
with me, that that is not what the Constitution of this country is
about.
Mr. BYRD. That is right.
Mr. SANDERS. And that, unfortunately, we have a President who does
not understand that.
In the last 8 years, sadly, we have seen a steady erosion of the
fundamental rights and balance of power laid out in the Constitution
and in our Bill of Rights. We have seen the President, the Vice
President, and the administration carry out an unprecedented number of
programs that insult our constitutional system and erode our standing
around the world----
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Because our Nation was founded as a nation of laws, not
of individuals.
Mr. BYRD. Right.
Mr. SANDERS. Let me list a few of the programs. I will not go on for
too long, but I want the American people to get a glimpse of what has,
in fact, gone on in the last 8 years under a President who neither
understands the Constitution nor respects the Constitution. Let me
enumerate some of those provisions:
Passage of the original PATRIOT Act and the PATRIOT Act
Reauthorization.
Illegal and expanded use of national security letters by the FBI.
The NSA's warrantless wiretap program.
Using Presidential signing statements to ignore the intent of
Congress's laws.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. We have a President who says: Well, it is an interesting
law. I will pick and choose which of the provisions I want to
implement. That is not what the Constitution says. If you don't like
the law, veto it.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. But you cannot pick and choose. That is clearly not what
the Constitution had in mind.
Furthermore, we have seen profiling of citizens engaged in
constitutionally protected free speech and peaceful assembly. My view
is, if you are an American, you have a right to protest, you have a
right to engage in the political process without worrying that somebody
is spying on you.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. We have seen in recent years data mining of personal
records.
We have seen, of course, the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
We have seen a broad interpretation of congressional resolutions
regarding use of military force as justification for unauthorized
surveillance and other actions.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. We have seen extraordinary renditions of detainees to
countries that allow torture.
We have seen getting rid of the right of detainees to file habeas
corpus petitions.
We have seen the condoning of the use of torture.
We have seen political firings of U.S. Attorneys.
We have seen destruction of CIA tapes.
The list goes on and on and on. Those are just some of the insults to
the Constitution that we have seen over the last 8 years.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I also wish to take a few moments to
highlight one of the more egregious examples of this abuse which was
recently chronicled by the Washington Post.
Mr. BYRD. Yes. Please do.
Mr. SANDERS. This article describes the unprecedented use of
executive authority which trampled on the rule of law and, in the
process, Americans' basic civil liberties. Specifically, the article
focuses on how a small group of people in the White House--the
President, the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, and
a few others--decided through their own twisted interpretation of the
Constitution that with the President's say-so alone, they had the power
to perform warrantless surveillance on innocent Americans known as the
NSA warrantless wiretapping program. They created a program almost
completely outside of the authority of our laws based on the principle
that because the President of the United States is the Commander in
Chief, and it is his job to protect the country, anything they think of
that protects this country--anything that fights terrorism--is
justified under the Constitution. That, in my view, is dead wrong.
Mr. BYRD. Shame.
Mr. SANDERS. This view of the Constitution and the balance of power
in our Government should make all Americans, no matter what political
persuasion--and I do want to say there are a number of conservatives
all over this country--and every honest conservative should be appalled
by the constitutional abuse that has taken place by President Bush. No
matter what your point of view is, you should be concerned, but
especially for those citizens in our country who consider themselves
conservatives and wish to limit the role of government.
I ask the Senator from West Virginia: How often have we heard
conservatives talk about a limited role in government and then go out
and say: Oh, the government can do anything they want; forget the
Constitution.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, how often?
Mr. SANDERS. I think that is absolutely hypocritical.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Even more amazingly, when a few members of the
Department of Justice--the top law enforcement agency of our
Government--including then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director
Robert Mueller, and Acting Attorney General James Comey, who learned of
the program and refused to renew the program unless it was redrafted to
fall within the confines of U.S. surveillance law, the President and
his aides attempted to completely bypass these critics and decide that
the President, and the President alone, could decide what is lawful or
unlawful.
Mr. BYRD. Oh, my, my.
Mr. SANDERS. During a debate about who had the final word on the
warrantless wiretapping program, the Washington Post quotes President
Bush as saying: ``I decide what the law is for the executive branch.''
Mr. BYRD. Oh, my God.
Mr. SANDERS. I concur.
The President does not decide the law. It is the people of this
country through the Congress who decide the law, and the President, as
every other American citizen, obeys the law.
[[Page 19375]]
Mr. BYRD. Right.
Mr. SANDERS. When we lose that understanding, we lose what our
Constitution is about, we lose the essence of what the United States of
America is about. Thankfully, thankfully--let's give credit where
credit is due--by threatening their mass resignation, the top leaders
of the Justice Department forced the President to revise his and the
Vice President's legal justification for this wiretap program, making
it only a bit less objectionable.
While I am opposed to the wiretapping program in its current form due
to the fact that it does not have an adequate check on the power to
monitor the conversations of innocent Americans, I do respect--and I
hope we all respect--those individuals at the Department of Justice
who, during this time in 2003 and 2004, stood up for the basic aspects
of our legal system.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of
the Washington Post articles written by Barton Gellman and published on
September 14 and 15 of this year be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am not the only person with these
concerns about the balance of power between the branches of Government.
An August poll conducted by the Associated Press and the National
Constitution Center found that:
Two-thirds of Americans oppose altering the balance of
power among the three branches of government to strengthen
the presidency, even when they thought that doing so would
improve the economy or national security.
Mr. BYRD. Amen.
Mr. SANDERS. This is not a partisan issue, no matter what
administration, no matter what party. I am quite confident that whether
it is a Democratic President or a Republican President, Senator Byrd
will be there raising exactly the same issues.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. Because he understands--and I hope all of us
understand--that the Constitution is far deeper than partisan politics
or who happens to sit in the White House in this or that year.
Mr. BYRD. Yes.
Mr. SANDERS. The secret creation of the warrantless wiretapping
program outside the confines of law is only one example of a number of
the ways the Constitution has been abused over the last 8 years.
I conclude by again congratulating Senator Byrd. Because the work he
is doing here of trying to make sure that people from Maine to
California study our Constitution--something that is not happening
enough in our schools--
Mr. BYRD. Right.
Mr. SANDERS. People should understand the Constitution and understand
that the Constitution has laid out an extraordinary framework from the
first day of this country. It is an extraordinary document, perhaps the
greatest document ever written in the Western World.
Mr. BYRD. Yes, it is.
Mr. SANDERS. We should be enormously proud. What we have to do
regardless of our political views is we have to stand and defend and
fight for the integrity of that Constitution.
So I thank Senator Byrd so much for what he has done in that regard
to protect our constitutional rights.
With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. BYRD. And I thank Senator Sanders.
Exhibit 1
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2008]
Conflict Over Spying Led White House to Brink
(By Barton Gellman)
A burst of ferocity stunned the room into silence. No other
word for it: The vice president's attorney was shouting.
``The president doesn't want this! You are not going to see
the opinions. You are out . . . of . . . your . . . lane!''
Five government lawyers had gathered around a small
conference table in the Justice Department command center.
Four were expected. David S. Addington, counsel to Vice
President Cheney, got wind of the meeting and invited
himself.
If Addington smelled revolt, he was not far wrong.
Unwelcome questions about warrantless domestic surveillance
had begun to find their voice.
Cheney and his counsel would struggle for months to quash
the legal insurgency. By the time President Bush became aware
of it, his No. 2 had stoked dissent into flat-out rebellion.
The president would face a dilemma, and the presidency itself
a historic test. Cheney would come close to leading them off
a cliff, man and office both.
On this second Monday in December 2003, Addington's targets
were a pair of would-be auditors from the National Security
Agency. He had displeasure to spare for their Justice
Department hosts.
Perfect example, right here. A couple of NSA bureaucrats
breeze in and ask for the most sensitive documents in the
building. And Justice wants to tell them, Help yourselves?
This was going to be a very short meeting.
Joel Brenner and Vito Potenza, the two men wilting under
Addington's wrath, had driven 26 miles from Fort Meade, the
NSA's eavesdropping headquarters in Maryland. They were
conducting a review of their agency's two-year-old special
surveillance operation. They already knew the really secret
stuff: The NSA and other services had been unleashed to turn
their machinery inward, collecting signals intelligence
inside the United States. What the two men didn't know was
why the Bush administration believed the program was legal.
It was an awkward question. Potenza, the NSA's acting
general counsel, and Brenner, its inspector general, were
supposed to be the ones who kept their agency on the straight
and narrow. That's what Cheney and their boss, Lt. Gen.
Michael V. Hayden, told doubters among the very few people
who knew what was going on. Cheney, who chaired briefings for
select members of Congress, said repeatedly that the NSA's
top law and ethics officers--career public servants--approved
and supervised the surveillance program.
That was not exactly true, not without one of those silent
asterisks that secretly flip a sentence on its tail. Every 45
days, after Justice Department review, Bush renewed his
military order for warrantless eavesdropping. Brenner and
Potenza told Hayden that the agency was entitled to rely on
those orders. The United States was at war with al-Qaeda,
intelligence-gathering is inherent in war, and the
Constitution appoints the president commander in chief.
But they had not been asked to give their own written
assessments of the legality of domestic espionage. They based
their answer in part on the attorney general's certification
of the ``form and legality'' of the president's orders. Yet
neither man had been allowed to see the program's codeword-
classified legal analyses, which were prepared by John C.
Yoo, Addington's close ally in the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel. Now they wanted to read Yoo's
opinions for themselves.
``This is none of your business!'' Addington exploded.
He was massive in his swivel chair, taut and still,
potential energy amping up the menace. Addington's pugnacity
was not an act. Nothing mattered more, as the vice president
and his lawyer saw the world, than these new surveillance
tools. Bush had made a decision. Debate could only blow the
secret, slow down vital work, or call the president's
constitutional prerogatives into question.
The NSA lawyers returned to their car empty-handed.
* * * * *
The command center of ``the president's program,'' as
Addington usually called it, was not in the White House. Its
controlling documents, which gave strategic direction to the
nation's largest spy agency, lived in a vault across an alley
from the West Wing--in the Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, on the east side of the second floor, where the
vice president headquartered his staff.
The vault was in EEOB 268, Addington's office. Cheney's
lawyer held the documents, physical and electronic, because
he was the one who wrote them. New forms of domestic
espionage were created and developed over time in
presidential authorizations that Addington typed on a
Tempest-shielded computer across from his desk.
It is unlikely that the history of U.S. intelligence
includes another operation conceived and supervised by the
office of the vice president. White House Chief of Staff
Andrew H. Card Jr. had ``no idea,'' he said, that the
presidential orders were held in a vice presidential safe. An
authoritative source said the staff secretariat, which kept a
comprehensive inventory of presidential papers, classified
and unclassified, possessed no record of these.
In an interview, Card said the Executive Office of the
President, a formal term that encompassed Bush's staff but
not Cheney's, followed strict procedures for handling and
securing presidential papers.
``If there were exceptions to that, I'm not aware of
them,'' he said. ``If these documents weren't stored the
right way or put in the right places or maintained by the
right people, I'm not aware of it.''
[[Page 19376]]
Asked why Addington would write presidential directives,
Card said, ``David Addington is a very competent lawyer.''
After a moment he added, ``I would consider him a drafter,
not the drafter. I'm sure there were a lot of smart people
who were involved in helping to look at the language and the
law.''
Not many, it turned out. Though the president had the
formal say over who was ``read in'' to the domestic
surveillance program, Addington controlled the list in
practice, according to three officials with personal
knowledge. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales was aware
of the program, but was not a careful student of the complex
legal questions it raised. In its first 18 months, the only
other lawyer who reviewed the program was John Yoo.
By the time the NSA auditors came calling, a new man, Jack
L. Goldsmith, was chief of the Justice Department's Office of
Legal Counsel. Soon after he arrived on Oct. 6, 2003, the
vice president's lawyer invited him to EEOB 268. Addington
pulled out a folder with classification markings that
Goldsmith had never seen.
``David Addington was doing all the legal work. All the
important documents were kept in his safe,'' Goldsmith
recalled. ``He was the one who first briefed me.''
Goldsmith's new assignment gave him final word in the
executive branch on what was legal and what was not.
Addington had cleared him for the post--``the biggest
presence in the room,'' Goldsmith said, during a job
interview ostensibly run by Gonzales.
Goldsmith did not have the looks of a guy who posed a
threat to the Bush administration's alpha lawyer. A mild-
mannered law professor from the University of Chicago, he was
rumpled and self-conscious, easy to underestimate. On first
impression, he gave off a misleading aura of softness.
Goldsmith had lettered in football, baseball and soccer at
the Pine Crest School in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., spending his
formative years with a mob-connected Teamster who married his
mother. He was not a bare-knuckled brawler in Addington's
mold, but Goldsmith arrived at Justice with no less
confidence and strength of will.
Addington's behavior with the NSA auditors was ``a wake-up
call for me,'' Goldsmith said. Cheney and Addington, he came
to believe, were gaming the system, using secrecy and
intimidation to prevent potential dissenters from conducting
an independent review.
``They were geniuses at this,'' Goldsmith said. ``They
could divide up all these problems in the bureaucracy, ask
different people to decide things in their lanes, control the
facts they gave them, and then put the answers together to
get the result they want.''
Dec. 9, 2003, the day of the visit from Brenner and
Potenza, was the beginning of the end of that strategy. The
years of easy victory were winding down for Cheney and his
staff.
* * * * *
Goldsmith began a top-to-bottom review of the domestic
surveillance program, taking up the work begun by a lawyer
named Patrick F. Philbin after John Yoo left the department.
Like Yoo and Goldsmith, Philbin had walked the stations of
the conservative legal establishment: Federalist Society, a
clerkship with U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman,
another with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
The more questions they asked, the less Goldsmith and
Philbin liked the answers. Parts of the program fell easily
within the constitutional powers of the commander in chief.
Others looked dicier.
The two lawyers worked at the intersection of three complex
systems: telecommunications, spy technology, and the
statutory regimes that governed surveillance. After a few
weeks, Goldsmith said, he decided the program ``was the
biggest legal mess I'd seen in my life.''
He asked for permission to read in Attorney General John D.
Ashcroft's new deputy, James B. Comey. As always, he found
Addington waiting with Gonzales in the White House counsel's
corner office, one floor up from the chief of staff. They sat
in parallel wing chairs, much as Bush and Cheney did in the
Oval Office.
``The attorney general and I think the deputy attorney
general should be read in,'' Goldsmith said.
Addington replied first.
``Forget it,'' he said.
``The president insists on strict limitations on access to
the program,'' Gonzales agreed.
Weeks passed. Goldsmith kept asking. Addington kept saying
no.
``He always invoked the president, not the vice
president,'' Goldsmith said.
Comey was not exactly Mr. Popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
He had arrived at Justice as a 6-foot-8 golden boy, smooth
and polished, with top chops as a federal terrorism
prosecutor in Northern Virginia and New York City. Then came
Dec. 30, 2003. Comey did something unforgivable: He appointed
an independent counsel to investigate the leak of Valerie
Plame's identity as a clandestine CIA officer, a move that
would bring no end of grief for Cheney.
In late January, Goldsmith and Addington cut a deal. Comey
would get his read-in. Goldsmith would get off the fence
about the program, giving his definitive answer by the March
11 deadline.
``You're the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and if
you say we cannot do this thing legally, we'll shut it off,''
Addington told him.
Feel free to tell the president that his most important
intelligence operation has to stop.
Your call, Jack.
Goldsmith wanted to fix the thing, not stop it. He and
Philbin traveled again and again to Fort Meade, each time
delving deeper. They were in and out of Gonzales's office,
looking for adjustments in the program that would bring it
into compliance with the law. The issues were complex and
remain classified. Addington bent on nothing, swatting back
every idea. Gonzales listened placidly, sipping Diet Cokes
from his little refrigerator, encouraging the antagonists to
keep things civil.
There would be no easy out, no middle ground. Addington
made clear that he did not believe for a moment that Justice
would pull the plug.
* * * * *
Mike Hayden and Vito Potenza drove down from NSA
headquarters after lunch on Feb. 19, 2004, to give Jim Comey
his first briefing on the program. In the Justice
Department's vault-like SCIF, a sensitive compartmented
information facility, Hayden got Comey's attention fast.
``I'm so glad you're getting read in, because now I won't
be alone at the table when John Kerry is elected president,''
the NSA director said.
The witness table, Hayden meant. Congressional hearing,
investigation of some kind. Nothing good. Kerry had the
Democratic nomination just about locked up and was leading
Bush in national polls. Hardly anyone in the intelligence
field believed the next administration would climb as far out
on a legal limb as this one had.
``Hayden was all dog-and-pony, and this is probably what
happened to those poor folks in Congress, too,'' Comey told
his chief of staff after the briefing. ``You think for a
second, `Wow, that's great,' and then if you try actually to
explain it back to yourself, you don't get it. You scratch
your head afterward and you think, `What the hell did that
guy just tell me?' ''
The NSA chief insisted on limiting surveillance to e-mails,
phone calls and faxes in which one party was overseas,
deflecting arguments from Cheney and Addington that he could
just as well collect communications inside the United States.
That was one reason Hayden hated when reporters referred to
``domestic surveillance.'' He made his point with a folksy
analogy: He had taken ``literally hundreds of domestic
flights,'' he said, and never ``landed in Waziristan.'' That
sounded good. But the surveillance statutes said a warrant
was required if either end of the conversation was in U.S.
territory. The American side of the program--the domestic
surveillance--was its distinguishing feature.
By the end of February, Goldsmith and Philbin had reached
their conclusion: Parts of the surveillance operation had no
support in law. Comey was so disturbed that he drove to
Langley one evening to compare notes with Scott W. Muller,
the general counsel at the CIA. Muller ``got it
immediately,'' agreeing with the Goldsmith-Philbin analysis,
Comey said.
``At the end of the day, I concluded something I didn't
ever think I would conclude, and that is that Pat Philbin and
Jack Goldsmith understood this activity much better than
Michael Hayden did,'' he said.
On Thursday, March 4, Comey brought the findings to
Ashcroft, conferring for an hour one-on-one. Three senior
Justice Department officials said in interviews that Ashcroft
gave his full backing. He was not going to sign the next
presidential order--due in one week, March 11--unless the
White House agreed to a list of required changes.
* * * * *
A few hours later, Ashcroft was reviewing notes for a news
conference in Alexandria when his color changed and he sat
down heavily. An aide, Mark Corallo, ducked out and returned
to find the attorney general laid out on his back. By
nightfall, Ashcroft was taken to George Washington University
Medical Center in severe pain, suffering acute gallstone
pancreatitis. Comey became acting attorney general on Friday.
The next day--Saturday, March 6, five days before the March
11 deadline--Goldsmith brought the Justice Department verdict
to the White House. He told Gonzales and Addington for the
first time that Justice would not certify the program.
A long silence fell. It lasted three full days.
Gonzales phoned Goldsmith at home before sunrise on
Tuesday, March 9, with two days left before the program
expired. Obviously there was bad chemistry with Addington.
Why not come in and talk, he asked, just the two of us?
Goldsmith arrived at the White House in morning twilight.
Alone in his office, Gonzales begged the OLC chief to
reconsider. Gonzales tried to dispute Goldsmith's analysis,
but he was in over his head. At least let us have more time,
he said. Goldsmith said he couldn't do that.
The time had come for the vice president to step in.
Proxies were not getting the job
[[Page 19377]]
done. Cheney was going to have to take hold of this thing
himself.
Even now, after months of debate, Cheney did not enlist the
president. Bush was across the river in Arlington, commending
the winners of the Malcolm Baldrige awards for quality
improvement in private industry. Campaign season had come
already, and the president was doing a lot of that kind of
thing. That week he had a fundraiser in Dallas, a ``Bush-
Cheney 2004 event'' in Santa Clara, Calif., and a meet-and-
greet at a rodeo in Houston.
Soon after hearing what had happened between Goldsmith and
Gonzales, the vice president asked Andy Card to set up a
meeting at noon with Mike Hayden, FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller III, and John McLaughlin from the CIA (substituting
for his boss, George J. Tenet). Cheney spoke to them in
Card's office, the door closed.
Four hours later, at 4 p.m., the same cast reconvened. This
time the Justice contingent was invited. Comey, Goldsmith and
Philbin found the titans of the intelligence establishment
lined up, a bunch of grave-faced analysts behind them for
added mass. The spy chiefs brought no lawyers. The law was
not the point. This meeting, described by officials with
access to two sets of contemporaneous notes, was about
telling Justice to set its qualms aside.
The staging had been arranged for maximum impact. Cheney
sat at the head of Card's rectangular table, pivoting left to
face the acting attorney general. The two men were close
enough to touch. Card sat grimly at Cheney's right, directly
across from Comey. There was plenty of eye contact all
around.
This program, Cheney said, was vital. Turning it off would
leave us blind. Hayden, the NSA chief, pitched in: Even if
the program had yet to produce blockbuster results, it was
the only real hope of discovering sleeper agents before they
could act.
``How can you possibly be reversing course on something of
this importance after all this time?'' Cheney asked.
Comey held his ground. The program had to operate within
the law. The Justice Department knew a lot more now than it
had before, and Ashcroft and Comey had reached this decision
together.
``I will accept for purposes of discussion that it is as
valuable as you say it is,'' Comey said. ``That only makes
this more painful. It doesn't change the analysis. If I can't
find a lawful basis for something, your telling me you
really, really need to do it doesn't help me.''
``Others see it differently,'' Cheney said.
There was only one of those, really. John Yoo had been out
of the picture for nearly a year. It was all Addington.
``The analysis is flawed, in fact facially flawed,'' Comey
said. ``No lawyer reading that could reasonably rely on it.''
Gonzales said nothing. Addington stood by the window, over
Cheney's shoulder. He had heard a bellyful.
``Well, I'm a lawyer and I did,'' Addington said, glaring
at Comey.
``No good lawyer,'' Comey said.
In for a dime, in for a dollar.
Addington started disputing the particulars. Now he was on
Jack Goldsmith's turf. From across the room the head of the
Office of Legal Counsel jumped in. And right there in front
of the big guys, the two of them bickered in the snarly tones
of a couple who knew all of each other's lines.
* * * * *
As the sun went down on Tuesday, March 9, the president of
the United States had yet to learn that his Justice
Department was heading off the rails. A train wreck was
coming, but Cheney wanted to handle it. Neither Card nor
Gonzales was in the habit of telling him no.
``I don't think it would be appropriate for the president
to be engaged in the to-and-fro until it is, you know,
penultimate,'' Card said in a recent interview. ``I guess the
definition of `penultimate' could vary from four steps to
three steps to two steps to one step. That's why you have
White House counsel and people who do the legal work.''
Participants in the afternoon meeting, including some of
Cheney's recruits, left the room shaken. Mueller worked for
the attorney general, and the FBI's central mission was to
``uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United
States.'' Hayden's neck, and his agency, were on the line.
The NSA director believed in the program, believed he was
doing the right thing. But keep on going when the Justice
Department said no?
Early the next morning--Wednesday, March 10, with 24 hours
to deadline--Hayden was back in the White House. One
colleague saw him conferring in worried whispers with
Homeland Security adviser John A. Gordon, a mentor and fellow
Air Force general, much the senior of the two. They huddled
in the West Wing lobby, Hayden on a love seat and Gordon in a
chair.
Jim Comey was in the White House that morning, too,
arriving early for the president's regular 8:30 terrorism
brief. He had heard nothing since the discouraging meeting
the day before.
Comey found Frances Fragos Townsend, an old friend, waiting
just outside the Oval Office, standing by the appointment
secretary's desk. She was Bush's deputy national security
adviser for combating terrorism. Comey had known her since
their days as New York mob prosecutors in the 1980s. Since
then, Townsend had run the Justice Department's intelligence
office. She lived and breathed surveillance law.
Comey took a chance. He pulled her back out to the hallway
between the Roosevelt Room and the Cabinet Room.
``If I say a word, would you tell me whether you recognize
it?'' he asked quietly.
He did. She didn't. The program's classified code name left
her blank. Comey tried to talk around the subject.
``I think this is something I am not a part of,'' Townsend
said. ``I can't have this conversation.'' Like John Gordon
and deputy national security adviser Steven J. Hadley and
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, she was out of the
loop.
Oh, God, Comey remembers thinking. They've held this so
tight. Even Fran Townsend. The president's counterterrorism
adviser is not read in? Comey towered over his diminutive
friend. He chose his words carefully.
``I need to know,'' he said, ``whether your boss recognizes
that word, and whether she's read in on a particular program.
Because we had a meeting here yesterday on that topic that I
would have expected her to be at.''
He meant national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Comey
was hoping for an ally, or maybe rescue.
``I felt very alone, with some justification,'' Comey
recalled. ``The attorney general is in intensive care.
There's a train coming down the tracks that's about to run me
and my career and the Department of Justice over. I was
exploring every way to get off the tracks I could.''
Townsend had a pretty good guess about what was on Comey's
mind. Cheney had kept her out of the loop, but it was hard to
hide a warrantless domestic surveillance program completely
from the president's chief terrorism adviser.
``I'm not the right person to talk to,'' she told her
friend, her voice close to a whisper. Comey ought to go see
Rice.
``I'm going to tell her you've got concerns,'' Townsend
said.
Comey's concerns no longer interested Cheney. The vice
president had tried to back him down. That didn't work.
Only one day remained before the surveillance program
expired. Time for Cheney to take the fight somewhere else.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 221st anniversary of
the signing of the Constitution of the United States, the longest-
living written constitution in history and the very foundation of our
democracy. I thank Senator Byrd for his tireless commitment to the
Constitution and to ensuring its recognition every year on Constitution
Day, which he established in 2004.
Our Constitution serves as a testament to the brilliance of the
Founding Fathers, who sought to create a document that would ensure
that political power was derived from the people and that their rights
would never be infringed upon. The Framers worked diligently over the
summer of 1787 to forge a document that has persisted for more than two
centuries. The Framers rightly understood that it would take hard work
and compromise to establish a solid foundation for a new government
that aspired to protect the liberty of all its people. A remarkably
brief document, containing only seven articles, the Constitution limits
the power of the government, maximizes the freedom of the people, and
provides for the common good.
Although my home State of Rhode Island did not send delegates to the
Constitutional Convention in 1787, the effects of this small State on
the formation of the Constitution are still felt today.
Roger Williams, whose statue stands just outside this Chamber,
founded what would become the State of Rhode Island in 1636 after he
was exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. A theologian, he founded
Providence Plantation on the principles of separation of church and
state and religious freedom.
One hundred fifty-one years later, the Framers enshrined these same
principles in the Bill of Rights. Williams and the Framers recognized
that religious freedom is a natural right that had to be afforded to
all people. Indeed, this freedom is one of the defining freedoms of our
democracy.
I would again like to thank Senator Byrd for his dedication to
honoring our Constitution and the achievements of our Founding Fathers.
His devotion to this document enriches our understanding of its
importance and reminds
[[Page 19378]]
us of its essential role in our democracy. He has taken up the call to
protect and defend the Constitution by ensuring that its central place
in American history is not forgotten. I join him in asking all
Americans to honor our great national charter today and every day.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today we celebrate Constitution
Day, the 221st birthday of the founding document of our country. Now,
more than ever, it is time to reaffirm our commitment to defending the
liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, and to recognize that
strengthening civic education is an important part of this commitment.
``Democracy must be reborn in every generation, and education is its
midwife,'' wrote John Dewey. In fact, civic education was the original
mission of American public education.
Sadly, students today know too little about the civil liberties
established in the Constitution that define our American way of life.
On the most recent national civics assessment in 2006, only 20 percent
of eighth grade students scored at or above the proficient level. Less
than one-third could identify the purpose of the Constitution. Less
than a fifth of high school seniors could explain how citizen
participation strengthens democracy. Gaps in understanding like these
translate later in life to reduced voter turnout, decreased civic
engagement and community service, and a weaker sense of national
identity.
As a result of legislation enacted in 2005, more students across the
country are receiving instruction on the Constitution, civics, and
American history in their schools today. To become responsible
citizens, students need to know that the Constitution is not about the
39 men who signed it. It is a vital document that shapes events today
and in the future. Instilling an understanding of the American ideals
of liberty, justice, equality, and civic responsibility should be a
central task in every school, every day.
It should encourage the type of civic-mindedness displayed by the
actions of community-based organizations and private citizens who
rushed to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina and the September 11
terrorist attacks. The long-term health of our democracy and America's
standing in the world depend on our own understanding of our past.
In the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act next year, we
can strengthen our commitment to history and civics education, and
encourage them to be integrated into all subject areas, extracurricular
activities, and service-based learning.
Our Nation's Founders understood that education was critical to the
strength of our democracy. As James Madison said to Thomas Jefferson
after the Constitution was written, ``Educate and inform the whole mass
of the people . . . They are the only sure reliance for the
preservation of our liberty.''
As we commemorate the anniversary of the ratification of the
Constitution, those words are especially timely, because they remind us
that their work alone cannot sustain American democracy. Our democracy
depends heavily on enlightened and engaged citizens, and high-quality
civic education is the best way to ensure that its fundamental
principles will continue to guide America for the next 221 years, as we
and future generations do our best ``to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' May it always be so.
Mr. SANDERS. 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. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
____________________
CONTINUATION OF MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
continue in a period of morning business with Members permitted to
speak for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. 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. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
MISSILE DEFENSE
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, it is easy for us to fall into the
trap and the habit of believing the United States and our friends
around the world are immune from the aggressive actions of hostile
nations. Since the Cold War has ended, I think we have come to think
that conflicts between industrialized nations are an historic relic. I
believe one writer who has since admitted he was in error wrote a book
called ``The End of History.'' But we are not beyond history. We are
not immune from the threats that have apparently always been out there
in the world. And I wish it were not so, but I am afraid it is. I
believe the world clearly remains a dangerous and unpredictable place.
Significant and serious threats exist. North Korea and Iran, for
example, seek nuclear capabilities despite all kinds of efforts by the
rest of the world to convince them to the contrary. They continue to
invest heavily in the development of long-range missiles that could
cause us great harm. Russia's recent actions in Georgia remind us that
country, which we once hoped was on a path to greater integration into
the global world community, might again be seeking to restore old
Soviet ideas of dominance throughout their neighbors and in Eastern
Europe, all of which should serve as a motivation to move ahead with
the necessary capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies from
missile attack, in particular. If a government, by way of the skills,
knowledge, and technical achievements of its citizens, has the ability
to protect itself from a known threat, does it not have a moral
obligation to do so?
I remember once former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saying:
I never heard of a nation whose policy it is to keep itself
vulnerable to attack.
Why would we want to allow ourselves to remain vulnerable to a
potential missile attack from North Korea or Iran? Well, we do not. We
have been working for some time now to develop a defense system to
block any such missile attack. Although it is highly technical and
complex, we have made tremendous progress, and we now know we have a
system that fundamentally works and we are continuing to advance it
every year.
We cannot do this alone, however. We have our friends in Europe. We
asked them for assistance in developing a third site there. In fact,
perhaps one of the threats we face would be from a missile launch from
Iran. The Iranians are continually working on advanced missiles. I
believe they are also openly moving forward to develop nuclear
capabilities. If they were to launch such an attack against the United
States, it would pass over Europe. So Europe would be an important site
for us in protecting the United States.
Indeed, the importance of recent decisions, therefore, taken by the
Governments of Poland and the Czech Republic to base missile defense
assets on their territory to protect our NATO allies and the United
States against long-range ballistic missile threats is very important.
The United States has been negotiating with the Czech Republic and
Poland since early 2007 to base a missile-tracking radar and 10 long-
range interceptors--just 10, but importantly 10--in those countries. I
am pleased to note that those agreements were signed between the United
[[Page 19379]]
States and the Government of the Czech Republic on July 8 of this year
and with the Government of Poland on August 20 of this year.
Ratification of these agreements by the allied parliaments in those
counties is expected this fall. These deployments are intended to
provide protection for the United States and most of Europe against
long-range ballistic missiles such as those that might be launched by
Iran.
The strategic objective of extending missile defense protection to
our allies is to enhance the ability of the alliance to more
effectively deter aggression and counter the growing threat posed by
Iran. These deployments would send a strong message to our allies and
adversaries alike that the NATO alliance will not be intimidated or
blackmailed by any missile threat.
You have leaders of Europe, NATO, and the United States, and if some
country threatens that they will launch a missile, and we have only 1
or 2--OK, maybe 10--but if we have the ability to knock those down,
that alters the strategic threat capability significantly and allows
the President of the United States or any European nation to say: We
are prepared to defeat your missile attack. We will not be blackmailed.
We will not alter our policies that we believe are in our national
interests as a result of such threats.
So the planned deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic are
supported by the NATO alliance. Some of our Members have wanted that.
They have said that they would feel better about going forward if the
alliance itself spoke on this, and so we have obtained that now. The
system to be deployed will be fully integrated into NATO's ongoing
plans to provide defense against shorter range ballistic missile
threats.
The April 3, 2008, NATO Bucharest Summit Declaration notes:
Ballistic missile proliferation poses an increasing threat
to allies' forces, territories and populations.
They went on to say:
We therefore recognize the substantial contribution to the
protection of allies from long-range ballistic missile to be
provided by the planned deployment of European-based U.S.
missile defense assets.
In May, the Senate Armed Services Committee, of which I am a member
and its bill is on the floor today, reported out of the committee, I am
proud to say, a bill which authorizes fully the administration's $712
million request for the Polish and Czech missile defense sites. I am
proud that our committee did that. It was the right thing. It is
important now that the appropriators recognize the critical importance
of following through with adequate funding for these sites. Events of
the past month reinforce the decision by the Armed Services Committee
to recommend full funding. Not only does Iran persist in defying
international calls to end its nuclear program, Iran continues to test
space launch vehicles and ballistic missiles of increasing range, while
also conducting military exercises in the gulf with operational
ballistic missiles.
We should not take lightly the courageous action taken by the
Governments of the Czech Republic and Poland to agree to establish a
missile defense site on their territory, for by supporting the defense
of NATO in this manner, and the defense of the United States, these
countries have earned the ire of their big neighbor on the east,
Russia.
In an effort to exert pressure on our allies to not do this, in
February of 2008 Prime Minister Putin of Russia stated that:
If it is deployed, we will have to react appropriately. In
that case, we will probably be forced to target some of our
missiles at the objects threatening us.
Let's take a moment to analyze that language. What threat is it to
Russia, let me ask, that an independent, sovereign nation would agree
to have a defensive missile system deployed on their territory--not a
hostile missile system, not a nuclear weapon missile system, a missile
system designed to protect their own country and other countries from a
potential threat? What possible threat is that to Russia? Zero. Of
course, we know Russia has hundreds and hundreds of nuclear-armed
missiles. The 10 silos and missiles we would propose to place in Poland
would have no ability whatsoever to resist a massive Russian attack,
God forbid they would ever launch.
So I would suggest something more is at stake here, and I think it is
something that the Poles and the Czechs and the Georgians and the
Ukrainians and the Estonians and the Latvians and the Lithuanians
understand full well, and that is that Putin desires to reestablish
hegemony over the former Soviet satellites. They think they have a
right to tell Poland whether to undertake a military partnership with
the United States. They have no right whatsoever to do so. Poland is
glad to be rid of them. They are glad to be out from under the Soviet
boot. They have no intention whatsoever of allowing themselves to fall
back under their dominance. They have values that are close to our
values. They want to be part of our heritage and the Western heritage.
Just days after the Czech Republic signed the radar basing agreement
with the United States, Russia reduced its oil shipments to the Czech
Republic without providing any explanation. Boom. The oil shipments
have since been restored, but threats continue.
Despite increasingly bellicose threats by Russia to cut off energy
supplies and to target Poland and the Czech Republic with military
means, these allied Governments have maintained their freedom, their
independence, their sovereignty, and their courage, and have stood fast
with the United Sates and NATO. So the very least this Senate could do
would be to recognize the importance of these decisions, to express our
full and strong support for what these nations have done on behalf of
themselves and the Atlantic alliance and affirm that with the support
of legislation that would move forward with the third site.
In closing, I would share with my colleagues the words of Mirek
Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister. The Czech Republic and Poland are
such wonderful countries. They are so proud to be free and independent.
They are some of our best allies in the world.
The Prime Minister placed this issue in the proper context, when he
stated:
The moral challenge is clear and simple. If we are not
willing to accept, in the interest of the defense of the
Euro-Atlantic area, such a trifle as the elements of a
missile defense system, then how shall we be able to face
more difficult challenges that may come?
Isn't that a great statement? That is the right context.
I hope this part of the bill will remain intact. I am confident it
will. I hope our appropriators will find the money necessary to move
forward rapidly to complete the development of these systems. Indeed,
our NATO allies and the United States are certain to face more
difficult challenges in the days ahead, as Iran and other nations
continue to develop weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic
missile capability to deliver them. As the crisis in the Caucasus
suggests, there may be even greater challenges ahead. By supporting the
European missile defense initiative, we extend missile defense
capabilities to our allies while bolstering the defense of the United
States homeland. In so doing, we strengthen our partnership and our
collective security. We send a strong message to potential adversaries
that this alliance will take such actions as necessary to ensure its
security against threats that may occur.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak in
morning business for whatever time I may consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, allow me to echo strong agreement with
my colleague from Alabama. We both serve on the Armed Services
Committee. It is our hope and belief that we will be able to get a bill
tonight. There are a lot of amendments that we would have liked to have
had time to add. Senator Sessions talked about the successes we have
had in the Czech Republic and in Poland. It is absolutely
[[Page 19380]]
necessary. This is a life-threatening situation. I believe we are in
pretty good shape there. I had several programs that are going to be
included in this bill expanding the training and equipment. Sections
1206, 1207, and 1208 are significant. Those are things we can do in the
field in these countries where we are in a position to train and equip
these people, which is certainly to our advantage. Expanding what used
to be called the CERP, the Commanders Emergency Response Program--they
changed the name. I can never keep up with these things. But instead of
having it only apply to Iraq and Afghanistan, it now applies to other
areas also. It gives the commanders in the field a chance to respond
immediately rather than go through all the bureaucratic redtape of
correcting problems back in Washington.
With the IMET program, which is a program whereby we bring in
officers and train them in our facilities in the United States, it used
to be that until they signed an article, we would not allow them to be
trained in the United States. The assumption was that somehow we were
doing them a favor by training them. The reverse is true. They want to
come to the United States to train because they know we have the best
training. If we refuse to do it, countries such as China will welcome
them with open arms. One of the interesting things is, once officers
are trained in this country, they develop an allegiance that stays.
A lot of these things are in the bill that are good. I am delighted,
because I understand we will be voting on it very soon.
____________________
AFRICA
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, the main reason I wanted to come to the
floor today is another resolution we hope we will be able to get passed
before we leave having to do with Darfur. I have had the habit of
bringing attention to situations and conflicts in places around the
world that get little attention. However, in the case of Darfur, it has
had all the attention. When people ask, what are the problems with
Africa, they always talk about Darfur. So while they have received all
of the attention, there hasn't been any kind of action that has
followed. It is distressing that the situation in Darfur has received
so much press and generated so much attention, with documentaries and
advocacy campaigns and waves of public support, but it has not spurred
the international community to more action.
We have been saddened and horrified at the pictures we have seen and
the stories we have heard about the genocide in Darfur that has
unfolded since 2003. At least 300,000 people have died, and 2\1/2\
million have been forced from their homes at the hands of violent
militias called the jingaweit who have been encouraged and supported by
the Khartoum Government, President Bashir. One of the things that is
interesting about this is, we recall the tragic genocide that took
place in the middle 1990s in Rwanda. People are now aware of that and
wondering why we couldn't have done something about it earlier to
prevent it. They have now killed about a third the number of people of
the genocide that took place in Rwanda, and President Kagame is doing
such a great job there. But where were we when we could have helped
President Kagame and prevented the genocide from taking place?
It is now up to a third that many in Darfur. So we can do something
and do something now to avoid it. Last week we received news that
Sudan's central government is launching land and air attacks in Darfur,
with many dead and injured. Last month, in August, the Sudanese
military and police opened fire on Darfur refugee camps, killing 31
people and injuring a lot of others. The United Nations/African Union
hybrid peacekeeping force assessed the incident and concluded that
Sudan used an excessive, disproportionate use of lethal force. For the
United Nations to come up with that, it has to be bad. They also
concluded that the refugees were only carrying sticks and knives and
spears while the Sudanese forces were armed with guns. Khartoum
insisted that they were searching the camp for drugs and weapons.
In July, The Hague, the International Criminal Court, began the
process of indicting President Bashir on 10 charges, including three
counts of genocide, five crimes against humanity, two of murder, and
masterminding the campaign to annihilate the tribes in Darfur. A senior
U.S. official said recently that he expects the ICC, the International
Criminal Court, to issue an arrest warrant in the next month--long
overdue, I might add. Bashir, who no doubt is beginning to feel the
political ground shifting beneath him, continues to resort to more
intimidation and violence. One major factor in the ongoing violence in
Darfur can be traced to the continued violations of the U.N. arms
embargo on Sudan. China is Khartoum's major source of weapons used in
Darfur. China has embarked on a new form of colonialism in Africa,
grabbing as many natural resources as it possibly can while
disregarding the effect on the people. I wish more Members were
familiar with Africa and the history of Africa. There are so many books
written about that, one of them addressing the Belgium situation there
in the early years. They came in, raped the country, took all the
natural resources, and left the people there to die. We should be aware
that that is exactly what China is doing right now.
Beijing has declared 2006 the year of Africa. It shows no signs of
slowing down in spreading its influence to claim resources. Currently,
China's national petroleum company is pumping roughly 500,000 barrels a
day from wells in southern Sudan. Keep in mind, China is our biggest
competitor for oil and gas around the world. Obviously, we are
dependent upon foreign countries, many of them not too friendly to us,
for our ability to even fight a war. That is another issue and one we
will address. But China is right in the middle of this one, making it
more difficult for us. In order to assure continued access to the oil,
China has provided weapons to Khartoum and taken a very passive stance
toward the government's brutal treatment of the people of Darfur.
Last year Amnesty International reported that both China and Russia
had broken the arms embargo by supplying Sudan with attack helicopters,
bombers, and weapons. On July 12, the British Broadcasting Corporation
reported they had evidence that the Chinese Government provided
training and equipment to Bashir's government. In February, the report
said that China was training pilots to fly Chinese Fantan aircraft jets
on missions from the airfield in southern Darfur. This is a direct
violation of the U.N. arms embargo which covers training, not just the
supply of weapons, equipment, and military vehicles. The BBC also
investigated weapons that China sold to Sudan in 2005 and found
postembargoed trucks that carried antiaircraft guns. This news,
although not a surprise, comes at a time when Khartoum is using force
against refugees with the very planes and weapons that China is
supplying.
China is not the only problem there. Russia is actually a problem
also. Russia is to blame for violating the arms embargo. During the
last couple of weeks of attacks, Darfur rebels stated that the
government used four helicopter gunships and two Russian-made Antonov
airplanes. Russia's continued disregard for crimes perpetrated by the
Khartoum Government in Darfur and the selling of arms to carry out such
violence against the people of Darfur is inexcusable and needs to be
stopped immediately.
I hasten to say there are many other problems I have come to the
floor and talked about over the last 12 years in Africa. Darfur is one
that has captivated everyone's attention. But I assure my colleagues,
there are problems in other areas. Right now, as we all know, China is
currently Zimbabwe's largest investor and President Mugabe has
destroyed the economy in Zimbabwe. We can all remember when they were
considered to be the breadbasket of all of Africa. It is amazing that
Zimbabwe is able to buy military articles such as their recent purchase
[[Page 19381]]
from China that included $240 million in fighter jets, in light of
their dying economy. When I say ``dying economy,'' they don't even talk
anymore about the value of their currency because their currency has no
value. So the only ones eating in Zimbabwe, the area that used to be
the breadbasket of all of Africa, are the ones who are subsistence
farmers, able to grow what they and their families can eat.
In 2005, I gave a series of speeches detailing why I believe China to
be a threat to our national security. From what we have talked about
today, we know China is also a threat to other countries' national
security. I challenge my African friends to be wary of current and
future Chinese involvement in their countries. It seems that much of
the power-sharing agreement in Zimbabwe has been reached with Mugabe
remaining as President and opposition leader Tsvangirai taking over the
day-to-day running of the Government as Prime Minister. I hope it works
out, but I am not optimistic that it will.
We have a problem there. We have a country that had been the
breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa and is now unable to provide
anything.
As to other threats in Africa, I have been quite distressed for some
time that as we get the squeeze in the Middle East and al-Qaida and the
various terrorist elements down through the Horn of Africa, but we have
finally made a good decision in this country to assist Africa in
building five African brigades, located north, south, east, west, and
central. This is going to be necessary for them to take care of the
problems. As to other problems in Africa, it has been 30 years now
since western Sahara was kicked out of their homeland, and they have
been out in the desolate areas now for more than 30 years. It is
shocking to me that we don't do anything to help them get repatriated
and sent back to their proper areas.
In northern Uganda, on several of my trips there, I have become
familiar with what President Museveni has been trying to do for a long
period. Frankly, President Museveni has been doing a great job. He was
a warrior before he became President of Uganda. But the problem in
Uganda is every bit as bad as it is in Darfur, and it is a problem
everybody knows about, though it is totally different. We have a guy up
there named Joseph Kony, who heads the Lord's Resistance Army. You have
heard about the Children's Army and how he goes and trains these little
kids, these little boys who are 12 to 13 and 14 years old, how to use
automatic weapons. They have to go back to their villages and murder
both their parents and all of their family. If they do not do it, they
mutilate them. They cut their ears off.
I have been up in the northen part of Uganda and have been able to
see it. What have we been able to do about that? Very little. He is
still loose. Just recently they put him on the list of global
terrorists for the United States, but that did not really resolve
anything major. So we have that problem. And we have Joseph Kony, who
is still to this day killing and mutilating little kids.
I guess I am a little sensitive to that. We had a great experience in
my family. We found a little girl in Ethiopia when she was 3 days old,
and her health was not very good. As we might expect in Addis Ababa, in
Ethiopia, there is a great need for nurseries and health care for kids,
but the health care just isn't there.
I remember looking at this little girl. As the weeks went by and she
started developing--escaping death time and time again--she finally
grew up and she became a very attractive little girl. I have said on
this Senate floor several times that my wife and I have been married 49
years, and we have 20 kids and grandkids. Well, this little girl shown
in this picture is one of them now because my daughter Molly, who had
nothing but boys, wanted to have a girl, so she adopted this little
girl, Zegita Marie, and she has turned out to be an outstanding little
girl.
So there are these problems. One of the problems with adopting in
Africa is that culturally some countries do not approve of adopting.
They think the village should be able to take care of the children who
become orphans. The problem with that is, with such things that are
taking place right now in Darfur, with such things that have taken
place in Rwanda, the villages cannot absorb the killing and mutilating
of a million people in a short period of time. That is what has
happened in Rwanda.
So I am glad several Members of this body, including Mary Landrieu
from Louisiana, have been interested in helping with the adoption of
some of these kids so that other children like my little granddaughter
are not left there to die in a country in sub-Sahara Africa but can
find a loving family.
Anyway, right now, the subject is Darfur. The subject is Darfur
because what is going on there right now is kind of in the early stages
of what we witnessed taking place in Rwanda. That genocide can be
stopped, and it can only be stopped by us along with anyone else in the
international community who cares enough to save lives in sub-Sahara
Africa. Certainly, the southern part of Darfur is a crisis right now
that needs to be dealt with.
So I would ask my colleagues to join Senator Bill Nelson of Florida
and me in asking for the adoption of a resolution that should take
place today. It is one that is going to establish a specific position
for the United States of America. The resolution is S. Res. 660, which
we have submitted this week. It condemns the ongoing sales of arms to
belligerents in Sudan and calls for both an end to such sales and an
expansion of the U.N. embargo on arms sales to Sudan.
As Russia and China provide Khartoum with more weapons and materials,
they continue to fuel the conflict and violence and drive a peaceful
solution further away from reality.
Countries that want to do business in Africa, or anywhere for that
matter, must be held accountable for their behavior. One of the things
I have observed in Africa, no matter what country you go into--if it is
an oil-rich country--anything that is new and shiny, whether it is a
bridge, whether it is a colosseum, a sports arena, it is always built
by China. So they have the inside track, and it is going to be up to us
to join together to stop that type of mutilation of the population in
countries such as northern Uganda and the Sudan.
So I urge the adoption of this resolution today and hope it will
become a reality so we have a new position for the United States of
America to save little girls like this one in countries that are
involved in genocide.
With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business
for 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today the stock market is down over 400
points. Yesterday it was pretty mixed. The day before it was down over
500 points. It is pretty clear that, judging by what is happening on
Wall Street and judging what is happening to the economy--the news this
morning on the front page of the paper: Loan guarantee offered to one
of the largest insurance companies of America; the bankruptcy of an
institution, Lehman Brothers, which has been around since the late
1800s; it survived the Civil War and the Great Depression--all these
together demonstrate a very serious problem for this country's economy.
This economy is in some peril, and I think we should not underestimate
the difficulties that face it.
Our Treasury Secretary and the head of the Federal Reserve Board are
taking midnight action, working 24 hours
[[Page 19382]]
a day, apparently, convening meetings here and there, but they share
something in common with us. None of us have ever been here before. No
one quite understands where we are and what we do to deal with this
very serious economic challenge to our country.
This is a great country. It is the only country like it on this
planet. It has a very strong economy and has had for a long while. It
has lifted a lot of people out of poverty and dramatically expanded the
middle class. It has provided opportunity over the last century that
has been almost unparalleled. Yet we now face some very difficult
times, and it requires all of us to think together and work together to
put together some plans to deal with this issue and this challenge.
However, you cannot fix a problem you have not diagnosed.
I wish to talk a little about what got us here and a bit about what I
think we ought to do about it. Two things: a subprime mortgage scandal
decimated part of the foundation of this country's economy. I wish to
talk about what it means. It sounds like a foreign language: Subprime
loan scandal. Then, at the same time this economy was weakening because
of an unbelievable subprime loan scandal, the price of oil was going up
like a Roman candle, up to $147 a barrel. It has come down some now;
back up I think $4 or $5 a barrel today. But that had a huge impact on
this economy as well. In some ways, these problems have the same roots:
Unbridled speculation, regulators who didn't regulate, those who were
supposed to regulate were willing to be willfully blind.
Let me talk about these things for a moment. Let me talk first about
the situation with the price of oil. I held a hearing yesterday for
almost 3 hours on the subject of speculation that I believe drove the
price of oil to $147 a barrel. At a time when our economy was reeling
from the subprime scandal, running oil up to $147 a barrel was a huge
burden and had a huge impact in weakening this economy. I am somebody
who believes it was speculation that drove this up, right under the
nose of regulators who didn't care about regulating.
Let me tell my colleagues what happened yesterday. We have had all
kinds of testimony about this. One of the witnesses who was at the
Energy Committee yesterday was from J.P. Morgan, a venerable investment
bank in this country, and Lawrence Eagles delivered testimony yesterday
from J.P. Morgan. He is the head of commodity research, and here is
what Mr. Eagles said:
We believe that high energy prices are fundamentally the
result of supply and demand. We fundamentally believe that
high energy prices are a result of supply and demand, not
excessive speculation.
This from a man from the J.P. Morgan company, the global head of
commodity research. But an e-mail we obtained today that was sent late
last evening to the clients of J.P. Morgan by a Michael Zimbalist, who
is the global chief investment officer for J.P. Morgan--the same
company--said this--what we have been saying:
There was an enormous amount of speculation pent up in
energy markets; example, an eight-fold increase in bank OTC
oil derivatives exposure in the last three years and it
wasn't just the supply-demand equation. Oil will rise again
and we need solutions to energy supplies, but $140 in July
2008 was ridiculous.
Let me say that again. An executive with J.P. Morgan testified
yesterday before our committee and said: We believe high energy prices
are the result of supply and demand, not excessive speculation.
Last evening, an e-mail was sent from J.P. Morgan by their global
chief investment officer and it says what we have been saying: There
was an enormous amount of speculation pent up in energy markets.
I am trying to understand--and this is not to focus just on this
company--J.P. Morgan. They testified they were an investment bank. We
have had meetings with a lot of interest about this subject of excess
speculation. I am trying to understand whether we are getting the
straight story from people. What was the straight story here, the man
they sent to testify or one of the top folks in J.P. Morgan who sent an
e-mail to clients last evening? They directly contradict each other.
We have a whole lot of folks who are making a living these days
saying: Well, the price of oil went to $147 a barrel because of supply
and demand, and I say to them: It doubled in a year. From July to July,
the price of oil doubled. I defy anyone to tell me what happened to
supply and demand in that year that justified the doubling of the price
of oil. There isn't anyone in this Chamber and there is no one who has
testified before my committees who can make that case. Why? Because the
case is not valid. It isn't valid.
I have sent a letter to Mr. Jamie Dimon, the chief executive officer
of J.P. Morgan, asking him to reconcile this. The company was willing
to testify and they were one of the witnesses yesterday. I invited
witnesses who had made the case that speculation was a significant part
of this problem, of the runup of oil; others had invited those who
believed that speculation was not. This testimony from J.P. Morgan was
part of testimony invited by those who believe there is not a
speculative component. But we have a right as a committee, it seems to
me, to understand how does this happen. The company sends a
representative to tell us there is no speculation and then sends an e-
mail to clients the same day and says speculation is a significant
part.
The reason I mention this is oil is a part of what is happening in
this country today with our economy. The runup in the price of oil
significantly weakened this economy. I am expecting a response from
J.P. Morgan to try to tell me why the contradiction. Who is talking
straight here? When do we get straight answers? If we are going to fix
what is wrong, we have to know what happened and what caused it.
Now, I mentioned the subprime loan scandal. The subprime loan
scandal. I described what I thought was going to happen 9 years ago on
the floor of the Senate. We had a bill that came to us from Senator
Gramm called Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Senator Gramm spent a career here
trying to get rid of all regulation: Deregulate. Deregulate, he
claimed. Financial modernization, he called it. The Financial
Modernization Act. That was a fancy way of saying: Let's take apart the
protections that existed after the banks failed in the 1930s and the
Great Depression, let's take apart the protections we put in place to
make sure it didn't happen again. We put in place the Glass-Steagall
Act that said you have to keep separate banks and real estate and
securities. Why? Because real estate and securities can be very
speculative, and banks need to stay away from speculation. It needs to
not only be safe and sound, it needs people to think they are safe and
sound.
So what was put in place in the 1930s--the Glass-Steagall Act and
other provisions to separate inherently risky enterprises from
banking--worked for a long time. Then to the floor of the Senate comes
the Financial Modernization Act in 1999. I voted against it. Let me
read what I said on the floor on May 6, 1999, on the floor of the
Senate:
This bill will also, in my judgment, raise the likelihood
of future massive taxpayer bailouts. It will fuel the
consolidation and mergers in the banking and financial
industry at the expense of customers, farm businesses, family
farmers, and others. In some instances I think it
inappropriately limits the ability of the banking and thrift
regulators from monitoring activities between such
institutions and their insurance or securities subsidiaries,
raising significant safety and soundness consumer protection
concerns.
Let me say that again: This bill will also, in my judgment, raise the
likelihood of future massive taxpayer bailouts.
No, I am not a soothsayer. I didn't have a crystal ball. But I knew
if you don't have good regulation and you are going to create the
homogenization of big financial industries and put banking and
everything together, even if you claim you are going to build
firewalls, I knew exactly what was going to happen.
On November 4, 1999, on the conference report--I was one of eight
Senators to vote against it--I said:
Fusing together the idea of banking--which requires not
just the safety and soundness to be successful but the
perception of
[[Page 19383]]
safety and soundness--with other inherently risky speculative
activities is, in my judgment, unwise.
Then I said:
We will, in 10 years' time, look back and say we should not
have done that because we forgot the lessons of the past.
Those are my statements from 1999. It is now 9 years later, not 10.
What we see are massive bailouts, massive taxpayer bailouts, and the
lessons we apparently forgot. I voted against all of that. The fact is
they sold it. They sold it like medicine from the back of a wagon in
the old West, snake oil, solve everything. Allow all these big
institutions to get married; fall in love, get married and become
bigger and do a little of everything. That way you get one-stop
shopping. Go ahead and buy your securities, buy your insurance, buy
your real estate, and then make a deposit, if you will, and maybe get a
check book if you want to still write some checks if you don't want to
do it electronically; just one-stop shopping at all of your financial
institutions and there will be no problem.
Guess what happened. In 2001, we had regulators come to town, hired
by a new President, who said: You know what. It is a new day.
Regulation is a four-letter word and we think four-letter words are
dirty and we don't intend to regulate. Yes, we are going to get paid.
We are going to run these regulatory agencies, but we don't intend to
do anything. We intend to take an 8-year sleep, and they did. They
dozed off immediately and they have not yet awakened.
We had a regulator at one of the very important agencies say: In
fact, there is a new sheriff in town and this is a new business-
friendly environment. We now see what that means. Willful blindness by
people we paid to regulate, who came to town hostile to the basic
notion of regulation.
Now, they saw what I saw. I have a tiny little television set, and so
in the morning when I shave and brush my teeth, I have that television
set on and I hear the advertisements on television. Countrywide, the
biggest mortgage bank in America, here is what they said:
Do you have less than perfect credit? Do you have late
mortgage payments? Have you been denied by other lenders?
Call us.
What they were saying, essentially, is: Hey, are you a bad risk? Give
us a call if you want a mortgage. Do you need a loan? This is the
biggest mortgage bank in the country saying: If you can't pay your
bills, for gosh sakes, call us. We want to give you a loan.
It wasn't just Countrywide. Here is a company called Millennium
Mortgage and here is what they said. This was seductive. They said:
Twelve months, no mortgage payment. That is right. We will give you the
money to make your first 12 payments if you call in 7 days. We pay it
for you. Our loan program may reduce your current monthly payment by as
much as 50 percent and allow you no payments for the first 12 months.
That is a pretty good deal. We will make your first 12 months payments.
Of course, they will put that on the back of the loan and it will incur
interest and you will end up paying a lot more.
This is Zoom Credit. You all saw these advertisements:
Credit approval is just seconds away. Get on the fast track
at Zoom Credit. At the speed of light, Zoom Credit will
preapprove you for a car loan, a home loan, or a credit card.
It says:
If your credit is in the tank, Zoom Credit is like money in
the bank.
Zoom Credit specializes in credit repair and debt
consolidation, too. Bankruptcy, slow credit, no credit--who
cares.
These were the advertisements being run on television and on the
radio across the country by the shysters trying to place bad mortgages
out there that people could not make payments on, and then they run the
paper up through securities, hedge funds, and investment banks, run
them all over the world. Then it goes sour and people cannot make
payments, and you have all these bad loans out there and things
collapse. It is called the subprime loan scandal, and here is the
origin: companies that said: If you have bad credit or you cannot make
your payments, come to us, we will give you a loan.
So you start with the first baby step of bad business practices--
because everybody was making money. The folks who were selling the
loans, cold-calling people, were making big bonuses; and the mortgage
banks, such as Zoom and Countrywide--the biggest--were making lots of
money slicing these mortgages, the subprime mortgages, up into
securities, securitizing them all.
By the way, they also said this: If you have bad credit and cannot
make your payments and have been bankrupt, you know something, we also
have no-doc loans. That means you don't ever have to document your
income. They said: We will give you a loan, and you don't have to make
the first 12 months of payments--we will make them for you--and you
don't have to document your income. You could do that if you have been
bankrupt and have been unable to pay your bills. Isn't that
unbelievable? Guess what. They were all over the country like hogs in a
corn crib snorting and making money, hauling it to the bank, saying: We
are making big money by putting out bad paper.
Then what happens? All of a sudden, these mortgages, which in most
cases had a 3-year reset of interest rates and were offered with teaser
rates--sometimes 1 percent or 1.25 percent--these mortgages, 3 years
later, had the interest rates reset, and they were now paying 10
percent. And then deep in the mortgage was the provision of a
prepayment penalty so that you could not prepay the mortgage even
though you were now stuck at 10 percent and could not pay the bill.
These companies and the brokers said that it didn't matter; just line
this up, and between now and 3 years, you can flip the property; the
housing bubble is going up and you are going to make money anyway. And
then the whole thing collapses.
So hedge funds are making money hand over fist, and investment banks
are buying securities that are loaded, like sausage packed with
sawdust, with good mortgages and bad mortgages, and things go sour, and
all of a sudden, in these big, homogenized financial institutions, you
have massive timebombs exploding inside their balance sheets. Then,
guess what. We wake up and discover that Bear Stearns cannot make it
and Lehman Brothers is going belly-up. They bail out Bear Stearns by
allowing somebody else to buy them with $30 billion from the Federal
Reserve Board, securitized by, in many cases, bad securities. This
morning, the papers said $85 billion. It is pretty unbelievable what is
going on. It all starts here.
Now, did somebody see this? Did somebody watch television in the
morning or read the newspaper or listen to the radio and hear the
advertisements about the seductive new mortgages you could get and how
the brokers and bankers and all these folks are making all this money?
If the American people didn't see it, should the regulators have seen
it? Weren't there people in this town whom we paid to regulate? How
about Alan Greenspan, who is now treating us with a book and
appearances on the Sunday shows and giving us a current diagnosis?
Where was Mr. Greenspan when this was happening? What happened at the
Fed that persuaded them not to interrupt essentially bad business that
would injure the foundation of this country's economy, or the many
other regulatory agencies where people at the head of them decided to
be willfully blind and do nothing?
If ever there were a time for the people of this country to question
whether the term ``regulation'' is a four-letter word, it is now. I
believe the free market is a wonderful thing. I used to teach
economics. I believe the free market is one of the best allocators of
goods and services known to mankind. I also know it needs effective
regulation--a regulator--because occasionally it becomes perverted.
Occasionally, it is broken by certain interests.
As I said earlier, I wish I had been wrong when I said, on the floor
of the Senate on May 16, 1999, in opposing the Financial Modernization
Act, which took apart the basic protections we had and that we had
learned were needed from the bank failures of the 1930s:
This bill will also, in my judgment, raise the likelihood
of future massive taxpayer
[[Page 19384]]
bailouts. It will fuel the consolidation and mergers in the
banking and financial services industry at the expense of
customers, farm businesses, family farmers, and others. . . .
Fusing together the idea of banking . . . with other
inherently risky speculative activity is, in my judgment,
unwise.
That is what I said 9 years ago. I wish I had been wrong, but I was
not.
We come now to this intersection with the American economy in peril.
I know we have people at the Fed and at the Treasury Department working
full time to try to put this back together. Again, I say you cannot fix
something if you don't know what went wrong. It is why I describe two
things today--one, the unbelievable bubble of speculation that moved
oil to $147 a barrel, which put an enormous burden on this country's
economy at exactly the time when we could not afford it, as the economy
was already suffering the unbelievable effects of the subprime loan
scandal. Now we have seen an almost perfect economic storm.
One doesn't have to be an economist to understand what is happening
now in this economy. But it seems to me that all Americans are hoping
all of us pull together to find ways to put this country back on track,
insist that regulators finally begin to regulate on behalf of the
interests of the American people--insist that Congress do what it needs
to do, and there are a number of things we need to do to set this
right.
It is not with joy that I come to the floor of the Senate describing
the conditions that, in my judgment, have caused the most significant
economic collapse we have seen in a long time. But we must face the
truth, and the truth is that we have been through a very difficult
period and we need our Government to behave in a way that stands up to
protect the interests of all Americans, not just a few. I am going to
have more to say tomorrow about this subject.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that I
had referred to that I have written to the head of J.P. Morgan, as well
as an attachment with that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, September 17, 2008.
Mr. Jamie Dimon,
Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board, JPMorgan
Chase & Co., Inc., New York, NY.
Dear Mr. Dimon: I am the Chairman of the Energy
Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources. I convened a hearing of the Subcommittee
yesterday, which focused on speculative investments in the
energy futures markets. I am troubled that the testimony
delivered by Lawrence Eagles, Global Head of Commodity
Research for your company, appears to be contradicted by an
internal JPMorgan email that my staff has obtained, dated the
same day.
At the hearing, Mr. Eagles said, ``we believe that high
energy prices are fundamentally the result of supply and
demand.'' Additionally, the written testimony which was
submitted on behalf of JPMorgan by Blythe Masters said, ``we
fundamentally believe that high energy prices are a result of
supply and demand, not excessive speculation.''
But, an email we obtained that was sent late last night by
Michael Cembalest, identified as JPMorgan's Global Chief
Investment Officer, directly contradicts the testimony by Mr.
Eagles and Ms. Masters. In his email (a copy of which is
attached), Mr. Cembalest stated, in part: ``what we've been
saying: there was an enormous amount of speculation pent up
in energy markets (e.g., an 8-fold increase in bank OTC oil
derivative exposure in the last 3 years), and it wasn't just
the supply-demand equation. Oil will rise again, and we need
solutions to energy supplies, but $140 in July 2008 was
ridiculous.''
It appears that JPMorgan is telling Congress and the public
that the run up in oil prices is solely due to supply and
demand, while at the very same time it is telling its clients
that an ``enormous amount of speculation'' is running the
prices up.
Please explain why JPMorgan testified before Congress that
the high oil prices are only due to supply and demand when
your experts clearly acknowledge privately that it was
speculation, not market fundamentals, that sent oil prices
skyrocketing. As you know, this is a matter of enormous
public interest and concern. Americans across our country are
hurting as run-away prices have permeated our entire economy
and devastated family budgets.
It is critical that we have honest and accurate information
as we debate solutions to this energy crisis. As Chairman of
the Subcommittee that held the hearing yesterday, I am
requesting that you send me all documents in the possession,
custody or control of JPMorgan Chase during the last 12
months relating or referring to the role of speculation on
oil prices. Given that the Congress is currently debating and
will be voting on these matters imminently, please provide
these documents to us on a rolling basis beginning as soon as
possible with all such documents provided by one week from
today. Also, due to the limited amount of time available to
us before voting will occur, please ensure that the most
relevant documents are provided first.
I appreciate your willingness to do this promptly to ensure
that the public and Congress receive full, accurate, honest
and complete information from those who testify before it.
I appreciate your timely response. If you have any
questions, please contact Dennis Kelleher, my Chief Counsel,
or Ben Klein, my Legislative Director.
Sincerely,
Byron L. Dorgan,
U.S. Senator.
____
E-mail sent last night by the Global Chief investment
Officer for all of J.P. Morgan (see bold section below).
Eye on the Market, September 16, 2008,
11-Something P.M.
Update: The U.S. government took another unprecedented step
in this odd year and provided a bridge loan to AIG in
exchange for 80% ownership in the company.
``SWF: Sovereign Wealth Fed''. Say this for the U.S.
Federal Reserve: they're reinforcing their historical
independence from the legislative branch. On a day during
which Senators McCain, Obama, Dodd and Shelby all came out
publicly against a bailout of AIG, the Fed did it anyway.
That's not entirely unprecedented; President Clinton tried to
pass the 1994 Mexican Stabilization Act through Congress,
couldn't, and then figured out a way to get the Exchange
Stabilization Fund done without legislative approval. But
what is unprecedented, at least for the Fed, is equity
ownership. The United States now has its own Sovereign Wealth
Fund, with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG as its inaugural
investments. Is this a backdoor alternative to privatizing
social security?
First, a brief bit of background, AIG is an insurance
company with roughly $100 billion in capital and $1 trillion
in assets. They have an insurance operation that's been
around for almost 100 years, and which has deep experience in
life, property & casualty, personal, specialty and D&O
insurance (indemnifications related to mistakes by directors
and officers). AIG set up a capital markets subsidiary,
AIGFP, which effectively provides re-insurance on $440
billion in securities and other derivatives when you cut
through all the industry jargon. AIG allowed this subsidiary
to grow to be half the company's assets, a decision which in
hindsight borders on the bizarre. Within this business unit,
there are concentrated problems with a specific $80 billion
portfolio of multi-sector CDOs linked to residential
mortgages. They've taken $25 billion in losses so far on this
exposure, with more expected by Moody's in Q3. While vintage
years and terms/conditions differ, AIG's CDO exposure
relative to shareholder equity was much larger than other big
CDO holders such as UBS and Citigroup.
AIG's problem is that rating agency downgrades of AIGFP
force collateral to be posted. Such a clause essentially
transforms their exposure from an insurance policy that only
requires payout when losses are realized, to a policy which
requires payout depending on how markets price similar
exposures. And right now, mortgage-backed derivatives are the
leprosy of the financial markets, with prices arguably below
fair value (a). However, for valuation and capitalization
purposes, insurance regulators, accountants and rating
agencies (no irony intended) are not interested in anyone's
estimate of fair value right now. Instead, they're relying on
the last marginal price that anyone happens to sell at, with
the most desperate seller setting the price. If only property
taxes worked that way; everyone would get tax certiorari
relief based on the neighborhood's worst foreclosure sales.
I will leave it to others to describe the calamitous (or
not) outcomes that the Fed decided to avoid. It would be
speculation, although today's news of the oldest money market
fund in the country (with $60 billion at its peak) ``breaking
the buck'' was possibly a small example (b). What the Fed
gets in return for saving AIG: a 2-year loan at Libor plus
8.5%, plus an 80% ownership interest in the company. I know a
lot of private equity and mezzanine funds that would love to
have gotten a deal like that, but they didn't have enough
capital. And that was the problem: AIG is so big that the
numbers involved were too large for banks and other private
sector entities to contemplate, particularly within 48 hours.
AIG's former chairman stated that equity investors did not
have to be wiped out, but there was only one entity left that
was big and adroit enough to offer the terms and capital
needed to forestall a possible bankruptcy (c), and it was the
U.S. government. While I think the U.S. government made a
good investment for taxpayers, the Pandora's box is going to
be quite a challenge.
[[Page 19385]]
We're not going to rush out and buy equities on the view
that the world's problems are over, or that the Fed will bail
anything else out. The economic news, drowned out by
corporate events over the last two weeks, is still pretty
bad. This week's charts from our investment meeting (state
tax receipts, small business optimism, the U.S. manpower
employment survey, the Baltic Freight index, retail sales,
Eurozone industrial production, hotel occupancy rates and
just about everything related to growth or construction in
China) all look the same: plummeting. There's also the minor
issue that the Fed is running out of money for these bailout/
investment exercises (d). But with the decline in commodity
prices, inflation forecasts are tumbling, rendering
stagflation risks much lower. While we're at it, the Peak Oil
crowd promoting crude oil call options struck at $200 should
concede what we've been saying: there was an enormous amount
of speculation pent up in energy markets (e.g., an 8-fold
increase in bank OTC oil derivative exposure in the last 3
years), and it wasn't just the supply-demand equation. Oil
will rise again, and we need solutions to energy supplies,
but $140 in July 2008 was ridiculous.
We are making some regional shifts in portfolios (from
Europe to the U.S.) given a slower global economy, the
prevalence of much higher levels of government and corporate
debt in Europe, and more rapidly slowing European earnings
estimates. We are also holding onto our cash balances, and
are investing newly funded accounts slowly. But we are not,
as we reiterated last week, positioning for Armageddon, which
the Fed might have just averted with its actions this week.
Notes:
(a) AIG released a report on August 7 with their CDO
stress-testing. The assumptions look conservative to me: 80%-
90% of subprime loans expected to default, with 20%-30%
recoveries upon foreclosure. Assumptions on prime loans were
not much better: 60% expected to default, with recoveries of
65% upon foreclosure. AIG computed its fair value stress-
testing loss on the CDO portfolio at around $10 billion,
compared to the $25 billion in losses they've taken so far.
This suggests that one of 3 things are true: (i) the non-
transparent process through which AIG applied the stress-
testing assumptions were too generous and underestimate the
loss, (ii) secondary market prices driving the actual marks
are too low, or (iii) the markets are right and the
assumptions above are still not catastrophic enough. These
outcomes are not mutually exclusive, but you could drive a
truck through the difference between the stress-testing case
and losses realized so far. Call me crazy but I think it's
mostly (ii).
(b) That's what happens when a money market fund does not
provide a dollar back for each dollar invested. A very rare
occurrence which only happened once, in 1994.
(c) As far as we can tell, the Fed's investment does not
constitute an ``event of default'' the way the GSE
conservatorship did.
(d) For monetary policy geeks only: the AIG deal reduces
the amount of unencumbered Treasury bonds held by the Fed
under $200 billion. From the March 12, 2008 Eye on the
Market: ``Something is nagging at me. Over the long run, I
hope the Fed hasn't misjudged something. It's not that the
Primary Dealer Credit Facility, is inflationary. For every
dealer that comes to the Fed, the Fed sells assets to raise
cash to lend, so their monetary targets are unchanged. But
Fed assets are not unlimited: existing facilities already
reduce some of the Fed's $700 billion in assets. In the
highly unlikely event that the Fed's assets were exhausted,
they'd have to start the printing press. We need to hope they
haven't prematurely pledged assets to dealers that are
normally reserved to stabilize banks during a potentially
painful economic downturn.''
CDO = Collateralized Debt Obligation.
GSE = Government Sponsored Enterprise.
Michael Cembalest,
Global Chief Investment Officer,
J.P. Morgan.
The above summary/prices/quotes/statistics have been
obtained from sources deemed to be reliable, but we do not
guarantee their accuracy or completeness. Past performance is
not a guarantee of future results. Securities are offered
through J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI), Member NYSE,
FINRA and SIPC. Securities products purchased or sold through
JPMSI are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (``FDIC''): are not deposits or other obligations
of its bank or thrift affiliates and are not guaranteed by
its bank or thrift affiliates; and are subject to investment
risks, including possible loss of the principal invested. Not
all investment ideas referenced are suitable for all
investors. These recommendations may not be suitable for all-
investors. Speak with your JPMorgan representative concerning
your personal situation.
This material is not intended as an offer or solicitation
for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument. Private
Investments often engage in leveraging and other speculative
investment practices that may increase the risk of investment
loss, can be highly illiquid, are not required to provide
periodic pricing or valuation information to investors and
may involve complex tax structures and delays in distributing
important tax information. Typically such investment ideas
can only be offered to suitable investors through a
confidential offering memorandum which fully describes all
terms, conditions, and risks.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its
affiliates do not provide tax advice. Accordingly, any
discussion of U.S. tax matters contained herein (including
any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, in connection with the promotion, marketing
or recommendation by anyone unaffiliated with JPMorgan Chase
& Co. of any of the matters addressed herein or for the
purpose of avoiding U.S. tax-related penalties.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
____________________
AMERICA'S SENIOR CITIZENS AND TAXES
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I come to the Senate today to talk
about an important segment of our Nation's population, America's senior
citizens.
Our senior population has seen a very rapid growth in the 20th
century. As of the year 2000, there were about 35 million people who
were 65 years of age or older. Compare this with 3.5 million people at
the beginning of the 20th century. Today, about 37 million people are
65 years or older. This amounts to about 12, 13 percent of our total
population.
In 2011, the first baby boomers turn 65. This will mark the beginning
of an explosion in our senior population. By 2030, the senior
population will be twice as large, growing from 35 million to 70
million.
You may ask why I am citing these numbers. My Senate colleagues may
think I am setting the stage for a lengthy discussion about our
entitlement programs--Social Security and Medicare. While the impending
entitlement crisis does require my attention, along with the attention
of every Member of Congress--and very soon--I wish to discuss another
issue that is at the center of this year's political debate, and that
is that mean word ``taxes''--yes, taxes on our senior citizens. I wish
to explain to my Senate colleagues and my friends in the media how
seniors are taxed under current law. I also would like to talk about
how the Republican and the Democratic Presidential candidates' tax
plans will affect our senior citizens.
With a significant increase in our older population looming, those
who are currently 65 and older--and those who will be turning 65 over
the next 2 decades--should pay close attention to the tax changes that
will be faced under a Republican administration and Senator McCain or a
Democratic administration and Senator Obama as President. People should
not only be wary of campaign promises, they must also understand the
flaws in the various tax proposals being offered the voters this
election season. Change may result in higher taxes.
I wish to start by picking up from a speech I gave back in July. That
speech featured Rip Van Winkle. I have a picture of Rip Van Winkle up
here on a chart. In that speech, I explained how a charismatic,
likable, articulate, young Governor from Arkansas barnstormed across
America in 1992 as the Democratic Presidential candidate. That
candidate--now former President Bill Clinton--had a battle cry:
``putting people first'' and ``middle-class taxpayer fairness.'' It
sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Another familiar tune is what candidate Clinton was saying in that
same year, 1992. He said, if elected, ``the only people who will pay
more income taxes are those living in households making more than
$200,000 per year.''
If elected, the junior Senator from Illinois, the Democratic
candidate, says that he will only raise taxes on families earning
$250,000 or more.
But once candidate Clinton was sworn in as President Clinton, that
campaign promise was quickly discarded. In 1993, President Bill Clinton
and a Democratic Congress enacted the largest tax increase in history.
Those are not my words. I will quote the great chairman of the Finance
Committee at that time, New York Senator Patrick Moynihan, who termed
it ``the
[[Page 19386]]
largest tax increase in the history of public finance in the United
States or anywhere else in the world.'' And much to the voters'
surprise, the tax increase of 1993 was on people who earned more than
$20,000, not just those earning more than $200,000, as candidate
Clinton had said in that campaign.
So the moral of this story is that candidate Clinton, who promised
middle-class tax relief, raised taxes on the hard-working middle-class
taxpayers once he became President Clinton. This was obviously change
that you could not believe in.
The reason I told that story was to tell this story back then. Not
only did President Clinton raise taxes on the middle class, he raised
taxes on seniors.
That is why I am speaking to my colleagues about the impact of tax
proposals on senior citizens that are an issue in this election. That
is right, taxes were raised on seniors.
What was this tax increase on seniors back in 1993? It was an added
tax on Social Security benefits. Let me take a moment to explain how
this tax currently works.
Prior to the 1993 tax increase, married seniors with incomes less
than $32,000 did not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. For
single seniors, those with less than $25,000 paid no taxes on their
Social Security benefits. However, single seniors with incomes over
$25,000 and married seniors with incomes over $32,000 paid income tax
on only 50 percent, or maybe for the people paying it, it was on the
whole 50 percent of their Social Security benefits. The revenue raised
from this tax is directed into the Social Security trust fund.
These rules remain in place today, but under the 1993 tax increase
that President Clinton signed, senior citizens with incomes over
$34,000 and married seniors with incomes over $44,000 were required to
pay income tax on not 50 percent of their Social Security benefits but
85 percent of their Social Security benefits. So this so-called tier 2
Social Security tax is still part of our tax laws. The revenue
generated from the tier 2 tax is directed to the Medicare trust fund.
Let me pause for a moment to show how many seniors actually pay tier
1, that is 50 percent, and tier 2, the additional 35 percent. We can
see on this chart a number for 1994 and a number for 2005. In 1994,
when the tier 2 tax became effective, almost 6 million seniors paid
income tax on their Social Security benefits. This includes singles and
married seniors.
Compare this with 2005, the most recent year we have accurate data
from the IRS. Around 12 million seniors paid the tier 1 and the tier 2
Social Security tax. So you can bet your bottom dollar that seniors
with incomes of less than $200,000 were surprised when they woke up to
the fact that the tax increase of 1993 hit them.
Why were they surprised? Candidate Clinton assured them their taxes
would not go up. Not only did their taxes go up, they had to give back
a significant portion of their Social Security benefits to the
Government, benefits that they worked a lifetime to receive.
Will America's seniors and the middle class, for that matter, wake up
to higher taxes after the 2008 election? That is the key for my being
here, to look at the tax debate going on in this election season for
the Presidency. Will American seniors and the middle class, for that
matter, have to wake up to higher taxes after the 2008 election?
Much like Rip van Winkle woke up to a different, changed world, will
Senator Obama's change be something seniors can believe in? Could
history repeat itself?
I wish now to explain how the 2001 and 2003 bipartisan tax relief
benefits American seniors. The reason I call them the bipartisan tax
relief bills is because it had bipartisan support, unlike the rhetoric
of the campaign which is always referring to the Bush tax cuts.
If these were the Bush tax cuts, they would have been a heck of a lot
bigger tax cuts than the bipartisan tax relief that is now the law of
the land.
I wish to specifically focus on the reason for the 2003 tax relief
because in 2003, Congress reduced the top tax rate on capital gains
from 20 percent down to 15 percent. Congress also tied dividend income
to the capital gains tax rate instead of the taxpayers' marginal tax
rate. That is, of course, the same 15 percent as for capital gains.
For low-income taxpayers, the tax rate on capital gains and dividends
is currently zero. How does a lower capital gains and dividend income
tax rate benefit our senior citizens who have contributed so much to
this country? Census Bureau statistics show that about 23 percent of
the taxpayers claiming dividend income are senior citizens; in other
words, 65 or over. A nonpartisan research group, the Tax Foundation,
shows that nearly 26 percent of all taxpayers claiming capital gains
are seniors 65 or over. So a considerable number of seniors rely on
investment income as a cornerstone of their overall income.
The Democratic leadership may file on to this floor and tell you that
the majority of seniors' income is locked away in retirement plans and
IRAs and because of this, they don't need the favorable tax relief of
capital gains and dividend income. I have news for anybody. First, as I
pointed out, a large number of seniors rely on a stable flow of income
that dividends provide. Add seniors' reliance on capital gains and you
see that any reduction in investment income through higher taxes will
hurt our hard-working senior citizens.
Let me show my Democratic colleagues and friends in the media the tax
savings that seniors currently enjoy due to lower tax rates. As we can
see on the chart, seniors with incomes under $50,000 earning dividend
income see the biggest tax savings. Their tax liability is 17 percent
less than it would be if the favorable tax relief expired. This portion
of the chart also illustrates how much more seniors rely on this
favorable tax treatment than taxpayers of all ages. For all other
taxpayers, their tax liability is 7.6 percent less, as we can see from
the chart, the first bar.
Let's look at seniors claiming capital gains. Same chart, as we can
see. Seniors with incomes under $50,000 pay about 13 percent less in
taxes than they would without the favorable tax relief in the 2003
capital gains law. That is a significant chunk of change for our hard-
working seniors or, if they are retired, for having worked hard
throughout their life.
So we can see my Democratic friends don't have a leg to stand on.
They come out here--we have seen them and heard them--like the big bad
wolf and huff and puff about how seniors do not benefit from the 15-
percent capital gains and dividend income tax rate. But the facts, as I
presented them, are clear, and we get this information from foundations
and study groups. Seniors rely on capital gains and dividend income to
maintain their standard of living and pay their medical expenses.
Seniors benefit significantly from the favorable tax treatment on
capital gains and dividend income, especially low-income seniors.
The moral of this story is that lower tax rates on investment income
means these seniors can keep more of their earnings to pay for life's
necessities. Taking these tax benefits away from seniors by raising
capital gains and dividends, these are people who will be hurt because
they most typically live off of a fixed income and their standard of
living would be severely impacted.
My Democratic colleagues in Congress actually want to take away the
2003 tax relief for seniors. For example, in March of this year, this
body took a very important vote. I, along with my Senate colleagues,
voted on an amendment to the budget that would have allowed the 15-
percent capital gains and dividend income tax rates to be extended
beyond their sunset period of 2010. Every Democrat voted no. If the
Democrats get their way, this favorable tax treatment will go away for
seniors, raise taxes on seniors, and lower the standard of living of
seniors. I voted to extend the 15-percent capital gains and dividend
income tax rate.
The senior Senator from Arizona voted yes. Interestingly, the junior
Senator from Illinois voted no. My friend's vote is interesting because
the junior Senator from Illinois is now
[[Page 19387]]
barnstorming across America campaigning to be President, much as
President Clinton did. On the stump, the Democratic candidate has
stated he does not want the 15-percent capital gains and dividend
income tax rates to go away, at least for families earning less than
$250,000 a year. Let me repeat, the junior Senator from Illinois, whose
word is his bond, voted with this budget vote last spring to allow the
15-percent capital gains and dividend income tax rates to expire, but
now he is saying he wants this tax relief to stick around.
To a degree, I am glad for that change of heart, but the more I think
about it, the more I wonder whether the junior Senator from Illinois
will stick to this campaign promise if elected because he might find
himself in a position like Candidate Clinton who failed to stick to his
campaign promise when he became President not to tax the middle class.
So maybe my Democratic friend will be the big bad wolf after all. Huff
and puff and let the 15-percent capital gains and dividend income tax
rate expire. I am not sure if a President Obama will be living in such
a brick house. His house may be made of straw and his campaign promise
of extending the 15-percent capital gains and dividend income tax rate
for families earning less than $250,000 may be blown down.
Former President Clinton's promise was blown down, and we saw the
biggest tax increase in history. That is what Senator Moynihan,
chairman of the committee at that time, said. I don't want history to
repeat itself.
Let's focus on how seniors would be affected under a Republican or a
Democratic administration. Let me start with a Republican
administration because Senator McCain's tax plan is straightforward.
That is, the Senator from Arizona would continue the current 15-percent
capital gains and dividend income tax rates beyond its sunsetting. He
would also continue the tax rate of zero percent for low-income
taxpayers. Yes, it is a very simple tax plan.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 10 minutes. We are under
a time agreement.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask permission to continue. I was told I would have
until 10 after 6, and I will be done before 10 after 6.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, may I inquire of the Senator, another
5 or 10 minutes?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Let's say 7 minutes, and if I am not done in 7 minutes,
I will quit.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, seniors under the tax plan proposed by
the senior Senator from Arizona would continue to benefit from lower
tax rates. This would allow seniors to maintain their current standard
of living. These taxpayers will be able to age with dignity.
The Democratic Presidential candidate's tax plan for seniors is much
more complicated. But first let's keep it simple. Although the junior
Senator from Illinois voted to allow the 15-percent capital gains and
dividend income tax rates to expire, he is now saying he wants to keep
this favorable tax treatment for families earning less than $250,000.
It seems the Senator from Illinois thinks the bipartisan tax relief
is good and should continue for most taxpayers. However, his Democratic
colleagues in the House and Senate don't seem to think so. After all,
they voted to allow the 15-percent capital gains and dividend income
tax rate to expire in that vote we had this spring.
I ask, if Senator Obama is elected on November 4, will he be able to
convince his Democratic colleagues to continue this favorable tax
treatment? President Clinton was unable to stop a Democratic Congress
from increasing taxes in 1993. And I wouldn't want history to repeat
itself.
I also want to spend some time discussing a proposal my friend from
Illinois has discussed on the campaign trail. Senator Obama has
proposed to exempt seniors with incomes less than $50,000 from income
taxes. This sounds pretty good. I mean, for 2007, the median income for
people 65 and over was close to $28,000. But if you take a closer look,
there are a number of flaws.
These are not my words. The Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan think
tank that has received notoriety for analyzing the tax plans of Senator
McCain and Senator Obama, states that ``the proposal is poorly
designed.'' They also say the proposal ``creates inequities between
older and younger workers with the same income.'' The AARP, the
powerful senior lobby, hasn't even highlighted the proposal in
communications with its membership.
But I wish to highlight this proposal and expose its flaws because I
don't want our seniors to believe in a campaign promise that can't be
delivered.
First, the $50,000 exemption amount would not be indexed. This means
it would erode over time, becoming less and less valuable to seniors.
Second, the $50,000 threshold is a cliff. That means a senior earning
$1 over $50,000 won't qualify for the exemption and that senior might
stop working to make sure they do not go over that cliff.
Third, the $50,000 exemption amount applies to both single and
married taxpayers. This produces a marriage penalty that is unfair to
married seniors.
Finally, this proposal exempting seniors making less than $50,000
from paying income taxes would add to the Social Security and Medicare
deficits. This may not be such a big deal for seniors, but it is a big
deal for those of us here in Congress who have to find solutions to the
shortcomings of Medicare and Social Security.
Let me tell my colleagues, and of course the media, how this proposal
would add to the Social Security and Medicare deficits. As I discussed
earlier, our current tax laws require seniors with incomes over
$250,000 and $32,000 to pay income taxes on their Social Security
benefits. According to preliminary data released by the IRS, close to
14 million seniors paid income tax on their Social Security benefits in
2006. This is because many seniors continue to work. Or they retire,
but earn interest income, capital gains dividends, or rental income.
Even half of their Social Security benefits are taken into account for
purposes of determining whether a taxpayer must pay income taxes on
their Social Security benefits.
Now, there are many seniors who are earning less than $50,000 but
more than $25,000 and $32,000. Currently, the income taxes these
seniors pay on their Social Security benefits go directly to Social
Security and Medicare. This means if these seniors are exempt from
taxes, less tax revenue flows into the Social Security and Medicare.
The trustees of these funds are already projecting that the Medicare
trust fund will run out of money in 2019 and that the Social Security
trust fund will follow in 2041.
The Senator from Illinois may say he will make up for this revenue
loss by raising payroll taxes on families earning more than $250,000 a
year, but his campaign has recently stated that any increase in the
payroll taxes on these workers would be phased in over 10 years. This
means the revenue Senator Obama was relying on to make up the revenue
loss that would result from the seniors' tax exemption won't be there.
I am not sure about you, but making a campaign promise that will
balloon the Social Security and Medicare deficits is not good judgment,
especially when baby boomers are on the verge of turning 65.
Now, I have saved the best for last, and I want to say it loud and
clear so my friends in the media and our Nation's seniors can hear it:
Seniors will see their taxes go down under Senator McCain's plan,
especially married seniors. Low- and middle-income seniors who are
married will be taxed less than under the Democratic tax plan. Senior
citizens will also enjoy tax relief under the McCain tax plan.
The Senator from Arizona is doing the right thing in reducing the
corporate tax rates. After all, our Nation has the second highest
corporate tax rate in the world. That causes companies to move their
operations overseas. Both Senator Obama and Senator
[[Page 19388]]
McCain have alluded to the competitive problem our corporations face
because of high tax rates. There is an added benefit to reducing
corporate rates. The answer is: a tax cut for middle-class seniors.
Well, the incidence of the reduction of corporate tax rates falls on
capital. The Congressional Budget Office tells me that the burden of
the corporate tax falls on capital, and so does the Tax Policy Center.
So because seniors hold investments in corporations--as evidenced by
the fact that almost a quarter of all Americans claiming dividends are
seniors--they will see the benefits of lowering corporate tax rates.
This means they will see their taxes go down if the corporate tax rate
is reduced. Married seniors in particular will see their taxes go down
more than under the tax plan of the Senator from Illinois, and in some
cases the senior taxes would go up under the Democratic tax plan.
The Tax Policy Center has indicated that low-income seniors, those
earning up to $32,000, would see their taxes go up by close to $150
under Obama's tax plan. Contrast this with Senator McCain's plan, where
these same low-income seniors would see tax cuts of over $150.
The Senator from Illinois may not believe me. After all, he has
promised no new taxes for families earning less than $250,000, and that
these taxpayers would receive a tax cut. But here on this chart, it is
in black and white. According to the Tax Policy Center, seniors with a
total income up to approximately $24,500 and $32,000 would see a tax
cut of $186 and $154 respectively. That is under the McCain plan. Under
the Obama plan, these same seniors would see their taxes go up by $157
and $131 respectively. That is a tax increase. And if your income is
around $83,000, you will see a tax increase of $364 under Obama.
Compare that to a $431 tax cut under the McCain plan.
Let's look at single seniors. If you are a single senior with a total
income around $21,000, you will see your taxes go up $118 under Senator
Obama's tax plan and they will go down $140 under Senator McCain.
So I ask the Senator from Illinois whether he would like to revise
and extend his remarks. He says no new taxes and tax cuts for people
making less than $250,000. But as we can see here, that is not true.
And the tax increase is on one of the most vulnerable segments of our
society: our seniors.
I would like factcheck.org to post the Tax Policy Center's numbers on
their Web site, and I want seniors in Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio,
Missouri, and my home State of Iowa to read this and study it. Don't
buy a pig in a poke. Be wary of a unified government. We need to make
sure that we install in the Presidency people who are going to keep tax
rates low on seniors.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I understand we have up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
____________________
STORM DISASTERS
Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, before I begin speaking about the
disaster occurring in Louisiana and in parts of Texas, and refer
briefly to some of the other disasters that have struck, I wish to
respond briefly to some of the remarks the Senator from Iowa made.
We don't have time for a debate, and I respect my friend on the other
side a great deal, but had the Democrats followed the Republican
leadership in trying to privatize Social Security, many seniors would
be in a very difficult situation right now, as you know. The Republican
Party has for years tried to privatize Social Security. What a terrible
situation we would be in had we allowed that to happen. But we and some
others, a few on their side, stopped it from happening. I can hardly
tell you what the situation would be for our seniors, whether they are
on the poor end of our economic scale, the middle end, or the higher
end, with Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and others that are now
collapsing.
So I know we will have a great deal of debate about which economic
policy is the best, and I know the Senator rattled off quite a few
numbers regarding Social Security, but I couldn't help myself as I was
standing here thinking: Thank goodness we didn't privatize Social
Security. Because whatever situation he has outlined, it would be a
thousand percent worse for our seniors today. So I thank the junior
Senator from Illinois from stopping that from happening, along with
myself and many others.
I came to the floor today, however, to speak about the disasters
unfolding in Louisiana and Texas and other parts of our country. I know
as this Congress gets ready to adjourn, we have done some significant
work over the last couple of months, and we have more work to do, we do
need to get on an energy debate for this Nation, and I am hoping
something can be worked out there. We also, of course, have a
continuing resolution to discuss. But this is only one of several
pictures I am going to show of the results of a terrible storm that
crashed into the southern part of the United States last week.
Hurricane Ike hit the gulf coast with a ferocious force of winds and
tidal surges on September 13. Hurricane Gustav hit us on September 1,
and Tropical Storm Fay, while it entered in Florida, or hit our country
in Florida, actually did a tremendous amount of damage to other parts
of the United States, not only the States along the gulf coast. There
was some terrible interior flooding in Arkansas and even up here in
this region. As a result, we have homeowners like this.
These photos were sent to us by American Press, from the Lake Charles
American Press, and I thank them. This is the parish of Calcasieu,
which is right outside the Texas border. So you have the counties, of
course, of Houston and Galveston and Beaumont, but right on the other
side of that border are Calcasieu Parish and Cameron Parish.
Let's see some of the extension of the damage in these other
pictures. This is in a city. This is not in a low-lying area. This is
not on a beach. There is not a beach anywhere around here. We have had
tidal surges from Ike much higher than I think many people realize.
This is a picture of the eastern part of Louisiana. You all have seen
this picture before, and I know you are going to accuse me of actually
bringing out an old picture from an old storm. I feel as though I am in
Groundhog Day here. But this is actually taken from last week. This is
America's energy port. This is Port Fourchon, where 30 percent of the
offshore oil and gas from the gulf comes. Port Fourchon. You can't see
Port Fourchon, because it is completely underwater.
I feel I am going through the repeat of a movie. We had Katrina, we
had Rita, and now we have Fay, we have Gustav, and we have Ike. And
while Ike did hit directly into Galveston--and please let me begin by
saying that my heart goes out to the people of Galveston and Beaumont
and the millions of people right now who still in Texas do not have
electricity. We in Louisiana most certainly understand the difficulties
from a storm of that nature. But I would be remiss if I didn't come to
the floor this afternoon and say that this storm hit more than the
Texas coast. It walloped us as well.
This is another part, from southeast Louisiana, I believe. This is
Port Fourchon. This is right on the coast. We can understand this
happens when storms occur. This is not in the middle of a city. This is
not inland. This is right on the coast. But as I have come down to say
so many times, when is America going to wake up and realize that these
are where our pipelines are? These are where our refineries are. By the
nature of pipelines and refineries and ports, they have to be near a
coast. They cannot be inland. We need to do a much better job of
protecting these communities.
This is in the Houma-Terrebonne area, which is much farther inland.
We had some of the worst flooding in Terrebonne Parish, which is really
in the southeastern part of the State. Remember, the hurricane really
hit Texas, but the hurricane was so big; it
[[Page 19389]]
was over 600 miles wide. While it was not a category 4 or 5, it was a
massive storm that really flooded parts of Mississippi, almost all of
south Louisiana, and Texas.
I see my colleague, the chairman of the committee, coming to the
floor. I will at this point yield for just a few moments, as I think
they have come to some agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 3001
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank our dear friend from
Louisiana for allowing this interruption. It is a very important
presentation.
In a moment, I am going to propound a unanimous consent request.
Before doing that, there has been a lot of inquiry as to whether a
managers' package is included in this. It is not. It has been unable to
be cleared on the other side, so it is not included in this unanimous
consent request, so that everybody understands it.
I now ask unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be
closed; that after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be
yielded back, the first and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the
bill then be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on
passage of the bill; that upon passage, it then be in order for the
Senate to consider, en bloc, the following calendar items: Nos. 733,
734, and 735; that all after the enacting clause of each bill be
stricken and the following divisions of S. 3001, as passed by the
Senate, be inserted as follows: Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S.
3003; Division C, S. 3004; that these bills be read a third time,
passed, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, en bloc;
further, that the considering of these items appear separately in the
Record.
Further--and this is what I am going to call the second half of this
unanimous consent request--the Senate then proceed to the consideration
of Calendar No. 758, H.R. 5658, the House companion, that all after the
enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 3001, as amended and
passed by the Senate, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill be read a
third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table; that the title amendment which is at the desk be considered and
agreed to; that upon passage of H.R. 5658, as amended, the Senate
insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses, the Chair be authorized to appoint
conferees without further intervening action or debate, and that no
points of order be considered waived by virtue of this agreement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, reserving the right to object, and I
shall object, but before doing so, finally, I would like to say to my
colleague and Senators on both sides of the aisle, under the leadership
of yourself, Mr. Chairman, and to some extent my participation as the
acting ranking member and certainly the members of our committee and
staff--we have all worked very diligently to achieve a bill. The
particular request my distinguished colleague has put to the Senate, to
which I shall object, really refers to those items we were unable to
reconcile procedurally in the course of some several days of
deliberation beginning, perhaps, as early as last Thursday. We were
here Friday. We were here Monday and Tuesday. We were unable to achieve
the reconciliation. There were objections, I say absolutely candidly
and frankly and factually, on both sides. So it is not as if one side
has weighed down the other, in my judgment. It has been the inability
to reconcile differences between the Senators. I have been here 30
years. I have seen it happen before. It will happen many years after I
leave.
At this time, I point out that the cloud seems dark, but the silver
lining is that a group of us, 61 in number, voted for cloture. That
enabled us to be here at this moment, and there will be a bill at some
point in time. There will be an armed services bill by the Senate. I
hope it will be favorably acted upon by a majority.
At this time, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, let me first thank my dear friend from
Virginia. He is accurate in his statements about differences not being
able to be resolved in terms of a number of amendments which we had
hoped to get to votes. My statement referred only to a managers'
package on which we had cleared about 100 amendments. That is the one I
made reference to before.
____________________
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 3001
Mr. LEVIN. Given that objection to our going to conference, I now ask
unanimous consent that at 6:30 p.m., morning business be closed; that
after the bill is reported, all postcloture time be yielded back, the
first- and second-degree amendment be withdrawn, the bill be then read
a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill;
that upon passage, it then be in order for the Senate to consider en
bloc the following calendar items: Nos. 733, 734, and 735; that all
after the enacting clause of each bill be stricken and the following
divisions of S. 3001 as passed by the Senate be inserted as follows:
Division A, S. 3002; Division B, S. 3003; and Division C, S. 3004; that
these bills be read a third time, passed, and the motions to reconsider
be laid upon the table en bloc; further, that the consideration of
these items appear separately in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I join in making that request. There is
no objection on this side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. I will again thank my friend for all of his efforts on
this bill. He has been, as always, a highly constructive force. We
could not even be this far without his great support. I am indebted to
him and the Senate is indebted to him, I hope, and the Nation again is
indebted to Senator Warner.
Again, I thank our good friend from Louisiana. We have interrupted
her for a little longer than I promised.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if I might just add, I thank my
distinguished colleague and friend for the 30 years we have been
together. I am certain this institution will carry on just as well
without me--and perhaps even a little bit better. But I have enjoyed
our working together these many years. I stop to think, you and I
having been here the same number of years, we have served with 273
different Senators in that period of time. I have enjoyed it. I don't
know of any relationship, either professional or even simply
friendship, that I have enjoyed and profited from more than working
with you, Senator. I wish you well as you carry on with this committee.
Madam President, I do want to thank the staff of the Senate Armed
Services Committee. I have here with me Michael Kostiw, William
Caniano, David Morriss, David Collins, Sandy Luff of my personal staff,
Marie Dickinson, Paul Hutton, Gergory Kiley, Lucian Niemeyer,
Christopher Paul, Lynn Rusten, Robert Soofer, Diana Tabler, and Richard
Walsh.
I know my staff would want me to say--and I say it--we have enjoyed
working with the majority staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
____________________
STORM DISASTERS
Ms. LANDRIEU. I see several other colleagues are here on the floor to
speak, maybe on this subject or another, so I will say I will reserve
for myself another 5 minutes and be finished with my remarks.
I was speaking about the hurricane damage throughout really the
southern part of the United States. I do not have the figures from
Florida or from Mississippi or Alabama, but we are turning in our
figures from Louisiana. Again, I remind my colleagues and the Nation,
Fay hit the gulf coast; it hit Florida but devastated parts of the gulf
coast and many interior parts of the southeastern part of the United
States, with
[[Page 19390]]
heavy rains and flooding on August 18. Then we had Hurricane Gustav on
September 1, which slammed into Louisiana and did a tremendous amount
of wind damage to parishes such as Point Coupee and Rapides and
Avoyelles Parish--parishes about which you don't hear very much because
they are not coastal parishes, but the wind damage was very
substantial, all the way up to the northern parts of Louisiana. Much
like Katrina, it affected the northern parts of Mississippi, although
it was a great flooding event down South. These storms are getting very
big and very powerful. Then, of course, Hurricane Ike hitting again the
Texas coast, right into Galveston, right up the Houston Ship Channel,
doing terrible devastation to our friends in Texas. But again the
flooding was substantial along the coastal States.
Let me just put up this chart you have seen before. These are the
pipelines that support America's energy coast. This is Louisiana's
coast. This is Mississippi's coast. This is the Mobile Bay and, of
course, the panhandle of Florida. This is the Texas coast. These two
storms, Gustav and Ike, hit right here in this region, in the center
part of America's energy coast, and wreaked havoc in terms of flooding
and wind damage. Again, that has gone up through Louisiana and to other
parts of the coastal States.
This is just another example from Lake Charles of the water damage in
communities tucked well in from the coast. This is wind damage in that
same area that can show you some of the wind damage our people are
experiencing.
Because my time is short, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a letter from the Governor of Louisiana outlining some of
our priorities.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Louisiana,
Office of the Governor,
Baton Rouge, September 13, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House, U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
House Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell
Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, Leader Boehner, and
Leader McConnell: For nearly two weeks, hundreds of thousands
of Louisiana residents have been without power, clean water,
and other necessities. Millions of Louisianians were forced
to evacuate their homes before Hurricane Gustav struck, and
many have still been unable to return. The stress placed on
communities, from a lack of electricity hampering people's
ability to work and provide for their family, to being split
up from loved ones, to a variety of other difficulties, has
been enormous.
The economic impact has also been significant. With various
bills to increase our domestic energy production under
consideration, we strongly urge you to consider additional
measures to ensure the resiliency of the nation's top
producer of safe, secure domestic energy. Louisiana produces
22.2 percent of domestic crude oil and 10.5 percent of
natural gas in the United States. As evidenced in recent
spikes in fuel prices, our nation is vulnerable to disruption
to Louisiana's energy production. In addition to energy
production, an estimated 25 percent of North America's
seafood is produced off of Louisiana's coasts. These
industries along with other essential Louisiana economic
drivers were critically impaired due to the destruction
caused by Hurricane Gustav.
On September 1, 2008, Hurricane Gustav made landfall on
Louisiana's coast with strong 110 mph winds following a
northwest path into central Louisiana, causing widespread
physical damage, power outages, and/or flooding across the
vast majority of parishes in Louisiana. The storm caused a
power outage that left two-thirds of the state's commercial
and residential facilities without electricity. Estimates
suggest Hurricane Gustav's economic losses total $7-15
billion including $4.5-10 billion in total property damage
and $2.5-5.0 billion in lost economic activity. Thousands of
employees were displaced and roughly 97,000 employers in
Louisiana (80 percent of total employers in the state)
suffered business interruption economic losses. Many of these
are small businesses still struggling to recover from
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Louisiana, still recovering from
the 2005 hurricanes and facing further damages from Hurricane
Ike, requests assistance in upcoming stimulus legislation or
other legislative vehicles in Congress.
1. Designate 100% Federal Cost Share on all FEMA Categories of
Assistance
The state has requested a 100% federal cost share on
Individual Assistance to include Other Needs Assistance (ONA)
and all other individual assistance programs, and Public
Assistance categories A through G, to include Direct Federal
Assistance. As you may recall, Congress provided for this
assistance for Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Many communities
impacted by these storms are still recovering and do not have
a restored tax base, and thus need this relief. In addition,
we would like to work with you to evaluate FEMA regulatory
policies that improve evacuation and reentry assistance. The
threat of Gustav forced the evacuation of nearly two million
Louisiana residents. The State was forced to evacuate 30,000
critical transportation-need residents, including 10,400
medical evacuations, which is the largest medical evacuation
in U.S. history. The state was also left with 1.5 million
cubic yards of debris from Hurricane Gustav along federal and
state highways.
2. infrastructure Repair and Coastal Restoration
Coastal Louisiana is home to 1.2 million people and helps
provide nearly 30 percent of the energy consumed in the
United States. Hurricane Gustav interrupted access to these
energy resources and infrastructure. Additionally, these
storms caused significant damage to the communities in this
coastal region and miles of coastal lands and wetlands. The
state is requesting funding to repair and improve protection
to the 100-year standard in south Louisiana. This would
include the resources necessary to complete federally-
authorized work in the Greater New Orleans area, Lafourche,
Terrebonne, and to expedite delayed protection improvements
in St. Mary parish and studies for southwest Louisiana. In
addition, we request funds for the construction of federally-
authorized coastal restoration projects designed to restore
coastal lands lost as a result of hurricanes. It is critical
that we provide comprehensive flood and hurricane protection,
including both coastal restoration and levee protection, for
Louisiana's entire coast.
Preliminary cost estimates for the repair of FHWA-eligible
roads and bridges sustained as a result of Hurricane Gustav
total $160 million. Federal-aid highway damage estimates
exceed $125 million. While funding to address these damages
is authorized under current law, the backlog associated with
these needs may prevent the restoration or threaten the
integrity of this critical infrastructure. A Presidential
waiver of the $100 million limit on FHWA Emergency Relief
funding is requested along with a special appropriation from
the General Fund to the FHWA Emergency Relief program for
Louisiana and other states facing disaster-related damages.
Further, Congress should provide emergency funds to the Corps
of Engineers for dredging the critical navigation channels
that were impacted by the hurricane. The Mississippi River,
Atchafalaya River, Calcasieu Ship Channel and other critical
waterways are vital to the country's energy supply and
maritime commerce affecting nearly every state.
While the majority of public infrastructure repairs will be
covered by FEMA programs, it is known from experience with
the 2005 storms that there will be certain costs of repair
deemed ineligible for FEMA funding. The state requests $100
million in Community Development Block Grants to develop a
fund to cover the full repair of key infrastructure and
public facilities.
3. Agriculture and Fisheries Disaster Assistance
Louisiana is one of the top domestic producers of sugarcane
within the United States, and second in both rice production
and international rice exports. Hurricane Gustav crippled all
segments of agriculture throughout Louisiana. Many Louisiana
producers sustained uninsured losses and will not be eligible
for Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments as currently
structured. The hurricane has also caused catastrophic
flooding and widespread wind damage for the state's cattle
industry, which is still recovering from losing over 20,000
cattle from the 2005 storms. In addition, Louisiana's seafood
industry accounts for more than 25 percent of the catch in
the nation. Funds are needed to help offset the loss of this
product, increased production costs and damage to storage and
fishing facilities.
4. Economic Recovery
Hurricane Gustav severely impacted our state's overall
economy and many small businesses through widespread physical
damage, power outages, and/or short-term population
displacement across the vast majority of the state. Based on
preliminary estimates, Hurricane Gustav's economic impact
totals $7-15 billion. Moreover, many small businesses wounded
by Hurricane Gustav had not yet recovered from damage
previously inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005.
The state proposes implementing a comprehensive business
recovery plan that addresses immediate and near-term working
capital needs and accelerates economic development during the
recovery period and
[[Page 19391]]
beyond. Suggested recovery options include: business recovery
bridge loans, an extension of existing GO Zone bonus
depreciation deadlines, an additional allocation of Gulf
Opportunity Zone bonds targeted at parishes impacted by
Gustav, and technical assistance for impacted small
businesses. Similar assistance was provided after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita to help small businesses and their employees
et back on their feet.
5. Emergency Preparedness and Readiness
Every critical disaster demonstrates gaps in the existing
system of preparedness, and identifies areas of critical
needs to improve the response to future storms. Local
governments have prioritized (1) prisoner transportation and
evacuation planning, (2) watercraft accessibility, (3)
enhanced fixed and mobile generator support, and (4)
communications as critical elements to enhancing disaster
preparedness. In addition, the state is requesting $100
million for law enforcement equipment and infrastructure
repairs that will support both preparedness and recovery
functions. Similar assistance was provided after Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita.
6. Healthcare and Social Services Disaster Assistance
The Louisiana Hospital Association estimates that the total
financial and operational impact of Hurricane Gustav on
Louisiana's hospitals is as much as $302 million. The
hospitals, many of which were still struggling with post-
Katrina and Rita losses, have sustained reported losses of
net revenue, and have incurred costs for incremental salary
and labor, sheltering and evacuation, facility damage and
debris removal, and other non-ordinary costs attributable to
the storm. An adjustment of the Medicare Wage Index to
address the higher cost of providing services after 2005 and
2008 hurricanes would provide significant relief and allow
these institutions to continue administering critical medical
services.
Additionally, the hospitals are requesting funding for
hazard mitigation and remediation for hardening of facilities
and upgrading of generator capabilities. It became apparent
during the event that many hospitals could not maintain
optimally safe environments with the current capacity of
their generator systems. We are also deeply concerned about
the lack of generator capacity in our state's nursing homes.
Finally, the State of Louisiana is requesting $50 million in
SSBG funding to provide for mental health treatment, primary
care medical services, and repair of damaged foster homes.
These priorities are among the many challenges still facing
our state as we recover from Hurricane Gustav and do not
represent an exhaustive list of recovery needs, especially as
we still assess damages caused by Hurricane Ike. It is with
great hope for the future of the people of Louisiana that we
request this assistance and also request that it be included
in the upcoming stimulus legislation or any other legislative
spending vehicle. Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu and
Commissioner of Agriculture Mike Strain will be in Washington
to discuss these important recovery needs with you and your
staff.
Sincerely,
Governor Bobby Jindal,
State of Louisiana.
Lt. Governor Mitch Landrieu,
State of Louisiana.
Commissioner of Agriculture Mike Strain,
State of Louisiana.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I have a number of the press accounts, and I will just
read for the Record the headlines that are pouring into my office each
day from newspapers around the State. This one:
Ike badly damages Rita-ruined region. Hurricane Ike's
receding storm waters on Monday revealed a footprint of
damage across coastal southwest Louisiana too similar and too
soon after Hurricane Rita of 2005.
Storm report: Vermilion Parish sees tough road ahead.
Again, a Parish hard hit just 3 years ago.
Cameron Parish: ``Still too much water.''
These headlines are streaming into my office.
St. Mary Parish: Cypremort Point residents digging out of
mud.
Barataria to pick up pieces.
St. John, St. Charles dig out, clean up.
16,000 people at Blackham Coliseum--
waiting for help and assistance.
Gustav, Ike set record for power outages in Louisiana.
Finally, as my time draws near:
Storm update: Gustav's damage to Louisiana crops estimated
at hundreds of millions of dollars.
I wish to say on behalf of my friend from Texas, we have some
headlines we received in Louisiana about Galveston and about the
billions in storm damage to our neighbors in Texas, because we have a
situation that I hope our Congress will respond to before we leave
here, some agricultural damage and storm damage for the Gulf Coast
States, and also to reach back and pick up some of that damage we did
not address in the Midwest floods.
I thank my colleagues for their understanding. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
____________________
DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
Mr. DODD. Madam President, I know the Senator from Michigan is maybe
doing so, but as I understand it, there was objection raised to the
consideration of a managers' amendment regarding, I guess, 100
amendments. One of those amendments is a proposal of Senator Shelby and
I, along with a unanimous vote of our Banking Committee, after lengthy
discussion. It was the Iran sanctions proposal, which took a lot of
work and effort to put together.
This was a comprehensive package, widely endorsed across the country
by organizations to give us the kind of leverage necessary for us to
bring Iran to the negotiating table diplomatically to reduce the threat
that their potential nuclear arsenal poses to us, our allies, the State
of Israel and others.
I appreciate the fact that the managers of this bill had included
this amendment in their managers' package. It would be a great
travesty, in my view, for us to leave here having the other body having
adopted similar language. This is the one opportunity for this body to
embrace an economic sanctions proposal which would give us tremendous
leverage in our efforts to bring Iran to that table.
To lose that opportunity would be a serious loss of opportunity for
this country. So, again, my dear friend from Virginia was here.
Therefore, on behalf of those of us on the committee, unanimously, the
Dodd-Shelby Iran sanctions divestment nonproliferation amendment to the
DOD authorization bill, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
any agreement with respect to S. 3001, it be in order for the Senate to
consider amendment No. 5572 and that the amendment be considered and
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, and I will object, I wish
to advise the Senator that the vote to take place right now is on final
passage. It has been agreed to by unanimous consent. Prior thereto, the
distinguished chairman raised the question of the package to which you
refer.
I, personally, approved of putting in the amendment. It had been my
hope, I say it is now no longer my hope, my disappointment, that that
could not be achieved along with about 100 other amendments from both
sides of the aisle.
So at this time I have to object and ask the Chair for regular order
for the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________
CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is closed.
____________________
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of S. 3001, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A 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.
Pending:
Reid amendment No. 5290, to change the enactment date.
Reid amendment No. 5291 (to amendment No. 5290), of a
perfecting nature.
Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today in support of the fiscal
year 2009 Defense Authorization Act, a critical piece of legislation
that honors the
[[Page 19392]]
men and women who are so honorably serving in the Armed Forces and that
provides our military with the tools it needs to keep our country safe.
I am most proud of the investments this legislation makes in our
military's most important resource--the men and women who serve in
uniform. Recognizing the strain multiple deployments and difficult
economic times has placed on our troops and their families, this bill
increases military pay by 3.9 percent.
This bill goes further to make sure that we keep our military strong
at a time when two wars have overstretched and overstressed our troops.
The bill allows us to grow our military. By increasing the end strength
of the Army, Marine Corps, Air National Guard, and Army Reserve, we can
reduce the stress on our troops caused by multiple and extended
deployments. And we can be sure we have the troops we need to meet
future challenges in an ever more uncertain world.
This bill continues bonuses and incentives that reward our military
men and women and encourage them to continue their service. It provides
new incentives to military psychologists and nursing students to
address the ongoing shortages in these critical areas. The legislation
prohibits the Administration's proposed increase in TRICARE fees for
retirees and reservists.
While medical treatment for wounded soldiers has improved
dramatically over the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, too
often that care is just too hard to access. I believe that managing
paperwork and scheduling appointments in a timely and efficient manner
is just as much a part of quality medical care as the treatment
provided by medics and surgeons.
Last year this Congress acted aggressively to address the red tape
that kept our wounded warriors from their doctors and counselors. The
Wounded Warrior Act allowed the Department of Defense to address the
substandard living conditions, poor outpatient care and bureaucratic
roadblocks faced by injured soldiers at Walter Reed and around the
country.
One month ago, I visited a soldier transition unit at Ft. Meade, MD.
I saw firsthand how hard our wounded warriors are working to recover
from their often devastating injuries. I saw a Department of Defense
that has recommitted itself to making sure our wounded warriors and
their families get the care and support they need and deserve. This
bill requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs
continue the Senior Oversight Committee that oversees implementation of
wounded warrior initiatives. This high level leadership is critical if
we are going to continue to improve the quality of care we provide our
troops.
Investments in growing the force as well as in providing fair pay and
good benefits are smart investments in our military's most valuable
resource. Our military is only as strong as the skilled and dedicated
men and women who serve.
Even with all the important provisions in this bill, I think it can
be even better. It's been 60 years since President Harry S. Truman
ended racial segregation in the military. In the intervening years,
military leaders have come to believe that maintaining a highly
qualified, diverse military--from the enlisted ranks to the four-star
generals and admirals--is essential to the military's ability to
provide for our national security. A military that clearly reflects
equal opportunity for everyone is critical, not only for morale, but
also for readiness. Just look at the increasingly diverse enemies we
confront and the divergent environments into which we send our troops.
But despite future projections of minority growth in the United
States, a recent senior-level Department of Defense projection found
virtually no prospect for reaching adequate representation of
minorities or women in the higher military ranks in the next decade. I
am proud that increasing the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of our
military leadership has become a strategic priority for the Department
of Defense. The Department commissioned the Rand Corporation to make
recommendations for how it could improve.
Issued in 2008, the Rand Corporation's report, titled Planning for
Diversity, found that the Department of Defense remains ill prepared to
retain and promote minorities and women to leadership positions.
Specifically, the Department is still without a uniform definition of
diversity as well as a department-wide plan to guide, support, and
streamline diversity efforts. On the heels of the 60th anniversary of
integration of the Armed Forces, we can and must do better.
I filed an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 Defense Authorization
Act that would jump start the creation of a strategic plan for
achieving this departmental priority: ensuring diversity at all levels
of the military. My amendment would create a high-level task force to
study the current state of diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces
and make recommendations for improvement. The task force would consist
of senior members of the Armed Forces as well as individuals with
expertise in cultivating and managing diversity in private or non-
profit organizations. The task force would develop the first
department-wide definition of diversity, evaluate existing policies for
encouraging diversity in and outside the military, and make
recommendations for future action for increasing diversity at all
levels and in all areas of the military departments.
The amendment builds on a provision included in the House Defense
Authorization bill and incorporates comments by the Department of
Defense. The Department stated in formal comments that it ``welcome[s]
the assistance that would come from the work proposed by the
legislation.''
I am grateful to my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus,
especially Congressman Elijah E. Cummings, Congresswoman Diane E.
Watson, Congressman Hank Johnson, and Congressman Kendrick B. Meek who
have worked so hard on this issue and on this provision. I am very
disappointed today that the amendment could neither receive a vote nor
be included in the bill by unanimous agreement. I hope that as the
managers of this bill work to finalize the fiscal year 2009 Defense
Authorization Act, they will consider the language I have proposed to
increase diversity at all levels of the Armed Forces.
Mr. President, in closing, I commend my colleagues Chairman Levin,
Senator Warner, and all the other members of the Armed Services
Committee for their hard work to craft and pass this bill. I look
forward to casting my vote to support it. I also want to take a moment
to congratulate Senator Warner for his work on countless other critical
pieces of legislation in years past. I will miss his wise counsel on
issues of national and regional importance, I will miss his good humor,
and I will miss his grace. I wish him only the best in retirement.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the 2009
Defense authorization bill. I will vote in favor of this legislation
primarily because I support pay raises for our troops, but I have some
very serious concerns about how this bill came to the floor.
This $612.5 billion measure will authorize spending for national
security programs in the Defense and Energy departments. That includes
$70 billion to fight the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a
3.9 percent pay raise for military personnel. I proudly support those
appropriations.
In the last year and a half, we have made incredible progress in our
war against the terrorists, and in building a sustainable democracy in
the heart of the Arab world. Since General Petraeus became the U.S.
Senior Commander in Iraq. al-Qaida has been swept from its former
strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. Roadside bomb attacks and
fatalities in Iraq have fallen by nearly 90 percent. The Iraqis--
through organizations such as ``The Sons of Iraq''--are taking more
responsibility for their security.
General Petraeus recently left his position as Commanding General in
Iraq to become the Commander of U.S. Central Command. The task of
leading U.S. forces in Iraq now rests in the capable hands of GEN Ray
Odierno. I
[[Page 19393]]
commend General Odierno on his promotion, and on behalf of all America,
I wish him success in completing the ``surge strategy.''
We must resist calls for premature withdrawal from Iraq and maintain
our presence there until victory is secure. Today's appropriations bill
gives us the resources to continue that mission. However, the U.S.
Senate has a long history of allowing members of both the majority and
the minority to offer amendments, debate changes, and ensure that the
concerns and ideas of every Senator are addressed. Traditionally a
majority of Senators will decide an issue after bipartisan
deliberation. But in this case, the Senate majority leader decided the
issue with no input from the minority.
The 110th Congress has experienced a record number of cloture votes--
due in no small part to the tactics employed by the majority. The
methods by which this bill came to the floor are not in the best long-
term interests of the Senate. They are not in the best interests of the
American people. The citizens of our country deserve better.
I am glad that our brave service members will have the armaments and
equipment they need, and that our veterans will have the health care
and other benefits they deserve.
Once again, I will vote for this legislation because the risk to our
soldiers and veterans is too great. Time simply ran out. But we should
all be concerned by the manner in which this bill was presented.
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I regret that again this year I must vote
against the National Defense Authorization Act. I support many of the
provisions in this bill, which authorizes the activities of the
Department of Defense, including important research, development and
procurement funding to improve our Armed Forces and the operations and
maintenance funding necessary to ensure the smooth running of the
military services over the coming year. I support these activities,
which not only benefit those servicemembers currently serving overseas
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also help build a strong and effective
military for the future. I applaud the fine work of Senator Levin and
Senator Warner and the staff of the Committee on Armed Services for
their efforts in putting together a bill that is, in most ways, a good
piece of legislation.
However, S. 3001 also provides authorization for the funding of
continued operations in Iraq at levels requested by the Bush
administration and without any provision to either transition the
military mission in Iraq or to bring our troops home. In my view,
providing this funding without conditions, without strings attached, is
unacceptable.
In my view, the Congress should not continue to write blank checks
for the prosecution of this apparently endless war in Iraq. In effect,
this bill also provides a congressional authorization to fund the
continuation of President Bush's policy in Iraq into 2009, without any
strings attached. Amendments filed that would have limited the mission
of U.S. forces in Iraq were not even considered during debate on the
bill. That is truly unfortunate.
Continuing to prosecute this war at the current rate is straining our
military to the breaking point. Many units and individuals are enduring
their third and fourth rotations to Iraq, and because no limits have
been placed on the mission or force levels, there is no end in sight,
despite efforts to declare the surge a success in bringing stability to
Iraq. More and more military analysts are warning that the U.S. Armed
Forces are at risk for becoming a ``hollow force,'' as happened after
the Vietnam conflict, putting our entire Nation at greater risk.
Our military commanders in Afghanistan are urgently requesting
additional and substantial numbers of troops to counter the rising
violence there, but there are few troops to spare for them. As a
result, we risk losing whatever gains have been made there, in the
actual central front of the war on terror and the hunt for Osama bin
Laden and the al-Qaida organization. We must win that fight, there, or
face more attacks like the one that took place today against the U.S.
embassy in Yemen.
I support our troops and I will not let them to lack for anything
needed to do their job or to keep them safe. But I cannot countenance
leaving them in Iraq forever, with no limits placed on their mission
and no assurances by our commander in Iraq that this war is making the
United States any safer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all postcloture time
is yielded back, the pending amendments are withdrawn, and the clerk
will read the title of the bill for the third time.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read
the third time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a significant second.
The yeas and nays are ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
My 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 88, nays 8, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 201 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Clinton
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
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
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--8
Allard
Byrd
Coburn
DeMint
Feingold
Graham
Sanders
Vitter
NOT VOTING--4
Biden
Kennedy
McCain
Obama
The bill (S. 3001), as amended, was passed, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The bill (S. 3002) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009
for the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, was considered,
ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as amended, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The bill (S. 3003) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009
for military construction, and for other purposes, was considered,
ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read the third time, and
passed, as amended, as follows:
[[Page 19394]]
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
____________________
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
The bill (S. 3004) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009
for defense activities of the Department of Energy, and for other
purposes, was considered, ordered to be engrossed for a third reading,
read the third time, and passed, as amended, as follows:
(The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
Mr. NELSON of Florida. 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. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this bill is the 47th consecutive national
defense authorization bill that has come out of the committee and been
brought to the Senate floor for debate and passage. Every year since
1961, the Senate has met the challenge, overcome obstacles, and
negotiated ourselves to the point of final passage. Because of the
vital importance of this bill to the men and women of our Armed Forces
and to the Nation, this was a bill that was worth fighting for for
passage. It is part of the rich tradition of the Senate. We all can be
proud of that tradition.
It is also part of our custom to thank our staffs and Members. For
some this sounds routine, but it never should be.
My thanks go to the ranking member, Senator McCain. His leadership
helped forge this bill through the committee.
I next acknowledge our former chairman particularly, Senator Warner,
because of everything he did to make this bill possible and to get to
the point where we are today. Working within arm's reach of John Warner
for the past 29 years has truly been one of the highlights, if not the
highlight, of my Senate career. He is truly a good friend, not just to
me and my wife Barbara but also to this institution and to the Nation.
He has stood watch over national defense for almost three decades, with
unwavering dedication. Before that, he stood watch because of his being
Secretary of the Navy. Because of his being in the Navy, the Marines,
he is truly a profile in courage. Next year, we promise we will pick up
his banner. We will carry on in his honor, just as he has always done
for the Nation.
I thank our majority leader, Senator Reid, and his floor staff and
give them a special word of thanks for giving us the time to get this
bill to the Senate and through the Senate.
To our committee members, thanks for your great work on a bipartisan
basis the entire year. This bill could not have gotten to this point,
with all of our problems, all the bumps in the road--and there are many
that lie ahead--but we could not have gotten to this point without the
bipartisan support of the Armed Services Committee and our staff.
We have one-quarter of the Senate on our committee. We have worked
together in committee, and our differences on this bill did not divide
us, as we reported the bill by unanimous vote.
To Charlie Armstrong in the Office of the Senate Legislative Counsel,
thank you for drafting about 300 amendments. We wish more of them could
have been adopted, but, nonetheless, they had to be drafted, and we had
to do what we do, which is to do everything we can to get Members'
amendments passed.
To our committee staff members, thank you. That is about all we can
say. You have earned our thanks and the recognition of the Senate for
the time and dedication you have shown on this legislation. Rick
DeBobes, who is our staff director, and Mike Kostiw, who is our
Republican staff director, and their talented staffs worked amazingly
hard.
We have a lot of work ahead of us to get to the point where we can
pass a bill in the next couple of weeks. We have a huge amount of work.
I hate to tell them that, but they know it. They also know, I hope, how
appreciated they are. They work 24/7, and they work magic, and they
always seem to believe that sleep is overrated. It is not. I hope they
can get some in the next few days. So thank you to our staff. They
deserve tremendous recognition for their professionalism. As an
expression of the gratitude of the members of our committee, I ask
unanimous consent that the names of the members of our staff be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Staff of the Committee on Armed Services
Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director; Michael V. Kostiw,
Republican Staff Director; June M. Borawski, Printing and
Documents Clerk; Leah C. Brewer, Nominations and Hearings
Clerk; Joseph M. Bryan, Professional Staff Member; William M.
Caniano, Professional Staff Member; Jonathan D. Clark,
Counsel; Ilona R. Cohen, Counsel; David G. Collins, Research
Assistant; Christine E. Cowart, Chief Clerk; Madelyn R.
Creedon, Counsel; Kevin A. Cronin, Staff Assistant; Marie F.
Dickinson, Administrative Assistant for the Minority;
Gabriella Eisen, Counsel; Richard W. Fieldhouse, Professional
Staff Member; Creighton Greene, Professional Staff Member;
Gary J. Howard, Systems Administrator; Paul C. Hutton IV,
Professional Staff Member; Mark R. Jacobson, Professional
Staff Member; Gregory T. Kiley, Professional Staff Member;
Jessica L. Kingston, Staff Assistant; Michael J. Kuiken,
Professional Staff Member; Mary J. Kyle, Legislative Clerk.
Christine G. Lang, Receptionist; Gerald J. Leeling,
Counsel; Peter K. Levine, General Counsel; Thomas K.
McConnell, Professional Staff Member; Michael J. McCord,
Professional Staff Member; William G. P. Monahan, Counsel;
David M. Morriss, Minority Counsel; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
Professional Staff Member; Michael J. Noblet, Professional
Staff Member; Ali Z. Pasha, Staff Assistant; Christopher J.
Paul, Professional Staff Member; Cindy Pearson, Assistant
Chief Clerk and Security Manager; John H. Quirk V, Security
Clerk; Lynn F. Rusten, Professional Staff Member; Brian F.
Sebold, Staff Assistant; Arun A. Seraphin, Professional Staff
Member; Travis E. Smith, Special Assistant; Robert M. Soofer,
Professional Staff Member; William K. Sutey, Professional
Staff Member; Diana G. Tabler, Professional Staff Member;
Mary Louise Wagner, Professional Staff Member; Richard F.
Walsh, Minority Counsel; Breon N. Wells, Staff Assistant.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
____________________
ADVANCING AMERICA'S PRIORITIES ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 894, S.
3297, and I 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 legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 894, S. 3297, the Advancing America's
Priorities Act.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Sherrod Brown, Thomas R. Carper,
Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Durbin,
Ron Wyden, Jon Tester, Patrick J. Leahy, Charles E.
Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Claire McCaskill, Ken
Salazar, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K. Inouye,
Christopher J. Dodd.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now withdraw that motion.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
____________________
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND JOB CREATION ACT OF 2008--MOTION TO PROCEED
Cloture Motion
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 767, H.R.
6049, and I believe there is a cloture motion at the desk that the
clerk will report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
[[Page 19395]]
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 Calendar No. 767, H.R. 6049, the Renewable Energy
and Job Creation Act of 2008.
Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Sherrod Brown, Thomas R. Carper,
Robert Menendez, Sheldon Whitehouse, Richard Durbin,
Ron Wyden, Jon Tester, Robert P. Casey, Jr., Patrick J.
Leahy, Charles E. Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Claire
McCaskill, Ken Salazar, Benjamin L. Cardin, Daniel K.
Inouye, Christopher J. Dodd.
____________________
MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators allowed to speak
therein for up to 10 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
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. 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.
____________________
THE ECONOMY
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, since I took office last year, I have held
more than 115 roundtables in nearly all of Ohio's 88 counties--from
Ashtabula to Cincinnati, from Bryan the Gallipolis--as I bring together
15 or 20 people from a community and listen to them talk about their
hopes and their dreams and what we can do together to make Ohio a
better place and to move this country forward. But more than anything
else, as I listen to people in communities such as Bucyrus and
Mansfield and Wauseon, I hear about widespread economic anxiety and a
betrayed middle class.
Ohioans have understood that for years, especially in the first 6
years of the Bush administration, this government allowed the drug
companies to write the Medicare laws, allowed the oil industry to
dictate energy policy, had allowed Wall Street to push through job-
killing trade agreements through the House and the Senate.
They feel the middle class was betrayed by our Government. I hear
from Ohioans worried about record high gas prices, worried about food
prices, worried about good-paying jobs continuing to move overseas,
worried about health insurance that costs more and covers less.
Some of these worries can be blamed in part on our current recession,
but that misses the larger point. For the last 7 years, the labor force
workers have worked harder and harder, leading to huge gains in
productivity. The productivity of workers in our economy has gone up
like this. Yet CEOs' salaries and bonuses went through the roof while
middle class Americans' wages stagnated and more families slipped below
the poverty line. Again, productivity has gone up like this, meaning
workers are creating more wealth for their employers, but wages have
been stagnant for 80 or 90 percent of the workforce.
In other words, as workers have produced more, as workers have been
more productive, as workers have made more money for their bosses, if
you will, they simply have not shared in the wealth they created. They
are not getting raises. They are paying more for health insurance, they
are seeing their pensions begin to disintegrate, as they are making
more and more money for their employer.
At the same time, while China manipulated its currency and ignored
labor and environmental standards, corporations took the bait and
abandoned American communities. While hedge fund managers irresponsibly
leveraged real estate holdings, millions of Americans lost their homes
to foreclosures. In other words, while Wall Street enjoyed an inflated
stock market and a so-called economic expansion, most Americans
actually became worse off.
In the last few weeks, we know things have gotten worse. The
Government has been forced to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lehman
Brothers, an institution on Wall Street for 150 years, filed for
bankruptcy on Monday. It is also reported that for the 8th straight
month, our Nation has lost jobs. The national unemployment rate is now
6.1 percent--a 5-year high. We know what happened to AIG today.
Mr. President, 9.4 million Americans are officially unemployed, 2.2
million more than a year ago--tens of thousands in my State of Ohio. In
fact, you have to go back more than 15 years, to December 1992, to find
a time when more Americans were forced to rely on the Government for
their income.
In my State of Ohio, middle class workers are facing even more bad
news. DHL, the cargo express carrier, has announced that more than
8,000 workers at Wilmington Air Park, the largest privately owned
airport in the United States, will lose their jobs. Norwalk Furniture
halted operations earlier this month, sending 500 employees home.
General Motors is closing its plant in Moraine, a decision that will
cost 1,200 Ohioans their livelihoods.
Do you know what. The worst part is this: The administration is proud
of this record. They are proud of the free trade agreements that have
protected corporate interests, that have eliminated good-paying
manufacturing jobs, that have brought unsafe food, drugs, and toys into
American homes. They are proud of these free trade agreements, and they
want more of them.
They are proud of the tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the
wealthy and ignored the plight of the middle class. We know what that
has meant. It has meant budget deficits as far as the eye can see. It
has meant more money for the wealthiest people in this society, paid
for by the middle class, and paid for by our children and our
grandchildren of the future. Yet they are proud of these tax cuts that
go overwhelmingly to the rich. The administration is proud of the
financial deregulation that allowed greed on Wall Street to run amok.
These days, Republicans respond to critics by saying: Things aren't
so bad. John McCain, our colleague from Arizona, said: The foundations
of the economy are strong. Former Senator Phil Gramm, the mentor of
Senator McCain, the chief economic adviser to Senator McCain, said: The
recession is in our heads. It is a mental recession, he said.
I guess if you think things are going well, you advocate for more of
the same, which is why Republicans continue to push for more tax cuts
for corporations that outsource jobs overseas, pushing more energy
policies that enrich oil companies and reinforce our dependence on
foreign oil, pushing for more subsidies for private HMOs participating
in Medicare, pushing more antiunion policies that undercut workers'
power to bargain collectively and join the middle class, pushing for
more hypocrisy that says we can afford to spend $10 billion a month in
Iraq; we just cannot find the money to help uninsured children in
Columbus or Zanesville or Dayton or Chillicothe or Springfield or
Xenia.
In fact, since we had our last vote, about an hour ago, we have spent
some $19 million on the war in Iraq. In the last hour, we have spent
about $19 million on the war in Iraq. Think what that could do for
health care, for education, for rebuilding our infrastructure in Lima
and in Portsmouth and in Chillicothe. Perhaps most troubling of all,
Republicans are still, unbelievably enough, pushing for the
privatization of Social Security. Can my colleagues imagine--Senator
Sanders and I were talking about this a moment ago--if 3 years ago,
when George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain were fighting to
privatize Social Security, and people in this institution, including
Leader Reid and Senator Sanders, when he was in the House of
Representatives, and many of us fought against that privatization of
Social Security--can my colleagues imagine if that had passed in early
2005? If the President
[[Page 19396]]
and Senator McCain had had their way on the privatization of Social
Security, can my colleagues imagine what this week would look like? Can
my colleagues imagine, if 50 million retired Americans had had their
entire life savings locked up in the stock market--can my colleagues
imagine 50 million Americans opening their Social Security records,
their mailing they get from Social Security and looking at what
happened to their private accounts; money they had put in the stock
market because George Bush and John McCain insisted on this risky
scheme to privatize Social Security? Can my colleagues imagine what
that would do to seniors in our society? Can my colleagues imagine what
that would do to their future--if you are 65 and already on Social
Security, if you are 50 and your mother is on Social Security, if you
are about to join the ranks of Social Security? Can my colleagues
imagine what one would think with food prices going up, with gas prices
going up and all of a sudden, because you have these John McCain-George
Bush privatized Social Security accounts, can my colleagues imagine
what would be happening to their lives this week and the weeks ahead?
Despite 7 years of this tired thinking and of the wrong-headed
economic policies that betray our middle class, American workers are
standing strong and continuing to fight for a better future.
At my roundtables--as I mentioned, I have done some 1,500 roundtables
in most of Ohio's 88 counties, in Cambridge and in Steubenville and in
Defiance and in Miami County, all over--I still hear the hope and
determination that defines this great Nation. I hear from community
leaders. I hear from entrepreneurs with exciting plans for the future.
What is happening with the incubator in Youngstown? What is happening
with small business in Delaware? I hear about what people in Mansfield,
my hometown, are doing to fight back. I hear from small business owners
who are continuing to do the right thing. I hear from their loyal
workers who take pride in their work and are valued by their employers.
They tell us we need a government that similarly values loyalty and
work ethic.
For too long, those in power have simply turned their back on
American workers. They have ignored their needs and their dreams--the
dreams of the middle class. They have instead catered to the wealthiest
Americans. We know that a strong middle class builds a prosperous
society and is the engine that makes this country go. But it doesn't
have to be the way we have seen in the last few years where this
Government in Washington--that allowed the drug companies to write the
Medicare law; that allowed the oil industry to write energy policy;
that allows Wall Street to push through job-killing trade agreements--
all of this betrayal of the middle class from George Bush to Dick
Cheney to John McCain, to far too many of my colleagues in this body
and down the hall in the House of Representatives--people have had
enough of this betrayal of the middle class. It doesn't have to be that
way. The sooner we change direction, the sooner our economic woes will
be behind us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by concurring with Senator
Brown. He raised a very important issue, and that is: In the midst of a
major economic crisis, when people today--especially senior citizens on
fixed incomes--are wondering about how they are going to heat their
homes, how they are going to purchase the food they need--I wonder
about 3 years ago, had we listened to President Bush, if we had
listened to John McCain, if we had listened to the Republican
leadership and we had privatized Social Security--can one begin to
imagine the anxiety that would be existing all over this country in
terms of senior citizens wondering what kind of retirement they would
have, what kind of funding would be there for their remaining years? So
thank goodness we did not follow the advice of President Bush and John
McCain and the Republican leadership; thank goodness we kept Social
Security strong.
Yesterday I came to the floor to discuss the interconnection of the
two great crises that are currently facing our country. The first, of
course, is the financial crisis--the collapse of major Wall Street
firms--and secondly is the very serious problem of high and volatile
energy prices, whether it is $3.70 for a gallon of gas to put in your
car, or whether it is very high oil prices this coming winter to heat
your home. Both of these problems clearly are having a major impact on
middle-income families from one end of this country to the other.
In terms of the financial crisis, the American people are finding it
harder and harder to get a mortgage or a home equity line of credit.
They are seeing the equity in their homes going down, and they are
seeing the values of their savings, including their 401(k) savings,
plummeting. What anxiety is existing all over this country. People have
put money into their 401(k), the stock market is going down rapidly,
and people are wondering what is going to take place for their economic
future.
In terms of the energy crisis, the American people have been forced
to pay tens of billions of dollars more in inflated energy prices
because of the outrageous price levels caused by speculation occurring
in unregulated energy markets. We have heard testimony from energy
economists who are telling us that between 25 percent to 50 percent of
the cost of a barrel of oil today has nothing to do with supply and
demand, it has nothing to do with marketplace fundamentals; it has to
do with speculation on the part of financial institutions that are
driving oil prices higher, and now, by the way, with that money coming
out of oil futures, driving prices down, creating a lot of volatility.
I laid out yesterday the connection between those two crises. Both of
these crises are tied to the same extreme economic ideology--an
ideology which says the Government should play no role--or a minimum
role--in protecting consumers; that we should put all of our trust in
the honesty and the integrity of the heads of large multinational
corporations.
I should mention that both of these crises are also tied to the work
of one former Member of the U.S. Senate, and that is the former
chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Phil Gramm of Texas. To a
significant degree, a lot of what we are experiencing today is related
to the disastrous changes to Federal law that deregulated both the
energy industry and the financial industry, and that effort was led by
former Senator Gramm.
To recap, as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in 1999, then-
Senator Phil Gramm, spearheaded legislation that bears his name, and
that is the so-called Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill that broke down critical
regulatory safeguards that the Government put in place after the Great
Depression to prevent exactly what we are experiencing today. Having
laid the groundwork for our crisis in the financial sector, the very
next year, amazingly enough, Senator Gramm is credited with slipping
legislation into a largely unrelated bill that deregulated the
electronic energy market. Shockingly, when he slipped this measure into
the law, a measure we now know as the Enron loophole, Senator Gramm's
wife, Wendy Gramm, had recently been on the board of directors of--you
guessed it--the Enron Corporation.
This deregulation of the energy markets has allowed speculators to
drive up the price of a barrel of oil to as high as $147 and, as I
mentioned earlier, there are many economists who believe the volatility
and the high price of oil today is not supply and demand primarily, but
it is because of speculation on the part of financial institutions and
hedge funds.
Now, as bad as things were yesterday, last night they got even worse.
Last night, the Bush administration nationalized the world's largest
insurance
[[Page 19397]]
company: AIG. The Bush administration claimed it had to put $85 billion
of taxpayer money at risk because AIG's collapse would have brought
down perhaps our entire economy--the entire economy of this country--
and had a major impact on the entire world's economy. Let me ask the
same question about AIG today that I asked yesterday about the energy
and financial crises this country is facing, and that is: Is this bad
luck? Why is this happening? We need to understand that, because the
risks are enormous and the amount of money we are dealing with--
trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars--is literally beyond
comprehension. I think very few people can understand the scope and the
magnitude of what we are dealing with.
Well, it turns out the AIG situation is closely tied to the same
rightwing economic ideology that has been pushing us toward economic
disaster, and the responsibility for AIG's near collapse lies, again,
with that same philosophy which has been led by former Senator Phil
Gramm.
As a very recent online article from Time magazine explains, AIG's
traditional insurance business seems to be doing well in what they have
been doing for many years. They are, in fact, making money. But what
AIG got involved in was more than the traditional insurance business.
They got involved in risky derivative schemes that about three people
in the world understand called credit default swaps, or CDS's that
allow big companies to guarantee each other's risky lending practices.
This is extremely complicated stuff--a long way away from where we were
10 or 15 years ago.
Now in order to give the American people a full understanding of the
risks posed by these unregulated credit default swaps--unregulated
credit default swaps--I wish to read a short September 15 article by
Professor Peter Cohen, a graduate of the Wharton School, that deals
with the full scope of the problem we face and the role that Senator
Gramm had in its creation. I apologize to anybody who is listening.
What is following is technical, it is a bit boring, but when we are
dealing with trillions of dollars, I think it is important that we try
to understand this. This is what Professor Cohen writes:
Lurking in the background of this weekend's collapse of two
of Wall Street's biggest names is a $62 trillion segment of
the $450 trillion market for derivatives that grew huge
thanks to John McCain's chief economic advisor, Phil
``Americans are Whiners'' Gramm.
Let me just go through these numbers again, because these numbers are
so huge. When the Presiding Officer and I represent our State, we fight
for a few million dollars here and a few million dollars there, and
that makes a lot of difference to the people of Colorado or the people
of Vermont. What we are dealing with is so incomprehensible: It is a
$62 trillion segment of the $450 trillion market for derivatives. Who
can even understand what that means? A $450 trillion market, what does
that mean?
Now, all of this occurred, all of this deregulated activity, of which
the Government plays no role, took place because in December of 2000,
Senator Gramm snuck in--snuck in--a 262-page amendment. That is what
goes on around here. We can sneak in 262-page amendments to a
government reauthorization bill that created what is now the $62
trillion market for credit default swaps, or CDS's.
Continuing to quote:
I realize it is painful to read about yet another Wall
Street acronym, but this is important because it will help us
understand why the global financial markets are collapsing.
CDSs are like insurance policies for bondholders. In exchange
for a premium, the bondholders get insurance in case the
bondholder can't pay. . . . In the case of the 1.4 trillion
dollars' worth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, the
Government's nationalization last Sunday triggered the CDSs
on those bonds. The people who received the CDS premiums are
now obligated to deliver those bonds to the ones who paid the
premiums.
Professor Cohen continues:
Gramm's 262-page amendment, dubbed ``The Commodity Futures
Modernization Act''--
We have heard that term--
``The Commodity Futures Modernization Act,'' according to
the Texas Observer, freed financial institutions from
oversight of their CDS transactions.
That is the important thing, they became deregulated. The Government
no longer was able to see what was going on.
``Prior to its passage, they say, banks underwrote
mortgages and were responsible for the risks involved.''
You went to a bank, you got a mortgage, the bank took responsibility,
they lost money, they made money, that was the transaction.
``Now, through the use of CDSs--which in theory insure the
banks against bad debts--those risks are passed along to
insurance companies and other investors,'' wrote the Texas
Observer.
Still, in Professor Cohen's article:
How does this relate to Lehman's bankruptcy? ``CDSs were a
key factor in encouraging lenders to feel they could make
loans without knowing the risks or whether the loan would be
paid back.''
When you and I were younger, Mr. President, banks knew the people to
whom they made loans. They didn't give a loan to somebody they knew
would not be able to pay it back. But that is no longer the case.
``The Commodity Futures Modernization Act freed them of
Federal oversight . . . '' And it was due to these CDSs that
Wall Street held an emergency session yesterday to try to
minimize the damage of Lehman's CDSs and other derivatives.
Unfortunately, the session did not produce much, thanks to
the built-in lack of knowledge of the risks in these
transactions that Gramm's legislation ensured. You are going
to be reading more and more about CDSs over the months ahead.
Professor Cohen continues:
It will become as familiar as the phrase subprime
mortgage--
Which, unfortunately, many of us now are familiar with--
was in the year 2007. Unfortunately--
Get this, this is quite amazing--
there were ``only'' $1.3 trillion worth of subprime mortgages
and the CDS market is 48 times bigger than that.
Forty-eight times bigger than the subprime market--
and more than four times bigger than the U.S. GDP. And since
nobody has ever had to deal with this volume of CDS
unwindings, it is impossible to calculate how much they will
cost.
In other words, what has happened as a result of Senator Gramm's
legislation is, unbelievable amounts of money have been traded,
accumulated without anybody really knowing what is going on. Now we are
left trying to pick up the remains of those problems.
Professor Cohen's article is compelling because it tells us how huge
this crisis is and why we have every reason to fear that AIG may well
be just the first of many companies involved in risky investments that
the American people will have to bail out.
The time for hand wringing is over. This Congress needs to put an end
to the radical deregulation that was pushed by Senator Phil Gramm and
many other Republicans, and there were Democrats who went along with
that as well. We need to put the safety walls back up in the financial
services sector. We need to regulate the electronic energy markets. We
need to end the use of unregulated credit default swaps. In other
words, what we need to do once again is have the U.S. Government play
an important role in protecting the people of this country against the
greed of large corporate interests.
Unfortunately, the response from the administration and Wall Street
is not to do that but to push for further consolidation in the
financial services sector. Here is just an amazing thing. The argument
we are hearing over and over again is that AIG was too big to fail, and
what we are now creating are institutions that are even larger than
AIG. And 10 years from now, when these institutions are threatened with
collapse, there will be people coming up saying: Oh my goodness, we
can't allow those to fail; we have to bail those out as well.
This country can no longer afford companies that are too big to fail.
If a company is so large that its failure would cause systemic harm to
our economy, if it is too big to fail, then it is too big to exist. If
it is too big to
[[Page 19398]]
fail, it is too big to exist. We need, as a Congress, to assess which
companies fall in this category. Bank of America is certainly one of
them. Those companies need to be broken apart. We cannot have companies
so huge that if they go under they take the world economy with them.
Then once we break them up, if a company wants to act in a risky
manner, if they want to take risks in order to make some quick bucks,
that is OK. If they want to take the risk and they want to lose money,
that is OK. The American people should not have to, and would not be
under those circumstances, be left to pick up the pieces.
Finally, in terms of dealing with this unfolding disaster, we need to
make sure working Americans, the middle class, do not foot the bill. If
the economic calamity requires a Federal bailout, it should be paid for
by those people who actually benefited from the reckless behavior of
people empowered by the extreme economic views of Senator Gramm,
President Bush, Senator McCain, and many others.
In other words, the point I am making is that in the last 10 years,
many of these people have made billions and billions of dollars. It is
unfair to simply ask the middle-class working families who are trying
to figure out how they are going to pay their fuel bills, how they are
going to send their kids to college, to bail out these large
institutions from which many people made huge amounts of profits.
We don't talk about this too often, but today the wealthiest one-
tenth of 1 percent earns more income than the bottom 50 percent. The
top 1 percent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. And the
wealthiest 400 Americans in this country have not only seen their
incomes double, their net worth has increased by $640 billion since
George W. Bush has been in office.
Can you believe that? Four hundred families, four hundred people,
less than the Congress, have seen a $640 billion increase in their
wealth since President Bush has been in office. And, amazingly, these
400 families are now worth over $1.5 trillion--400 families. On
average, they earn over $214 million a year.
As a result of President Bush's policies, amazingly enough, their tax
rates have been cut almost in half to only 18 percent on average.
Amazingly, the wealthiest 400 Americans pay a lower tax rate than most
police officers, teachers, firefighters, and nurses. So if you are one
of the very wealthiest people in this country, if you are earning $214
million a year on average, you pay a lower tax rate than somebody who
is a police officer, a teacher, a firefighter, or a nurse.
That may make sense to somebody; it does not make sense to me. What
does it say about us as a nation when the middle class pays a greater
percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest 400 Americans?
It is this very small segment of our population that has made out
like bandits--frankly, some of them are bandits--during the Bush
administration. We have to recognize that when we talk about who is
going to pay for the bailouts.
In my view, we need an emergency surtax on those at the very top in
order to pay for any losses the Federal Government suffers as a result
of efforts to shore up the economy. It should not be hard-working
people who are trying to figure out how they are going to keep their
families economically above water, people who are working longer hours
for lower wages, people who have lost their health care, people who
cannot afford to pay their fuel bills this winter. Those are not the
people who should be asked to pay for this bailout. If there is a
bailout that has to be paid for, it should be the people, the segment
of society that has benefited from Bush's economic and tax policies
over the last 8 years.
Before I complete my remarks, I would like to step back for a minute
and examine this current crisis in the context of whom our Government
represents.
What does it say about an administration that is prepared to put $85
billion at risk to bail out AIG but fights tooth and nail against
dealing with the economic crises facing working families in this
country? Mr. President, $85 billion at risk for AIG, some $30 billion
for Bear Stearns, perhaps trillions for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For
those folks there seems to be an endless supply of money. Don't the
American people deserve a Government that views their economic needs as
being as important as the health of large corporations and Wall Street
executives?
Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans
have slipped out of the middle class and into poverty. What was the
administration's response? Was there a bailout for those people who
lost good-paying jobs and are now working for significantly lower
wages? Did President Bush come and say we have to protect those kids in
a society which has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major
country? Are we going to bail out those families? I didn't hear that
from the White House.
Over 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance. More than
4 million Americans have lost their pensions. Over 3 million
manufacturing jobs have been lost. Total consumer debt has more than
doubled since President Bush has been in office. Median income for
working-age Americans has gone down by over $2,000 after inflation.
Where has the Bush administration been in bailing out those families?
Where has the Bush administration been in saying we are going to
provide health care to all Americans? I didn't hear them come forward.
But when it is AIG, when it is Bear Stearns, my goodness, how quickly
they respond. If you are a CEO of a large insurance company, they are
there for you. But if you are a working mother whose kid does not have
any health insurance: I am sorry, we can't afford to take care of you.
I can go on and on about the priorities established by this
administration. The American people should know this President wanted
to cut emergency food assistance for nearly a half million seniors,
mothers, and children. He wanted to cut job training for 161,000 people
and cut childcare assistance for 200,000 children. There is not enough
money to take care of those people. I guess they don't make a whole lot
of campaign contributions.
The President wanted to raise fees on veterans getting health care,
which we, of course, stopped. He fought giving 3 million children
access to health care. He wanted to cut $1 billion from rural housing
when we have a major housing crisis in rural America.
No money for children who don't have any health insurance, no money
for people living in dilapidated housing, no money available for
veterans health care. We can't do that. But if you are AIG, if you are
a large corporation, this Government is there for you.
These people, working families, seniors, veterans, the unemployed--
their problems do not warrant, apparently, an urgent response from the
President. But big insurance companies, big investment houses,
companies that get engaged in risky subprime lending and credit swaps,
my, my, how quickly we respond to them.
The American people deserve better. We need to reject the failed
economic policies and priorities of George W. Bush and John McCain.
Americans need a Government that is not going to let the rich and large
corporations loop our economy. Americans need a Government that will
put regulatory firewalls back up in the financial sector and end the
use of unregulated credit swaps. Americans need a Government that is
going to prevent speculators from robbing them at the gas pump.
Americans need a government that breaks up companies that are too big
to fail. Americans need a government that is going to view their
problems as seriously as they view the problems of corporate America.
Our job is to give the American people that kind of government.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
____________________
PHILIP CLAPP
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly to express
my sadness on the death of Philip Clapp, who was the president and
chief
[[Page 19399]]
executive officer of the National Environmental Trust, from its
founding in 1994 until it merged with the Pew Charitable Trusts this
year, and who served as the deputy managing director of the
Environmental Group of the Pew Charitable Trusts.
There are few of us in the Senate who have not had contact with
Philip and seen the effectiveness of his advocacy on environmental and
energy issues. He formerly served on Tim Wirth's staff when Tim served
as a colleague of ours in the House of Representatives.
Under his guidance, the National Environmental Trust was one of the
major nongovernmental organizations that contributed to international
summits and agreements on climate change-related issues.
I wish to express my condolences to his family and to his many
colleagues here and abroad who will greatly miss him and his leadership
on these issues.
____________________
LEGAL DRINKING AGE
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the debate over the legal drinking age
has continued for decades.
As a physician and surgeon, I have repeatedly dealt firsthand with
the traumatic results of underage drinking.
Recently, a number of college presidents from across the country
signed a public statement petitioning that the current legal drinking
age be lowered to age 18.
I believe changing this law would pose a danger to our youth and
communities.
Wyoming's First Lady, Nancy Freudenthal, wrote an important editorial
addressing drinking on college campuses. It was printed in the Wyoming
Tribune Eagle and the Casper Star Tribune. I believe Mrs. Freudenthal
presents a compelling argument for keeping the minimum drinking age at
21.
I ask unanimous consent to have the editorial to which I referred
printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was
ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Lowering the Drinking Age Is Not a Good Idea
(By Nancy Freudenthal)
When the leaders of our nation's institutions of higher
learning have something to say, we naturally assume that it
will be well-reasoned, responsible and grounded in factual
evidence. That is why it was disappointing to see more than
100 college presidents and chancellors have signed on to what
is now being called the Amethyst Initiative, which seeks to
lower the legal drinking age from 21 to 18 because, as its
proponents claim, ``Twenty-one is not working.''
I am very pleased the University of Wyoming has not signed
on to this initiative, and in fact is addressing drinking on
campus on many fronts, including ``education, training,
enforcement and changing the environment around alcohol
use,'' according to Dean of Students Dave Cozzens.
By viewing this issue through the narrow lens of alcohol-
related problems on campus, these college presidents are
ignoring the broader societal implications of throwing in the
towel on the health and well-being of our young people.
The Amethyst Initiative's solution for reducing binge
drinking and preventing underage drinking is to make alcohol
more readily available to young people, which will only
exacerbate the public health concern of underage drinking.
We believe that such an approach is irresponsible and would
lead to more of the tragic consequences associated with
underage alcohol use documented in the U.S. Surgeon General's
2007 Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce Underage Drinking.
Teen deaths and injuries, traffic accidents, physical
assaults and other violent acts, risky sexual behavior, and
school failure, among other potentially lifelong
consequences, would increase as a result.
Lowering the drinking age also runs counter to scientific
research that shows underage drinking can affect brain
development, which we now know continues into the mid-to late
twenties. Scientific evidence further shows that underage
drinking is related to future alcohol dependence and other
substance abuse.
Approximately 96 percent of alcohol-dependent adults
started drinking before the age of 21.
For the past 20 plus years, so many have worked tirelessly
and diligently to keep our youth and our communities safe and
healthy by reducing the prevalence of alcohol use among those
under 21, with the current legal drinking age limit a large
part of our success.
Although we are under no illusion that problems persist, we
must continue to confront them head on, vigilantly and
responsibly, and resist easy efforts to turn back the clock
and undo years of steady progress.
Seventy-eight percent of Americans oppose lowering the
drinking age from 21 to 18, so the public gets the message.
We recognize that colleges have a tremendous problem with
binge drinking.
Young people are drinking more aggressively than ever
before. The solution is really about changing the culture of
alcohol consumption. In many respects, we have achieved this
change in culture for youth tobacco use. We must now change
the culture as it relates to underage drinking.
The bottom line is children who are connected to family,
community and society are less prone to drink alcohol.
It's just a shame that some college administrators didn't
do their homework, and our children are the ones who would
pay the price.
When children drink, America loses.
____________________
IDAHOANS SPEAK OUT ON HIGH ENERGY PRICES
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, in mid-June, 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 the e-mail address set up for this purpose 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:
The increased energy costs have had a profound effect on my
ability to meet the needs of myself and my family. My oldest
son broke his leg in June 2007. It was a life-threatening
break, he is not healing properly and will continue to be
unable to work for another six months at a minimum. The
family was evicted from their home and are struggling to
survive. They receive food stamps and medical assistance, but
nothing else. Fortunately I have a trailer house, which they
were able to move in to. I currently pay their electricity
and transportation to and from medical appointments, getting
groceries, etc. not to mention extracurricular activities for
the children, as well as my own utilities and gasoline. I
have paid nearly $500 per month during the winter months for
our electricity and am still paying over $300 each month. My
job requires me to travel daily, and I average 500 miles per
week in mileage. With the excessive costs of gasoline and
electricity, I am currently working 45-50 hours each week and
still falling behind on my bills. I do not have credit card
debt, but have a student loan I cannot pay and one other
small loan. My only other debts consist of a house payment,
car payment, and property taxes. I am at risk of losing my
house in a year because I cannot pay the taxes. My ex-husband
is threatening to take the property away because I cannot
afford to pay him $100 per month to finish buying him out. I
will be 51 this month and am not in the best of health--but I
do what I have to in order to provide for myself and my
family. I take medication but am not able to get my
prescription filled because I owe the doctor $44 and he will
not call in a new script until he is paid. That payment to
the doctor is one tank of gas--that is all--and I could die,
or worse have a stroke, without my medication. Something
needs to change, and soon.
Barbara, South Central Idaho.
____
I received your email asking for Idahoans' stories related
to the increase in gas prices, and I appreciate that these
prices are affecting everyone and that you are working to
fight them. Further, I support that you fought the Warner-
Lieberman bill, though probably not for the reasons that you
did. However, I am writing to ask that you do, in fact,
seriously consider Representative Ed Markey's new bill,
``Investing in Climate Action Policy Act.'' While I admit
that I am unsure of the impact that this bill will have on
gas prices, I seriously believe that we must begin to enact
bills that combat climate change. Being from Idaho, I am sure
that we both appreciate the outdoors and how beautiful places
like the Sawtooths and the Frank Church Wilderness are.
However, I feel that the beauty that we are currently able to
find here is threatened by global warming, and I entreat you
to do something
[[Page 19400]]
about it. Representative Markey's bill is a good start.
You asked about the priorities that Congress should set in
resolving the oil crisis, with ``increasing domestic oil
production'' at the top of your list. However, I do not
believe that this is a reasonable option. The U.S. hit peak
oil years ago, there simply is not that much more to get out
of here. Also, when you think of domestic oil, please think
of ANWR. Imagine if, instead of in ANWR, oil was found in the
Sawtooths. Could you really, in good faith, support taking
oil out of the Sawtooths?
Instead, I believe that one of the options you suggested is
by far the best. There should be incentives for conservation
of oil. Ultimately, the incentive will be more money in your
pocket, because quite honestly, I believe the oil prices will
keep going up until it becomes too expensive for people to
use so freely and they begin to conserve it in order to save
money. However, a good short term idea would be to set up
incentives and to invest in alternative fuels. Ultimately, we
will run out of oil and I only hope that when that time comes
we are prepared for it, and prepared to switch entirely to
renewable energy sources.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Samantha, Boise.
____
I am married, with three young kids, ages 9, 7, and 5. I am
a detective for the Ada County Sheriff's Office, and I make
just over $60,000 a year. My wife works part-time out of our
house as a Pampered Chef consultant, and probably makes about
$10-15,000 per year, after taxes and deductions.
We have a strict cash budget, and have no debt except for
our house. We own a 7-year-old Dodge Durango, and a 14-year-
old Chevy Camaro, both gas guzzlers. We are actually in a
pretty good financial position, and are blessed.
We currently budget $100 every two weeks for fuel. This
increased from about $60 recently. Part of the increase was
because we sold our Toyota Corolla (good gas mileage), and
got our Camaro (not so good). However, I would blame most of
the increase on the rising gas prices. (We sold the Corolla
because it was our last debt that we wanted to pay off, and
start over debt free.)
We are able to survive on this $100 because we have reduced
our driving dramatically. We put a lot more thought into our
daily errands, etc. We have been riding our bicycles as much
as possible, but only for short distances because of our
young kids.
Unfortunately, all of this ``thinking'' about our driving
limits our freedom. I have not felt this limited by fuel
costs since I was in high school, and barely had a couple
bucks to put in my gas tank. This past weekend I took my boys
camping. I wanted to go to a favorite place I went to as a
kid, but it is four hours away. Because of gas prices, I was
not able to do that, and settled on CJ Strike Reservoir,
which must be similar to ANWR, a mosquito paradise, so we
left a day early after my son got bit 31 times.
We regular citizens are frustrated at the lack of action by
our Congress. I am not an economist, but I believe the very
statement by our government that we are going to begin using
our own natural resources for energy, would potentially
reduce gas prices. I realize that the liberals in Congress
are the problem. In Idaho, we are blessed by some pretty good
representatives.
I appreciate all you can do for our families.
Take care, and God Bless.
Matt, Meridian.
____
You have got to be kidding!! Only $50 more per month? My
fuel bills have doubled in the last year and you only think
they have gone up $50? What world are you living in? The fact
of the matter is, for a farmer in Idaho, our fuel bills have
nearly doubled. My fuel bill to deliver my fish has gone from
$800 per week to over $1500 per week.
To answer your question, I believe the CEO from Shell when
he said to the Senate, the real cost of oil should be between
$35 and $60 per barrel--all costs over and above that amount
are because of government.
You do not listen, you do not know, and you pretend to
care. (There are many issues that have come before Congress
that have not taken the public's best interests to heart, and
have caused us more expense and trouble. Among those issues
are the Public Employees investment funds, domestic oil
drilling, Chinese allowed to drill right off our own coast
when we cannot, NAFTA, nuclear power support, devaluation of
the dollar, terrorists given rights by the Supreme Court.)
(Given my frustration with Congress, you can imagine how I
feel about your last statement, ``together we can spur some
real action?'' The only thing that seems to happen is the
Congress spends more money and expends a lot of hot air.)
It ought to be interesting when fuel gets to $6.
I doubt anyone on your staff will read this; you certainly
will not, but have a nice day anyway.
Don, Buhl.
____
I, being a retired person on a fixed income, [find] it is
very hard to get by. The prices are up for most everything
because of delivery costs. I will be 70 years old this summer
and I have no choice but to go cut, split and stack firewood
so I can afford to heat my home next winter. The government
should have been doing something about it two years ago and
not waited until folks are ready to revolt countrywide.
OPEC sells oil for $136.00 a barrel.
OPEC nations buy U.S. grain at $7.00 a bushel.
Solution: Sell grain for $136.00 a bushel.
Cannot afford it, tough! Eat your oil!
Ought to go well with a nice thick grilled filet of camel
(steak).
Unsigned.
____
Since you asked for our energy stories I will submit this
one. My wife and I own three vehicles, a 2000 Buick, a 1992
Ford Bronco and a 2006 Suzuki motorcycle (an on-off road
type). I ride my bike everywhere I can and my wife takes the
car. I scrape the frost off my bike seat some mornings
because, for every trip I take the Bronco to work, I can take
the bike three times. We have to drive and it takes 30
gallons to fill the Bronco. At $3.94 a gallon, it really adds
up. I rode my bike into December last year and broke it out
in March this year. If the roads were bare and there was not
a threat of snow, I rode it. I remember the 1980s when the
speed limit was lowered to 55 mph to conserve fuel so that is
what I do now again. If it helped then, I hope it will help
now. This is not a noble plan to conserve energy; it is a
trial to spend so much on fuel and I can cut costs this way.
Maybe you can explain why our ``friends'' who supply us the
oil need to gouge us so badly. Maybe $120.00 for a barrel of
wheat would make the point in all export sales going to oil
producing nations. And speaking of the high price of gas, do
we export wheat and other food grains cheaper than we can buy
it here at home? Are our shortages caused by or aided by
sales to export markets? If so, that is wrong! We need to
take care of American needs first. I really do not mind
sharing what I have with my neighbors but I'll feed my kids
first.
Thanks for listening,
Mark.
____
I do appreciate your concern about gas prices for those in
Idaho. I lived in Idaho last year when I signed up for your
newsletters, I now live in Washington, Tri Cities, where we
pay approximately 25 cents more per gallon than most do in
Idaho. I am writing because my daughter lives in Sandpoint
where gas prices are about the same as here. She has a
disabled daughter that requires my daughter to take her to
Spokane, Washington, about 70 miles one way. Due to the
increase in gas prices, she has had to miss some of her
doctor's appointments.
I believe that we have enough domestic oil to keep this
country going for at least enough years to allow us to
develop an alternative energy source. So I do not understand
why that we are paying such high prices, except that the Big
Oil Companies are making a fortune off the American People
that can hardly afford to feed their families now due to the
increase in cost. Also from what I can see, the prices are
going to continue to rise and run our economy into the ground
due to the greed of the Big Oil.
Put a windfall profit tax on them and they will rethink
what they are doing. We cannot afford to keep paying higher
prices for gas, which is increasing the cost of everything
that is delivered by truck. Our economy is in a downward
spiral and, if Congress does not stop it, then there will be
no economy left in a couple of years.
Arnold, West Richland, Washington.
____
As a United States citizen and fellow Idahoan, I feel the
need to share my financial pain with you about what it is
like to pay for high fuel (gasoline, diesel) prices. Like
anyone with an automobile, I pay more at the pump to the tune
of around $50-$100 more per month. I think this pales in
comparison to how much more I am paying for any commodity
sold through any retail outlet. Nearly everything in the good
old U.S.A. travels down our highways, and the extra costs of
these goods is eating away at any disposable income I might
have had for, let us say, dinner out one night, a night at
the movies, etc. My income did not see this exponential rise
to help combat the higher cost of living. Therefore I spend
less on other things, which in turn, does not help my local
economy. Multiply my woes by the hundreds of thousands like
me, or worse off than myself, and we will continue to see our
economy in decline.
As for a fix, I will give my opinion on this as well. Why
is an energy source like crude oil any different from
electricity and natural gas? Am I going out on a limb by
saying, although my heating and cooling bills have gone up,
they haven't quadrupled in the last eight years. Why? Well as
you know the government does not allow the companies that
sell us power or natural gas to just raise prices whenever
they feel like it. Should not we treat big oil companies the
same way? What is the difference between the need for one
source of power and another?
The U.S. economy is so incredibly dependent on petroleum
products, I think it is irresponsible of our government
officials to not step in and provide some long term relief
for
[[Page 19401]]
the U.S. consumer/citizen. Step it up and take control of
this situation before we all are made to suffer through a
multi-year recession.
Thank you for your time.
Tom, Lewiston.
____
Thank you for your e-letter of this date. In the Big Lost
River Valley, mass transit will not be efficient, but
neighbors can be increasingly efficient. We and our neighbors
are beginning a neighborhood plan whereby we coordinate
medical, pharmacy, dental, shopping and other errands, mostly
to Idaho Falls, nearly 90 miles distant, to reduce individual
gasoline purchases. By previewing times and schedules, we can
accomplish numerous tasks in the destination city with fewer
vehicles/travel. My neighbors and I agree substantially with
the points made in your e-letter: aggressively promote
increased domestic production and refining of gas and oil
products, nuclear power/electricity production and electric
and hydrogen power for automobiles. The unintended
consequences of the ethanol program will lead us to proper
caution about alternative fuels. Thank you for your good
works.
Most respectfully,
David, Darlington.
____
I think the current U.S. government may be on the way to
causing civil war!!! You hear it on the streets, how [angry]
people are getting at [the inaction. The environmentalists
seem to hold undue influence over decisions and legislation
from Congress. I do not believe that global warming is a
threat. Both political parties have not been able to address
the public's concerns about energy, and the federal
government just keeps spending more and more taxpayer
dollars.]
Drill here, drill now.
Secure the border.
Dwayne.
____
My husband and I are seniors; we are in our 70s. We are not
suffering as much from the high gas prices as our
grandchildren are. Our youngest grandson is 17, and we have
grandchildren who are 26. Boise wages are not the greatest,
so it is really putting a dent in their budgets when gas
prices are so high. I have wanted a decent transit (bus)
system in Boise and Ada County forever. We have lived in
Boise since June 1970. I came from Portland, Oregon. That is
a city that can be very proud of their transit system. The
buses run day and night, seven days a week.
I do not know why Boise has to be so slow with progress. A
good bus system would be invaluable now. There has to be a
transfer system so you can get where you need to go. I wish
some of the ``powers that be in Boise'' would go to Portland
and study their bus (transit) system.
I have a sister who lives in Salem, Oregon, the state
capital, and they have a wonderful bus system also. Boise is
a state capital and our bus system is tragic. Look at the gas
that could be saved if people could ride buses and could
depend on buses. A street car system downtown is not going to
help very many people! I do drive, and I drive a large car. I
never go downtown, but if there was a good bus system that I
could use, I would bus downtown a lot. I live out by 5 Mile
and Victory and where I live there are no buses.
Sincerely,
Sally.
____
This probably does not fit your agenda, but actually,
gasoline prices have been a lot worse. I paid a much higher
percentage of my income when I was stationed overseas. The
Energy Information Administration says we were reaching much
deeper into our pockets to pay for gasoline in 1980 than last
year. The real difference is that today's money buys less
value. So, the best way the government can keep gasoline
affordable is to stop creating inflation. The next thing you
could do is require automobile makers to deliver cars that
get better mileage. USA cars need to be more competitive.
Jim.
____________________
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS
______
BROOKLYN-GUERNSEY-MALCOM COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated
teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Brooklyn-
Guernsey-Malcom Community School District, and to report on their
participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize
school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Brooklyn-Guernsey-Malcom Community School District received a
Harkin Grant totaling $435,824 which was used to help renovate the high
school. The district also received three fire safety grants totaling
$95,800 to upgrade the fire alarm system and make other improvements.
The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide
quality and safe schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Brooklyn-Guernsey-Malcom Community School District. In particular,
I would like to recognize the leadership of the board of education--
president Beverly Rens, Bob Parker, Travis Solem, Arlene Ford, Kyle
Montgomery, Ed Kline, Larry Pendarvis and former board members Gaynell
Conner and LaVerne Kriegel. I would also like to recognize
superintendent Brad Hohensee, former superintendent Terry McLeod and
high school principal Rick Radcliffe.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Brooklyn-Guernsey-Malcom Community School District. There is no
question that a quality public education for every child is a top
priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very
successful new school year.
____________________
CENTRAL CLINTON COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the
dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the
Central Clinton Community School District, and to report on their
participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize
school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
[[Page 19402]]
The Central Clinton Community School District received a 2000 Harkin
grant totaling $259,750 which it used to help build an addition for
pre-kindergarten and kindergarten programs at Ekstrand Elementary. This
school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the
educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed,
it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves.
Excellent new schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Central Clinton Community School District. In particular, I would
like to recognize the leadership of the board of education--Dr. Kurt
Rickard, Dennis Campbell, Jim Irwin, Bill Turnis and Christy Kunz and
former board members Jim Hand, Lois Black, Donna Bark, and Theresa
Kelly. I would also like to recognize superintendent Dan Peterson,
former superintendent Dr. Dan Roe and Mary Reuter, editor of the Dewitt
Observer.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Central Clinton Community School District. There is no question
that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in
that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new
school year.
____________________
CLARKSVILLE COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the
dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the
Clarksville Community School District, and to report on their
participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize
school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Clarksville Community School District received a 2002 Harkin
grant totaling $139,500 which it used to help renovate classrooms in
the elementary school. The district also received two fire safety
grants totaling $50,000 to install smoke and heat detectors, emergency
lighting, electromagnetic devices and to make other improvements
throughout the district. The Federal grants have made it possible for
the district to provide quality and safe schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Clarksville Community School District. In particular, I would like
to recognize the leadership of the board of education--Kurt Wedeking,
Sharon Markussen, Chris Fenneman, Joyce Freese and Chris Backer and
former board members Paul Leerhoff, Dave Bolin, Pat Mennenga, Kim
Bergman, Joe Wedeking and Dale Harris. I would also like to recognize
superintendent Bob Longmuir, former superintendent Randall Nichols,
former junior/high school principal Bob Satthoff, elementary principal
Linda Johnson, board secretary Shellee Bartlett and former board
secretary Diane Renning, StruXture Architecture and Prairie
Construction.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Clarksville Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
CLINTON COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated
teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Clinton
Community School District, and to report on their participation in a
unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Clinton Community School District received a 2002 Harkin grant
totaling $1 million which it used to help build a new elementary
school. This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits
the educational ambitions and excellence of this school district.
Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that every child in America
deserves. The district also received a $100,000 fire safety grant for
repairs at Washington Middle School.
Excellent new schools like Jefferson do not just pop up like
mushrooms after a rain. They are the product of vision, leadership,
persistence, and a tremendous amount of collaboration among local
officials and concerned citizens. I salute the entire staff,
administration, and governance in the Clinton Community School
District. In particular, I would like to recognize the leadership of
the board of education--James Tuisl, Dave Frett, Thea
[[Page 19403]]
Engelson, Joani Kittoe, Wendy Krajnovich, Stephen Teney and Mercia
Wolfe and former board members Bruce Ingram, James Bruhn, Dr. Donald
Flory, Debra Olsen, Les Shields, Alma Mariano, Brian Angwin and
Jennifer Graf. I would also like to recognize superintendent Dr.
Richard Basden, former superintendent Dr. Randall Clegg, business
manager Gayle Isaac, plant services director Gregg Cornilsen, Jefferson
principal Bonnie Freitag and former Jefferson principal Michelle
Pearson.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Clinton Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
DUBUQUE COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the
dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the
Dubuque Community School District, and to report on their participation
in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school
facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire-safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Dubuque Community School District received a 2002 Harkin grant
totaling $260,000 which it used to help install elevators at Fulton
Elementary and Bryant Elementary. The district also received three fire
safety grants totaling $654,089 to make fire alarm improvements at
Dubuque Senior High School, Hempstead High School and Jefferson Junior
High School and to make safety improvements at Washington Junior High
School. The Federal grants have made it possible for the district to
provide quality and safe schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Dubuque Community School District. In particular, I would like to
recognize the leadership of the board of education president Larry
Loeppke, vice president Donna Bauerly, Mike Brannon, George Davis, Otto
Krueger, Adam Menning and David Patton, and former board members Parker
Bauer, Michelle Covey, Eldon Herrig, Steve Hodge, Jay Schiesl, Ed
Zaccaro, Karen Behr, Doug Horstmann, Tonya Thul-Theis, Tom Barton,
Cammie Dean and Ted Strieber. I would also like to recognize
superintendent John Burgart, former superintendent Dr. Jane Petrek,
former executive director of business services Joseph Link, former
manager of building and grounds Robert S. White, Sr., former Jefferson
Principal Duane Frick, former Washington principal Art Roling, former
senior high principal Larry Mitchell, former Hempstead principal David
Olson, former Bryant principal Lesley Stephens and former Fulton
principal Roy Hansen.
As we mark the tenth anniversary of the Harkin school grant program
in Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school
buildings and facilities across the United States are in dire need of
renovation or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a
recent study, some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or
repaired. The harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings
in the United States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Dubuque Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
EMMETSBURG COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated
teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Emmetsburg
Community School District, and to report on their participation in a
unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Emmetsburg Community School District received a 2001 Harkin grant
totaling $133,333 which was used to help build an addition on an
elementary school. The district has also received $110,085 since 2000
in fire safety grants which have been used to improve the fire safety
doors, alarms and smoke detectors in all their buildings. The federal
grants have made it possible for the district to provide quality and
safe schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Emmetsburg Community School District. In particular, I would like
to recognize the leadership of the board of education Karla Anderson,
Dave Van Oosbree, Kent Egland, Don Hagen, Steve Pelzer, Linda Tienter
and Laurie Oppenheimer and former board members Gary Kauffman, Dean
Gunderson, Mary Cooper, Mike Brown, David Kassel, Kris Ausborn and
Steve Nelson. I would also like to recognize superintendent John Joynt
and former superintendent Paul Tedesco.
[[Page 19404]]
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Emmetsburg Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
MAPLE VALLEY COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated
teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Maple Valley
Community School District, and to report on their participation in a
unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Maple Valley Community School District received 2002 and 2003
Harkin grants totaling $690,000 which it used to help renovate the high
school into a new elementary school. This school is a modern, state-of-
the-art facility that befits the educational ambitions and excellence
of this school district. Indeed, it is the kind of school facility that
every child in America deserves. The district also received six fire
safety grants totaling $148,300 to install fire safety doors and update
wiring and fire detection systems across the district.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Maple Valley Community School District. In particular, I would like
to recognize the leadership of the board of education--Kathy Dirksen,
Ed Maier, Joanne Maynard, Dale Wimmer, and Tammy Flanigan, as well as
former board member Tracy Hesse. I would also like to recognize
superintendent Steve Oberg, fire marshall Amy Fratzke, grant writer
Linda Steele, Heath Opfer of Radec Construction, and site architect
Mike Berg of DLR Group.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Maple Valley Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
SHELDON COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the
dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the
Sheldon Community School District, and to report on their participation
in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school
facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Sheldon Community School District received a 2001 Harkin grant
totaling $500,000 which was used to help build a new middle school.
This school is a modern, state-of-the-art facility that befits the
educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. Indeed,
it is the kind of school facility that every child in America deserves.
The district also received two fire safty grants totaling $75,000 to
improve their alarms, smoke detectors and fire safety doors. The
Federal grants have made it possible for the district to provide
quality and safe schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Sheldon Community School District. In particular, I would like to
recognize the leadership of the board of education Dan Van Gorp, Gary
Ihnen, Kecia Hickman, Glen Goedken and Harlan Bousema and former board
members Linda Porter, John Boender and Tom Whorley. I would also like
to recognize superintendent Robin Spears, middle school principal Cindy
Barwick and Gene Den Hartog.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultra modern shopping malls and
gleaming sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in
rundown or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message
to our young people about our priorities. We have do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Sheldon Community School District.
[[Page 19405]]
There is no question that a quality public education for every child is
a top priority in that community. I salute them, and wish them a very
successful new school year.
____________________
SPENCER COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes today to salute the dedicated
teachers, administrators, and school board members in the Spencer
Community School District, and to report on their participation in a
unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Spencer Community School District received a 2003 Harkin grant
totaling $500,000 which it used to help build a science classroom
addition to the high school and remodel family and consumer science
classrooms. The district also received two fire safety grants totaling
$200,000 for a new fire alarm system at the high school and other
improvements in schools throughout the district. The Federal grants
have made it possible for the district to provide quality and safe
schools for their students.
Excellent schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Spencer Community School District. In particular, I would like to
recognize the leadership of the board of education--Edward Ver Steeg,
Barb Van Wyk, Dean Mechler, Dave Schlichtemeier and Les Zobrist and
former board members Ross Brockshus, Randy Van Dyke, Sue Harman and
Scott De Geest. I would also like to recognize superintendent Greg
Ebeling, former superintendent Glen Lohman, assistant superintendent
Kathy Elliott, former high school principal Mike Healy and grant writer
Mary Maly.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have to do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Spencer Community School District. There is no question that a
quality public education for every child is a top priority in that
community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new school
year.
____________________
VINTON-SHELLSBURG COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, in Iowa and across the United
States, a new school year has begun. As you know, Iowa public schools
have an excellent reputation nationwide, and Iowa students' test scores
are among the highest in the Nation.
I would like to take just a few minutes, today, to salute the
dedicated teachers, administrators, and school board members in the
Vinton-Shellsburg Community School District, and to report on their
participation in a unique Federal partnership to repair and modernize
school facilities.
This fall marks the 10th year of the Iowa Demonstration Construction
Grant Program. That is its formal name, but it is better known among
educators in Iowa as the program of Harkin grants for Iowa public
schools. Since 1998, I have been fortunate to secure a total of $121
million for the State government in Iowa, which selects worthy school
districts to receive these grants for a range of renovation and repair
efforts--everything from updating fire safety systems to building new
schools or renovating existing facilities. In many cases, this Federal
funding is used to leverage public and/ or private local funding, so it
often has a tremendous multiplier effect in a local school district.
The Vinton-Shellsburg Community School District received a 2005
Harkin grant totaling $400,000 to renovate two schools. The grant
enabled the school district to build a new commons area and to add an
elevator at the building in Shellsburg. The district also made
renovations, installed air-conditioning and built additional classrooms
and restrooms at Tilford Elementary School.
This project was part of a comprehensive multimillion dollar plan to
provide the modern, state-of-the-art facilities that befit the
educational ambitions and excellence of this school district. The
United 4 Kids campaign committee worked tirelessly to pass a $15.1
million bond issue to build a new high school and make improvements
throughout the district.
Excellent new schools do not just pop up like mushrooms after a rain.
They are the product of vision, leadership, persistence, and a
tremendous amount of collaboration among local officials and concerned
citizens. I salute the entire staff, administration, and governance in
the Vinton-Shellsburg Community School District. In particular, I would
like to recognize John Anderson for his involvement with the United 4
Kids committee and generously donating 35 acres for the new high
school. I would also like to recognize the leadership of the board of
education--Brad Allyn, Patrick Lyons, Kathy Tranel, Gerald Horst, Jo
Sainbury, Todd Wiley and Tim Bird as well as superintendent Randy
Braden, high school principal Jay Pedersen, Shellsburg principal Shelly
Petersen and Tilford principal Jim Murray.
As we mark the 10th anniversary of the Harkin school grant program in
Iowa, I am obliged to point out that many thousands of school buildings
and facilities across the United States are in dire need of renovation
or replacement. In my State of Iowa alone, according to a recent study,
some 79 percent of public schools need to be upgraded or repaired. The
harsh reality is that the average age of school buildings in the United
States is nearly 50 years.
Too often, our children visit ultramodern shopping malls and gleaming
sports arenas on weekends, but during the week go to school in rundown
or antiquated facilities. This sends exactly the wrong message to our
young people about our priorities. We have do better.
That is why I am deeply grateful to the professionals and parents in
the Vinton-Shellsburg Community School District. There is no question
that a quality public education for every child is a top priority in
that community. I salute them, and wish them a very successful new
school year.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO SKIP CARAY
Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, today I mourn the passing and pay
tribute to a great Georgian. Broadcaster Skip Caray passed away in his
suburban Atlanta home on August 3, 2008, leaving a tremendous void in
the hearts of Atlanta Braves fans nationwide.
[[Page 19406]]
After years of calling basketball and hockey games in St. Louis and
Atlanta, Skip Caray began broadcasting for the Braves in 1976. Baseball
was in his blood, and while their styles were different, Skip brought
the same warmth and humor to his calls as his famous father, Harry,
delivered to the Chicago Cubs for years. Skip Caray passed his love for
the game on to his sons, Chip and Josh, both of whom found careers in
the same profession as their father.
As a broadcaster for TBS, Skip Caray's voice was not only familiar to
baseball fans in the South, but millions around the country. Whether it
was the many years that the Braves spent in the depths of their
division or the 14 consecutive seasons at the top, Caray provided the
voice of a friend who shared the same passion for ``America's Team''
that the fans did. No Braves fan will ever forget Skip urging Sid Bream
around third base and into the World Series in 1992 or his elation as
the Braves won it all in 1995.
In 2004, Caray was elected to the Atlanta Braves Hall of Fame. At his
induction, his mentor, Ernie Johnson, Sr., said that Caray ``had a
bigger heart than anyone can imagine.'' Skip Caray will be sorely
missed and will remain in Atlanta Braves fans' hearts forever.
____________________
HONORING CONGDON'S DOUGHNUTS
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as our Nation and our world become
increasingly complex and fast paced, it may seem easy to lose track of
the simple but essential ties that bind us to those in our communities.
It is with pleasure that I recognize a small family business from my
home State of Maine that has succeeded in ushering a timeless classic
into the modern world. Congdon's Doughnuts in Wells has been a York
County institution for well over 50 years, providing tasty treats and
community support for generations of locals and tourists.
For the early riser among us, few indulgences are more appealing than
a sticky sweet doughnut and a fresh-brewed cup of coffee. Congdon's
Doughnuts has provided just that to thousands of customers as it has
churned out up to 10,000 homemade doughnuts a day for three
generations. Founded in 1945, and located at its current site since
1955, the company has undergone many of the trials and tribulations
that often challenge America's small businesses. Yet through the hard
work and unwavering dedication of the Congdon family and their
employees, the business has transformed itself from a small wholesale
doughnut operation to a three-meal-a-day restaurant and bakery. Under
present managers Gary Leech, son of Eleanor Congdon, and his wife Diane
Leech, Congdon's also added a convenient drive-thru in 2002 for those
on the go. The firm has been so successful that this past March, the
Best Independent Restaurants Association awarded Congdon's Doughnuts
its highest level of recognition, the prestigious Best Family
Restaurant Platinum Plate Award.
While known for providing plentiful options for breakfast, lunch, and
dinner, the centerpiece of the Congdon enterprise remains its timeless
and highly acclaimed doughnuts. With dozens of tempting and delicious
varieties of the traditional breakfast morsels, from cinnamon and
coconut to chocolate honey and apple fritter, Congdon's has something
to satisfy any doughnut eater and has garnered acclaim both locally and
nationally. Indeed, Portland Magazine, a regional publication, has
placed Congdon's doughnuts on its list of ``101 of Maine's Guiltiest
Guilty Pleasures,'' and in 2007 Congdon's was included on the Doughnut
Honor Roll of seriouseats.com, the Web site of famed food critic Ed
Levin.
While Congdon's has long been involved in local charitable and
community efforts, for the last 2 years it has institutionalized the
commitment to its neighbors by joining other local businesses to host
weekly benefit barbeques. Every Wednesday in July and August, community
members come together for fun-filled tropical-themed parties. Ticket
sales for these popular events have raised money for local and national
charities and organizations including the American Heart Association,
Southern Maine Parent Awareness, and Trolley for Togus, which provides
transportation for York County veterans to Maine's VA hospital.
Additionally, last December Congdon's offered its guests holiday cards
to sign for our Nation's soldiers, and then sent over 500 of them to
men and women serving in Iraq.
Congdon's Doughnuts exemplifies the best qualities of being both a
prosperous business and a caring neighbor. It is with great pride that
I congratulate Condgon's on its decades of successes and I wish them
the best of luck for the future as they continue to reach new heights
as a purveyor of delectable treats and old-fashioned American
cuisine.
____________________
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE
______
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
At 11:24 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announced that the Speaker
signed the following enrolled bill:
H.R. 5938. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents,
and for other purposes.
The enrolled bill was subsequently signed by the President pro
tempore (Mr. Byrd).
____
At 2:23 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. 1485. An act for the relief of Esther Karinge.
H.R. 2760. An act for the relief of Shigeru Yamada.
H.R. 5030. An act for the relief of Corina de Chalup
Turcinovic.
H. R. 5243. An act for the relief of Kumi Iizuka-Barcena.
____
At 6:13 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, without amendment:
S. 996. An act to amend title 49, United States Code, to
expand passenger facility fee eligibility for certain noise
compatibility projects.
S 3406. An act to restore the intent and protections of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The message also announced that the House agrees to the amendments of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2608) to amend section 402 of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 to
provide, in fiscal years 2008 through 2010, extensions of supplemental
security income for refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian
immigrants, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code to collect
unemployment compensation debts resulting from fraud.
____
At 6:35 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Mr. Zapata, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has
passed the following bill, without amendment:
S. 2339. An act to designate the Department of Veterans
Affairs clinic in Alpena, Michigan, as the ``Lieutenant
Colonel Clement C. Van Wagoner Department of Veterans Affairs
Clinic''.
____
At 7:17 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered
by Ms. Niland, one of its reading clerks, announcing that the House has
passed the following bill, in which it requests the concurrence of the
Senate:
H.R. 6064. An act to encourage, enhance, and integrate
Silver Alert plans throughout the United States, to authorize
grants for the assistance of organizations to find missing
adults, and for other purposes.
____________________
EXECUTIVE AND OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-7582. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
[[Page 19407]]
entitled ``Area Navigation (RNAV) and Miscellaneous
Amendments'' ((RIN2120-AH77)(Docket No. FAA-2002-14002))
received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-7583. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Revision of Legal Descriptions of Multiple Federal Airways
in the Vicinity of Farmington, NM'' ((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket
No. 08-ANM-2)) received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7584. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Implementing the Maintenance Provisions of Bilateral
Agreements'' ((RIN2120-AI19)(Docket No. FAA-2004-17483))
received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-7585. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Recording of Major Repairs and Major Alterations''
(RIN2120-AJ11) received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7586. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Implementing the Maintenance Provisions of Bilateral
Agreements'' ((RIN2120-AI19)(Docket no. FAA-2004-17483))
received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
EC-7587. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fees for Certification Services and Approvals Performed
Outside the United States'' ((RIN2120-AI77)(Docket No. FAA-
2007-27043)) received on August 25, 2008; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
EC-7588. A communication from the Program Analyst, Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Modification of Class E Airspace; Phillipsburg, KS''
((RIN2120-AA66)(Docket No. 06-ACE-13)) received on August 25,
2008; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
EC-7589. A communication from the Director, Minerals
Management Service, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Report to Congress:
Minerals Management Service Royalty In Kind Operation
Program'' for Fiscal Year 2007; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
EC-7590. A communication from the Chairman, Federal
Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
Commission's annual report, covering the fiscal year from
October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-7591. A communication from the Secretary of Energy,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Update to
Congress On the Russian Surplus Fissile Materials Disposition
Program''; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-7592. A communication from the Director, Office of
Surface Mining, Department of the Interior, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``North Dakota
Regulatory Program'' (ND-050-FOR) received on September 8,
2008; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
EC-7593. A communication from the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, transmitting the report of a
proposed bill to make amendments to the Old-Age, Survivors,
and Disability Insurance program and the Supplemental
Security Income program; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-7594. A communication from the Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, transmitting the report of a
proposed bill to make program and administrative improvements
to the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability program, the
Supplemental Security Income program, and the Special
Benefits for Certain World War II Veterans program; to the
Committee on Finance.
EC-7595. 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 ``Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 Business
Incentives'' (Rev. Proc. 2008-54) received on September 8,
2008; to the Committee on Finance.
EC-7596. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Forchlorfenuron; Permanent and Time-Limited Pesticide
Tolerances'' (FRL-8375-4) received on August 18, 2008; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7597. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Karnal Bunt; Removal of Regulated
Areas in Texas'' (Docket No. APHIS-2007-0157) received on
September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7598. A communication from the Congressional Review
Coordinator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, the
report of a rule entitled ``Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia;
Interstate Movement and Import Restrictions on Certain Live
Fish'' ((RIN0579-AC74)(Docket No. APHIS-2007-0038)) received
on September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7599. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Specialty Crop Block Grant Program--Farm Bill; Notice of
Request for Approval of a New Information Collection''
((RIN0581-AC88)(Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0057)) received on
September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7600. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of General Regulations for Fruit, Vegetable, and
Nut Marketing Agreements and Marketing Orders; Addition of
Supplemental Rules of Practice for Amendatory Formal
Rulemaking Proceedings'' (Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0061) received
on September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7601. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Domestic Dates Produced or Packed in Riverside County,
California; Decreased Assessment Rate'' (Docket No. AMS-FV-
08- 0056) received on September 8, 2008; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7602. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Dried Prunes Produced in California; Decreased Assessment
Rate'' (Docket No. AMS-FV-08-0060) received on September 8,
2008; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-7603. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Amendment of General Regulations for Federal Milk Marketing
Agreements and Marketing Orders; Addition of Supplemental
Rules of Practice for Amendatory Formal Rulemaking
Proceedings'' (Docket No. DA-08-04) received on September 8,
2008; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry.
EC-7604. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program'' (Docket
No. DA-07-05) received on September 8, 2008; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7605. A communication from the Administrator,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Milk in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Delay of
Effective Date'' (Docket No. AMS-DA-07-0026) received on
September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7606. A communication from the Administrator, Rural
Housing Service, Department of Agriculture, transmitting,
pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Direct
Single Family Housing Loans and Grants (7 CFR Part 3550)''
(RIN0575-AC69) received on September 8, 2008; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7607. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Pyraflufen-ethyl; Time-Limited Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL
No. 8377-6) received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7608. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Tebuconazole; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8376-7)
received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7609. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Uniconazole-P; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8376-6)
received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7610. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Fludioxonil; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL
[[Page 19408]]
No. 8379-9) received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7611. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Chlorantraniliprole; Pesticide Tolerances for Emergency
Exemptions'' (FRL No. 8378-2) received on September 2, 2008;
to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7612. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Hexythiazox; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 8378-8)
received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7613. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Linuron; Pesticide Tolerance for Emergency Exemptions''
(FRL No. 8379-6) received on September 2, 2008; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-7614. A communication from the Acting Administrator,
General Services Administration, transmitting, a report of an
additional prospectus relative to the General Services
Administration's Fiscal Year 2009 Capital Investment and
Leasing Program; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-7615. A communication from the Acting Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior,
transmitting the report of a draft bill entitled ``Expand,
Protect, and Conserve our Nation's Water Resources Act''; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7616. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Small Entity Compliance Guide to Renovate Right: EPA's
Lead-Based Paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting Program;
Notice of Availability'' received on September 9, 2008; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7617. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``National Priorities List, Final Rule'' (FRL No. 8710-8)
received on September 2, 2008; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-7618. A communication from the Chief, Listing of
Endangered Species Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation
of Critical Habitat for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly
(Euphydryas editha bayensis)'' (RIN1018-AV24) received on
September 8, 2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
EC-7619. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulagation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Tennessee; Approval of Revisions to the Nashville/
Davidson County Portion'' (FRL No. 8705-3) received on August
18, 2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7620. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Texas; Revisions to Chapter 117 and Emission
Inventories for the Dallas/Fort Worth 8-Hour Ozone
Nonattainment Area'' (FRL No. 8704-8) received on August 18,
2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7621. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Approval and Promulgation of Plans; North Carolina:
Miscellaneous Revisions'' (FRL No. 8706-4) received on August
18, 2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7622. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Residues of Quaternary Ammonium Compounds, N-Alkyl (C12-18)
dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride on Food Contact Surfaces;
Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL No.
8376-9) received on August 18, 2008; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-7623. A communication from the Director, Regulatory
Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Withdrawal of the Federal Water Quality Standards Use
Designations for Soda Creek and Portions of Canyon Creek,
South Fork Coeur d'Alene River, and Blackfoot River in
Idaho'' (FRL No. 8706-7) received on August 18, 2008; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-7624. A communication from the Chief, Listing of
Endangered Species Branch, Fish and Wildlife Service,
transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation
of Critical Habitat for the Acanthomintha ilicifolia (San
Diego thornmint)'' (RIN1018-AU86) received on September 16,
2008; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees were submitted:
By Mr. LIEBERMAN, from the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs, without amendment:
S. 3341. A bill to reauthorize and improve the Federal
Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999
(Rept. No. 110-468).
By Mr. INOUYE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute:
S. 2907. A bill to establish uniform administrative and
enforcement procedures and penalties for the enforcement of
the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and
similar statutes, and for other purposes (Rept. No. 110-469).
____________________
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. DORGAN:
S. 3503. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to
authorize increased Federal funding for the Organ Procurement
and Transplantation Network; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 3504. A bill to provide technical corrections to the
Technology Administration Act of 1998, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr.
Isakson):
S. 3505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to provide for the coverage of home infusion therapy
under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. REID (for Mr. Obama):
S. 3506. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to increase the credit for purchase of vehicles fueled by
natural gas or liquefied natural gas and to amend the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users to reauthorize the Clean School Bus Program
of the Environmental Protection Agency; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Baucus, Ms.
Stabenow, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Brown, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Biden, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3507. A bill to provide for additional emergency
unemployment compensation; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 3508. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to
make grants to support early college high schools and other
dual enrollment programs; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
By Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. Cardin):
S. 3509. A bill to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis
in Iraq and potential security breakdown resulting from the
mass displacement of Iraqis inside Iraq and as refugees into
neighboring countries; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. BUNNING:
S. 3510. A bill to prohibit the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System from making funds available at a
discount rate to private individuals, partnerships, and
corporations; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Bennett, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Schumer, and Mr.
Alexander):
S. 3511. A bill to direct the Librarian of Congress and the
Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint
project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of
African American History and Culture to collect video and
audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of
individuals who participated in the Civil Rights movement,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr.
Kohl):
S. 3512. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to remove social security account numbers from
Medicare identification cards and communications provided to
Medicare beneficiaries in order to protect Medicare
beneficiaries from identity theft; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 3513. A bill to direct the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to
[[Page 19409]]
revise regulations relating to lead-based paint hazards,
lead-contaminated dust, and lead-contaminated soil, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
____________________
SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS
The following concurrent resolutions and Senate resolutions were
read, and referred (or acted upon), as indicated:
By Mr. BROWN:
S. Res. 663. A resolution expressing concern over the
current Federal policy that allows the exportation of toxic
electronic waste to developing nations, and expressing the
sense of the Senate that the United States should join other
developed nations and ban the exportation of toxic electronic
waste to developing nations; to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works.
By Mrs. DOLE:
S. Res. 664. A resolution celebrating the centennial of
Union Station in Washington, District of Colombia; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
____________________
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS
S. 215
At the request of Mr. Dorgan, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 215, a bill to amend the
Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.
S. 505
At the request of Ms. Collins, the name of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 505, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the above-the-
line deduction for teacher classroom supplies and to expand such
deduction to include qualified professional development expenses.
S. 625
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the name of the Senator from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) was added as a cosponsor of S. 625, a bill to
protect the public health by providing the Food and Drug Administration
with certain authority to regulate tobacco products.
S. 826
At the request of Mr. Menendez, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the
Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) were added as cosponsors of S. 826,
a bill to posthumously award a Congressional gold medal to Alice Paul,
in recognition of her role in the women's suffrage movement and in
advancing equal rights for women.
S. 961
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 961, a bill to
amend title 46, United States Code, to provide benefits to certain
individuals who served in the United States Merchant Marine (including
the Army Transport Service and the Naval Transport Service) during
World War II, and for other purposes.
S. 1107
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1107, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce cost-sharing under part D of
such title for certain non-institutionalized full-benefit dual eligible
individuals.
S. 1232
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1232, a bill to direct
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, to develop a voluntary policy for managing the
risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools, to establish school-
based food allergy management grants, and for other purposes.
S. 1335
At the request of Mr. Inhofe, the name of the Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. DeMint) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1335, a bill to
amend title 4, United States Code, to declare English as the official
language of the Government of the United States, and for other
purposes.
S. 1738
At the request of Mr. Reid, the names of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Martinez), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Lugar), the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd)
and the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) were added as cosponsors of
S. 1738, a bill to establish a Special Counsel for Child Exploitation
Prevention and Interdiction within the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General, to improve the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, to
increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, and to make
other improvements to increase the ability of law enforcement agencies
to investigate and prosecute predators.
S. 1981
At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1981, a bill to amend the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 regarding environmental
education, and for other purposes.
S. 2209
At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2209, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives to improve
America's research competitiveness, and for other purposes.
S. 2320
At the request of Mr. Durbin, the name of the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2320, a bill to amend
title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide continued entitlement
to coverage for immunosuppressive drugs furnished to beneficiaries
under the Medicare Program that have received a kidney transplant and
whose entitlement to coverage would otherwise expire, and for other
purposes.
S. 2619
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2619, a bill to
protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks.
S. 2641
At the request of Mr. Grassley, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2641, a bill
to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to improve the
transparency of information on skilled nursing facilities and nursing
facilities and to clarify and improve the targeting of the enforcement
of requirements with respect to such facilities.
S. 2668
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) 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. 2760
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Delaware
(Mr. Biden) 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. 2776
At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Alaska
(Ms. Murkowski) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2776, a bill to provide
duty-free treatment for certain goods from designated Reconstruction
Opportunity Zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and for other purposes.
S. 2919
At the request of Mr. Stevens, the name of the Senator from Arkansas
(Mrs. Lincoln) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2919, a bill to promote
the accurate transmission of network traffic identification
information.
S. 3200
At the request of Mr. Specter, the name of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Snowe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3200, a bill to develop
capacity and infrastructure for mentoring programs.
S. 3246
At the request of Mr. Cardin, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3246, a bill to
amend the
[[Page 19410]]
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to
set the standard mileage rate for use of a passenger automobile for
purposes of the charitable contributions deduction.
S. 3331
At the request of Mr. Crapo, the name of the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3331, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require that the payment of the
manufacturers' excise tax on recreational equipment be paid quarterly.
S. 3344
At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) and the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi) were added as cosponsors of S. 3344, a bill to
defend against child exploitation and child pornography through
improved Internet Crimes Against Children task forces and enhanced
tools to block illegal images, and to eliminate the unwarranted release
of convicted sex offenders.
S. 3356
At the request of Mr. Chambliss, the names of the Senator from New
York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the
Senator from Virginia (Mr. Webb), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
Rockefeller), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman), the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Pryor) and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel)
were added as cosponsors of S. 3356, a bill to require the Secretary of
the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the legacy of the United
States Army Infantry and the establishment of the National Infantry
Museum and Soldier Center.
At the request of Mr. Isakson, the names of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Maryland (Mr.
Cardin), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. Coleman), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad),
the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Nevada (Mr.
Ensign), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez), the
Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. Brown), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy), the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were
added as cosponsors of S. 3356, supra.
S. 3367
At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Harkin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3367, a bill to amend title
XVIII of the Social Security Act to revise the timeframe for
recognition of certain designations in certifying rural health clinics
under the Medicare program.
S. 3421
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
3421, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the
standard mileage rate for charitable purposes to the standard mileage
rate established by the Secretary of the Treasury for business
purposes.
S. 3429
At the request of Mr. Schumer, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander)
were added as cosponsors of S. 3429, a bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code to provide for an increased mileage rate for charitable
deductions.
S. 3471
At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from New
Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3471, a bill to
prohibit government-sponsored enterprises from making lobbying
expenditures, political contributions, or other certain contributions.
S. 3483
At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Wisconsin
(Mr. Feingold) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3483, a bill to improve
consumer access to passenger vehicle loss data held by insurers.
S. 3484
At the request of Mr. Specter, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Tester), the
Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) and the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. Stevens) were added as cosponsors of S. 3484, a bill to provide
for a delay in the phase out of the hospice budget neutrality
adjustment factor under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
S. 3489
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. Inhofe) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3489, a bill to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study
on black carbon emissions.
S. 3498
At the request of Mr. Voinovich, the name of the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3498, a bill
to amend title 46, United States Code, to extend the exemption from the
fire-retardant materials construction requirement for vessels operating
within the Boundary Line.
S. RES. 616
At the request of Mrs. Lincoln, the names of the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole)
were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 616, a resolution reducing maternal
mortality both at home and abroad.
S. RES. 660
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the names of the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr.
Whitehouse) were added as cosponsors of S. Res. 660, a resolution
condemning ongoing sales of arms to belligerents in Sudan, including
the Government of Sudan, and calling for both a cessation of such sales
and an expansion of the United Nations embargo on arms sales to Sudan.
S. RES. 661
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
Brown) was added as a cosponsor of S. Res. 661, a resolution supporting
the goals and ideals of National Spina Bifida Awareness Month.
S. RES. 662
At the request of Mr. Lieberman, his name was added as a cosponsor of
S. Res. 662, a resolution raising the awareness of the need for crime
prevention in communities across the country and designating the week
of October 2, 2008, through October 4, 2008, as ``Celebrate Safe
Communities'' week.
AMENDMENT NO. 5269
At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5269
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. 5302
At the request of Mr. Nelson of Florida, the name of the Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5302
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. 5330
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 5330 intended to
be proposed to S. 3001, an original bill
[[Page 19411]]
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. 5339
At the request of Mr. Alexander, the name of the Senator from
Washington (Ms. Cantwell) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No.
5339 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. 5363
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5363
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. 5374
At the request of Mr. Durbin, his name was added as a cosponsor of
amendment No. 5374 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. 5406
At the request of Mr. Leahy, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 5406 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. 5509
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the name of the Senator from Maine (Ms.
Collins) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5509 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. 5517
At the request of Mr. Bayh, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 5517 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. 5519
At the request of Mr. Johnson, the name of the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. Levin) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5519 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. 5520
At the request of Mr. Kerry, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5520 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. 5538
At the request of Mr. Corker, the name of the Senator from Missouri
(Mrs. McCaskill) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5538
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. 5542
At the request of Mrs. Clinton, the name of the Senator from Florida
(Mr. Nelson) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5542 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. 5567
At the request of Mr. Reid, the names of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) and the Senator from Washington (Ms. Cantwell) were added
as cosponsors of amendment No. 5567 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. 5572
At the request of Mr. Dodd, the names of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) were added as
cosponsors of amendment No. 5572 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. 5592
At the request of Ms. Snowe, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5592 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. 5596
At the request of Ms. Landrieu, the name of the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5596
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. 5601
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5601 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. 5602
At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 5602 intended to
be proposed to S. 3001, an original bill to authorize appropriations
for fiscal year
[[Page 19412]]
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. 5608
At the request of Mr. Cornyn, the names of the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
Grassley), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Craig), the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts),
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the Senator from Wyoming
(Mr. Enzi) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 5608 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.
____________________
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Mr. Isakson):
S. 3505. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for the coverage of home infusion therapy under the Medicare
Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Lincoln
of Arkansas, to introduce the Medicare Home Infusion Coverage Act,
which will help us improve care and reduce costs. Today we know that
the average Medicare beneficiary must shoulder nearly half their health
care costs. At the same time Medicare faces serious fiscal challenges.
Currently, the Part A, hospital, Trust Fund faces insolvency in 2019,
when expenditures will exceed projected contributions and require
additional taxpayer support to maintain the care our seniors and so
many disabled Americans require.
There is another way, and that is to reform care delivery to
emphasize high quality, lower cost care. Today the many serious
conditions--including some cancers and drug-resistant infections--
require the use of infusion therapy. Such treatment involves the
administration of medication directly into the bloodstream via a needle
or catheter. Specialized equipment, supplies, and professional services
(such as sterile drug compounding, care coordination, and patient
education and monitoring) are part of such therapy. The course of
infusion treatment often lasts for several hours per day over a six-to-
eight week period.
The unfortunate fact is that Medicare patients requiring infusion
therapy must either bear that cost themselves, or endure
hospitalization in order to receive coverage. Though Medicare pays for
infusion drugs, it does not pay for the services, equipment, and
supplies necessary to safely provide infusion therapy in the home. Not
surprisingly, even though home infusion therapy may cost as little as
$100 a day, too few seniors can bear that cost.
The result is that patients are hospitalized needlessly, driving
costs of treatment as much as 10-20 times higher than treatment in the
home. That is wasteful to Medicare and may even place the patient at
risk. That is because unnecessary hospitalization places individuals at
risk of acquiring a health care-acquired infection--one which is
frequently drug resistant and can be life-threatening.
Private health plans have long understood that home infusion therapy
is not only less costly, but safer as well. Thus private coverage for
home infusion therapy is common. Private plans also recognize that
patients benefit from avoiding hospitalization. At home they have
familiar, comfortable surroundings, and family conveniently at hand--no
small concerns when fighting a serious illness.
It is clear we must change the status quo, and achieve safer, most
cost-effective treatment. By extending coverage of infusion therapy to
the home, we will correct this unintended and unnecessary gap in
Medicare coverage.
I hope my colleagues will join us in support of this legislation so
we may further the goals of improving patient safety and reducing our
escalating health care costs.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Baucus, Ms. Stabenow,
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Obama, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Durbin, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Biden,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Dodd):
S. 3507. A bill to provide for additional emergency unemployment
compensation; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. REED. 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. 3507
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 ``Unemployment Compensation
Extension Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL FIRST-TIER BENEFITS.
Section 4002(b)(1) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2008 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``50'' and inserting
``80''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``13'' and inserting
``20''.
SEC. 3. SECOND-TIER BENEFITS.
Section 4002 of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008
(26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(c) Special Rule.--
``(1) In general.--If, at the time that the amount
established in an individual's account under subsection
(b)(1) is exhausted or at any time thereafter, such
individual's State is in an extended benefit period (as
determined under paragraph (2)), such account shall be
augmented by an amount equal to the lesser of--
``(A) 50 percent of the total amount of regular
compensation (including dependents' allowances) payable to
the individual during the individual's benefit year under the
State law, or
``(B) 13 times the individual's average weekly benefit
amount (as determined under subsection (b)(2)) for the
benefit year.
``(2) Extended benefit period.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a State shall be considered to be in an extended benefit
period, as of any given time, if--
``(A) such a period is then in effect for such State under
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970;
``(B) such a period would then be in effect for such State
under such Act if section 203(d) of such Act--
``(i) were applied by substituting `4' for `5' each place
it appears; and
``(ii) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A) thereof; or
``(C) such a period would then be in effect for such State
under such Act if--
``(i) section 203(f) of such Act were applied to such State
(regardless of whether the State by law had provided for such
application); and
``(ii) such section 203(f)--
``(I) were applied by substituting `6.0' for `6.5' in
paragraph (1)(A)(i) thereof; and
``(II) did not include the requirement under paragraph
(1)(A)(ii) thereof.
``(3) Limitation.--The account of an individual may be
augmented not more than once under this subsection.''.
SEC. 4. PHASEOUT PROVISIONS.
Section 4007(b) of the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
2008 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2),'' and
inserting ``paragraphs (2) and (3),''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2) No augmentation after march 31, 2009.--If the amount
established in an individual's account under subsection
(b)(1) is exhausted after March 31, 2009, then section
4002(c) shall not apply and such account shall not be
augmented under such section, regardless of whether such
individual's State is in an extended benefit period (as
determined under paragraph (2) of such section).
``(3) Termination.--No compensation under this title shall
be payable for any week beginning after November 27, 2009.''.
SEC. 5. TEMPORARY FEDERAL MATCHING FOR THE FIRST WEEK OF
EXTENDED BENEFITS FOR STATES WITH NO WAITING
WEEK.
With respect to weeks of unemployment beginning after the
date of enactment of this Act and ending on or before
December 8, 2009, subparagraph (B) of section 204(a)(2) of
the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of
1970 (26 U.S.C. 3304 note) shall not apply.
[[Page 19413]]
SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.
The amendments made by sections 2, 3, and 4 shall apply as
if included in the enactment of the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2008.
______
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 3508. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education to make
grants to support early college high schools and other dual enrollment
programs; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I am doing my part to end the growing
crisis of high school dropouts. I am introducing the Fast Track to
College Act, a bill to increase high school graduation rates and
improve access to college through the expansion of dual enrollment
programs and early college high schools. Such programs allow young
people to earn up to 2 years of college credit, including an
associate's degree, while also earning their high school diploma.
As we work to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind Act, we must find
solutions to the growing dropout crisis facing our Nation's high
schools and provide opportunities for young people to pursue higher
education. Recent reports have illustrated the enormous challenge: the
national graduation rate is only 70 percent and is significantly lower
in many large urban school districts. For example, my home State of
Wisconsin has a relatively high graduation rate of 86 percent, but that
rate drops to only 46 percent in the urban schools in Milwaukee. Such
an achievement gap cannot continue.
For America to remain a leader in today's increasingly global
economy, we must ensure that all young people obtain not only a high
school diploma, but a postsecondary education as well. High dropout
rates and low college attendance rates hurt individuals, families, and
society. Young people who drop out of high school are at increased risk
for unemployment and incarceration, and they are more likely to depend
on public assistance for healthcare, housing and other basic needs.
Conversely, adults with a bachelor's degree will earn two thirds more
than a high school graduate over the course of their working lives and
are much less likely to experience unemployment or rely on social
programs.
For these reasons, I ask my colleagues to support this bill, which
provides competitive grant funding for dual enrollment programs that
allow low-income students to earn college credit and a high school
diploma at the same time. The Gates Foundation has been funding and
evaluating such programs for several years now, and they have found
that these programs work. Students can be motivated by a challenging
curriculum and the tangible rewards of achievement, including free
college credit and exposure to career opportunities. These programs
have shown incredible promise as a tool for increasing attendance,
graduation, and college enrollment rates, particularly among low-income
high school students. Dual enrollment puts students on the fast track
to college and increases the odds that they will not only graduate, but
go on to continue their education and secure higher-paying jobs.
Specifically, this bill authorizes $100,000,000 for competitive 6-
year grants to schools, with priority given to schools that serve low-
income students. The funding will help defray the costs of tuition,
textbooks, transportation, and other associated costs for students in
early college high school and other dual enrollment programs. The bill
also includes an evaluation component so we can measure the program's
effectiveness.
I believe this investment in our schools will help solve the dropout
crisis and secure America's future by ensuring that all young people
can compete in today's global economy. Further, I believe that all
children, regardless of income or other factors, deserve equal
opportunities to fulfill their potential, and it is both morally and
fiscally responsible for this Congress to invest in high-quality
educational programs that help them reach that potential.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 3508
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 ``Fast Track to College Act of
2008''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to increase high school
graduation rates and the percentage of students who complete
a recognized postsecondary credential by the age of 26,
including among low-income students and students from other
populations underrepresented in higher education.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(1) Dual enrollment program.--The term ``dual enrollment
program'' means an academic program through which a high
school student is able simultaneously to earn credit toward a
high school diploma and a postsecondary degree or
certificate.
(2) Early college high school.--The term ``early college
high school'' means a high school that provides a course of
study that enables a student to earn a high school diploma
and either an associate's degree or one to two years of
college credit toward a postsecondary degree or credential.
(3) Educational service agency.--The term ``educational
service agency'' means an educational service agency as
defined by section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(4) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
local educational agency, which may be an educational service
agency, in a collaborative partnership with an institution of
higher education. Such partnership also may include other
entities, such as a nonprofit organization with experience in
youth development.
(5) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' means an institution of
higher education as defined by section 102 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002).
(6) Local educational agency.--The term ``local educational
agency'' means a local educational agency as defined by
section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801).
(7) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Education.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Early College High Schools.--To support early college
high schools under this Act, there are authorized to be
appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and such sums
as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2010 through
2014.
(b) Other Dual Enrollment Programs.--To support other dual
enrollment programs under this Act, there are authorized to
be appropriated $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 and such
sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014.
(c) Funds Reserved.--The Secretary shall reserve 3 percent
of funds appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) for grants
to States under section 9.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZED PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award six-
year grants to eligible entities seeking to establish a new
or support an existing early college high school or other
dual enrollment program.
(b) Grant Amount.--A grant under this Act shall not exceed
$2,000,000.
(c) Matching Requirement.--
(1) In general.--An eligible entity shall contribute
matching funds toward the costs of the early college high
school or other dual enrollment program to be supported under
this Act, of which not less than half shall be from non-
Federal sources, which funds shall represent not less than
the following:
(A) 20 percent of the grant amount received in each of the
first and second years of the grant.
(B) 30 percent in each of the third and fourth years.
(C) 40 percent in the fifth year.
(D) 50 percent in the sixth year.
(2) Determination of amount contributed.--The Secretary
shall allow an eligible entity to satisfy the requirement of
this subsection through in-kind contributions.
(d) Supplement, Not Supplant.--An eligible entity shall use
a grant received under this Act only to supplement funds that
would, in the absence of such grant, be made available from
non-Federal funds for support of the activities described in
the eligible entity's application under section 7, and not to
supplant such funds.
(e) Priority.--In awarding grants under this Act, the
Secretary shall give priority to applicants--
(1) that propose to establish or support an early college
high school or other dual enrollment program that will serve
a student population of which 40 percent or more are students
counted under section 1113(a)(5) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)); and
[[Page 19414]]
(2) from States that provide assistance to early college
high schools or other dual enrollment programs, such as
assistance to defray the costs of higher education, such as
tuition, fees, and textbooks.
(f) Geographic Distribution.--The Secretary shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, ensure that grantees are from a
representative cross-section of urban, suburban, and rural
areas.
SEC. 6. USES OF FUNDS.
(a) Mandatory Activities.--An eligible entity shall use
grant funds received under section 5 to support the
activities described in its application, including for the
following:
(1) Planning year.--In the case of a new early college high
school or dual enrollment program, during the first year of
the grant--
(A) hiring a principal and staff, as appropriate;
(B) designing the curriculum and sequence of courses in
collaboration with at a minimum, teachers from the local
educational agency and faculty from the partner institution
of higher education;
(C) educating parents and the community about the school;
(D) recruiting students;
(E) liaison activities among partners in the eligible
entity; and
(F) coordinating secondary and postsecondary support
services, academic calendars, and transportation.
(2) Implementation period.--During the remainder of the
grant period--
(A) academic and social support services, including
counseling;
(B) student recruitment and community education and
engagement;
(C) professional development, including joint professional
development for secondary school and faculty from the
institution of higher education; and
(D) school design and planning team activities, including
curriculum development.
(b) Allowable Activities.--An eligible entity may also use
grant funds received under this Act to otherwise support the
activities described in its application, including--
(1) purchasing textbooks and equipment that support
academic programs;
(2) learning opportunities for students that complement
classroom experiences, such as internships, career-based
capstone projects, and opportunities provided under chapters
1 and 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq., 1070a-21
et seq.);
(3) transportation;
(4) planning time for high school and college educators to
collaborate; and
(5) data collection, sharing, reporting, and evaluation.
SEC. 7. APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--To receive a grant under section 5, an
eligible entity shall submit to the Secretary an application
at such time, in such manner, and including such information
as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(b) Contents of Application.--At a minimum, the application
described in subsection (a) shall include a description of--
(1) the early college high school's or other dual
enrollment program's budget;
(2) each partner in the eligible entity and its experience
with early college high schools or other dual enrollment
programs, key personnel from each partner and their
responsibilities for the early college high school or dual
enrollment program, and how the eligible entity will work
with secondary and postsecondary teachers, other public and
private entities, community-based organizations, businesses,
and labor organizations to ensure that students will be
prepared to succeed in postsecondary education and
employment, which may include the development of an advisory
board;
(3) how the eligible entity will target and recruit at-risk
youth, including those at risk of dropping out of school,
first generation college students, and students from
populations described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(II));
(4) a system of student supports for students in the early
college high school or other dual enrollment program,
including small group activities, tutoring, literacy and
numeracy skill development in all academic disciplines,
parental outreach, extended learning time, and college
readiness activities, such as early college academic seminars
and counseling;
(5) in the case of an early college high school, how a
graduation and career plan will be developed, consistent with
State graduation requirements, for each student and reviewed
each semester;
(6) how parents or guardians of dually enrolled students
will be informed of the students' academic performance and
progress and, subject to paragraph (5), involved in the
development of the students' career and graduation plan;
(7) coordination activities between the institution of
higher education and the local educational agency, including
regarding academic calendars, provision of student services,
curriculum development, and professional development;
(8) how the eligible entity will ensure that teachers in
the early college high school or other dual enrollment
program receive appropriate professional development and
other supports, including to enable the teachers to help
English-language learners, students with disabilities, and
students from diverse cultural backgrounds to succeed;
(9) learning opportunities for students that complement
classroom experiences, such as internships, career-based
capstone projects, and opportunities provided under chapters
1 and 2 of subpart 2 of part A of title IV of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a-11 et seq., 1070a-21
et seq.);
(10) a plan to ensure that postsecondary credits earned
will be transferable to, at a minimum, public institutions of
higher education within the State, consistent with existing
statewide articulation agreement;
(11) student assessments and other measurements of student
achievement that will be used, including benchmarks for
student achievement;
(12) outreach programs to provide elementary and secondary
school students, especially those in middle grades, and their
parents, teachers, school counselors, and principals
information about and academic preparation for the early
college high school or other dual enrollment program;
(13) how the eligible entity will help students meet
eligibility criteria for postsecondary courses; and
(14) how the eligible entity will sustain the early college
high school or other dual enrollment program after the grant
expires.
(c) Assurances.--An eligible entity's application under
subsection (a) shall include assurances that--
(1) in the case of an early college high school, the
majority of courses offered, including of postsecondary
courses, will be offered at facilities of the institution of
higher education;
(2) students will not be required to pay tuition or fees
for postsecondary courses;
(3) postsecondary credits earned will be transcribed upon
completion of the requisite coursework; and
(4) faculty teaching postsecondary courses meet the normal
standards for faculty established by the institution of
higher education.
(d) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement of
subsection (c)(1) upon a showing that it is impractical to
apply due to geographic considerations.
SEC. 8. PEER REVIEW.
(a) Peer Review of Applications.--The Secretary shall
establish peer review panels to review applications submitted
pursuant to section 7 and to advise the Secretary regarding
such applications.
(b) Composition of Peer Review Panels.--The Secretary shall
ensure that each peer review panel is not comprised wholly of
full-time officers or employees of the Federal Government and
includes, at a minimum--
(1) experts in the establishment and administration of
early college high schools or other dual enrollment programs
from the high school and college perspective;
(2) faculty at institutions of higher education and
secondary school teachers with expertise in dual enrollment;
and
(3) experts in the education of at-risk students.
SEC. 9. GRANTS TO STATES.
(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to award six-
year grants to State agencies responsible for secondary or
postsecondary education for efforts to support or establish
statewide dual enrollment programs.
(b) Application.--To receive a grant under this section, a
State agency shall submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and including such information as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(c) Contents of Application.--At a minimum, the application
described in subsection (b) shall include--
(1) how the State will create outreach programs to ensure
that middle and high school students and their families are
aware of dual enrollment programs in the State;
(2) how the State will provide technical assistance to
local dual enrollment programs as appropriate;
(3) how the State will ensure the quality of State and
local dual enrollment programs; and
(4) such other information as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate.
(d) State Activities.--A State receiving a grant under this
section shall use such funds for--
(1) planning and implementing a statewide strategy for
expanding access to dual enrollment programs for students who
are underrepresented in higher education; and
(2) providing technical assistance to local dual enrollment
programs.
SEC. 10. REPORTING AND OVERSIGHT.
(a) Reporting by Grantees.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish uniform
guidelines for all grantees under section 5, and uniform
guidelines for all grantees under section 9, concerning
information such grantees annually shall report to the
Secretary to demonstrate a grantee's progress toward
achieving the goals of this Act.
(2) Contents of report.--At a minimum, the report described
in paragraph (1) shall include, for eligible entities
receiving funds under section 5, for each category of
students described in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(h)(1)(C)(i)):
[[Page 19415]]
(A) The number of students.
(B) The percentage of students scoring advanced,
proficient, basic, and below basic on the assessments
described in section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3)).
(C) The performance of students on other assessments or
measurements of achievement.
(D) The number of secondary school credits earned.
(E) The number of postsecondary credits earned.
(F) Attendance rate.
(G) Graduation rate.
(H) Placement in postsecondary education or advanced
training, in military service, and in employment.
(b) Reporting by the Secretary.--The Secretary annually
shall compile and analyze the information described in
subsection (a) and report it to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the
Committee on Education and Labor of the House of
Representatives, which report shall include identification of
best practices for achieving the goals of this Act.
(c) Monitoring Visits.--The Secretary's designee shall
visit each grantee at least once for the purpose of helping
the grantee achieve the goals of this Act and to monitor the
grantee's progress toward achieving such goals.
(d) National Evaluation.--Within six months of the
appropriation of funds for this Act, the Secretary shall
enter into a contract with an independent organization to
perform an evaluation of the grants awarded under this Act.
Such evaluation shall apply rigorous procedures to obtain
valid and reliable data concerning participants' outcomes by
social and academic characteristics and monitor the progress
of students from high school to and through postsecondary
education.
(e) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide
technical assistance to eligible entities concerning best
practices in early college high schools and dual enrollment
programs and shall disseminate such best practices among
eligible entities and State and local educational agencies.
SEC. 11. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Employees.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
alter or otherwise affect the rights, remedies, and
procedures afforded to the employees of local educational
agencies (including schools) or institutions of higher
education under Federal, State, or local laws (including
applicable regulations or court orders) or under the terms of
collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding,
or other agreements between such employees and their
employers.
(b) Graduation Rate.--A student who graduates from an early
college high school supported under this Act in the standard
number of years for graduation described in the eligible
entity's application shall be considered to have graduated on
time for purposes of section 1111(b)(2)(C)(vi) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
6311(b)(2)(C)(vi)).
______
By Mr. BUNNING:
S. 3510. A bill to prohibit the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System from making funds available at a discount rate to
private individuals, partnerships, and corporations; to the Committee
on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. BUNNING. 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. 3510
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF DISCOUNT AUTHORITY FOR PRIVATE FIRMS.
Section 13 of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 343) is
amended by striking the third undesignated paragraph
(relating to discounts for individuals, partnerships, and
corporations).
______
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. Kohl):
S. 3512. A bill to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to remove social security account numbers from Medicare identification
cards and communications provided to Medicare beneficiaries in order to
protect Medicare beneficiaries from identity theft; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with
Senator Bingaman and Senator Kohl to remove Social Security numbers
from Medicare identification cards.
Government agencies and private businesses have begun to recognize
the danger of displaying Social Security numbers. A person's Social
Security number can unlock a treasure trove of personal and financial
information.
If your Social Security number falls into the wrong hands, you are at
risk of becoming a victim of identify theft and fraud. In 2006, the
Federal Trade Commission reported that more than 8 million Americans
were victims of identity theft in the prior year.
Thirty-one states have enacted laws that limit how public and private
entities use and display Social Security numbers. Social Security
numbers are being removed from driver's licenses, and most private
health insurance cards no longer display your Social Security number.
Federal agencies are taking steps to reduce the threat of identify
theft. Last year, the Office of Management and Budget called on federal
agencies to establish plans to eliminate unnecessary collection and use
of Social Security numbers and to explore alternatives to Social
Security numbers.
The Department of Veterans Affairs no longer displays Social Security
numbers on new veteran identification cards. And the Office of
Personnel Management has directed health insurers participating in the
Federal Employees Health Benefit Program to eliminate Social Security
numbers from insurance cards.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is
lagging behind other agencies.
The same Social Security number that the Social Security
Administration believes is so sensitive that it should not be carried
in your wallet is found on the Medicare cards that 44 million
beneficiaries carry with them at all times to access health care
services. CMS expressly instructs Medicare beneficiaries to carry their
Medicare card in their wallet or purse as proof of insurance, making
their Social Security numbers readily available to any thief.
In 2005, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Labor-HHS-
Education appropriations bill to require CMS to report to Congress on
what steps would be necessary for them to remove Social Security
numbers from Medicare cards.
CMS issued the report in 2006, but it has not yet begun to remove
Social Security numbers from Medicare cards.
Earlier this year, the Inspector General of the Social Security
Administration took CMS to task for its inaction. The Inspector
General's report confirmed that displaying Social Security numbers on
Medicare cards places millions of people at risk for identity theft and
concluded that ``immediate action is needed to address this significant
vulnerability.''
The bill that I am introducing today, the Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2008, establishes a reasonable timetable for CMS to
begin removing Social Security numbers from Medicare cards and a date
certain by which CMS would be required to complete the process.
Not later than three years after enactment, CMS would be prohibited
from displaying Social Security numbers on newly issued Medicare cards.
CMS would be prohibited from displaying the number on existing cards no
later than five years after enactment.
In addition to Medicare cards, the bill would prohibit CMS from
displaying Social Security numbers on all written and electronic
communications to Medicare beneficiaries, beginning no later than three
years of enactment, except in cases where their display is essential
for the operation of the Medicare program.
Removing Social Security numbers from Medicare cards and
communications to Medicare beneficiaries is long overdue. Medicare
beneficiaries should not be placed at greater risk of identity theft
than people with private health insurance. If other federal agencies
can remove Social Security numbers, so can CMS.
I am pleased that Consumers Union, the Medicare Rights Center, and
the Center for Medicare Advocacy have endorsed this bill.
This is an issue we should all be able to unite behind. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation and work with me to
enact it next year. Medicare beneficiaries deserve to be protected from
criminals who seek
[[Page 19416]]
to steal their identities in order to defraud them.
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. 3512
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Social Security Number
Protection Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
TO PROHIBIT THE DISPLAY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
ACCOUNT NUMBERS ON MEDICARE IDENTIFICATION
CARDS AND COMMUNICATIONS PROVIDED TO MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish and begin to implement procedures to
eliminate the unnecessary collection, use, and display of
social security account numbers of Medicare beneficiaries.
(b) Medicare Cards and Communications Provided to
Beneficiaries.--
(1) Cards.--
(A) New cards.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall ensure that each newly issued Medicare
identification card meets the requirements described in
subparagraph (C).
(B) Replacement of existing cards.--Not later than 5 years
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall ensure that all Medicare
beneficiaries have been issued a Medicare identification card
that meets the requirements of subparagraph (C).
(C) Requirements.--The requirements described in this
subparagraph are, with respect to a Medicare identification
card, that the card does not display or electronically store
(in an unencrypted format) a Medicare beneficiary's social
security account number.
(2) Communications provided to beneficiaries.--Not later
than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prohibit the
display of a Medicare beneficiary's social security account
number on written or electronic communication provided to the
beneficiary unless the Secretary determines that inclusion of
social security account numbers on such communications is
essential for the operation of the Medicare program.
(c) Medicare Beneficiary Defined.--In this section, the
term ``Medicare beneficiary'' means an individual who is
entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act or enrolled under part B of
such title.
(d) Conforming Reference in the Social Security Act.--
Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following
new clause:
``(x) For provisions relating to requiring the Secretary of
Health and Human Services to prohibit the display of social
security account numbers on Medicare identification cards and
communications provided to Medicare beneficiaries, see
section 2 of the Social Security Number Protection Act of
2008.''.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.
____________________
SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 663--EXPRESSING CONCERN OVER THE CURRENT FEDERAL
POLICY THAT ALLOWS THE EXPORTATION OF TOXIC ELECTRONIC WASTE TO
DEVELOPING NATIONS, AND EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT THE
UNITED STATES SHOULD JOIN OTHER DEVELOPED NATIONS AND BAN THE
EXPORTATION OF TOXIC ELECTRONIC WASTE TO DEVELOPING NATIONS
Mr. BROWN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
S. Res. 663
Whereas toxic electronic waste is generated from discarded
televisions and computer monitors, computers and peripherals,
audio and video equipment, wireless devices, fax and copy
machines, video game consoles, and other electronic
appliances and products;
Whereas televisions with cathode ray tubes (CRTs) contain
between 4 and 15 pounds of lead, a toxic substance known to
cause brain damage in children;
Whereas many laptops, flat panel monitors, and televisions
contain fluorescent lamps that contain mercury, a dangerous
neurotoxin;
Whereas many electronic products contain toxic chemicals
such as lead, mercury, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, and
brominated flame retardants;
Whereas approximately 2,630,000 tons of used or unwanted
electronics were discarded in the United States in 2005,
according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
Whereas approximately 330,000 tons of electronic waste were
collected and diverted from landfills for reuse or recycling
in 2005, according to the EPA;
Whereas an estimated 50 percent to 80 percent of electronic
waste collected for reuse or recycling is exported to
countries such as China, India, Ghana, Nigeria, Pakistan, and
Thailand, according to the Department of Commerce;
Whereas approximately 131,500 tons of lead-containing CRTs
were exported in 2005, representing 75 percent of the CRTs
supposedly collected for recycling, according to the EPA;
Whereas Congress has required the Nation's broadcasters to
convert from analog to digital broadcasting on February 17,
2009, a move which will render millions of analog CRT
televisions obsolete for broadcasting and likely to be
discarded;
Whereas exported electronic waste is often crudely scrapped
and dismantled under conditions that are dangerous for human
health and the environment in developing countries, according
to eyewitness reports by the Basel Action Network and several
media outlets including National Geographic Magazine;
Whereas toxic lead from exported electronic waste has
returned to the United States as a public health threat in
children's jewelry made in China, according to a study by
Ashland University, reported by the Wall Street Journal;
Whereas the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) has
issued multiple recall notices for jewelry and toys for
children made in China that contained dangerous levels of
lead;
Whereas 32 nations, including the member States of the
European Union, have banned the export of toxic electronic
waste to developing countries;
Whereas several major information technology and consumer
electronics manufacturers have corporate policies that
prohibit the export of toxic electronic waste to developing
nations;
Whereas the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended, prohibits the export of hazardous waste from the
United States to other nations unless the EPA obtains prior
written permission from the other nation's competent
authority; and
Whereas the EPA has determined that much electronic waste
is excluded or exempted from the definitions of ``waste'' and
``hazardous waste'' under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, leading to the largely unrestricted
export of toxic electronic waste to developing nations: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) expresses its concern over the current Federal policy
that allows the exportation of toxic electronic waste to
developing nations; and
(2) supports joining other developed nations and banning
the export of toxic electronic waste to developing nations.
____________________
SENATE RESOLUTION 664--CELEBRATING THE CENTENNIAL OF UNION STATION IN
WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mrs. DOLE submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works:
S. Res. 664
Whereas, on February 28, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt
signed into law the act entitled ``An Act to provide a union
railroad station in the District of Columbia, and for other
purposes'', and Daniel Burnham, a noted architect from
Chicago, Illinois, was chosen to design the building;
Whereas, on October 27, 1907, Union Station officially
opened at 6:50 a.m. when the Baltimore and Ohio Pittsburgh
Express pulled in to the station;
Whereas the building was ultimately completed in 1908;
Whereas, in 1924, 5,000 cheering fans met the victorious
Washington Nationals at Union Station after they defeated the
Boston Red Sox to capture the American League pennant;
Whereas, in 1951, President Harry Truman dedicated the
Presidential Suite at Union Station as a ``home away from
home'' for members of the Armed Services;
Whereas, in 1968, in preparation for the bicentennial of
the United States, the decision was made to transform the
building into a National Visitor Center;
Whereas Congress then passed the Union Station
Redevelopment Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-125; 95 Stat. 1667)
to return Union Station to its original use as a
transportation center;
[[Page 19417]]
Whereas, in 1983, the Union Station Redevelopment
Corporation was created to oversee the development of the
station into an operating railroad station, to restore the
architectural and historical elements of the structure, to
explore collaboration with the private sector in the
commercial development of the station, and to withdraw the
Federal Government from active management of the station;
Whereas the renovation and restoration of Union Station
began on August 13, 1986, with the ringing of an old train
bell;
Whereas the restoration of Union Station was the largest
public-private restoration project accomplished in the United
States;
Whereas the restoration took 2 years and the grand
reopening was held on September 29, 1988;
Whereas, in 2008, Union Station includes more than 210,000
square feet of retail space, including 50,000 square feet of
restaurant space;
Whereas Union Station is the corporate headquarters for
Amtrak and contains 200,000 square feet of Amtrak passenger
and baggage facilities;
Whereas 32,000,000 people visit Union Station annually; and
Whereas Union Station is the most visited tourist
destination in Washington, District of Columbia: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) celebrates the centennial of Union Station in
Washington, District of Columbia;
(2) applauds the efforts of the people who worked to
preserve this national treasure; and
(3) encourages the people of the United States to continue
to visit and learn about Union Station and its storied
history.
____________________
AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED
SA 5618. Mrs. DOLE submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by her 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 5619. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mr.
Lugar) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him
to the bill S. 3001, supra; which was ordered to lie on the
table.
SA 5620. Mr. WARNER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3001, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 5621. Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by Mr. Reid to the bill S. 3001,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5622. Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Grassley,
Mr. Harkin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Roberts)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the
bill S. 3001, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5623. Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Kyl) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5583
submitted by Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Kyl) and
intended to be proposed to the bill S. 3001, supra; which was
ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5624. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed by him to the bill S. 3001, supra; which was ordered
to lie on the table.
SA 5625. Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 3001, supra;
which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5626. Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5498 submitted by Mr.
Nelson of Florida and intended to be proposed to the bill S.
3001, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5627. Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Warner) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S.
3001, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5628. Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5519
submitted by Mr. Johnson (for himself, Mr. Thune, and Ms.
Stabenow) and intended to be proposed to the bill S. 3001,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5629. Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Ensign)
submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the
bill S. 3001, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 5630. Mr. SANDERS (for Mr. Feingold) proposed an
amendment to the resolution S. Res. 643, calling for greater
dialogue between the Dalai Lama and the Government of China
regarding rights for the people of Tibet, and for other
purposes.
____________________
TEXT OF AMENDMENTS
SA 5618. Mrs. DOLE submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
her 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 VII, add the following:
SEC. 722. REPORT ON MILITARY FAMILY AUTISM SUPPORT CENTERS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than February 1, 2009, the
Secretary of Defense shall, in consultation with the
Secretaries of the military departments and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives a
report on the feasability and advisability of establishing
one or more military family autism support centers beginning
in fiscal year 2010.
(b) Purposes.--For purposes of the report required by
subsection (a), the proposed purposes of the centers
described in that subsection are as follows:
(1) To provide diagnostic services and therapy to children
of military families diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder
and related disorders.
(2) To provide support services to the families of military
dependent children diagnosed with autism.
(3) To train therapists to provide treatment to autistic
children, with special emphasis placed on training the
spouses of members of the Armed Forces to provide such
treatment.
(c) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include the following:
(1) An assessment of the feasability of designating the
Marine Corps or other Military Department as the lead agent
in the establishment and operation of centers described in
subsection (a).
(2) An assessment of the feasability of establishing one of
the centers on the East Coast of the United States and one on
the West Coast of the United States.
(3) A description of the proposed capabilities of the
centers, including the following:
(A) The number of therapists that could be trained at such
centers each year.
(B) The number of children who could receive diagnosis and
therapy at such centers each year.
(C) The average number of hours per week that therapy could
be provided at such centers.
(D) The nature of therapy that could be provided at such
centers.
(E) The anticipated contribution of such centers to
military readiness and retention.
(F) The efficacy of such centers in meeting the needs of
military families with children with a diagnosis of autism.
(4) A description of the resources required for such
centers.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) any center established for the purposes specified in
subsection (b) should be located in a geographic area in
which military families from all the Armed Forces could
conveniently access the services available through such
centers;
(2) in discharging its purposes under subsection (b), each
center should utilize in the diagnosis and treatment of
children of military families with autism medical,
educational, and developmental therapies that have been
successfully used to treat autistic children; and
(3) for purposes of assisting in the training of therapists
under this section, the Secretary of Defense should, in
consultation with the Secretary of Labor, consider the
feasability and advisability of establishing a tuition
assistance program to facilitate the participation of
military spouses in such training.
______
SA 5619. Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Mr. Lugar)
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:
On page 360, after line 20, add the following:
SEC. 1233. REPORT ON THE SECURITY SITUATION IN THE CAUCASUS.
(a) Report Required.--Not later than 60 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, with
the concurrence of the Secretary of State, shall submit to
the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report in
classified and unclassified form on the defense requirements
of the Republic of Georgia.
(b) Content.--The report required under subsection (a)
shall include--
(1) a description of the security situation in the Caucasus
following the recent conflict between the Russian Federation
and the Republic of Georgia, including a description of
[[Page 19418]]
any Russian forces that continue to occupy internationally
recognized Georgian territory;
(2) an assessment of--
(A) the damage sustained by the armed forces of Georgia in
the recent conflict with the Russian Federation; and
(B) the state of civilian-military relations in the
Republic of Georgia;
(3) an analysis of the defense requirements of the Republic
of Georgia following the conflict with the Russian
Federation;
(4) detailed recommendations on how the Republic of Georgia
may improve its capability for self-defense and more
effectively control its territorial waters and air space; and
(5) an assessment of the areas where the Republic of
Georgia would require the assistance of the United States and
other countries to improve its defense capabilities.
(c) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress--
(A) reaffirms its previous expressions of support for
continued enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to include qualified candidates;
(B) supports the commitment to further enlargement of NATO
to include democratic governments that are able and willing
to meet the responsibilities of membership; and
(C) urges NATO member states not to impose national caveats
restricting the use of forces they commit to NATO operations.
(2) the expansion of NATO contributes to the continued
effectiveness and relevance of the organization;
(3) Georgia and Ukraine have made important progress in the
areas of defense and democratic and human rights reform;
(4) a stronger, deeper relationship among the Government of
Georgia, the Government of Ukraine, and NATO will be mutually
beneficial to those countries and to NATO member states;
(5) the United States should take the lead and encourage
other member states of NATO to support the awarding of a
Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine;
(6) the United States Government should provide assistance
to help rebuild infrastructure in Georgia and continue to
develop its security partnership with the Government of the
Republic of Georgia by providing security assistance to the
armed forces of Georgia, as appropriate;
(7) the United States should work with fellow NATO member
states to address the security concerns of newly joined
members;
(8) the United States should expand efforts to promote the
development of democratic institutions, the rule of law, and
political parties in the independent states of the former
Soviet Union; and
(9) the United States should work with its allies to ensure
secure, reliable energy transit routes in Central Asia, the
Caucasus, and Eastern Europe.
______
SA 5620. Mr. WARNER 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 subsection A of title XXVIII, add the
following:
SEC. 2814. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CONVEY PROPERTY AT
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS TO LIMIT ENCROACHMENT.
(a) Repeal of Applicability of Authority to Exchanges for
Military Construction Projects, Military Family Housing, and
Military Unaccompanied Housing.--Section 2869 of title 10,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)(A), by striking ``military
construction project or'';
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``military
construction,'' each place it appears and inserting
``land,''; and
(3) in subsection (d)(2)(A)--
(A) by striking ``military construction project,'' both
places it appears in clauses (ii) and (iii); and
(B) by striking ``military family housing, or military
unaccompanied housing'' both places it appears in clauses
(ii) and (iii).
(b) Repeal of Limitation on Applicability of Authority to
Excess Non-BRAC Property.--Such section is further amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (3); and
(2) in subsection (e)(2), by striking ``the period
specified in paragraph (3) of subsection (a)'' and inserting
``the period beginning on October 17, 2006, and ending on
September 30, 2008,''.
(c) Repeal of Pilot Program.--Such section is further
amended by striking subsection (c).
(d) Repeal of Requirements Relating to Reports.--Such
section is further amended by striking subsection (f).
(e) Repeal of Authority to Acquire Housing.--Subsection
(a)(1) of such section is further amended--
(1) by striking ``for the real property--'' and all that
follows through ``to carry out'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``for the real property to carry out'';
(2) by striking ``operations; or'' and inserting
``operations.''; and
(3) by striking subparagraph (B).
(f) Limitation on Use at Military Installations Closed
Under Base Closure Law.--Such section is further amended by
inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
``(c) Limitation on Use at Military Installations Closed
Under Base Closure Law.--The authority under subsection
(a)(2)(A) to convey real property located at a closed or
realigned military installation may only be used to the
extent a conveyance is consistent with an approved
redevelopment plan for such installation.''.
(g) Sunset.--Such section is further amended by inserting
after subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Sunset.--The authority to enter into agreements under
this section shall expire on September 30, 2013.''.
(h) Additional Conforming and Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Heading amendment.--The heading of such section is
amended to read as follows:
``Sec. 2869. Conveyance of property at military installations
to support military housing or limit encroachment''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of subchapter III of chapter 169 of such title is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2869 and
inserting the following new item:
``2869. Conveyance of property at military installations to support
military housing or limit encroachment.''.
______
SA 5621. Mr. REID (for Mr. Kennedy) submitted an amendment intended
to be proposed by Mr. Reid 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 II, the following:
SEC. 133. PROCUREMENT PROGRAMS FOR CRUISERS AND DESTROYERS.
(a) Contingent Requirement for Report on Modification of
Shipbuilding Programs.--If as part of the future-years
defense program submitted to Congress in 2009 under section
221 of title 10, United States Code, the Secretary of the
Navy modifies the shipbuilding program for cruisers or the
shipbuilding program for destroyers for the Navy, the
Secretary shall submit to Congress with such future-years
defense program the following:
(1) An acquisition strategy for cruisers and destroyers
that has been approved by the Department of Defense.
(2) The results of reviews by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council for an Acquisition Category I program that
supports the need for the modified acquisition strategy.
(3) A verification by an independent review panel convened
by the Secretary of Defense that, in evaluating the
modification of the shipbuilding program concerned, the
Secretary of the Navy considered each of the following:
(A) Modeling and simulation, including wargaming
conclusions regarding combat effectiveness.
(B) Assessments of platform operational availability.
(C) Cost savings or penalties from changed vessel manning
levels to accomplish missions.
(4) An intelligence analysis reflecting the coordinated
assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency supporting
changes to the mix of platforms in the shipbuilding program
concerned compared with the 2009 shipbuilding program for the
vessels concerned in order to address future threats.
(5) The differences in cost and schedule arising from the
need to accommodate new sensors and weapons to counter the
future threats referred to in paragraph (4) in comparison
with the cost and schedule arising from the need to
accommodate sensors and weapons as contemplated by the 2009
shipbuilding program for the vessels concerned.
(6) A verification by the commanders of the combatant
commands that the modified shipbuilding program for the
vessels concerned would be preferable to the current
shipbuilding program for the vessels concerned in meeting
their future mission requirements.
(7) A joint review by the Navy and the Missile Defense
Agency setting forth additional requirements for investment
in Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems if the
budget of the President for fiscal year 2010 (as submitted to
Congress pursuant to section 1105 of title 31, United States
Code), requests funding for such investment in amounts above
the amounts specified in the future-years defense program
submitted to Congress in 2008 in the budget of the President
for fiscal year 2009 (as so submitted).
[[Page 19419]]
(b) Technology Roadmap for Next Generation Cruiser and
Fleet Modernization.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Navy shall
develop a plan to incorporate into the Next Generation
Cruiser (CG(X)) program and the Fleet Modernization program
the following:
(A) Applicable technologies developed for combat systems
for each of the following:
(i) The DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer.
(ii) Aegis destroyers and cruisers.
(iii) Aegis ballistic missile defense.
(iv) Ship self-defense systems.
(B) Integrated electric propulsion technologies.
(2) Scope of plan.--The plan required by paragraph (1)
shall include sufficient detail for systems and subsystems to
ensure that the plan--
(A) avoids redundant development for common functions; and
(B) reflects implementation of Navy plans for achieving an
open architecture for all surface combat systems.
______
SA 5622. Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Grassley, Mr.
Harkin, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Roberts) 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 G of title V, add the following:
SEC. 587. BENEFITS UNDER POST-DEPLOYMENT/MOBILIZATION RESPITE
ABSENCE PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN PERIODS BEFORE
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary concerned may provide any
member or former member of the Armed Forces with the benefits
specified in subsection (b) if the member or former member
would, on any day during the period beginning on January 19,
2007, and ending on the date of the implementation of the
Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence (PDMRA) program
by the Secretary concerned, have qualified for a day of
administrative absence under the Post-Deployment/Mobilization
Respite Absence program had the program been in effect during
such period.
(b) Benefits.--The benefits specified in this subsection
are the following:
(1) In the case of an individual who is a former member of
the Armed Forces at the time of the provision of benefits
under this section, payment of an amount not to exceed $200
for each day the individual would have qualified for a day of
administrative absence as described in subsection (a) during
the period specified in that subsection.
(2) In the case of an individual who is a member of the
Armed Forces at the time of the provision of benefits under
this section, either one day of administrative absence or
payment of an amount not to exceed $200, as selected by the
Secretary concerned, for each day the individual would have
qualified for a day of administrative absence as described in
subsection (a) during the period specified in that
subsection.
(c) Exclusion of Certain Former Members.--A former member
of the Armed Forces is not eligible under this section for
the benefits specified in subsection (b)(1) if the former
member was discharged or released from the Armed Forces under
other than honorable conditions.
(d) Maximum Number of Days of Benefits Providable.--The
number of days of benefits providable to a member or former
member of the Armed Forces under this section may not exceed
40 days of benefits.
(e) Form of Payment.--The paid benefits providable under
subsection (b) may be paid in a lump sum or installments, at
the election of the Secretary concerned.
(f) Construction With Other Pay and Leave.--The benefits
provided a member or former member of the Armed Forces under
this section are in addition to any other pay, absence, or
leave provided by law.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Post-Deployment/Mobilization Respite Absence
program'' means the program of a military department to
provide days of administrative absence not chargeable against
available leave to certain deployed or mobilized members of
the Armed Forces in order to assist such members in
reintegrating into civilian life after deployment or
mobilization.
(2) The term ``Secretary concerned'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101(5) of title 37, United States Code.
(h) Termination.--
(1) In general.--The authority to provide benefits under
this section shall expire on the date that is one year after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Construction.--Expiration under this subsection of the
authority to provide benefits under this section shall not
affect the utilization of any day of administrative absence
provided a member of the Armed Forces under subsection
(b)(2), or the payment of any payment authorized a member or
former member of the Armed Forces under subsection (b),
before the expiration of the authority in this section.
______
SA 5623. Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Kyl) submitted an amendment
intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5583 submitted by Mr. Tester
(for himself and Mr. Kyl) and intended to be proposed 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:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. 237. AIR-LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE CONCEPTS.
Of the amount authorized to be appropriated by section
210(4) for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation,
Defense-wide activities and available for Ballistic Missile
Defense (PE 0603175C), $15,000,000 may be available for Air-
Launched Ballistic Missile Defense Concepts, including the
Net-Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) and the Air-
Launched Hit-to-Kill (ALHTK) technology programs currently
underway.
______
SA 5624. Mr. FEINGOLD 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 F of title X, add the following:
SEC. 1067. SENSE OF SENATE ON ACCESS OF VETERANS SERVICE
ORGANIZATIONS TO MILITARY FACILITIES FOR
COUNSELING AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES.
(a) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) each commander of a military installation should ensure
the use of available space and equipment at military
installations, as required by section 2670(c) of title 10,
United States Code, by representatives of qualified veterans
service organizations, including those authorized to function
on military installations under that section;
(2) the commander of each facility or location at which
access is provided under section 2670(c) of such title should
endeavor to provide private space in which a member of the
Armed Forces may receive counseling and services as available
from veterans service organizations;
(3) the Secretary of Defense should widely disseminate
information regarding the existence and availability of the
Wounded Warrior Resource Center as required by section 1616
of the Wounded Warrior Act (title XVI of Public Law 110-181;
122 Stat. 447; 10 U.S.C. 1071 note) to members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents; and
(4) the Wounded Warrior Center should provide legal
assistance referral information where appropriate, as
required elsewhere in this Act, especially to those members
of the Armed Forces for whom a medical evaluation board or a
physical evaluation board has been initiated and their family
members.
(b) Qualified Veterans Service Organizations Defined.--In
this section, the term ``qualified veterans service
organization'' means an organization that is recognized by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for the representation of
veterans under section 5902 of title 38, United States Code.
______
SA 5625. 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 appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS FROM OIL
AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS.
(a) Areas.--This section applies to--
(1) any area in the Gulf of Mexico that is east of the
Military Mission Line (as defined in section 102 of the Gulf
of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note;
Public Law 109-432));
(2) the area that is also known as the ``Joint Gulf Range
Complex'' or the ``Gulf of Mexico Range''; and
[[Page 19420]]
(3) any military or national security agency operations,
training, or testing area that is used by a military or
national security agency of the United States.
(b) Prerequisite.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any permit
for oil and gas leasing or extraction in an area described in
subsection (a) unless and until the President certifies
(after receiving advice from the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and
the head of each appropriate national security agency of the
United States) that in balancing the national security
interests of the United States--
(1) the advantages of oil or gas extraction in the area;
outweigh
(2) the military and national security missions being
conducted in the area.
______
SA 5626. Mr. NELSON of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 5498 submitted by Mr. Nelson of Florida and
intended to be proposed 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:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the
following:
SEC. __. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL SECURITY INTERESTS FROM OIL
AND GAS LEASING IN CERTAIN AREAS.
(a) Areas.--This section applies to--
(1) any area in the Gulf of Mexico that is east of the
Military Mission Line (as defined in section 102 of the Gulf
of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (43 U.S.C. 1331 note;
Public Law 109-432));
(2) the area that is also known as the ``Joint Gulf Range
Complex'' or the ``Gulf of Mexico Range''; and
(3) any military or national security agency operations,
training, or testing area that is used by a military or
national security agency of the United States.
(b) Prerequisite.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Secretary of the Interior shall not issue any permit
for oil and gas leasing or extraction in an area described in
subsection (a) unless and until the President certifies
(after receiving advice from the Secretary of Defense, the
Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air Force, and
the head of each appropriate national security agency of the
United States) that in balancing the national security
interests of the United States--
(1) the advantages of oil or gas extraction in the area;
outweigh
(2) the military and national security missions being
conducted in the area.
______
SA 5627. Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. Warner) 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 D of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 1233. ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS ON COUNTER-NARCOTICS
ACTIVITIES IN BI-ANNUAL REPORTS ON PROGRESS
TOWARD SECURITY AND STABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN.
(a) Recurring Elements.--Section 1230(c)(4) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Public Law
110-181; 122 Stat. 387) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (E);
and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new
subparagraph (D):
``(D) An assessment of the coordination between United
States and NATO ISAF military forces on the one hand and the
Government of Afghanistan on the other hand to better
coordinate and de-conflict operations relating to or in
support of the counter-narcotics activities of the national
and provincial governments of Afghanistan and of other
departments and agencies of the United States and other
member countries of NATO ISAF.''.
(b) Additional Element in First Report After Enactment.--
The first report under section 1230 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as amended by
subsection (a), that is submitted after the date of the
enactment of this Act shall, in addition to any other matters
required by such section (as so amended), also identify which
offices in the military headquarters of United States and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization International Security
Assistance Force in Afghanistan are responsible for
coordinating counter-narcotics operations in Afghanistan.
______
SA 5628. Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5519 submitted by Mr.
Johnson (for himself, Mr. Thune, and Ms. Stabenow) and intended to be
proposed 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:
On page 3, line 20, strike ``subsection.''.'' and insert
``subsection.
``(4) Maximum amount for consolidated school districts.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a local
educational agency that is formed at any time after September
30, 2003, by the consolidation of 2 or more former school
districts, of which at least 1 former district was eligible
for assistance under this section for the fiscal year
preceding the year of the consolidation, shall not be
eligible under this section for an amount that is more than
the total of the maximum amount calculated under paragraphs
(2) and (3) of subsection (b) for each former eligible
district of the local educational agency for such fiscal
year.''.
______
SA 5629. Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Ensign) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by her 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:
On page 342, between lines 10 and 11, insert the following:
SEC. 1208. SUPPORT FOR AN IRAQ OIL TRUST.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It is the policy of the United
States that--
(1) the people of Iraq should benefit directly from a share
of the revenues generated by the hydrocarbon resources of
their country; and
(2) the United States Government should present a plan and
provide capacity and economic assistance for the
implementation of an Iraq oil trust.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the future of Iraq's oil reserves remains at the heart
of political reconciliation in Iraq;
(2) ensuring that individual Iraqis benefit directly from
hydrocarbon revenues is critical to promoting reconciliation
and facilitating sustainable stability in Iraq;
(3) the development and implementation of an oil trust
could provide significant benefits to Iraq and its citizens,
including by--
(A) helping to demonstrate the values at the heart of
democratic governance by giving Iraqi citizens a direct stake
in the responsible and transparent management of the
hydrocarbon resources of Iraq and the use and distribution of
hydrocarbon revenues;
(B) helping to diffuse the degree and concentration of
control of the revenues generated from hydrocarbon resources,
thereby reducing the opportunity for and magnitude of
corruption;
(C) facilitating ``bottom-up'' private sector development,
which will be critical to Iraq's future prosperity and
economic diversity, by putting revenues from the oil
resources of Iraq directly in the hands of its citizens;
(D) helping to alleviate the incentive for smuggling or
sabotage by providing individual citizens a direct stake in
the amount of Iraqi oil that is legally produced and sold;
(E) contributing to sustainable security by providing
individuals monetary-resource alternatives to cooperating
with militias, extremists, and other extra-legal entities;
(F) providing additional income directly to individual
citizens, thereby stimulating entrepreneurship and reducing
the reliance on the ability of the central and provincial
governments to deliver basic services and execute their
budgets; and
(G) serving as a model for revenue distribution to other
resource-rich countries in the Middle East; and
(4) the United States should provide assistance to Iraq for
implementation of an oil trust.
(c) Certification.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
certify to the appropriate congressional committees that
representatives of the United States Government have
presented to Government of Iraq representatives an oil trust
plan that includes--
(1) background on oil trusts, including those currently
used by sovereign nations or territories and states within
nations;
(2) options for different types of oil trusts that could be
implemented in Iraq; and
(3) a discussion on the steps necessary to implement an oil
trust.
(d) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term
[[Page 19421]]
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(1) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Relations, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
______
SA 5630. Mr. SANDERS (for Mr. Feingold) proposed an amendment to the
resolution S. Res. 643, calling for greater dialogue between the Dalai
Lama and the Government of China regarding rights for the people of
Tibet, and for other purposes; as follows:
Strike the fifteenth and sixteenth whereas clauses of the
preamble.
____________________
AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET
committee on commerce, science, and transportation
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during
the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 10:30
a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on environment and public works
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 at 10 a.m. in
room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on foreign relations
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on health, education, labor, and pensions
Mr. CARDIN. 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 ``401(k) Fee
Disclosure: Helping Workers Save for Retirement'' on Wednesday,
September 17, 2008. The hearing will commence at 10 a.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. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at
10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on the judiciary
Mr. CARDIN. 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 a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation'' on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, at 9:30
a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
committee on veterans' affairs
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008. The Committee will meet in 418
Russell Senate Office Building, beginning at 10 a.m.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
special committee on aging
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special
Committee on Aging be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Wednesday, September 17, 2008 from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. in
Dirksen 562 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
EXTENDING AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 6889, which was received
from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 6889) to extend the authority of the Secretary
of Education to purchase guaranteed student loans for an
additional year, and for other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, 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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 6889) was ordered to a third reading, was read the
third time, and passed.
____________________
CALLING FOR GREATER DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE DALAI LAMA AND CHINA
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration
of S. Res. 643 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A resolution (S. Res. 643) calling for greater dialogue
between the Dalai Lama and the government of China regarding
rights for the people of Tibet, and other purposes.
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the
resolution be agreed to, the amendment which is at the desk be agreed
to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be
laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any
statements relating to the resolution be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 643) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 5630) was agreed to, as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the preamble)
Strike the fifteenth and sixteenth whereas clauses of the
preamble.
The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, as amended, reads as follows:
S. Res. 643
Whereas, on April 25, 2008, China's official news agency
Xinhua expressed the willingness of the Government of China
to meet with envoys of the Dalai Lama;
Whereas, on May 4, 2008, Special Envoy of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama Lodi Gyari and Envoy Kelsang Gyaltsen met with
Chinese Executive Vice Minister Zhu Weiqun and Executive Vice
Minister Sithar for one day of talks, in which the Government
of China alleged that the Dalai Lama instigated the March
2008 unrest in autonomous Tibetan areas of China, and was
sabotaging the Olympic Games;
Whereas Hu Jintao, General Secretary of the Communist Party
of China, released a statement after this meeting saying that
his Government of China was committed to a ``serious''
dialogue with the Dalai Lama;
Whereas, at the United States-European Union (EU) Summit on
June 10, 2008, the United States and the European Union
issued a joint statement welcoming the decision by the
Government of China to hold talks with representatives of the
Dalai Lama, and urged ``both parties to move forward with a
substantive, constructive and results-oriented dialogue at an
early date'';
Whereas the Envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama's Kelsang
Gyaltsen and Lodi Gyari visited Beijing from June 30 to July
3, 2008, to conduct the seventh round of the Tibetan-Chinese
dialogue;
Whereas, during these talks, the Government of China issued
a new set of demands, including that the Dalai Lama prove
that he does not support Tibetan independence or disruption
of the Olympic Games in Beijing;
Whereas the Dalai Lama has stated multiple times he does
not favor the independence of Tibet and is instead seeking
negotiations to address the legitimate grievances of,
[[Page 19422]]
and provide genuine autonomy for, the Tibetan people within
the People's Republic of China, and is committed to non-
violence;
Whereas the Dalai Lama has repeatedly and publicly declared
his support for the Olympic Games in China, as well as his
intention to attend the opening ceremony, if invited;
Whereas, at the conclusion of the July round of talks,
officials of the Government of China did not accept a
proposal by the representatives of the Dalai Lama to agree to
a joint statement supporting a continuation of the dialogue
process;
Whereas Special Envoy Lodi Gyari said on July 5, 2008, that
the talks with the Government of China, called for by the
international community, were ``disappointing and
difficult'';
Whereas, in contrast to the opinion of Special Envoy Lodi
Gyari, President George W. Bush said on July 6, 2008, that
``it looks like there's some progress, at least in the talks
with the Dalai Lama'';
Whereas officials of the Government of China subsequently
stated that the talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys are only
about the Dalai Lama's personal future, rather than about the
future of Tibet;
Whereas the Office of the Dalai Lama on July 17, 2008,
restated its position that the talks are about ``the future
of 6,000,000 Tibetans in Tibet and not His Holiness the Dalai
Lama'';
Whereas, on July 11, 2008, the European Parliament adopted
a resolution that ``welcomes the resumption of contacts,
after the events of March 2008 in Lhasa, between the
representatives of the Dalai Lama and the Chinese
authorities'' and ``encourages the two parties to intensify
these contacts so as to establish the bases for mutual trust,
without which it will be impossible to arrive at a mutually
acceptable political solution'';
Whereas China's People's Armed Police troops have been sent
to monasteries in Tibetan areas to give monks ``relevant
information'' about the Olympics, and Chinese authorities
have stepped up ``patriotic education'' campaigns designed to
conform the religious practices of Tibetan Buddhists to
Communist Party rules, including forcing monks and nuns to
denounce the Dalai Lama: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) urges the Dalai Lama or his representatives and the
Government of the People's Republic of China to begin earnest
negotiations, without preconditions, to provide for a
mutually agreeable solution that addresses the legitimate
grievances of, and provides genuine autonomy for, the Tibetan
people;
(2) urges that the talks in October 2008 between the
Government of China and the Dalai Lama should focus on the
welfare, cultural, political, and religious autonomy of the
Tibetan people, and not on the person of the Dalai Lama;
(3) affirms that the human rights of Tibetans and their
right to practice religion free of government regulation is
not an internal matter of any one country;
(4) urges the President to take a more personal and engaged
interest in the successful conclusion of these negotiations,
both unilaterally and in coordination with United States
allies; and
(5) calls on the United States Government to press the
Government of China--
(A) to respect freedom of speech and freedom of
association, as required by international law and as
enshrined in the Constitution of China and to release those
who have committed no crime other than peaceful protest; and
(B) to end the ``patriotic education'' campaign against lay
and clerical Tibetans and allow Tibetans to practice their
religion freely.
____________________
ORDERS FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m.
tomorrow, Thursday, September 18; that following the prayer and pledge,
the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, 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; further, that the mandatory quorum
under rule XXII be waived with respect to the motions to proceed to S.
3297 and H.R. 6049.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand in recess
under the previous order.
There being no objection, the Senate, at 7:46 p.m, recessed until
Thursday, September 18, 2008, at 10 a.m.
[[Page 19423]]
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The House met at 10 a.m.
Rev. Danny Davis, Mount Hermon Baptist Church, Danville, Virginia,
offered the following prayer:
Loving God, You have shown us what is good, and that is ``to act
justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with our God.''
Help us, Your servants, to do exactly that, to be instruments of both
justice and mercy, exercising those virtues in humility. Your word
requires it. Our Nation needs it.
Forgive us when we have failed to do that. For therein not only have
we failed ourselves, we have failed You as well.
Today, fresh and anew, we ask that those twin rivers of justice and
mercy might roll down from on high. Let them saturate this Chamber,
permeating every mind, flooding every heart, cleansing every motive,
and springing forth in every action. And then let them flow forth from
this place, nourishing our land, refreshing its citizens, and bringing
glory to the God who placed in us such a sacred trust.
In Jesus' name, amen.
____________________
THE JOURNAL
The SPEAKER. 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. Will the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson)
come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. RICHARDSON led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows:
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
____________________
WELCOMING REV. DANNY DAVIS
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Drake) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mrs. DRAKE. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am proud to recognize and welcome Dr. Danny Davis, the senior
pastor at Mount Hermon Baptist Church in Danville, Virginia. He is
accompanied today by his wife of 30 years, Sandy.
Dr. Davis was born in Tennessee and grew up in Williamsburg,
Kentucky. Having served in the ministry since 1985, he has pastored
churches in Kentucky, North Carolina, Florida and Virginia. Not only
does Dr. Davis have a heart for service in his local community but also
for ministry through missions at home and abroad. He has been involved
in multiple mission trips to Tanzania, Russia, Honduras, the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation in Montana, the United Kingdom, Greece and even
Communist Cuba.
Dr. Davis' only son, Jordan, has served as a member of my staff for
the past 3 years. Jordan's hard work and dedication have helped me to
better serve my constituents. I know I have Dr. Davis to thank for
having instilled in his son the same values he displays in his ministry
as well as the importance of service to others and his country.
I want to thank Dr. Davis for being here today and offering today's
prayer and I wish him continued success in his ministry.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER. The Chair will entertain up to 15 further requests for
1-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
____________________
REPUBLICANS TO BLAME FOR ENERGY CRISIS
(Ms. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. RICHARDSON. Madam Speaker, 3 years ago, Republicans passed an
energy plan that they said would lower prices at the pump, drive
economic growth and job creation and promote energy independence. I ask
you, America, did it work? The answer is no.
Now we look 3 years later and the price of gas has gone up 59
percent, the economy is tanking and we've lost 600,000 jobs this year
alone. The Republicans are saying they know how to solve the problem.
Well, they had control of Washington for 6 years and the results are
clear--the mission is not accomplished and everyone is feeling the
effect of their failure today.
Democrats have been working hard to reverse the Republican failed
policies of the past. Yesterday we passed a comprehensive energy
package that will lower prices at the pump, expand domestic drilling
off the Outer Continental Shelf, expand renewable energy sources, end
subsidies for Big Oil and create good-paying jobs for Americans here.
I would like to know why Republicans did not solve the energy crisis.
Yesterday Democrats continued a new direction and took action to solve
the energy crisis.
____________________
WELCOMING REV. DANNY DAVIS
(Mr. GOODE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I too want to say welcome to Dr. Danny Davis
for delivering the opening prayer this morning. His son works in the
office of Congresswoman Thelma Drake. But his church, Mount Hermon
Baptist Church, is located in the Fifth District of Virginia. His
predecessor, Dr. Don Davidson, in the last Congress delivered an
opening prayer. And Mount Hermon Baptist Church served as the host
church for the memorial services of my predecessor in Congress, the
late Dan Daniel, 20 years ago.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the measure passed
yesterday for the Commonwealth of Virginia was a hoax and a sham. It
provides no funds for the Commonwealth, for its offshore natural gas
and its offshore crude oil. I have talked with members of the General
Assembly. They will be very reluctant to adopt any drill policy when
they are not treated the same as Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and
Alabama. We need to be fair to encourage drilling.
____________________
FLAGS OVER MANTECA, CALIFORNIA
(Mr. McNERNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the dedication
of so many volunteers who eight times a year line the streets of
Manteca, California, with 2,400 flags in a stunning display of
patriotism. Flags Over Manteca began after September 11 to recognize
those who lost their lives on that day and all Americans who have
sacrificed in service to our country.
Each morning on days of remembrance during the year, volunteers and
service groups place flags along eight miles of Manteca's main roads to
celebrate our country's heroes. Coordinating it all is the Manteca
Chamber of Commerce and volunteer Les Thomas
[[Page 19424]]
who arrives early to ensure that everyone knows what to do. He is there
at the end of the day to receive all 2,400 flags and carefully pack
them away until the next holiday.
The event has become so meaningful that volunteers arrive at 4:30 in
the morning to have the privilege of placing flags in honor of those
who will not be forgotten.
Today I commend all those who make Flags Over Manteca work. I hope it
continues to memorialize the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes.
____________________
A MISSED OPPORTUNITY
(Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to address
the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WITTMAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, yesterday we had a great
opportunity to put forward a bipartisan approach to solve this Nation's
energy problems. Unfortunately, we didn't do that. We had a bill that
arrived at the last minute to us with very little time to look over and
no attempt to make sure that it included the best ideas on how to solve
this Nation's energy problems.
That opportunity was bypassed, and what we ended up with was a very
narrowly banded bill that will not address this Nation's energy
problems.
That is reprehensible. We need to make sure that we have that
opportunity. We have a bill that passed out of here yesterday that has
already been said by Democrats in the Senate that it's dead on arrival
and that it's going to be vetoed by the President.
Why didn't this body take the opportunity to make sure that we
adopted an energy policy that was going to be in the best long-term
interest to this Nation, that had a chance of passing and that had a
chance of making a difference in the gas prices of our men and women
out there that their families have to deal with each and every day?
That is reprehensible. We had a great opportunity yesterday that we
missed, that we did not take advantage of, Mr. Speaker, and I tell you
this Nation will suffer for it.
____________________
{time} 1015
DEMOCRATS WANT TO JUMP START THIS ECONOMY BY PASSING A NEW ECONOMIC
RECOVERY PLAN
(Mr. BRALEY of Iowa asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, the crisis on Wall Street impacts
Americans across the country. In the coming days, House Democrats will
continue our efforts to revive the economy and end the free for all on
Wall Street and restore confidence on Main Street.
Democrats have restored the kind of oversight that was missing under
President Bush and the Republican Congress. The GOP decision to turn a
blind eye to financial markets helped pave the way for the financial
crisis that has brought down home values across the country and has
significantly weakened our economy. Democrats have and will continue to
do things differently.
This month, Democrats will work to enact a second economic recovery
package that will help Americans who have lost their jobs or who are
barely making ends meet, and they will create good-paying jobs. That's
what we need in our flood-ravaged communities in Iowa.
Mr. Speaker, these Bush-McCain economic policies have put America in
an economic hole. This month, Republicans will again have a clear
choice. Stand with the Bush-McCain plan for more of the same or take
action to aid families who are struggling.
____________________
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 417
(Mr. McCOTTER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. McCOTTER. I've long thought that civics should be taught as
earnestly as possible in our schools.
Yesterday, we saw the spectacle of a Democratic House sham energy
bill being passed out of here and lauded as if the problem had been
solved. The problem is no one had consulted with the Democratic Senate,
which had declared it dead on arrival.
Now, for a bill to become law, it must pass both Chambers and be
signed by the President of the United States. Only in that way can
meaningful American energy security and independence be secured. That
is why I have introduced House Concurrent Resolution 417 that says that
it is the sense of this Congress that we will not adjourn until
meaningful energy legislation has been passed into law to help the
American people through this difficult time.
Now, again, I have to do this because there seem to be some who think
that simply passing a sham energy bill for political cover out of this
body is going to help any American struggling at the pump. It will not.
Let them put your money where their mouth is and stay here until they
get the job done.
____________________
IMMIGRATION REFORM
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I'm here on behalf of immigrant families who
otherwise would not have a voice. There are those who insist that
undocumented immigrants have broken the law, that they are criminals,
but what image do you get when you hear that someone is a criminal?
Your image is of a murderer, of a thief, of a drug dealer, of someone
who intensely wants to hurt another person.
These families who are wrongly called ``criminals'' come to the
United States without the intent to hurt anyone. Yet there are anti-
immigrant attacks that continue to say otherwise. What happened to the
Ten Commandments? to love thy neighbor?
There are those who say that these families should play by the rules.
The rules now are to form a line and to wait many years and to pay a
huge fine, but the reality is the immigration process is so complicated
that some of us would have a difficult time getting through it. We need
comprehensive immigration reform to address the 12 to 14 million people
in the United States to play by the rules and to also fix this broken
system.
I urge my colleagues to support comprehensive immigration.
____________________
UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED TRADE DEALS
(Mr. KAGEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, in Wisconsin and throughout the Nation,
manufacturing has been the backbone of our economy and of our
communities, but during the past decade, we've seen many of our jobs
being shipped overseas, not because we are not hardworking and not
because we are not producing high-quality products but, rather, because
of unfair and unbalanced trade deals.
The free enterprise system depends upon working Americans having a
competitive workforce and productive employees. These are vital to the
success of every business be it large or small.
Congress will soon vote on an economic stimulus package that contains
$500 million for worker and job training assistance. Included in that
legislation is a piece that I had the opportunity to write, entitled
the ``Incumbent Worker Development Act.'' This legislation will
guarantee that States and Federal Governments work together to train
our workers.
This is not a time for ideology. This is a time for action, and I
encourage all of us to vote for this stimulus package.
____________________
REPUBLICANS CLAIM THEY WANT ALL OF THE ABOVE BUT HAVE DONE NOTHING TO
LOWER GAS PRICES
(Mr. SIRES asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
[[Page 19425]]
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, both Democrats and Republicans have been
talking about high gas prices for months. At first, Republicans said we
just needed to drill, drill, drill, but then they joined us in saying
that a more comprehensive, all-of-the-above proposal was in order. It
turns out it was just all talk.
Democrats have been trying to reverse the failed Bush policies of the
past, but Republicans keep saying no. We proposed legislation to crack
down on price gouging and to curb excess speculation. Republicans said
no. We proposed lowering gas prices immediately by tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Republicans said no. We proposed
legislation that would force Big Oil to drill on 68 million acres of
land to increase oil production here at home. Republicans again said
no.
Yesterday, we passed an all-of-the-above energy package to bring down
prices and to invest in America's energy future, but again, Republicans
voted no.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like Republicans don't actually want to resolve
the crisis. They just want to talk about the crisis.
____________________
REPUBLICANS ARE STILL JUST TALKING
(Mr. ALTMIRE asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Speaker, for 6 years, the Republicans had control of
Congress and of the White House, and for 6 years, the American people
waited for them to do something to end our dependence on foreign oil,
but despite their constant cry of ``drill, baby, drill,'' the
Republicans didn't act on this issue when they had control, and 2 years
ago, the American people voted for new leadership in Congress.
Well, yesterday, that new leadership--the Democrats in this House--
answered the call by passing a landmark energy bill that triples the
available territory for offshore drilling. Let me repeat that. The bill
we passed yesterday triples the amount of territory in the Outer
Continental Shelf that is available for drilling.
Predictably, many in the minority demonstrated by their votes that
they're more interested in having a political issue for the coming
election than they are in actually solving the problem. While Democrats
have taken decisive action by passing a comprehensive energy bill that
includes an unprecedented expansion of offshore drilling, Republicans,
as you will hear today, are still just talking.
____________________
McCAIN'S ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMY SHOWS THAT HE REALLY IS NOT AN
EXPERT ON THE ECONOMY
(Mr. COURTNEY asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, in December, Senator McCain admitted that
he is not an economic expert when he stated ``The issue of economics is
not something I've understood as well as I should.'' He went on to say,
though, that he had Alan Greenspan's book. Well, clearly, Senator
McCain should listen to Greenspan, who called this week's financial
news a once-in-a-century type of financial crisis. Unfortunately,
Senator McCain was not listening because his response to the
catastrophic economic events of this week was ``the fundamentals of our
economy are strong,'' and he called for the oldest, lamest Washington
trick in the book--the creation of a study commission.
We don't need a commission to know that 600,000 Americans have lost
their jobs in the last year, that the median income for working
Americans has fallen over $2,000 a year over the last 8 years. Those
are not strong fundamentals.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when every economic expert agrees that our
economy is in crisis, we need someone in the White House who is ready
and willing to act now to fix it, and clearly, that person is not
Senator McCain.
____________________
IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE IN THE POLICIES OF THIS NATION
(Mr. PERLMUTTER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, this country was really founded upon
sacrifice, investment and opportunity for all, but over the last few
years, we've seen the focus being on the wealthiest 1 percent in
America to the exclusion of the rest of us, and that House of cards has
come tumbling down on Wall Street over the last couple of weeks with
the failures of the biggest corporations in America.
The policies of this administration not to regulate and the policies
to only borrow and spend are causing this country turmoil, and the
hardworking people in the middle are going to have to pick up the
pieces. It is time for renewal. It is time for a change. The policies
of the Democrats and of Barack Obama are going to change the direction
of this Nation and make it stronger and make it the Nation that it can
be.
____________________
THE TROUBLED STATE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY
(Mr. HALL of New York asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Speaker, the last few days have clearly
demonstrated that the troubled state that our economy is in is more
serious than we thought. The Bush administration's mismanagement of the
American economy has officially caused a housing crisis to snowball and
jeopardize the entire economy.
Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, established companies that
survived the Great Depression, have declared bankruptcy or have been
sold off to survive. Both companies employ thousands of people from my
district, the 19th District of New York, and no one seems to know what
will happen to these workers or to their families.
But it's not just Wall Street suffering. Wages have stagnated;
expenses continue to rise. American families can no longer afford to
buy necessities, much less to invest in the future.
Mr. Speaker, when President Bush took office 8 years ago, he
inherited a flourishing economy and a record budget surplus. Now, as he
leaves office 8 years later with 8 years of misrule and a lack of
oversight, those days are clearly gone.
I hope we make the right choice for our next President and elect
Barack Obama, who will understand how to deal with the complexities of
our economic situation.
____________________
PASSING A COMPREHENSIVE ENERGY BILL
(Mr. WELCH of Vermont asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the House of
Representatives passed a comprehensive energy bill, regrettably with
almost undivided Republican opposition. That was disappointing because
we had a chance to work together. In fact, this bill incorporated two
things--one, a recognition that we need to continue getting the supply
of oil to make it from here to there, but second, we needed a
sustainable revenue source to invest in R&D and to invest in
implementing alternative energy projects. The energy plan of the
Republicans, cooked up by Vice President Cheney in secret, has been
very good for the American oil companies, not for the American
consumers.
So far this year, oil companies in a down economy have raked in $44
billion in profits. That's seven times the amount of profits Big Oil
brought in when President Bush was first sworn into office.
What has the energy plan done that the President pursues or that our
colleagues on the other side pursue? $4 gasoline. It's costing $2,500
more to heat your homes.
[[Page 19426]]
Mr. President, it's time for us to work together and to get our
colleagues in the Senate to pass that bill.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will address his remarks to
the Chair.
____________________
NATIONAL CAPITAL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1434 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 6842.
{time} 1028
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 further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6842) to require the District of Columbia to revise its
laws regarding the use and possession of firearms as necessary to
comply with the requirements of the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, in a manner that protects
the security interests of the Federal government and the people who
work in, reside in, or visit the District of Columbia and does not
undermine the efforts of law enforcement, homeland security, and
military officials to protect the Nation's capital from crime and
terrorism, with Mr. Altmire (Acting Chairman) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I think
it is imperative that we understand that the security and safety of our
Nation's capitol should be of vital importance to all Americans, not
simply the residents of the District of Columbia.
My dear colleague and District of Columbia Representative,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton along with Congressman Henry Waxman
of California, drafted comprehensive and sensible firearm legislation
which the Childers/Souder amendment not only eviscerates but allows
residents and federal officials to places in immense danger.
Childers/Souder Amendment
The Childers/Souder Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
completely destroys the sensible Norton/Waxman Home Rule bill.
The dangerous consequences include:
No gun registration to let the police know who has guns and to trace
guns used in crimes.
No regulation of guns, only a bare federal statute resulting in one
of the most permissive gun laws in the Nation--post 9/11.
No age limit for possession of guns, including military-style
weapons.
Permits a person who is voluntarily committed to a mental institution
to own a gun the day after he gets out.
Federal law forbids a person to cross State lines to purchase a gun
and bring it back, but this makes an exception uniquely for District
residents to cross State lines to purchase guns and bring them back
from Maryland and Virginia.
Requires a ``gun show loophole,'' which avoids background checks in
the nation's capital, i.e., District of Columbia residents can purchase
weapons from private individuals and at gun shows without background
checks.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia (the District) is a local self-governing
jurisdiction and the seat of the United States Government, with unique
Federal responsibilities. It is here that the President, the Vice
President, and many cabinet and other Federal officials reside.
Unregulated firearms in the capital would preclude the ability of the
District Metropolitan Police Department to track guns through
registration and otherwise help ensure that guns do not endanger
Federal officials and employees, visiting dignitaries, and other
individuals.
Revision of District of Columbia Firearms Laws and District of Columbia
v. Heller
The revised firearm legislation requires the District within 6 months
after enactment, to revise its laws governing the possession and use of
firearms as necessary to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court
in District of Columbia v. Heller. It also amends the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 by adding a new section requiring the Mayor and
the Council of the District to ensure that the District's firearms laws
are consistent with Heller.
In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second
Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess
a firearm, irrespective of service in a militia, and to use that arm
for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
The decision in Heller affirmed the holding in Parker v. District of
Columbia, wherein the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
declared three provisions of the District's Firearms Control Regulation
Act to be unconstitutional: D.C. Code Sec. 7-2502.02, which generally
barred the registration of handguns; Sec. 22-4504, which prohibited
carrying a pistol without a license, insofar as that provision would
prevent a registrant from moving a gun from one room to another within
his or her home; and Sec. 7-2507.02, which required that all lawfully
owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger
lock or similar device.
Addressing the holding in Parker, the Supreme Court noted that the
District's approach ``totally bans handgun possession in the home.''
The Court then declared that the inherent right of self-defense is
central to the Second Amendment right, and that the District's handgun
ban amounted to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that has been
overwhelmingly utilized by American society for that purpose.
The Court also struck down as unconstitutional the requirement that
any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger
lock, as such a requirement ``makes it impossible for citizens to use
arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.''
Firearms and Youth
Right here in America according to the Harvard Injury Control
Research Center, Harvard School of Public Health approximately 2,500
black youth (aged 15-24) die annually from gun homicide, 950 Hispanic
youths and 600 white youth. For gun suicides, it's about 1,600 white
youths annually, 300 black youths and 200 Hispanic youths.
Between 20 percent and 50 percent of children in the United States
are touched by violence, either as victims or, even more commonly, as
witnesses. And sadly for every child killed by a gun, four are injured
according to the national estimates of nonfatal firearm-related
injuries by the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Texas
In the U.S., the leading cause of death for African-Americans ages
15-24 and 25-34 is homicide, with the overwhelming majority (90 percent
and 87 percent, respectively) committed with firearms. Homicide is the
second leading cause of death for African-Americans ages 10-14, with
firearm-related deaths accounting for 70 percent of these deaths.
Every day in Texas someone dies or is severely injured as a result of
gun violence. Texans die from suicide, accidents, and crime. In 2004,
2,342 people died from firearm-related injuries in Texas. We hear about
these deaths every day: depressed teenagers and spouses taking their
own lives, children finding a loaded gun at a friend's house, gun
related crime, etc. We hear about it so often; we have become numb to
it and feel nothing can be done.
Firearms
While we speak of dignitaries, members of Congress, and the
executive--the fact is that it is our children that are most at risk.
We cannot allow a vague interpretation of the Second Amendment to put
our children at risk and move guns on our streets.
It is our young African-American and Hispanic men who are frequently
caught up in this system. Among youth ages 15-24, firearms rank as the
leading cause of death for African-Americans and the second leading
cause of death for whites and Hispanic youth. With over 5,049 federally
licensed firearms dealers and pawnbrokers in Texas alone, how many more
guns on our streets do we need?
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman I urge my colleagues to think about the safe of our
children. Is there not already enough violence? For all the firearms in
Afghanistan and Iraq is it helping them? Do more guns on our streets
make them safer? I think we all know the answer is a resounding ``no.''
I am not asking that we remove all firearms from the hands of every
responsible and law-abiding American, but I ask that we support
sensible and comprehensive firearm legislation such as the Norton/
Waxman approach.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
September 16, 2008, a request for a recorded vote on the amendment
printed in House Report 110-852 by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Childers) had been postponed.
Amendment offered by Mr. Childers
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the
unfinished
[[Page 19427]]
business is the request for a recorded vote on the amendment printed in
House Report 110-852 by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Childers)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Childers:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Second Amendment Enforcement
Act''.
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.
(2) As the Congress and the Supreme Court of the United
States have recognized, the Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution protects the rights of individuals,
including those who are not members of a militia or engaged
in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
(3) The law-abiding citizens of the District of Columbia
are deprived by local laws of handguns, rifles, and shotguns
that are commonly kept by law-abiding persons throughout the
United States for sporting use and for lawful defense of
their persons, homes, businesses, and families.
(4) The District of Columbia has the highest per capita
murder rate in the Nation, which may be attributed in part to
local laws prohibiting possession of firearms by law-abiding
persons who would otherwise be able to defend themselves and
their loved ones in their own homes and businesses.
(5) The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended by the
Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, and the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, provide
comprehensive Federal regulations applicable in the District
of Columbia as elsewhere. In addition, existing District of
Columbia criminal laws punish possession and illegal use of
firearms by violent criminals and felons. Consequently, there
is no need for local laws which only affect and disarm law-
abiding citizens.
(6) Officials of the District of Columbia have indicated
their intention to continue to unduly restrict lawful firearm
possession and use by citizens of the District.
(7) Legislation is required to correct the District of
Columbia's law in order to restore the fundamental rights of
its citizens under the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution and thereby enhance public safety.
SEC. 3. REFORM D.C. COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY TO RESTRICT FIREARMS.
Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the
killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of
Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``Nothing in this section or any other
provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to
permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or
regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit,
constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of
persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal
law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses,
or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful
purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor
subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of
Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or
regulations that discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms. Nothing in the previous two
sentences shall be construed to prohibit the District of
Columbia from regulating or prohibiting the carrying of
firearms by a person, either concealed or openly, other than
at the person's dwelling place, place of business, or on
other land possessed by the person.''.
SEC. 4. REPEAL D.C. SEMIAUTOMATIC BAN.
(a) In General.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official
Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or readily restored to shoot
automatically, more than 1 shot without manual reloading by a
single function of the trigger, and includes the frame or
receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended
solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and
intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun,
and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Provisions Setting Forth
Criminal Penalties.--Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning
given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975.''.
SEC. 5. REPEAL REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT.
(a) Repeal of Requirement.--
(1) In general.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official
Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all
that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the
following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
(2) Description of firearms remaining illegal.--Section 201
of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the
following:
``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
``(2) A machine gun.
``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.
(3) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 201 of
such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by
striking ``Registration requirements'' and inserting
``Firearm Possession''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Firearms Control Regulations
Act.--The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended
as follows:
(1) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-
2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
(2) Section 101 (sec. 7-2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is
amended by striking paragraph (13).
(3) Section 401 (sec. 7-2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``the District;'' and
all that follows and inserting the following: ``the District,
except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading,
or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully
possessed under this Act.''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``which are
unregisterable under section 202'' and inserting ``which are
prohibited under section 201''.
(4) Section 402 (sec. 7-2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``Any person eligible to
register a firearm'' and all that follows through ``such
business,'' and inserting the following: ``Any person not
otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm
under Federal or District law, or from being licensed under
section 923 of title 18, United States Code,''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(1) The applicant's name;''.
(5) Section 403(b) (sec. 7-2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code)
is amended by striking ``registration certificate'' and
inserting ``dealer's license''.
(6) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7-2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. Official
Code) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``registration
certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'';
(B) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ``holding the
registration certificate'' and inserting ``from whom it was
received for repair'';
(C) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and registration
certificate number (if any) of the firearm'';
(D) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``registration
certificate number or''; and
(E) by striking subparagraphs (D) and (E).
(7) Section 406(c) (sec. 7-2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which
is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a
dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--
``(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive
devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief
all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner
provided in section 705; and
``(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any
firearms and ammunition in his inventory.''.
(8) Section 407(b) (sec. 7-2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code)
is amended by striking ``would not be eligible'' and all that
follows and inserting ``is prohibited from possessing or
receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.''.
(9) Section 502 (sec. 7-2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from
possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District
law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm,
except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a
licensed dealer.'';
(B) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a
firearm to any person or organization not otherwise
prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under
Federal or District law.'';
(C) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and (3);
and
(D) by striking subsection (e).
(10) Section 704 (sec. 7-2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking ``any registration
certificate or'' and inserting ``a''; and
(B) in subsection (b), by striking ``registration
certificate,''.
(c) Other Conforming Amendments.--Section 2(4) of the
Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of
1992 (sec. 7-2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
[[Page 19428]]
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or ignoring proof of
the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``registration and''.
SEC. 6. REPEAL HANDGUN AMMUNITION BAN.
Section 601(3) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of
1975 (sec. 7-2506.01(3), D.C. Official Code) is amended by
striking ``is the holder of the valid registration
certificate for'' and inserting ``owns''.
SEC. 7. RESTORE RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE IN THE HOME.
Section 702 of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7-2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
SEC. 8. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR POSSESSION OF
UNREGISTERED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through
``(1)A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
SEC. 9. REMOVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM IN
ONE'S DWELLING OR OTHER PREMISES.
(a) In General.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22-4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(1) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a
pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his
dwelling house or place of business or on other land
possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a
firearm,''; and
(2) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows
through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that
if the violation''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 5 of such Act (47 Stat.
651; sec. 22-4505, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(1) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and
inserting ``firearm''; and
(2) by striking ``pistols'' each place it appears and
inserting ``firearms''.
SEC. 10. AUTHORIZING PURCHASES OF FIREARMS BY DISTRICT
RESIDENTS.
Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in
paragraph (b)(3) by inserting after ``other than a State in
which the licensee's place of business is located'' the
following: ``, or to the sale or delivery of a handgun to a
resident of the District of Columbia by a licensee whose
place of business is located in Maryland or Virginia,''.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 160, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 600]
AYES--260
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kind
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--160
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Faleomavaega
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--17
Bachmann
Bishop (NY)
Brady (TX)
Cantor
Christensen
Cubin
Dreier
Ehlers
Fortuno
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Lampson
Larson (CT)
Neugebauer
Peterson (PA)
Pitts
Regula
{time} 1058
Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, FILNER, RANGEL, COHEN, ACKERMAN,
EMANUEL, SHAYS, RUSH, Ms. SOLIS, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms.
McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. FATTAH, CONYERS, ROTHMAN, BECERRA and
Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SMITH of Nebraska, COLE of Oklahoma, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of
Florida, Messrs. KINGSTON, ABERCROMBIE, and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio 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:
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, today I was unexpectedly detained and
unable to vote on the Childers Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute
to H.R. 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act (Roll No.
600.) Had I been present I would have voted ``aye.''
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 6842, The
Second Amendment Enforcement Act. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court
rightly overturned the unconstitutional gun ban enforced by the
District of Columbia.
The Court recognized what Tennesseans have always known, that the
second amendment applies to individuals, and that all law-
[[Page 19429]]
abiding Americans have an inherent right to self-defense. The ruling
was a victory for freedom and constitutional rights.
Sadly, the District of Columbia has chosen to turn a blind eye to the
court and the constitution by re-legislating the gun ban piece by
piece. DC has legislated that guns must be trigger locked or
disassembled in the home, rendering it nearly impossible for law-
abiding citizens from purchasing guns in the District.
When the court overturned the ban, I breathed a sigh of relief for
the young women on my staff who are now able to appropriately defend
themselves. Imagine my surprise when the District dictated that those
same staffers store their guns in pieces or with trigger locks until an
``immediate'' threat presents itself. Have you ever heard of anything
so ridiculous? When a threat is immediate, you don't have time to find
a key or put together a gun!
I stand for the right of all Americans to defend themselves and in
support of H.R. 6842, which will make the policy of the District of
Columbia consistent with the ruling of the court and the clear intent
of the Constitution.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, the Constitution gives Congress
the ultimate legislative responsibility for the District of Columbia.
However, through enactment of the DC Home Rule Act Congress has
authorized the residents of the District to elect a Mayor and City
Council to be responsible for the day-to-day exercise of that
authority.
I respect the intent of home rule because I think residents of
Washington, DC--like residents of Colorado--should be able to govern
themselves so far as consistent with the ability of the Federal
Government to function.
And I think this principle of home rule for DC is made all the more
important because the residents of the District are not fully
represented here in Congress.
So, I have some hesitation supporting legislation that would in
effect shape policies for the District of Columbia without the
involvement of its elected officials.
However, I am supporting H.R. 6842 today because any flaws in its
approach can be corrected as the legislative process continues and
because I think it is needed in order to send a strong message to the
District government to move promptly to revise its laws to reflect the
recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of DC v. Heller and
thus to assure that the second amendment rights of the District's
residents are not infringed.
That is the purpose of this legislation--one that I support, because
complying with our oath to support and defend the Constitution is the
first duty of all Members of Congress.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Childers amendment to the National
Capital Security and Safety Act is deeply flawed. We continue to treat
the residents of the District of Columbia as members of a colony,
hampering their ability to govern themselves. We ought not to have
Congress be the State legislature or city council for 580,000 people.
For the tens of thousands of Oregonians who visit our Nation's
capital each year, traveling with their children to experience
America's history and culture, and as someone who lives in DC for 30
percent of the year and has worked with victims of gun violence, this
legislation is neither comforting nor sound policy. The imposition on
local government would throw out all locally approved gun safety
measures, including handgun registration and the semiautomatic ban, and
even go as far as removing all age restrictions on gun purchase,
permitting a 6-year-old to purchase a deadly weapon.
It is best for Congress not to do the National Rifle Association's
bidding, forcing DC to be their showcase for eliminating all boundaries
of gun safety. I urge my colleagues to respect home rule and common
sense.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the recent
passage of the amended version of H.R. 6842, the National Capitol
Security and Safety Act. This legislation will finally bring the
District of Columbia into compliance with the Second Amendment rights
guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court correctly struck
down a 32-year-old ban on handgun possession and ownership in the
District of Columbia in District of Columbia v. Heller. This handgun
ban required that all firearms within the city boundaries be
registered, all owners be licensed, and prohibited the registration of
handguns after September 24, 1976, making it one of the strictest in
the country.
The District Council responded to the Heller decision with a
temporary, emergency law that made some advances in returning gun
rights to District residents but, unfortunately, retained a number of
discriminatory obstacles to handgun possession. H.R. 6842, as amended,
will revise the District of Columbia code to remove these unnecessary
and unconstitutional hurdles to gun ownership. Among other things, the
legislation will amend the registration requirements so that they do
not apply to handguns, remove arbitrary limits on ammunition and repeal
some criminal penalties for carrying unlicensed handguns. In total,
H.R. 6842 will allow residents of the District to finally exercise
their right to bear arms in a responsible manner, without unnecessary
government regulation.
Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have consistently co-sponsored
legislation to end the DC handgun ban and to expand and preserve Second
Amendment rights within the District. While I certainly appreciate the
desire to consider rates of violent crime when crafting gun control
legislation, our country is based on the premise that enforcement of
our fundamental rights cannot be haphazard. Those rights, especially
those clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, must not be dismissed
or diluted.
As a hunter and lifelong gun rights advocate, I applaud the passage
of the amended version of H.R. 6842 and I look forward to Senate action
on this measure.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Pastor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Altmire, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6842) to
require the District of Columbia to revise its laws regarding the use
and possession of firearms as necessary to comply with the requirements
of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of District of
Columbia v. Heller, in a manner that protects the security interests of
the Federal Government and the people who work in, reside in, or visit
the District of Columbia and does not undermine the efforts of law
enforcement, homeland security, and military officials to protect the
Nation's Capital from crime and terrorism, pursuant to House Resolution
1434, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 266,
noes 152, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 601]
AYES--266
Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Gene
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
[[Page 19430]]
Hill
Hinchey
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Keller
Kind
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Oberstar
Ortiz
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Scalise
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--152
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carson
Castle
Castor
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Ramstad
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Obey
NOT VOTING--14
Bishop (NY)
Brady (TX)
Cantor
Cleaver
Cubin
Dreier
Ehlers
Hoekstra
Hulshof
King (IA)
Lampson
Neugebauer
Pitts
Regula
{time} 1116
Mr. HARE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to restore Second
Amendment rights in the District of Columbia.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, when I voted on final passage of H.R. 6842,
the Second Amendment Enforcement Act, I incorrectly voted aye. I meant
to vote no on final passage of that bill.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, earlier today, the House took sequential
votes on an amendment to and final passage of the National Capital
Security and Safety Act, H.R. 6842. On roll number 601 when I cast my
vote on final passage an ``aye'' vote was recorded when a ``no'' vote
should have been recorded.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Chairman), on rollcall No. 600 and 601,
I missed these votes due to illness (influenza). Had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye'' on both.
____________________
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.
____________________
ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3406) to restore the intent and
protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 3406
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Amendments Act of
2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) in enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), Congress intended that the Act ``provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of
discrimination against individuals with disabilities'' and
provide broad coverage;
(2) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical
and mental disabilities in no way diminish a person's right
to fully participate in all aspects of society, but that
people with physical or mental disabilities are frequently
precluded from doing so because of prejudice, antiquated
attitudes, or the failure to remove societal and
institutional barriers;
(3) while Congress expected that the definition of
disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently
with how courts had applied the definition of a handicapped
individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that
expectation has not been fulfilled;
(4) the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United
Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases
have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be
afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many
individuals whom Congress intended to protect;
(5) the holding of the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002) further narrowed the broad scope of protection
intended to be afforded by the ADA;
(6) as a result of these Supreme Court cases, lower courts
have incorrectly found in individual cases that people with a
range of substantially limiting impairments are not people
with disabilities;
(7) in particular, the Supreme Court, in the case of Toyota
Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002), interpreted the term ``substantially limits'' to
require a greater degree of limitation than was intended by
Congress; and
(8) Congress finds that the current Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ADA regulations defining the term
``substantially limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' are
inconsistent with congressional intent, by expressing too
high a standard.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to carry out the ADA's objectives of providing ``a
clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination
of discrimination'' and ``clear, strong, consistent,
enforceable standards addressing discrimination'' by
reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under
the ADA;
(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme
Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471
(1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity is to be
determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of
mitigating measures;
(3) to reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v.
United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to
coverage under the third prong of the definition of
disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme
Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S.
273 (1987) which set forth a
[[Page 19431]]
broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap
under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court
in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,
534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ``substantially'' and
``major'' in the definition of disability under the ADA
``need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled,'' and that to be
substantially limited in performing a major life activity
under the ADA ``an individual must have an impairment that
prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing
activities that are of central importance to most people's
daily lives'';
(5) to convey congressional intent that the standard
created by the Supreme Court in the case of Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184
(2002) for ``substantially limits'', and applied by lower
courts in numerous decisions, has created an inappropriately
high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under
the ADA, to convey that it is the intent of Congress that the
primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA
should be whether entities covered under the ADA have
complied with their obligations, and to convey that the
question of whether an individual's impairment is a
disability under the ADA should not demand extensive
analysis; and
(6) to express Congress' expectation that the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission will revise that portion of
its current regulations that defines the term ``substantially
limits'' as ``significantly restricted'' to be consistent
with this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.
SEC. 3. CODIFIED FINDINGS.
Section 2(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12101) is amended--
(1) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a
person's right to fully participate in all aspects of
society, yet many people with physical or mental disabilities
have been precluded from doing so because of discrimination;
others who have a record of a disability or are regarded as
having a disability also have been subjected to
discrimination;'';
(2) by striking paragraph (7); and
(3) by redesignating paragraphs (8) and (9) as paragraphs
(7) and (8), respectively.
SEC. 4. DISABILITY DEFINED AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Definition of Disability.--Section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is amended to
read as follows:
``SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF DISABILITY.
``As used in this Act:
``(1) Disability.--The term `disability' means, with
respect to an individual--
``(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
``(B) a record of such an impairment; or
``(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as
described in paragraph (3)).
``(2) Major life activities.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), major
life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for
oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating,
sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking,
breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking,
communicating, and working.
``(B) Major bodily functions.--For purposes of paragraph
(1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a
major bodily function, including but not limited to,
functions of the immune system, normal cell growth,
digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory,
circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.
``(3) Regarded as having such an impairment.--For purposes
of paragraph (1)(C):
``(A) An individual meets the requirement of `being
regarded as having such an impairment' if the individual
establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action
prohibited under this Act because of an actual or perceived
physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment
limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
``(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that
are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an
impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or
less.
``(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of
disability.--The definition of `disability' in paragraph (1)
shall be construed in accordance with the following:
``(A) The definition of disability in this Act shall be
construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under
this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of
this Act.
``(B) The term `substantially limits' shall be interpreted
consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.
``(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major
life activity need not limit other major life activities in
order to be considered a disability.
``(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a
disability if it would substantially limit a major life
activity when active.
``(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity shall be made
without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating
measures such as--
``(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or
appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary
eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs
and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other
implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen
therapy equipment and supplies;
``(II) use of assistive technology;
``(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or
services; or
``(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological
modifications.
``(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures
of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered
in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a
major life activity.
``(iii) As used in this subparagraph--
``(I) the term `ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses'
means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity
or eliminate refractive error; and
``(II) the term `low-vision devices' means devices that
magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.) is further amended by
adding after section 3 the following:
``SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS.
``As used in this Act:
``(1) Auxiliary aids and services.--The term `auxiliary
aids and services' includes--
``(A) qualified interpreters or other effective methods of
making aurally delivered materials available to individuals
with hearing impairments;
``(B) qualified readers, taped texts, or other effective
methods of making visually delivered materials available to
individuals with visual impairments;
``(C) acquisition or modification of equipment or devices;
and
``(D) other similar services and actions.
``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.''.
(c) Amendment to the Table of Contents.--The table of
contents contained in section 1(b) of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by striking the item
relating to section 3 and inserting the following items:
``Sec. 3. Definition of disability.
``Sec. 4. Additional definitions.''.
SEC. 5. DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY.
(a) On the Basis of Disability.--Section 102 of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12112) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``with a disability
because of the disability of such individual'' and inserting
``on the basis of disability''; and
(2) in subsection (b) in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by striking ``discriminate'' and inserting
``discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of
disability''.
(b) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Section 103 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12113) is amended by
redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and
(e), respectively, and inserting after subsection (b) the
following new subsection:
``(c) Qualification Standards and Tests Related to
Uncorrected Vision.--Notwithstanding section 3(4)(E)(ii), a
covered entity shall not use qualification standards,
employment tests, or other selection criteria based on an
individual's uncorrected vision unless the standard, test, or
other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is
shown to be job-related for the position in question and
consistent with business necessity.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 101(8) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12111(8)) is amended--
(A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``with a
disability''; and
(B) by striking ``with a disability'' after ``individual''
both places it appears.
(2) Section 104(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12114(a)) is amended by striking ``the
term `qualified individual with a disability' shall'' and
inserting ``a qualified individual with a disability shall''.
SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12201 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of section 501 the following:
``(e) Benefits Under State Worker's Compensation Laws.--
Nothing in this Act alters the standards for determining
eligibility for benefits under State worker's compensation
laws or under State and Federal disability benefit programs.
``(f) Fundamental Alteration.--Nothing in this Act alters
the provision of section
[[Page 19432]]
302(b)(2)(A)(ii), specifying that reasonable modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures shall be required, unless
an entity can demonstrate that making such modifications in
policies, practices, or procedures, including academic
requirements in postsecondary education, would fundamentally
alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations involved.
``(g) Claims of No Disability.--Nothing in this Act shall
provide the basis for a claim by an individual without a
disability that the individual was subject to discrimination
because of the individual's lack of disability.
``(h) Reasonable Accommodations and Modifications.--A
covered entity under title I, a public entity under title II,
and any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a
place of public accommodation under title III, need not
provide a reasonable accommodation or a reasonable
modification to policies, practices, or procedures to an
individual who meets the definition of disability in section
3(1) solely under subparagraph (C) of such section.'';
(2) by redesignating section 506 through 514 as sections
507 through 515, respectively, and adding after section 505
the following:
``SEC. 506. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION REGARDING REGULATORY
AUTHORITY.
``The authority to issue regulations granted to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and
the Secretary of Transportation under this Act includes the
authority to issue regulations implementing the definitions
of disability in section 3 (including rules of construction)
and the definitions in section 4, consistent with the ADA
Amendments Act of 2008.''; and
(3) in section 511 (as redesignated by paragraph (2)) (42
U.S.C. 12211), in subsection (c), by striking ``511(b)(3)''
and inserting ``512(b)(3)''.
(b) The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is amended by
redesignating the items relating to sections 506 through 514
as the items relating to sections 507 through 515,
respectively, and by inserting after the item relating to
section 505 the following new item:
``Sec. 506. Rule of construction regarding regulatory authority.''.
SEC. 7. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 705)
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9)(B), by striking ``a physical'' and all
that follows through ``major life activities'', and inserting
``the meaning given it in section 3 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102)''; and
(2) in paragraph (20)(B), by striking ``any person who''
and all that follows through the period at the end, and
inserting ``any person who has a disability as defined in
section 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. 12102).''.
SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall become
effective on January 1, 2009.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McKeon) each will control 20 minutes
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California Mr. George
Miller).
General Leave
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
for 5 legislative days during which Members may revise and extend their
remarks and insert extraneous material on S. 3406 into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of final passage of S.
3406, the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 2008.
Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has provided
protection from discrimination for millions of productive, hardworking
Americans so that they may fully participate in our Nation's schools,
communities and workplace. Among other rights, the law guaranteed that
workers with disabilities would be judged on their merits and not on an
employer's prejudice.
But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have
dramatically reduced the number of individuals with disabilities who
are protected from discrimination under the law. Workers like Carey
McClure, an electrician with muscular dystrophy who testified before
our committee in January, have not been hired or passed over for
promotion by an employer regarding them as too disabled to do the job.
Yet when these workers seek justice for this discrimination, the courts
rule that they are not disabled enough to be protected by the Americans
with Disabilities Act. This is a terrible catch-22 that Congress will
change with the passage of this bill today.
S. 3406, like H.R. 3195 passed in June, remedies this catch-22
situation in several ways by reversing flawed court decisions to
restore the original congressional intent of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Workers with disabilities who have been discriminated
against will no longer be denied their civil rights as a result of
these erroneous court decisions.
To do this, S. 3406 reestablishes the scope of protection of the
Americans with Disabilities Act to be generous and inclusive. The bill
restores the proper focus on whether discrimination occurred rather
than on whether or not an individual's impairment qualifies as a
disability.
S. 3406 ensures that individuals who reduce the impact of their
impairments through means such as hearing aids, medications, or learned
behavioral modifications will be considered in their unmitigated state.
For people with epilepsy, diabetes and other conditions who have
successfully managed their disability, this means the end of the catch-
22 situation that Carey McClure and so many others have encountered
when attempting to seek justice.
For our returning war veterans with disabilities, S. 3406 will ensure
that the transition to civilian life will not include another battle
here at home, a battle against discrimination on the basis of
disability.
And students with physical and mental impairments will have access to
the accommodations and modifications they need to successfully pursue
an education.
Much of the language contained in S. 3406 is identical to the House-
passed H.R. 3195. This includes provisions concerning mitigating
measures, episodic conditions, major life activities, treatment of
claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, regulatory authority for the
definition of disability, and the conforming amendments to section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act.
We expect the courts and agencies to apply this less demanding
standard when interpreting ``substantially limits.'' S. 3406 directs
the courts and the agencies to interpret the term consistent with the
findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act.
We intend that the ADA Amendments Act will reduce the depth of
analysis related to the severity of the limitation of the impairment
and return the focus to where it should be: the question of whether or
not discrimination, based upon the disability, actually occurred.
This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans;
employers, civil rights groups, and advocates for individuals with
disabilities. I'm pleased that we were able to work together to get to
this point.
In particular, I'd like to thank the members of the Employer and
Disability Alliance, including the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, the Epilepsy Foundation, the American Association of People
with Disabilities, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and the Society for Human Resource
Management for all of their hard work and long hours of negotiations
with each other and with our staff.
Of course, much credit is due to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for their leadership and tenacity in the
House; and Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy, Senator Hatch for their
skill in moving this legislation through the Senate with unanimous
support.
It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and ensure that
the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work,
attend school, and fully participate in our communities will have the
chance to do so.
I look forward to the passage of this legislation and encourage my
colleagues to support it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to rise in support of ADA Amendments Act of 2008, a bill
we
[[Page 19433]]
first approved earlier this year. The bill we passed was the product of
good-faith negotiation and careful compromise, and I appreciate that
the framework of our bill has been maintained.
At the same time, our counterparts on the other side of the Capitol
were able to further refine and improve the legislation. Thanks to that
effort, the bill before us today represents an important step forward
for Americans with disabilities and the employers that benefit from
their many contributions.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad
bipartisan support. Among the bill's most important purposes was to
protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in the
workplace.
By many measures, the law has been a huge success. I firmly believe
that the employer community has taken the ADA to heart, with businesses
adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful
opportunities to individuals with disabilities.
However, despite the law's many success stories, it is clear today
that for some, the ADA is failing to live up to its promise.
In the years since its enactment, court cases and legal
interpretations have left some individuals outside the scope of the
act's protections. Some individuals the law was clearly intended to
protect have been deemed ``not disabled enough,'' an interpretation we
all agree needs correcting.
In response, however, proposals were put forward to massively expand
the law's protections to cover virtually all Americans. This is an
equally dangerous proposition.
Our task with this legislation was to focus relief where it is
needed, while still maintaining the delicate balance embodied in the
original ADA.
In the months since this bill was first introduced and moved through
the House, I am pleased to say that we were able to do exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and the time to enact it is now. It
ensures that meaningful relief will be extended to those most in need,
while the ADA's careful balance is maintained as fully as possible.
Once again, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
for honoring our shared commitment to work together on this issue that
has the potential to touch the lives of millions of Americans.
I would especially like to recognize Majority Leader Hoyer,
Representative Sensenbrenner, and Chairman Miller for their leadership
and commitment to enactment of these important bipartisan reforms. I
also want to thank the many stakeholders, especially the ones that
Chairman Miller mentioned in his remarks, who were involved in this
process for their efforts.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Judiciary
Committee, which also had jurisdiction over this legislation and was
very helpful in its passage.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman.
I thank the distinguished majority leader and the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). Under their leadership, the House passed
the ADA Amendments Act in June by an overwhelming vote of 402-17.
The Senate, under the leadership of Senators Harkin and Hatch, has
taken up our bipartisan call to restore the promise of the ADA and has
passed a nearly identical bill, S. 3406.
Like the House bill, S. 3406 overturns Supreme Court decisions that
have narrowed the scope of protection under the ADA. These decisions
have created a catch-22, in which an individual who is able to lessen
the adverse impact of an impairment by use of a mitigating measure like
medicine or a hearing aid can be fired from a job or otherwise face
discrimination on the basis of that impairment and yet not be
considered sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Congress
never intended such an absurd result.
Like the House bill, S. 3406 cures this problem by prohibiting courts
from considering ``mitigating measures''--things like medicine,
prosthetic devices, hearing aids, or the body's own compensation and
ability to adapt--when determining whether an individual is disabled.
On this important point, S. 3406 retains the exact same language as
H.R. 3195.
S. 3406 also retains the House language on the treatment of episodic
conditions, major life activities, claims brought under the ``regarded
as'' prong of the definition, regulatory authority, and conforming the
definition contained in section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act so that
entities covered by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act operate under a
consistent standard.
While the approach taken in the two bills is somewhat different,
congressional intent and the result achieved by both bills is the same.
Both bills make clear that the courts and Federal agencies have set
the standard for qualifying as disabled under the ADA too high. Both
bills reject court and agency interpretation of the term
``substantially limits'' as ``preventing'' or ``significantly
restricting'' the ability to perform a major life activity. Both bills
require the courts and Federal agencies to set a less demanding
standard by interpreting the term ``substantially limits'' more
generously to ensure broad coverage for the wide range of individuals
with disabilities.
For that reason, I support and urge all of you to join me in
supporting S. 3406. These changes are long overdue. Countless Americans
with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to
prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are
qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford
them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
It is our sincere hope that, with less fighting over who is or is not
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions:
Is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy? Our
Nation simply cannot afford to squander the talents and contributions
of our people based on antiquated misconceptions about people with
disabilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of S. 3406 and
restoring the ADA to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil
rights laws.
I thank the gentleman again.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3406, the ``ADA Amendments Act
of 2008.''
I thank the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from
Maryland, and the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. Under
their leadership, the House passed the ADA Amendments Act (H.R. 3195)
in June by an overwhelming vote of 402-17.
The Senate, under the leadership of Senators Harkin and Hatch, has
taken up our bipartisan call to restore the promise of the ADA and has
passed a nearly identical bill, S. 3406.
Like the House bill, S. 3406 overturns Supreme Court decisions that
have narrowed the scope of protection under the ADA. These decisions
have created a Catch-22, in which an individual who is able to lessen
the adverse impact of an impairment by use of a mitigating measure like
medicine or a hearing aid can be fired from a job or otherwise face
discrimination on the basis of that impairment and yet not be
considered sufficiently disabled to be protected by the ADA. Congress
never intended such an absurd result.
Like the House bill, S. 3406 cures this problem by prohibiting courts
from considering ``mitigating measures''--things like medicine,
prosthetic devices, hearings aids, or the body's own compensation and
ability to adapt--when determining whether an individual is disabled.
On this important point, S. 3406 retains the exact same language as
H.R. 3195.
S. 3406 also retains the House language on the treatment of episodic
conditions, major life activities, claims brought under the ``regarded
as'' prong of the definition, regulatory authority, and conforming the
definition contained in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act so that
entities covered by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act operate under a
consistent standard.
Over the past two Congresses, the Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the Judiciary has
studied these issues extensively, holding multiple hearings and
meetings with stakeholders in the disability and business
[[Page 19434]]
communities. Our colleagues in the House Committee on Education and
Labor have done the same. The findings and insights that we presented
in the committee reports accompanying H.R. 3195 reflect our
understanding and intent regarding the language shared by H.R. 3195 and
S. 3406 and should guide courts and Federal agencies when interpreting
and applying these aspects of the amended definition of disability.
While the language of the House and Senate bills is identical in most
respects, the bills differ in how they address the term ``substantially
limits'' in the ADA's definition of disability. But while the approach
taken in the bills is different, congressional intent and the result
achieved by both bills is the same.
Both bills make clear that the courts and Federal agencies have set
the standard for qualifying as disabled under the ADA too high. Both
bills reject court and agency interpretation of the term
``substantially limits'' as ``preventing'' or ``significantly
restricting'' the ability to perform a major life activity. Both bills
require the courts and federal agencies to set a less demanding
standard by interpreting the term ``substantially limits'' more
generously to ensure broad coverage for the wide range of individuals
with disabilities.
In H.R. 3195, we achieved these goals by redefining the term
``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially restricts.'' Thus, to
show a ``substantial''--meaning ``material'' rather than
``significant'' limitation--an individual need show only an important
or noticeable limit on the ability to perform a major life activity.
This is not an onerous burden.
As explained in the Senate statement of managers, they chose an
alternate route to achieve the same result. Rather than redefining the
term ``substantially limits,'' the Senate left this language intact
but, through findings and purposes and a statutory rule of
construction, rejected court and agency interpretation of this term as
meaning ``prevents'' or ``significantly restricts.'' Like our bill, S.
3406 directs the courts and Federal agencies to set a lower standard
that provides broad coverage. As explained in the Senate Statement of
Managers, their bill--like ours--ensures that the burden of showing
that an impairment limits one's ability to perform common activities is
not onerous.
Thus, while the approach taken is different, the intent--and the
standard established by both bills--is identical. As such, the guidance
provided in House reports regarding application of this less burdensome
standard for showing a ``substantial'' limitation remains valid and
relevant, with the exception of our use of a ``spectrum'' of severity
to describe a relative level of limitation. With regard to the
``spectrum,'' we accept concerns expressed by Senator Kennedy that this
could be construed as keeping the standard inappropriately high, and
reject the usefulness of this approach.
Like H.R. 3195, the lower standard demanded by S. 3406 will provide
broad coverage, consistent with how courts had approached cases under
the Rehabilitation Act prior to enactment of the ADA, where individuals
with a wide range of physical and mental impairments such as epilepsy,
diabetes, multiple sclerosis and intellectual and developmental
disabilities qualified for protection, even where a mitigating measure
might lessen the impact of their impairment. In most of these cases,
defendants and the courts simply accepted that a plaintiff was a member
of the protected class and moved on to the merits of the case. Congress
expected and intended the same thing when it passed the ADA in 1990,
and we are again attempting to make this crystal clear. As stated in S.
3406, the focus should be on whether discrimination has occurred and
``the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability
under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.''
Under the lower standard for qualifying as disabled, for example, an
individual who is disqualified from his or her job of choice because of
an impairment should be considered substantially limited in the major
life activity of working. Previously, in providing guidance on what the
term ``substantially limits'' means with respect to the major life
activity of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
indicated that ``the inability to perform a single, particular job''
was not a ``substantial'' (i.e., ``significant'') enough limitation. S.
3406 states that interpreting ``substantial'' to require a
``significant'' limitation sets too high a standard and that we expect
the EEOC to redefine this portion of its regulations. Naturally, this
change will require reconsideration of the meaning of ``substantial''
limitation in the major life activity of working, as well as other
major life activities.
The courts and Federal agencies also will be called upon to interpret
our changes to the third, ``regarded as'' prong of the definition.
These changes are identical in S. 3406 and H.R. 3195. As we made clear
in our committee reports, an individual meets the requirement of being
``regarded as having such an impairment'' if the individual shows that
a prohibited action was taken based on an actual or perceived
impairment, regardless of whether this impairment limits (or is
perceived to limit) performance of a major life activity. Thus, an
individual with an actual or perceived impairment who is disqualified
from a job, program, or service and who alleges that the
disqualification was based on the actual or perceived impairment is a
member of the protected class and then entitled to prove that the
adverse action violated the ADA.
In clarifying the scope of protection under the third, ``regarded
as'' prong of the definition, we also clarified that reasonable
accommodation need not be provided for those individuals who qualify
for coverage only because they have been ``regarded as'' disabled. We,
and the Senate, expressed our confidence that individuals who need
accommodations will receive them because, with reduction in the burden
of showing a ``substantial limitation,'' those individuals also qualify
for coverage under prongs 1 or 2 (where accommodation still is
required). Of course, our clarification here does not shield
qualification standards, tests, or other selection criteria from
challenge by an individual who is disqualified based on such standard,
test, or criteria. As is currently required under the ADA, any
standard, test, or other selection criteria that results in
disqualification of an individual because of an impairment can be
challenged by that individual and must be shown to be job-related and
consistent with business necessity or necessary for the program or
service in question.
The changes made by S. 3406 are long overdue. Countless Americans
with disabilities have already been deprived of the opportunity to
prove that they have been victims of discrimination, that they are
qualified for a job, or that a reasonable accommodation would afford
them an opportunity to participate fully at work and in community life.
Like our bill, S. 3406 ensures that individuals like Mary Ann
Pimental--a mother and nurse who died from breast cancer a few months
after the courts told her that her cancer was too temporary and short-
lived to qualify her for protection from job discrimination under the
ADA--are covered by the law when they need it. S. 3406 also ensures
vital protections for our returning veterans. Thousands of our brave
men and women in uniform are returning home with serious injuries,
including the loss of limbs, head trauma, and a variety of other life-
altering injuries. These veterans have faced great risk and sacrificed
much in service of their country and should return home knowing that
they are protected from discrimination.
It is our sincere hope that, with less battling over who is or is not
disabled, we will finally be able to focus on the important questions--
is an individual qualified? And might a reasonable accommodation afford
that person the same opportunities that his or her neighbors enjoy? Our
Nation simply cannot afford to squander the talents and contributions
of our people based on antiquated misconceptions about people with
disabilities.
I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for passage of S. 3406 and
restoring the ADA to its rightful place among this Nation's great civil
rights laws.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who has done so much to
bring this bill to this point.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, in 1990, a bipartisan Congress took
significant steps to break down the physical and societal barriers that
for far too long kept disabled Americans from fully participating in
the American Dream. Today, the House takes the final step towards
righting the wrongs that courts have made in their interpretation of
this landmark law.
{time} 1130
It has been a long road to finally reach this point.
As chairman of the House Judiciary Committee last Congress, I first
introduced this bill with House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Although
the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill in 2006, it was too
late in the legislative session to move it but that bill marked our
intent and promise to tackle the issue in the 110th Congress.
Last year on the ADA's anniversary, Leader Hoyer and I introduced the
bill again. The purpose of this legislation is to resolve the intent of
Congress to cover a broad group of individuals with disabilities under
the ADA and to eliminate the problem of courts focusing too heavily on
whether individuals
[[Page 19435]]
are covered by the law rather than on whether discrimination occurred.
We worked with advocates from the disability community and business
interests over the past year to craft a balanced bill with bipartisan
support.
President Ronald Reagan once said, ``There is no limit to what you
want to accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit.'' That
statement rings true about negotiations with this bill. Interest groups
that did not see eye-to-eye at the outset worked diligently over many
months. After intense discussions, they came to a compromise that both
sides could support.
The bill we pass today will restore the full meaning of equal
protection under the law and all of the promises that our Nation has to
offer. As Members are well aware by now, the Supreme Court has slowly
chipped away at the broad protections of the ADA and has created a new
set of barriers for disabled Americans. The Court's rulings currently
exclude millions of disabled Americans from the ADA's protection--the
very citizens that Congress expressly sought to include within the
scope of the Act in 1990.
The impact of these decisions is such that disabled Americans can be
discriminated against by their employer because of their conditions but
are not considered disabled enough by our Federal courts to invoke the
protections of the ADA. This is unacceptable. Today's vote will enable
disabled Americans utilizing the ADA to focus on the discrimination
that they have experienced rather than having to first prove that they
fall within the scope of the ADA's protection.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my wife, Cheryl. As the
chairman of the board of the American Association of People With
Disabilities, she has been dogged in her advocacy of this legislation
and has presented real life situations on why this bill ought to pass.
Without her efforts, a lot of the progress that has been made would not
have occurred, and I salute her for that.
The ADA has been one of the most effective civil rights laws passed
by Congress. I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of the ADA
Amendments Act.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am out of time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I will yield you 30 seconds.
If I might, I just want to recognize the tenacity of Mr.
Sensenbrenner in pushing for this legislation, and I wanted to do it
while he was in the well and also to recognize the contribution of your
wife, Cheryl, who has talked to all of us about this and has been so
determined that this bill pass in this Congress. I think without that
energy, I'm not sure we would have gotten here today. But certainly
what you and Mr. Hoyer have done in the House has been absolutely
outstanding, and I want you to know how much I appreciate Cheryl's
involvement, also.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the
gentleman is absolutely right.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark) for the purposes of engaging in a colloquy.
Mr. STARK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased that this bill, S. 3406, will sustain the rights and
remedies available to individuals with disabilities, including
individuals with learning disabilities just as in the measure passed by
the House, H.R. 3195.
Would the Chairman agree that the measure before us rejects the
assumption that an individual who has performed well academically
cannot be substantially limited in activities such as learning reading,
writing, thinking, or speaking?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes, I would.
As chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, I agree that both
H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 reject the holding that academic success is
inconsistent with the finding that an individual is substantially
limited in such major life activities. As such, we reject the findings
in Price v. National Board of Medical Examiners, Gonzalez v. National
Board of Medical Examiners, and Wong v. Regents of University of
California.
Mr. STARK. I thank the Chairman.
Specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, are neurologically
based impairments that substantially limit the way these individuals
perform major life activities, like reading or learning, or the time it
takes to perform such activities often referred to as the condition,
manner, or duration.
This legislation will reestablish coverage for these individuals by
ensuring that the definition of this ability is broadly construed and
the determination does not consider the use of mitigating measures.
Given this, would the chairman agree that these amendments support
the finding in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners in
which the court held that in determining whether the plaintiff was
substantially limited with respect to reading, Bartlett's ability to
``self-accommodate'' should not be taken into consideration when
determining whether she was protected by the ADA?
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Yes, I would.
As we stated in the committee report on H.R. 3195, the committee
supports the finding in Bartlett. Our report explains that ``an
individual with an impairment that substantially limits a major life
activity should not be penalized when seeking protection under the ADA
simply because he or she managed their own adaptive strategies or
received informal or undocumented accommodations that have the effect
of lessening the deleterious impacts of their disability.''
Mr. STARK. I want to thank the chairman. It is indeed our full
intention to ensure that the civil rights law retains its focus on
protecting individuals with disabilities and not the interests of
entities that may need to address their practices in accordance with
the ADA.
I look forward to working with the chairman to continue to protect
individuals with specific learning disabilities to ensure that
unnecessary barriers are not being erected in their path.
I want to thank the chairman, the distinguished ranking member, our
colleague from Wisconsin, and the majority leader for their work on
this landmark legislation.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield now 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Miller, thank you for the good work on this. I'm planning, as
many of us are, to be highly supportive of it.
I just want to bring to the attention of the Chamber an article that
was in USA Today, September 4. We're talking about disabilities here
and the disabilities act, and also remind people, as a teacher of
government and history of 4 years, the process of how a bill becomes a
law.
We had a vote last night that passed a bill. It has not yet become
law. In essence, we still have done nothing to ease the energy crisis,
and this article highlights ``Gas Prices Confine Sick People.'' Some
have to cut back on traveling, treatment, such as dialysis or
chemotherapy. The picture here is a visit to a Lou Gehrig's, ALS,
clinic; and one of the quotes is saying, ``People are going to depend
on us more because their friends and families can't afford to transport
them in their cars.''
When we've been fighting so hard for an energy policy and energy
debate, many times I would come to the floor to say energy is a
variable in everything that we do in our society. It's a variable in
the cost of doing the job here as we use power to generate electricity,
air-conditioning, and, of course, communications. It's a part of the
educational environment as we find schools having to adjust
transportation schedules on diesel fuel. It is a critical portion of
how we can meet the needs of the disabled.
And one of the places they point out here is in Sacramento, the
disabled individuals can't get services because they can't afford to
drive to reach the services. Again, this is not me. This is
[[Page 19436]]
USA Today on 4 September. Pretty big article.
We have to move a bill that the President will sign. We have to have
a comprehensive policy that brings in all the above. I personally like
coal. I personally like renewable fuels. I personally like nuclear
power. I personally like oil shale, and I like oil sands. I like wind.
I like solar.
If we do not have a comprehensive energy policy that helps stabilize
and bring costs down, we can pass all the pieces of legislation we want
to in the world but the disabled are still going to be harmed,
especially in areas that I represent, which is rural southern Illinois,
where to get a job, get health care, you have to drive a long distance.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I yield myself 30 seconds to say I
think the House addressed many of the concerns, Mr. Shimkus, yesterday
in the legislation, the comprehensive energy legislation that we passed
that deals with the issues of lowering costs to consumers and taxpayers
and increasing the energy resources of the United States.
I would also say if we don't pass this piece of legislation, they
won't have any jobs to drive to because they continue to get
discriminated against.
With that, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Andrews), a member of the committee.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
legislation. I would like to add my voice in congratulations to Mr.
Hoyer, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman Miller, and Mr. McKeon for their
outstanding cooperation in this regard.
Today is Constitution Day. Over 200 years ago, the Constitution of
our country was ratified. As majestic a document as it is, it has been
an imperfect delivery and realization of that document because, over
time, people have been left out of its benefits and privileges.
Throughout our history, people with a disability have been among those
left out of the many privileges of governments and economy in our
country.
In 1990, the Congress, under the first President Bush, took a major
step forward in remedying that injustice and discrimination. But sadly,
since 1990, erroneous court decisions have stripped persons with a
disability of the rights that they thought they had under that 1990
law.
Today we are working together to remedy that problem and fix it. This
is a victory for common sense and for merit over ignorance and
obliviousness. More importantly, it's a victory for human beings who
will be very profoundly helped by this law.
There was a man who got a job with a major retail corporation in this
country, and he's diabetic. When he first started work, his supervisor
understood that for this worker to be productive, he needed a special
lunch break in the middle of his work day so he could deal with his
blood sugar needs and stay healthy and be productive.
So the man gets a new supervisor. The new supervisor comes in and
doesn't understand that need, doesn't permit the lunch break, and the
man's unable to do his work. So he files suit under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and the court says he doesn't win the case because
he's not disabled. Diabetes is not enough of a disability to remedy
this person's concern.
Now that's just wrong. And the other body understands it, both
parties in this body understand it, the American people understand it.
What we have done in this Act is to restore the commonsense,
meaningful definition of what ``disability'' means, not so that people
with disabilities get special privileges, but so they get the same
rights and opportunities that everybody else is guaranteed in this
country under the law.
Again, I congratulate Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner, in particular,
for working together and bringing together a broad coalition behind
this bill. And on this Constitution Day, the House will set a mark in
history and continue the progress so that people who work with a
disability can achieve and thrive and succeed in our country and in our
economy.
I would urge both Republicans and Democrats to vote ``yes'' on this
very substantial piece of legislation.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
{time} 1145
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3406, the Senate-approved
ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Passage of this bill will clear the way for
the President's signature and finally renew our promise to the American
people that discrimination in any form will never be tolerated.
I would like to thank my good friend, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer,
who has been a real leader and champion on behalf of the disabilities
community. I would also like to express my appreciation to Chairman
Miller for his continued leadership on this critical issue, as well as
Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. This has truly been a bipartisan effort.
The ADA was groundbreaking civil rights legislation. And as someone
who has lived with the challenges of a disability both before and after
the ADA's enactment in 1990, I have experienced firsthand the profound
changes that this law has effected within our society.
The bill before us today reaffirms the protections of the ADA and
upholds the ideals of equality and opportunity on which this country
was founded. In July, we celebrated the 18th anniversary of the ADA. It
was a day to reflect on our past accomplishments, our current
challenges, and future opportunities. I can think of no better way to
honor the spirit of this landmark bill and the spirit of all those who
fought for its passage than by passing the ADA Amendments Act and
restoring Congress' intent to ensure the ADA's broad protections.
Mr. Speaker, people with disabilities represent a tremendously
valuable, and yet in many ways untapped, resource in this country. By
fostering an environment of inclusion and empowerment, we can provide
the means for every individual to fulfill his or her God-given
potential.
The ADA Amendments Act will help us realize this important goal. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill and
send it to the President for his signature. Again, I thank all those
who were part of making this day possible, particularly, again, our
majority leader, Steny Hoyer, for his great leadership.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11
minutes. The gentleman from California has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Maryland, the majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. And as he's
taking the well, I just wanted to again acknowledge what all of our
colleagues have acknowledged and so many people in the disabilities
community have acknowledged and known for a long time, his champion of
this act. And he has done it year after year after year. He has tended
to it, he has watched after it, he has argued about it, and he has
encouraged many of us to get involved in these amendments. And these
are crucial amendments so that the original intent and the purpose and
the opportunities provided by this act are realized. He and Mr.
Sensenbrenner did a magnificent job of shepherding this.
Many people don't know this who haven't been involved, but the
negotiations around this legislation were sort of 24-7 for the last
year, with a very diverse group of people, all of whom wanted to see
the act amended and improved, and finally came together under the
leadership of Mr. Hoyer. And that's why we're here today. And that's
why the Senate and the House are going to pass this and we're going to
have a ceremony with the President signing these amendments. Thank you
very much.
[[Page 19437]]
Mr. HOYER. I thank the chairman for his remarks. And I thank Mr.
McKeon for his leadership and willingness to work together on a
difficult issue.
I certainly want to acknowledge and thank my friend Jim
Sensenbrenner, Congressman Sensenbrenner, who has been chairman of the
committee, the Judiciary Committee, who has been a leader in this
Congress, and his wife, Cheryl. Cheryl, like the young man we just saw
speak, Congressman Jim Langevin, has shown great courage, but also has
shown that disability is not disabling; that we ought to look at the
ability people have, what they can do, not what they can't do. All of
us can't do certain things. I urge people to look at what people can
do. And that's what this bill was about in 1990. That's what this bill
is about today.
And I am very pleased to be here to speak on behalf of this bill. I
think this bill may well pass unanimously, and the public might
conclude, therefore, that this was not contentious and difficult, it
was both--not contentious in terms of enabling those with disabilities
to be fully included in our society, but how to do that; how to do that
in the context of making sure that the business community could live
with this, that the disabilities community could live with this, and
that we did, in fact, accomplish the objectives that we intended.
I want to thank as well the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers and other business groups who came
together with the disabilities community with a common objective. Randy
Johnson worked on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. And Randy Johnson,
at a press conference that was held when the Senate passed this bill
just a few days ago, said that he was a staffer here in 1988 and '89
and '90 when we passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. And he made
the observation that--he sat on the floor, he worked with the
leadership on the Republican side and the Democratic side, worked
particularly with my friend, Steve Bartlett, Congressman Steve Bartlett
from Texas, who was intimately involved in fashioning and working out
the compromises necessary to overwhelmingly pass the ADA in 1990. And
he said it was clear then that the intent of Congress had been
misconstrued by the Supreme Court--this is Randy Johnson, Republican
staffer, leader now in the Chamber of Commerce of the United States who
helped fashion this bill. And this bill really says, yes, we agree with
that in a bipartisan way. The Supreme Court misinterpreted what our
intent was. And our intent was to be inclusive.
Civil rights bills are intended to be interpreted broadly. Why?
Because we want to make sure that every American has the benefits that
America has to offer, the opportunities that America has to offer, and
to empower them to help America be a better country, to bring their
talents and their skills and their motivation to bear in the public and
private sectors.
I want to thank as well Nancy Zirkin, Andy Imperato, my--as I call
him my lawyer, Chai Feldblum, who has worked so hard on this for now
20-plus years. It's been 18 years since we passed the ADA, but as Mr.
Miller knows, it's been 20-plus years--25 years really--that we've been
working on getting to this point.
I also want to thank Mike Peterson of H.R. Policy and Jerry Gillespie
of the National Association of Manufacturers.
There are so many people that I could spend the next 5 or 10 minutes
mentioning just name after name after name who made this happen. I
won't do that, not to diminish them in any way, but to say that this is
the result of the efforts of many--not of me, but of many; not of Mr.
Miller alone or the ranking member alone or Mr. Sensenbrenner, but many
dedicated to this cause.
We are here to build on the accomplishments of the landmark
Disabilities Act of 1990. We wouldn't be here at all, however, without
the hard work, frankly, of a very close friend of mine, former Member
of Congress, Tony Coelho. Tony Coelho had a vision. Tony Coelho suffers
from epilepsy. There is nobody who knows Tony Coelho that thinks he is
not able to do anything, everything, and all things. Tony Coelho
empowered all of us to think larger, to understand how to bring about
real change for those with disabilities.
Tony Coelho, an epileptic, was asked to leave the seminary because he
had epilepsy because the church concluded he really couldn't do the
job. It was the church's loss and our gain. He made a tremendous
contribution to this institution. But much more importantly, in the
last some 20 years that he has not been a Member of this institution he
continued to make an extraordinary contribution, not just to those with
disabilities, but to our society, in expanding our consciousness and
inclusion.
And I mention his name, but I also want to thank my friend, Steve
Bartlett. Steve Bartlett, Congressman, then the Mayor of Dallas, now in
the private sector, but engaged in the eighties and nineties and
engaged in the passage of this bill today, was extraordinarily helpful
to us. In 1990, the original ADA was the product of the vision of so
many.
I also want to thank my former staffer, Melissa Schulman, who worked
indefatigably as we passed the ADA in 1990.
When the first President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities
Act 18 years ago, America became the world's leader on this central
test of human rights. The ADA was a project in keeping with our oldest
principles and founding ideals. As President Bush the first, as I call
him, put it at the signing ceremony, and I quote, ``Today's
legislation,'' he said, ``brings us closer to that day when no
Americans will ever again be deprived of their basic guarantee of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
Thanks to the ADA, that day became closer on July 26, 1990. Thanks to
the passage of this bill today and the signatures Mr. Miller indicated
next week, and the expected signatures of the President, with hopefully
the first President Bush present, tens of millions of Americans with
disabilities will now enjoy even fuller rights, and the rights that we
intended them to enjoy when we passed the ADA--the right to use the
same streets, theaters, restrooms or offices, the right to prove
themselves in the workplace, to succeed on their talent and drive
alone.
We've accomplished much in terms of public accommodations, in terms
of reasonable accommodations. I was sitting there with Michele
Stockwell, my policy director, as we watched Jim Langevin give his
speech. What a wonderful accommodation he has in that chair that stands
up. Weren't all of you impressed when he said, ``I rise to support this
legislation?'' ``I rise.'' And he does rise. Why? Because he has a
reasonable accommodation which, notwithstanding the failure of his legs
to work the way he would like them to work, his chair reasonably
accommodates and has him rise to speak to this body as a testimony to
the consciousness of having been raised to make sure that a person like
Jim Langevin--of great ability, of great ability, not disability, but
of great ability--can come here, having been shot at the age of 16
inadvertently, by accident, disabled, graduated from high school,
graduated from college, elected to the Rhode Island House, elected to
Secretary of State of his State, and now a Member of this body. What a
testimony to making sure that we made sure Jim Langevin could get
through the door; we made sure Jim Langevin could get the kind of
education he wanted and have access to that education. What a testimony
to what this Congress has done, but more importantly, what so many
courageous people with a disability have shown us all, that a
disability is not disabling. It may rob us of a single or maybe even
multiple ways that some people do things, but not of all things.
Sadly, as a result of the Supreme Court's decision, we have yet to
live up to our promise fully. That's what we're trying to do today.
We've made progress on access, we've made progress on listening
devices, a lot of progress. One of the places we haven't made the
progress we wanted to was
[[Page 19438]]
employment. So many people want to work, want to be self-sufficient,
want to be enterprising, want to have the self-respect of earning their
own way, but have been shut out. And the Supreme Court didn't help us.
That's what this bill is about.
Over the last 18 years, the Court has chipped away at that promise
and at Congress' clear original intent. We said we wanted broad
coverage for people with disabilities and people regarded as disabled.
Important phrase, ``regarded as disabled.'' What the Supreme Court
really said, well, if you can make sure that your disability does not
disable you. Tony Coelho takes medicine for his epilepsy, and so he
functions. And if you saw him, you would say he's functioning fine. But
if I said, but I won't hire you, Tony, because you have epilepsy, the
Court said that was okay. Nobody on this floor believed that was the
case. If he was discriminated against because he had a disability but
could do the job, we said that's wrong. The Court did not agree with
us, and we're now changing that and making sure that our intent will be
lived out.
We never expected that the people with disabilities who work to
mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them,
but the courts did exactly that. Those narrow rulings, which will be
changed by this legislation, have closed the door of opportunity for
millions of Americans. We're here today to bring those millions of our
fellow citizens back to where they belong--where we want them, where we
need them, under the protection of the ADA.
By voting for final passage of the ADA Amendment Act, we ensure that
the definition of disability will henceforth be construed broadly and
fairly. We make it clear that those who manage to mitigate their
disabilities can still be subject to discrimination; we know that
intuitively and practically. This legislation says we know it
legislatively. And we recognize that those regarded as having a
disability are equally at risk and deserve to be equally protected.
{time} 1200
This bill, which was approved by the Senate last week unanimously,
has come so close to a signature thanks to the tireless work of the
members of the disability community, leaders from both parties and
business groups, a coalition as broad and deep as the one that created
the original ADA.
I want to recognize the cosponsor of this bill, as I said earlier,
Jim Sensenbrenner, tireless in his advocacy, and his wife, Cheryl. I
want to thank my good friend Tony Coelho. As I said at a press
conference last week, I have served in the Congress for 28 years. There
will be a time when I will retire. And I will look back on my career.
And one of the proudest achievements I will have is the work that I
have done at Tony's insistence and request on behalf of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and those who are challenged by being shut out of
our society.
Finally, it is my honor to dedicate this bill to a pioneering
disability advocate and an inspiration behind the ADA. He is listening
to us. He died some years ago. His name was Justin Dart. Justin Dart,
like Jim Langevin, was in a wheelchair. It didn't disable him. Indeed,
it empowered him. It empowered him to educate all of us. It empowered
him to educate those with disabilities as to what they could do and
accomplish by their efforts to join together, to educate us and to
educate the country. His bride, Yoshiko Dart, carries on that torch.
When Justin Dart spoke last that I heard him at the White House, he
said I may not be with you for a long time. But I want you to keep on
keeping on. Justin, that is what we do today.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
I commend the leader for his eloquence and for the great work that he
has done on this bill; likewise Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Miller, Mr.
Langevin, and all those who have worked so hard for bringing forth this
bill and for bringing it to this point.
Back in June, I had the privilege to join advocates for Americans
with disabilities and many of the Congressional leaders who made that
bill possible at a rally in support of this bill. At that time, we made
it clear that we needed to get a bill to the President for his
signature this year. This is a bill that cannot wait another year. That
is why I'm so pleased to be standing here preparing to give final
approval to this important legislation.
Once again I want to recognize Chairman Miller, the leaders of the
Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Energy and Commerce
Committees and the members of leadership on both sides of the aisle for
shepherding this bill through the process and insisting on an open,
inclusive process. This bill is better for it. I also want to recognize
the members of my staff who worked hard on this legislation, Jim
Paretti, Ken Serafin and Ed Gilroy from my staff helped to make this
bill a reality. This is a bill that fulfills our goal of providing
strong, balanced and workable protections to ensure that individuals
with disabilities can participate more fully in the workforce and in
our society.
Mr. Speaker, there are some other comments I would like to make at
this time. I think this bill has been a marvelous example of how
Congress can work together. It's one that we've worked on now for a
number of years. In the last Congress, Chairman Sensenbrenner
introduced this bill. It was introduced in many committees. Many
hearings were held. Markups were held. It carried over into this
Congress. Under a change of leadership it moved forward. Again,
hearings were held. Markups were held. It was passed through the body
here in the House. It went to the other side. The other body took this
bill up, passed it through regular order and improved the bill. And we
find it now back before us in the concluding weeks of this Congress.
All of us have worked together to make it a good product that will help
the individuals with disabilities that it's meant to help. And I think
it makes me proud to be a part of this body to have been able to
participate in this process.
Last night we participated in a process that made me not so proud of
this body. I understand political process. I understand that we have an
election coming up. And I understand that there are times when politics
rises above policy. But it still disappointed me to see a bill
presented Monday night, no bipartisanship, no hearings, no regular
process. Right up here above us it says, ``Let us develop the resources
of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions.'' It's a
direction that we're supposed to be operating under.
This bill was brought up Monday night to address a very, very
important issue in our country. We are dependent upon other countries
for resources to run our energy, to run this country. It puts us in a
very difficult position. It's an issue that is equally as important I
think as this bill that we are working on here right now. If it had
been addressed in the same way, if we had been able to work together
the way we've worked on this bill, I think the country would have been
much better served. As it is, we are left with a political statement, a
bill that everybody in this body knows is going nowhere, that will do
nothing to actually solve the problem of energy, something that will be
pushed into the next Congress. Hopefully at that point we can sit down
and as adults, as Americans, as leaders that have been elected by the
people we serve to come here and work through a good process to really
solve a problem that is very, very important to our constituents and to
our Nation and to our growth in a time of very serious issues
confronting our country. It's my hope that we will be able to do that.
I'm saddened by what happened yesterday. But as I said, I understand
the process. I understand we're facing an election.
Having said that, seeing this body work at its best and I think at
very, very far from its best, I do urge passage of the ADA Amendments
Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman is recognized
for 1\1/2\ minutes.
[[Page 19439]]
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I fully understand the deep
disappointment on behalf of the Republican Members, not all, but those
who did not vote for the legislation last night to create a
comprehensive energy policy for the future of this Nation. They were
intent upon killing it. They fell short. They fell short because it was
a bipartisan bill. A number of their Members crossed the aisle to vote
for the legislation because they recognize this was about taking us to
a new energy future, a future that no longer continued year after year
after year, as we have under Republican control, increased dependence
upon international oil from nations that are hostile to us in so many
ways, of nations who inflate our economy in so many ways.
This legislation will make available billions of barrels of oil that
is from the Minerals Management leasing, the administration of oil on
the Outer Continental Shelf, more billions of barrels of oil in Alaska,
in the National Petroleum Reserve that holds probably more oil than the
OCS, that can be opened under legislation. And the royalties that are
due this Nation will be put into a trust fund to create the research
and the development of renewable and alternative energy resources that
are so important if in fact we are going to break our dependence on
foreign oil and on fossil fuels as a bedrock of the energy policy of
this Nation. It is also going to stop the royalty holidays that oil
companies who are making the largest record earnings in history are
doing.
With that, I would like to return to the matter at hand and to thank
the ranking member from across the aisle, Mr. McKeon, for all his work.
I want to thank again Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Sensenbrenner. I certainly want
to thank the staffs of this committee, on our side Sharon Lewis who
demonstrated great leadership on this issue, Jody Calemine, Brian
Kennedy, Chris Brown, our intern Tom Webb; on their side Jim Paretti,
Ed Gilroy and Ken Sarafin; and Mr. Hoyer's staff, Michelle Stockwell
and Keith Aboshar; and on the Judiciary staff Heather Sawyer and David
Lockman. And I failed to mention the Bazelon Center and the Human
Resources Policy Association.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I submit the
following regarding S. 3406:
For over a decade, courts have narrowed the scope of the
ADA and have thereby excluded many individuals whom Congress
intended to cover under the law. The unfortunate impact of
too narrow an interpretation has been to erode the promise of
the ADA.
With the passage of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) today,
we ensure that the ADA's promise for people with disabilities
will be finally fulfilled. Our expectation is that this law
will afford people with disabilities the freedom to
participate in our community, free from discrimination and
its segregating effects, that we sought to achieve with the
original ADA.
The House of Representatives passed the ADA Amendments Act,
H.R. 3195, on June 25, 2008, by an overwhelming vote of 402-
17. The purpose of this legislation was to restore the intent
of Congress to cover a broad group of individuals with
disabilities under the ADA and to eliminate the problem of
courts focusing too heavily on whether individuals were
covered by the law rather than on whether discrimination
occurred.
That commitment has now been echoed by passage in the
Senate of the ADA Amendments Act, S. 3406, by unanimous
consent. We welcome the opportunity to pass today the version
of the ADA Amendments Act passed by the Senate, here in the
chamber where it began its journey on July 26th, 2007.
We are particularly pleased with the alliance of business
and disability representatives who came together to work with
us on this bill and support its passage throughout both
houses of Congress. Last January, we personally encouraged
these groups to work together to reach an agreement that
would work well for both people with disabilities and for
entities covered under the law. We are pleased that they have
been able to do so throughout this bill's legislative
process.
H.R. 3195, the ADA Amendments Act passed by the House, and
S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act passed by the Senate, are
identical in most important respects.
Both H.R. 3195 and S. 3406 contain identical language
concerning mitigating measures, episodic conditions, major
life activities including major bodily functions, treatment
of claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, ensuring
regulatory authority over the definition of disability, and
conforming Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to be
consistent with the changes made by the ADAAA.
Hence, the Report of the House Committee on Education and
Labor and the Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary,
as well as our Joint Statement introduced into the
Congressional Record on June 25, 2008, continue to accurately
convey our intent with regard to the bill we are passing
today.
While the intent is the same, as discussed more fully
below, S. 3406 takes a slightly different approach than H.R.
3195. Consequently, we want to make it clear that where the
House Committee Reports and our joint statement used the term
``materially restricts'' to establish points in various
examples, those examples should be read to convey the same
points, and the term ``materially restricts'' should be
understood to refer to the less demanding standard for the
term ``substantially limits'' prescribed by both H.R. 3195
and S. 3406. For example, the statement in the House
Education and Labor Report that ``the Committee expects that
a plaintiff such as Littleton could provide evidence of
material restriction in the major life activities of
thinking, learning, communicating and interacting with
others'' should be understood to mean that the Committee
expects that a plaintiff such as Littleton could provide
evidence of substantial limitation in thinking, communicating
and interacting with others. (See Littleton v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 231 Fed. Appx. 874 (11th Cir. 2007)).
The key difference between the two bills is that S. 3406
uses a different means to achieve the same goal that we
achieved with H.R. 3195. As we explain below, we are
comfortable accepting this approach.
In H.R. 3195, we achieved this goal by redefining the term
``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially restricts'' in
order to indicate to the courts that they had incorrectly
interpreted the term ``substantially limits'' in Toyota Motor
Mfg. of Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, and to convey to the
courts our expectation that they would apply a less demanding
standard of severity than had been applied by the Supreme
Court.
Our colleagues in the Senate, however, were uncomfortable
with creating a new term in the statute. Hence, they achieved
the same goal through a different means.
Instead of redefining the term ``substantially limits,'' S.
3406 states that such term ``shall be interpreted
consistently with the findings and purposes'' of the ADA
Amendments Act. This is a textual provision that will legally
guide the agencies and courts in properly interpreting the
term ``substantially limits.'' With regard to the findings
and purposes that the textual provision requires the agencies
and court to use, S. 3406 incorporates all of the findings
and purposes of H.R. 3195, including statements that Congress
intended for the ADA to provide broad coverage and that this
legislation rejects the Supreme Court's decisions in Sutton
and Williams that inappropriately narrowed the scope of
protection of the ADA.
In order to explain how it intended the definition of
``substantially limits'' to be interpreted, the Senate added
findings which highlighted the fact that the Williams
decision placed a too high threshold on the definition of
substantially limits and that the EEOC's interpretative
regulations were similarly drafted or interpreted to create a
burden not contemplated by the Congress. Consistent with
these findings, the Senate added two purposes which directed
the EEOC to amend its regulations to reflect the purposes of
the ADA as amended by the ADAAA and which noted that the
thrust of ADA inquiry should be directed to the compliance
obligations of the covered entities rather than the scope of
the disability experienced by the individual asserting
coverage under the Act.
While we believe that the approach we adopted in H.R. 3195
would have been workable for the courts--i.e., providing a
new definition of ``substantially limits'' in order to convey
to courts our intention that they should apply a lower
standard of severity than they previously had--we accept the
considered judgment of our colleagues in the Senate that
their approach achieves the same end, but in a manner more
suitable to their interests.
S. 3406 also modifies the rule of construction that we had
placed in H.R. 3195. Under the Senate's construction, the
definition of disability ``shall be construed in favor of
broad coverage of individuals under this Act, to the maximum
extent permitted by the terms of this Act.'' We understand
that this provision will have the same meaning as the rule of
construction that we had included in H.R. 3195, but with a
clarification that the courts may not interpret the
definition of disability in a manner inconsistent with the
terms of the ADA. That, of course, is true.
In addition, the changes made by S. 3406 will send an
important signal to the courts. We expect that courts
interpreting the ADA after these amendments are enacted will
not demand such an extensive analysis over whether a person's
physical or mental impairment constitutes a disability. Our
goal throughout this process has been to simplify that
analysis.
With the passage of the ADA Amendments Act today, we
finally fulfill our promise to tear down the barriers of
ignorance and misinterpretation that make up an unpardonable
``wall of exclusion'' against people with disabilities. See
George H. W. Bush, Remarks on Signing the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (July 26, 1990).
[[Page 19440]]
We are grateful to the individuals and advocates who have
worked tirelessly to ensure the civil rights and inclusion of
people with disabilities in every aspect of life. This
includes work during various stages of the bill to bring it
to a successful conclusion.
A large group of individuals worked closely with us as we
developed the second ADA Restoration Act that was introduced
on July 26, 2007:
Tony Coelho, Immediate Past Board Chair of the Epilepsy
Foundation and Former U.S. Representative; Cheryl
Sensenbrenner, Board Chair of the American Association of
People with Disabilities (AAPD); Andy Imparato, AAPD; Sandy
Finucane, Epilepsy Foundation and her lawyers at the
Georgetown Federal Legislation and Administrative Clinic:
Heather Sawyer, Kevin Barry and Chai Feldblum; Jennifer
Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law; Abby Bownas and
Shereen Arent, American Diabetes Association (ADA); Curt
Decker and Ken Shiotani, National Disability Rights Network
(NDRN); Arlene Mayerson and Marilyn Golden, Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund (DREDF); Claudia Center, Legal Aid
Society of CA; Janna Starr, Paul Marchand and Erika Hagensen
of The Arc/UCP Public Policy Collaboration; Denise Rozell,
Easter Seals; Lee Page, Paralyzed Veterans Association; Bobby
Silverstein, Center for the Study and Advancement of
Disability Policy, and John Lancaster, National Council on
Independent Living (NCIL).
In January 2008, we urged representatives from both
communities to sit down with each other and to understand
each other's needs and concerns. We appreciate the leadership
role displayed in these conversations by the following
individuals on behalf of the disability community: Sandy
Finucane, Epilepsy Foundation; Professor Chai Feldblum,
Georgetown Law; Andy Imparato, AAPD; Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law; Curt Decker, NDRN; John
Lancaster, NCIL.
We appreciate the leadership role displayed in these
conversations by the following individuals on behalf of the
business community: Randy Johnson and Michael Eastman, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce; Mike Peterson, HR Policy Association;
Jeri Gillespie, National Association of Manufacturers; Mike
Aitken and Mike Layman, Society for Human Resource
Management.
We appreciate the intensive work done by the core legal
team in these discussions, led by Professor Chai Feldblum and
Jennifer Mathis for the disability negotiators, ably assisted
by Kevin Barry, Jim Flug, John Muller and Emily Benfer, and
led by Mike Eastman, Lawrence Lorber, Proskauer Rose, LLP,
and Mike Peterson.
We benefited greatly from the fact that former colleagues
in both Congress and the Administration lent their support to
this effort, including former U.S. Representative Steve
Bartlett, former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho, former
Senator Robert Dole, and former Attorney General Richard
Thornburgh.
We appreciate the personal leadership role taken by Nancy
Zirkin and Lisa Bornstein of the Leadership Conference in
Civil Rights in making this a priority for the civil rights
community.
Finally, at the risk of leaving out some individuals, we
want to recognize some of the additional countless
individuals who helped with educating Members of Congress,
doing important coalition and media work, and providing legal
input on the bill as it progressed through Congress, from its
first stages through the final vote today: Anne Sommers,
AAPD; Angela Ostrom, Donna Meltzer, Hans Friedhoff, Ken
Lowenberg, Kimberli Meadows, and Lisa Boylan, Epilepsy
Foundation; Day Al Mohamed, American Psychological
Association; Deb Cotter, NCIL; Joan Magagna and Ron Hager,
NDRN; Mistique Cano, Maggie Kao and Robyn Kurland, Leadership
Conference for Civil Rights; Peggy Hathaway and Jim Wiseman,
United Spinal Association; Annie Acosta, The Arc/UCP
Disability Policy Collaboration; Lewis Bossing, Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law; John Kemp, U.S. International
Council on Disabilities; Bebe Anderson, Lambda Legal Defense
Fund; Robert Burgdorf, UDC law professor; Rosaline Crawford,
National Association of the Deaf (NAD); Mark Richert,
American Foundation for the Blind; Eric Bridges, American
Council for the Blind; Jessica Butler, Council of Parent
Attorneys and Advocates; Michael Collins, Julie Carroll and
Jeff Rosen, NCD; Steve Bennett, UCP, Lise Hamlin, Hard of
Hearing Association of America; Laura Kaloi, National Center
for Learning Disabilities; Donna Lenhoff and Gary Phelan,
National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA); Darrin Brown
and Evelyn Morton, AARP; Dan Kohrman, AARP Foundation and
NELA; Katy Beh Neas, Easter Seals; Andrew Sperling, National
Alliance on Mental Illness; Toby Olson, Washington State
Governor's Committee on Disability Issues and Employment;
Myrna Mandlawitz, Learning Disabilities Association; Ari
Ne'eman, Autistic Self Advocacy Network; Shawn O'Neail,
National Multiple Sclerosis Society; Laura Owens; APSE: The
Network on Employment; Cindy Smith, CHADD; Jim Ward, ADA
Watch/National Council on Disability Rights; Nathan Vafaie,
National Health Council; David Webbert, Johnson & Webbert;
Joanne Lin, Michelle Richardson, and Deborah Vagins, ACLU
Washington Legislative Office; Lynne Landsberg and Kate
Bigam, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Amy Rosen,
United Jewish Communities; Elissa Froman, National Council of
Jewish Women; Jayne Mardock, National Kidney Foundation; Jack
Clark and Mark Freedman, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Tim Bartl,
HR Policy Association; Recardo Gibson, SHRM; Bo Bryant,
McDonald's; Keith Smith, Ryan Modlin and Bob Shepler,
National Association of Manufacturers; Ty Kelley, Food
Marketing Institute; and Jason Straczewski, International
Franchise Association.
Regardless of the work done by advocates, however, it is
ultimately we in Congress who must get the job done. We
applaud the commitment of Congressman George Miller, Chair,
and Congressman Buck McKeon, Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Labor; Congressman John Conyers, Chair, and
Congressman Lamar Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on
Judiciary; Congressman Jerry Nadler, Chair, and Congressman
Trent Franks, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties; Congressman
John Dingell, Chair, and Congressman Joe Barton, Ranking
Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce; Congressman James
Oberstar, Chair, and Congressman John Mica, Ranking Member,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for bringing
this bill successfully through their committees. We applaud
our 400 colleagues who voted with us to pass the ADA
Amendments Act this past June and we applaud the Senate that
unanimously passed the ADA Amendments Act last week.
And, of course, there is no way we could have done all the
work that we did on this bill without the dedicated
assistance of our staff and the staff of the committees. So,
we would particularly like to thank Michele Stockwell, Keith
Abouchar, Michael Lenn, Sharon Lewis, Heather Sawyer, Mark
Zuckerman, Jim Paretti, Ed Gilroy, Brian Kennedy, Paul
Taylor, David Lachmann, Alex, Nock, Thomas Webb, Jody
Calemine, Tico Almeida, Chris Brown, and Ken Serafin.
What really matters, when all is said and done, is the work
done by people with disabilities every day across this great
nation. The passage of the ADA Amendments Act today is
intended to ensure that they receive the simple, basic
opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of society.
We are grateful to have played a role in helping to make that
happen,
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 3406,
the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. This bipartisan legislation, which will
restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
ADA, is long overdue.
The passage of the ADA in 1990 helped millions of Americans with
disabilities succeed in life and the workplace by making essential
services that most Americans take for granted more accessible to
individuals with disabilities. It was truly a landmark civil rights law
to ensure that people with disabilities have protection from
discrimination in the same manner as individuals are protected from
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin, religion,
or age.
In recent years, the Federal courts have erroneously eroded the
protections for individuals under the ADA, which has created a new set
of barriers for those with disabilities. This bill rejects the courts'
narrow interpretation of the definition of disability, and makes it
absolutely clear that the ADA is intended to provide broad coverage to
protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of disability. It
strikes a careful balance between the needs of individuals with
disabilities and realities confronted by employers.
Madam Speaker, the Congress is taking an important step towards
restoring the original intent of the ADA. By doing so, we will help
ensure that Americans with disabilities can lead independent and self-
sufficient lives. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed
legislation.
Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), S.
3406. I want to commend Majority Leader Hoyer and Chairman Miller for
moving this bill so quickly after Senate passage late last week.
As the Education and Labor Committee said in its report on H.R. 3195,
this bill provides ``an important step towards restoring the original
intent of Congress. The scope of protection under the ADA was intended
to be broad and inclusive. Unfortunately, the courts have narrowed the
interpretation of disability and found that a large number of people
with substantially limiting impairments are not to be considered people
with disabilities.''
Unfortunately, the ADA has been misinterpreted by the courts
resulting in a narrow view of those eligible to receive certain
reasonable accommodations including individuals with
[[Page 19441]]
learning disabilities. Historically, certain individuals with learning
disabilities seeking accommodations in higher education--including high
stakes exams--have seen their access to testing accommodations severely
undercut by testing companies not willing to consider and support that
learning disabilities are neurologically based, lifelong disabilities
that may exist in students with high academic achievement because the
individual has been able to cope and mitigate the negative impact while
simultaneously being substantially limited in one or more major life
activities.
Too many individuals with documented learning disabilities, including
dyslexia, are denied access to easily administered and often low-cost
accommodations that would make the critical difference in allowing them
to demonstrate their knowledge. These amendments to the ADA do not
provide any special treatment, but rather, ensure that each individual
with a learning disability has every opportunity to apply for and
receive a reasonable accommodation so he/she can move forward in his/
her chosen educational and career paths.
This bill continues to reinforce what we stated in our bipartisan
committee report, that ``the determination of whether an impairment
substantially limits a major life activity is to be made on an
individualized basis.'' There should be no attempt to discriminate
against a class of individuals based on any one disability. For
example, people with dyslexia are diagnosed based on an unexpected
difficulty in reading. This requires a careful analysis of the method
and manner in which this impairment substantially limits an
individual's ability to read, which may mean a difference in the
duration, condition or manner of reading--for example, taking more
time--but may not result in a less capable reader.
Together, we can ensure that the ADA is accurately interpreted to
provide access to accommodations for those that have appropriately
documented disabilities. By supporting and fostering the academic
potential for these individuals, we reap the benefits when talented,
ambitious and creative individuals are able to fulfill their education
dreams and contribute in a meaningful way to our society.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
S. 3406, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' I wholeheartedly support
this bill and urge my colleagues to support it also. The changes
embodied by this Act, that restore the with Disabilities Act of 1990
(``ADA'') to its original purpose, are long overdue.
S. 3406, the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2007,'' amends the definition
of ``disability'' in the ADA in response to the Supreme Court's narrow
interpretation of the definition, which has made it extremely difficult
for individuals with serious health conditions--epilepsy, diabetes,
cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and severe intellectual
impairments--to prove that they qualify for protection under the ADA.
The Supreme Court has narrowed the definition in two ways: (1) by
ruling that mitigating measures that help control an impairment like
medicine, hearing aids, or any other treatment must be considered in
determining whether an impairment is disabling enough to qualify as a
disability; and (2) by ruling that the elements of the definition must
be interpreted ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying
as disabled.'' The Court's treatment of the ADA is at odds with
judicial treatment of other civil rights statutes, which usually are
interpreted broadly to achieve their remedial purposes. It is also
inconsistent with Congress's intent.
The Committee will consider a substitute that represents the
consensus view of disability rights groups and the business community.
That substitute restores Congressional intent by, among other things:
Disallowing consideration of mitigating measures other than
corrective lenses (ordinary eyeglasses or contacts) when determining
whether an impairment is sufficiently limiting to qualify as a
disability;
Maintaining the requirement that an individual qualifying as disabled
under the first of the three-prong definition of ``disability'' show
that an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life activity but
defining ``substantially limits'' as a less burdensome ``materially
restricts'';
Clarifying that anyone who is discriminated against because of an
impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any
major life activities, has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is
entitled to the ADA's protection.
Background on Legislation
Eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush, with overwhelming
bipartisan support from the Congress, signed into law the ADA. The Act
was intended to provide a ``clear and comprehensive mandate,'' with
``strong, consistent, enforceable standards,'' for eliminating
disability-based discrimination. Through this broad mandate, Congress
sought to protect anyone who is treated less favorably because of a
current, past, or perceived disability. Congress did not intend for the
courts to seize on the definition of disability as a means of excluding
individuals with serious health conditions from protection, yet this is
exactly what has happened. A legislative action is now needed to
restore congressional intent and ensure broad protection against
disability-based discrimination.
Court Rulings Have Narrowed ADA Protection, Resulting in the Exclusion
of Individuals that Congress Clearly Intended to Protect.
Through a series of decisions interpreting the ADA's definition of
``disability,'' however, the Supreme Court has narrowed the ADA in ways
never intended by Congress. First, in three cases decided on the same
day, the Supreme Court ruled that the determination of ``disability''
under the first prong of the definition--i.e., whether an individual
has a substantially limiting impairment--should be made after
considering whether mitigating measures had reduced the impact of the
impairment. In all three cases, the undisputed reason for the adverse
action was the employee's medical condition, yet all three employers
argued--and the Supreme Court agreed--that the plaintiffs were not
protected by the ADA because their impairments, when considered in a
mitigated state, were not limiting enough to qualify as disabilities
under the ADA.
Three years later, the Supreme Court revisited the definition of
``disability'' in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.
Williams. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that her employer
discriminated against her by failing to accommodate her disabilities,
which included carpal tunnel syndrome, myotendonitis, and thoracic
outlet compression. While her employer previously had adjusted her job
duties, making it possible for her to perform well despite these
conditions, Williams was not able to resume certain job duties when
requested by Toyota and ultimately lost her job. She challenged the
termination, also alleging that Toyota's refusal to continue
accommodating her violated the ADA. Looking to the definition of
``disability,'' the Court noted that an individual ``must initially
prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment,'' and then
demonstrate that the impairment ``substantially limits'' a ``major life
activity.'' Identifying the critical questions to be whether a
limitation is ``substantial'' and whether a life activity is ``major,''
the court stated that ``these terms need to be interpreted strictly to
create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court
then concluded that ``substantial'' requires a showing that an
individual has an impairment ``that prevents or severely restricts the
individual, and `major' life activities requires a showing that the
individual is restricted from performing tasks that are `of central
importance to most people's daily lives.' ''
In the wake of these rulings, disabilities that had been covered
under the Rehabilitation Act and that Congress intended to include
under the ADA--serious health conditions like epilepsy, diabetes,
cancer, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis--have been excluded. Either,
the courts say, the person is not impaired enough to substantially
limit a major life activity, or the impairment substantially limits
something--like liver function--that the courts do not consider a major
life activity. Courts even deny protection when the employer admits
that it took adverse action based on the individual's impairment,
allowing employers to take the position that an employee is too
disabled to do a job but not disabled enough to be protected by the
law.
On October 4, 2007, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties held a legislative hearing on S. 3406, the
``ADA Restoration Act of 2007.'' Witnesses at the hearing included
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD); Cheryl Sensenbrenner, Chair,
American Association of People with Disabilities; Stephen C. Orr,
pharmacist and plaintiff in Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Michael C.
Collins, Executive Director, National Council on Disability; Lawrence
Z. Lorber, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; and Chai R. Feldblum, Professor,
Georgetown University Law Center.
The hearing provided an opportunity for the Constitution Subcommittee
to examine how the Supreme Court's decisions regarding the definition
of ``disability'' have affected ADA protection for individuals with
disabilities and to consider the need for legislative action.
Representative Hoyer, one of the lead sponsors of the original act and,
along with Representative Sensenbrenner, lead House co-sponsor of the
ADA Restoration Act, explained the need to respond to court decisions
``that have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke
protection under the law and [reinstate] the original congressional
intent when the ADA passed.'' Explaining
[[Page 19442]]
Congress's choice to adopt the definition of ``disability'' from the
Rehabilitation Act because it had been interpreted generously by the
courts, Representative Hoyer testified that Congress had never
anticipated or intended that the courts would interpret that definition
so narrowly:
[W]e could not have fathomed that people with diabetes,
epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, mental illnesses and
other disabilities would have their ADA claims denied because
they would be considered too functional to meet the
definition of disabled. Nor could we have fathomed a
situation where the individual may be considered too disabled
by an employer to get a job, but not disabled enough by the
courts to be protected by the ADA from discrimination. What a
contradictory position that would have been for Congress to
take.
Representative Hoyer, joined by all of the witnesses except Mr.
Lorber, urged Congress to respond by passing H.R. 3195, the House
companion, to amend the definition of ``disability.'' Mr. Lorber,
appearing on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed H.R. 3195 as an
overly broad response to court decisions that accurately reflected
statutory language and congressional intent.
Since the subcommittee's hearing, several changes have been made to
the bill, which are reflected in the substitute that will likely be
considered by the committee. The substitute, described section-by-
section below, represents the consensus of the disability rights and
business groups and is supported by, among others, the Chamber of
Commerce.
Importantly, Section 4 of the bill amends the definition of
``disability'' and provides standards for applying the amended
definition. While retaining the requirement that a disability
``substantially limits'' a ``major'' life activity under prongs 1 and 2
of the definition of disability, section 4 redefines ``substantially
limits'' as ``materially restricts'' to indicate a less stringent
standard. Thus, while the limitation imposed by an impairment must be
important, it need not rise to the level of preventing or severely
restricting the performance of major life activities in order to
qualify as a disability. Section 4 provides an illustrative list of
life activities that should be considered ``major,'' and clarifies that
an individual has been ``regarded as'' disabled and is entitled to
protection under the ADA if discriminated against because of an
impairment, whether or not the impairment limits the performance of any
major life activities. Section 4 requires broad construction of the
definition and prohibits consideration of mitigating measures (with the
exception of ordinary glasses or contact lenses) in determining whether
an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it also.
Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3406, the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act.
This vital legislation restores the civil rights protections that
Congress intended for people with disabilities in passing the ADA in
1990. In the years since passage of the ADA, courts--including the U.S.
Supreme Court--have narrowed the protective reach of this law,
undermining Congress' intent. It is flatly unacceptable that Americans
who experienced disability-based discrimination have been denied
protection of the ADA and barred from challenging discriminatory
conduct. This bill is an important and necessary remedy, and I'm
grateful to our champions in the House, Mr. Hoyer and Mr.
Sensenbrenner, as well as Senator Harkin and others who shepherded the
ADA Amendments Act through the Senate.
Importantly, the ADA Amendments Act addresses the restrictive
interpretation of what it means to have a ``disability'' and therefore
be protected against disability discrimination. In Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the Supreme Court ruled that
the definition of disability must be read ``strictly to create a
demanding standard for qualifying as disabled'' and, to meet the
definition, an individual must have an impairment that ``prevents or
severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of
central importance to most people's daily lives.''
Due to that and other narrow court interpretations, people with HIV
who have been fired, not hired, or suffered other adverse employment
actions have been denied the protections of the ADA. Although the ADA
clearly intended to protect people living with HIV from being
discriminated against based on having HIV, many have had their lawsuits
derailed by disputes over whether they meet a narrowly interpreted
definition of the term ``disability.'' For people living with HIV, all
too often whether or not they could proceed with their discrimination
claim has turned on the court's view of evidence as to their child-
bearing ability and intentions: highly personal, intimate matters that
are completely unrelated to the discrimination they experienced.
The ADA Amendments Act remedies the courts' misinterpretation of the
ADA by explicitly stating that the definition of ``disability'' must be
interpreted broadly to achieve the ADA's remedial purposes, by
clarifying the definition of ``disability'' through examples of ``major
life activities,'' and by providing that the determination of whether
an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made
without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. Of
significance for people living with HIV, among the listed examples of
``major life activities'' are ``functions of the immune system,'' as
well as ``reproductive functions.'' Under these new provisions, many
individuals who were incorrectly denied coverage under the ADA will now
be protected from discrimination. Some examples follow:
Rubin Cruz Carrillo was fired from his job as a flight attendant 1
day after he told his employer that he had been diagnosed with HIV and
asked to speak with his supervisors about this under ``strict
confidentiality.'' Because he was fired immediately after disclosing
his HIV status, Rubin believed that the airline terminated him because
of his disability and filed suit under the ADA. To show that his HIV
infection ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity,'' Rubin
explained that he decided not to have children because of the risk of
infecting his female partner or their resulting child through
unprotected sexual intercourse. The trial judge discounted his
testimony, saying that Rubin was ``not an expert in the medical field
of immunology or reproduction.'' The court concluded that Rubin had not
established that he had a ``disability'' because he failed to introduce
medical evidence that HIV substantially limits a man's ability to
reproduce. Therefore, the court ruled Rubin was not entitled to the
protections of the ADA.
In contrast, another judge on the same Federal district court found
that a female with HIV was entitled to ADA protection. Yesenia
Rodriguez alleged that she was discharged from an assignment because
she had HIV. The court found that she was ``disabled'' under the
meaning of the ADA, based on her testimony that she decided not to have
more children due to the possibility of transmitting HIV to her child
if she did.
Other courts have granted summary judgment for employers (dismissing
discrimination claims) on the grounds that the employee with HIV did
not establish that his HIV was a ``disability.'' For example, Fabio
Gutwaks'' discrimination claim was dismissed after the court concluded
that he had failed to establish that he was substantially limited in
the major life activity of reproduction because he testified that he
did not currently, or previously, desire to father children. Similarly,
Albenjamin Blanks' claim was dismissed after he testified that he and
his wife had decided not to have any more children long before the
discriminatory conduct occurred and that his wife had undergone a
procedure to prevent her from having any more children.
The ADA was meant to prohibit discrimination against people with
disabilities. Yet, many people with HIV have been denied coverage under
the ADA and therefore left without any legal recourse against
discrimination. Under the ADA Amendments Act, these men and women will
all be assured legal protection for discrimination based on their HIV
status, irrespective of their child-bearing intentions or lack of
expert testimony about HIV's impact on child-bearing.
By passing the ADA Amendments Act, we reaffirm the right for American
workers--including any American living with HIV--to be judged based
upon their skills, talents, loyalty, character, integrity and work
ethic. I am pleased to support this bill to ensure that all Americans
have a fair opportunity to work.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
strong support of final passage of S. 3406, the ADA Amendments Act of
2008.
Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act has provided
protection from discrimination for millions of productive, hard-working
Americans so that they may fully participate in our Nation's schools,
communities and workplaces.
Among other rights, the law guaranteed that workers with disabilities
would be judged on their merits and not on an employer's prejudice.
But since the ADA's enactment, several Supreme Court rulings have
dramatically reduced the number of individuals with disabilities who
are protected from discrimination under the law.
Workers like Carey McClure, an electrician with muscular dystrophy
who testified before our committee in January, have been determined by
an employer be ``too disabled'' to do a job, yet courts have said that
these individuals are not disabled enough. This is the terrible
``catch-22'' that Congress will change with passage of this bill.
[[Page 19443]]
S. 3406, like H.R. 3195 passed in June, remedies this situation in
several ways by reversing flawed court decisions to restore the
original congressional intent of the ADA. Workers with disabilities who
have been discriminated against will no longer be denied their civil
rights as a result of these erroneous court decisions.
We expect that individuals will find it much easier to meet the
determination of disability under the amended ADA.
In order to achieve the remedial purpose of the ADA as a civil rights
law, S. 3406 re-establishes the scope of protection to be generous and
inclusive. The bill returns the proper emphasis to whether
discrimination occurred rather than on whether an individual's
impairment qualifies as a disability.
S. 3406 ensures that individuals who reduce the impact of their
impairments through means such as hearing aids, medications, or learned
behavioral modifications will be considered in their unmitigated state.
For people with epilepsy, or diabetes, or other conditions who have
successfully managed a disability, this means the end of the ``catch-
22'' that Carey McClure and so many others have encountered when
seeking justice.
For our returning war veterans with disabilities, S. 3406 will ensure
their transition back to civilian life will not include another battle
here at home--a battle against discrimination on the basis of
disability.
And students with physical or mental impairments will have access to
the accommodations and modifications they need to successfully pursue
an education.
Much of the language contained in S. 3406 is identical to the House-
passed H.R. 3195. This includes provisions concerning mitigating
measures, episodic conditions, major life activities, treatment of
claims under the ``regarded as'' prong, regulatory authority for the
definition of disability, and the conforming amendments to Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act.
In the House Committee Reports on H.R. 3195, we clarify that an
individual who is ``regarded as having such an impairment'' under the
third prong of the definition is not subject to the functional test
(i.e., required to establish that the perceived or actual impairment
substantially limits a major life activity) set forth in the first
prong. Thus, an individual with an actual or perceived impairment who
is disqualified from a job, program, or service and alleges that the
adverse action was based upon his or her impairment is covered by the
ADA as a member of the protected class, and therefore entitled to bring
a claim.
In clarifying the scope of protection under the third prong of the
definition, we also established that reasonable accommodations or
modifications do not need to be provided for those individuals who
qualify for coverage only because they have been ``regarded as'' having
a disability. We are confident, as is the Senate, that individuals who
need accommodations or modifications will receive them because those
individuals will now qualify for coverage under the first or second
prongs (under the less demanding interpretation of ``substantial
limitation'') when accommodations or modifications are still required.
Our clarification regarding the provision of modifications here does
not shield qualification standards, tests, or other selection criteria
from challenge by an individual who is disqualified based on such
standard, test, or criteria. As is currently required under the ADA,
any standard, test, or other selection criteria that results in
disqualification of an individual because of an impairment can be
challenged by that individual and must be shown to be job-related and
consistent with business necessity or necessary for the program or
service in question.
Other small differences in the findings and purposes in S. 3406, as
well as the rule of construction related to the broad coverage of the
act, correspond to similar language in H.R. 3195 and support the
objectives as described in the House Committee Education and Labor
Report.
As such, our committee report continues to reflect the intent of the
legislation and should be regarded as a valid interpretation, with one
exception--the definition of ``materially restricts.''
This difference between the two bills resides in the attempt to
correct the current interpretation of ``substantially limits.''
The EEOC regulations define the term ``substantially limits'' as
``unable to perform'' or ``significantly restricted.'' In the Toyota
case (Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S.
184 (2002)), the Supreme Court interpreted ``substantially limits'' to
mean ``prevents or severely restricts.''
Both the House and the Senate clearly expect the courts and the
agencies to apply a less demanding standard when interpreting
``substantially limits,'' even though the two chambers took divergent,
but not inconsistent, approaches.
S. 3406 rejects both of these definitions as too demanding and too
narrow, and directs the courts and the agencies to interpret the term
``substantially limits'' consistently with the findings and purposes of
the ADA Amendments Act.
H.R. 3195 defines ``substantially limits'' to mean ``materially
restricts.'' While the committee believed inclusion of this language
would send a strong signal that ``while the limitation imposed by an
impairment must be important, it need not rise to the level of severely
restricting or significantly restricting the ability to perform a major
life activity'' (House Committee on Education and Labor Report 110-730
part 1, at 9), our colleagues in the Senate disagreed.
In his statement, Senator Kennedy notes that the term ``materially
restricts,'' and the House committee report's references to a spectrum
or range of severity ``set an inappropriately high standard for the
determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a
major life activity and pose the risk of confusing the threshold
determination of who is covered by the act.'' (154 Cong. Rec. S8355
(daily ed September 11, 2008)). This was certainly not our intention.
We also agree with the Senate managers that ``such terms encourage
the courts to engage in an inappropriate level of scrutiny as to the
severity of an impairment when determining whether an individual has a
disability.'' (Senate Statement of Managers to Accompany S. 3406,
Endnote 14.) We intend that the ADA Amendments will have the opposite
effect, by reducing the depth of analysis related to the severity of
the limitation of the impairment and returning the focus to the
question of discrimination.
S. 3406 also includes a restatement of current law related to
fundamental alterations in order to assure institutions of higher
education that the ADA Amendments Act does not change the principle
that entities need not make modifications to policies, practices or
procedures that would fundamentally alter the nature of programs or
services, as is true under current law.
For example, a university would not be expected to eliminate academic
requirements essential to the instruction being pursued by a student,
although the school may be required to make modifications in order to
enable students with disabilities to meet those academic requirements.
Current regulations provide that ``Modifications may include changes in
the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements,
substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree
requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses
are conducted.'' (Senate Statement of Managers to Accompany S. 3406,
Endnote 14)
Educational, testing, certification and licensing entities covered by
the ADA also maintain discretion to establish appropriate and
reasonable documentation requirements related to the determination of
disability, as is true under current law. In June 2008, the Department
of Justice offered that ``a testing entity should accept without
further inquiry documentation provided by a qualified professional who
has made an individualized assessment of the applicant. Appropriate
documentation may include a letter from a qualified professional or
evidence of a prior diagnosis, accommodation, or classification, such
as eligibility for a special education program.'' (Examinations and
Courses, 73 Federal Register 34539 (June 17, 2008))
Once an individual has established that he or she experiences (or has
a record of) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
a major life activity, such individual is entitled to reasonable and
appropriate modifications in policies, practices or procedures so long
as the modifications in question do not fundamentally alter the nature
of the program or service.
We expect that the less demanding standard applied to the definition
of disability will allow students and licensure candidates with
documented disabilities to more readily access appropriate
accommodations on examinations when needed.
Last, we must remember that the ADA definition of disability applies
also to our public elementary and secondary schools. We believe that
most schools currently operate in a manner consistent with the original
congressional intent of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the
ADA and should be minimally affected by the change in definition. We do
not anticipate a need for extensive changes to the current regulations
and published guidance provided by the Office of Civil Rights at the
Department of Education.
This legislation has broad support: Democrats and Republicans,
employers, civil rights
[[Page 19444]]
groups, and advocates for individuals with disabilities. I'm pleased we
were able to work together to get to this point.
In particular, I would like to thank the members of the Employer and
Disability Alliance, including the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, the Epilepsy Foundation, the American Association of People
with Disabilities, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, HR Policy Association, the National Association of
Manufacturers, and the Society for Human Resource Management for their
hard work and long hours of negotiation with each other and with our
staff.
Of course, much credit is due to Majority Leader Hoyer and
Congressman Sensenbrenner for their leadership and tenacity in the
House; and Senator Harkin, Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for their
skill in moving this legislation through the Senate with unanimous
support.
It is time to restore the original intent of the ADA and ensure that
the tens of millions of Americans with disabilities who want to work,
attend school, and fully participate in our communities will have the
chance to do so.
I look forward to passage of this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the Senate bill, S. 3406.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SSI EXTENSION FOR ELDERLY AND DISABLED REFUGEES ACT
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur
in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 2608) to amend section 402
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 to provide, in fiscal years 2008 through 2010, extensions of
supplemental security income for refugees, asylees, and certain other
humanitarian immigrants, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code to
collect unemployment compensation debts resulting from fraud.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendments is as follows:
Senate amendments:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``SSI Extension for Elderly
and Disabled Refugees Act''.
SEC. 2. SSI EXTENSIONS FOR HUMANITARIAN IMMIGRANTS.
Section 402(a)(2) of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(M) SSI extensions through fiscal year 2011.--
``(i) Two-year extension for certain aliens and victims of
trafficking.--
``(I) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), with respect to
eligibility for benefits under subparagraph (A) for the
specified Federal program described in paragraph (3)(A) of
qualified aliens (as defined in section 431(b)) and victims
of trafficking in persons (as defined in section 107(b)(1)(C)
of division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-386) or as granted
status under section 101(a)(15)(T)(ii) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act), the 7-year period described in subparagraph
(A) shall be deemed to be a 9-year period during fiscal years
2009 through 2011 in the case of such a qualified alien or
victim of trafficking who furnishes to the Commissioner of
Social Security the declaration required under subclause (IV)
(if applicable) and is described in subclause (III).
``(II) Aliens and victims whose benefits ceased in prior
fiscal years.--Subject to clause (ii), beginning on the date
of the enactment of the SSI Extension for Elderly and
Disabled Refugees Act, any qualified alien (as defined in
section 431(b)) or victim of trafficking in persons (as
defined in section 107(b)(1)(C) of division A of the Victims
of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public
Law 106-386) or as granted status under section
101(a)(15)(T)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)
rendered ineligible for the specified Federal program
described in paragraph (3)(A) during the period beginning on
August 22, 1996, and ending on September 30, 2008, solely by
reason of the termination of the 7-year period described in
subparagraph (A) shall be eligible for such program for an
additional 2-year period in accordance with this clause, if
such qualified alien or victim of trafficking meets all other
eligibility factors under title XVI of the Social Security
Act, furnishes to the Commissioner of Social Security the
declaration required under subclause (IV) (if applicable),
and is described in subclause (III).
``(III) Aliens and victims described.--For purposes of
subclauses (I) and (II), a qualified alien or victim of
trafficking described in this subclause is an alien or victim
who--
``(aa) has been a lawful permanent resident for less than 6
years and such status has not been abandoned, rescinded under
section 246 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or
terminated through removal proceedings under section 240 of
the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Commissioner of
Social Security has verified such status, through procedures
established in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security;
``(bb) has filed an application, within 4 years from the
date the alien or victim began receiving supplemental
security income benefits, to become a lawful permanent
resident with the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
Commissioner of Social Security has verified, through
procedures established in consultation with such Secretary,
that such application is pending;
``(cc) has been granted the status of Cuban and Haitian
entrant, as defined in section 501(e) of the Refugee
Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-422), for
purposes of the specified Federal program described in
paragraph (3)(A);
``(dd) has had his or her deportation withheld by the
Secretary of Homeland Security under section 243(h) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (as in effect immediately
before the effective date of section 307 of division C of
Public Law 104-208), or whose removal is withheld under
section 241(b)(3) of such Act;
``(ee) has not attained age 18; or
``(ff) has attained age 70.
``(IV) Declaration required.--
``(aa) In general.--For purposes of subclauses (I) and
(II), the declaration required under this subclause of a
qualified alien or victim of trafficking described in either
such subclause is a declaration under penalty of perjury
stating that the alien or victim has made a good faith effort
to pursue United States citizenship, as determined by the
Secretary of Homeland Security. The Commissioner of Social
Security shall develop criteria as needed, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security, for consideration of
such declarations.
``(bb) Exception for children.--A qualified alien or victim
of trafficking described in subclause (I) or (II) who has not
attained age 18 shall not be required to furnish to the
Commissioner of Social Security a declaration described in
item (aa) as a condition of being eligible for the specified
Federal program described in paragraph (3)(A) for an
additional 2-year period in accordance with this clause.
``(V) Payment of benefits to aliens whose benefits ceased
in prior fiscal years.--Benefits paid to a qualified alien or
victim described in subclause (II) shall be paid
prospectively over the duration of the qualified alien's or
victim's renewed eligibility.
``(ii) Special rule in case of pending or approved
naturalization application.--With respect to eligibility for
benefits for the specified program described in paragraph
(3)(A), paragraph (1) shall not apply during fiscal years
2009 through 2011 to an alien described in one of clauses (i)
through (v) of subparagraph (A) or a victim of trafficking in
persons (as defined in section 107(b)(1)(C) of division A of
the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-386) or as granted status under section
101(a)(15)(T)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act), if
such alien or victim (including any such alien or victim
rendered ineligible for the specified Federal program
described in paragraph (3)(A) during the period beginning on
August 22, 1996, and ending on September 30, 2008, solely by
reason of the termination of the 7-year period described in
subparagraph (A)) has filed an application for naturalization
that is pending before the Secretary of Homeland Security or
a United States district court based on section 336(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act, or has been approved for
naturalization but not yet sworn in as a United States
citizen, and the Commissioner of Social Security has
verified, through procedures established in consultation with
the Secretary of Homeland Security, that such application is
pending or has been approved.''.
SEC. 3. COLLECTION OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEBTS
RESULTING FROM FRAUD.
(a) In General.--Section 6402 of the Internal Revenue Code
(relating to authority to make credits or refunds) is amended
by redesignating subsections (f) through (k) as subsections
(g) through (l), respectively, and by inserting after
subsection (e) the following new subsection:
``(f) Collection of Unemployment Compensation Debts
Resulting From Fraud.--
``(1) In general.--Upon receiving notice from any State
that a named person owes a covered unemployment compensation
debt to such State, the Secretary shall, under such
conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary--
``(A) reduce the amount of any overpayment payable to such
person by the amount of such covered unemployment
compensation debt;
``(B) pay the amount by which such overpayment is reduced
under subparagraph (A) to such State and notify such State of
such person's name, taxpayer identification number, address,
and the amount collected; and
``(C) notify the person making such overpayment that the
overpayment has been reduced by an amount necessary to
satisfy a covered unemployment compensation debt.
[[Page 19445]]
If an offset is made pursuant to a joint return, the notice
under subparagraph (C) shall include information related to
the rights of a spouse of a person subject to such an offset.
``(2) Priorities for offset.--Any overpayment by a person
shall be reduced pursuant to this subsection--
``(A) after such overpayment is reduced pursuant to--
``(i) subsection (a) with respect to any liability for any
internal revenue tax on the part of the person who made the
overpayment;
``(ii) subsection (c) with respect to past-due support; and
``(iii) subsection (d) with respect to any past-due,
legally enforceable debt owed to a Federal agency; and
``(B) before such overpayment is credited to the future
liability for any Federal internal revenue tax of such person
pursuant to subsection (b).
If the Secretary receives notice from a State or States of
more than one debt subject to paragraph (1) or subsection (e)
that is owed by a person to such State or States, any
overpayment by such person shall be applied against such
debts in the order in which such debts accrued.
``(3) Offset permitted only against residents of state
seeking offset.--Paragraph (1) shall apply to an overpayment
by any person for a taxable year only if the address shown on
the Federal return for such taxable year of the overpayment
is an address within the State seeking the offset.
``(4) Notice; consideration of evidence.--No State may take
action under this subsection until such State--
``(A) notifies by certified mail with return receipt the
person owing the covered unemployment compensation debt that
the State proposes to take action pursuant to this section;
``(B) provides such person at least 60 days to present
evidence that all or part of such liability is not legally
enforceable or due to fraud;
``(C) considers any evidence presented by such person and
determines that an amount of such debt is legally enforceable
and due to fraud; and
``(D) satisfies such other conditions as the Secretary may
prescribe to ensure that the determination made under
subparagraph (C) is valid and that the State has made
reasonable efforts to obtain payment of such covered
unemployment compensation debt.
``(5) Covered unemployment compensation debt.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `covered unemployment
compensation debt' means--
``(A) a past-due debt for erroneous payment of unemployment
compensation due to fraud which has become final under the
law of a State certified by the Secretary of Labor pursuant
to section 3304 and which remains uncollected for not more
than 10 years;
``(B) contributions due to the unemployment fund of a State
for which the State has determined the person to be liable
due to fraud and which remain uncollected for not more than
10 years; and
``(C) any penalties and interest assessed on such debt.
``(6) Regulations.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may issue regulations
prescribing the time and manner in which States must submit
notices of covered unemployment compensation debt and the
necessary information that must be contained in or accompany
such notices. The regulations may specify the minimum amount
of debt to which the reduction procedure established by
paragraph (1) may be applied.
``(B) Fee payable to secretary.--The regulations may
require States to pay a fee to the Secretary, which may be
deducted from amounts collected, to reimburse the Secretary
for the cost of applying such procedure. Any fee paid to the
Secretary pursuant to the preceding sentence shall be used to
reimburse appropriations which bore all or part of the cost
of applying such procedure.
``(C) Submission of notices through secretary of labor.--
The regulations may include a requirement that States submit
notices of covered unemployment compensation debt to the
Secretary via the Secretary of Labor in accordance with
procedures established by the Secretary of Labor. Such
procedures may require States to pay a fee to the Secretary
of Labor to reimburse the Secretary of Labor for the costs of
applying this subsection. Any such fee shall be established
in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. Any fee
paid to the Secretary of Labor may be deducted from amounts
collected and shall be used to reimburse the appropriation
account which bore all or part of the cost of applying this
subsection.
``(7) Erroneous payment to state.--Any State receiving
notice from the Secretary that an erroneous payment has been
made to such State under paragraph (1) shall pay promptly to
the Secretary, in accordance with such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe, an amount equal to the amount of
such erroneous payment (without regard to whether any other
amounts payable to such State under such paragraph have been
paid to such State).
``(8) Termination.--This section shall not apply to refunds
payable after the date which is 10 years after the date of
the enactment of this subsection.''.
(b) Disclosure of Certain Information to States Requesting
Refund Offsets for Legally Enforceable State Unemployment
Compensation Debt Resulting From Fraud.--
(1) General rule.--Paragraph (3) of section 6103(a) of such
Code is amended by inserting ``(10),'' after ``(6),''.
(2) Disclosure to department of labor and its agent.--
Paragraph (10) of section 6103(l) of such Code is amended--
(A) by striking ``(c), (d), or (e)'' each place it appears
in the heading and text and inserting ``(c), (d), (e), or
(f)'',
(B) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``, to officers and
employees of the Department of Labor for purposes of
facilitating the exchange of data in connection with a
request made under subsection (f)(5) of section 6402,'' after
``section 6402'', and
(C) in subparagraph (B)--
(i) by inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), return information
disclosed to officers and employees of the Department of
Labor may be accessed by agents who maintain and provide
technological support to the Department of Labor's Interstate
Connection Network (ICON) solely for the purpose of providing
such maintenance and support.''.
(3) Safeguards.--Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such
Code is amended--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``(l)(16),'' and inserting ``(l)(10), (16),'';
(B) in subparagraph (F)(i), by striking ``(l)(16),'' and
inserting ``(l)(10), (16),''; and
(C) in the matter following subparagraph (F)(iii)--
(i) in each of the first two places it appears, by striking
``(l)(16),'' and inserting ``(l)(10), (16),'';
(ii) by inserting ``(10),'' after ``paragraph (6)(A),'';
and
(iii) in each of the last two places it appears, by
striking ``(l)(16)'' and inserting ``(l)(10) or (16)''.
(c) Expenditures From State Fund.--Section 3304(a)(4) of
such Code is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (F), by inserting ``and'' after the
semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(G) with respect to amounts of covered unemployment
compensation debt (as defined in section 6402(f)(4))
collected under section 6402(f)--
``(i) amounts may be deducted to pay any fees authorized
under such section; and
``(ii) the penalties and interest described in section
6402(f)(4)(B) may be transferred to the appropriate State
fund into which the State would have deposited such amounts
had the person owing the debt paid such amounts directly to
the State;''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 6402 of such Code is amended
by striking ``(c), (d), and (e),'' and inserting ``(c), (d),
(e), and (f)''.
(2) Paragraph (2) of section 6402(d) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and before such overpayment is reduced
pursuant to subsection (e)'' and inserting ``and before such
overpayment is reduced pursuant to subsections (e) and (f)''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 6402(e) of such Code is
amended in the last sentence by inserting ``or subsection
(f)'' after ``paragraph (1)''.
(4) Subsection (g) of section 6402 of such Code, as
redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking ``(c),
(d), or (e)'' and inserting ``(c), (d), (e), or (f)''.
(5) Subsection (i) of section 6402 of such Code, as
redesignated by subsection (a), is amended by striking
``subsection (c) or (e)'' and inserting ``subsection (c),
(e), or (f)''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to refunds payable under section 6402 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
Amend the title so as to read: ``An Act to amend section
402 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 to provide, in fiscal years 2009
through 2011, extensions of supplemental security income for
refugees, asylees, and certain other humanitarian immigrants,
and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to collect
unemployment compensation debts resulting from fraud.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I think the torch of the Statue of Liberty might just
be burning a little brighter today because we are soon going to send to
the President a bill that helps the most vulnerable on our shores,
refugees coming to America fleeing persecution, injustice,
[[Page 19446]]
torture and even the threat of death. They are Jews from the former
Soviet Union, Kurds from Iraq, Hmong fighters from Vietnam and other
oppressed peoples from around the globe.
Refugees often flee their home countries with little more than their
clothes on their backs. When they are disabled or elderly, employment
can be difficult, which means they face almost complete destitution
without assistance. Our Nation's program that is designed to help low-
income elderly and disabled individuals, the Supplemental Security
Income program, or SSI, now terminates assistance to these refugees
after they have been in the United States for 7 years. This cutoff was
designed with the expectation that refugees would become citizens
within this time frame and would then be eligible for continued
benefits. However, a series of obstacles make that transition to
citizenship difficult within the 7-year limit of SSI benefits. First, a
refugee must live in the United States for at least 5 years before they
are even eligible to submit an application for citizenship. A refugee
must then confront a lengthy application process which takes up to 3 to
4 years. Backlogs in processing citizenship applications have been
caused by a variety of issues, including protracted background checks
put in place after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
There are other barriers to citizenship, such as the continuing
impact of a recent annual cap on the number of asylees who may become
legal permanent residents, a status which asylees must maintain for 4
years before they submit an application for citizenship.
{time} 1215
Also, many disabled and elderly refugees encounter difficulties
navigating the application process, which includes both an English
language test and a U.S. civics test.
We passed bipartisan legislation a year ago in the House to extend
SSI benefits for refugees and other humanitarian immigrants. The
legislation before us today is that same bill sent back to us with an
amendment by the Senate. The most significant modification by the
Senate was to require all refugees to sign an affidavit that they are
making a good faith effort to become U.S. citizens.
This bill, H.R. 2608, would generally extend SSI benefits for an
additional 2 years for disabled and elderly refugees, asylees and other
qualified humanitarian immigrants, including those whose benefits have
expired in the past. Benefits could be extended for an additional time
for those awaiting a decision on the pending application for
citizenship. These policies would be in effect through 2011 and would
restore SSI benefits for roughly 20,000 refugees.
The legislation completely offsets the cost of this SSI extension for
refugees with a provision that would reduce Federal tax refunds to
recover fraudulent unemployment insurance payments. This Federal tax
revenue offset authority already exists to collect unpaid child
support, unpaid State taxes and debts owed to Federal agencies.
Before pursuing a tax offset, a State would be required to notify the
individual and provide them with at least 60 days to contest the amount
being recovered. By catching and reducing fraud in the unemployment
insurance system, this provision not only offsets the cost of SSI
extension for refugees, but it also would reduce unemployment taxes on
employers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the legislation
will cut payroll taxes by $315 million over the next 10 years.
Madam Speaker, refugees come to this country fleeing persecution.
They reside in our country legally, and those eligible for SSI are
disabled, elderly or both. This legislation extends a modest benefit to
help them provide for their most basic essentials. The bill will not
add one dime to the Federal deficit, and it will even provide a tax
cut. This combination has generated very broad support for the measure,
which passed the House unanimously last year and did likewise in the
Senate last month. Additionally, the Bush administration has proposed
the same policies in the President's budget.
I would like to expressly thank my colleague, Mr. Weller, the ranking
member, for working with me to forge this bipartisan bill. Today's
action is the last step needed to provide a helping hand to those who
need it most.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, in July of 2007, H.R. 2608, bipartisan legislation,
the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, passed the
House by unanimous voice vote. In early August, just over a month ago,
the Senate finally passed an amended version of the bill by unanimous
consent, and we are here today acting to accept the amended bill.
This bipartisan legislation increases the amount of time certain low
income, disabled and aged immigrants can receive Supplemental Security
Income benefits. Currently these individuals are eligible for these
benefits during their first 7 years in the United States. This
legislation would extend that period to 9 years, or even longer if the
individual has a pending application for citizenship.
These individuals arrived and remain in the United States legally and
also arrived for humanitarian reasons. They have fled persecution and
suffering in their own countries, and include refugees, asylees, Cuban-
Haitian entrants, Hmong tribesmen who fought on the side of the United
States, victims of communist dictatorships and victims of trafficking
from around the world. This legislation provides them additional
eligibility to ensure that a lengthy citizenship application process
does not inadvertently cause an elderly or disabled refugee to lose
access to SSI benefits.
Because this expanded eligibility for low income, disabled and aged
immigrants will be extended only through fiscal year 2011, a future
Congress will need to review whether these provisions are working as
intended and need to be extended. That future Congress can and should
question whether refugees and others, who are playing by the rules and
who apply for citizenship, have adequate and sufficient time to go
through that process without losing access to SSI benefits.
To cover the cost of these additional benefits, the bill would reduce
Federal income tax refunds to better recover unemployment benefit
overpayments resulting from fraud. Tax refund offsets already occur for
delinquent child support payments and certain other debts owed to the
Federal Government. This change simply allows the current process to
work in recovering certain unemployment benefit overpayments.
In addition to improving program integrity, this change will more
than pay for the added SSI benefits provided by the bill, according to
the Congressional Budget Office.
The Ways and Means Committee, and in particular the Income Security
and Family Support Subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, has
long been active in developing legislation to combat fraud and abuse in
unemployment and other benefits. I am pleased to see us continuing that
effort with this legislation.
For example, in 2004, under the leadership of former Chairman Wally
Herger, we passed a law to stop the illegal manipulation of State
unemployment taxes. We also allowed State unemployment benefit programs
to use current data on new hires to help prevent benefit overpayments.
This legislation builds on those efforts, and I am proud to support
it. Even if it is not needed as a pay-for, this good government
provision merits passage on its own.
This legislation is supported by a wide range of faith-based and
other community groups, such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society,
Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities.
I would also like to recognize the efforts of my Ways and Means
colleague, Representative Phil English of Pennsylvania, who has worked
diligently to extend SSI benefits to this vulnerable immigrant group,
including by introducing legislation to do so.
I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page 19447]]
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1
minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the House, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).
Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise to
support the bill that we are working on to extend SSI benefits to
really a vulnerable group.
But I also rise to express my disappointment in the opportunity that
we had last night to pass a bipartisan energy bill that would in fact
do all of the above. I am concerned that the bill that did pass last
night will do none of the above in terms of moving us toward more
energy security.
Frankly, I don't think that the bill that passed last night has any
chance of moving in the United States Senate. I do believe if we were
to pass the bipartisan Abercrombie-Peterson bill, that it was very
likely the Senate could take the bill up and move it quickly, a bill
that would create a million new jobs, that would lower gas prices and
lower energy prices. But that didn't happen.
But I rise today to say we are not going away. There is an awful lot
of talk moving around here that later on this week we may have to take
up a stimulus bill, a lot of well-intentioned, well-meaning money,
taxpayer money that we would be sending around the country.
I can't think of any better stimulus bill than to pass a bipartisan
energy bill that would in fact create 1 million new jobs, would in fact
lower gas prices, lower energy prices, help our manufacturers all
around the country, and a bill that the American people desperately
want.
While gas prices came down temporarily, we saw them shoot up in the
midst of the hurricane because there is no additional supply. There is
no relief valve, and if anybody sneezes around the world in the energy
market, what happens? Our gas prices go up. And while oil prices were
coming down in the short-term, we all know how vulnerable we are. So
taking a real honest step toward preserving America's energy security I
think is critically necessary.
If we really want to help the American people, help create jobs in
our country, why not pass a bipartisan bill that will in fact do that.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a
letter signed by a large number of organizations throughout the country
in support of the legislation that we have before the House today.
June 28, 2007.
Dear Representative, Representing a diverse cross-section
of organizations from across the country, we write to you
today to ask that you support H.R.2608--the ``SSI Extension
for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act.'' This bipartisan bill
is a critical lifeline to thousands of elderly and disabled
refugees who are about to lose, or have already lost, their
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to the
arbitrary seven-year time limit to which their eligibility is
limited.
This bill, introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D-
7th WA) and Jerry Weller (R-11th IL), Chair and Ranking
Member, respectively, of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on
Income Security and Family Support, will provide a two-year
extension of SSI eligibility for elderly and disabled
refugees, as well as a provision to cover those who lost
benefits prior to enactment of the legislation. The bill will
also ensure that refugees who are making efforts to become
citizens, but are caught up in the processing backlogs
through no fault of their own, are given additional time to
naturalize. H.R.2608 will provide vital relief to thousands
of refugees who have already fallen into extreme destitution.
The number of people who are losing their life-sustaining
SSI benefits, in large part due to delays in the immigration
system beyond their control, is climbing. The Social Security
Administration currently projects that 50,000 elderly and
disabled refugees will face extreme hardship and destitution
by 2012 due to the suspension of their SSI benefits. These
individuals fled persecution or torture in countries such as
Iran, Russia, Iraq, Vietnam and Somalia, and now are too
elderly or disabled to support themselves.
As more and more people begin to reach the end of their
seven-year eligibility period, the human impact of this
restrictive time limit has become increasingly dire and all
the more intolerable. Some will lose health insurance as
well, because SSI and Medicaid eligibility are typically
linked. Among those who have already lost SSI benefits is a
Jewish elderly couple from the former Soviet Union; the
husband is deaf and the wife suffers from heart disease.
However, this restriction does not affect only the elderly,
as illustrated by the case of a 16 year-old Iranian boy with
mental retardation, autism, seizures, and severe macrocephaly
who lost his SSI benefits and Medicaid health insurance due
to the seven-year time limit. These are only but two of the
thousands of heartbreaking stories that we will continue to
be confronted with unless Congress acts now to lengthen the
insufficient eligibility period for this extremely vulnerable
population.
The crisis is already upon us. Each and every month,
elderly and disabled refugees are losing their lifeline of
support. With the exception of West Virginia, no state is
left untouched by this arbitrary time limit. Some 4,500
people will lose their SSI benefits in fiscal year 2007
alone. This bill enjoys bipartisan support, builds on similar
proposals in recent Bush Administration budgets, and contains
a savings provision that will cover the modest cost of the
extension. Given the urgency of the situation and the life-
threatening consequences that these individuals face, we
strongly urge you to support the passage of H.R.2608 this
year. We are hopeful that Congress will act quickly and
decisively to prevent the unnecessary hardship that this
already-victimized population stands to suffer. Thank you for
your consideration.
Respectfully,
National
American Academy of HIV; American Association of Homes and
Services for the Aging; American Association of Jews from the
Former USSR, Inc; American Association of People with
Disabilities; American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees; American Friends Service Committee;
American Jewish Committee; American Network of Community
Options and Resources; American Occupational Therapy
Association; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.; Asian
American Justice Center; Asian Americans for Equality;
Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies (AJFCA);
Boat People SOS; Break the Chain Campaign; Campaign for
Working Families; Catholic Charities USA; Center for Civil
Justice; Disability Navigators Inc.
EESA-Eastern European Service Agency; Gay Men's Health
Crisis; Hispanic Coalition; HIV Medicine Association;
HIVictorious, Inc.; Hmong National Development, Inc.;
Immigrant and Refugee Rights Program, Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Institute for
Peace and Justice; Institute for Social and Economic
Development (ISED); International AIDS Empowerment;
International District Housing Alliance; International Rescue
Committee; International Service Center; Jewish Council for
Public Affairs; Jubilee Campaign USA Inc.; Justice, Peace &
Integrity of Creation Office of the Wheaton Franciscans;
Living Room, Inc.; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
(LIRS); Lutheran Services in America; 9 to 5, National
Association of Working Women.
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good
Shepherd; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; National
Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development;
National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Aging;
National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center;
National Korean American Service & Education Consortium
(NAKASEC); National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty;
National Priorities Project; National Senior Citizens Law
Center; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK: A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New Sudan Generation;
Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project; Progressive Jewish Alliance; Religious Action Center
of Reform Judaism; RESULTS.
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Sisters of
Mercy of the Americas; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
(SEARAC); The AIDS Institute; The Arc of the United States;
The Coalition on Human Needs; The Leadership Conference of
Women Religious; The National Asian Pacific American Women's
Forum; The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children;
The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring; U.S. Committee for
Refugees and Immigrants; Unitarian Universalist Association
of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; United Jewish
Communities; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church
and Society; USAction; Wider Opportunities for Women; Women
of Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; World Relief;
YWCA USA.
Local/State/Regional
Alabama
Collat Jewish Family Services--Birmingham, Alabama.
Alaska
Alaska Center for Public Policy; Refugee Assistance &
Immigration Services (RAIS)--Alaska;
Arizona
Area Agency on Aging, Region One-Phoenix, AZ; Arizona
Advocacy Network; Jewish Family & Children's Service--Tucson,
Arizona; Pima Council on Aging--Tucson, AZ;
[[Page 19448]]
Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition; United Way of Tucson
and Southern Arizona.
Arkansas
Holy Angels Convent--Arkansas; St. Augustine Catholic
Church, North Little Rock, AR; St. Augustine Center for
Children, Inc., North Little Rock, AR.
California
9to5 Bay Area; 9to5 Los Angeles; ACLU of Southern
California; Asian Law Alliance-- San Jose, CA; Asian Law
Caucus--Northern California; Asian Pacific American Legal
Center of Southern California; Bay Area Immigrant Rights
Coalition (BAIRC)--Oakland, CA; Bet Tzedek Legal Services--
Los Angeles County; California Church IMPACT; California
Immigrant Policy Center; Catholic Charities of Los Angeles,
Inc; Center for Gender and Refugee Studies--San Francisco,
CA; City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission--Los
Angeles, CA; DisAbled Student Union at Pacific School of
Religion--Berkeley, CA; Ethiopian Community Services, Inc.--
California; Fresno Stonewall Democrats--Fresno, CA; Gray
Panthers California; HomeBase--San Francisco, CA;
International Rescue Committee--San Diego Regional
Resettlement Office; Jewish Community Federation of San
Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties; Jewish
Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the
Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties; Jewish Family and
Children's Services of the East Bay--Berkley, California;
Jewish Family Service of San Diego--California; Korean
Resource Center, Los Angeles, CA; L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center--
CA; Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc.--Los Angeles; Palo
Alto Association of Veterans of World War II, California;
Progressive Jewish Alliance--California; Protection and
Advocacy, Inc.--Sacramento, CA; Sacramento Mutual Housing
Association, CA; San Diego Hunger Coalition--CA; San
Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition--CA; Service Employees
International Union Local 1021--Northern California; SIREN,
Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network--San Jose,
CA; St. Mary's Center--Oakland, CA; St. Paul's Episcopal
Church--San Rafael, CA; The International Institute of the
Bay Area--CA; The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring--Southern
California District; Western Center on Law and Poverty--Los
Angeles & Sacramento, CA.
Colorado
9to5 Colorado; Coloradans For Immigrant Rights, a project
of the American Friends Service Committee; Colorado
Progressive Coalition; RESULTS of Aurora, Colorado; Rocky
Mountain Survivors Center--Denver, CO.
Connecticut
Catholic Charities, Diocese of Norwich, Inc--CT;
Collaborative Center for Justice, Inc.--Hartford, CT;
Connecticut Citizen Action Group; Connecticut Legal Services;
International Institute of CT, Inc.--Bridgeport, CT; Jewish
Family Services--Danbury, CT; People of Faith CT--West
Hartford, CT; Regional Network of Programs Inc./Prospect
House--Bridgeport, CT.
Florida
Catholic Charities Legal Services--Archdiocese of Miami,
Inc.; Catholic Charities of Central Florida; Center for
Independent Living of South Florida, Inc--Miami-Dade County,
Florida; Florida Alliance Pro-Legalization; Florida Consumer
Action Network; Florida Fiscal Policy Project--Miami,
Florida; Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center; Gulfcoast Legal
Services, Inc--FL; Hispanic American Council, Florida
Alliance Pro-Legalization; Jewish Family Service Inc. of
Broward County--Plantation, Florida; Jewish Federation of
South Palm Beach County--FL; Legal Aid Society of the Orange
County Bar Association, Orlando, Florida; Refugee Immigration
Project, Jacksonville (FL) Area Legal Aid; St. Johns County
Legal Aid--St. Augustine, FL; The Legal Aid Society of Palm
Beach County, Inc; Youth Co-Op, Inc--Florida.
Georgia
Atlanta 9to5; Georgia Rural Urban Summit--Decatur, GA; Good
Shepherd Services of Atlanta; Gwinnett Ministries Network--
Gwinnett County, Georgia; Refugee Family Services--Stone
Mountain, Georgia; Women Watch Afrika, Inc, Decatur, GA.
Hawaii
Na Loio--Immigrant Rights and Public Interest Legal
Center--Honolulu, Hawaii.
Idaho
Agency for New Americans--Boise, Idaho; Idaho Office for
Refugees; United Vision for Idaho.
Illinois
Citizen Action/Illinois; Commission on Religion & Race--
Naperville IL; Grace United Methodist Church--Naperville IL;
Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights (Midwest
region); Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society Chicago; Illinois
Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; Jewish Federation
of Metropolitan Chicago; Korean American Resource & Cultural
Center, Chicago, IL; Project IRENE--Illinois; Protestants for
the Common Good, Chicago, IL.
Indiana
CICOA Aging & In-Home Solutions, Indianapolis, IN.
Iowa
Iowa Citizen Action Network.
Kentucky
College Democrats of America--Morehead State University
Chapter; Jewish Family & Vocational Service (Louisville,
Kentucky); The Community Relations Council of the Jewish
Community Federation of Louisville.
Louisiana
LA Harm Reduction Coalition--Louisiana.
Maine
Catholic Charities Maine Refugee & Immigration Services--
Portland, ME; Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, Portland,
Maine; Legal Services for the Elderly--Scarborough, Maine;
Maine Equal Justice Partners; Maine People's Alliance;
Oganization to Win Economic Rights--Portland, Maine; The
Jewish Federation of Greater Portland; Waterville Area
Bridges for Peace and Justice--Waterville and surrounding
communities.
Maryland
Jewish Family Services--Baltimore, Maryland; Maryland
Association of Jews from the Former USSR; Maryland Vietnamese
Mutual Association; Progressive Maryland; Public Justice
Center--Baltimore MD; The Senior Connection of Montgomery
County--Silver Spring, MD.
Massachusetts
Community Legal Services And Counseling Center in
Cambridge, MA; Disability Law Center, Inc.--Boston, MA; First
Congregational Church of Reading- Reading, MA; International
Rescue Committee Boston Office; JALSA--the Jewish Alliance
for Law and Social Action--Boston; Jewish Community Housing
for the Elderly--Boston, MA; Jewish Community Relations
Council of Greater Boston; Medical-Legal Partnership for
Children Boston Medical Center; Strongest Link AIDS
Services--Essex County, MA; Massachusetts Association of
Jewish Federations.
Michigan
ACCESS (Arab Community Center for Economic and Social
Services--Dearborn; Jewish Family Service--Detroit, Michigan;
Jewish Family Services--Ann Arbor, Michigan; Michigan Citizen
Action; Oakland County Welfare Rights Organization--Pontiac,
MI; The IHM Justice, Peace and Sustainability Office,
Michigan.
Minnesota
Jewish Community Action, St. Paul, MN; Lutheran Social
Service of Minnesota; Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance;
National Council of Jewish Women--Minnetonka, MN; Vietnamese
Social Services of Minnesota.
Missouri
Bi-Lingual International Assistant Services--St. Louis, MO;
Catholic Charities Archdiocese of St. Louis; Jewish
Vocational Service/Center for New Americans--Kansas City, MO;
Missouri Association for Social Welfare; Missouri Budget
Project--St. Louis, MO; Missouri Progressive Vote Coalition;
Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet and Associates--Missouri;
St. Louis Jewish Community Relations Council--St. Louis, MO.
Montana
Montana People's Action.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Citizens Alliance.
New Jersey
Community FoodBank of New Jersey; Congregation Brothers of
Israel--Long Branch, New Jersey; International Institute of
New Jersey; International Institute of New Jersey; Jewish
Federation of Monmouth County--NJ; Lutheran Office of
Governmental Ministry in New Jersey; Migration and Refugee
Services of the Diocese of Trenton--Trenton, NJ; New Jersey
Citizen Action; Temple Shalom--Aberdeen, NJ; The Human
Concerns/Social Justice Committee of St. Anselm's Church--
Wayside, NJ; The Jewish Community Relations Council of the
Jewish Federation of Southern New Jersey; The Workmen's
Circle/Arbeter Ring, New Jersey Region; UJA Federation of
Northern New Jersey.
New Mexico
Community Action New Mexico; Domestic Unity--New Mexico;
Empowering Our Communities in New Mexico--Bernalillo, NM; New
Mexico Center on Law and Poverty--Albuquerque, NM; New Mexico
PACE; Open Hands--Sante Fe, NM; State of New Mexico's Human
Services Department.
New York
Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of Torture--New York,
NY; Bukharian Jewish Center, New York; Cathedral Emergency
Services--Syracuse, NY; Center for Independence of the
Disabled--New York; Citizen Action of New York; Claire
Heureuse Community Center, Inc--New York; Coalition of
Behavioral Health Agencies, Inc--New York; Community
Healthcare Network--New York City; Community HIV AIDS
Mobilization Project--CHAMP, New York; Disabled in Action of
Greater Syracuse, New York; Empire Justice Center, New York;
Episcopal Migration Ministries--NYC; Federation of Protestant
Welfare Agencies--New York City; JBFCS, Manhattan North
Community Counseling Center; Jewish Board of Family and
Children's Services--New York, NY; Jewish
[[Page 19449]]
Community Council of the Rockaway Peninsula--Far Rockaway,
NY; Jewish Family Services ofNENY (Albany, New York); Legal
Services for the Elderly, Disabled or Disadvantaged of
Western New York, Inc.; Metro New York Health Care For All
Campaign. Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty--NY; New
York Association on Independent Living, Inc; New York City
Department for the Aging; New York Disaster Interfaith
Services; New York Immigration Coalition; Society of Jesus,
New York Province--Albany, NY; Syracuse Habitat for Humanity,
Inc--NY; The Central Queens Y&YWHA, Forest Hills, New York;
The International Institute of Buffalo, NY; The Rockland
Immigration Coalition--NY; UJA--Federation of New York; US
Committee for Refugees and Immigrants Albany Feild Office--
NY; West Side Campaign Against Hunger--New York; YKASEC--
Empowering the Korean American Community, Flushing, NY.
North Carolina
Episcopal Migration Ministries--eastern North Carolina;
North Carolina Refugee Health Coordinator.
North Dakota
NDPeople.org--North Dakota.
Ohio
Catholic Charities Health and Human Services of the Diocese
of Cleveland; Greater Dayton Vietnamese Association--Greater
Dayton, Ohio area; Jewish Family Service Association of
Cleveland; Jewish Family Service of Toledo, Inc.--Toledo,
Ohio; Jewish Family Services--Columbus, Ohio; Jewish Family
Services--Youngstown, Ohio; Jewish Federation of Greater
Dayton Jewish Community Relations Council--Dayton, Ohio;
Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry--Cleveland, Ohio; Ohio Jewish
Communities Refugee & Immigration Services--Columbus, OH.
Oklahoma
YWCA Multicultural Center--Tulsa, OK.
Oregon
Asian Pacific American Community Support and Service
Association (APACSA)--Portland, OR; Community Action
Directors of Oregon (CADO); Disability Navigators Inc--
Oregon; Immigrant & Refugee Community Organization (IRCO)--
Portland, Oregon; Interfaith Action for Justice--Bend,
Oregon; Klamath Lake Community Action Servics--Klamath Falls,
OR; Oregon Action; Peaceful Place--Oregon; The Advocacy
Coalition for Seniors and People with Disabilities--OR; The
Human Services Coalition of Oregon.
Pennsylvania
HIAS and Council Migration Service of Philadelphia; JCCs of
Greater Philadelphia (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); JEVS Human
Services--Philadelphia; JEVS Social Services (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania); Jewish Family and Children's Services
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); Jewish Family Service of
Greater Wilkes-Barre (Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania); Jewish
Federation of Greater Philadelphia (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania); Maternity Care Coalition--Philadelphia, PA;
Mount St Joseph--St Elizabeth, PA; National Council of Jewish
Women--PA; New World Association--Philadelphia, PA;
Pennsylvania Refugee Resettlement Program; St. Johns Lutheran
Church--Lewistown, PA; YWCA Philadelphia.
Rhode Island
National Association of Social Workers--Rhode Island
Chapter; Rhode Island Ocean State Action.
South Carolina
Columbia Jewish Federation/Jewish Family Service--Columbia,
SC; Jewish Family Service (Columbia, South Carolina).
South Dakota
Systematic Theology and Christian Heritage--Sioux Falls,
SD.
Tennessee
Jewish Family Service of Nashville and Middle Tennessee;
Tennessee Citizen Action.
Texas
Catholic Charities Diocese of Ft. Worth, Inc.; Jewish
Family and Children's Service (San Antonio, Texas); Jewish
Family Service (Houston, Texas); Refugio Del Rio Grande,
Inc--San Benito, TX; South Texas Food Bank; Texas Conference
United Methodist Church Board of Church & Society.
Utah
Jewish Family Service of Salt Lake; Learning Loft--Salt
Lake Valley, Utah; Utah Community Action Partnership
Association; Utah Housing Coalition.
Vermont
Central Vermont Community Action Council; Vermont Refugee
Resettlement Program; VT Affordable Housing Coalition.
Virginia
Bay Aging--Urbanna, VA; Center for Multicultural Services--
Falls Church, VA; Disabled Action Committee--Virginia;
Potomac Legal Aid Society--Virginia; Rappahannock Area Agency
on Aging, Inc.--Fredericksburg, VA; Union Theological
Seminary and Presbyterian School for Christian Education--
Richmond, VA.
Washington
Asian Counseling & Referral Service--Seattle, WA; Catholic
Community Services of Western Washington; Jewish Family
Service of Seattle (Seattle, Washington); Jewish Federation
of Greater Seattle (Seattle, Washington); Solid Ground--
Seattle, WA; South Sound Outreach Services--Tacoma,
Washington; Washington Community Action Network; Washington
Senior Citizens' Lobby--Olympia, WA.
Washington DC
Whitman-Walker Clinic--Washington, DC.
West Virginia
West Virginia Citizen Action Group.
Wisconsin
9to5 Poverty Network Initiative (Wisconsin); Citizen Action
of Wisconsin; Milwaukee Association of Russian-speaking Jews;
Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations; UMOS, Inc--
Milwaukee, WI; Wisconsin Jewish Conference.
I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I too join with our leader and all in the
Chamber in support of this legislation. I actually have great respect
for the ranking member here. We have had our fights, but I know he is a
man of sincerity.
We are on the floor just to highlight the other challenges faced by
those people who we are trying to help. SSI payments do not go far
enough when we are under a regime of high energy prices, and, as I
talked about in the last bill from this article here, gas prices
confine sick people.
Again, as a former high school teacher on how a bill becomes a law,
we should not be dancing in the well of the floor on the passage of a
bill, nor should we be disappointed, those of us, with the outcome. The
process still goes forward. Hopefully there will be a conference.
Hopefully there will be changes and we bring more supply to this
energy debate. Because if we don't bring on more supply, and in my
aspect coal-to-liquid technologies, the tar sands from Canada, we get a
real bill that addresses where the oil is off the California coast,
which is 50 miles less, not 50 miles out, and then we take those
royalties to move into renewables, clean solar, wind, all of the above,
we are going to have to continue to revisit all these spending regimes
on social services based upon high energy costs.
So we come down here respectfully with the matter of the bill. It is
needed. It is supported. We are all going to vote yes. But also to
highlight the fact that there is much more to be done on the energy
debate. And I am not one that says we are going to drive prices down to
$1.50 a gallon. I never make those proclamations. What I would like to
see is stabilization, instead of the swings that we will see.
I would also like to see us not be held captive to Mother Nature by
having all our main assets in hurricane alley versus disbursed around
the country, and in my case the coal-to-liquid refinery aspects, which
would be very, very helpful.
This article says, ``Gas prices confine sick people. Some have to cut
back on traveling, treatment such as dialysis, or chemotherapy.'' If
that is what not having an energy plan that can be signed into law is
doing to our most needful, then we have not done the right thing.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I continue to reserve my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding, and I do rise in support of H.R. 2608. But I wanted to take
the opportunity, Madam Speaker, to talk about energy.
Obviously this is the main issue I think on the minds of most
Americans today, and it has led, these high energy prices and
dependency on foreign oil that we have been burdened by for lo these
many years, since back when we knew this back in the seventies when we
had a similar crisis and failed to do anything about it, and it has
caused this economy, it is almost like a domino effect in my opinion,
Madam Speaker, when you look at the high price of everything, the
unemployment rate going up, what has happened on Wall Street, the
meltdown in the subprime market.
So we felt and I think most of my colleagues would agree on both
sides of
[[Page 19450]]
the aisle that the energy crisis is our number one concern as we move
into the fall elections and congressional elections. Obviously this is
a Presidential year.
{time} 1230
So my disappointment yesterday, when Speaker Pelosi, returning from
the August recess, we, as you know, many on the Republican side, we
invited our Democratic colleagues to join us, came back to Washington
on a number of days. I think a total of 134 participated, some of us
several times.
We had lots of folks down here sitting in the seats because a Member
could bring people on the floor, even though the C-SPAN cameras were
off, microphones were off, the lights were dim, and we had some in the
gallery as well, and talked about this issue. We just couldn't wait for
the rest of our colleagues to get back so we could do something.
This motion to recommit with instructions last night, the
Abercrombie- Peterson bill, I think, had 39 Democratic cosponsors,
many, many, Republicans, and I think it was a very, very good piece of
legislation that did not include ANWR. It carved out ANWR, realizing
that was something we agreed to disagree on, and leave that out of the
legislation.
But the most important part of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill that
differed from what the majority party, as you know, brought to us for a
final vote that did pass, it has no incentive whatsoever for the States
to allow drilling off of their shores for the billions of gallons of
petroleum and millions of cubic feet of natural gas, because they are
sitting there thinking, well, gosh, on the gulf coast, Alabama, Texas
and Louisiana are getting those royalties and putting them to good use,
and we need that.
My State of Georgia, right now, we have 135 miles of shoreline, the
great State of Georgia, and we are $1.5 billion short in this revenue
year, this fiscal year. I am sure Georgia would be one of the very
first to get in line if we had that included. I am disappointed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Georgia has
expired.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield the
gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. GINGREY. I don't know what is going to happen in the Senate today
or tomorrow, but hopefully we can get a bill passed through the Senate
that has more, more in it than the draft language that wasn't actually
in bill form that came out in the Senate 5 or 6 weeks ago with a group
of 10, now up to a group of 20.
It's still not too late for this Congress, House and Senate, to do
something for the American people. I urge us to do that in a bipartisan
way.
Look, let's do the right thing, and I think the election outcomes
will take care of themselves. The good people that need to be here will
come back, and the ones that don't, won't. Let's just do the right
thing for the American people.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, we have no additional
speakers, so I would be happy to briefly close.
H.R. 2608 is bipartisan legislation. It's legislation designed to
help those who need help. As my chairman noted, those who, frankly,
benefit from this legislation have been victims of tyranny. Those who
fought on the wrong side and, in many cases, they fought on the side of
the United States and were forced to flee their country, they're
elderly, they're disabled, and, frankly, they're people that came here
legally.
So I want to ask my colleagues to do exactly what we did when we
voted on this legislation before, to vote with strong, unanimous,
bipartisan support of this important legislation.
I also want to thank my chairman for working in a bipartisan way to
move this important legislation to the floor, to work with our
colleagues in the Senate and the past legislation, which will become
law with this vote today.
Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support for this legislation. I
thank my chairman for the opportunity to work with him on this
important legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This bill allows Members to accomplish three objectives with a single
vote, help needy refugees, cut taxes and reduce the Federal deficit.
That's a trifecta that should draw support from every Member of the
House.
But I want to conclude, really, with a story about one of the
witnesses who came before our subcommittee. His came was K'Keng, and he
fought alongside American forces during the Vietnam War. In fact, he
was recruited and trained by our own special forces.
After the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, he was imprisoned for 6 years
as a political prisoner, after which he ultimately made his transfer to
the United States as a refugee. He tried working, but the wounds he had
suffered during the war made that difficult.
Based on his disability, and the fact that he had almost no source of
income, he began receiving supplemental security income, or SSI
benefits. For those benefits, he had those benefits, but they were
terminated when he reached the 7-year limit on SSI for refugees.
There are thousands of other refugees who have taken different paths
to get here, but their basic story is the same. They fled persecution,
they now reside legally in the United States, they are disabled or
elderly, and they need our help.
This bill will provide them just the assistance, without raising the
Federal deficit by a single dime. In fact, the anti-fraud provisions in
this bill reduce the debt by nearly $100 million and cut taxes by over
$300 million.
I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation, to help
the needy, cut taxes and reduce our debt.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill, H.R. 2608.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT OF 2008
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 6893) to amend parts B and E of title IV of the Social
Security Act to connect and support relative caregivers, improve
outcomes for children in foster care, provide for tribal foster care
and adoption access, improve incentives for adoption, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6893
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 ``Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.
The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
TITLE I--CONNECTING AND SUPPORTING RELATIVE CAREGIVERS
Sec. 101. Kinship guardianship assistance payments for children.
Sec. 102. Family connection grants.
Sec. 103. Notification of relatives.
Sec. 104. Licensing standards for relatives.
Sec. 105. Authority for comparisons and disclosures of information in
the Federal Parent Locator Service for child welfare,
foster care, and adoption assistance program purposes.
TITLE II--IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
Sec. 201. State option for children in foster care, and certain
children in an adoptive or guardianship placement, after
attaining age 18.
Sec. 202. Transition plan for children aging out of foster care.
Sec. 203. Short-term training for child welfare agencies, relative
guardians, and court personnel.
[[Page 19451]]
Sec. 204. Educational stability.
Sec. 205. Health oversight and coordination plan.
Sec. 206. Sibling placement.
TITLE III--TRIBAL FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ACCESS
Sec. 301. Equitable access for foster care and adoption services for
Indian children in tribal areas.
Sec. 302. Technical assistance and implementation.
TITLE IV--IMPROVEMENT OF INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION
Sec. 401. Adoption incentives program.
Sec. 402. Promotion of adoption of children with special needs.
Sec. 403. Information on adoption tax credit.
TITLE V--CLARIFICATION OF UNIFORM DEFINITION OF CHILD AND OTHER
PROVISIONS
Sec. 501. Clarification of uniform definition of child.
Sec. 502. Investment of operating cash.
Sec. 503. No Federal funding to unlawfully present individuals.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE
Sec. 601. Effective date.
TITLE I--CONNECTING AND SUPPORTING RELATIVE CAREGIVERS
SEC. 101. KINSHIP GUARDIANSHIP ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS FOR
CHILDREN.
(a) State Plan Option.--Section 471(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (27) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(28) at the option of the State, provides for the State
to enter into kinship guardianship assistance agreements to
provide kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of
children to grandparents and other relatives who have assumed
legal guardianship of the children for whom they have cared
as foster parents and for whom they have committed to care on
a permanent basis, as provided in section 473(d).''.
(b) In General.--Section 473 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 673) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payments for
Children.--
``(1) Kinship guardianship assistance agreement.--
``(A) In general.--In order to receive payments under
section 474(a)(5), a State shall--
``(i) negotiate and enter into a written, binding kinship
guardianship assistance agreement with the prospective
relative guardian of a child who meets the requirements of
this paragraph; and
``(ii) provide the prospective relative guardian with a
copy of the agreement.
``(B) Minimum requirements.--The agreement shall specify,
at a minimum--
``(i) the amount of, and manner in which, each kinship
guardianship assistance payment will be provided under the
agreement, and the manner in which the payment may be
adjusted periodically, in consultation with the relative
guardian, based on the circumstances of the relative guardian
and the needs of the child;
``(ii) the additional services and assistance that the
child and relative guardian will be eligible for under the
agreement;
``(iii) the procedure by which the relative guardian may
apply for additional services as needed; and
``(iv) subject to subparagraph (D), that the State will pay
the total cost of nonrecurring expenses associated with
obtaining legal guardianship of the child, to the extent the
total cost does not exceed $2,000.
``(C) Interstate applicability.--The agreement shall
provide that the agreement shall remain in effect without
regard to the State residency of the relative guardian.
``(D) No effect on federal reimbursement.--Nothing in
subparagraph (B)(iv) shall be construed as affecting the
ability of the State to obtain reimbursement from the Federal
Government for costs described in that subparagraph.
``(2) Limitations on amount of kinship guardianship
assistance payment.--A kinship guardianship assistance
payment on behalf of a child shall not exceed the foster care
maintenance payment which would have been paid on behalf of
the child if the child had remained in a foster family home.
``(3) Child's eligibility for a kinship guardianship
assistance payment.--
``(A) In general.--A child is eligible for a kinship
guardianship assistance payment under this subsection if the
State agency determines the following:
``(i) The child has been--
``(I) removed from his or her home pursuant to a voluntary
placement agreement or as a result of a judicial
determination to the effect that continuation in the home
would be contrary to the welfare of the child; and
``(II) eligible for foster care maintenance payments under
section 472 while residing for at least 6 consecutive months
in the home of the prospective relative guardian.
``(ii) Being returned home or adopted are not appropriate
permanency options for the child.
``(iii) The child demonstrates a strong attachment to the
prospective relative guardian and the relative guardian has a
strong commitment to caring permanently for the child.
``(iv) With respect to a child who has attained 14 years of
age, the child has been consulted regarding the kinship
guardianship arrangement.
``(B) Treatment of siblings.--With respect to a child
described in subparagraph (A) whose sibling or siblings are
not so described--
``(i) the child and any sibling of the child may be placed
in the same kinship guardianship arrangement, in accordance
with section 471(a)(31), if the State agency and the relative
agree on the appropriateness of the arrangement for the
siblings; and
``(ii) kinship guardianship assistance payments may be paid
on behalf of each sibling so placed.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Eligibility for adoption assistance payments.--Section
473(a)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 673(a)(2)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(D) In determining the eligibility for adoption
assistance payments of a child in a legal guardianship
arrangement described in section 471(a)(28), the placement of
the child with the relative guardian involved and any kinship
guardianship assistance payments made on behalf of the child
shall be considered never to have been made.''.
(2) State plan requirement.--
(A) In general.--Section 471(a)(20) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)(20)) is amended--
(i) by adding ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (C); and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) provides procedures for criminal records checks,
including fingerprint-based checks of national crime
information databases (as defined in section 534(e)(3)(A) of
title 28, United States Code), on any relative guardian, and
for checks described in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph on
any relative guardian and any other adult living in the home
of any relative guardian, before the relative guardian may
receive kinship guardianship assistance payments on behalf of
the child under the State plan under this part;''.
(B) Redesignation of new provision after amendment made by
prior law takes effect.--
(i) In general.--Section 471(a)(20) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(20)) is amended--
(I) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``(C)'' and inserting
``(B)''; and
(II) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
(ii) Effective date.--The amendments made by clause (i)
shall take effect immediately after the amendments made by
section 152 of Public Law 109-248 take effect.
(3) Payments to states.--Section 474(a) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 674(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
plus''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) an amount equal to the percentage by which the
expenditures referred to in paragraph (2) of this subsection
are reimbursed of the total amount expended during such
quarter as kinship guardianship assistance payments under
section 473(d) pursuant to kinship guardianship assistance
agreements.''.
(4) Case plan requirements.--Section 475(1) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 675(1)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(F) In the case of a child with respect to whom the
permanency plan is placement with a relative and receipt of
kinship guardianship assistance payments under section
473(d), a description of--
``(i) the steps that the agency has taken to determine that
it is not appropriate for the child to be returned home or
adopted;
``(ii) the reasons for any separation of siblings during
placement;
``(iii) the reasons why a permanent placement with a fit
and willing relative through a kinship guardianship
assistance arrangement is in the child's best interests;
``(iv) the ways in which the child meets the eligibility
requirements for a kinship guardianship assistance payment;
``(v) the efforts the agency has made to discuss adoption
by the child's relative foster parent as a more permanent
alternative to legal guardianship and, in the case of a
relative foster parent who has chosen not to pursue adoption,
documentation of the reasons therefor; and
``(vi) the efforts made by the State agency to discuss with
the child's parent or parents the kinship guardianship
assistance arrangement, or the reasons why the efforts were
not made.''.
(5) Section heading amendment.--The section heading for
section 473 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 673) is amended by
inserting ``and guardianship'' after ``adoption''.
(d) Continued Services Under Waiver.--Section 474 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 674) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) For purposes of this part, after the termination of a
demonstration project relating to guardianship conducted by a
State under section 1130, the expenditures of the State for
the provision, to children who, as of September 30, 2008,
were receiving assistance or services under the project, of
the same assistance and services under the same terms and
conditions that applied during the conduct of the project,
are deemed to be expenditures under the State plan approved
under this part.''.
[[Page 19452]]
(e) Eligibility for Independent Living Services and
Education and Training Vouchers for Children Who Exit Foster
Care for Relative Guardianship or Adoption After Age 16.--
(1) Independent living services.--Section 477(a) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 677(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (6) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) to provide the services referred to in this
subsection to children who, after attaining 16 years of age,
have left foster care for kinship guardianship or
adoption.''.
(2) Education and training vouchers.--Section 477(i)(2) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 677(i)(2)) is amended by striking
``adopted from foster care after attaining age 16'' and
inserting ``who, after attaining 16 years of age, are adopted
from, or enter kinship guardianship from, foster care''.
(f) Categorical Eligibility for Medicaid.--Section
473(b)(3) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 673(b)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and
inserting ``, or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) with respect to whom kinship guardianship assistance
payments are being made pursuant to subsection (d).''.
SEC. 102. FAMILY CONNECTION GRANTS.
(a) In General.--Part B of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 620-629i) is amended by inserting after
section 426 the following:
``SEC. 427. FAMILY CONNECTION GRANTS.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services may make matching grants to State, local, or tribal
child welfare agencies, and private nonprofit organizations
that have experience in working with foster children or
children in kinship care arrangements, for the purpose of
helping children who are in, or at risk of entering, foster
care reconnect with family members through the implementation
of--
``(1) a kinship navigator program to assist kinship
caregivers in learning about, finding, and using programs and
services to meet the needs of the children they are raising
and their own needs, and to promote effective partnerships
among public and private agencies to ensure kinship caregiver
families are served, which program--
``(A) shall be coordinated with other State or local
agencies that promote service coordination or provide
information and referral services, including the entities
that provide 2-1-1 or 3-1-1 information systems where
available, to avoid duplication or fragmentation of services
to kinship care families;
``(B) shall be planned and operated in consultation with
kinship caregivers and organizations representing them, youth
raised by kinship caregivers, relevant government agencies,
and relevant community-based or faith-based organizations;
``(C) shall establish information and referral systems that
link (via toll-free access) kinship caregivers, kinship
support group facilitators, and kinship service providers
to--
``(i) each other;
``(ii) eligibility and enrollment information for Federal,
State, and local benefits;
``(iii) relevant training to assist kinship caregivers in
caregiving and in obtaining benefits and services; and
``(iv) relevant legal assistance and help in obtaining
legal services;
``(D) shall provide outreach to kinship care families,
including by establishing, distributing, and updating a
kinship care website, or other relevant guides or outreach
materials;
``(E) shall promote partnerships between public and private
agencies, including schools, community based or faith-based
organizations, and relevant government agencies, to increase
their knowledge of the needs of kinship care families to
promote better services for those families;
``(F) may establish and support a kinship care ombudsman
with authority to intervene and help kinship caregivers
access services; and
``(G) may support any other activities designed to assist
kinship caregivers in obtaining benefits and services to
improve their caregiving;
``(2) intensive family-finding efforts that utilize search
technology to find biological family members for children in
the child welfare system, and once identified, work to
reestablish relationships and explore ways to find a
permanent family placement for the children;
``(3) family group decision-making meetings for children in
the child welfare system, that--
``(A) enable families to make decisions and develop plans
that nurture children and protect them from abuse and
neglect, and
``(B) when appropriate, shall address domestic violence
issues in a safe manner and facilitate connecting children
exposed to domestic violence to appropriate services,
including reconnection with the abused parent when
appropriate; or
``(4) residential family treatment programs that--
``(A) enable parents and their children to live in a safe
environment for a period of not less than 6 months; and
``(B) provide, on-site or by referral, substance abuse
treatment services, children's early intervention services,
family counseling, medical, and mental health services,
nursery and pre-school, and other services that are designed
to provide comprehensive treatment that supports the family.
``(b) Applications.--An entity desiring to receive a
matching grant under this section shall submit to the
Secretary an application, at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require,
including--
``(1) a description of how the grant will be used to
implement 1 or more of the activities described in subsection
(a);
``(2) a description of the types of children and families
to be served, including how the children and families will be
identified and recruited, and an initial projection of the
number of children and families to be served;
``(3) if the entity is a private organization--
``(A) documentation of support from the relevant local or
State child welfare agency; or
``(B) a description of how the organization plans to
coordinate its services and activities with those offered by
the relevant local or State child welfare agency; and
``(4) an assurance that the entity will cooperate fully
with any evaluation provided for by the Secretary under this
section.
``(c) Limitations.--
``(1) Grant duration.--The Secretary may award a grant
under this section for a period of not less than 1 year and
not more than 3 years.
``(2) Number of new grantees per year.--The Secretary may
not award a grant under this section to more than 30 new
grantees each fiscal year.
``(d) Federal Contribution.--The amount of a grant payment
to be made to a grantee under this section during each year
in the grant period shall be the following percentage of the
total expenditures proposed to be made by the grantee in the
application approved by the Secretary under this section:
``(1) 75 percent, if the payment is for the 1st or 2nd year
of the grant period.
``(2) 50 percent, if the payment is for the 3rd year of the
grant period.
``(e) Form of Grantee Contribution.--A grantee under this
section may provide not more than 50 percent of the amount
which the grantee is required to expend to carry out the
activities for which a grant is awarded under this section in
kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or
services.
``(f) Use of Grant.--A grantee under this section shall use
the grant in accordance with the approved application for the
grant.
``(g) Reservations of Funds.--
``(1) Kinship navigator programs.--The Secretary shall
reserve $5,000,000 of the funds made available under
subsection (h) for each fiscal year for grants to implement
kinship navigator programs described in subsection (a)(1).
``(2) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall reserve 3 percent of
the funds made available under subsection (h) for each fiscal
year for the conduct of a rigorous evaluation of the
activities funded with grants under this section.
``(3) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may reserve 2
percent of the funds made available under subsection (h) for
each fiscal year to provide technical assistance to
recipients of grants under this section.
``(h) Appropriation.--Out of any money in the Treasury of
the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are
appropriated to the Secretary for purposes of making grants
under this section $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 425 of such Act (42
U.S.C. 625) is amended by inserting ``(other than sections
426, 427, and 429)'' after ``this subpart''.
(c) Renaming of Program.--The subpart heading for subpart 1
of part B of title IV of such Act is amended to read as
follows:
``Subpart 1--Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program''.
SEC. 103. NOTIFICATION OF RELATIVES.
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)), as amended by section 101(a) of this Act, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (27);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (28) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(29) provides that, within 30 days after the removal of a
child from the custody of the parent or parents of the child,
the State shall exercise due diligence to identify and
provide notice to all adult grandparents and other adult
relatives of the child (including any other adult relatives
suggested by the parents), subject to exceptions due to
family or domestic violence, that--
``(A) specifies that the child has been or is being removed
from the custody of the parent or parents of the child;
``(B) explains the options the relative has under Federal,
State, and local law to participate in the care and placement
of the child, including any options that may be lost by
failing to respond to the notice;
[[Page 19453]]
``(C) describes the requirements under paragraph (10) of
this subsection to become a foster family home and the
additional services and supports that are available for
children placed in such a home; and
``(D) if the State has elected the option to make kinship
guardianship assistance payments under paragraph (28) of this
subsection, describes how the relative guardian of the child
may subsequently enter into an agreement with the State under
section 473(d) to receive the payments.''.
SEC. 104. LICENSING STANDARDS FOR RELATIVES.
(a) State Plan Amendment.--Section 471(a)(10) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)(10)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and provides'' and inserting
``provides''; and
(2) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``,
and provides that a waiver of any such standard may be made
only on a case-by-case basis for non-safety standards (as
determined by the State) in relative foster family homes for
specific children in care''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to the Committee on Ways and Means of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of
the Senate a report that includes the following:
(1) Nationally and for each State, the number and
percentage of children in foster care placed in licensed
relative foster family homes and the number and percentage of
such children placed in unlicensed relative foster family
homes.
(2) The frequency with which States grant case-by-case
waivers of non-safety licensing standards for relative foster
family homes.
(3) The types of non-safety licensing standards waived.
(4) An assessment of how such case-by-case waivers of non-
safety licensing standards have affected children in foster
care, including their safety, permanency, and well-being.
(5) A review of any reasons why relative foster family
homes may not be able to be licensed, despite State authority
to grant such case-by-case waivers of non-safety licensing
standards.
(6) Recommendations for administrative or legislative
actions that may increase the percentage of relative foster
family homes that are licensed while ensuring the safety of
children in foster care and improving their permanence and
well-being.
SEC. 105. AUTHORITY FOR COMPARISONS AND DISCLOSURES OF
INFORMATION IN THE FEDERAL PARENT LOCATOR
SERVICE FOR CHILD WELFARE, FOSTER CARE, AND
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PURPOSES.
Section 453(j)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
653(j)) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A),
by inserting ``, part B, or part E'' after ``this part''.
TITLE II--IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE
SEC. 201. STATE OPTION FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTER CARE, AND
CERTAIN CHILDREN IN AN ADOPTIVE OR GUARDIANSHIP
PLACEMENT, AFTER ATTAINING AGE 18.
(a) Definition of Child.--Section 475 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(8)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), the term `child'
means an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.
``(B) At the option of a State, the term shall include an
individual--
``(i)(I) who is in foster care under the responsibility of
the State;
``(II) with respect to whom an adoption assistance
agreement is in effect under section 473 if the child had
attained 16 years of age before the agreement became
effective; or
``(III) with respect to whom a kinship guardianship
assistance agreement is in effect under section 473(d) if the
child had attained 16 years of age before the agreement
became effective;
``(ii) who has attained 18 years of age;
``(iii) who has not attained 19, 20, or 21 years of age, as
the State may elect; and
``(iv) who is--
``(I) completing secondary education or a program leading
to an equivalent credential;
``(II) enrolled in an institution which provides post-
secondary or vocational education;
``(III) participating in a program or activity designed to
promote, or remove barriers to, employment;
``(IV) employed for at least 80 hours per month; or
``(V) incapable of doing any of the activities described in
subclauses (I) through (IV) due to a medical condition, which
incapability is supported by regularly updated information in
the case plan of the child.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment to Definition of Child-Care
Institution.--Section 472(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
672(c)(2)) is amended by inserting ``except, in the case of a
child who has attained 18 years of age, the term shall
include a supervised setting in which the individual is
living independently, in accordance with such conditions as
the Secretary shall establish in regulations,'' before
``but''.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Age Limits Applicable to
Children Eligible for Adoption Assistance or Kinship
Guardianship Assistance.--Section 473(a)(4) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 673(a)(4)) is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section, a payment may not be made pursuant to this section
to parents or relative guardians with respect to a child--
``(i) who has attained--
``(I) 18 years of age, or such greater age as the State may
elect under section 475(8)(B)(iii); or
``(II) 21 years of age, if the State determines that the
child has a mental or physical handicap which warrants the
continuation of assistance;
``(ii) who has not attained 18 years of age, if the State
determines that the parents or relative guardians, as the
case may be, are no longer legally responsible for the
support of the child; or
``(iii) if the State determines that the child is no longer
receiving any support from the parents or relative guardians,
as the case may be.
``(B) Parents or relative guardians who have been receiving
adoption assistance payments or kinship guardianship
assistance payments under this section shall keep the State
or local agency administering the program under this section
informed of circumstances which would, pursuant to this
subsection, make them ineligible for the payments, or
eligible for the payments in a different amount.''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2010.
SEC. 202. TRANSITION PLAN FOR CHILDREN AGING OUT OF FOSTER
CARE.
Section 475(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675)
is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (F)(ii), by striking ``and'' at the
end;
(2) in subparagraph (G), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(H) during the 90-day period immediately prior to the
date on which the child will attain 18 years of age, or such
greater age as the State may elect under paragraph
(8)(B)(iii), whether during that period foster care
maintenance payments are being made on the child's behalf or
the child is receiving benefits or services under section
477, a caseworker on the staff of the State agency, and, as
appropriate, other representatives of the child provide the
child with assistance and support in developing a transition
plan that is personalized at the direction of the child,
includes specific options on housing, health insurance,
education, local opportunities for mentors and continuing
support services, and work force supports and employment
services, and is as detailed as the child may elect.''.
SEC. 203. SHORT-TERM TRAINING FOR CHILD WELFARE AGENCIES,
RELATIVE GUARDIANS, AND COURT PERSONNEL.
(a) In General.--Section 474(a)(3)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 674(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``or relative guardians'' after ``adoptive
parents'';
(2) by striking ``and the members'' and inserting ``, the
members'';
(3) by inserting ``, or State-licensed or State-approved
child welfare agencies providing services,'' after
``providing care'';
(4) by striking ``foster and adopted'' the 1st place it
appears;
(5) by inserting ``and members of the staff of abuse and
neglect courts, agency attorneys, attorneys representing
children or parents, guardians ad litem, or other court-
appointed special advocates representing children in
proceedings of such courts,'' after ``part,'';
(6) by inserting ``guardians,'' before ``staff members,'';
(7) by striking ``and institutions'' and inserting
``institutions, attorneys, and advocates''; and
(8) by inserting ``and children living with relative
guardians'' after ``foster and adopted children'' the 2nd
place it appears.
(b) Phase-in.--With respect to an expenditure described in
section 474(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act by reason of
an amendment made by subsection (a) of this section, in lieu
of the percentage set forth in such section 474(a)(3)(B), the
percentage that shall apply is--
(1) 55 percent, if the expenditure is made in fiscal year
2009;
(2) 60 percent, if the expenditure is made in fiscal year
2010;
(3) 65 percent, if the expenditure is made in fiscal year
2011; or
(4) 70 percent, if the expenditure is made in fiscal year
2012.
SEC. 204. EDUCATIONAL STABILITY.
(a) In General.--Section 475 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 675), as amended by section 101(c)(4) of this Act, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (C), by striking clause (iv) and
redesignating clauses (v) through (viii) as clauses (iv)
through (vii), respectively; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(G) A plan for ensuring the educational stability of the
child while in foster care, including--
``(i) assurances that the placement of the child in foster
care takes into account the appropriateness of the current
educational
[[Page 19454]]
setting and the proximity to the school in which the child is
enrolled at the time of placement; and
``(ii)(I) an assurance that the State agency has
coordinated with appropriate local educational agencies (as
defined under section 9101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965) to ensure that the child remains in
the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of
placement; or
``(II) if remaining in such school is not in the best
interests of the child, assurances by the State agency and
the local educational agencies to provide immediate and
appropriate enrollment in a new school, with all of the
educational records of the child provided to the school.'';
and
(2) in the 1st sentence of paragraph (4)(A)--
(A) by striking ``and reasonable'' and inserting
``reasonable''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and reasonable travel for the child to
remain in the school in which the child is enrolled at the
time of placement'' before the period.
(b) Educational Attendance Requirement.--Section 471(a) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by
sections 101(a) and 103 of this Act, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (28);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (29) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(30) provides assurances that each child who has attained
the minimum age for compulsory school attendance under State
law and with respect to whom there is eligibility for a
payment under the State plan is a full-time elementary or
secondary school student or has completed secondary school,
and for purposes of this paragraph, the term `elementary or
secondary school student' means, with respect to a child,
that the child is--
``(A) enrolled (or in the process of enrolling) in an
institution which provides elementary or secondary education,
as determined under the law of the State or other
jurisdiction in which the institution is located;
``(B) instructed in elementary or secondary education at
home in accordance with a home school law of the State or
other jurisdiction in which the home is located;
``(C) in an independent study elementary or secondary
education program in accordance with the law of the State or
other jurisdiction in which the program is located, which is
administered by the local school or school district; or
``(D) incapable of attending school on a full-time basis
due to the medical condition of the child, which incapability
is supported by regularly updated information in the case
plan of the child.''.
SEC. 205. HEALTH OVERSIGHT AND COORDINATION PLAN.
Section 422(b)(15) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
622(b)(15)) is amended to read as follows:
``(15)(A) provides that the State will develop, in
coordination and collaboration with the State agency referred
to in paragraph (1) and the State agency responsible for
administering the State plan approved under title XIX, and in
consultation with pediatricians, other experts in health
care, and experts in and recipients of child welfare
services, a plan for the ongoing oversight and coordination
of health care services for any child in a foster care
placement, which shall ensure a coordinated strategy to
identify and respond to the health care needs of children in
foster care placements, including mental health and dental
health needs, and shall include an outline of--
``(i) a schedule for initial and follow-up health
screenings that meet reasonable standards of medical
practice;
``(ii) how health needs identified through screenings will
be monitored and treated;
``(iii) how medical information for children in care will
be updated and appropriately shared, which may include the
development and implementation of an electronic health
record;
``(iv) steps to ensure continuity of health care services,
which may include the establishment of a medical home for
every child in care;
``(v) the oversight of prescription medicines; and
``(vi) how the State actively consults with and involves
physicians or other appropriate medical or non-medical
professionals in assessing the health and well-being of
children in foster care and in determining appropriate
medical treatment for the children; and
``(B) subparagraph (A) shall not be construed to reduce or
limit the responsibility of the State agency responsible for
administering the State plan approved under title XIX to
administer and provide care and services for children with
respect to whom services are provided under the State plan
developed pursuant to this subpart;''.
SEC. 206. SIBLING PLACEMENT.
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)), as amended by sections 101(a), 103, and 204(b) of
this Act, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (29);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (30) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(31) provides that reasonable efforts shall be made--
``(A) to place siblings removed from their home in the same
foster care, kinship guardianship, or adoptive placement,
unless the State documents that such a joint placement would
be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the
siblings; and
``(B) in the case of siblings removed from their home who
are not so jointly placed, to provide for frequent visitation
or other ongoing interaction between the siblings, unless
that State documents that frequent visitation or other
ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-
being of any of the siblings.''.
TITLE III--TRIBAL FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION ACCESS
SEC. 301. EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION
SERVICES FOR INDIAN CHILDREN IN TRIBAL AREAS.
(a) Authority for Direct Payment of Federal Title IV-E
Funds for Programs Operated by Indian Tribal Organizations.--
(1) In general.--Part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``SEC. 479B. PROGRAMS OPERATED BY INDIAN TRIBAL
ORGANIZATIONS.
``(a) Definitions of Indian Tribe; Tribal Organizations.--
In this section, the terms `Indian tribe' and `tribal
organization' have the meanings given those terms in section
4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
``(b) Authority.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, this part shall apply in the same manner as this
part applies to a State to an Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium that elects to operate a
program under this part and has a plan approved by the
Secretary under section 471 in accordance with this section.
``(c) Plan Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium that elects to operate a program under this
part shall include with its plan submitted under section 471
the following:
``(A) Financial management.--Evidence demonstrating that
the tribe, organization, or consortium has not had any
uncorrected significant or material audit exceptions under
Federal grants or contracts that directly relate to the
administration of social services for the 3-year period prior
to the date on which the plan is submitted.
``(B) Service areas and populations.--For purposes of
complying with section 471(a)(3), a description of the
service area or areas and populations to be served under the
plan and an assurance that the plan shall be in effect in all
service area or areas and for all populations served by the
tribe, organization, or consortium.
``(C) Eligibility.--
``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii) of this
subparagraph, an assurance that the plan will provide--
``(I) foster care maintenance payments under section 472
only on behalf of children who satisfy the eligibility
requirements of section 472(a);
``(II) adoption assistance payments under section 473
pursuant to adoption assistance agreements only on behalf of
children who satisfy the eligibility requirements for such
payments under that section; and
``(III) at the option of the tribe, organization, or
consortium, kinship guardianship assistance payments in
accordance with section 473(d) only on behalf of children who
meet the requirements of section 473(d)(3).
``(ii) Satisfaction of foster care eligibility
requirements.--For purposes of determining whether a child
whose placement and care are the responsibility of an Indian
tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium with a plan
approved under section 471 in accordance with this section
satisfies the requirements of section 472(a), the following
shall apply:
``(I) Use of affidavits, etc.--Only with respect to the
first 12 months for which such plan is in effect, the
requirement in paragraph (1) of section 472(a) shall not be
interpreted so as to prohibit the use of affidavits or nunc
pro tunc orders as verification documents in support of the
reasonable efforts and contrary to the welfare of the child
judicial determinations required under that paragraph.
``(II) AFDC eligibility requirement.--The State plan
approved under section 402 (as in effect on July 16, 1996) of
the State in which the child resides at the time of removal
from the home shall apply to the determination of whether the
child satisfies section 472(a)(3).
``(D) Option to claim in-kind expenditures from third-party
sources for non-federal share of administrative and training
costs during initial implementation period.--Only for fiscal
year quarters beginning after September 30, 2009, and before
October 1, 2014, a list of the in-kind expenditures (which
shall be fairly evaluated, and may include plants, equipment,
administration, or services) and the third-party sources of
such expenditures that the tribe, organization, or consortium
may claim as part of the non-Federal share of administrative
or training expenditures attributable to such quarters for
purposes of receiving payments under section 474(a)(3). The
Secretary shall permit a tribe, organization, or consortium
to claim in-kind expenditures from third party sources for
such purposes during such quarters subject to the following:
[[Page 19455]]
``(i) No effect on authority for tribes, organizations, or
consortia to claim expenditures or indirect costs to the same
extent as states.--Nothing in this subparagraph shall be
construed as preventing a tribe, organization, or consortium
from claiming any expenditures or indirect costs for purposes
of receiving payments under section 474(a) that a State with
a plan approved under section 471(a) could claim for such
purposes.
``(ii) Fiscal year 2010 or 2011.--
``(I) Expenditures other than for training.--With respect
to amounts expended during a fiscal year quarter beginning
after September 30, 2009, and before October 1, 2011, for
which the tribe, organization, or consortium is eligible for
payments under subparagraph (C), (D), or (E) of section
474(a)(3), not more than 25 percent of such amounts may
consist of in-kind expenditures from third-party sources
specified in the list required under this subparagraph to be
submitted with the plan.
``(II) Training expenditures.--With respect to amounts
expended during a fiscal year quarter beginning after
September 30, 2009, and before October 1, 2011, for which the
tribe, organization, or consortium is eligible for payments
under subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 474(a)(3), not more
than 12 percent of such amounts may consist of in-kind
expenditures from third-party sources that are specified in
such list and described in subclause (III).
``(III) Sources described.--For purposes of subclause (II),
the sources described in this subclause are the following:
``(aa) A State or local government.
``(bb) An Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal
consortium other than the tribe, organization, or consortium
submitting the plan.
``(cc) A public institution of higher education.
``(dd) A Tribal College or University (as defined in
section 316 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1059c)).
``(ee) A private charitable organization.
``(iii) Fiscal year 2012, 2013, or 2014.--
``(I) In general.--Except as provided in subclause (II) of
this clause and clause (v) of this subparagraph, with respect
to amounts expended during any fiscal year quarter beginning
after September 30, 2011, and before October 1, 2014, for
which the tribe, organization, or consortium is eligible for
payments under any subparagraph of section 474(a)(3) of this
Act, the only in-kind expenditures from third-party sources
that may be claimed by the tribe, organization, or consortium
for purposes of determining the non-Federal share of such
expenditures (without regard to whether the expenditures are
specified on the list required under this subparagraph to be
submitted with the plan) are in-kind expenditures that are
specified in regulations promulgated by the Secretary under
section 301(e)(2) of the Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 and are from an applicable
third-party source specified in such regulations, and do not
exceed the applicable percentage for claiming such in-kind
expenditures specified in the regulations.
``(II) Transition period for early approved tribes,
organizations, or consortia.--Subject to clause (v), if the
tribe, organization, or consortium is an early approved
tribe, organization, or consortium (as defined in subclause
(III) of this clause), the Secretary shall not require the
tribe, organization, or consortium to comply with such
regulations before October 1, 2013. Until the earlier of the
date such tribe, organization, or consortium comes into
compliance with such regulations or October 1, 2013, the
limitations on the claiming of in-kind expenditures from
third-party sources under clause (ii) shall continue to apply
to such tribe, organization, or consortium (without regard to
fiscal limitation) for purposes of determining the non-
Federal share of amounts expended by the tribe, organization,
or consortium during any fiscal year quarter that begins
after September 30, 2011, and before such date of compliance
or October 1, 2013, whichever is earlier.
``(III) Definition of early approved tribe, organization,
or consortium.--For purposes of subclause (II) of this
clause, the term `early approved tribe, organization, or
consortium' means an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium that had a plan approved under section 471
in accordance with this section for any quarter of fiscal
year 2010 or 2011.
``(iv) Fiscal year 2015 and thereafter.--Subject to clause
(v) of this subparagraph, with respect to amounts expended
during any fiscal year quarter beginning after September 30,
2014, for which the tribe, organization, or consortium is
eligible for payments under any subparagraph of section
474(a)(3) of this Act, in-kind expenditures from third-party
sources may be claimed for purposes of determining the non-
Federal share of expenditures under any subparagraph of such
section 474(a)(3) only in accordance with the regulations
promulgated by the Secretary under section 301(e)(2) of the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
of 2008.
``(v) Contingency rule.--If, at the time expenditures are
made for a fiscal year quarter beginning after September 30,
2011, and before October 1, 2014, for which a tribe,
organization, or consortium may receive payments for under
section 474(a)(3) of this Act, no regulations required to be
promulgated under section 301(e)(2) of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008
are in effect, and no legislation has been enacted specifying
otherwise--
``(I) in the case of any quarter of fiscal year 2012, 2013,
or 2014, the limitations on claiming in-kind expenditures
from third-party sources under clause (ii) of this
subparagraph shall apply (without regard to fiscal
limitation) for purposes of determining the non-Federal share
of such expenditures; and
``(II) in the case of any quarter of fiscal year 2015 or
any fiscal year thereafter, no tribe, organization, or
consortium may claim in-kind expenditures from third-party
sources for purposes of determining the non-Federal share of
such expenditures if a State with a plan approved under
section 471(a) of this Act could not claim in-kind
expenditures from third-party sources for such purposes.
``(2) Clarification of tribal authority to establish
standards for tribal foster family homes and tribal child
care institutions.--For purposes of complying with section
471(a)(10), an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal
consortium shall establish and maintain a tribal authority or
authorities which shall be responsible for establishing and
maintaining tribal standards for tribal foster family homes
and tribal child care institutions.
``(3) Consortium.--The participating Indian tribes or
tribal organizations of a tribal consortium may develop and
submit a single plan under section 471 that meets the
requirements of this section.
``(d) Determination of Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage for Foster Care Maintenance and Adoption
Assistance Payments.--
``(1) Per capita income.--For purposes of determining the
Federal medical assistance percentage applicable to an Indian
tribe, a tribal organization, or a tribal consortium under
paragraphs (1), (2), and (5) of section 474(a), the
calculation of the per capita income of the Indian tribe,
tribal organization, or tribal consortium shall be based upon
the service population of the Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium, except that in no case
shall an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or a tribal
consortium receive less than the Federal medical assistance
percentage for any State in which the tribe, organization, or
consortium is located.
``(2) Consideration of other information.--Before making a
calculation under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall consider
any information submitted by an Indian tribe, a tribal
organization, or a tribal consortium that the Indian tribe,
tribal organization, or tribal consortium considers relevant
to making the calculation of the per capita income of the
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium.
``(e) Nonapplication to Cooperative Agreements and
Contracts.--Any cooperative agreement or contract entered
into between an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or a
tribal consortium and a State for the administration or
payment of funds under this part that is in effect as of the
date of enactment of this section shall remain in full force
and effect, subject to the right of either party to the
agreement or contract to revoke or modify the agreement or
contract pursuant to the terms of the agreement or contract.
Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the
authority for an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or a
tribal consortium and a State to enter into a cooperative
agreement or contract for the administration or payment of
funds under this part.
``(f) John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program.--
Except as provided in section 477(j), subsection (b) of this
section shall not apply with respect to the John H. Chafee
Foster Care Independence Program established under section
477 (or with respect to payments made under section 474(a)(4)
or grants made under section 474(e)).
``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as affecting the application of section 472(h)
to a child on whose behalf payments are paid under section
472, or the application of section 473(b) to a child on whose
behalf payments are made under section 473 pursuant to an
adoption assistance agreement or a kinship guardianship
assistance agreement, by an Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium that elects to operate a
foster care and adoption assistance program in accordance
with this section.''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Section 472(a)(2)(B) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 672(a)(2)(B)) is amended--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking ``and'' at the end and
inserting ``or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) an Indian tribe or a tribal organization (as
defined in section 479B(a)) or a tribal consortium that has a
plan approved under section 471 in accordance with section
479B; and''.
(b) Authority to Receive Portion of State Allotment as Part
of an Agreement
[[Page 19456]]
to Operate the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence
Program.--Section 477 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 677) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(j) Authority for an Indian Tribe, Tribal Organization,
or Tribal Consortium to Receive an Allotment.--
``(1) In general.--An Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium with a plan approved under section 479B, or
which is receiving funding to provide foster care under this
part pursuant to a cooperative agreement or contract with a
State, may apply for an allotment out of any funds authorized
by paragraph (1) or (2) (or both) of subsection (h) of this
section.
``(2) Application.--A tribe, organization, or consortium
desiring an allotment under paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall submit an application to the Secretary to directly
receive such allotment that includes a plan which--
``(A) satisfies such requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3)
of subsection (b) as the Secretary determines are
appropriate;
``(B) contains a description of the tribe's,
organization's, or consortium's consultation process
regarding the programs to be carried out under the plan with
each State for which a portion of an allotment under
subsection (c) would be redirected to the tribe,
organization, or consortium; and
``(C) contains an explanation of the results of such
consultation, particularly with respect to--
``(i) determining the eligibility for benefits and services
of Indian children to be served under the programs to be
carried out under the plan; and
``(ii) the process for consulting with the State in order
to ensure the continuity of benefits and services for such
children who will transition from receiving benefits and
services under programs carried out under a State plan under
subsection (b)(2) to receiving benefits and services under
programs carried out under a plan under this subsection.
``(3) Payments.--The Secretary shall pay an Indian tribe,
tribal organization, or tribal consortium with an application
and plan approved under this subsection from the allotment
determined for the tribe, organization, or consortium under
paragraph (4) of this subsection in the same manner as is
provided in section 474(a)(4) (and, where requested, and if
funds are appropriated, section 474(e)) with respect to a
State, or in such other manner as is determined appropriate
by the Secretary, except that in no case shall an Indian
tribe, a tribal organization, or a tribal consortium receive
a lesser proportion of such funds than a State is authorized
to receive under those sections.
``(4) Allotment.--From the amounts allotted to a State
under subsection (c) of this section for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall allot to each Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium with an application and
plan approved under this subsection for that fiscal year an
amount equal to the tribal foster care ratio determined under
paragraph (5) of this subsection for the tribe, organization,
or consortium multiplied by the allotment amount of the State
within which the tribe, organization, or consortium is
located. The allotment determined under this paragraph is
deemed to be a part of the allotment determined under section
477(c) for the State in which the Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium is located.
``(5) Tribal foster care ratio.--For purposes of paragraph
(4), the tribal foster care ratio means, with respect to an
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium, the
ratio of--
``(A) the number of children in foster care under the
responsibility of the Indian tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium (either directly or under supervision of
the State), in the most recent fiscal year for which the
information is available; to
``(B) the sum of--
``(i) the total number of children in foster care under the
responsibility of the State within which the Indian tribe,
tribal organization, or tribal consortium is located; and
``(ii) the total number of children in foster care under
the responsibility of all Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, or tribal consortia in the State (either
directly or under supervision of the State) that have a plan
approved under this subsection.''.
(c) State and Tribal Cooperation.--
(1) State plan requirement to negotiate in good faith.--
(A) In general.--Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 671(a)), as amended by sections 101(a), 103,
204(b), and 206 of this Act, is amended--
(i) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (30);
(ii) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (31)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(32) provides that the State will negotiate in good faith
with any Indian tribe, tribal organization or tribal
consortium in the State that requests to develop an agreement
with the State to administer all or part of the program under
this part on behalf of Indian children who are under the
authority of the tribe, organization, or consortium,
including foster care maintenance payments on behalf of
children who are placed in State or tribally licensed foster
family homes, adoption assistance payments, and, if the State
has elected to provide such payments, kinship guardianship
assistance payments under section 473(d), and tribal access
to resources for administration, training, and data
collection under this part.''.
(B) Chafee program conforming amendment.--Section
477(b)(3)(G) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 677(b)(3)(G)) is
amended--
(i) by striking ``and that'' and inserting ``that''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and that the State will negotiate in good faith with any
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium in
the State that does not receive an allotment under subsection
(j)(4) for a fiscal year and that requests to develop an
agreement with the State to administer, supervise, or oversee
the programs to be carried out under the plan with respect to
the Indian children who are eligible for such programs and
who are under the authority of the tribe, organization, or
consortium and to receive from the State an appropriate
portion of the State allotment under subsection (c) for the
cost of such administration, supervision, or oversight.''.
(2) Application of tribal federal matching rate to
cooperative agreements or contracts between state or
tribes.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 474(a) of such Act
(42 U.S.C. 674(a)) are each amended by inserting ``(or, with
respect to such payments made during such quarter under a
cooperative agreement or contract entered into by the State
and an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal
consortium for the administration or payment of funds under
this part, an amount equal to the Federal medical assistance
percentage that would apply under section 479B(d) (in this
paragraph referred to as the `tribal FMAP') if such Indian
tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium made such
payments under a program operated under that section, unless
the tribal FMAP is less than the Federal medical assistance
percentage that applies to the State)'' before the semicolon.
(d) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in the amendments made
by this section shall be construed as--
(1) authorization to terminate funding on behalf of any
Indian child receiving foster care maintenance payments or
adoption assistance payments on the date of enactment of this
Act and for which the State receives Federal matching
payments under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 474(a) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 674(a)), regardless of whether
a cooperative agreement or contract between the State and an
Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium is in
effect on such date or an Indian tribe, tribal organization,
or tribal consortium elects subsequent to such date to
operate a program under section 479B of such Act (as added by
subsection (a) of this section); or
(2) affecting the responsibility of a State--
(A) as part of the plan approved under section 471 of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 671), to provide foster care
maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, and if
the State elects, kinship guardianship assistance payments,
for Indian children who are eligible for such payments and
who are not otherwise being served by an Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium pursuant to a program
under such section 479B of such Act or a cooperative
agreement or contract entered into between an Indian tribe, a
tribal organization, or a tribal consortium and a State for
the administration or payment of funds under part E of title
IV of such Act; or
(B) as part of the plan approved under section 477 of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 677) to administer, supervise, or oversee
programs carried out under that plan on behalf of Indian
children who are eligible for such programs if such children
are not otherwise being served by an Indian tribe, tribal
organization, or tribal consortium pursuant to an approved
plan under section 477(j) of such Act or a cooperative
agreement or contract entered into under section 477(b)(3)(G)
of such Act.
(e) Regulations.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) of
this subsection, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services, in consultation with Indian tribes, tribal
organizations, tribal consortia, and affected States, shall
promulgate interim final regulations to carry out this
section and the amendments made by this section. Such
regulations shall include procedures to ensure that a
transfer of responsibility for the placement and care of a
child under a State plan approved under section 471 of the
Social Security Act to a tribal plan approved under section
471 of such Act in accordance with section 479B of such Act
(as added by subsection (a)(1) of this section) or to an
Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or a tribal consortium
that has entered into a cooperative agreement or contract
with a State for the administration or payment of funds under
part E of title IV of such Act does not affect the
eligibility of, provision of services for, or the making of
payments on behalf of, such children under part E of title IV
of such Act, or the eligibility of such children for medical
assistance under title XIX of such Act.
[[Page 19457]]
(2) In-kind expenditures from third-party sources for
purposes of determining non-federal share of administrative
and training expenditures.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, not later than September 30, 2011, the Secretary
of Health and Human Services, in consultation with Indian
tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal consortia, shall
promulgate interim final regulations specifying the types of
in-kind expenditures, including plants, equipment,
administration, and services, and the third-party sources for
such in-kind expenditures which may be claimed by tribes,
organizations, and consortia with plans approved under
section 471 of the Social Security Act in accordance with
section 479B of such Act, up to such percentages as the
Secretary, in such consultation shall specify in such
regulations, for purposes of determining the non-Federal
share of administrative and training expenditures for which
the tribes, organizations, and consortia may receive payments
for under any subparagraph of section 474(a)(3) of such Act.
(B) Effective date.--In no event shall the regulations
required to be promulgated under subparagraph (A) take effect
prior to October 1, 2011.
(C) Sense of the congress.--It is the sense of the Congress
that if the Secretary of Health and Human Services fails to
publish in the Federal Register the regulations required
under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Congress should
enact legislation specifying the types of in-kind
expenditures and the third-party sources for such in-kind
expenditures which may be claimed by tribes, organizations,
and consortia with plans approved under section 471 of the
Social Security Act in accordance with section 479B of such
Act, up to specific percentages, for purposes of determining
the non-Federal share of administrative and training
expenditures for which the tribes, organizations, and
consortia may receive payments for under any subparagraph of
section 474(a)(3) of such Act.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsections
(a), (b), and (c) shall take effect on October 1, 2009,
without regard to whether the regulations required under
subsection (e)(1) have been promulgated by such date.
SEC. 302. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION.
Section 476 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 676) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Technical Assistance and Implementation Services for
Tribal Programs.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall provide technical
assistance and implementation services that are dedicated to
improving services and permanency outcomes for Indian
children and their families through the provision of
assistance described in paragraph (2).
``(2) Assistance provided.--
``(A) In general.--The technical assistance and
implementation services shall be to--
``(i) provide information, advice, educational materials,
and technical assistance to Indian tribes and tribal
organizations with respect to the types of services,
administrative functions, data collection, program
management, and reporting that are required under State plans
under part B and this part;
``(ii) assist and provide technical assistance to--
``(I) Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and tribal
consortia seeking to operate a program under part B or under
this part through direct application to the Secretary under
section 479B; and
``(II) Indian tribes, tribal organizations, tribal
consortia, and States seeking to develop cooperative
agreements to provide for payments under this part or satisfy
the requirements of section 422(b)(9), 471(a)(32), or
477(b)(3)(G); and
``(iii) subject to subparagraph (B), make one-time grants,
to tribes, tribal organizations, or tribal consortia that are
seeking to develop, and intend, not later than 24 months
after receiving such a grant to submit to the Secretary a
plan under section 471 to implement a program under this part
as authorized by section 479B, that shall--
``(I) not exceed $300,000; and
``(II) be used for the cost of developing a plan under
section 471 to carry out a program under section 479B,
including costs related to development of necessary data
collection systems, a cost allocation plan, agency and tribal
court procedures necessary to meet the case review system
requirements under section 475(5), or any other costs
attributable to meeting any other requirement necessary for
approval of such a plan under this part.
``(B) Grant condition.--
``(i) In general.--As a condition of being paid a grant
under subparagraph (A)(iii), a tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium shall agree to repay the total amount of
the grant awarded if the tribe, tribal organization, or
tribal consortium fails to submit to the Secretary a plan
under section 471 to carry out a program under section 479B
by the end of the 24-month period described in that
subparagraph.
``(ii) Exception.--The Secretary shall waive the
requirement to repay a grant imposed by clause (i) if the
Secretary determines that a tribe's, tribal organization's,
or tribal consortium's failure to submit a plan within such
period was the result of circumstances beyond the control of
the tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium.
``(C) Implementation authority.--The Secretary may provide
the technical assistance and implementation services
described in subparagraph (A) either directly or through a
grant or contract with public or private organizations
knowledgeable and experienced in the field of Indian tribal
affairs and child welfare.
``(3) Appropriation.--There is appropriated to the
Secretary, out of any money in the Treasury of the United
States not otherwise appropriated, $3,000,000 for fiscal year
2009 and each fiscal year thereafter to carry out this
subsection.''.
TITLE IV--IMPROVEMENT OF INCENTIVES FOR ADOPTION
SEC. 401. ADOPTION INCENTIVES PROGRAM.
(a) 5-Year Extension.--Section 473A of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 673b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(4), by striking ``in the case of
fiscal years 2001 through 2007,'';
(2) in subsection (b)(5), by striking ``1998 through 2007''
and inserting ``2008 through 2012'';
(3) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2007'' and inserting ``a fiscal year'';
and
(4) in each of subsections (h)(1)(D), and (h)(2), by
striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.
(b) Updating of Fiscal Year Used in Determining Base
Numbers of Adoptions.--Section 473A(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(g)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``means'' and all that
follows and inserting ``means, with respect to any fiscal
year, the number of foster child adoptions in the State in
fiscal year 2007.'';
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by inserting ``that are not older child adoptions''
before ``for a State''; and
(B) by striking ``means'' and all that follows and
inserting ``means, with respect to any fiscal year, the
number of special needs adoptions that are not older child
adoptions in the State in fiscal year 2007.''; and
(3) in paragraph (5), by striking ``means'' and all that
follows and inserting ``means, with respect to any fiscal
year, the number of older child adoptions in the State in
fiscal year 2007.''.
(c) Increase in Incentive Payments for Special Needs
Adoptions and Older Child Adoptions.--Section 473A(d)(1) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``$2,000'' and
inserting ``$4,000''; and
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``$4,000'' and
inserting ``$8,000''.
(d) 24-Month Availability of Payments to States.--Section
473A(e) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 673b(e)) is amended--
(1) in the heading, by striking ``2-Year'' and inserting
``24-Month''; and
(2) by striking ``through the end of the succeeding fiscal
year'' and inserting ``for the 24-month period beginning with
the month in which the payments are made''.
(e) Additional Incentive Payment for Exceeding the Highest
Ever Foster Child Adoption Rate.--
(1) In general.--Section 473A(d) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(d)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraphs
(2) and (3)'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``this section'' each
place it appears and inserting ``paragraph (1)''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Increased incentive payment for exceeding the highest
ever foster child adoption rate.--
``(A) In general.--If--
``(i) for fiscal year 2009 or any fiscal year thereafter
the total amount of adoption incentive payments payable under
paragraph (1) of this subsection are less than the amount
appropriated under subsection (h) for the fiscal year; and
``(ii) a State's foster child adoption rate for that fiscal
year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate
determined for the State,
then the adoption incentive payment otherwise determined
under paragraph (1) of this subsection for the State shall be
increased, subject to subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, by
the amount determined for the State under subparagraph (B) of
this paragraph.
``(B) Amount of increase.--For purposes of subparagraph
(A), the amount determined under this subparagraph with
respect to a State and a fiscal year is the amount equal to
the product of--
``(i) $1,000; and
``(ii) the excess of--
``(I) the number of foster child adoptions in the State in
the fiscal year; over
``(II) the product (rounded to the nearest whole number)
of--
``(aa) the highest ever foster child adoption rate
determined for the State; and
``(bb) the number of children in foster care under the
supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year.
[[Page 19458]]
``(C) Pro rata adjustment if insufficient funds
available.--For any fiscal year, if the total amount of
increases in adoption incentive payments otherwise payable
under this paragraph for a fiscal year exceeds the amount
available for such increases for the fiscal year, the amount
of the increase payable to each State under this paragraph
for the fiscal year shall be--
``(i) the amount of the increase that would otherwise be
payable to the State under this paragraph for the fiscal
year; multiplied by
``(ii) the percentage represented by the amount so
available for the fiscal year, divided by the total amount of
increases otherwise payable under this paragraph for the
fiscal year.''.
(2) Definitions.--Section 473A(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(g)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Highest ever foster child adoption rate.--The term
`highest ever foster child adoption rate' means, with respect
to any fiscal year, the highest foster child adoption rate
determined for any fiscal year in the period that begins with
fiscal year 2002 and ends with the preceding fiscal year.
``(8) Foster child adoption rate.--The term `foster child
adoption rate' means, with respect to a State and a fiscal
year, the percentage determined by dividing--
``(A) the number of foster child adoptions finalized in the
State during the fiscal year; by
``(B) the number of children in foster care under the
supervision of the State on the last day of the preceding
fiscal year.''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) State eligibility.--Section 473A(b)(2) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 673b(b)(2)) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) the State's foster child adoption rate for the fiscal
year exceeds the highest ever foster child adoption rate
determined for the State;''.
(B) Data.--Section 473A(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
673b(c)(2)), as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section,
is amended by inserting ``and the foster child adoption rate
for the State for the fiscal year,'' after ``during a fiscal
year,''.
SEC. 402. PROMOTION OF ADOPTION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL
NEEDS.
Section 473 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 673), as
amended by section 101(b) of this Act, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A)--
(I) by redesignating items (aa) and (bb) of clause (i)(I)
as subitems (AA) and (BB), respectively;
(II) in subitem (BB) of clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated),
by striking ``item (aa) of this subclause'' and inserting
``subitem (AA) of this item'';
(III) by redesignating subclauses (I) through (III) of
clause (i) as items (aa) through (cc), respectively;
(IV) by redesignating clauses (i) and (ii) as subclauses
(I) and (II), respectively;
(V) by realigning the margins of the items, subclauses, and
clauses redesignated by subclauses (I) through (IV)
accordingly;
(VI) by striking ``if the child--'' and inserting ``if--
``(i) in the case of a child who is not an applicable child
for the fiscal year (as defined in subsection (e)), the
child--'';
(VII) in subclause (II) of clause (i) (as so
redesignated)--
(aa) by striking ``(c)'' and inserting ``(c)(1)''; and
(bb) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(VIII) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) in the case of a child who is an applicable child
for the fiscal year (as so defined), the child--
``(I)(aa) at the time of initiation of adoption proceedings
was in the care of a public or licensed private child
placement agency or Indian tribal organization pursuant to--
``(AA) an involuntary removal of the child from the home in
accordance with a judicial determination to the effect that
continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of
the child; or
``(BB) a voluntary placement agreement or voluntary
relinquishment;
``(bb) meets all medical or disability requirements of
title XVI with respect to eligibility for supplemental
security income benefits; or
``(cc) was residing in a foster family home or child care
institution with the child's minor parent, and the child's
minor parent was in such foster family home or child care
institution pursuant to--
``(AA) an involuntary removal of the child from the home in
accordance with a judicial determination to the effect that
continuation in the home would be contrary to the welfare of
the child; or
``(BB) a voluntary placement agreement or voluntary
relinquishment; and
``(II) has been determined by the State, pursuant to
subsection (c)(2), to be a child with special needs.''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)--
(I) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) of clause
(iii) as items (aa) and (bb), respectively;
(II) by redesignating subclauses (I) and (II) of clause
(iv) as items (aa) and (bb), respectively;
(III) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iv) as
subclauses (I) through (IV), respectively;
(IV) by realigning the margins of the subclauses and
clauses redesignated by subclauses (I) through (III)
accordingly;
(V) by striking ``if the child--'' and inserting ``if--
``(i) in the case of a child who is not an applicable child
for the fiscal year (as defined in subsection (e)), the
child--'';
(VI) in clause (i)(I) (as so redesignated), by striking
``(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``(A)(i)(II)'';
(VII) in clause (i)(IV) (as so redesignated)--
(aa) in the matter preceding item (aa), by striking ``(A)''
and inserting ``(A)(i)''; and
(bb) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
or''; and
(VIII) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) in the case of a child who is an applicable child
for the fiscal year (as so defined), the child meets the
requirements of subparagraph (A)(ii)(II), is determined
eligible for adoption assistance payments under this part
with respect to a prior adoption (or who would have been
determined eligible for such payments had the Adoption and
Safe Families Act of 1997 been in effect at the time that
such determination would have been made), and is available
for adoption because the prior adoption has been dissolved
and the parental rights of the adoptive parents have been
terminated or because the child's adoptive parents have
died.''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following:
``(7)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
subsection, no payment may be made to parents with respect to
any applicable child for a fiscal year that--
``(i) would be considered a child with special needs under
subsection (c)(2);
``(ii) is not a citizen or resident of the United States;
and
``(iii) was adopted outside of the United States or was
brought into the United States for the purpose of being
adopted.
``(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not be construed as
prohibiting payments under this part for an applicable child
described in subparagraph (A) that is placed in foster care
subsequent to the failure, as determined by the State, of the
initial adoption of the child by the parents described in
subparagraph (A).
``(8) A State shall spend an amount equal to the amount of
savings (if any) in State expenditures under this part
resulting from the application of paragraph (2)(A)(ii) to all
applicable children for a fiscal year to provide to children
or families any service (including post-adoption services)
that may be provided under this part or part B.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively, and realigning the
margins accordingly;
(B) by striking ``this section, a child shall not be
considered a child with special needs unless'' and inserting
``this section--
``(1) in the case of a child who is not an applicable child
for a fiscal year, the child shall not be considered a child
with special needs unless''; and
(C) in paragraph (1)(B), as so redesignated, by striking
the period at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) in the case of a child who is an applicable child for
a fiscal year, the child shall not be considered a child with
special needs unless--
``(A) the State has determined, pursuant to a criterion or
criteria established by the State, that the child cannot or
should not be returned to the home of his parents;
``(B)(i) the State has determined that there exists with
respect to the child a specific factor or condition (such as
ethnic background, age, or membership in a minority or
sibling group, or the presence of factors such as medical
conditions or physical, mental, or emotional handicaps)
because of which it is reasonable to conclude that the child
cannot be placed with adoptive parents without providing
adoption assistance under this section and medical assistance
under title XIX; or
``(ii) the child meets all medical or disability
requirements of title XVI with respect to eligibility for
supplemental security income benefits; and
``(C) the State has determined that, except where it would
be against the best interests of the child because of such
factors as the existence of significant emotional ties with
prospective adoptive parents while in the care of the parents
as a foster child, a reasonable, but unsuccessful, effort has
been made to place the child with appropriate adoptive
parents without providing adoption assistance under this
section or medical assistance under title XIX.''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Applicable Child Defined.--
``(1) On the basis of age.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in
this section, the term `applicable child' means a child for
whom an adoption assistance agreement is entered into under
this section during any fiscal year described in subparagraph
(B) if the child attained the applicable age for that fiscal
year before the end of that fiscal year.
[[Page 19459]]
``(B) Applicable age.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
the applicable age for a fiscal year is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In the case of fiscal year: The applicable age is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010...................................... 16
2011...................................... 14
2012...................................... 12
2013...................................... 10
2014...................................... 8
2015...................................... 6
2016...................................... 4
2017...................................... 2
2018 or thereafter........................ any age.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``(2) Exception for duration in care.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (1) of this subsection, beginning with fiscal year
2010, such term shall include a child of any age on the date
on which an adoption assistance agreement is entered into on
behalf of the child under this section if the child--
``(A) has been in foster care under the responsibility of
the State for at least 60 consecutive months; and
``(B) meets the requirements of subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii).
``(3) Exception for member of a sibling group.--
Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection,
beginning with fiscal year 2010, such term shall include a
child of any age on the date on which an adoption assistance
agreement is entered into on behalf of the child under this
section without regard to whether the child is described in
paragraph (2)(A) of this subsection if the child--
``(A) is a sibling of a child who is an applicable child
for the fiscal year under paragraph (1) or (2) of this
subsection;
``(B) is to be placed in the same adoption placement as an
applicable child for the fiscal year who is their sibling;
and
``(C) meets the requirements of subsection
(a)(2)(A)(ii).''.
SEC. 403. INFORMATION ON ADOPTION TAX CREDIT.
Section 471(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
671(a)), as amended by sections 101(a), 103, 204(b), 206, and
301(c)(1)(A) of this Act, is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (31);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (32) and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(33) provides that the State will inform any individual
who is adopting, or whom the State is made aware is
considering adopting, a child who is in foster care under the
responsibility of the State of the potential eligibility of
the individual for a Federal tax credit under section 23 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
TITLE V--CLARIFICATION OF UNIFORM DEFINITION OF CHILD AND OTHER
PROVISIONS
SEC. 501. CLARIFICATION OF UNIFORM DEFINITION OF CHILD.
(a) Child Must Be Younger Than Claimant.--Section
152(c)(3)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by inserting ``is younger than the taxpayer claiming such
individual as a qualifying child and'' after ``such
individual''.
(b) Child Must Be Unmarried.--Section 152(c)(1) of such
Code is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of
subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end of
subparagraph (D) and inserting ``, and'', and by adding at
the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) who has not filed a joint return (other than only for
a claim of refund) with the individual's spouse under section
6013 for the taxable year beginning in the calendar year in
which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins.''.
(c) Restrict Qualifying Child Tax Benefits to Child's
Parent.--
(1) Child tax credit.--Section 24(a) of such Code is
amended by inserting ``for which the taxpayer is allowed a
deduction under section 151'' after ``of the taxpayer''.
(2) Persons other than parents claiming qualifying child.--
(A) In general.--Section 152(c)(4) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) No parent claiming qualifying child.--If the parents
of an individual may claim such individual as a qualifying
child but no parent so claims the individual, such individual
may be claimed as the qualifying child of another taxpayer
but only if the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer is
higher than the highest adjusted gross income of any parent
of the individual.''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 152(c)(4)(A) of such Code is amended by
striking ``Except'' through ``2 or more taxpayers'' and
inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C),
if (but for this paragraph) an individual may be claimed as a
qualifying child by 2 or more taxpayers''.
(ii) The heading for section 152(c)(4) of such Code is
amended by striking ``claiming'' and inserting ``who can
claim the same''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.
SEC. 502. INVESTMENT OF OPERATING CASH.
Section 323 of title 31, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
``Sec. 323. Investment of operating cash
``(a) To manage United States cash, the Secretary of the
Treasury may invest any part of the operating cash of the
Treasury for not more than 90 days. The Secretary may invest
the operating cash of the Treasury in--
``(1) obligations of depositories maintaining Treasury tax
and loan accounts secured by pledged collateral acceptable to
the Secretary;
``(2) obligations of the United States Government; and
``(3) repurchase agreements with parties acceptable to the
Secretary.
``(b) Subsection (a) of this section does not require the
Secretary to invest a cash balance held in a particular
account.
``(c) The Secretary shall consider the prevailing market in
prescribing rates of interest for investments under
subsection (a)(1) of this section.
``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Treasury shall submit each
fiscal year to the appropriate committees a report detailing
the investment of operating cash under subsection (a) for the
preceding fiscal year. The report shall describe the
Secretary's consideration of risks associated with
investments and the actions taken to manage such risks.
``(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `appropriate
committees' means the Committee on Ways and Means of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the
Senate.''.
SEC. 503. NO FEDERAL FUNDING TO UNLAWFULLY PRESENT
INDIVIDUALS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter
prohibitions on Federal payments to individuals who are
unlawfully present in the United States.
TITLE VI--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 601. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
each amendment made by this Act to part B or E of title IV of
the Social Security Act shall take effect on the date of the
enactment of this Act, and shall apply to payments under the
part amended for quarters beginning on or after the effective
date of the amendment.
(b) Delay Permitted if State Legislation Required.--In the
case of a State plan approved under part B or E of title IV
of the Social Security Act which the Secretary of Health and
Human Services determines requires State legislation (other
than legislation appropriating funds) in order for the plan
to meet the additional requirements imposed by this Act, the
State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply with
the requirements of such part solely on the basis of the
failure of the plan to meet such additional requirements
before the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter beginning
after the close of the 1st regular session of the State
legislature that ends after the 1-year period beginning with
the date of the enactment of this Act. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year
legislative session, each year of the session is deemed to be
a separate regular session of the State legislature.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and to include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might
consume.
Children in foster care are sometimes called our forgotten children.
We are here to banish that thought forever. We are here to provide
children in foster care the same things that all children need, family,
support and an equal chance to succeed.
With that goal in mind, the House unanimously passed legislation in
June to improve the Nation's child welfare system. The bill we are
considering today is a modified version of that legislation, and it
reflects an agreement with Senators Baucus, Grassley and Rockefeller,
who have been working on similar legislation.
This agreement maintains all the critical provisions in the House-
passed bill, such as helping grandparents and other relatives who want
to permanently care for children in foster care and extending
assistance to thousands of children who now age out of foster care
every year on their 18th birthday.
In addition, the legislation now includes a provision that will begin
to
[[Page 19460]]
make sure that all special needs children are eligible for adoption
assistance, not just those who come from a family that is eligible for
a welfare program that no longer exists.
When a child is removed from his or her home because of abuse or
neglect, government, on behalf of society, becomes legally responsible
for that child. All of us, therefore, act as parents to children in
foster care. But for too many foster care children, we fail to fully
live up to our parental responsibilities.
We fail to provide them with permanent homes. We fail to meet their
health and education needs, and we fail to help them find their way in
the world.
Perhaps the most obvious example of our failure is when foster
children are literally pushed out into the streets when they are 18
years old. No parent I know abandons their children at age 18, and yet
that is what our Federal policy for foster care does.
It says to kids to have been abused or neglected, who have been
removed from their homes, or who have been placed many times in
multiple foster homes that we expect more of them than we would expect
of anyone else, including our own children. We displace them from their
homes and from any meaningful financial support, and tell them, make it
on your own, you are on your own.
Another example is our failure and the inconsistent effort to help
foster children stay connected to their families. We have a system that
tells grandparents that they will be denied any assistance if they
become legal guardians for a foster child. This is contrary to the
growing base of research illustrating that children do better living
with relative guardians than they do living in traditional foster care.
Additionally, siblings are too often split apart at the time of
placement. Just when a foster child most needs their brother or sister,
they are sometimes separated from them.
Ensuring school stability is yet another area where we too often come
up short. Not enough is done to ensure children can stay in their
current schools when they are placed in foster care. We rob them of the
one place where they may actually feel secure.
We also hear too many stories about foster children not receiving
adequate health services, especially for mental health. Furthermore, we
have a special duty to ensure the prescription medications foster
children are receiving are effective and appropriate, instead of quick
and easy.
Finally, we don't provide adequate assistance for Native American
children who are removed from their homes and then cared for in the
tribal communities.
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act
would provide new supports and protections to address many of the
concerns I just outlined. The legislation would allow States to extend
foster care up to the age of 21, giving young men and women more time
to get an education and become truly self-sufficient.
Recognizing that many grandparents and other relatives want to
provide loving, permanent homes for children in foster care, this bill
would provide Federal payments to relatives who become legal guardians
of children for whom they have cared as foster parents. It also
requires improved efforts to keep siblings together when they are
removed from their homes.
The measure would require increased oversight on health care needs of
foster children, focusing on the assessment, the treatment of health
conditions, continuity of care, and monitoring the use of prescription
drugs. There is also renewed attention paid to ensuring educational
stability for children in foster care, including avoiding frequent
school changes.
Additionally, this bill gives tribes equal and fair access to Federal
resources dedicated to keeping vulnerable children safe. For the first
time, a tribal child welfare program would directly receive Federal
foster care funding.
The legislation would also provide new resources to ensure all child
welfare workers have equal access to training, which ultimately results
in better care for children.
This bill extends and improves incentives for States that increase
the number of children adopted out of the foster care system. To ensure
that we are adequately helping all families adopting special needs
children out of the foster care system, the bill will phase out a
requirement that an adopted child's birth parents be eligible for
welfare under outdated rules from a program that no longer exists.
The legislation includes two provisions that save money and thereby
ensures that the bill is completely budget neutral. The first provision
would clarify the uniform definition of a child for tax purposes to
ensure that the earned income tax credit and other tax benefits are
being provided to the families for which the benefits were intended.
The second provision would allow the Treasury Department to improve
its management of the government's short-term operating cash. This
language, which has been recommended by the GAO and proposed by the
administration, would permit investment of cash in a broader number of
institutions, thereby reducing the current concentration of risk and
increasing the rate of return.
I want to thank, again, my ranking member, Jerry Weller, who is going
to leave us. He has been a real partner in striving to work for and
improve the lives of children in the foster care system. His efforts
will be missed when he leaves Congress at the end of this session, but
enacting this bill will surely send him out on a high note.
Before I yield to Mr. Weller, I would like to talk about another
Member of Congress who is not with us today.
The passing of Stephanie Tubbs Jones was a great shock to all of us
who worked with her. We were always impressed by her tireless energy
and her infectious smile.
Stephanie was a true champion for vulnerable families and children.
In fact, her first legislative achievement in Congress was a bill
designed to improve training opportunities for caseworkers in the child
welfare system.
{time} 1245
In recognition of Representative Tubbs Jones' efforts to help
vulnerable kids, this bill names the primary source of Federal funding
for the Social Security Act for Child Protective Services after her, as
well as making several improvements to the program.
The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Child Welfare Services Program will help
at-risk children for many years and decades to come, just as she did
during her life.
In conclusion, this bill does not address every challenge confronting
children in the welfare system, but will take a major step toward
correcting many of the system's shortcomings. I only wish Jerry was
going to be here to work with me while we put a bigger bill through
next year.
This legislation is bipartisan, budget neutral, and good for kids;
therefore, it deserves the support of every Member of the House, as it
did when it passed unanimously some months ago.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 6893, the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act,
legislation I am proud to cosponsor with my chairman, Mr. McDermott.
This bipartisan, bicameral House-Senate agreement extends the
Adoptions Incentives program, which has earned due praise for
increasing adoptions from the Nation's foster care system. It improves
the program by raising financial incentives for adopting older children
who are the hardest to adopt, among other changes. That program expires
in 2 weeks, so passage of this legislation is both necessary and
timely.
But this bill does much, much more. It expands the eligibility of
special needs children for Federal adoption assistance, promoting the
adoption of thousands more children out of the foster care system in
the coming years. Along the way, it places a priority on older
children, children in foster care
[[Page 19461]]
the longest, and sibling groups who are the hardest to find adoptive
families.
The bill also promotes stronger family ties in caring for children
removed from their own parents due to abuse and neglect, and expects
States to do more to locate adult relatives like grandparents or aunts
and uncles who can step in to care for such children. And by permitting
child welfare agencies access to information from the child support
program, the bill helps provide tools to help with that process.
It allows States to provide Federal payments to help those adults
care for children. And it helps those adults obtain other assistance to
ensure kids in their care can thrive. Instead of busting the budget,
these pro-family changes actually save money by cutting expensive
foster care administrative costs, while most importantly, improving the
outcomes for kids in need of a loving home.
The bill also responds to concerns that too many youth today are
``emancipated'' from foster care at age 18 and end up on the streets,
in jail, or worse. It offers more help for these older foster youth,
providing for their care through age 21 as a State option. But like any
responsible parent would expect, it requires able-bodied young people
over age 18 to work, stay in school, or participate in training to
receive the additional help. Like successful welfare reform policies of
the 1990s, it conditions assistance on youths engaging in positive
behavior.
The same goes for foster and adoptive youth under age 18. For the
first time, they would have to stay in school for their foster parents
to receive Federal financial assistance. That may be tough love, but it
is far more loving than subsidizing high school dropouts as taxpayers
often do today for a shocking share of young people in foster care.
I am honored that this legislation includes two provisions I have
worked for years to pass and which will benefit children in foster
care. First, it ensures equal access to foster care assistance for
Native American children, allowing tribes to operate programs just like
the States do today.
Second, it provides that all child welfare workers, whether employed
by public or not-for-profit agencies, have access to the same resources
for training so they can provide the best service to families and most
of all children in foster care.
Madam Speaker, this legislation is good for children and for
families. It is good for communities, and it is good for taxpayers. It
is fully paid for, including by reducing unnecessary foster care
administrative costs and by incorporating antifraud reforms proposed by
the administration, amongst other savings. It is bipartisan, and
includes the best of legislation developed by the House and Senate to
better protect and support children. I urge all Members to support this
excellent piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker, as this is the final major legislative activity in the
subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, I would like to thank
the hardworking staff who have made this legislation possible. On the
Ways and Means Committee Republican staff, I would especially like to
thank Matt Weidinger, Margo Smith, and Brian Newell, who have helped me
as ranking member of the Income Security Subcommittee.
Last, but not least, I would also like to thank Jack Dusik, who has
handled much of my Ways and Means Committee activities for over 5
years. Jack has been a tireless servant of the American people and a
great asset to me in representing the 11th Congressional District, and
I wish him well as he moves onward.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to extend my gratitude to my
friend, Chairman McDermott, for his friendship over my years in
Congress. It has been a real pleasure working with him as a strong
partner in fighting for America's disadvantaged youth on the Income
Security and Family Support Subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support for this important
bipartisan legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Stark).
Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I point out that this subcommittee stands
as proxy parents for half a million children in this country who spend
time in foster care each year. So I would like to thank Grandpa
McDermott and Grandpa Weller on behalf of these 500,000 children whose
lives are being improved, and Grandma Tauscher, for helping see that
these children's lives are improved.
I was lucky enough to have Cherita Jones, a former foster youth, as
an intern in my office earlier this year. Cherita worked hard and was
lucky to live with a caring foster family. She is now out working as an
advocate for foster children. I am proud that we are taking this step
here today.
This bill does, in fact, continue foster children's care beyond age
18, and it further allows relatives, grandparents, to participate in
supporting the foster children and allows them in many cases to live in
loving homes rather than group homes and less permanent settings.
I hope we can continue to work together to improve their lives, and I
look forward to working with Chairman McDermott to protect the Social
Security benefits of foster children and make sure that these resources
are used for the benefit of these children and not as a funding source
for general revenue to many States. I urge the adoption of the bill.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, today is a good day for the
more than 4\1/2\ million grandparents in this Nation who are raising
over 6 million children. Today is a good day for the 80,000
grandparents in Illinois who are raising their young grandchildren, and
the 36,500 who are living with kinship caregivers. These families have
told Members of Congress for years that they needed more support and
that the system wasn't working for many children, and especially for
African American kids.
Today we can tell them that we heard you and we are doing something
about it. I commend Chairman McDermott, Ranking Member Weller, as well
as Senators Clinton, Snowe, Grassley, Baucus and Rockefeller for their
commitment to reforming foster care.
I rise in strong, unwavering, and resolute support for H.R. 6893.
This compromise between the House and Senate advances child welfare in
many areas. In particular, it recognizes that guardianship is an
important path to permanency for tens of thousands of children in
foster care.
In August 2007, the GAO confirmed something that my congressional
district and the foster care community has known for years--that
African American children are overrepresented in the foster care
system, and that subsidized guardianship is a key Federal policy that
can help thousands of children into permanent, loving homes.
I thank Chairman McDermott and Ranking Member Weller for including
many of the provisions supporting kinship caregivers that I have
championed for years. Specifically, the bill includes four core
elements of my bill, H.R. 2188, the Kinship Caregiver Support Act,
which I introduced with Representative Tim Johnson and which Senators
Clinton and Snowe championed in the Senate.
It allows States to use Federal funds to support family caregivers
raising relatives in the foster care systems.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. It provides funding to establish kinship
navigator programs; it requires notification of relatives when a child
enters foster care; it extends eligibility for independent living
services and education training vouchers for youth who exit foster care
after age 16; and it allows States to waive nonsafety-related elements
of the licensing requirements that may not apply to families.
[[Page 19462]]
In addition, I am very happy that the bill ensures that families that
currently receive subsidized guardianship under the current Federal
waiver program will be eligible under the new program. This provision
protects over 6,000 children in Illinois, as well as the thousands of
children in other States who benefit from the waiver program.
So again, Madam Speaker, I want to commend Chairman McDermott and
Ranking Member Weller, and I also want to congratulate my colleague,
Mr. Weller, as he prepares to leave Congress after a stellar career,
and I thank Chairman McDermott for acknowledging the work of Stephanie
Tubbs Jones. This is an excellent bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I want to commend my friend
and colleague from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for his efforts on behalf of
families and his contribution to this bipartisan legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois.
I think what we need to be doing here today is continuing to alert
the American people to what is not happening in terms of dealing with
the energy situation in the United States.
Last night, House Democrats rejected any efforts on behalf of the
Republicans to pass bipartisan energy legislation. They rejected our
efforts to do that and they rammed through a sham, hoax, illusory, no-
energy bill that falls way short of the all-of-the-above solution that
the American people are demanding.
The bill passed by a vote of 236-189, and that should tell the
American people how much opposition there was to this no-energy bill.
Even Democrats have indicated that this was the wrong bill. Senator
Mary Landrieu has said that the bill is going to be dead on arrival in
the Senate. So we know this was simply a vote, as has been publicized
in Congressional Quarterly and other publications here in Washington,
that was simply a cover for Democrats who are running for reelection.
Representative Gene Green said, ``I do not believe our bill goes far
enough to address America's energy needs.''
Even they admit that what was done last night did not respond to the
needs of the American people. We are going to continue to discuss this
on this floor and even after the Congress adjourns. We also should
point out that from the first of August until the end of December, this
Democrat-controlled Congress plans to work 14 days. While Americans are
facing the highest energy prices they have ever faced in this country,
the Democrat-controlled Congress plans to be in session and work for 14
days in a 5-month period of time. That is shameless. That is
unacceptable.
We need to be helping the American people by bringing down the price
of gasoline. We can do that. Republicans have a bill that will do that.
We even would support the bipartisan bill that we introduced last
night, but that isn't good enough. All they want is a cover for their
Members to go back home and say we voted to drill for more energy.
{time} 1300
That's not true. By not revenue sharing, they're stealing money from
the States who would opt in to do this.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers,
so I will close for our side.
As the chairman and I have both stated, this is bipartisan, bicameral
legislation, broadly supported. I would note I have a number of letters
of support. I would like to insert into the Record at this point, Madam
Speaker, a letter from the National Conference of State Legislatures, a
letter from the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State
Court Administrators, as well as a letter signed by 581 national, State
and local organizations from every State in the Union in support of
this bipartisan, bicameral legislation designed to help kids,
particularly those who need adoption.
September 15, 2008.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader,
528 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Office of the Speaker,
H-232, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader
61-A Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Republican Leader,
Office of the House,
H-204, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader
McConnell, and Republican Leader Boehner: We are writing to
urge you to take necessary steps to ensure passage this month
of important improvements in supports for children and youth
in foster care, including new opportunities for permanent
families through adoption and relative guardianship and other
assistance for older youth transitioning from foster care.
The House unanimously passed the Fostering Connections to
Success Act in June and the Senate Finance Committee approved
a similar bill last week. Today, the relevant committees
announced agreement on H.R. 6893 that reconciles the House
and Senate bills. As 581 national and state and local
organizations from every state that advocate for the children
and youth who will benefit from these improvements, we want
to ensure that H.R. 6893, the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, will be passed
during this session of Congress.
The Act has bipartisan support and is fully paid for. Its
important improvements will help hundreds of thousands of
children and youth in foster care by:
Extending and increasing incentives for adoption,
particularly incentives for the adoption of children with
special needs and older youth in foster care and making many
more children with special needs eligible for federal
adoption assistance.
Allowing states to offer, for the first time with federal
assistance, guardianship payments for children who are in
foster care but who have grandparents or other relative
guardians who want to care for them permanently outside of
foster care.
Making it easier for immediate relatives to step in to
raise children when their parents cannot by requiring
notification of relatives when children are removed from
their parents and grants to link caregivers with the services
their children need.
Offering important protections and supports for American
Indian children in foster care, by allowing tribes, for the
first time, the same direct access to federal foster care,
adoption assistance and relative guardianship funding that
states have.
Increasing opportunities for success for older youth in
foster care as they transition into adult life by allowing
them to receive federal foster care payments beyond the age
of 18.
Improving educational opportunities for children and youth
in foster care, which will also increase their opportunities
for later success.
Promoting the health care of children and youth in foster
care.
Expanding training opportunities for relative guardians,
staff in private agencies and the courts, and attorneys and
others representing children.
These reforms encompass many of the critical improvements
that former foster youth, adoptive parents, relative
caregivers, and others have been requesting of Congress for
years. We commend you for your leadership and commitment to
addressing the needs of our nation's most vulnerable children
and youth. The organizations below support timely enactment
of these important improvements for children and youth in
foster care.
Respectfully yours,
Adopt America Network, Alliance for Children and Families,
American Academy for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, American Academy of
Pediatrics, American Association of Children's Residential
Centers, American Humane Association, American Professional
Society on the Abuse of Children, American Psychological
Association, The Arc of the U.S., Association on American
Indian Affairs.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Black Administrators
in Child Welfare, Inc., Catholic Charities USA, Center for
Law and Social Policy, Child Welfare League of America,
Childhelp, Inc., Children Awaiting Parents, Children's Action
Network, Children's Defense Fund, Children's Rights.
Coalition of Labor Union Women, Coalition on Human Needs,
Community Action Partnership, Council for Health and Human
Service Ministries United Church of Christ, Dave Thomas
Foundation for Adoption, Docs for Tots, Family Violence
Prevention Fund, First Focus, First Star, Foster Care Alumni
of America.
Foster Family-based Treatment Association, FosterClub,
GrandFamilies of America, Grandfamilies Teens, Generations
United, Holt International, Jewish Labor Committee, Juvenile
Law Center, The Kids are Waiting: Fix Foster Care Now
Campaign, Kidsave, Lutheran Services in America.
Mental Health America, National Advocacy Center for the
Sisters of the Good Shepherd, National African-American Drug
Policy Coalition, Inc., National Alliance to End
[[Page 19463]]
Homelessness, National Association of Black Social Workers,
National Association for Children's Behavioral Health,
National Association of Counsel for Children, National
Association of County Human Services Administrators, National
Association of Counties, National Association for the
Education of Homeless Children and Youth.
National Association of Social Workers, National CASA
Association, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence,
National Center on Housing and Child Welfare, National Child
Abuse Coalition, National Children's Alliance, National
Collaboration for Youth, National Committee of Grandparents
for Children's Rights, National Council for Adoption,
National Council of Jewish Women.
National Foster Care Coalition, National Foster Parent
Association, National Indian Child Welfare Association,
National Network for Youth, National Policy Partnership for
Children of the Incarcerated, National Relative Caregiver
Consultants, National Resource Center for Youth Services,
Native American Children's Alliance, NETWORK, A National
Catholic Social Justice Lobby, North American Council on
Adoptable Children.
Orphan Foundation, Pre-K Now, Prevent Child Abuse America,
The Rebecca Project for Human Rights, Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice, Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), Specialized Alternatives for Families and Youth of
America, Teaching-Family Association, United Cerebral Palsy,
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.
United Neighborhood Centers of America, United Way of
America, USAction, Voice for Adoption, Voices for America's
Children, Youth Law Center, Zero to Three.
____
Conference of Chief Justices
Conference of State Court Administrators
Government Relations Office, Arlington, Virginia, September
15, 2008.
Hon. Harry Reid,
Majority Leader, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Office of the Speaker, Office of the House, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Republican Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Reid and McConnell and Representatives Pelosi
and Boehner: On behalf of the Conference of Chief Justices
and the Conference of State Court Administrators, we are
writing to urge you to take necessary steps to ensure passage
this month of important improvements in support of children
and youth in foster care, including new opportunities for
permanent families through adoption and relative guardianship
and other assistance for older youth transitioning from
foster care. As you know, the House passed the Fostering
Connections to Success Act (HR 6307) in June and the Senate
provisions are moving toward final passage.
Both HR 6307 and the Senate provisions have bipartisan
support and are fully paid for. Both proposals also include
the following important improvements that will help hundreds
of thousands of children in foster care by:
Extending and increasing incentives for adoption,
particularly incentives for the adoption of children with
special needs and older youth in foster care;
Allowing states to offer for the first time federal
assistance for guardianship payments for children who are in
foster care, but who have grandparents or other relative
guardians who want to care for them permanently outside of
foster care;
Making it easier for relatives to step in to raise children
when their parents cannot by requiring notification of
relatives when children are removed from their parents and
providing grants to link caregivers with the services their
children need;
Offering important protections and supports for American
Indian children in foster care, by allowing tribes, for the
first time, the same direct access to federal foster care,
adoption assistance, and relative guardianship funding that
states have;
Increasing opportunities for success for older youth in
foster care as they transition into adult life by allowing
them to continue to receive federal foster care payments
beyond the age of 18; and
Improving educational opportunities for children and youth
in foster care, which will also increase their opportunities
for later success.
All of these reforms encompass many of the critical
improvements that hundreds of former foster youth, adoptive
parents, relative caregivers, and others have been requesting
of Congress. We commend you for your leadership and
commitment to addressing the needs of our nation's most
vulnerable children and youth. On behalf of state courts, we
support timely enactment of these important improvements for
children and youth in foster care.
Sincerely yours,
Margaret H. Marshall,
President, Conference of Chief Justices.
Stephanie J. Cole,
President, Conference of State Court Administrators.
____
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Re H.R. 6893
September 15, 2008
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Office of the Speaker,
H-232, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Office of the House Republican Leader,
H-204, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader Boehner: The
National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) supports the
bicameral, bipartisan Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, HR 6893. State legislators
know the importance of finding permanency for children in the
child welfare system, whether through adoption or relative
guardianship, and the need to help youth preparing to
transition from foster care in their states and communities.
We appreciate that Congress is taking action on these issues.
This important legislation extends and increases incentives
for adoption, particularly incentives for the adoption of
children with special needs and older youth in foster care.
State legislators have long supported the concept that
grandparents, or other immediate family members, who are
caring for children who cannot safely remain with their
parents as foster parents, should be given priority for such
custody and placement over placement in a foster home with a
non-relative. Additionally, subsidized guardianship with
relatives may be an appropriate permanency option for
children who cannot safely return home. Many states have
moved forward on their own, so we applaud the fact that this
bill makes federal funds available for this option and for
support services for caretaker relatives. Positive features
of the bill include a program to help kinship care givers
navigate their way through the social services system and
codification of variations in licensing that would allow more
children to be placed safely with relatives when they do need
to be placed in foster care.
In addition, the legislation increases resources available
to children aging out of foster care to help them
successfully transition into adult life. NCSL's Child Welfare
policy has long called for expansion of federal financial
participation for states that choose to provide assistance to
youth age 18-21 who are preparing to transition from foster
care to self-sufficiency.
These improvements encompass many of the critical changes
to federal adoption and child welfare policy that state
legislators have called upon Congress to enact.
Reauthorization of the adoption incentives program will
provide critical resources and reward state efforts to find
permanence for children in the child welfare system. We
commend the House and Senate for its leadership and
commitment to addressing the needs of our nation's most
vulnerable children and youth. Thank you for moving this
legislation forward so that Congress can complete work on a
child welfare measure this year.
Sincerely,
Representative Ruth Kagi,
Washington Chair, NCSL Human Services
and Welfare Committee
Madam Speaker, I also note that of the 581 national, State and local
organizations, and of course they represent every State of the Union
that are in support of this important legislation, that a number of
them are from the State that I represent, the State of Illinois,
including the Baby Fold, which is an organization headquartered in
Normal, Illinois in the district that I represent. The Allendale
Association, the Child Care Association of Illinois, Children's Home
and Aid, Community Action Partnership of Lake County, Latino
Consortium, Methodist Youth Services Northwestern University Settlement
Association, Project IRENE, SOS Children's Village of Illinois, UCAN,
Voices for Illinois Children, and the Youth Outreach Services are
examples of organizations in the State that I represent, which
demonstrate broad support for this bipartisan, bicameral legislation
designed to help children who need help.
I particularly want to point out that, as we worked to develop this
legislation, it's very clear, as I had the privilege of working with my
chairman, Mr. McDermott, as well as Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member
Grassley in the Senate, that we shared a common commitment, and that is
that we wanted to put together a package legislation that not only
deserved bipartisan support but that responded to the needs,
particularly of children in foster care, children that need help and
need
[[Page 19464]]
the opportunity to find a loving family. I found that by all of us
working together in a bipartisan way, we produced this bipartisan,
bicameral legislation which is now before us.
With the vote of the House today and the action of the Senate later,
this legislation is going to become law. I really want to commend
Chairman Baucus and Chairman McDermott for their leadership, as well as
Ranking Member Grassley, for the leadership of everyone involved,
because the commitment we had from day one was producing legislation
that would receive a majority of support in the House and Senate and
become law, because we truly want to help children.
So the bottom line is pretty simple, and that is, I urge my
colleagues in the House to join us with strong bipartisan support and
send this legislation to the President; legislation that provides
incentives to encourage families to adopt children in need of a loving
home; legislation designed to ensure that child care workers receive
the resources they need so they're fully trained to help children in
our foster care system, whether they work for a not-for-profit
organization or for a government agency; and also legislation to ensure
that the first Americans receive the same opportunity to access Federal
funds for foster care as those of us who came later, and so that the
provision which allows tribes to receive these funds, rather than
having to go begging to the States, becomes law with this legislation.
This is good legislation. It's bipartisan legislation. This
legislation was put together with the right spirit. I do want to thank
my chairman again for the partnership we've had on this legislation as
well as many other initiatives. It's nice to show that when we all work
together in a bipartisan way, we can get things done.
Clearly this legislation, I think, is a great example of what happens
when you set aside partisan politics and work together for the good of
our Nation, particularly in this case children who are in need of a
loving home.
Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I think we are having a discussion
today about the tale of two bills, actually. The bill that we have
before us here today is really landmark legislation, and as Mr. Weller
has said, it is the product of bipartisanship here in the House and
actually, bicameral.
I talked to Senator Grassley; we talked about various aspects of the
bill so that there was open communication on this issue. And what we've
produced from that is landmark legislation that is a significant step
forward for children, for foster children, probably the biggest step in
more than 10 years. And I think when the Congress works together for
the common good, things get done in a very positive way.
Children are America's future, and today we're making an investment
in that future, and in our own. We all want our children to be
connected to their family, and this bill expects the same for foster
children. We want our children to feel like they are in a loving,
permanent home, and this legislation expects no less for foster kids.
We want our kids to go to a school and have decent medical care, and
again, we've done that in this bill, or we've begun the process.
Finally, we want our children to have the best chance to succeed in
life, a desire that did not end on their 18th birthday. This bill
shares in that hope for kids.
This bill says to foster kids, you're not forgotten. There is a
future and the future begins today. I want to encourage all my
colleagues to support this bill.
Chairmen get the unique opportunity of kind of borrowing a lot of
ideas from other people. I took some from Danny Davis and some from
Stephanie Tubbs Jones and some from Mr. Weller, and we put a bill
together.
Even chairmen shouldn't get all the credit, because staff people like
Nick Gwynn and Sonya Nesbit and Sean Hughes on our side have played a
major part in talking our way through this bill.
In contrast, we have the energy bill which was brought out here and
we continue to hear people talk about as though there was no hope of
working with the Senate.
Now if the Republicans in the Senate would like to work with the
Democrats, I think we can put a bill together. We did it on child
welfare. Certainly we ought to be able to do it on something as
important as energy.
But to write off legislation and say, oh, the only bill that could
pass out of here is the only one that could pass through the Senate,
that's simply not respecting the legislative process. The Republicans
in the Senate really have to make a choice. They either support
American taxpayers and consumers and talk about new energy jobs, or
they do what the big oil companies want. That's a very simple choice.
I think that it's unfortunate if we in this House give up and say,
well, the Senate won't come to their senses; they won't do anything
reasonable on energy. They did reasonable things on child welfare
because they cared about this country's kids. I think, in the Senate,
they care about this country's welfare, and they're going to do
something reasonable on energy.
So all this talk about only the House can produce a perfect bill to
be rubber-stamped by the Senate, it didn't work in child welfare. They
had to make their changes. We will see some changes in that Senate
bill, if they're thinking about the common good, and not about election
on the 4th of November. If it's all about elections, we won't get a
bill on energy out of the Senate. But if there is a desire to deal with
the common good for this country, then we will look at the
comprehensive bill that was put together over here. And actually some
Republicans voted for it. Now that shows it can be bipartisan, even in
the House, on a very contentious issue. I think that the fact that it's
over in the Senate bodes well. We have a whole week yet for them to
come to their senses and send us a bill back.
Ms. BERKLEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6893, the
Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act.
The provisions of this bill will increase the tools available to
states to help children in foster care have stable placements and
easier transitions into adult life.
This legislation allows states to continue foster care assistance for
kids up the age of 21, authorizes federal assistance to relatives
assuming legal guardianship of children for whom they have cared as
foster parents, and extends and improves the Adoption Incentives
Program, among other things.
While much more remains to be done to ensure the safety and well
being of our nation's foster children, I support this legislation as a
common sense and much needed first step in the right direction, and I
hope that Nevada and other states will take advantage of the new tools
made available to them.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation time.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge all of my
colleagues to support H.R. 6893, the Fostering Connections to Success
Act and Increasing Adoptions Act.
I applaud the Gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the
Gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for working with our Senate
colleagues in crafting this legislation. I am proud to serve on the
Ways and Means Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee under
their leadership.
Today, more than half a million children are living in foster care.
H.R. 6893 addresses many of the key problems that plague the foster
care system. This bill includes much needed educational stability
requirements and new oversight for children's health care. H.R. 6893
also includes key adoption incentives that help create permanent, safe,
loving families for all children. Of particular importance to my
constituents in Georgia are the improvements to kinship guardian care
and to services for youth aging out of foster care included in this
bill.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation; it is an
important step in the right direction. We must pass H.R. 6893 in both
the House and Senate before the end of this Congress. Then we must
collaborate on more comprehensive improvements to the child welfare
system in the 111th Congress.
Madam Speaker, in my home state, there are thousands of young people
in foster care. Young people in foster care have not chosen this life.
For a variety of reasons beyond their control, foster care children are
uprooted from
[[Page 19465]]
all that they know and rely on us for help. We must answer their call.
As Members of Congress, citizens, and as parents, we must open our
hearts and offer our hands and resources to serve these young people.
I ask my colleagues to join me in doing so by supporting H.R. 6893.
We would do no less for our own children.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong
support of H.R. 6893, The Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act, introduced by my distinguished colleague,
Representative McDermott. This important legislation encourage a safe
and successful adoptions which will strengthen our social system and
provide quality foster homes for orphaned children across the United
States.
quote
``Investing in children is not a national luxury or a national
choice. It's a national necessity. If the foundation of your house is
crumbling, you don't say you can't afford to fix it while you're
building astronomically expensive fences to protect it from outside
enemies. The issue is not are we going to pay--it's are we going to pay
now, up front, or are we going to pay a whole lot more later on.''
Marian Wright Edelman
GENERAL
The fundamental purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of
children. It does so by providing loving, responsible, and legally
permanent parents when their biological parents cannot or will not
parent them. Serving the best interests of children should be paramount
in deciding all issues of adoption policy and practice. Adoption is
healthy, satisfying, and good for children, not an enduring challenge
to identity and wholeness. People who are adopted as infants grow up as
healthy and productive as people raised in their biological families.
The vast majority of foster children make the transition into their
adoptive families and grow up very successfully.
In the 1990s, there are approximately 120,000 adoptions of children
each year. This number has remained fairly constant in the 1990s, and
is still relatively proportionate to population size in the U.S.
Adopted children do as well as or better than their non-adopted
counterparts, according to a 1994 study by the Search Institute, a
Minneapolis-based public policy research organization providing
leadership, knowledge and resources to promote healthy children, youth
and communities. As these statistics show adoption is a vital part of
our society. The large number of families that took children into their
homes and hearts do a great service for the children of our nation.
This bill will improve the compensation for foster parents and
increase the amount of federal assistance they receive. These
assistance stipulations include:
Federal reimbursement to States choosing to provide assistance to
grandparents and other relatives who become legal foster parents.
Federal assistance for foster children up to the age of 21.
Improved health care for every foster child, including a plan for
educational stability.
Federal Funding for training to cover private child welfare workers
and court personnel.
An improved Adoption Incentives Program.
MINORITIES
There are currently 510,000 children in foster care, and 129,000
children are waiting to be adopted. 61 percent of these children
waiting to be adopted are of a minority background. Within the
Children's Services Division, 71 percent of the adoptions are of
Caucasian children. This bill will ensure that parents and children
involved with adoption will have ample resources available if needed.
In turn, this will encourage domestic adoptions that will help every
ethnicity of orphaned children throughout the United States.
CONCLUSION
I firmly believe that we must pass this legislation in order to
support adoption in our country. Adoption benefits this entire country;
as domestic children are provided with nourishing homes, that will
enable them a more positive environment. This bill will allow foster
parents and foster children the compensation and care that they
deserve.
By passing this legislation, we will provide the necessary means for
more adoptions to take place in this country where we are built on
strong families and strong people. We must do what we can to assist
those whose hearts are kind and ambitions are sincere. I urge my
colleagues to support this; I know together we can provide the
necessary support for the families and adopted children of the United
States. Thank you, Madam Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for
adoption. Specifically, I rise to express my support for two bills we
are considering on the floor today--the Fostering Connections to
Success and Increased Adoptions Act, and the resolution Recognizing
National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month.
It is no secret that I am pro-life. Life begins at conception, and I
believe that we should do everything within our power to encourage and
facilitate mothers to carry their child to term. It is my hope and
prayer that every child will be wanted and loved by his or her parent.
But I am not so naive as to think that this is always the case.
Tragically, there are situations where the mother and/or father cannot
care for their baby. Perhaps the mother is still in school, and too
young to responsibly raise the child. Perhaps she is unmarried, and
does not have the means to provide for her baby. There are a myriad of
reasons. But while there are some in this great nation who would
suggest these, and other extenuating circumstances are exactly why
abortion needs to remain legal, I instead believe that they are exactly
the reason adoption needs greater national attention.
Over the years that I have had the privilege of serving the people of
the 4th District of Kansas here in Washington, I have worked with many
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation that
protects the sanctity of life, for those born, and those still in the
womb. An important aspect of that effort, however, is caring for the
child after it is born. Unfortunately, this is an area that is often
overlooked. It is my hope that legislation before us today, H.R. 6893
and H. Res. 1432, will help remedy this problem.
The Fostering Connections to Success and Increased Adoptions Act
takes great steps to assist both children and adoptive parents. It
provides financial assistance for relatives of children in foster care
that agree to become permanent guardians. And it includes educational
stability as a factor when establishing a child's case plans.
Provisions like these help to establish a sense of consistency in the
life of a child that is all too often lacking that. It also
reauthorizes the Adoption Incentives Program, which can make the
possibility of adopting more feasible for some families.
Madam Speaker, the choice to adopt a child is not one to be made
without great consideration. There are risks and challenges involved
with such a decision. We in Congress should show them our support and
encouragement for them when they do decide to adopt. One way for us to
do that is through H. Res. 1432. I encourage my colleagues to join me
in voting for these bills, and let's show our support for adoption, and
the children and families involved in it.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield back the balance of my time and encourage
everyone to vote for this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6893.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL ADOPTION DAY AND NATIONAL
ADOPTION MONTH
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree
to the resolution (H. Res. 1432) supporting the goals and ideals of
National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by promoting national
awareness of adoption and the children in foster care awaiting
families, celebrating children and families involved in adoption,
recognizing current programs and efforts designed to promote adoption,
and encouraging people in the United States to seek improved safety,
permanency, and well-being for all children.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1432
Whereas there are nearly 500,000 children in the foster
care system in the United States, approximately 130,000 of
whom are waiting for families to adopt them;
Whereas nearly 54 percent of the children in foster care
are age 10 or younger;
Whereas the average length of time a child spends in foster
care is more than 2 years;
Whereas, for many foster children, the wait for a
permanent, adoptive, ``forever'' family in which they are
loved, nurtured, comforted, and protected seems endless;
Whereas the number of youth who ``age out'' of the foster
care system by reaching adulthood without being placed in a
permanent home has increased by more than 58
[[Page 19466]]
percent since 1998, as nearly 27,000 foster youth ``aged
out'' of foster care during 2007;
Whereas every day loving and nurturing families are
strengthened and expanded when committed and dedicated
individuals make an important difference in the life of a
child through adoption;
Whereas, while 3 in 10 people in the United States have
considered adoption, a majority of them have misconceptions
about the process of adopting children from foster care and
the children who are eligible for adoption;
Whereas 71 percent of those who have considered adoption
consider adopting children from foster care above other forms
of adoption;
Whereas 45 percent of people in the United States believe
that children enter the foster care system because of
juvenile delinquency, when in reality the vast majority of
children in the foster care system were victims of neglect,
abandonment, or abuse;
Whereas 46 percent of people in the United States believe
that foster care adoption is expensive, when in reality there
is no substantial cost for adopting from foster care, and
financial support in the form of an adoption assistance
subsidy is available to adoptive families of eligible
children adopted from foster care and continues after the
adoption is finalized until the child is 18, so that income
will not be a barrier to becoming a parent to a foster child
who needs to belong to a family;
Whereas significant tax credits are available to families
who adopt children with special needs;
Whereas the Department of Health and Human Services,
Administration for Children and Families, in a partnership
with the Ad Council, supports a national recruitment campaign
for adoptive parents;
Whereas the Collaboration to AdoptUsKids features a
photolisting Website for waiting foster children and
prospective adoptive families at www.adoptuskids.org, and in
Spanish at www.adopte1.org;
Whereas National Adoption Day is a collective national
effort to find permanent, loving families for children in the
foster care system;
Whereas, since the first National Adoption Day in 2000,
20,000 children have joined forever families during National
Adoption Day;
Whereas in 2006, adoptions were finalized for over 3,300
children through more than 250 National Adoption Day events
in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico;
Whereas National Adoption Month celebrates the gift of
adoption, recognizing the adoptive and foster families who
share their hearts and homes with children in need, and
raises awareness of the need for families for the many
waiting children, particularly older children and teens,
children of color, members of sibling groups, and children
with physical and emotional challenges; and
Whereas November 2008 is National Adoption Month, and
November 15, 2008, is National Adoption Day, and activities
and information about both are available at
www.childwelfare.gov/adoption/nam/activities.cfm: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) supports the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day
and National Adoption Month;
(2) recognizes that every child in foster care deserves a
permanent and loving family;
(3) recognizes the significant commitment of taxpayers to
support adoption, including the $1,900,000,000 provided to
support adoption through the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance
program, as well as the assistance provided through the Title
IV-E Foster Care program to 130,000 children waiting for
adoptive families, among other important programs; and
(4) encourages the citizens of the United States to
consider adoption of children in foster care who are waiting
for a permanent, loving family.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. McDermott) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I would yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), the resolution's
chief sponsor.
General Leave
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include therein extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Nevada?
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Madam Speaker, I am here today as an honored Member of
the United States Congress, and I appreciate, Madam Speaker, your
leadership and that of our chairman and our ranking member on an issue
I think is very important to every family in this great country, but
most important for those families that are trying to adopt a child or
those in foster care.
Today, we're recognizing National Adoption Day, which is November 15,
2008. It's for continued awareness of adoption and foster issues.
Madam Speaker, can you imagine that there are children today sitting
in a living room somewhere across America, possibly watching
television, maybe reading a book or playing cards with their friends or
another sibling. But imagine if you're that child and a car pulls up in
front of your house, and out of it comes one or two individuals that
come and knock at your door and tell you that you have to move. You may
have been there for a week. You may have been there for a month. You
may have been there for a year with this particular foster family.
Imagine the pain of that child, realizing that two strangers are coming
to the door to take them to another place to reside.
{time} 1315
Now, most children in our country are blessed they don't face that
particular challenge. Again, can you imagine if that same child then is
removed from that home and moved to another home, without even a
medical record, they may have to have additional inoculation, they may
not have their glasses, they may not have all their personal
belongings.
Madam Speaker, this is why we are recognizing Adoption Day and
recognizing foster families across the country, because of the
important role that they play in the well-being of our children.
Currently, there are 500,000 children in the foster care system
around the United States, and there's 130,000 children just waiting for
adoption. At firsthand knowledge, in the State of Nevada, we have about
4,000 children a year that enter into the foster care system, and last
year, many of those children were blessed to find a home; 444 children
were adopted.
I have a family that I recognize this week. The Congressional
Coalition on Adoption has provided for us as Members to recognize
individuals for their help in fostering homes and creating adoptions,
and that's Scott and Kathleen Greenberg of Las Vegas, Nevada. They are
proud parents of a 15-month-old son, Evan.
They, of course, found it rewarding but also challenging because it
took close to 5 years for this loving family to be able to adopt a
child. They started in Tennessee. They then worked through Georgia,
through different adoption agencies. They now are working through
Nevada, but it took 5 years, and each time they had to start over. They
had challenges of arranged adoptions; they had challenges of the public
system.
Madam Speaker, the reason we're here today is to encourage families
to adopt these children, to be patient, but also, the legislation, with
the leadership of our chairman and our ranking member, should make it
easier now for families like the Greenbergs to adopt children.
In Nevada, I've worked closely with the foster care program, and I
think, like most of us, our children keep coming back no matter what
age, but for foster kids, at the age of 18, as they move on from the
foster care system, many of them do not have a home to come back to. So
in the Nevada legislature we passed legislation to create a program for
foster children between the ages of 18 and 21, and we created a fund to
help these children with education, with training, with housing, with
health care. It's funded through a copying of documents in the county
of Clark, and we're raising about $1 million a year right now to help
these children in transition.
Madam Speaker, I'm here today to ask not only for our colleagues to
support this legislation, but in our own districts across the country,
remind these moms and dads and these individuals that want to adopt
children that we want to make it as easy and safe and a wonderful
experience that it can be, and that's why we're recognizing this
program today.
[[Page 19467]]
My great appreciation goes out to Scott and Kathleen Greenberg as the
proud parents and to all those other families in Nevada that are part
of the foster program, to all the professionals across the country that
are working hard to make sure that our children have safe homes.
Today, I ask for your support and that of the rest of this body in
supporting our resolution which recognizes National Adoption Day for
November 15, 2008.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, taking the lead of my
chairman, I will close on this important resolution, but before I move
to that, I have two speakers on our side who want to address this
resolution which has been authored by my friend Jon Porter of Nevada,
who's a strong advocate for adoption and foster children, while serving
on the Ways and Means Committee, and I commend him for taking the lead
on the National Adoption Month resolution that's before us.
With that, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
yielding.
As a proud member of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, I rise
in strong support of H. Res. 1432. This important resolution recognizes
the goals and ideals of National Adoption Day and National Adoption
Month by promoting and raising national awareness of adoption and
children in foster care, as my colleague from Nevada was just
explaining. I commend him, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter), for
working in a bipartisan matter to bring this important resolution to
the floor, a resolution that celebrates the children and the families
involved in adoption, as well as the current programs and efforts
designed to promote adoption.
As was said by my colleague in Illinois, I was an OB/GYN physician
for nearly 30 years before coming to the Congress back in 2003, and I
am especially passionate, Madam Speaker, about protecting children and
their right to life by encouraging adoption.
Madam Speaker, adoption brings joy to many loving families who cannot
have children of their own or who simply wish to welcome even more
children into their homes and into their hearts. Both National Adoption
Day and National Adoption Month, which will be recognized on November
15 and, indeed, throughout the entire month of November, raise
awareness nationally for the more than 129,000 children who are
currently in foster care and looking, almost begging, for those
permanent homes.
I wholeheartedly believe that raising awareness for adoption, as this
resolution does so well, will help place more children in those loving
homes. However, I believe that we should spend more than just 1 day, or
even 1 month, during the year raising awareness on this issue. Both
children and parents greatly benefit from adoption, and I want to
applaud all individuals in my home State of Georgia and across this
country who work so tirelessly to bring joy to these families who
sometimes have very little joy.
Madam Speaker, I want to urge all my colleagues, and I'm sure they
will, to support H. Res. 1432.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, far too many of our Nation's most
vulnerable children long for nothing more than a safe and permanent
place to call home.
As the de facto parents of foster children, it's our responsibility
to ensure that each child who is unable to safely return home to their
biological parents has the ability to achieve permanency through
adoption. Sadly, too many children are languishing in the foster care
system for far too long as they wait to be adopted.
There are currently 129,000 children who are waiting to be adopted
out of foster care. These children, on average, will have to wait
nearly two-and-a-half years in the foster care system before they are
adopted by the family. A minute can be a lifetime in the eyes of a
child. Imagine how a child feels as they wait nearly two-and-a-half
years for a family to pick them.
Representative Weller and I introduced bipartisan legislation, which
just passed the House, which would provide a variety of policy
initiatives aimed at increasing the number of children who are adopted
from the foster care system. The Fostering Connections to Success and
Increasing Adoptions Act extends, expands, and improves the Adoption
Incentives Program. This successful program provides financial bonuses
to States that increase the number of children adopted out of foster
care.
I have to add that, sort of parenthetically, I started the subsidized
adoption program in the Washington State legislature in 1971. There has
been a very uneven spread of that concept across the States in this
United States. So it's important that we at the Federal level set the
standard and say to States, here's some money if you will think about
doing subsidized adoptions for these kids.
Since the inception of this program, nearly 440,000 children have
been adopted out of the foster care system.
The bill also would provide additional incentives for States to
continue to increase the number of children who leave the foster care
system for permanency through adoption or through guardianship
placement with a grandparent or a relative caregiver.
Additionally, the legislation would provide adoption subsidy
assistance to all special-needs kids--these are the ones that are the
hardest to get adopted--rather than those children whose birth parents
were eligible for welfare under rules that were in place in 1996.
The bill expands Federal adoption assistance by delinking eligibility
for assistance from the now defunct AFDC program and by phasing in
adoption subsidy to children by their age and their length of time in
foster care.
And finally, the legislation would provide direct Federal adoption
assistance to tribal governments who run their own child welfare
programs. Tribal governments would be able to access the same service
that is now available to the States. Such services will allow tribal
governments to increase the number of Native American children that are
adopted out of the tribal foster care systems.
The month of November marks National Adoption Month, and that's what
this resolution is really all about. As we celebrate the countless
families who have opened their homes and their hearts to children who
are in need of a home, I ask my colleagues to join us in supporting the
goals and the ideals of National Adoption Month.
Every child deserves nothing less than a safe and loving place to
call home. By working together in a bipartisan fashion, we can do our
part to ensure permanency and success for all the children.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on each
side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Illinois has 17 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, at this time, it's my
privilege to yield 12 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding this time.
I certainly am in very, very strong support of this resolution. I
think that it is very important that we pass this bill, goals and
ideals of National Adoption Month. I, too, have seen the impact of
children having to be in foster care for long periods of time.
And as a grandparent of two and reminded on a constant basis of the
fragility of children, and particularly their self-concept and how they
interact with other people and their need to be in loving homes, with
parents who really want them and make them feel accepted and help them
succeed from birth through adulthood, it makes a huge difference in the
life of a child to be in a stable environment instead of being moved
from foster home to foster home.
I admire tremendously the people who open their homes and open their
hearts to children who are not their birth children, and I commend them
for
[[Page 19468]]
being willing to do that and want us to pass this resolution and
acknowledge those people.
But I think one of the most important things that we could do for all
families in this country, not just those who are good foster parents,
not just those who open their homes to become adoptive parents, but
those who are struggling every day with their own children, is to do
what we possibly can to bring down the price of gasoline and fuel oil.
We are facing a major problem in this country. Families are facing
major problems in this country because of the high price of gasoline.
I received a letter from a Boy Scout recently who said to me, ``I'm
afraid we're going to not be able to continue to go to church on
Sundays because of the high price of gasoline.'' Those are the kinds of
things that tear at any person's heart because you know that that's
coming from the heart of a child who has heard his parents talking
about how the high price of gasoline is affecting their family, and
it's certainly affecting everyone in this country. And yet we have a
do-nothing Congress that has not been willing to take up that issue.
I am, again, very happy that we're dealing with talking about the
needs of foster parents, talking about promoting adoptions. However,
what we could be doing is some real action to bring down the price of
gasoline and truly, truly help American families.
Instead, when given the options of doing that, this Democrat majority
refuses to do it. What they do is they bring up sham bills, bills that
are hoaxes and illusions to the American people and say, well, yes, we
have been asked all summer long to drill, to create more supply, and
then they bring up bills that don't do that, that in fact make it more
of a problem to be able to create additional supply. And that's what
happened on this floor yesterday.
{time} 1330
We started out last year by trying to compare the promises that were
made by the Speaker--who was then minority leader--and the majority
leader in terms of the promises that they made and what they were
doing. Well, all along the way it's been promises made, promises
broken.
They said they would have the most open, most bipartisan Congress
ever in the history of this country, and what do they do? They start
out immediately by bringing bills to the floor that haven't gone to
committee and that are not allowed to be amended. They continue to do
that. They did that again yesterday.
The bill that they brought up did not go through the committee
structure. In fact, I read the bill last night, and I meant to count
how many committees but there must have been eight or 10 committees
that this bill was supposed to go through. It went through none of
them. It was written in the Speaker's office. Nobody got a chance to
see it until about 12 hours before we were going to vote on it. It was
290 pages long. It was brought to the floor with no opportunity to
amend it.
The Republicans had one opportunity to have an impact on the bill,
and that was in a motion to recommit. And in that motion to recommit,
we offered a bipartisan bill, a bill called the Peterson-Abercrombie
bill put together by Democrats and Republicans, and we offered that as
an option to the bill that was being brought up because the bill that
was voted on last night is going to lock up over 90 percent of the oil
reserves off the coasts of this country and put them out of reach for
us permanently.
And I want to talk about how it's not been only the people in charge
of this Congress--the Speaker and the majority leader, they're the ones
who are in charge; they've broken every promise that they have made.
They even promised in 2006 that we would have a commonsense energy plan
that would bring down the price of gasoline. Well, we've been here
almost 2 years. Not until last night did we get a bill, and we know
that's not going to bring down the price of gas--but even the rank-and-
file Democrats who promised their constituents that they would vote for
bills, even sponsored bills, that they then would not vote on.
I want to mention some of those and quote them. Many of them also say
they want to stimulate the economy, but almost every single one of them
voted against this bipartisan bill authored by Representatives John
Peterson of Pennsylvania and Neil Abercrombie from Hawaii. Mr. Peterson
is a Republican; Mr. Abercrombie is a Democrat. Their bill would lower
gas prices on behalf of working families and small businesses.
There were 24 Democrats who were cosponsors of the Peterson-
Abercrombie bill who voted against that bill last night after they said
they would vote for it. Many of them promised their constituents that
they would vote for it. And I want to give some examples of that.
Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat from Kansas, who was a cosponsor
of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, voted against it when given an
opportunity. However, earlier in the month, she issued a press release
that promised that she would work to get this bill passed. She said,
``I have been working with a large, bipartisan group of Representatives
to develop a comprehensive, commonsense energy bill. Our [Peterson-
Abercrombie] bill would provide sorely needed relief for Kansas
families. It will help create energy independence for America and
millions of jobs to help stabilize our struggling economy.''
Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat, Kansas, press release, 9/04/08.
She issued that press release and then voted against the very same
bill she had told her constituents she was working to get passed.
Representative Baron Hill, Democrat of Indiana, a cosponsor of the
Peterson-Abercrombie bill, once said, ``I hope this bipartisan bill
will indeed be brought to the floor.'' But when given a chance, he
voted against it.
Again, in a press release dated August 14, 2008, he said, ``I hope
this bipartisan bill will indeed be brought to the floor for a vote
when we return to Washington in September.'' Hill said, ``It would
provide immediate relief, while also bolstering development of new
energy sources in order to move this country closer to energy
independence.'' Again, Representative Baron Hill, Democrat, Indiana,
press release August 14, 2008.
These press releases show that what the press here in Washington is
reporting is that the bill that was brought up last night by the
Democrats was only brought up to provide cover for Democrats who are in
vulnerable seats this fall. There was never any intention of that bill
becoming law. They wanted to give them a chance to say they voted for
drilling when in fact the bill doesn't provide for additional gas and
oil.
It's never going to be passed by the Senate. The Senators, even
Democratic Senators, have said the bill is dead on arrival in the
Senate.
Another Democrat who was a cosponsor of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill
who also voted against it was Representative Steve Kagen, Democrat from
Wisconsin.
Here is a quote from the Herald Times in Wisconsin, 9/13/08. ``Kagen,
who signed onto the bill Tuesday, said the Abercrombie-Peterson bill
'really is a comprehensive energy policy and a roadmap forward. That
bill has the balance in investing in renewable sources. It raises
royalty (fees) from those who are drilling and it doesn't limit
drilling to four or five States,' Kagen said.''
The headline on that story was ``Congress Sitting on An Energy Hot
Seat.''
Speaker Pelosi has said over and over again that they're going to
create an energy strategy that's going to make it look like vulnerable
Democrats are voting on real energy reform without actually doing it.
She stated that herself. But they went a step further than that. These
people cosponsored a bill and pledged to support it and then voted
against it when given a chance to do it.
Madam Speaker, I would like to include in the Congressional Record
today the list of all 24 Democrats who were for this bill before they
were against it.
Again, yesterday, though, the House Democrats in charge denied
Republicans the opportunity to a full debate,
[[Page 19469]]
an honest vote on the American Energy Act, the Republican bill that
does do all of the above to help working families and small businesses
dealing with record fuel costs.
But this fight is not over. We are going to continue to bring this
message to the American people. It's important that the American people
know that the Democrats are in charge, they are the ones responsible
for the high gas prices, and I hope the American people will hold them
responsible this fall.
Speaker Pelosi and her leadership team have made no bones
about their elaborate strategy of making it look like
vulnerable Democrats are voting on real energy reform without
actually doing it. But these Democrats took it a step
further: They cosponsored a bill and pledged to support it
and then rejected it when given an up-or-down vote. Here is a
list of all 24 Democrats who were for it before they were
against it: Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Rep. Sanford Bishop
(D-GA), Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK), Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS), Rep.
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA), Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA), Rep. Bud Cramer
(D-AL), Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL),
Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Rep. Gene
Green (D-TX), Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN),
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Rep. William Jefferson (D-
LA), Rep. Steve Kagen (D-WI), Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA),
Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA), Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA),
Rep. Solomon Ortiz (D-TX), Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Rep.
Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR).
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I believe I have 5 remaining
minutes; is that correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I'd like to thank the gentleman for
yielding.
As I spoke earlier in regard to this bill in support of adoption and
adoption week, certainly it's a great resolution that our colleague,
Representative Porter from Nevada, brings forward.
But I, too, wanted to take the opportunity in my few minutes to talk
a little bit more about this energy situation.
I think that the problem is that a lot of people in this country--and
certainly it would appear that the leadership of this House, Ms.
Pelosi, the Speaker, and the leadership of the Senate, the Majority
Leader, Mr. Reid of Nevada--are completely convinced that fossil fuel
is a bad thing and it needs to be stamped out, eliminated; kill that
sucker dead as soon as possible.
The quotes that I have heard, I think Senator Reid said, ``Fossil
fuel,'' which includes, of course, coal and petroleum and natural gas,
``Fossil fuel is poison, and we need to get rid of all fossil fuel in
the good old U.S.A. by the year 2020.''
Madam Speaker, when I asked during the August recess about whether or
not she would come back and allow some drilling to obtain our own
domestic sources of fossil fuel, she said, ``I want to save the
planet.'' She hit her fist on the table and said again, for emphasis,
``I want to save the planet.''
A spokesperson for the Sierra Club, maybe it was the president of the
Sierra Club, Madam Speaker, said it's a good thing that American people
are now having to pay these astronomical prices for petroleum.
In other words, the idea is this is such a horrible thing, this
burning of coal, which, by the way, generates 65 percent of our
electricity, this driving cars and trucks and using gasoline and diesel
fuel in our trains. Literally, our transportation system couldn't
function without fossil fuels.
Now there may come a day, and hopefully there will come a day, when
we will be able to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel and come up with
some other alternatives, alternatives like wind and solar and bio-
products and ethanol that absolutely give us great efficiency for our
needs, electricity and transportation, and cause us absolutely no harm
and that we have a tremendous abundance of all of these alternatives
and renewables so that we're not dependent on anybody. That is kind of
a euphoria, and hopefully it will one day occur. But we don't know for
sure that it might not be opening up Pandora's box, Madam Speaker. We
don't know that.
While it's true that greenhouse gases probably do cause a little bit
of global warming--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an
additional 15 seconds.
Mr. GINGREY. I mean, these things might cause some harm, but how do
we know that eventually we might create a country of alcoholics by
burning all of this ethanol in our automobiles? People today are
starving to death because they don't have jobs, and I think that's the
first priority.
Let's get this economy back on track, and let's get a decent energy
bill and do it right now.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I continue to reserve.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have no additional speakers,
so I will take this opportunity to close.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in favor of this resolution authored by
my friend, Jon Porter, who is a strong advocate for adoption and foster
children while serving on the House Ways and Means Committee.
Of course this resolution promotes awareness of adoption and of the
children in foster care awaiting loving, adoptive families. I want to
recognize all of those parents who have opened their hearts and homes
to provide a loving foster home or adopted home for children.
In my home State of Illinois, 1,740 children were adopted from foster
care in 2006. Nationwide, 51,000 children moved from foster care to
adoption this past year. However, with nearly 500,000 children in the
foster care system and approximately 130,000 of these children waiting
for a family to adopt them, we have much more work to do.
That's why I'm so pleased that this House is ready to pass this
resolution marking National Adoption Day and National Adoption Month,
but it's also paired with the important bipartisan legislation this
House just considered and just voted unanimously to approve which
provides greater incentives to provide loving homes to children in need
of adoption as well as foster children in need of a loving home. Again,
I want to commend my colleagues for that bipartisan effort.
I urge all Members to support this resolution, to work with the many
dedicated faith-based and other groups in their districts who promote
adoption, not only in November but every month of the year. There can
be no greater gift to a child who has been removed from his or her own
parents than to find new, loving, adoptive parents who want to care for
him or her as their own.
Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support for this important
resolution offered by my friend and colleague, Jon Porter of Nevada.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with Mr.
Weller on these two bills and this resolution through the Congress. And
certainly I have enjoyed working with him and have never felt that any
courtesy I've extended him has been anything but reciprocal in our
dealings. However, there has been on the floor here some discussion of
some extraneous material that I struggle to hear how the connection was
to adoption subsidies or options or foster kids, but I'm sure there was
one someplace there--all the speakers at least mentioned it sort of in
passing and then went on to talk about energy.
Now, as these adoptive parents, many of them ordinary folks, want to
drive down to get the child at the adoption agency, they're going to
have to buy gasoline. And gasoline has gotten out of control. Lots of
people want to blame oil companies or speculators or a lot of other
things. And the question is, do you really want to help those people?
[[Page 19470]]
Now, there is going to be a stimulus package coming out. And if we
put gas stamps in it--the average person under 300 percent of poverty
will spend $1,000 more a year for gasoline, so if we gave them gas
stamps like we give them food stamps for $500, we could cut that price
in half. And I hope that all my colleagues on the other side, if that
happens to be in the stimulus package, will consider voting for it this
time.
There is a question in my mind, however, about the description of
what went on last night. It's as though the Democrats didn't propose
anything. It's as though we just sort of walked around and fiddled
around and looked at the sky. But, in fact, there was a very good
proposal here on the floor. There was money for renewable energy
standards. There was money for strategic energy reserve to be invested
in renewable energy. There was royalty reform. Can you believe that the
oil companies never give any money to the Federal Government?
And this bill last night said, look, we want to repeal the tax
subsidies and make the oil companies pay their fair share for drilling
on public lands. Now, that's land that belongs to you and me and the
foster kids and the children who are being adopted. But the oil
companies have some idea that they don't think they should have to pay
any royalty when they suck the oil out and then sell it to us at four
bucks a gallon. Now, that seems like a good proposal.
We also paid for the bill last night by taking $18 billion that was
allowed in a loophole several years ago. We closed that loophole and
said we're going to use it to do the future development of renewable
energy in this country that needs to be done.
Now, by contrast, the Boehner bill that was brought out here had no
payment for anything, just increase the national debt. That is the
Republican plan for this country: Do whatever you want, spend whatever
you want, drive up the national debt, and leave it for these foster
kids and these adopted kids. They're going to pay for it. Most of the
Members in here will be dead before we get anywhere near paying for the
debt that's been driven up by this Congress. And yesterday's oil bill
was just more of the same.
Now, the other part of it that's really sort of interesting, our bill
required actually using the leases that they already have, sort of
``use it or lose it.'' They have millions of acres under lease, but
they want to get something more out there somewhere, I don't know. If
you go out 50 miles off the coast of California and Washington State,
you're at about 10,000 feet. If you think you're going to drill for oil
out there, you have never been on the West coast of this country and
looked at what we have for an ocean.
So, this business about ``drill, drill, drill, oh, good, drill,
drill, drill,'' it makes a nice slogan, probably goes on a bumper strip
pretty well, but the basic assumption behind that bumper strip is that
the American people are stupid. It seems like the Republican Party
thinks that the American people are stupid, and if they can just get
into chanting, ``drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, drill,'' that
somehow the price of gasoline will come down. I don't know if that is
some kind of a mantra, maybe it's some kind of magical thing they got
from a witch doctor somewhere. But drilling everywhere is not going to
bring down the price of gasoline.
We've seen in the last month gasoline go from $150 a barrel down to
wherever it is today, somewhere below $100. And has gasoline dropped by
33 percent? Is gasoline down to $3 or down to $2.70? And why did it
come down? Because we drilled? No. Because the speculators got worried.
The speculators got worried that Americans were getting smart and they
were figuring ways to get around without using gasoline. And so
consumption has come down in this country, and suddenly the speculators
are really worried.
What if the American people don't do what we expect them to do? What
if they don't buy big gas guzzlers anymore? They buy cars that get 35-
40 miles per gallon. I drove from my house in Seattle to Spokane for
the State convention, over the Cascade Mountains, over 5,000-foot
peaks, and you know what? I got 49.5 miles per gallon.
Now, the oil companies are really worried that a lot of people are
going to start doing that, and so the speculation on where the price of
oil is going to be started coming down. But it didn't affect anything
at the pump--maybe 10 cents, maybe five cents, who knows. But we didn't
drill a single bit, and yet the gasoline prices came down. So what is
it that makes them go up and what makes them go down?
Nothing in this bill from Mr. Boehner has anything whatsoever to say
about speculation or about oil company profits, not one single word.
All he says is, open it up, let them drill anywhere they want. Let them
go and sink a drill. In fact, we got some votes out of the Republicans
because they actually were drilling in places where the military said
this kind of creates a problem, please don't drill there; don't let
that area be open for drilling.
And so when people come out here and stand out here and say over and
over again, ``we have to drill, drill, drill, drill, drill, that's
going to fix it all,'' they haven't looked at our bill.
Now, the Senate is over there, and they're going to send us over a
bill here shortly to extend the tax credits on wind and on solar and on
geothermal because they know that renewable energy is the way this
country has to go. We are not going to solve our problem by drilling
inside the Continental Shelf of the United States.
If the President wanted to bring gas prices down, all he would have
to do is release some of the oil out of the oil reserve. We've got
millions of gallons of gasoline sitting out there. And if the market
truly is what we say it is, if there is more supply, then the price
should come down. Well, dump some of that reserve out onto the market.
It was done once before and gasoline dropped about 15 cents a gallon,
but not under this President. They want to keep it up there and keep
talking about drilling because this administration has been an oil
administration from the very first week. When the Vice President of the
United States had in his office a great conference with all the oil
people in this country and has kept secret for 8 solid years what was
decided there, you have to wonder about what's happened to this country
and the average taxpayer and the average person in this society.
So we're here today to deal with a few problems of some kids. And I
really appreciate the efforts that have gone in by the bipartisan
support on the committee. And I don't really like to get out here and
talk like this, but you just can't stand here or sit here and listen to
that baloney without ultimately saying, do they really care, or is it
just about winning an election? Is it looking for a bumper strip that
will work and that the American people will hear ``drill, drill,
drill''?
They're going to do it all day long. Every single suspension bill has
20 minutes on each side. So on the Republican side, we're going to be
treated to the same litany. It will be different people, I hope. I
mean, I don't want the same person coming out here. They're probably
lined up somewhere back in the cloak room getting ready to come out on
the next bill. But the fact is the American people aren't stupid.
I was saying to my staff as we were listening to this, can you
imagine grandma or mom or a father who is out of work? I mean,
unemployment in this country is now over 6 percent; it's gone up.
You've got banks crashing all over the place; you've got the Federal
Government putting $85 billion into trying to save AIG, and you're
talking about ``drill, drill, drill.''
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I stand here today in
support of H.R. 1432, ``Supporting the Goals and Ideals of National
Adoption Day and National Adoption Month by Promoting National
Awareness of Adoption and the Children in Foster Care Awaiting
Families, Celebrating Children and Families Involved in Adoption,
Recognizing Current Programs and Efforts Designed to Promote Adoption,
and Encouraging People in the United States to Seek Improved Safety,
Permanency, and Well-Being for All Children'' introduced by Congressman
Porter.
The fundamental purpose of adoption is to serve the best interests of
children. It does so by providing loving, responsible, and legally
permanent parents when their biological parents cannot or will not
parent them. Serving
[[Page 19471]]
the best interests of children should be paramount in deciding all
issues of adoption policy and practice.
Adoption is healthy, satisfying, and good for children, not an
enduring challenge to identity and wholeness. The children may have
additional questions and curiosities to sort out, but adoption is not a
psychological burden or pathology as some theorists treat it. Adoption
is the way one joined one's family, not a defining characteristic or
lifelong process. Persons adopted as infants grow up as healthy and
productive as people raised in their biological families. To the extent
there can be a greater risk of emotional or behavioral problems for
children adopted out of foster care at later ages, the correlation is
not the result of being adopted, but rather of difficulties experienced
prior to adoption, such as neglect or abuse. The vast majority of
foster children make the transition into their adoptive families and
grow up very successfully.
Today, in the United States there are 500,000 children in the foster
care system and of those children, there are 129,000 waiting for
families to adopt them. The number of youth who ``age out'' of the
foster care system by reaching adulthood without being placed in a
permanent home has increased by more than 58 percent since 1998, as
nearly 27,000 foster youth ``aged out'' of foster care during 2007
which is appalling and unacceptable. In addition, 3 in 10 people in the
United States have considered adoption; a majority of them have
misconceptions about the process of adopting children from foster care.
Many Americans, approximately 45 percent believe that children enter
the foster care system because of juvenile delinquency. The reality of
the matter is that the vast majority of children in the foster care
system were victims of neglect, abandonment, or abuse. Furthermore,
almost half of the American population believes that foster care
adoption is expensive and are not aware of the fact that there is no
substantial cost for adopting children from foster care. Moreover,
financial support in the form of an adoption assistance subsidy is
available to adoptive families of eligible children adopted from foster
care and continues after the adoption is finalized until the child is
18, so that income will not be a barrier to becoming a parent to a
foster child who needs to belong to a family.
Passing H.R. 1432 is essential for Congress to demonstrate their
support for placing children in safe and positive family environments.
The first National Adoption Day was in the year 2000; since then,
20,000 children have joined families during National Adoption Day, and
in 2006, adoptions were finalized for over 3,300 children through more
than 250 National Adoption Day events in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
We must continue to take stride to reach out and do our best to
encourage safe, positive environment for the children of the United
States. This resolution will enhance the support for successful
adoptions and their support for National Adoption Month in November.
When orphaned children are placed in a positive, encouraging, and
permanent family environment, they are in a situation where they can
grow and experience life in a non-threatening way. Adoption is
something that benefits the entire Nation as our children are given
places where they can feel secure.
I firmly believe that we must pass this legislation to demonstrate
our support for Adoption and National Adoption month. This legislation
will enable us to promote healthy and safe adoptions and celebrate the
successful adoptions that ensure the well-being of children.
Mr. McDERMOTT. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1432.
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. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
JACOB M. LOWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6681) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 300 Vine Street in New Lenox,
Illinois, as the ``Jacob M. Lowell Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6681
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. JACOB M. LOWELL POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 300 Vine Street in New Lenox, Illinois,
shall be known and designated as the ``Jacob M. Lowell Post
Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Jacob M. Lowell Post Office Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I now yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I stand with my colleagues from my home State of
Illinois in consideration of H.R. 6681, which renames the postal
facility in New Lenox, Illinois, in honor of Jacob M. Lowell.
H.R. 6681 enjoys the support of the entire House congressional
delegation from Illinois and was introduced by Representative Jerry
Weller back on July 30, 2008. The measure was taken up by the Oversight
Committee on September 10, 2008 and was passed by the panel by a voice
vote.
H.R. 6681 calls for honoring Jacob M. Lowell's service to this
country. Jacob M. Lowell of New Lenox, Illinois, was assigned to the
1st Battalion, 503rd Infantry Regiment (Air Assault), 173rd Airborne
Brigade, Camp Ederle, Italy, when he died on June 2 near Gowardesh,
Afghanistan. He died of wounds suffered when his unit came into contact
with enemy forces using a rocket-propelled grenade and small arms fire.
This heroic son of Illinois was just 22 years old when he passed away.
Army Specialist Lowell played football for Lincoln-Way Central High
School in New Lenox, Illinois.
{time} 1400
He graduated in 2003 and 2 years later enlisted in the Army.
According to his family, Jacob joined the Army because he wanted to
serve his country.
Madam Speaker, in honor of Jacob M. Lowell's service, I urge that we
pass without reservation H.R. 6681 and rename the postal facility on
Vine Street in New Lenox, Illinois, after this great American
serviceman.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to a remarkable
American and true hero, Army Specialist Jacob Michael Lowell, from New
Lenox, Illinois.
It was June 2, 2007, and he was on his first patrol of his first tour
in Afghanistan with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, working as a gunner
when his Humvee was ambushed. To the surprise of no one who knew him,
Jacob moved immediately to protect his comrades but was shot and
killed. Jacob Michael Lowell was 22.
Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that we rename the post office in
his home town in his honor. It will serve as a reminder to those who
loved him of his courage and to those who come after him of his
character and dedication to his country and fellow citizens.
Army Specialist Lowell was a 2003 graduate of Lincoln-Way Central
High School where he played on the offensive line for the school's
football team. He was one of those ``110 percent guys'' who always gave
all he had and more.
[[Page 19472]]
From there, he went to college at Saint Xavier University and from
there, in 2005, he enlisted in the Army. He was assigned to the 173rd
Airborne in Vicenzia, Italy. It was there he learned to love to jump
form planes. He would call home to Illinois and tell his friends and
family when and where he would take his next jump.
He was a man who loved doing his job, serving his country and
protecting the freedom we hold dear. And that's why I urge all members
to support this resolution.
Madam Speaker, we are here this afternoon to pay tribute to a
remarkable American and true hero, Army Specialist Jacob Michael Lowell
from New Lenox, Illinois. And to do that, I yield such time as he may
consume to my distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois, the
author of this bill, Mr. Weller.
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of H.R. 6681, legislation I introduced in honor of Jacob M. Lowell to
name the New Lenox Post Office in his honor. I also want to thank
Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member Tom Davis, my very good friend,
Chairman Danny Davis, a member of our Illinois delegation, as well as
Ranking Member Kenny Marchant for their support and assistance today.
Army Specialist Jacob Michael Lowell is a national hero who gave his
life for his country on June 2, 2007, near Gowardesh, Afghanistan,
while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. Today the House will be
voting on legislation I introduced with the cosponsorship of the entire
Illinois delegation which will designate the New Lenox Post Office the
``Jacob M. Lowell New Lenox Post Office Building.'' I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Army Specialist Jacob Lowell of New Lenox, Illinois, graduated from
Lincoln-Way Central High School in 2003. He attended St. Xavier
University before heeding the call to serve his country and enlist in
the Army in 2005. Specialist Lowell was assigned to the 1st Battalion,
503rd Infantry Regiment (Air Assault), 173rd Airborne Brigade, Camp
Ederle, Italy. He is remembered by his fellow soldiers for being an
avid football fan and expressing his support by shouting ``Go Bears''
at nearly any time.
On June 2, 2007, Jacob Lowell heroically defended his convoy. And as
his company commander said, he did his duty all the way up until the
end. After already having been hit by small arms fire and facing
enemies using rocket-propelled grenades, Specialist Lowell manned a 50-
caliber machine gun in defense of many members of his platoon. The
wounds he suffered proved to be fatal to Specialist Lowell, but they
were not enough to keep him from doing his heroic duty. Those present
that day credit Jacob with saving lives.
Hearing such actions reminds us just how brave our men and women in
uniform are.
Lowell was awarded the Bronze Star with ``V'' for valor and the
Combat Infantryman's Badge for his actions during the firefight, and on
May 12, 2008, his fellow soldiers renamed a combat outpost in Nuristan
Province after their beloved, fallen comrade.
Local veterans have always reminded me that it's important to honor
our soldiers and veterans each and every day. By naming the New Lenox
Post Office after Jacob, we effectively honor all of them. It should be
in the hearts and minds of all those who visit this post office that
heroes like Jacob both founded our Nation and stand ready to protect it
each and every day.
Our sincerest thanks to Specialist Lowell and to his family, and the
honor of renaming this post office could never match the gift which
Jacob has given our Nation. This honor merely represents that we should
never forget the sacrifice which he and all who have sacrificed their
lives serving our Nation have made for each and every one of us.
I know that we will all keep the family of Specialist Lowell and
those of his fallen comrades in our prayers. I ask again that you will
join me in honoring and remembering this extraordinary man whose
heroism exemplifies everything that America stands for, and I ask you
to support H.R. 6681, the Jacob Lowell New Lenox Post Office
Designation Act.
In closing, I would like to thank Joseph Eannello for his hard work
on this legislation and for his work in my office over the past 2
years. He has been an asset in my office and done excellent work for
the people of the 11th Congressional District of Illinois.
Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support of this important
legislation to honor someone who has sacrificed for our freedoms.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of
H.R. 6681, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I urge passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6681.
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. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
MAYOR WILLIAM ``BILL'' SANDBERG POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6229) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint
Paul, Minnesota, as the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office
Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6229
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MAYOR WILLIAM ``BILL'' SANDBERG POST OFFICE
BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 2523 7th Avenue East in North Saint Paul,
Minnesota, shall be known and designated as the ``Mayor
William `Bill' Sandberg Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Mayor William `Bill' Sandberg Post
Office Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General Leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may
consume to Representative McCollum of Minnesota.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 6229, which names the post office located at 2523 Seventh Avenue
East in North St. Paul, Minnesota, after the late William ``Bill''
Sandberg, the longtime mayor of North St. Paul.
I want to thank the Oversight and Government Reform Committee for
bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank my colleagues in
the Minnesota delegation for their support as original cosponsors of
this bill.
Naming a post office in honor of Bill Sandberg is a fitting tribute
to a dedicated public servant, a successful businessman and a wonderful
human being. Bill was loved by the residents of North St. Paul. He was
also my dear friend and political mentor. A committed Republican, Mayor
Sandberg took me under his wing and instilled in me the lesson that
community always comes before politics.
[[Page 19473]]
William Sandberg was born in the Selby-Grand Avenue neighborhood of
St. Paul in 1932. His family later moved to North St. Paul where he
lived the remainder of his life. Bill graduated from North St. Paul
High School and the University of Minnesota. After serving our country
with honor in the U.S. Army, he returned home to the family business,
Sandberg Funeral Home, with his brother Paul. As a funeral director he
was respected by his peers. He was a true business leader.
In 1978, the voters in North St. Paul elected Bill Sandberg to serve
as mayor. With a fatherly hand he guided the city for 30 years, sharing
his warmth, his optimism and his generous spirit with everyone he
encountered. A person of great faith, Bill always sought to bring
people together in constructive ways to solve the problems of our
community. As a mayor, Bill Sandberg's legacy is one of exemplary
public service, distinguished by common sense, fairness and compassion.
I was honored to serve under his leadership on the North St. Paul
City Council and work closely with him in the following years. I
learned from Bill's leadership that the political maxim, ``all politics
are local'' was true. It's true whether you serve on a city council or
in Congress.
Mayor Bill Sandberg passed away on April 20, 2008. He left behind
colleagues, city staff and constituents who loved him. He left behind a
loving family who will miss him, his daughter, Karen; son-in-law, Jack;
and his grandchildren, Carolyn and William. Bill's wife, Delores, whom
he loved profoundly, preceded him in death.
Mayor Sandberg loved the people he served. Upon learning about his
leukemia diagnosis, he wrote a letter to the residents of North St.
Paul. His letter speaks volumes about the great leader he was. In this
letter, Bill acknowledged his illness. He expressed his pride for the
community of North St. Paul and a pride that came directly from
neighbors coming together to meet the city's challenges. Bill also
wrote of his sincere gratitude for having the opportunity to serve the
people of his city for so many years.
I would like to conclude with Bill's words to the people of North St.
Paul:
``I would like to thank everyone again for making this town a very
special place to live and raise families. I do not know what the future
holds, but I do know Who holds the future.''
Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate the support of my colleagues for
this legislation. At the time of his death, Mayor Sandberg was the
longest serving mayor in Minnesota history. His spirit and service are
irreplaceable. For all who knew and worked with him, the blessing of
his friendship was a treasure for us all. Recognizing Mayor Sandberg's
service and leadership by naming this post office in his honor is a
fitting tribute to a man who gave so much to a community he loved.
Dear Citizen, As many of you know, I was recently diagnosed
with acute leukemia. And as many of you who have had similar,
life-altering diagnoses also know, such an evaluation makes
one stop and reflect on what is really important.
Since this is my 30th year serving as your mayor, it is
undeniable that you residents and this town have been
significant in my life. I have written to you many times
about how I appreciate the friendliness of residents and
cooperation among residents, businesses, the school district
and the city. As I think back, there have been many changes,
none of which would have been successful without this
cooperation.
Remember when McKnight Fields were under renovation in the
early '90s? Local service clubs provided funding for a
majority of the work, businesses donated materials, city
crews provided the labor. And after the work was done, the
city and school district entered a cooperative agreement for
allowing the schools to use the fields.
I admit we residents haven't always agreed on everything.
For example, there were varying opinions on where the new
high school should be located. But as soon as the school
opened (in the fall of 1997), we put our differences behind
us and reunited as a community.
I'd like to take credit for the many changes that have
taken place through the years, but I'm quickly reminded that
my pride must be directed to you. It was you citizens who
recognized the safety issues in our police and fire
departments plus crowded administrative conditions that
resulted in construction of our new city hall. It was you
citizens who supported construction of our community center.
It was you who, through the years, have backed the expansion
and construction of public works facilities and park
improvements.
And it was the volunteer efforts of you citizens that have
certainly contributed to our town being a beautiful place to
live. Back in the early '90s we started the Take Pride
program, recognizing residents for improvements they were
making in their yards and gardens. And what about all the
volunteers who have helped through the years with North St.
Paul Green? I remember getting a letter from a Maplewood
resident who commended the city for its beautification
efforts. She said she'd go out of her way to drive through
our downtown just to see the flowers! The efforts of our
North St. Paul Green volunteers were also recognized by the
Midwest Living Magazine, which named North St. Paul one of 20
Midwestern cities with ``hometown pride.''
As I close this letter, I'd like to thank everyone, again,
for making this town a very special place to live and raise
families. I do not know what the future holds, but I do know
Who holds the future!
God bless you all,
Bill Sandberg,
Mayor.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6229, to
rename the post office in North St. Paul, Minnesota, in honor of former
Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg. Mayor Sandberg died April 20 at the
age of 76 after serving for more than 30 years as mayor of his beloved
hometown.
He graduated in 1950 from North St. Paul High School where he played
football and hockey and from the University of Minnesota in 1954 with a
degree in mortuary science. After serving his country in the Army,
Mayor Sandberg returned to North St. Paul and became a director at his
family's business, the Sandberg Funeral Home.
He became mayor in 1978 and began a career known for character,
personality, fairness and decorum. Described by fellow members of the
City Council as a ``problem solver who could get people to think in
different ways,'' he made a point of never coming into a meeting with
his mind made up. He also made a point of putting people at ease when
they came to testify before the council and for keeping debates focused
on the issues at hand, not personalities.
This openness, this credibility, this unflinching optimism brought
citizens together even when his ideas didn't enjoy universal support.
Among his greatest legacies will be his insistence that Highway 36 run
through the center of North St. Paul. Some feared the increased traffic
would bring nothing but pollution and gridlock. But Mayor Sandberg
insisted that thousands of commuters would visit the city's downtown
area who otherwise never would know it existed. This championing of all
things North St. Paul permeated everything the mayor did. He considered
attendance at local high school hockey games and Chamber of Commerce
meetings as important as attending council meetings. He encouraged
others to participate in council activities and worked tirelessly to
connect citizens to their government.
The city already has begun to honor its beloved former mayor by
renaming a bridge in his honor. Let us join in this celebration of an
exemplary public servant, support this resolution and rename the local
post office in his honor.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I present for consideration and support H.R. 6229,
which names a postal facility in North St. Paul, Minnesota, after Mayor
William ``Bill'' Sandberg. H.R. 6229 was introduced by Representative
Betty McCollum on June 10, 2008, and was reported from the Oversight
Committee on July 16, 2008, by voice vote. The measure has been
cosponsored by the entire Minnesota House delegation and pays tribute
to one of the State's most well known public officials.
William ``Bill'' Sandberg was a longtime resident of North St. Paul,
Minnesota, who served his beloved city as mayor for 30 years until his
death on April 20, 2008.
{time} 1415
First elected in 1978, Mayor Sandberg was reelected seven times.
Known for
[[Page 19474]]
his good sense of humor, Mayor Sandberg once joked that the reason he
kept getting reelected was simply because no one else wanted the job.
As mayor, Mr. Sandberg earned a reputation for his ability to bring
people together by his warm, personable style. During the controversial
meeting of the North St. Paul City Council, Mayor Sandberg once
remarked that ``we were friends before the meeting, and while we may
not agree on this, we will be friends when we walk out.'' He exhibited
this same unique ability in bringing people together when he
successfully solved divisive issues, such as the reconstruction of
Highway 36.
Before assuming the position of mayor, Bill Sandberg served in the
United States Army during the 1950s. He then went on to a successful
business career, joining his parents' funeral home business in St. Paul
and White Bear Lake, Minnesota.
So, Mr. Speaker, given Mayor Sandberg's commitment to his community,
his State and to our country, I urge swift passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
Let me say I rise in support of H.R. 6229, honoring the life and the
work and memory of Mayor William ``Bill'' Sandberg of St. Paul,
Minnesota. I believe, given the tenure of his career and the durability
of his reputation, we can assume in both parties that Mayor Sandberg
was a man at the local level that attended himself to what people were
really dealing with and he provided leadership.
And it is about just that focus that I also wanted to rise, Mr.
Speaker, today. Because I rise this afternoon, I think with millions of
Americans, simply to express my frustration, that after only one day of
debate, late in the night last night, this Congress again failed to
pass a bipartisan bill that would set us on a course for energy
independence in the 21st century.
I must tell you that it was equally frustrating today to awaken and
see headlines around the country that say ``Congress eases restrictions
on drilling.'' But I don't want to be critical of my friends in the
Fourth Estate. This bill was revealed to the world 24 hours before it
was voted. It was written in the back rooms here in the Capitol, not
considered by committees, but brought to the floor abruptly the night
before last and just as abruptly voted without amendment or without
serious consideration in the Congress. So I won't fault members of the
media, who didn't understand that the drill-nothing Democrat Congress
actually only moved to a position that was the drill-almost-nothing
Democrat Congress.
But this legislation, despite the headlines, is a story worth
telling. For the past 20 months, until last week, the Democrat majority
in Congress made one thing more clear than anything else; there would
never be a vote on more domestic drilling in America. Speaker Nancy
Pelosi repeated her personal and historic opposition to drilling and
said that she would never permit a vote. And they adjourned on August
1, turned off the cameras and turned off the lights.
But Republicans refused to leave. We held this floor during the
entirety of the August recess, and during that time the Democrat
majority changed their position. In a very real sense, millions of
Americans contacted their Members of Congress and said we want more
access to American oil. We want Congress to come together and
compromise on conservation, fuel efficiency, solar, wind, nuclear, an
all-of-the-above strategy. But we want a bill that allows us to drill
into our domestic resources. And, to their credit, the Democratic
majority relented in their historic opposition to drilling.
But the bill that came to the floor abruptly and was just as abruptly
passed last night failed in many counts. Not only did it bring with it
an enormous tax increase, not only did it bring with it no opportunity
for new refineries, no opportunity for nuclear energy development and
other powerful alternatives, but also this bill truly brought with it
very little, if any, opportunity to drill into our own domestic
reserves.
The bill seems to allow drilling, but not within 50 miles of shore.
Most experts say that 88 percent of our domestic reserves are within 50
miles of the shoreline of the east coast and the west coast and the
eastern Gulf. Beyond that, the Democrat bill that passed last night
would allow drilling, but only if States vote by referendum or in their
legislature to permit the drilling.
That sounds reasonable enough. But what is not reasonable is the
Democratic bill, unlike current law for Gulf States that allow
drilling, the Democratic bill offered States no revenue whatsoever. So
people in South Carolina, people in California, would presumably have
to decide for themselves or their elected representatives decide to
allow drilling off of their shore if it meant nothing financially to
their State coffers.
Also there was a failure to provide any streamlined judicial review
or litigation reform, leaving any drilling that would be allowed beyond
the 50 mile limit to be tied up immediately in court, as hundreds and
hundreds of leases are tied up today.
So that is why I say, and I attempt to be intellectually honest about
this, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority did move on their energy
policy about drilling. They went from a drill-nothing Democrat Congress
to a drill-almost-nothing Democratic Congress.
And last night, most sadly, they passed on an opportunity that some
40 Democrats had been working tirelessly to develop, legislation
coauthored by Congressman Abercrombie and Congressman Peterson that is
a truly bipartisan solution. I was a cosponsor of the bill myself.
Dozens upon dozens of Republicans joined us in the bill, as well as I
believe 40 Democrat Members of Congress.
When it came time for the Republicans to offer their alternative,
quite frankly, we could have played some sort of a game, but we think
that the American people are struggling under the weight of record
gasoline prices. Families are hurting, seniors are hurting, and this
was not time for political posturing or games. So we brought the
bipartisan bill to the floor as our alternative.
Strangely, unless I can be corrected, only 13 of the Democrats out of
the some 40 who cosponsored the bill voted for it. It was a true
bipartisan bill that had been fashioned through tough bipartisan
negotiation over months of time, and it was rejected by many of the
same Democrats who had worked to build the legislation.
We missed an opportunity last night, Mr. Speaker, to truly do
something for the American people, to do something, as Daniel Webster
says on words on these walls, to do something worthy to be remembered.
So I rise today to pay sincere tribute to Mayor William ``Bill''
Sandberg. I am confident that this tribute on this Post Office is
altogether fitting.
But I also rise to just simply express my frustration that, at a time
when we hear about one bailout after another, this Democrat majority
passed an energy bill last night that Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu
even said was ``dead on arrival in the Senate.'' We accomplished
nothing to set this Nation on a course of energy independence.
So our message is very simple: We are not going away. We are going to
fight on this floor in every moment that we have left, in the waning
days of this Congress and in the weeks preceding our national election,
to demand that this Congress roll our sleeves up and seek that
bipartisan consensus that does exist.
Let me say from my heart, I truly believe that there is a bipartisan
majority in this Congress that would say yes to conservation, yes to
fuel efficiency, yes to solar, wind and nuclear, and would say yes to a
substantial increase in domestic drilling that was real and significant
and would lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
So Republicans are going to stay in this fight. Bailouts for
corporate America, but no relief for our citizens struggling under the
record weight of gasoline prices is not acceptable to Republicans in
this Congress. We will stay on
[[Page 19475]]
this floor. We will continue in this fight. We are not going away until
the American people have a bipartisan strategy that sets us on a short-
term course to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and on a long-term
course for energy independence in the 21st century.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of
H.R. 6229.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our
time and urge passage.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6229.
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. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
ARMY SPC DANIEL AGAMI POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 6338) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 4233 West Hillsboro Boulevard in
Coconut Creek, Florida, as the ``Army SPC Daniel Agami Post Office
Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6338
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. ARMY SPC DANIEL AGAMI POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 4233 West Hillsboro Boulevard in Coconut
Creek, Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``Army
SPC Daniel Agami Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Army SPC Daniel Agami Post Office
Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Davis) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
General leave
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Klein), who introduced this
legislation.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
I rise in support of H.R. 6338, a bill to honor the life and legacy
of Specialist Daniel J. Agami, who was killed in action on June 21,
2007, while serving his country in Iraq.
Daniel Agami was a devoted friend, a loving son and brother and
courageous soldier. Growing up in South Florida, Daniel's parents
raised him with strong Jewish values, and he was very proud of his
Jewish heritage. To his friends, and he got quite a kick out of it, he
was known as ``GI Jew.'' A little different.
Daniel knew he was meant to serve a greater purpose in life, and in
2005 his love for country and an unyielding drive to serve others led
him to enlist in the United States Army. For his heroism in combat,
Daniel was posthumously presented with multiple medals of honor,
including the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Good Conduct Medal,
the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Iraqi Campaign Medal,
and the Combat Infantryman's Badge.
During his service in the U.S. Army, Daniel worked with local
schools, devastated from war and destruction, to refurbish their
structures and mentor their students.
The communities he served in Iraq and here at home have suffered a
tremendous loss. Daniel made the ultimate sacrifice for his country,
and it is with great pride that I rise in support of this legislation
to recognize his strong moral character and his work to make this world
a better place.
It is my sincere hope that when the South Florida community utilizes
the services of the post office in Coconut Creek, Florida, they will
remember and honor Army Specialist Daniel Agami and his exceptional
patriotism and courage.
I would like to also thank the members of the Florida congressional
delegation for their strong support of this legislation. I would also
like to recognize the Agami family: Parents, Beth and Itzhak; brother,
Ilan and his wife, Elisha; sister, Shaina; and grandmother, Sandy
Becker. The Agami family will be in Washington D.C. later this week
where they will celebrate and honor Daniel's life and memory.
I urge passage of this piece of legislation.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill to designate the
facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4233 West
Hillsboro Boulevard Coconut Creek, Florida, as the Army SPC Daniel
Agami Post Office Building.
{time} 1430
United States Army Specialist Daniel J. Agami was, in the words of
his grandmother, ``the best of the best.'' He was much more than a
soldier. He was a leader, a selfless patriot, and a joyous young man
with a huge heart.
Born in Ohio, Daniel moved with his family to south Florida when he
was 4. He attended the Hebrew Academy Community School and Coconut
Creek High School and was in college when he decided he was meant for a
higher purpose. Without consulting friends or family, Daniel answered
his calling and enlisted in the Army.
Daniel brought the Army more than service and bravery. He brought his
good humor, his tremendous heart and the moral conviction that he
served something far greater than himself.
Affectionately known by his fellow soldiers as ``GI Jew,'' he strove
constantly to improve the lives of those around him. When he was not
educating his fellow soldiers about his religion, he was serving as a
mentor to orphaned children in Iraq. In the words of his father, ``He
had 10,000 friends, and 10,000 friends thinking he was their best
friend.''
On June 21, 2007, Daniel Agami was killed while on patrol in Baghdad.
He was only 25. More than 1,000 people attended his funeral. He was
posthumously promoted to specialist, and his parents were presented
with a number of medals, including the Bronze Star, Purple Heart and
the Good Conduct Medal.
Daniel died defending his core belief that America fights for the
freedom and survival of the entire world. As one friend recalled, ``He
had said that if, God forbid, anything happened to him, this is where
he belonged.''
A loving son, brother, grandson and friend, Daniel Agami will be
missed, and not just by those 10,000 best friends, but by all Americans
who cherish freedom and courage and honor.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that the life of this
courageous young man and all that he stood for will not soon be
forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
might consume.
Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the House subcommittee with oversight
authority for the United States Postal Service, I
[[Page 19476]]
stand in support of H.R. 6338, which renames a postal facility in
Coconut Creek, Florida, in honor of Specialist Daniel Agami.
H.R. 6338 enjoys the support of the entire House delegation from
Florida and was introduced by my colleague, Representative Ron Klein,
on June 20, 2008. The measure was taken up by the Oversight Committee
on July 16, 2008, where it was passed by voice vote.
H.R. 6338 calls for honoring Specialist Daniel Agami for his
unwavering commitment, service and sacrifice to America. Army
Specialist Daniel Agami died on June 21, 2007, in Baghdad from injuries
he suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated near his
vehicle. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment,
2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany.
While in college in 2005, he enlisted in the Army and was deployed to
serve in Iraq the following year. Army Specialist Agami not only served
as a combat soldier, but he was also a mentor for orphaned children in
Iraq. Described as having a sunny personality, he was loved by the
children he worked with and is certainly missed.
Daniel's parents were presented with his Purple Heart and Bronze Star
at his funeral. Agami was also posthumously honored with the Good
Conduct Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Iraqi
Campaign Medal and the Combat Infantryman's Badge.
In honor of his tremendous service to this country, I urge my
colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 6338 and renaming the postal
facility on West Hillsboro Avenue in Coconut Creek, Florida, after
Specialist Daniel Agami.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of
H.R. 6338, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would urge passage and yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 6338.
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 FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
MICKEY MANTLE POST OFFICE BUILDING
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the Senate bill (S. 171) to designate the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 301 Commerce Street in
Commerce, Oklahoma, as the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 171
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MICKEY MANTLE POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 301 Commerce Street in Commerce, Oklahoma,
shall be known and designated as the ``Mickey Mantle Post
Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``Mickey Mantle Post Office Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
S. 171 renames a postal facility in Commerce, Oklahoma, in honor of
Mickey Mantle, the great American baseball player.
The House Oversight Committee received S. 171 after it had been
considered and passed by our colleagues in the Senate. The measure was
originally introduced by Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma back on
January 4, 2007, and the Oversight Committee passed the bill by voice
vote on June 12, 2008.
S. 171 calls for honoring Mickey Mantle by designating the post
office in his hometown of Commerce, Oklahoma, as the Mickey Mantle Post
Office Building. Mickey Mantle was born on October 20, 1931. Named
Mickey by his father after the Philadelphia Athletics Hall of Fame
catcher, Mantle is one of the greatest American baseball players of all
time. In 1974, he was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame,
and his uniform number 7 was retired, celebrating his 18 years of
playing for the New York Yankees.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of Mickey Mantle, let us pass, without
reservation, S. 171 and rename the post office facility on Commerce
Street in Commerce, Oklahoma, after this legendary American athlete.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of S. 171, to rename the post office in
Commerce, Oklahoma, for the town's most famous citizen, Mickey Charles
Mantle.
Mickey Mantle was a true American hero. He was an outfielder for the
New York Yankees, a first-ballot Hall of Famer with 536 career home
runs. When he hit them, they flew.
He hit the longest home run ever at the old Yankee Stadium--it hit
the top facade in right field--and the longest ever at Washington's old
Griffith Stadium and at Detroit's old Tiger Stadium. The term ``tape-
measure home run'' was invented when the Yankees' traveling secretary
used a tape to measure the Griffith Stadium blast at 565 feet.
Named for Mickey Cochrane, another baseball Hall of Famer--Mantle
often joked that he was glad his father didn't know Cochrane's real
first name was Gordon--the Mick was a three-sport star at Commerce
High. A New York Yankees' scout who came to see a teammate play in a
semipro game saw Mantle hit titanic home runs from both sides of the
plate and tried to sign him on the spot, only to find that he was still
16, still in high school, and ineligible for pro ball. The scout told
Mickey he would return the day he graduated from high school, and he
did.
Four years later the Mick was in right field in Yankee Stadium, and
Joe DiMaggio was patrolling center field. Both took off to run down a
scorched liner to right field. As they arrived at the ball, DiMaggio
called off Mantle. Mantle tried to stop, but caught his cleats in a
sprinkler head. He went down ``like he was shot,'' said one observer.
In many ways, this blazing fast, preternaturally powerful athlete was
never the same. He went on to win a Triple Crown in 1956, claim three
American League Most Valuable Player awards, make 16 All-Star teams and
win seven world championships. He still holds the records for most home
runs, RBIs, runs, walks, extra-base hits and total bases in the World
Series.
As great as he was, the question that dogs his legacy is, what if?
What if he had stayed healthy? What if he had never contracted
osteomyelitis, a crippling bone disease in high school? What if he had
never been plagued by other diseases and injuries, including
alcoholism?
He is number 17 on the list of the greatest 100 players of all time.
Where might he have ended up otherwise?
[[Page 19477]]
Who in baseball history might today be considered above him?
The Mick was not a great businessman, and many of the ventures he
funded with his top salaries for the Yankees proved unsuccessful. But
he made another fortune in the memorabilia market. His signature and
artifacts fetched sums second only to those of Babe Ruth.
Why? He moved with a breathtaking grace. He was that rarest of
commodities, the fastest and most powerful guy on the team. Moreover,
he smiled. He connected with fans. He looked like he was having fun.
Even though he was as far culturally from a New Yorker as he could be,
the Yankee faithful embraced him. He later teamed with fellow Oklahoman
and Yankee Bobby Murcer to raise money for victims of the Oklahoma City
bombing.
He led an imperfect life, but he did what he could to redeem himself.
He went into treatment and later turned to faith to deal with his
increasing infirmities. When he died on August 13, 1995, in Dallas, Bob
Costas, the famous sportscaster, gave his eulogy. Costas described him
as ``a fragile hero to whom we had an emotional attachment so strong
and lasting that it defied logic. In his last year of his life, Mickey
Mantle, always so hard on himself, finally came to accept and
appreciate the distinction between a role model and a hero. The first,
he often was not. The second, he always will be.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California, Representative Baca.
Mr. BACA. I appreciate Congresswoman Virginia Foxx talking about
Mickey Mantle. He was an idol to many of us that played a lot of
sports. I know as a young gentleman who was playing during that period
of time, I admired Mickey Mantle.
Not only was he a positive role model for myself, in terms of trying
to aspire to become a professional baseball player during the time I
was in high school, but he was a coal miner, an individual that came
from that area in Oklahoma that showed us that with hard work and
dedication that you can make it.
Not only hearing the history of his personal life but what he did for
a lot of us, because not only did he hit from both sides of the plate,
which is very important for many individuals, we saw a switch hitter
that could hit a lot from both the left and the right. We saw the
competition that he led with Roger Maris during that period of time
when they were competing for the home run championship.
I think having a post office named after Mickey Mantle is a great
honor for many individuals, especially as we look at many of the Little
Leaguers that play in Little League right now that look towards major
league ball players who have played in the past who were a positive
inspiration to many of us who say that if you can lead, you can be an
inspiration to a lot of us. Therefore, I say that we should support
this kind of legislation in naming the Mickey Mantle Post Office
Building.
I support the legislation, which is S. 171, and I compliment
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx for carrying on and going through a whole
history of his history and background, where he came from.
{time} 1445
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, all of my family were Yankee fans. My father
and uncles and all of the family were strong Yankee fans. They were
born and raised in New York City. They were Yankee fans and certainly
Mickey Mantle fans. I know they would be pleased to see me presenting
this bill on the floor today.
But I know they also would be upset with me if I did not talk about
the problems we are facing in this country related to gas prices
because most of my family, as they got older, moved out of New York
City and moved out into rural areas, where they didn't have access any
longer to mass transit as they had had when they lived in New York
City, and depended on having automobiles and having to drive and pay
for gasoline.
What we are seeing now in this country is a very big burden on people
who live in rural areas such as my district where most of the people
are without access to mass transit.
I want to talk a little bit about the failure of the Democrats in
charge of this Congress for not doing anything to bring down the price
of gasoline. Speaker Pelosi in 2006 promised that the Democrats had a
commonsense plan to bring down the price of gasoline. We haven't seen
that commonsense plan. The bill that passed yesterday was a sham and an
illusion. It was a way to simply give cover to Democrats who are in
tough reelection situations. I think it is a real shame. Not only are
we hurting people who live in rural areas, but we are hurting the
baseball fans who would like to be able to go to baseball games and be
able to celebrate this wonderful game we are talking about when we
honor Mickey Mantle.
One of the things that was wrong with the bill that passed, there was
nothing there to be able to stop all of the legal challenges by radical
environmental groups that are blocking or significantly delaying oil
leases and production. We now know from having done some investigation
that radical environmentalists are challenging every single lease that
is being awarded to be able to bring more gas and oil online.
In February 2008, the administration issued 487 leases in the Chukchi
Sea sale 193, and every single one of those has been challenged under
the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.
In addition, for 2007-2012, there was a 5-year OCS leasing program,
and every single one of those leases has been challenged.
There are 748 leases in the Chukchi-Beaufort Seas which have been
challenged.
What Republicans wanted to do, and we had absolutely no opportunity
to be able to do so, was to bring amendments to these bills, another
promise broken by the Democrats in charge of the Congress.
We were told when the Democrats took over that we would be in the
most open, most bipartisan Congress in the history of the Congress. All
bills would be brought through committee, all bills would be allowed to
be amended on the floor. So far that has been a hollow promise. The so-
called energy bill that was passed yesterday was never brought to
committee. It should have been assigned to about eight different
committees. It didn't go to a single one. It was brought straight to
the floor under a closed rule and no amendments were allowed.
Had we been allowed to offer amendments, one of the things we would
have done would have been to offer an amendment that would have allowed
for lawsuits to be filed. We don't want to stop the judicial process.
However, we think that it should be done in a way that will expedite
these leases.
We keep hearing from the Democrats that the oil companies have
millions of acres under lease that they are not doing. The reason is
their good friends, the trial lawyers and the radical
environmentalists, are stopping the leases from being exercised by
bringing lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit.
We must stop this if we are going to help the American people and
bring down the price of gasoline. The Democrats cannot run away from
their responsibility of being in charge of the Congress and denying the
opportunities that should be presented to the American people to see
the price of gasoline come down.
o while we are here today honoring Mickey Mantle, honoring the
American pastime of baseball, Democrats have to take responsibility for
denying people the opportunity to go to their baseball games and do
other things they would like to do because they are responsible for the
price of gasoline having doubled in the 20 months they have been in
charge of the Congress.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Yesterday Members of Congress had a clear
choice, voting for a plan that sided with American taxpayers and
consumers struggling with energy
[[Page 19478]]
costs or to continue to argue for a plan that sides with the Big Oil
companies reaping the largest profits in American history.
Yesterday, the House, under Democratic leadership, passed the
Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act. Let
me tell you what that plan does. It lowers prices for consumers and
protects taxpayers. It expands domestic drilling offshore and on land.
It expands renewable sources of energy. It increases our security by
freeing America from the grip of foreign oil, and it requires Big Oil
to pay back what it owes taxpayers. It ends the subsidies to the oil
companies, and it creates good-paying jobs right here in America.
The plan that we passed yesterday truly gives the American people an
opportunity to have security and to have a brighter future with
renewables as part of our energy mix.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I wish that what the
gentlewoman had said was true. I wish that the bill that passed
yesterday would do something to bring down the price of gasoline. If
that were true, it would have had a unanimous vote. Instead,
Republicans voted against it and many Democrats voted against it
because we know that the bill is going absolutely nowhere. It was
simply cover for Democrats who are in tight election races.
It is a cynical, cynical ploy on behalf of the Democrats, and I am so
sorry to see that because I think ultimately people will be held
responsible for the cynical ploys that they perpetuate against the
American people.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of
S. 171.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am new to managing bills on
the floor, and I was going to ask if that was the proper procedure, and
so thank you for explaining that to us again on the floor. And I know
that the gentlewoman in no way, shape, or form meant to imply that I
was a liar on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, as a young girl there weren't too many baseball cards I
was actually very interested in collecting. But let me tell you, there
were a few. Harmon Killebrew, Tony Oliva, and I knew if I could get a
Mickey Mantle card, I could collect the other two.
I am very honored to be here today to have the opportunity to support
S. 171. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members of the House to support
this post office renaming of a fabulous athlete, Mickey Mantle of the
New York Yankees.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 171.
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. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
A message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks, announced
that the Senate had passed without amendment bills of the House of the
following titles:
H.R. 5551. An act to amend title 11, District of Columbia
Official Code, to implement the increase provided under the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2008, in the amount
of funds made available for the compensation of attorneys
representing indigent defendants in the District of Columbia
courts, and for other purposes.
H.R. 5893. An act to reauthorize the sound recording and
film preservation programs of the Library of Congress, and
for other purposes.
The message also announced that the Senate has passed a bill and a
concurrent resolution of the following titles in which the concurrence
of the House is requested:
S. 3023. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve and enhance compensation and pension, housing, labor
and education, and insurance benefits for veterans, and for
other purposes.
S. Con. Res. 87. Concurrent resolution congratulating the
Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration
of independence.
____________________
CEECEE ROSS LYLES POST OFFICE BUILDING
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 6772) to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce,
Florida, as the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6772
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CEECEE ROSS LYLES POST OFFICE BUILDING.
(a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce,
Florida, shall be known and designated as the ``CeeCee Ross
Lyles Post Office Building''.
(b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation,
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the
facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be
a reference to the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office
Building''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, I rise in support of H.R. 6772 which aims to rename
the postal facility in the city of Fort Pierce, Florida, after CeeCee
Ross Lyles, who was a flight attendant aboard United Airlines Flight 93
during the horrible attacks of 9/11.
H.R. 6772, which was introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mahoney) on August 1, 2008, was reported from the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform on September 10, 2008, by voice vote.
The measure has the support of Florida's entire House congressional
delegation and recognizes Mrs. Lyles for the upstanding life she lived
and the legacy she leaves behind.
CeeCee Ross Lyles has been described as a strong, smart, street-savvy
young lady. Before becoming a flight attendant, she spent 6 years on
the Fort Pierce Police Department where she worked her way from patrol
officer to detective and was respected widely by her colleagues.
Although CeeCee enjoyed working as a law enforcement officer, on
October 11, 2000, she walked away from her job as a cop to pursue a
lifelong goal of hers, which was to become an airline flight attendant.
It was this decision that would lead her to join the ranks of United
Airlines on the morning of September 11, 2001. Along with other crew
members and passengers, she would be faced with the unthinkable, a
hijacked airline carrier.
Moments before Flight 93 went down in the field of Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, CeeCee dialed home twice on a cell phone to tell her
husband, Lorne, of the hijacking and to send her love to her boys,
Javon, Jerome, Justin and Jordon.
[[Page 19479]]
A devout wife and mother to her sons, CeeCee lost her life far too
early, like so many others on that tragic day in history. While last
week the country stopped to remember the victims of 9/11, today we take
a moment to acknowledge one individual in particular, and that is
CeeCee Ross Lyles, crew member of Flight 93.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting H.R.
6772, which renames the Orange Avenue Post Office in Fort Pierce,
Florida, after Ms. Lyles, an honor certainly befitting of this fallen
hero. Again, I urge passage of the bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of this bill designating the facility of the
United States Postal Service located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort
Pierce, Florida, as the CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building.
{time} 1500
Born and raised in Fort Pierce, CeeCee Ross Lyles was a role model in
her community. She worked several jobs to support her family and still
found time to volunteer at a local Christian women's shelter.
For 6 years Lyles served at the Fort Pierce Police Department. During
that time she became known for her willingness to tackle fleeing
criminals, worked her way up to detective, and was up for a promotion
to sergeant.
In October 2000, Lyles saw a chance to pursue a lifelong dream and
left the Fort Pierce Police Department. Through employment with United
Airlines as a flight attendant, Lyles found new experiences and
opportunities to travel.
Sadly, her life ended less than a year later, on September 11, 2001.
Lyles was among the heroic crew on United Flight 93, which, along with
the passengers on board that day, overtook the terrorists and prevented
them from completing their diabolical plot.
Ultimately, the plane crashed in a field in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, killing the 44 people on board, but saving an untold
number of American lives, including, perhaps, many of us as that plane
almost certainly was headed for this building. Moments before the plane
went down, Lyles called her husband and prayed for her family, herself
and everyone aboard the plane.
CeeCee Ross Lyles was a loving wife and mother and a devoted member
of her community whose life was cut short by the tragic events on
September 11, 2001. I urge my colleagues to support this bill in her
memory.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Florida, Representative Mahoney.
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6772,
my bill to name the United States Post Office at 1717 Orange Avenue in
Fort Pierce, Florida after CeeCee Ross Lyles, a true hero from my
district who died tragically on September 11, 2001.
I would like to thank Chairman Waxman and his staff for their help in
moving this very important piece of legislation to the floor. I would
also like to acknowledge my distinguished colleague, Mr. Hastings, who
also represents Fort Pierce, for his support of the bill, and all the
other colleagues who represent the State of Florida who unanimously
support this important piece of legislation.
CeeCee Ross Lyles was a flight attendant on United Airlines Flight
93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11. Passengers
on the flight, along with CeeCee and other flight attendants, fought
back against the hijackers after learning that other planes had been
flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Shortly before Flight 93 crashed, CeeCee called her husband, Lorne,
and told him she loved him and she loved her children.
CeeCee was born and raised in Fort Pierce where she served as a
police officer for 6 years. In those years as a police officer, she had
worked her way from patrol officer to detective, and was respected for
her willingness to tackle fleeing criminals.
Fulfilling a lifelong goal to travel, she became a United Airlines
flight attendant in 2000, where she served with distinction.
CeeCee had a true and giving spirit. She loved her volunteer work at
a women's shelter that two of her aunts helped found in Fort Pierce.
Through her work at the shelter she served as a role model, showing
women that they could make their own way if they tried hard enough.
I am proud to name this post office in honor of a true American hero,
CeeCee Ross Lyles. I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring this
most worthy hero.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
6772, a resolution designating the post office located at 1717 Orange
Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office
Building.'' As a cosponsor of this legislation, I would like to like to
express my appreciation for the effort of my good friend from Florida,
Congressman Tim Mahoney, for introducing this important legislation. He
and I share the privilege of representing Fort Pierce in the House.
Through the designation of this post office we honor the memory of
Ms. CeeCee Ross Lyles. Ms. Lyles was a flight attendant aboard United
Flight 93 on that fateful day, 9/11 over 7 years ago. Shortly before
the plane crashed, Ms. Lyles called her husband to tell her that she
loved him. While her time on earth was cut short by terrorists, her
memory will live on in our community. This post office designation will
forever commemorate the life of Ms. Lyles.
Ms. Lyles was a true Fort Pierce Floridian through and through. She
was born and raised in Fort Pierce and later served as a police officer
for 6 years there. In 2003, the City of Fort Pierce erected a statue of
Ms. Lyles in the Liberty Garden at Veteran Memorial Park.
The legislation before us today ensures the memory of Ms. Lyles and
all other 9/11 victims live on in our collective memory. I urge swift
passage of this legislation to properly recognize and memorialize the
heroes of 9/11 and the life of Ms. CeeCee Ross Lyles.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support the passage of
H.R. 6772, and yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM 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
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6772.
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. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 221ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGNING OF THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1356) celebrating the 221st
anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States of
America, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1356
Whereas the Constitution of the United States of America
was formally signed on September 17, 1787, by 39 delegates
from 12 States;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States was
subsequently ratified by each of the original 13 States;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States was drafted
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice,
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty for citizens of our Nation;
Whereas the liberties enjoyed by the citizens of the United
States today are rooted in this cherished document that gave
birth to our Nation;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States serves as the
foundation for citizens
[[Page 19480]]
of the United States to accomplish a level of prosperity,
security, justice, and freedom unsurpassed by any other
country;
Whereas the Constitution of the United States is a model
for establishing freedom in other countries;
Whereas the Members of the House of Representatives take an
oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States; and
Whereas September 17, 2008, is the 221st anniversary of the
signing of the Constitution of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) celebrates the 221st anniversary of the signing of the
Constitution of the United States of America;
(2) honors the efforts of the 42 delegates who attended the
majority of the Constitutional Convention meetings and the 39
signers of the Constitution of the United States;
(3) acknowledges the significance of the ideals established
by the Constitution of the United States, including the
principle of a limited Federal Government with a system of
checks and balances between the 3 branches;
(4) recognizes the Constitution of the United States as the
source responsible for our Nation's ability to withstand
calamity and preserve national stability, or as Thomas
Jefferson wrote, ``Our peculiar security is in the possession
of a written Constitution''; and
(5) encourages the citizens of the United States of
America, who have the privilege to share in the freedoms
recognized in the Constitution of the United States, to join
with the House of Representatives in this historic
celebration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Minnesota.
General Leave
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today marks the 221st anniversary of the signing of the
U.S. Constitution, the document that is the basis for our country and
the government it is built upon. House Resolution 1356, as introduced,
is designed to pay tribute to this historical event.
The supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution was adopted on
September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, thereby replacing the Articles of Confederation. Shortly
after the signing of the Constitution, each State held individual
conventions in order to ratify the document in the name of the people.
Since its inception, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, with
the first 10 amendments, of course, being our Bill of Rights and other
significant amendments, including the 13th amendment abolishing
slavery, the 14th amendment which bestowed the right of due process
upon all citizens, and the 19th amendment which forbid the denial of
the right to vote based on gender.
Mr. Speaker, much can be said about the growth and development of our
Nation and the fact that through all of it, whether in times of peace
or war, the U.S. Constitution has withstood the test of time. On this,
the 221st anniversary of the signing, let us stand in unison, putting
aside our partisan distinctions and differences in order to celebrate,
as Americans, strong and mighty, the framing document of our country,
the U.S. Constitution.
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for offering this measure, and
I am sure my colleagues will join me in supporting the passage of House
Resolution 1356.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honor to be able to be here today and
speak on the anniversary of our Constitution. On this day, 221 years
ago, the Constitution of the United States was signed in Philadelphia.
Today we honor the hard work and commitment of the 42 delegates to that
Constitutional Convention. In retrospect, the accomplishment of those
delegates continues to grow and sets a bar for legislative
effectiveness for nations all over the world to try to equal.
When I go out and talk to school groups about serving in Congress, I
always use the Constitution as my point of reference, and I try to
point out to them what a radical idea this entire country is and was.
At the time that we sought our independence from Great Britain, no
people in the world had ever sought to set themselves up in the way our
government did. The Constitution is the basis of all that has helped
make us and keep us great.
The Constitution signed that day contained only 4,400 words. It is
the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government in
the world. Yet in those few words, the framers laid out a plan for
self-government which has insured American liberty, adapted to
technological and cultural changes, and expanded civil liberty in this
Nation over the past two centuries.
I also point out to those school children that in my opinion the most
important words written, outside the Bible, are the words ``We the
People'' which begin the preamble to the Constitution, because, again,
that was a radical notion in those days.
The delegates who gathered in Philadelphia faced a daunting task. The
Nation had already experienced failure in the form of the Articles of
Confederation which did little to unify the States into a coherent
national unit.
So the question was certainly an open one: Could these delegates, who
came from every corner of the Nation and every walk of life, find a new
way to create a functioning, unified nation while still respecting the
rights and needs of each individual region and State?
They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations. The form of
government developed by these delegates wasn't perfect, but the
foundation they laid sustained us through wars and times of internal
tumult.
The question for all Americans today is, what can we learn from the
accomplishment of the framers of our Constitution?
Certainly they taught us there's no shame in contending forcefully
for your convictions. But they also taught us that the discipline of
respect for your adversary and the virtue of understanding how and when
to strike the best compromise possible are the foundations of civil
discourse. These are lessons every American would do well to remember.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who brought this forward for
us to debate today, to have 5 minutes of time.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of
legislation because we not only recognize the Constitution of the
United States, but we do what President Clinton said just a few weeks
ago in Denver, and that is, that we will be known by the power of our
example, rather than the example of our power. This is what makes
America the greatest country in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate both the signing of the
Constitution and the fundamental principles of the document that each
of us pledge to uphold and defend when we take our oath of office.
And I am proud to wear this every day by my heart, as with our great
patriarch in the Senate, Senator Byrd.
Alexander Hamilton once said, ``The sacred rights of mankind are not
to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are
written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the
hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by
mortal power.''
The Constitution upholds our rights. We are given these rights by our
Maker. That's what makes us all equal at birth, regardless of our
religious background, our ethnicity or anything.
Hamilton understood that the rights our founders enshrined in the
construction come not from men but from God.
[[Page 19481]]
That's what makes us all equal, not the Constitution.
Today, 221 years after its signing, public school students across the
country will be studying the history of the Constitution. They will
learn about James Madison, the father of the Constitution and his
vision for the Federal Government. They will learn about the separation
of powers into a legislative branch, and executive and judiciary
branches, and they will learn about the checks and balances designed to
keep one of those departments, one of those areas, those branches from
growing too powerful.
Hear me, Mr. Speaker. These are the enduring principles that have
stood the test of time. They've become the inspiration and the basis
for the governments of countless countries around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if, on this day when we celebrate this
Constitution, I did not discuss the willful disregard for the
fundamental principles of our Republic that we have seen over the last
8 years.
Today we have an executive that has disregarded the checks and
balances enshrined in the Constitution that have sustained our
government for the past two centuries. They have shown complete
contempt for article I, section 8, which defines the powers of the
Congress in their management of the war and of our economy. I am sad to
say that we all have allowed this power to be ceded, both sides of the
aisle. Neither party has been a sentinel of our precious Constitution.
{time} 1515
We have seen nothing but obstruction in our attempts to perform
meaningful oversight of our Federal Government.
The administration's secrecy and unwillingness to cooperate with the
Congress' constitutionally mandated oversight powers have reached the
point of ridiculousness. We have actually had to sue the Federal
Government--hear this--the Congress had to sue the Federal Government
because they refused to comply with duly authorized subpoenas. This is
not a respect of the Constitution. This is a disregard.
The fourth amendment bans ``cruel and unusual punishment'' and the
fourteenth guarantees ``due process under the law.'' Sadly, America is
now seen as a country that will hold detainees indefinitely and torture
them without bringing charges.
The Constitution prohibits ``unreasonable searches and seizures,''
yet we do know that this administration established a program to
secretly wiretap on Americans who did no harm to their country, who
love their country.
Today, the Congress honors the Constitution. Over the past 8 years,
it seems like the Executive has forgotten even its existence. This is
not hyperbole. This is documented. The redactive administration has
corrupted the ideals of our forefathers. They fondled fear to cover up
their addiction to secrecy and will be held accountable soon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. PASCRELL. The Constitution belongs to neither political party,
neither party, nor is it a document to be possessed solely by the
President's attorneys. The most egregious apologists of the
constitutional interpretation are those down at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue who thought it was the throne they were defending.
The Constitution truly completed our separation from Great Britain,
thank God. We are no longer their possession, nor are we the possession
of the executive branch of government. We will be known by the power of
our example, and not the example of our power.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my
distinguished colleague from the State of New Jersey and the author of
this resolution, Mr. Garrett.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady for her shepherding
this through. She should get a gold star for all of her work on the
floor today. I also thank the Chair and the ranking members for helping
facilitate this bill going through committee and now coming to the
floor today.
As was already indicated, today, September 17, marks a very important
anniversary, the signing of our Constitution 221 years ago. Our
Founding Fathers in this country came together in an attempt to form
something, form a more perfect union, to establish justice and secure
the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity.
I'm honored to be the sponsor of this resolution, which recognizes
those 39 extremely brave men who gave all they had in signing our
Nation's founding document. Too often, we forget not only the names of
these men but the challenges that they faced and what they put at risk
when they came together to do this.
For example, our Founding Fathers originally met in Philadelphia to
rework the Articles of Confederation. That was the document, you see,
which had governed the country after the time of the War of
Independence, and really, no one was expecting them to draft an
entirely new system of government. And yet, that's what they did, and
none of them were certain at that time that this new document would be
ratified at all, and I doubt they even recognized the ingenuity of
their final product.
Yet today, here we are over 200 years later. I think we really take
our system for granted and I hope this resolution in some small way
will help remind us that the Constitution is a profound document. Our
prosperity today and over the 200-some-odd years is built upon the
stability of the Constitution. And our posterity to the future has to
thank the liberties and freedoms that are set forth and guaranteed in
this document.
We see other nations around the world have followed in our footsteps
by promoting the principles found in our U.S. Constitution, and
although it's already been pointed out the U.S. Constitution is a
relatively short document, the Founders really get too little credit
for their clear and clever direction in it. They intended to set up a
Republic of essentially sovereign, self-governing States, with a very
small and central but limited government, operating under clearly
defined, and as they say, limited powers.
It was James Madison who wrote in the Federalist Papers at No. 45
that: ``The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the
Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in
the State governments are numerous and indefinite.''
Every time any Member of Congress comes to the floor and they take
out their card, about to vote on a particular piece of legislation,
they should do what we're doing right now, and that is to reflect upon
the U.S. Constitution. And they should be asking themselves is what
they're about to vote on constitutional.
The gentleman from New Jersey--I'm pleased to see him on the floor
with me tonight--raised some of those very same questions. And in light
of his comments, I guess we should all have raised those questions last
night, as well, as we dealt with the energy package in legislation that
came through this House, because, as I indicated a moment before and
as, actually, the gentleman from New Jersey already indicated, we were
breaking away from Britain at that time to provide the liberties and
the freedoms here for the respective States in this country through the
War of Independence and then established here in the Constitution. So,
too, did our Founding Fathers intend those rights would, as they
indicated with Federalist No. 45, remain with those States.
What we did last night was abrogated those rights, took away those
rights from them, from the respective States, to a very basic source of
income and power to those States, to direct what should become of their
futures with regard to an important issue such as energy. Legislation
that we did last night put on severe restrictions as to the 50 States,
at least our coastal States, as to what they can do and what
remuneration they might see if they did take particular action with the
developing resources, in this case, energy resources, within their
States.
[[Page 19482]]
And so although a lot of the discussion yesterday was on the
political ramifications and some of the discussion was on the
environmental ramifications, I'm not sure that there was any discussion
on the constitutional implications of what was done yesterday and
whether we, as Members of Congress, as we took our card and put it in
there voting ``yes'' or ``no,'' were considering whether we had the
constitutional authority actually to take those rights away from the
people that we represent back at home in our respective States, whether
we had the constitutional authority to say to those States, no, we're
prescribing, no, we're placing limits on your ability to have freedom
and prosperity for this generation and future generations, as well, by
the limits Congress is placing on them.
As the founder and chairman of the Constitution Caucus, I urge my
fellow Members here in Congress today going forward then to renew our
dedication to faithfully fulfilling our responsibility to the U.S.
Constitution. Likewise, I encourage all Americans to take the time
today and throughout the rest of the year to reflect upon this
important doctrine, to reflect upon the U.S. Constitution, to ensure
that freedoms set forth in it, the rights that are set forth in it, are
preserved today and for our posterity.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the comments by both of
our colleagues from New Jersey, and I am very grateful for the
leadership that Congressman Garrett has given to us in the Constitution
Caucus.
I want to say that, as I've said before, I often speak to school
groups, and when I do, I always make sure that I use the Constitution
as my beginning point. And one of the things that I talk about is the
fact that the article I, which enumerates the power of the Congress, is
not an accident. The Framers of the Constitution, the Founders of this
country, wanted the majority of the power to remain within the elected
bodies, and particularly in the House of Representatives, which is
elected every 2 years, and we're known as the people's House.
I want to say that I agree with my colleague from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett) that one of the major problems that exists in this Congress
now is the fact that we seem to have ignored amendment 10 of the
Constitution, which says, ``The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''
I think that one of the reasons some of our colleagues believe that
we've abrogated our responsibilities of oversight to the executive
branch, which the Framers never expected to be very powerful, is that
we have become engaged in way too many things in this Congress and we
can't stick to our knitting. We don't look after the things that we
should be looking after because we're doing the things that the States
should be doing and that the people should be doing, and if we would
adhere to the Constitution, we could do a much better job of what we
came here to do or at least what many of us came here to do.
So I would say that the problem is within the Congress itself because
we don't leave enough time to do the things that we should be doing and
that are given to us by the Constitution, and we get involved in doing
things that the States should be doing and the people themselves should
be doing.
And certainly, the bill last night that was passed on this floor is
an excellent example of that, and I thank my colleague for bringing it
up as an excellent example.
I reserve the balance of our time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk a little bit more about this
issue of the Constitution and the problem that we're having again right
now with our not adhering to our responsibilities in this Congress.
Article I, again, is what gives power to the Congress. There's
nowhere in the Constitution where the President has the power to do
what we should be doing right now, which is opening up the supply of
oil and gas for the people of this country.
We have that power. Day after day, night after night, members of the
other party come to the floor and blame our sitting President for every
ill in this country. Unfortunately, we simply cannot pass off our
responsibilities for the things we should be doing and blame them all
on the sitting President. My guess is he's going to be blamed over and
over and over for probably a long period of time for those things.
But the American people are smarter than that. They know that the
Congress itself has the responsibility for doing many of the things
that we do not do, and again, the bill yesterday is an example of that.
We had a great opportunity to pass a bill yesterday that would have
created more American energy, but my colleagues on the other side don't
seem to be in favor of more American energy. They seem to be anti-
American energy, just as many other things that they support seem to be
anti-American power and anti-American control.
We can completely eliminate our dependence on foreign sources of oil,
and we should be doing that, but we aren't doing that. I urge the
American people to pay attention to who is in charge of the Congress
right now and say to your Members on the other side, we want you to
bring real bills, not sham bills, not illusory bills, but real bills to
the floor to be voted on.
{time} 1530
I reserve the balance of my time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if you
heard that the gentlewoman said that the Democrats on this side of the
aisle were anti-American.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman from Minnesota stating a
parliamentary inquiry?
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary
inquiry.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. The last speaker just referred to the
Democrats, including myself, as anti-American. Is that a custom and
usage of this House to refer to one another in such a manner?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair doesn't give advisory opinions,
but the Chair would ask that all Members address their remarks to the
Chair and maintain proper decorum.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been addressing my comments to
the Speaker.
I want to say, again, that I thank the gentlemen from New Jersey for
bringing this resolution, H. Res. 1356, to the Congress today to vote
on. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both of the
gentlemen from New Jersey for discussing the Constitution today.
Today, we, as Members of Congress, have seen the streets around the
Capitol and the Halls of Congress filled with young school students,
the very future of our country. They're here to learn about our
Government and to better understand our Constitution. So let us, we,
who have the honor to represent the people, join together in unison for
support for House Resolution 1356.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
H.R. 1356, Celebrating the 221st anniversary of the signing of the
Constitution of the United States of America and honoring the efforts
of the 42 delegates who attended the majority of the Constitutional
Convention meetings and the 39 signers, introduced by my distinguished
colleague Representative Garrett. This legislation acknowledges the
significance of the ideals established by the Constitution, including
the principle of a limited Federal Government with a system of checks
and balances, and recognizes the Constitution as the source responsible
for our Nation's ability to withstand calamity and preserve stability.
[[Page 19483]]
QUOTE
``Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be
maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.''--Abraham
Lincoln.
Background
The members of the Constitutional Convention signed the United States
Constitution on September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The
Constitutional Convention convened in response to dissatisfaction with
the Articles of Confederation and the need for a strong centralized
government. After 4 months of secret debate and many compromises, the
proposed Constitution was submitted to the States for approval.
Although the vote was close in some States, the Constitution was
eventually ratified and the new Federal Government came into existence
in 1789. The Constitution established the U.S. Government as it exists
today.
The Constitution represents the founding of our Government as we know
it today. For 221 years, the United States has fought to maintain a
democracy that equally represents everyone that resides within the
boundaries of our Nation. Without this sacred document, the rules that
govern our Nation would be obsolete. The concrete separation that
ensures the stability of our Government and thus, our Nation is due to
the Constitutional Convention that we recognize today.
TEXAS
Texas became a member of this great Nation in 1845. Since that
moment, Texas has been proud to be a member of such a great nation like
the United States, and as a Representative for the 18th District of
Texas I am proud to represent my constituents within the legislative
branch of this Government. It takes the help of every branch of
governments at a number of different levels to accomplish all the
things our government is capable of, and today, I am proud to be a
Representative of Texas and the United States. It is a privilege to
represent the people of my State and my district in Washington, DC.
CONCLUSION
I believe we must pass this resolution to demonstrate how proud we
are to celebrate the success of our Founding Fathers and to acknowledge
those who put our system of government on paper allowing the United
States to become such a renowned nation. This resolution encourages us
to remember those intelligent men who put their hearts and souls into
developing a system to give equality and representation to all people,
and as we stand together now, after 221 years, we must recognize their
important part in developing the Constitution that governs our great
Nation today.
Ms. McCOLLUM 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
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1356.
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. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
ALLOWING USE OF PASSENGER FACILITY FEES FOR NOISE REDUCTION AT
CALIFORNIA SCHOOLS
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
Senate bill (S. 996) to amend title 49, United States Code, to expand
passenger facility fee eligibility for certain noise compatibility
projects.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The text of the Senate bill is as follows:
S. 996
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPANDED PASSENGER FACILITY FEE ELIGIBILITY FOR
NOISE COMPATIBILITY PROJECTS.
Section 40117(b) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(7) Noise mitigation for certain schools.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to the uses specified in
paragraphs (1), (4), and (6), the Secretary may authorize a
passenger facility fee imposed under paragraph (1) or (4) at
a large hub airport that is the subject of an amended
judgment and final order in condemnation filed on January 7,
1980, by the Superior Court of the State of California for
the county of Los Angeles, to be used for a project to carry
out noise mitigation for a building, or for the replacement
of a relocatable building with a permanent building, in the
noise impacted area surrounding the airport at which such
building is used primarily for educational purposes,
notwithstanding the air easement granted or any terms to the
contrary in such judgment and final order, if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that the building is
adversely affected by airport noise;
``(ii) the building is owned or chartered by the school
district that was the plaintiff in case number 986,442 or
986,446, which was resolved by such judgment and final order;
``(iii) the project is for a school identified in 1 of the
settlement agreements effective February 16, 2005, between
the airport and each of the school districts;
``(iv) in the case of a project to replace a relocatable
building with a permanent building, the eligible project
costs are limited to the actual structural construction costs
necessary to mitigate aircraft noise in instructional
classrooms to an interior noise level meeting current
standards of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
``(v) the project otherwise meets the requirements of this
section for authorization of a passenger facility fee.
``(B) Eligible project costs.--In subparagraph (A)(iv), the
term `eligible project costs' means the difference between
the cost of standard school construction and the cost of
construction necessary to mitigate classroom noise to the
standards of the Federal Aviation Administration.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Richardson) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Graves) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and to include extraneous material on S. 996.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, today we are considering S. 996, legislation to amend
title 49 of the United States Code to expand passenger facility fee
eligibility for certain noise compatibility projects.
Under the direction of Congressman Costello, chairman of the Aviation
Subcommittee, Americans in California living and attending schools in
the vicinity of airports will now get relief.
The FAA predicts that 1 billion passengers will fly in the United
States by 2016. One of the elements that will limit this national
airspace capacity growth is noise. S. 996 will allow a 2005 agreement
between the Los Angeles World Airports and the Lennox and Inglewood
school districts to go forward providing over $200 million towards
noise mitigation in these school districts over 10 years.
This legislation was introduced by Representative Jane Harman in the
House and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer who passed it in
the Senate by unanimous consent on February 28, 2008, which represents
an appropriate compromise to noise problems for schools surrounding the
Los Angeles Airport.
S. 996 will enable new construction in some instances because sound
insulation and other retrofitting of existing buildings do not always
provide meaningful noise relief. Furthermore, this legislation defines
eligible project cost for any new construction as limited to the
difference in cost between constructing, ordinary building code
standards for schools, and the cost of incorporating noise mitigation
features in construction.
The House passed this language as part of H.R. 2881, the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2007, on September 20, 2007. The Senate has not
acted on the FAA reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, I support S. 996, and I urge my colleagues both on and
off the
[[Page 19484]]
Aviation Subcommittee--and on both sides of the aisle to stay germane
to the topic--to support this good legislation. Students and teachers
deserve quiet classrooms in order to maximize learning.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 996. This bill is going to help
alleviate the impact of airport noise in Los Angeles, California, by
permitting passenger facility charges collected by the Los Angeles
International Airport to be used for noise mitigation during the
construction of a new school.
Furthermore, this bill defines the projects that are eligible to
ensure that money intended for noise mitigation is used for exactly
that and nothing else. This bill is yet another provision to be pulled
from H.R. 2881, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act
of 2007, and moved as a standalone bill.
Unfortunately, our counterparts in the Senate have not been able to
reach an agreement among themselves and pass a comprehensive 4-year
bill, and time is running out to get just such a bill done this year.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Senate to settle their differences and
allow the Congress to send much-needed relief to an agency in turmoil
as well as the flying public.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she might
consume to Congresswoman Jane Harman, the gentlelady from the great
State of California.
Ms. HARMAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. She is one of
the newest Members of Congress, but she is a very active Member of the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, succeeding our late
colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, in that position. I want to
commend her for her interest in this issue and for all she does for the
Ports of L.A. and Long Beach and for Los Angeles International Airport,
LAX, which is near her district, surrounded by my district and
represented by Ms. Waters who is a coauthor of this legislation.
I rise in strong support of this bill, one that I introduced in the
past two Congresses and which, as you heard, has already passed the
Senate.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, sitting at a desk trying to memorize a verse or
tackle a math problem as jet planes roar overhead every 3 minutes. Let
me repeat that. I have been there to see it. Every 3 minutes, a jet
plane roars above the little school buildings in Lennox, California,
immediately east of LAX.
The children of Lennox, a mostly working-class community, manage
amazingly well. I'm enormously proud of the fact that they win
educational awards despite studying in classrooms that resemble
bunkers. And yet Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, despite the fact
that they reached agreement with LAWA, the Los Angeles World Airport
Authority, to receive noise mitigation funds, they've been unable to
get those funds because of a technical glitch in the law.
That means, Mr. Speaker, that school construction has been stalled in
Lennox and in adjacent Inglewood. So we have tried these 3 years to fix
that glitch, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
I want to point out--I don't think the bill's manager said this--that
this bill does not require the expenditure of new funds. All it does is
authorize LAWA to release funds it already has. All it does is provide
emergency relief to a lot of kids in a working-class part of Los
Angeles who have endured the most onerous conditions while trying to
learn.
I want to thank a lot of people for making possible what I hope will
be a victory today: First of all, the leadership of the T&I Committee,
Chairman Oberstar and Ranking Member Mica; Ms. Richardson; my co-author
Ms. Waters; and Senators Boxer and Feinstein, all of whom helped get
this bipartisan bill on the consent calendar today.
I also want to thank former FAA Administrator Marion Blakley who,
while a part of this administration, came to see Lennox, understood
what the problems were, and lent her staff to us to help draft this in
a way that it would get support from the administration. It has the
support of the FAA, it has the support of OMB, it has the support of
the Republican side of the aisle; and it's a model, in my view, of the
way legislation should be developed and passed in this House.
Finally, I want to thank Congressman David Dreier who made sure that
we could get the bill to the floor today. He is not here because just a
few days ago his mother unexpectedly passed away. I want to send my
sympathy to him and his family at a tough time and note that this bill
helps kids just like kids in his Southern California district. This
bill does good things for education, and this bill does good things for
the reputation of this House.
I ask for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri has 19 minutes
remaining.
Mr. GRAVES. I was going to pretty much just talk about the specific
merits of S. 996, but since my colleague pointed out that we should
stay on topic, I think I would just expand just a little bit because
this is an aviation bill, this is talking about--and it was mentioned--
the number of planes flying in and out of Los Angeles International
Airport and just how important that part of the transportation system
is to this country and how much we are going to lose in this country if
pieces of legislation like the un-American energy bill that was passed
last night are enacted into law.
It's unfortunate because so many things in this country travel. Every
single product, every single person in this country travels one way or
another, either by train or by plane or by ship or by barge or by
pipeline or by truck. Everything in this country travels, and we are a
country that is very, very dependent on foreign sources of oil,
unfortunately, for those products that we need for gasoline, for diesel
fuel.
We would like to see, and I would like to see, that dependence
reduced. That dependence needs to be reduced, and we have the resources
right here in the United States. Unfortunately, the bill that was
passed last night locked away the biggest chunk of those resources
permanently. That bill permanently put away any opportunity to go after
those resources off the Outer Continental Shelf between zero and 50
miles where the biggest chunk of those resources are and where it would
be the easiest to go after those resources.
It's unfortunate because there are no alternatives in certain areas
of transportation, for instance, aviation, which we're talking about
today. There are no alternatives but aviation fuel. It comes from
petroleum. No alternatives are out there.
It will be nice one of these days in this country when we do have
alternatives to address some of our issues when it comes to being a
country so dependent on petroleum, on gasoline, and diesel fuel.
{time} 1545
We already have a few great hybrids in this country, whether it's
electricity or ethanol or biofuels. We have some great alternatives.
But if you're talking about real power to pull a train or to drive a
ship or to push a barge or to pull farm machinery or to pull a truck or
to fly an airplane, we have to have fuel. And it's unfortunate that we
continue to see pieces of legislation brought forth in this Chamber
that do absolutely nothing to address our real need in this country.
And we're talking about all of those things that are important to us
for energy--nuclear power, clean-burning coal technology, coal to gas,
more drilling in places like ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf, and
all of those areas throughout the United States that have oil.
And we can do it in such an environmentally friendly way. And that's
one of the most frustrating parts of this entire argument. We can do it
in such an environmentally friendly way because of the technologies
today that allow us
[[Page 19485]]
to do so many different things underground when it comes to those wells
and comes to those rigs. We don't have to hurt our environment to be
dependent on the United States and to Americanize United States
resources. We don't have to harm our environment in any way. We can
work with our environment. And we continue to use those resources that
are un-American.
So it's unfortunate, again, that we passed such an un-American bill
in this Chamber last night. Many of us did not support that bill simply
because it makes us more dependent on those foreign sources of oil and
it locks away the biggest percentage of that oil that we have and those
resources that we have right here in the United States. It didn't even
address the refining issue that we have in the United States and the
capacity problems that we have in the United States. And that's as much
a part of this as anything else.
So all of these modes of transportation, we're going to be doing a
few things here for a little while, talking about different areas of
transportation. It's unfortunate because all of those modes of
transportation carry those goods and those people from one place to
another. And when the price of that energy goes up, it costs consumers
money. It costs everyone out there more money when it comes to
purchasing those products or just transporting themselves from one
place to another.
So again, a very un-American energy bill was passed out of this
Chamber last night. And we hope that we will be able to have an
American energy bill, one that is dependent on American sources,
sometime soon before this Congress breaks in October. This Congress
continues to break time and time again without addressing this issue,
without coming up with a bill that will solve those problems and will
go to the President's desk. And it's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly like to get back to the
topic at hand, which is really discussing the bill of S. 996. So, Mr.
Speaker, I yield as much time as the great lady might consume,
Congresswoman Maxine Waters from the great State of California.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I would like first to thank
Congresswoman Laura Richardson for allotting me time to speak on this
bill that I have coauthored with Congresswoman Jane Harman. I thank her
for her interest.
I had an opportunity to talk with Congresswoman Laura Richardson on
our way to the floor, where she told me about similar problems that she
has encountered in the Long Beach area dealing with the Long Beach
Airport. So I know of her concern, and I thank her for the interest
that she is showing in this bill.
Of course I rise in strong support of S. 996, the Senate companion
bill to H.R. 1708, a bill, again, that was introduced by Congresswoman
Jane Harman and myself. This bill permits funding for noise mitigation
in local schools in the cities of Inglewood and Lennox.
The city of Inglewood is located in my district. Mr. Speaker and
Members, this is a proud little city of 17,750 students. We have 13
elementary schools, six secondary schools, one preschool, and one
community adult school in the Inglewood Unified School District. These
schools are very, very important to this community.
In 2005, the City of Los Angeles settled a lawsuit with the Inglewood
and Lennox School Districts. Under the settlement, the Los Angeles
World Airports, known as LAWA, agreed to provide the two cities funding
for noise mitigation in local schools; however, Federal Aviation
Administration rules have prevented the funds from being paid. S. 996
will allow the 2005 agreement to go forward.
Specifically, S. 996 allows Los Angeles World Airports to use airport
passenger facility fees for noise mitigation projects at Lennox and
Inglewood schools. The bill permits funding of $111 million for the
Lennox District and $118.5 million for the Inglewood School District
over 10 years.
As you know, Los Angeles International Airport is in my district. And
I represent not only Inglewood, but several other communities in this
district and this very important economic engine, the Los Angeles
International Airport. And there are many issues that we are confronted
with.
I belong to a strong coalition in the district working to make sure
that we, of course, maintain and support this economic engine, but at
the same time, make sure that we attend to the needs of the people and
deal with the noise and disruption that is caused by the Los Angeles
International Airport.
It is sometimes a challenge, and we cannot always take the side of
our international airport. We have to be concerned about the quality of
life for all of the people in that area, and particularly our school
children. Airplanes arriving at and departing from Los Angeles
International Airport cause excessive noise in my district. Deafening
noise and rattling windows frequently interfere with the education of
school children. Noise causes disruptions in lessons, making it very
difficult for students to learn and diminishing the opportunity to
study in a stable and calm environment. Noise mitigation funding is
essential to allow the school districts to construct permanent sound-
proof facilities and help soundproof existing schools.
This bill was drafted with the assistance of the Federal Aviation
Administration and has the support of the Inglewood and Lennox School
Districts, the Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), and the mayor of the
City of Los Angeles.
Again, I would like to thank Congresswoman Harman for initiating this
much-needed solution to the problems of noise and disruption that
interferes with our children's ability to learn in a noise-free school
environment.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 996. I do
think it's a good bill. I think it makes sense, obviously. And in light
of time, I will urge support.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague on the other side of
the aisle in great support of this bill, S. 996.
As has been stated by the original author, Ms. Harman, and the
coauthor, Ms. Waters, this is about children having the ability to hear
in the classroom and to learn, which I think is what all Americans are
looking for.
We urge all of our colleagues to support S. 996.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 996, which
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to permit passenger facility
fees to be used for school sound mitigation in certain school districts
in flight paths to the Los Angeles International Airport.
This bill was included as section 113 of H.R. 2881, the ``FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2007,'' which passed the House on September 20,
2007. Regrettably, the other body has been unable to complete action on
the Federal Aviation Administration (``FAA'') reauthorization bill.
Given the Senate inaction on the reauthorization bill, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Harman) has asked the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure to consider S. 996 to allow this time-sensitive
legislation to be enacted in advance of the reauthorization bill.
S. 996 will allow the Los Angeles World Airports and the Lennox and
Inglewood school districts in southern California to execute a 2005
agreement between the airport and the school districts to allow more
than $200 million of passenger facility fees to be used for noise
mitigation in schools in the affected school districts. In some
schools, sound insulation and retrofitting of existing buildings may
not provide meaningful noise relief, so a new building must be
constructed. Pursuant to this legislation, eligible project costs for
any new construction are limited to the difference in cost between
constructing to ordinary building code standards for schools and the
cost of incorporating noise mitigation features in the construction.
Mitigating noise is an important element to expanding capacity in our
national air space. This legislation does just that by helping to
create an environment where students can learn free from the
distraction of jet noise.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S. 996.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The question is on the
[[Page 19486]]
motion offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Richardson) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 996.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the Senate bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
RECOGNIZING NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA, AS ``RAIL TOWN USA''
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 408)
recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 408
Whereas the community of North Platte, Nebraska, in western
Nebraska is located at the convergence of the North and South
Platte Rivers and possesses a rich and vibrant history;
Whereas the railroad has played a significant role in the
history of the community;
Whereas, on January 2, 1867, main line operations
officially commenced in North Platte, Nebraska;
Whereas trains were vital during our country's war efforts,
transporting troops, equipment, and supplies across the
country;
Whereas during World War II hundreds of citizens from North
Platte, Nebraska, assembled at the local depot to greet
troops passing through town by train and provide soldiers
with food, coffee, and gifts;
Whereas for 54 months between 1941 and 1946, millions of
troops found a small bit of comfort when their trains stopped
in North Platte, Nebraska;
Whereas at the war's peak 3,000 to 5,000 personnel were
greeted daily, with North Platte, Nebraska, sometimes hosting
up to 20 trains a day;
Whereas Bailey Yard in North Platte, Nebraska, is the
largest railroad classification yard in the world;
Whereas Bailey Yard covers 2,850 acres, reaching a total
length of 8 miles, and contains 315 miles of track;
Whereas every 24 hours, Bailey Yard handles 10,000 railroad
cars; and
Whereas Mid-Plains Community College in North Platte,
Nebraska, offers railroad-specific courses in order to
enhance student preparation for possible employment in the
railroad discipline: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress recognizes North Platte, Nebraska,
as ``Rail Town USA''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Graves) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
General Leave
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks and include additional materials on House
Concurrent Resolution 408.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing a rebirth of the passenger and freight
rail industry in this country, and it couldn't come soon enough. This
week, Congress is working on legislation that will help provide
solutions to the energy crisis this Nation is facing. One sure way to
do this is to increase the use of passenger and freight rail.
The only current mode of transportation that is greener than rail is
your sneakers. Freight rail has made major gains in fuel efficiency
through training and improved locomotive technology. A single
intermodal train can take up to 280 trucks off of the highways. Today,
one gallon of diesel fuel can move a ton of freight an average of 414
miles, a 76 percent improvement since 1980.
Passenger rail ability to reduce congestion is well known, with
ridership numbers increasing steadily each year. One full passenger
train can take up to 250-350 cars off of the road.
Passenger rail also consumes less energy than both automobiles and
commercial airlines. Every industrialized country in the world is
already using high-speed rail to effectively move citizens in an
environmentally friendly way. Sadly, the United States used to be the
leader in rail; now we're the caboose, and they don't even use cabooses
anymore. Fortunately, we will be changing that with the upcoming
passage of the Amtrak Reauthorization bill.
Today, we celebrate the contributions of our Nation's rail once again
by recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town, USA.''
North Platte has a long and storied history as a railroad town.
During World War II, North Platte hosted up to 20 trains full of
soldiers each day, and today is home to the Bailey Yard, which is
considered the largest rail classification yard in the world, handling
10,000 railroad cars each day.
From 1941-1946, more than six million service men and women were
greeted by North Platte volunteers who provided food, needed supplies
and hospitality to the World War II veterans and provided care baskets
to wounded soldiers returning home.
I want to commend Congressman Smith for this legislation and thank
the town of North Platte, Nebraska, for the contributions to our brave
soldiers during World War II.
I urge Members to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution recognizing North Platte,
Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA.''
North Platte is home to Bailey Yard, recognized by the Guinness Book
of World Records as the world's largest railroad classification yard.
At Bailey Yard, as was pointed out by the gentlelady, an astounding
10,000 rail cars a day are sorted and put together in trains that move
freight all across this country. These trains are loaded with
commodities that keep our economy going, ranging everywhere from
groceries to building supplies, from coal to new automobiles. The yard
is home to over 2,600 hardworking railroad employees. And Bailey Yard
covers 2,850,000 acres containing 315 miles of track.
The Union Pacific Railroad, Madam Speaker, has invested heavily in
Bailey Yard, over $100 million in the modern area. This kind of
investment in rail infrastructure is exactly what this country needs to
keep our economy strong.
Railroads are a very important component of our Nation's
transportation infrastructure and we should continue to support the
rail industry.
In that spirit, I urge passage of H. Con. Res. 408, honoring North
Platte's contribution to our country's economic vitality.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Adrian Smith
who is the original cosponsor, the primary sponsor of this legislation.
I yield him as much time as he may consume.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Thank you, I appreciate that.
First I would like to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Brown,
Ranking Member Mica and Ranking Member Shuster for their support of
this resolution. As you've heard, this resolution would recognize North
Platte, Nebraska, as Rail Town USA. North Platte is a thriving
community of over 25,000 people possessing a rich history dating back
to before it was organized as a city in 1874.
Today North Platte is home to Bailey Yard, owned and operated by the
Union Pacific Railroad. Bailey Yard is the largest rail classification
yard in the world. Every 24 hours, Bailey Yard handles 10,000 railroad
cars and an average of 135 trains bound for cities as distant as the
east, west, and gulf coasts of America, as well as the Canadian and
Mexican borders.
[[Page 19487]]
In addition to the current importance of the railroad to North
Platte, the community and railroad also share a storied past of
goodwill during World War II. For 54 months between 1941 and 1946,
millions of troops found a small bit of comfort when their trains
stopped in North Platte. One December day, word spread that Company D
of Nebraska's National Guard was going to travel through North Platte
later that morning. As it does in close-knit communities, word traveled
rapidly. Though the train was scheduled to arrive mid-morning, no train
had arrived by 4:30 p.m. Shortly thereafter, the nearly 500 people who
had gathered to show support for their fellow Nebraskans were instead
surprised to find the train loaded with troops from Kansas. Though not
their expected native sons and daughters, the Nebraskans gathered would
not let these brave young men travel on without knowing they were
supported and honored. They were offered food, coffee and gifts, just
as if they were Nebraska's own.
Rae Wilson, in fact, a sister to one of the troops from Nebraska,
took it upon herself to write a letter to the local paper suggesting
that citizens gather for all trains of troops passing through North
Platte. On December 22, 1941, a canteen committee was organized, and
Rae was chosen as chairwoman. Just 3 days later, the canteen officially
opened its doors from 5 a.m. to midnight, all volunteers. During its
busiest period, the canteen would be open 24 hours a day, again, all
volunteers honoring the troops.
Before Union Pacific switched to diesel-electric power, North Platte
was a designated servicing point. While the trains were being serviced,
soldiers visited the canteen. At the war's peak, 3,000 to 5,000
personnel were greeted daily with North Platte sometimes hosting up to
20 trains a day. In fact, these volunteers from 125 communities in and
around the State contributed with donations of time, money, supplies,
food and smiles. More than 6 million service men and women who traveled
through Nebraska during World War II were greeted by the North Platte
Canteen. A total of $137,000, and more than that in cash, was
contributed to the canteen over its operation.
Today the effort of the North Platte Canteen during World War II is
still a source of pride within the community and throughout Nebraska.
And the town's relationship with the railroad continues to be
recognized as an important part of North Platte's history.
I would like to elaborate, Madam Speaker, that today, as we look at
the canteen issues and the railroad in general, we know that North
Platte, the railroad and the Bailey Yard contributed significantly to
our energy supply, with coal trains coming through from the coal fields
of Wyoming. They come through Nebraska and many other places, but this
rail yard specifically, and there are thousands of workers,
specifically many workers associated with the United Transportation
Union, who are employed with good jobs contributing to the energy
supply of our Nation.
I only hope that we can come up with a policy that is more friendly
to clean coal. And this can help all of us. This provides jobs for
those in middle America. But more than that, it provides a stimulus
package, if you will, that is through more affordable energy.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Once again I want to add that for
better than 4 years, day in and day out, over 50,000 people contributed
food, money and efforts to one of the proudest moments in our history
during World War II. Day in and day out, from early in the morning
until the last train would leave at night, between 2,000 and 5,000
soldiers and sailors would be fed nearly 200 loaves of bread, 100
pounds of meat, 50 pounds of coffee and over 100 quarts of milk. More
than 300 organizations made sandwiches, boiled eggs, fried chicken and
baked cakes and pies. The war wounded were provided with razors, canes,
toothbrushes and care baskets to make their return home a welcome one.
One of the most famous residents of North Platte was Colonel William F.
Cody, best known as Buffalo Bill. Buffalo Bill made North Platte his
home for more than 30 years.
Today North Platte is the home of Bailey Yard and operated by Union
Pacific Railroad. It is considered the largest rail classification yard
in the world. Every 24 hours, Bailey Yard handles over 10,000 railroad
cars. Bailey Yard handles daily an average of 135 trains bound for
cities as far distant as the east, west and gulf coasts of America, as
well as the Canadian and Mexican borders.
I really want to be one of the ones to offer congratulations and our
thanks as a grateful people to North Platte.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I would yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. The joys of a segue.
It's right in this time to concede that despite Republicans over the
course of August talking about the Democratic majority taking a 5-week
paid vacation, that we do recognize when this institution has acted
with due alacrity. Today we have before us the opportunity to name
North Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA. We could not have done so at a
better time, because jumping into the competition for the coveted title
of Rail Town USA is Washington, D.C.
This week we have seen a bill drafted in the dead of night, sent to
this floor and rubber-stamped by the Democratic majority and proclaimed
to solve America's energy crisis. This is as unfortunate as it is
injurious. America has an energy crisis. It also has representative
institutions who seek to deal with this problem, so the processes put
forward, so that the voices of our constituents could be heard, so that
true compromise could be found.
And yet in Rail Town Washington, what have we seen as a result? A
sham energy bill sent to a Democratic Senate by a Democratic House, and
a pronunciation from a Democratic Senator herself was that the bill was
dead on arrival. What we do today is important to recognize Rail Town
USA. But as the gentlelady pointed out, what Americans can do and the
challenges they can transcend acting together is what truly makes North
Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA, because it shows what, in a time of
crisis, people coming together for the common good, sincerely and
earnestly, putting forth the effort can accomplish. We could well learn
and emulate their efforts. And yet we do not.
In this time where Americans are suffering, they should expect no
less from their servants in Congress than to do this. Because to do
anything else is to diminish not only ourselves as your servants, if
that were possible in this Democratic Congress, but it diminishes the
institution itself as a beacon of representative democracy for all the
world.
Critically, I think we can change this. I think there is still time
that we could learn from the people of North Platte, Nebraska, and
their worthy history, that we still have time to come together. And if
we do not come together before this Congress adjourns, a relatively
short period of time, I suggest we make a commitment to each other,
like the people of North Platte, Nebraska. Let us tell the American
people that until this energy crisis of our time is solved, until their
servants in the United States Congress come together on a truly
bipartisan bill that can be signed into law and relieve your pain at
the pump and guarantee American energy and security, we will stay here.
We will serve the full time that you elected us to work in this Chamber
on your behalf. Because to leave here and go play politics while the
American people suffer is not worthy of this institution, and it is
certainly not worthy of the example set forward by the people of North
Platte, Nebraska, Rail Town USA.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time remains on
both sides, please?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentlewoman from Florida
controls 15 remaining minutes, and the gentleman from Missouri controls
10\1/2\ remaining minutes.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I don't want the people
at home to get confused. Today we
[[Page 19488]]
are honoring the people of North Platte, USA, for their major
contribution as far as rail is concerned. But I think that there is no
stronger bill more that we can do in this Congress than to pass the
Amtrak bill. I want to be clear. I mention that Congress is working on
legislation that would provide solutions to the energy crisis. And the
solution, in my opinion, is not just drilling. That is one of the
comprehensive proposals.
But the major solution to our problem in this country as far as
energy is concerned is not just to provide drilling off the Florida
coast. It is also to provide rail service. We, in this country, as I
say over and over and over again, are the caboose. The caboose. And we
don't use cabooses in trains anymore. I went from downtown Paris to
downtown Brussels, over 200 miles, 1 hour and 15 minutes, downtown
Barcelona to downtown Madrid, 300 miles, in 2\1/2\ hours. That is the
future of our country. We have to move people, goods and services, if
we are going to be competitive with the rest of the world. Our
competition is moving. We need to move America and to understand the
solution to the problem is not by drilling and drilling alone.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to thank the
gentlelady from Florida for pointing out that passing Amtrak or Amtrak
rail service is very important. It is extremely important to be able to
move people around in a much more efficient way. And I might remind the
gentlelady that Amtrak depends on one thing, and that is diesel fuel.
And you can't have diesel fuel if you don't have drilling. As long as
we are dependent on nations such as Saudi Arabia and such as Venezuela,
we're going to be continually at their mercy when it comes to getting
those resources. But we have to have drilling to have diesel fuels to
have trains on the track. It is all interconnected, and it's all very
important.
The gentlelady is exactly right. Rail service in this country can do
a whole lot toward taking vehicles off the road. And bringing our rail
service back in this country I think is a very worthy goal for the
United States. Moving as much goods and people by rail, I think, just
makes it more efficient.
I mentioned before that every single thing in this country moves.
It's either by train or by plane or by ship or by barge or by pipeline
or by truck or by car. But every single thing in this country moves.
And every person in this country moves. And when we get more efficient
and put them on a train, we need diesel fuel. And the only way we are
going to get diesel fuel is to have more oil production in the United
States and be able to refine it.
I appreciate what the gentlelady has done today, particularly with
North Platte. North Platte is one big rail facility, a big rail
facility out in Nebraska. Obviously Adrian is doing a fantastic job for
his area. I want to thank the gentlelady. She has a lot of heart, and
she is one of my favorite people in Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1615
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. In closing, once again let's thank the
people of North Platte for what they have done during World War II.
Also, as we move forward in discussing energy, we need comprehensive
energy. One thing that was missing was coal. We have enough coal in
this country for 600 years. I know that burning coal sometimes pollutes
the air, but any country that can go to the moon, we can come up with a
way to burn coal and not be dependent.
So we need a comprehensive approach to energy. The answer is not just
drilling. We need comprehensive approaches to dealing with our moving
people, goods and services so we can be competitive with our
competition.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 408,
recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA.''
North Platte has a rich tradition of railroading. The Union Pacific
Railroad flrst entered North Platte on December 3, 1866, as railroads
were building into the West and just one month later, on January 2,
1867, main line operations began through the city of North Platte.
During World War II, the city was best known for the North Platte
Canteen, which served as a major rest point for soldiers heading across
the country by rail to fight in the war. The people of North Platte
famously brought food, water, and other necessities to more than 6
million members of the armed forces passing through the city.
Today, North Platte is served only by freight trains, but it is home
to one of the most important rail yards in the world. The Bailey Yard,
named after former Union Pacific President Ed Bailey, is now recognized
by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's largest classification
yard. It sits on 2,850 acres of land in North Platte, is 8 miles long,
and is home to 315 miles of track.
Bailey Yard prepares approximately 135 trains, or 10,000 individual
rail cars, each day, shipping home products, food, coal, lumber, and
many other necessary goods destined for every corner of the country.
North Platte's contribution to the rail industry increased in the
1990s when Bailey Yard added east- and west-bound locomotive fueling
and servicing centers that now handle more than 8,500 locomotives per
month.
Railroads are often considered a barometer of the American economy.
When trains are moving--America is moving. To watch cars pass through
Bailey Yard is to see America moving forward, and the people of North
Platte are at the center of Bailey Yard's success: more than 2,600
residents of North Platte work at Bailey Yard, which makes up more than
10 percent of North Platte's population of 23,878.
This weekend, North Platte is celebrating its railroading heritage at
Rail Fest, where attendees will get the chance to see historic rail
cars and locomotives, tour Bailey Yard, learn about each job in the
rail yard through actual hands-on training, learn about railroad
safety, and learn more about the history of railroading in North
Platte.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate North Platte for their successes and
urge my colleagues to join me in agreeing to H. Con. Res. 480,
recognizing North Platte, Nebraska, as ``Rail Town USA''.
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 408.
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. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the 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.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the Senate amendment is as follows:
Senate amendment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:
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
[[Page 19489]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Graves) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on
H.R. 3986.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate amendment to
H.R. 3986. The bill will authorize the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts for 5 years, from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year
2012. The House passed this bill on December 7, 2007, and the Senate
amended the bill to extend the authorization period from 3 years to 5
years. I support the amendment.
The building's 1.5 million square feet on 17 acres have been
upgraded, refigured and transformed to more easily and graciously
accommodate the center's 2 million annual visitors and patrons. The
center is to be commended for giving a commitment not only to the
center's programmatic side, but also the more mundane bricks and mortar
side that makes up the presidential memorial. The fact is that, first
and foremost, this building is a memorial to President John F. Kennedy.
I am pleased to support the amended bill, and urge the passage of
H.R. 3986 with the Senate amendment.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 3986, the John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization
Act, will authorize much-needed funds for the continued operation of
the John F. Kennedy Center, which was established to celebrate the arts
and honor of the memory of President John F. Kennedy.
H.R. 3986, as amended by the Senate, authorizes the Kennedy Center
for a 5-year period consistent with the center's facilities management
plan. The 5-year authorization will allow the Kennedy Center to manage
the center in a responsible manner.
The House passed the version of this legislation in December of last
year that included a 3-year authorization for the Kennedy Center. The
Senate amendment provides a 5-year authorization to allow for a longer-
term plan for the management of that center. With this longer
authorization, the Kennedy Center can upgrade and maintain the
facility, using a renovation schedule that is both realistic and
responsible.
While the center has had financial management problems in the past,
the management of projects shows great success in facilities management
policy. The master plan for the facility provides an aggressive plan
for care and repair of the facilities. I believe that the long-term
master plan presented by the board of directors lays out a responsible
vision for the center.
Many of the projects in the center's budget will repair and renovate
capital assets and keep the center in good condition. Planned upgrades
will make the facility safer and more welcoming to those who visit.
Other projects will help maintain the Kennedy Center's unique
structure.
The legislation also authorizes the Kennedy Center Board of Directors
to study the usefulness of a solar panel system for the main roof of
the memorial. Before the center can begin construction of a system, the
board would be required to report to Congress information about the
system.
I am very encouraged by the steps that the board of directors has
taken to make the Kennedy Center more fiscally responsible. This
authorization will give the center the resources necessary to carry out
a well thought-out plan for the arts center that honors and remembers
President Kennedy.
I support the legislation, and encourage my colleagues to do the
same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the ranking member of the overall
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has oversight
over the Kennedy Center.
Mr. MICA. Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the gentleman
for yielding me time, and also recognize the efforts of our
Subcommittee on Public Buildings of the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. Also we have Ms. Johnson here and Mr. Graves
for this reauthorization bill on the Kennedy Center.
I just wanted to add my congratulations for the incredible work that
this national cultural center does provide, not only to the District of
Columbia and the northeast United States, but the entire country.
Mr. Oberstar, our chairman, and myself as ranking member, get to
serve as honorary trustees on the Kennedy Center Board, and I had the
honor and privilege of attending the reopening of the Eisenhower
Theater.
Now, folks don't realize that the Kennedy Center was opened in 1971,
and, of course, some of the facility does need rehabilitation. The
Eisenhower Theater, one of the most prominent theaters, named after
President Eisenhower, was closed for several years and underwent a
complete renovation, and now is open.
But I had the opportunity to attend the little ceremony and dinner
commemorating the reopening, and the Rogers family and others who have
helped lead that effort are also to be commended in this commentary
this afternoon.
Most folks don't know this now, and I really wasn't aware of it until
this dinner, but the Kennedy Center was actually the idea and one of
the primary projects of Dwight David Eisenhower. President Eisenhower
actually was the author of creating a national cultural center, and it
was during his administration and it was a bipartisan effort in 1958
that they authorized a national cultural center to be located in our
Nation's Capital here, and it did open in 1971.
Now, it was interesting also to see the plans and vision that
President Eisenhower had for a national cultural center back then. Of
course, it was named for our slain and lost most distinguished
President, John F. Kennedy, but the Eisenhower Theater within that
complex still bears the visionary's name for this center.
So as you undertake this act today, and I commend again the committee
[[Page 19490]]
members and staff who have worked on this and all those who do make the
Kennedy Center one of the richest national cultural centers and
facilities, not only in the United States, but the world, I just wanted
to add that commentary for the record.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As was pointed out, they are embarking down at the Kennedy Center on
a renovation plan, and one of the things they are looking at and one of
the things we talked about in committee on various occasions is the
photovoltaic plan that is going to be implemented on a lot of buildings
around Washington, D.C., government buildings. It is fascinating
technology. In fact, it has come light-years from where it was just a
couple of decades ago, and I am very confident we are going to see some
very interesting things come out of this as we move forward. Obviously,
that is a big part of it.
Alternative energy sources is a very big part of what needs to be
done in this country, whether it is wind power, photovoltaic,
hydropower, obviously very, very important, as well as everything else
out there that we need to do, which is clean burning coal technology,
which is more drilling in the United States to utilize those resources
we have right here in the United States, instead of doing what happened
last night, which is locking away the vast majority of those resources
in this country, at least when it comes to drilling off the Outer
Continental Shelf, and not being allowed to drill between 50 and 0
miles of the coast.
That is unfortunate, because it is going to take all of the above. It
is going to take solar power and wind power. It is going to take
turning coal into fuel. It is going to take burning coal in a very
clean way. It is going to take drilling for oil in the United States.
It is going to take conservation, which is obviously a very big part of
this. It is going to take all of those things.
What we need in this country is a real energy plan that does just
that and that uses all of the above; not just a little bit of the
above, but all of the above.
So I applaud the Kennedy Center and their plan, and I am looking
forward to seeing how photovoltaic moves forward in this. I am very
tickled to support this bill, H.R. 3986, and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I just want to comment a bit on his closing statement. The
Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act
underscores real differences between really the Democrats and
Republicans when it comes to energy.
The comprehensive Democratic plan is America's own 21st century
energy policy that the country has been waiting for. It lowers prices
for consumers and protects taxpayers, it expands domestic drilling
offshore and on land, it expands renewable sources of energy, increases
our security by freeing America from the grip of foreign oil, requires
big oil to pay what it owes to the taxpayers, ends the subsidies for
the big oil companies and creates good-paying jobs here in America.
The Republican bill presented was nothing more than the same Bush-
Cheney energy policy, written by and for the energy companies. Big oil
gets more land, more oil, more taxpayer dollars and all the record
profits, while American families suffer because of the big prices.
Members of Congress made a clear choice last night. Some Republicans
joined with the Democrats in siding with the American taxpayers and
consumers struggling with these energy costs. I am puzzled how any
Republican can oppose a policy that will create good-paying American
jobs and increase the Nation's security, while it lowers the price for
gas for our consumers.
{time} 1630
Madam Speaker, I would urge the passage of the John F. Kennedy Center
reauthorization bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3986,
as amended, the ``John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
The Kennedy Center is one of the world's preeminent cultural centers.
More than a physical memorial, the Kennedy Center acts as a living
memorial for performance arts programming and education. The Kennedy
Center is the Nation's busiest arts facility, presenting more than
3,000 performances in 2006 and hosting millions of theater goers,
visitors, and tourists. The Kennedy Center also provides educational
programs for teachers and students from pre-kindergarten through
college across the United States.
H.R. 3986, as amended, authorizes the Kennedy Center's capital and
maintenance program for the next 5 years. The bill authorizes a total
of $112.5 million for fiscal years 2008 through 2012 for maintenance,
repair, and security projects for the Kennedy Center. The bill also
authorizes a total of $91.7 million for capital projects for the
Kennedy Center during this period. These authorization levels are
derived from the Kennedy Center's 2006/2007 Comprehensive Building
Plan.
Over the past 10 years, the priorities for Kennedy Center capital
improvements were life safety and accessibility projects. With the
pending completion of these projects, the current Comprehensive
Building Plan emphasizes facility infrastructure. In some past
projects, such as theater renovations, the mechanical and electrical
infrastructure scope has been limited to replacement of renovated
space. The primary building mechanical and electrical systems consist
of original equipment and those elements not previously replaced are
reaching the end of normative service life, are showing signs of
failure or impending breakdown, or are deteriorating. The bill
authorizes systematic rehabilitation of these primary mechanical and
electrical systems.
In addition, the bill authorizes the Kennedy Center to study, plan,
design, and construct a photovoltaic system on the 4-acre (140,000
square foot) main roof of the Kennedy Center. According to a
preliminary estimate by the Kennedy Center, a photovoltaic system would
cost approximately $6 million to construct and would yield savings of
approximately $10.2 million over the next 25 years.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 3986, as
amended, the ``John F. Kennedy Center Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
3986.
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. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
GREAT LAKES LEGACY REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6460) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide for the remediation of sediment
contamination in areas of concern, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6460
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 ``Great Lakes Legacy
Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
Section 118(a)(3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(a)(3)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (I) by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (J) by striking the period and
inserting a semicolon; and
[[Page 19491]]
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(K) `site characterization' means a process for
monitoring and evaluating the nature and extent of sediment
contamination in accordance with the Environmental Protection
Agency's guidance for the assessment of contaminated sediment
in an area of concern located wholly or partially within the
United States; and
``(L) `potentially responsible party' means an individual
or entity that may be liable under any Federal or State
authority that is being used or may be used to facilitate the
cleanup and protection of the Great Lakes.''.
SEC. 3. REMEDIATION OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION IN AREAS OF
CONCERN.
(a) Eligible Projects.--Section 118(c)(12)(B)(ii) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.
1268(c)(12)(B)(ii)) is amended by striking ``sediment'' and
inserting ``sediment, including activities to restore aquatic
habitat that are carried out in conjunction with a project
for the remediation of contaminated sediment''.
(b) Limitations.--Section 118(c)(12)(D) of such Act (33
U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(D)) is amended--
(1) in the subparagraph heading by striking ``Limitation''
and inserting ``Limitations'';
(2) in clause (i) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in clause (ii) by striking the period and inserting a
semicolon; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) unless each non-Federal sponsor for the project has
entered into a written project agreement with the
Administrator under which the party agrees to carry out its
responsibilities and requirements for the project; or
``(iv) unless the Administrator provides assurance that the
Agency has conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify
potentially responsible parties connected with the site.''.
(c) In-Kind Contributions.--Section 118(c)(12)(E)(ii) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(E)(ii)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(ii) In-kind contributions.--
``(I) In general.--The non-Federal share of the cost of a
project carried out under this paragraph may include the
value of an in-kind contribution provided by a non-Federal
sponsor.
``(II) Credit.--A project agreement described in
subparagraph (D)(iii) may provide, with respect to a project,
that the Administrator shall credit toward the non-Federal
share of the cost of the project the value of an in-kind
contribution made by the non-Federal sponsor, if the
Administrator determines that the material or service
provided as the in-kind contribution is integral to the
project.
``(III) Work performed before project agreement.--In any
case in which a non-Federal sponsor is to receive credit
under subclause (II) for the cost of work carried out by the
non-Federal sponsor and such work has not been carried out by
the non-Federal sponsor as of the date of enactment of this
subclause, the Administrator and the non-Federal sponsor
shall enter into an agreement under which the non-Federal
sponsor shall carry out such work, and only work carried out
following the execution of the agreement shall be eligible
for credit.
``(IV) Limitation.--Credit authorized under this clause for
a project carried out under this paragraph--
``(aa) shall not exceed the non-Federal share of the cost
of the project; and
``(bb) shall not exceed the actual and reasonable costs of
the materials and services provided by the non-Federal
sponsor, as determined by the Administrator.
``(V) Inclusion of certain contributions.--In this
subparagraph, the term `in-kind contribution' may include the
costs of planning (including data collection), design,
construction, and materials that are provided by the non-
Federal sponsor for implementation of a project under this
paragraph.''.
(d) Non-Federal Share.--Section 118(c)(12)(E) of such Act
(33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(E)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clauses (iii) and (iv) as clauses (iv)
and (v), respectively;
(2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following:
``(iii) Treatment of credit between projects.--Any credit
provided under this subparagraph towards the non-Federal
share of the cost of a project carried out under this
paragraph may be applied towards the non-Federal share of the
cost of any other project carried out under this paragraph by
the same non-Federal sponsor for a site within the same area
of concern.''; and
(3) in clause (iv) (as redesignated by paragraph (1) of
this subsection) by striking ``service'' each place it
appears and inserting ``contribution''.
(e) Site Characterization.--Section 118(c)(12)(F) of such
Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(F)) is amended to read as follows:
``(F) Site characterization.--
``(i) In general.--The Administrator, in consultation with
any affected State or unit of local government, shall carry
out at Federal expense the site characterization of a project
under this paragraph for the remediation of contaminated
sediment.
``(ii) Limitation.--For purposes of clause (i), the
Administrator may carry out one site assessment per discrete
site within a project at Federal expense.''.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 118(c)(12)(H)
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(12)(H)) is amended--
(1) by striking clause (i) and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--In addition to other amounts authorized
under this section, there is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this paragraph--
``(I) $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008; and
``(II) $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) Allocation of funds.--Not more than 20 percent of
the funds appropriated pursuant to clause (i)(II) for a
fiscal year may be used to carry out subparagraph (F).''.
(g) Public Information Program.--Section 118(c)(13)(B) of
such Act (33 U.S.C. 1268(c)(13)(B)) is amended by striking
``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.
SEC. 4. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
Section 106(b)(1) of the Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2002 (33
U.S.C. 1271a(b)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--In addition to amounts authorized under
other laws, there is authorized to be appropriated to carry
out this section--
``(A) $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through
2008; and
``(B) $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Boozman) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous materials on
H.R. 6460.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
H.R. 6460 reauthorizes appropriations, at increased levels, for
sediment remediation purposes in the Great Lakes' areas of concern.
The presence of these contaminated sediments, a toxic legacy of the
industrialized past for the Great Lakes basin, have plagued its waters
for decades. These sediments have contributed to over 90 percent of the
near-shore waters of the lakes being unsafe for fishing, swimming and
wildlife habitat.
In 2002, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, under
the leadership of our current chairman, Congressman Oberstar, and
Congressman Vern Ehlers, took action to begin the healing process for
the Great Lakes community.
In that year, the Great Lakes Legacy Act was signed into law. The
2002 Legacy Act was enacted to encourage greater cooperation and
expedited clean-up of the areas of concern. To accomplish this goal,
the Legacy Act targeted Federal resources toward the remediation of
contaminated sediment within the 31 areas of concern located within the
United States or shared with Canada.
In many ways, the Legacy Act has been successful in laying the
groundwork for addressing the areas of concern, but progress toward
addressing and delisting these areas of concern has been very slow. Of
the approximately 70 individual sites within the U.S. areas of concern,
only four have been completely addressed. This is simply too slow, and
the citizens of the Great Lakes basin demand that we take action to
accelerate this process.
It is my hope that this legislation will set that in motion. Over the
past year, my subcommittee has investigated why progress has slowed and
has received several recommendations for targeted changes to the Legacy
Act from stakeholders closely related with clean-up projects. H.R. 6460
encapsulates many of these recommendations, and it is intended to
address the lessons learned as implementation of the Legacy Act program
has matured.
First, H.R. 6460 significantly increases the authorization of
appropriations for sediment remediation projects in the areas of
concern, from $50 million to $150 million annually through 2013. The
committee strongly believes that the increase in overall authorization
and appropriations for this program will accelerate the pace of clean-
up of the areas of concern. With full appropriation of the authorized
amounts, it is our hope to complete the clean-up of all U.S. areas of
concern within the next decade.
[[Page 19492]]
Second, in order to facilitate better understanding of the types,
nature and volume of toxic sediment at contaminated sites, H.R. 6460
authorizes the administrator to carry out a site assessment of eligible
projects at Federal expense.
This authority should overcome two difficulties identified in the
implementation of the Legacy Act, the lack of sufficient information on
the extent of the contamination and the identification of potential
non-Federal cost-share partners for subsequent phases of remediation
projects.
The language in H.R. 6460 attempts to replicate the successful model
of the Corps of Engineers reconnaissance studies for Great Lakes
sediment remediation projects. Again, this important change should
accelerate the process of identifying the scope of contamination
projects and quickly move projects from the conceptual stage to
planning, design and construction phases.
Third, H.R. 6460 authorizes Legacy Act funding to be utilized for the
restoration of aquatic habitat, provided that this restoration activity
is carried out in conjunction with a sediment clean-up project.
Oftentimes, contaminated sediment has caused harm to neighboring
aquatic habitat, and it is the presence of both contaminated sediment
and the degraded aquatic habitat that results in sites being deemed as
impaired. By allowing the simultaneous remediation of sediment, along
with corresponding aquatic habitat, the Legacy Act should accelerate
the process of delisting sites.
Finally, H.R. 6460 includes language requiring the administrator to
provide assurance that the Environmental Protection Agency has
conducted a reasonable inquiry to identify parties that are potentially
liable for sediment contamination before a site can proceed under the
Legacy Act. The committee believes that this provision is consistent
with the intent of the original Legacy Act, as well as the ``polluter
pays'' principle. In addition, this provision should help maximize the
leveraging potential of contributions from non-Federal sources through
the identification and encouraged participation of responsible parties
in remediation activities.
While some have expressed concern that this provision will require
additional time, it should neither present an opportunity to
excessively delay clean-up projects, nor to divert additional sites to
other Federal and State clean-up authorities. In addition, EPA is
encouraged to coordinate this effort with State authorities and, where
appropriate, utilize existing State efforts to identify responsible
parties as a basis for its responsibilities under this Act.
Again, let me congratulate Congressman Ehlers and Congressman
Oberstar for moving this important legislation forward. It is my hope
that this legislation will mark another turning point in our joint
efforts to remediate the Great Lakes areas of concern, and that by the
time this legislation is again ripe for reauthorization, we will be
within reach of completing the task of remediating the toxic legacy of
the Great Lakes' past.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to first commend our colleague
from Michigan, Dr. Vern Ehlers, for his years of work with stakeholders
from the Great Lakes to advance the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
The Great Lakes are a vital source for both the United States and
Canada. The Great Lakes system provides a waterway to move goods; water
supply for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes; a source of
hydroelectric power; and swimming and other recreational activities.
But the industrialization and development of the Great Lakes Basin
over the past 200 years has had an adverse impact on the Great Lakes.
Although safe for drinking and swimming, in many places fish caught
from the Great Lakes are not safe to eat.
Lake sediments, contaminated from the history of industrialization
and development in the region, are one of the primary causes of this
problem. By treaty, the United States and Canada are developing clean-
up plans for the Great Lakes and for specific areas of concern. The
Great Lakes Legacy Act, passed in 2002, has helped citizens restore the
water quality of the Great Lakes by taking action to manage
contaminated sediments and to prevent further contamination.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorized the Environmental Protection
Agency to carry out qualified sediment remediation projects and conduct
research and development of innovative approaches, technologies and
techniques for the remediation of contaminated sediment in the Great
Lakes.
Legacy Act funding must be matched with at least a 35 percent non-
Federal share, encouraging local investment. By encouraging cooperative
efforts through public-private partnerships, the Great Lakes Legacy Act
provided a better way to address the problem of contaminated sediments.
At some sites, removing sediments will be the best way to address short
and long-term risks. At other sites, the last thing we want to do is go
in and stir up contaminated sediments by dredging, causing more harm to
the environment.
Obviously, how to address contaminated sediments at each Great Lakes
area of concern will be very much a site-specific decision.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act does not try to presume any particular
clean-up option. It simply encourages stakeholders to take action and
to make sure that the action they take will make a real improvement to
human health and the environment.
This legislation is strongly supported by both environmental groups
and business groups in the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes Legacy
Act reflects a consensus approach to addressing sediment contamination
in the Great Lakes.
While the authorization for the Great Lakes Legacy Act expires this
year, I remain concerned over tripling the authorized level of
spending. The Act has been funded at a level between $22 million and
$35 million per year, far short of the current $50 million annual
authorization. In addition, the bill authorizes that habitat
restoration be included as one of the authorized purposes.
Unfortunately, this may mean less clean-up of contaminated sediments in
the Great Lakes.
By expanding this program to cover other purposes, there will be less
money for the primary purpose of getting pollution out of the water.
Again, by all measures, the Great Lakes Legacy Act has been a
successful program. There is some concern that we might delay ultimate
clean-up by spending some of the Federal funds on activities other than
sediment remediation.
Again, I want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers so much for his hard work in
this area. He has been a true champion in this and for his persistence
in bringing it to the floor today.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize Mr.
Stupak from Michigan for 2 minutes.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the chairwoman for yielding me time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy
Reauthorization Act of 2008.
Since coming to Congress, I have made it my mission to protect and
promote one of the Nation's most precious resources, the Great Lakes. I
am a cosponsor of the Great Lakes Legacy Act and can speak personally
on the positive impact it has had on my district.
Tannery Bay, located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, suffered from
pollution from byproducts left behind by the Northwestern Leather
Company, which operated in the area from 1900 to 1958. On September,
2007, the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Great Lakes
Legacy Act program, completed remediation of the Tannery Bay industrial
site. In total, the clean-up removed 880,000 pounds of chromium and
more than 70 pounds of mercury from the bay and the wetland on Tannery
Point.
Success stories such as these demonstrate the need for continued
support for the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The Environmental Protection
Agency
[[Page 19493]]
has estimated that more than 850,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediment has been removed since 2004. However, an estimated 75 million
cubic yards of contaminated sediment remain in the Great Lakes.
This legislation would reauthorize the Great Lakes Legacy Act for an
additional 5 years and triple the authorized funding levels for
remediation in the Great Lakes up to $150 million per year.
I strongly support H.R. 6460 and look forward to the continued
success of this program.
{time} 1645
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I also
want to thank my colleague from Michigan for his kind words. He and I
have worked on a number of Great Lakes issues together, and it has been
a pleasure to work across the aisle on something that really benefits
the people of this country.
I am very pleased today that we are taking up this bill. It is
another great day for the Great Lakes. Today we renew and expand upon
one of the most effective Federal environmental cleanup programs ever,
the Great Lakes Legacy Act.
All of us have heard about Superfund and all of the tremendous cost
overruns of that program. When we wrote this original Legacy Act some
years ago, we made sure to keep the issues out of the courts, and make
it a very efficient program, and that is exactly what has happened.
The Great Lakes, we all know, comprise the largest source of fresh
water in the world--20 percent of the earth's total and 95 percent of
the surface fresh water in the United States. The Great Lakes also
provide drinking water, transportation, and recreation to millions of
people. Approximately 30 million people drink the water of the Great
Lakes in the United States and Canada.
However, the Great Lakes are endangered by contaminants from years of
industrial pollution that have settled into the sediments of the
tributaries, the rivers and streams, that flow into the lakes. These
pollutants degrade the health of both humans and wildlife, and they
disrupt the beneficial uses of the lakes. The longer we take to clean
up these areas, the greater the likelihood that the sediment will be
transported into the open waters of the Great Lakes, where cleanup is
virtually impossible.
To address this problem, I introduced the original Great Lakes Legacy
Act in the 107th Congress. With bipartisan support, the Congress passed
and the President signed this bill in 2002.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act authorizes the EPA to clean up
contaminated sediments in designated areas of concern in the Great
Lakes. These areas of concern are designated by the EPA and are defined
as any ecologically degraded geographic area that requires remediation.
Currently, there are 43 areas of concern throughout the Great Lakes and
31 of those are either wholly or partially located within U.S. waters.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act has made tremendous progress in cleaning
up contaminated areas. Of the 31 areas of concern in U.S. waters, four
remediation projects have been completed, one project is underway, and
six more are currently being monitored and evaluated. Since 2004, the
EPA estimates that almost 1 million cubic yards of contaminated
sediments have been removed from our Great Lakes tributaries. These
sediments are saturated with toxic substances such as mercury, arsenic,
chromium, cadmium, polychlorinates, better known as PCBs, and lead.
However, more cleanup work remains. The U.S. Policy Committee for the
Great Lakes has identified 75 remaining contaminated sites. The Great
Lakes Legacy Act expires in just a few days. In order to ensure this
vital cleanup continues, Congressman Jim Oberstar and I introduced this
bill. The bill has 45 bipartisan cosponsors and passed the
Transportation Infrastructure Committee by voice vote.
In order to speed up efforts, this bill triples the authorized
funding level from $50 million to $150 million per year. If fully
appropriated, this has the potential to delist all of the U.S. areas of
concern within the next decade. These funds will continue to be
leveraged with a 35 percent non-Federal cost share with locals,
businesses, environmental groups, and so forth.
The bill also makes a limited number of changes to the original
Legacy Act that were jointly recommended by involved parties, and will
vastly improve the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. EHLERS. The toxic pollutants from our industrial past have
plagued the Great Lakes region for far too long. By voting for the
Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act, we can ensure that critical
cleanup efforts in the Great Lakes continue.
In closing, I want to thank Chairman Oberstar, Chairwoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Mica and Ranking Member Boozman for all of their great
work on this bill and their dedication to preserving our greatest fresh
water resource.
I also want to thank staff members Ryan Seiger, Ben Webster, John
Anderson and Jon Pawlow, and also Ben Gielow on my staff. It has taken
a lot of hard work, but it is a great bill and I am proud to present
it. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady.
As a cosponsor, I rise in support of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes
Legacy Reauthorization Act. This bill will reauthorize and expand a
highly successful program designed to help address the issue of
contamination in the Great Lakes. The lakes hold 20 percent of the
world's fresh water and are an irreplaceable economic engine and
drinking water source for our region.
As a Member of Congress representing Ohio and particularly the
Cleveland area, we pride ourselves on our access to that fresh water
and we know it is not only important for today, but it is also part of
our future as well. So the program created by the Great Lakes Legacy
Act is focused on cleaning up areas of concern, sites that are known to
be contaminated with toxic chemicals. These chemicals can cause damage
to the entire ecosystem as well as damage to human health. For example,
in the past research has linked consumption of Great Lakes fish by
pregnant women to irreversible health problems in the child. So it
becomes obvious that this program which will help to clean up
contamination that remains in the Great Lakes will have an appreciable
impact on improving human health and will also give people confidence
in the fish that they consume from the Great Lakes.
We can do better to protect our precious Great Lakes. This bill is an
important step, and I urge my colleagues to support the Great Lakes
Legacy Reauthorization Act.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
Mr. KIRK. Madam Speaker, the Outboard Marine Corporation dumped tons
of PCBs directly into Waukegan Harbor, polluting it. OMC's owner,
George Soros, then looted the company and left.
I joined with Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Emanuel to address
that issue. To date we have been successful in cleaning five of 31
areas of concerns. One more is underway, and seven additional harbors
are under evaluation. Under this very program, more than a million
pounds of polluted sediment have been removed.
This bill before the House increases environmental remediation funds,
and it speeds up the cleanup. It will help us to protect the Great
Lakes, the source of drinking water for over 30 million Americans. I am
particularly looking forward to Waukegan's cleanup. Shortly, we will
announce the full Superfund cleanup of that harbor. Under Federal
[[Page 19494]]
law, the Federal Government will take the lead to do its duty to remove
this threat to human health. Some locals don't want the cleanup of our
harbor, but they will not be able to prevent this needed environmental
remediation. And when complete, it will increase Lake County property
values by over $800 million.
We still have a few more days left to fund this program under the
Great Lakes Legacy Act. I hope we do because then the cleanup will be
even faster.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I would like to
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Madam Speaker, when I was growing up near Lake Michigan
in Chicago, we used to have dead fish on top of the water for the first
30 feet. You had to run through the sand, past all of the dead fish,
jump in the water, hold your breath, and go about 30 feet past the dead
fish. Then Congress at that time passed the Clean Water Act. After 30-
plus years, there is no doubt when you look at all of the Great Lakes,
like Lake Michigan in Chicago, the Clean Water Act has been a
tremendous success in the Great Lakes region. Kids today swim all
across the different lakes because of what this Congress and a
President had done in the past.
This act is important. It has been stated here on the floor, over 30
million Americans get their daily drinking water from Lake Michigan,
Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, Lake Superior, and Lake Huron. It is the
largest body of fresh water in North America and represents a quarter
of the world's fresh water. The water here for the future of America
will be like the energy debates we are having today, and the Great
Lakes and all of the States that border them are the equivalent of our
Yellowstone Park, our Grand Canyon. This is our national treasure and
we have treated it over the years sometimes like a pond that can just
be dumped in.
This act is a small step, but the right step. It is a bipartisan step
to protect for a little over 30 million Americans their daily drinking
water, to give the States and cities that border this area water and a
sense of investment in their future.
Brookings Institute last year did a study. They showed that for every
dollar we invest, we get $2 back of economic activity here in the Great
Lakes.
This is the right thing to do. But we need to do the next step, the
biggest step, build on the Clean Water Act of 30-plus years ago with a
great American waterway.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an
additional minute.
Mr. EMANUEL. If we invest in our lakes and deal with the basic
pollutants, that is invasive species, urban runoff and those types of
pollution, we can deal with 93 percent of the problems affecting our
lakes, our fresh water.
This is the type of investment that will make sure that not only the
regions and the States that border these lakes, but the entire United
States, will preserve and invest in one of the most important natural
resources in the coming days and years ahead, which is clean water. I
am proud of this accomplishment and hope it builds momentum going
forward for a Clean Water Act, act II, that invests like the last one
of 30 years and takes us to the next generation of what we need to do
to deal with the invasive species and deal with the urban runoff and
deal with the industrial deposits left from industrial times. If we do
those three things, we will have made a dramatic difference in Lake
Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Ontario. I am
proud to be associated with this great bipartisan legislation.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I too want to congratulate Dr.
Vern Ehlers of Michigan who has spent a great portion of his career in
the United States Congress championing our Great Lakes. They are truly
our Nation's jewel that we in the north don't think we get enough
credit for helping protect. I know the Speaker understands exactly what
I am talking about, being a part of that Great Lakes basin.
{time} 1700
And now I think if you watch the speeches on the floor today, that
the rest of America will see why we become so feisty about water
diversion and invasive species and contaminants going into our Great
Lakes, and why, in a bipartisan way, we stand on this floor today to
celebrate what has been done, what this bill will do, and the future
health of the Great Lakes for future Americans.
I too grew up in the Great Lakes region and remember the warnings of
no fishing and no wall eye fishing in Lake St. Claire when I was
growing up, and how devastated we were to think that you couldn't even
go out and put your line in the water and take that fish home without
some horrible thing happening to you.
Well, we've come a long way since then, and I think we've all gotten
a lot smarter on how we protect these lakes. And it goes just beyond
what is good for the Great Lakes Basin. Currently it provides water to
42 million people in America. Nearly 30 percent of the Nation's gross
domestic product is produced in the Great Lakes region.
The Great Lakes States have 3.7 million registered recreational
boats, a third of the Nation's total. The commercial sport and fishing
industry is collectively valued at more than $4 billion annually.
Unfortunately, years of industrial pollution have spread toxic
sediments throughout the Great Lakes, and this bill directly confronts
and cleans up those polluted and degraded areas.
This act has had an enormous impact on the citizens of Michigan and
their communities. In Michigan alone, hundreds of thousands of pounds
of dangerous contaminants have already been removed and safely disposed
of. Of the 31 areas of concern in U.S. waters, four projects have
already been completed, one project is underway, and six are currently
being monitored and evaluated. This program is extremely workable and
has been named one of the most effective Federal clean-up programs we
have.
Since 2004, the EPA estimates that almost 1 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments have been removed from our Great Lakes
tributaries. These sediments are filled with toxic substances such as
mercury, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, polychlorinates (PCBs), and lead.
This really stands as our legacy to the next generation of Americans
who will enjoy the Great Lakes, and it is an investment in the health
of those Great Lakes for a prosperous, clean future of the Great Lakes
basin. We have to pass this Great Lakes Legacy Act and continue the
investment in the Great Lakes so that future generations will
experience the lakes as we know them today.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I continue to
reserve.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. Madam Speaker, woven throughout the fabric of our lives
in the Wolverine State, we in Michigan, the Midwest, and all of America
must never take our Great Lakes for granted. Today, in a bipartisan
moment that reflects what is both the best in us and is expected of us,
we come together to ensure that we do not take them for granted.
I come to this as someone whose parents took him on vacation with my
brother up to Lake Superior to see its pristine natural beauty, to
watch the glow of a Michigan sunset over Lake Michigan, to fish in Lake
Erie and, in a moment of rare weakness on the part of my wife, I
proposed to her on the shores of Lake Huron. I won't bring up whether
she regrets it or not.
I say this because, as we raise our own children and they share the
same experiences with the natural beauty of the Great Lakes, we are
honoring a commitment to future generations to
[[Page 19495]]
ensure that, for the time to come, our Great Lakes remain not only the
boon of our quality of life and to the vibrancy of our economy, but
they remain the most visible way we in Michigan and in the Midwest in
America can teach our children that we honored our duty to defend those
Great Lakes and pass them on for future generations.
I thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, I do hail from the great State of Michigan,
and I'm glad to say that my district borders one of the five Great
Lakes, and I know the gentlelady from Wisconsin is equally as proud of
our five Great Lakes as well.
Madam Speaker, one of my favorite guys here in the House is certainly
former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Joe Barton. And
he has a statement that he says, ``Don't mess with Texas.''
Well, in the Midwest we have a statement as well: ``Don't mess with
the Great Lakes.'' It doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a
Democrat, a Member from Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, New York, it doesn't matter. You do not mess with the
Great Lakes.
We have seen, over the years, some great improvement in terms of the
quality of the water in Lake Michigan and all of the Great Lakes. It is
not by accident. It is because of the actions of this Congress,
Republicans and Democrats working together, to make sure that we have
adequate resources not only to have identified the problem, but then to
come back with the clean-up.
Sadly, the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and I want to give great credit to
my colleague, Dr. Ehlers from Grand Rapids, for pushing this along, it
expires this year. So the work that we have done over the last number
of years would have been for naught had it not been for the committee
moving together, important legislation that otherwise would see this
expire, literally within just a couple of weeks.
My colleagues have talked about the tens of millions of Americans
that live and rely on the Great Lakes for so many different needs. This
bill authorizes the appropriation of $150 million each and every year
to make sure that, in fact, we can continue to clean up the identified
contaminated areas.
Now let me just relate an area that we had big time on this House
floor last year. We were going to see the expansion of a refinery in
Indiana, and we made sure, as a delegation----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Can I inquire how much time we have left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas controls 3\1/2\
remaining minutes.
Mr. BOOZMAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. UPTON. Madam Speaker, we saw last year a major refinery that was
going to be expanded in the Great Lakes, and it was going to add to the
discharge into Lake Michigan. And every single member of the Great
Lakes Caucus, Republican and Democrat, all around that circle, stepped
in, and we passed a resolution on this House stopping that from
happening. We are proud to say that that did not happen. And that means
we're going to actually save money because we're not going to have to
clean it up.
But this is a bill that needs to happen. It has strong bipartisan
support. I'm proud to say that we've had great progress over the last
couple of years, but we're not done yet. This bill needs to happen. I
commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle to make sure that it
happens. And now we have to make sure that we work on the appropriators
to make sure that the money continues to be there, to make sure, that,
in fact, this remains a national treasure, because it is.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank our chairwoman, Eddie
Bernice Johnson from Texas, for her leadership in this matter, for
pushing this forward. Also, our chairman, Mr. Oberstar, who also has
been very, very active on behalf of the Great Lakes, Ranking Member
Mica, and again, as Mr. Ehlers mentioned earlier, which we probably
don't mention enough, for our staffs that do a very, very good job of
working hard and getting these very difficult things together so that
we can bring them to the floor.
I also want to congratulate Dr. Ehlers for his hard work. This has
been something that he's worked so hard on for so many years, for such
a long time. It really is great that we're able to bring it to the
floor and vote on it.
I look forward to coming back 5 years from now when we reauthorize
again and hearing about, on both sides of the aisle, in a very
bipartisan way, the people that live along the lake telling the story,
telling the difference that this reauthorization has made and the
tremendous improvement that we're going to make over the next 5 years.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in full
support of the Great Lakes Legacy Act and express my appreciation to
Mr. Oberstar, Dr. Ehlers, and to Mr. Boozman, who provided leadership
on this bill.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter and
cosponsor of H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act. I
want to thank my friend and colleague from Michigan, Vern Ehlers, for
sponsoring this bill as well as Chairman Oberstar for his leadership on
the bill.
The Great Lakes Legacy Act has been an incredibly successful program.
In fact, the first success story from the Legacy Act is in Trenton,
Michigan. Black Lagoon, as it had been named in the 1980s because of
the oil and grease that had accumulated between the 1940s and the
1970s, was renamed Ellias Cove just 1 year ago after the area was
remediated. Without the Great Lakes Legacy Act, the $9.3 million
cleanup would not have been possible.
Madam Speaker, the Great Lakes are a national treasure. However, to
date, they have not been treated as such. The Lakes have seen
deterioration of water quality, the introduction of aquatic invasive
species, and the contamination of toxic sediment, among other things.
While the Great Lakes region has worked diligently over the past
several decades to help clean up the Lakes, it is clear more must be
done on the Federal level to implement the streamlined strategy already
in place.
All of us representing Great Lakes' States were hopeful when in 2004
President Bush signed an executive order creating the Great Lakes
Interagency Task Force. The task force spawned a coalition of Great
Lakes' stakeholders, including local, State, and Federal Government
groups, to implement a strategy over 5 years to protect and restore the
Lakes. The Great Lakes Regional Collaboration, as the group is known,
which consists of over 1500 stakeholders, called for $20 billion in
funding to implement its recommendations. Unfortunately, the
administration's Interagency Task Force, in its annual report,
recommended that the strategy be funded from existing programs. Madam
Speaker, such a recommendation demonstrates how out of touch the Bush
administration is when it comes to the resources and major efforts
needed to restore the Great Lakes.
So far, the Bush administration has paid quite a bit of lip service
to restoring and protecting the Great Lakes, but that is where its
commitment to the Lakes has ended. I am reminded of that commercial
from the 1980s--``Where's the beef?'' We all know what it is going to
restore and protect the Lakes--money. Unfortunately, the President has
not put his money where his mouth is and made the Great Lakes a real
priority. The Great Lakes continue to be plagued by toxic pollutants
that contaminate the sediment which can cause health problems for both
wildlife and humans. That is why the House must act to reauthorize the
Great Lakes Legacy Act by passing H.R. 6460. This legislation triples
authorized funding from $50 million to $150 million per year for the
next 5 years for cleanup of the nearly 40 degraded sites within the
Great Lakes basin identified as Areas of Concern. In addition, this
bill reauthorizes a non-Federal 35 percent match of Federal dollars
invested into restoration efforts as well as $5 billion over 5 years
for development of more effective clean up technologies, saving money
in the long-run.
The past 8 years brought the Great Lakes little but empty promises
from the Bush administration. Not only must we pass H.R. 6460 today,
but we must also implement more of the recommendations of the Regional
Strategy. I look forward to working with a new
[[Page 19496]]
President--hopefully one from the Great Lakes region--who understands
the importance of the Lakes and will do more than pay them just lip
service.
Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 6460.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6460,
the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
This legislation is designed to address the toxic legacy of the Great
Lakes' industrial past that is currently putting residents of the Great
Lakes region in harms way. Residents of the region have long been
waiting for the remediation of these contaminated sites and it is the
responsibility of this Congress to ensure that they do not wait any
longer.
The history of the Great Lakes' region has largely been defined by
the industrial successes of its past. For more than 2 centuries, the
Lakes have provided residents of the region with sources of power and
abundant natural resources, as well as transportation for the residents
and manufactured goods of the basin. The Lakes have served as a
catalyst that brought about growth and economic prosperity to not only
the region, but also to the country as a whole.
The growth and expansion of the region's commerce and economy,
however, did not come about without negative consequences. Along with
it came unrestrained pollution of the Great Lakes watershed. Sadly, for
the most part, this contamination remains today and continues to affect
the region's residents.
In 2002, Congress enacted the Great Lakes Legacy Act to remediate
contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes' areas of concern. This Act
brought attention and awareness to the areas of concern, and also
provided much needed funding for remediation sites.
This Congress has been tasked with reauthorizing the Act, but has
also been afforded the opportunity to address the shortfalls of the
initial legislation. For instance, during a hearing before the
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, many Members from the
Great Lakes region expressed concern with the pace of cleanup of areas
of concern.
In our view, the delay is the result of an incomplete knowledge of
the contamination present at sites within the areas of concern, as well
as a lack of funding to address the 70 different contaminated sediment
sites with the U.S. areas of concern.
Madam Speaker, for far too long, residents of the Great Lakes region
have been waiting for cleanup of these toxics sites.
H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008, will
accelerate remediation of the areas of concern. It is my hope that this
legislation will advance the pace of cleanup of contaminated sites in
the Great Lakes and also ensure that parties responsible for the
contamination are held liable.
Madam Speaker, I applaud the efforts of my Committee colleague, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), for his unremitting work during
the 107th Congress on the passage of the initial Great Lakes Legacy
Act, as well as for his work on this important legislation that the
House considers today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6460, the ``Great
Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008''.
I insert in the Record an exchange of letters between the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Science and
Technology.
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, September 4, 2008.
Hon. Bart Gordon,
Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Gordon: I write to you regarding H.R. 6460,
the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
I appreciate your willingness to waive rights to further
consideration of H.R. 6460, notwithstanding the
jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and
Technology. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any
further jurisdictional claims by your Committee over this or
similar legislation. Furthermore, I agree to support your
request for appointment of conferees from the Committee on
Science and Technology if a conference is held on this
matter.
This exchange of letters will be placed in the Committee
Report on H.R. 6460 and inserted in the Congressional Record
as part of the consideration of this legislation in the
House. 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,
Chairman.
____
House of Representatives, Committee on Science and
Technology,
Washington, D.C., September 4, 2008.
Hon. James L. Oberstar,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Oberstar: Thank you for your letter regarding
H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008
This legislation was initially referred to both the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on
Science and Technology.
H.R. 6460 was marked up by the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure on July 31, 2008. I recognize and
appreciate your desire to bring this legislation before the
House in an expeditious manner, and, accordingly, I will
waive further consideration of this bill in Committee.
However, agreeing to waive consideration of this bill should
not be construed as the Committee on Science and Technology
waiving its jurisdiction over H.R. 6460.
Further, I request your support for the appointment of
Science and Technology Committee conferees during any House-
Senate conference convened on this legislation. I also ask
that a copy of this letter and your response be placed in the
legislative report on H.R. 6460 and the Congressional Record
during consideration of this bill.
I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass
this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Bart Gordon,
Chairman.
Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my
colleagues from both sides of the aisle today in expressing my support
for H.R. 6460, the Great Lakes Legacy Reauthorization Act of 2008.
Although progress has been reported in reducing the discharge of
toxic and persistent chemicals into the Great Lakes, high
concentrations of contaminants still remain at the bottom of a number
of rivers and harbors in the region and continue to pose a risk to
aquatic life, wildlife, and humans.
Although many of these chemicals have been banned for a number of
years, after decades of industrial and municipal discharges and urban
agricultural runoff, they continue to plague our region's water and
without continued and strong federal support, I am concerned they may
remain long after many of us and our grandchildren are no longer.
The areas targeted by the Legacy Act funding are plagued by chemicals
that are known to cause adverse health effects in animals and humans,
which do not break down easily, and which tend to persist in the
environment and to accumulate in aquatic life, animals and human
tissues.
It is not a problem with an easy solution. But we know that the Great
Lakes Legacy Act is part of the solution. Not only has it helped states
in the region deal with this insidious threat but it also recognizes
and affirms that the continuing protection of the Great Lakes is and
must remain a national priority.
Although it has never been funded at its authorized level of $50
billion a year, the Legacy Act has contributed to a number of projects
to remove polluted sentiments from these waters and protect the water
quality of the Great Lakes as well as the millions of Americans who
reside near, recreate in, or depend on the Lakes for their drinking
water.
One of the areas of concerns targeted by the Legacy Act is the
Milwaukee Estuary in my district which includes the lower portions of
several rivers (the Milwaukee River, Menomonee River, and Kinnickinnic
Rivers) and the inner and outer areas of the Milwaukee harbor and
nearshore waters of Lake Michigan.
The rivers that flow through the area were for decades filled with
toxic contaminants such as PCBs (polychlorinated
biphenylshydrocarbons), PAHs (polychlorinated biphenyls and
polyaromatic hydrocarbons), and industrial heavy metals.
Recently, the EPA and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
announced that they will soon begin a $22 million cleanup project to
remove contaminated sediment from the Kinnickinnic River using Great
Lakes Act funding ($14 million).
The project would remove about 170,000 cubic yards of sediment
contaminated with PCBs and PAHs and is expected to be completed in Late
2009.
The project's successful completion will mean the removal of about
1,200 pounds of harmful PCBs and 13,000 pounds of PAHs and lead to the
reduction of contaminated sediment being transported downstream to Lake
Michigan. It will also improve the habitat for fish and wildlife that
live in or near the river, while increasing recreational and commercial
boating use of the river by the public, uses that have been strictly
discouraged if not prohibited for a number of years.
Even as this project moves forward in my district, I know that many
more are needed and remain on the drawing board for possible action and
funding.
According to one estimate, seven projects being reviewed for possible
funding under the
[[Page 19497]]
Legacy Act would have a projected cost of about $85 million. The Legacy
Act received $35 million in FY 2008 and this grant program is currently
authorized at $50 million.
It is clear that the funding needs far outweigh the funding
available. Given the high costs of these important projects, it is
important that the federal government step up to the plate. This
legislation before us does just that as it would triple the authorized
levels of funding for Great Lakes Legacy Act programs.
Great Lakes communities have long taken pride in protecting our
region's greatest natural resources. That pride has been matched by
financial commitment. A study earlier this year by the Great Lakes and
Saint Lawrence Cities initiatives estimated that local governments in
the U.S. and Canada invest over $15 billion annually to protect the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River basin ecosystem.
It is important that the federal government continue to show its
commitment to this region as well. The strong reauthorizing legislation
before us today would help keep that commitment and help mitigate the
risk to the Great Lakes posed by toxic pollutants.
This program has and continues to enjoy strong support from elected
officials in the Great Lakes states, the business community,
environmental groups, and local communities affected by the legacy of
contamination.
As a cosponsor of this bill and a strong supporter of efforts to
protect the Great Lakes, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this
important bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Speaker, as we all know, the Great
Lakes have suffered as a result of years of industrial pollution that
entered their waters. Through the Clean Water Act and other important
measures we have begun the work necessary to reverse that trend.
However, much work needs to be done. The 2007 State of the Great
Lakes report recorded the status of the Great Lakes ecosystem as mixed.
In other words, the ecosystem displays both good and degraded features.
Stopping pollution from entering the water is one thing. Beginning the
efforts to restore the ecosystem from the damage it incurred is
another.
Undoing that damage will require an extensive amount of work. One of
the best tools in our arsenal to achieve that goal is the Great Lakes
Legacy Act. This act, which authorizes funds to clean up contaminated
sediment sites in U.S. Areas of Concern (AOCs), was spearheaded by my
Great Lakes State colleague, Mr. Ehlers.
The projects that are funded under this act are devoted to prevention
and remediation of contaminated sediment. As a result of projects done
under this act, nearly 800,000 cubic yards of contaminated sediments
have been removed from AOCs. It is clear that this program has been
successful and that is why it has been endorsed by numerous Great Lakes
groups.
This program has been very good for the Great Lakes and we need to
build on those successes to meet the challenges. While some great work
has been done so far, we have only seen one spot de-listed as an Area
of Concern; 31 Areas of Concern remain in the U.S. alone and 5 more are
split between the U.S. and Canada. For these areas to be dealt with, it
will take an incredible investment at the Federal level.
This legislation increases the authorization for this program up to
$150 million annually. While I support that, I think we must also do
our due diligence on the appropriations side of the ledger. Over the
past few years, we seem to have settled at around the $30-35 million
level, even though we are currently authorized at $50 million per year.
We also need to make sure that there is sufficient participation at
the State and local level to complement Federal efforts. With the
economy in Michigan being what it is, State and local governments are
barely able in many cases to perform their basic functions, let alone
take on ambitious restoration projects. This bill makes some
improvements which will help in meeting the non-Federal requirements.
In closing, Madam Speaker, this has been a very successful program. I
am glad to see that we are reauthorizing it at a higher level. I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. I have no additional speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6460, 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.
Mr. BOOZMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
VERITAS TELESCOPE RELOCATION
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the Senate joint resolution (S.J. Res. 35) to amend
Public Law 108-331 to provide for the construction and related
activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope
Array System (VERITAS) project in Arizona.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution.
The text of the Senate joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 35
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. LOCATION OF VERITAS PROJECT.
Public Law 108-331 (118 Stat. 1281) is amended--
(1) in the long title, by striking ``on Kitt Peak near
Tucson, Arizona'' and inserting ``in Arizona''; and
(2) in section 1, by striking ``on Kitt Peak near Tucson,
Arizona'' and inserting ``at the Fred Lawrence Whipple
Observatory Base Camp on Mount Hopkins, Arizona, or other
similar location''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Graves) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks and add any extraneous materials to S.J. Res.
35.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of S.J. Res. 35, which amends Public Law 108-331.
This public law provided for the construction and location and related
activities in support of the VERITAS project in Arizona.
Madam Speaker, this Senate resolution amends this law by identifying
another location for the VERITAS project. S.J. Res. 35 authorizes the
Smithsonian to relocate the telescope to Fred Lawrence Whipple
Observatory Base Camp on Mount Hopkins, Arizona, from the original site
at Kitt Peak, Arizona. This is a simple but necessary change, and I
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Joint Resolution 35 that
would amend Public Law 108-331 to provide for the Smithsonian
Institution's construction of certain facilities in support of the Very
Energetic Radiation Imaging Telescope Array System, or VERITAS.
The VERITAS project is a collaboration with the National Science
Foundation and the Department of Energy as the lead agencies.
Universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and
Ireland are participants in this work.
The goal of the VERITAS project is to increase our ability to view
gamma-ray radiation in space.
{time} 1715
Studying gamma ray radiation from objects like exploding stars and
black holes will help increase our scientific understanding of the
universe. In 1968, the first telescope was created to observe this
gamma ray radiation. VERITAS significantly enhances this technology.
[[Page 19498]]
In 2004, Congress authorized the Smithsonian to construct a control
building to support the VERITAS project. The control building would
include space for computers, technical equipment, and other facilities
for researchers to carry out their work with the new telescopes.
The original legislation authorized the control building to be built
in Kitt Peak, Arizona, where the VERITAS project was expected to be
located. Site and construction preparation began in Kitt Peak in 2004
on land leased to the U.S. Government by a local Indian tribe.
Unfortunately, in 2005, the project was halted when a lawsuit was
brought and the National Science Foundation issued a stop work order.
As a result, the NSF and the DOE began to undertake new environmental
assessments of the Kitt Peak site and, in 2005, started initial work on
the VERITAS telescopes 35 miles away at the Fred Lawrence Base Camp in
Mount Hopkins, Arizona. The plan was to move the telescopes to Kitt
Peak following completion of the necessary assessments.
However, the assessment process continued into 2007 and there were
concerns about missing windows of opportunities for joint work planned
with NASA's gamma ray telescope satellite.
In light of this, the VERITAS team sought and received approval from
the United States Forest Service to test the telescopes at the Whipple
Base Camp. The testing revealed that the Whipple location produced
results comparable with those they expected at Kitt Peak. As a result,
the collaborative partners agreed that the VERITAS project should
remain at the Whipple Base Camp.
The legislation enacted in 2004 authorized the construction of a
control building by the Smithsonian for the project; however, it
specified Kitt Peak, Arizona, as the project location.
The Senate resolution today would amend that law to authorize the
construction of the control building at the Whipple Base Camp in Mount
Hopkins, Arizona, where the VERITAS project is now located.
This resolution does not authorize any additional funds for the
project. The resolution simply authorizes the change in the location of
the project at no additional cost.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
If the gentlelady does not have any further speakers, Madam Speaker,
I would go ahead then and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res.
35, which amends Public Law 108-331 to provide for the construction and
related activities in support of the Very Energetic Radiation Imaging
Telescope Array System, ``VERITAS'', project in Arizona. Public Law
108-331 was passed in October 2004 during the 108th Congress.
This joint resolution authorizes the Smithsonian Institution to
permanently locate the telescope at the Fred Lawrence Whipple
Observatory Base Camp on Mount Hopkins, Arizona, which is approximately
35 miles from the original site, Kitt Peak's Horseshoe Canyon. The
Smithsonian Institution has set up the telescope at this site on an
interim basis and the VERITAS Science Consortium and Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory request that the VERITAS telescope remain at
the Whipple Observatory for the rest of its scientific life. As a
result, the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution requests an
amendment to Public Law 108331 to authorize the Board to locate the
VERITAS telescope at Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory Base Camp on
Mount Hopkins, Arizona, or other similar location.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S.J. Res. 35.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I just urge
support and yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the Senate joint resolution, S.J. Res.
35.
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. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION FACILITIES AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2008
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend
the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6627) to authorize the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out certain
construction projects, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6627
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 ``Smithsonian Institution
Facilities Authorization Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. LABORATORY AND SUPPORT SPACE, EDGEWATER, MARYLAND.
(a) Authority To Design and Construct.--The Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution is authorized to
design and construct laboratory and support space to
accommodate the Mathias Laboratory at the Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Maryland.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section a total of
$41,000,000 for fiscal years 2009 through 2011. Such sums
shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 3. LABORATORY SPACE, GAMBOA, PANAMA.
(a) Authority To Construct.--The Board of Regents of the
Smithsonian Institution is authorized to construct laboratory
space to accommodate the terrestrial research program of the
Smithsonian tropical research institute in Gamboa, Panama.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section a total of
$14,000,000 for fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Graves) each will control 20 minutes
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
General Leave
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to
revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material on H.R.
6627.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 6627, the Smithsonian Facilities
Authorization Act of 2008. This bill has bipartisan support, including
support from Congresswoman Matsui, Congressman Becerra, and Congressman
Johnson, who are Smithsonian regents. Majority Leader Hoyer and Ranking
Member Mica are also in support of authorizing construction funding of
these two renowned and vital Smithsonian facilities.
The Mathias Research Center located in Edgewater, Maryland, is a
global leader in the study of ecosystems in coastal zones. It was
established in the 1930s on a dairy farm in Edgewater, Maryland. Nearly
one-half of SERC's 146 employees and fellows conduct the majority of
their work in trailers. A major part of SERC's mission is research and
professional training of the next generation of environmental
scientists.
The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution requested
authority to design and construct laboratory space to accommodate the
Mathias Laboratory at SERC.
The Board requested authority to upgrade and replace the facility to
eliminate unsafe trailers and address substandard, inefficient labs.
The facility and its support spaces need to be replaced.
[[Page 19499]]
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, located in Mathias
Research Center, Panama, is the principal United States organization
devoted to research in tropical biology which will advance scientific
study and improve human welfare. Ecological catastrophes such as
drought, starvation, and flooding caused by deforestation and
overpopulation of tropical regions are studied for causes and remedies.
This facility is a world-renowned research and education center
dedicated to research and analysis of tropical ecosystems. The Board of
Regents requested authority to replace current science building
structure that is heavily infested with termites.
I support these projects and the Board of Regents' request for
construction authorization.
I urge passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 6627 authorizes construction of permanent
structures to serve as Smithsonian research facilities in Edgewater,
Maryland, and Gamboa, Panama. The new buildings will replace aging
leased and temporary structure, and provide needed research space for
the Smithsonian's research mission.
As part of a comprehensive facilities management plan, the
Smithsonian has identified these two research centers as facilities in
need of permanent, modern research buildings. The construction of the
laboratories authorized by this bill will enable the Smithsonian to
reduce its leased space inventory and consolidate its research
operations. This will also allow the Smithsonian to close 80-year-old
buildings that are costly to operate and not suitable for renovation.
Construction of new facilities in Gamboa will allow the Smithsonian
to move out of general office space reconfigured for research and
consolidate operations into a government-owned structure more
appropriate and less costly for a modern research facility.
The Edgewater, Maryland, research facility will finally have
permanent structures after working for many years out of temporary
trailers. These trailers are expensive to maintain, and have a short,
useful life.
Because the new buildings will be government-owned and cost less to
operate and maintain, this legislation is expected to save money in the
long term. The new facilities will be designed to meet the specific
needs of the research centers.
Government ownership of the structures will save taxpayer dollars by
investing in assets that will continue to serve the Smithsonian
Institution over time. The dilapidated buildings and trailers currently
used consume building maintenance resources and are a liability to the
government rather than an asset. Replacement of the old buildings will
allow us to shift dollars from maintaining aging structures to creating
modern, useful facilities.
I am encouraged by the Smithsonian's responsible property management
decisions in these two cases, and I ask my colleagues to please join me
in supporting H.R. 6627.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6627,
the ``Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act of 2008''.
H.R. 6627 authorizes the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian
Institution to design and construct laboratory space to accommodate the
Mathias Laboratory at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center
(``SERC'') in Edgewater, Maryland. The bill also authorizes the Board
of Regents to construct laboratory space to accommodate the terrestrial
research program of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
(``STRI'') in Gamboa, Panama.
The SERC is a global leader in the study of ecosystems in coastal
zones. Founded on the site of an abandoned 1930s dairy farm in
Edgewater, Maryland, the SERC facilities include farm buildings, the
Mathias Laboratory, 10 temporary trailers, an administrative building,
and a variety of lab support spaces. Nearly one-half of SERC's 146
employees and fellows conduct the majority of their work in trailers. A
major part of SERC's mission is to conduct research and professional
training of the next generation of environmental scientists.
The Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution requested
authority to design and construct laboratory space to accommodate the
Mathias Laboratory at SERC. The Board requested authority to upgrade
and replace the facility to eliminate unsafe trailers and address
substandard, inefficient labs. The facility and its support spaces need
to be replaced. The bill authorizes a total of $41 million for fiscal
years 2009 through 2011 to design and construct the Mathias Laboratory.
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute is located in Gamboa,
Panama. STRI is the principal United States organization devoted to
research in tropical biology. Both scientific advancement and human
welfare depend on a continuing commitment to research in tropical
biology for such things as finding untapped tropical resources to add
to the important supply of food, pharmaceuticals, and fiber that we
already get from the tropics, and to give us a better understanding of
how to avoid further ecological catastrophes such as drought,
starvation, and flooding caused by deforestation and overpopulation of
tropical regions.
The STRI facility is a world-renowned research and education center
dedicated to research and analysis of tropical ecosystems. The Board of
Regents requested authority to replace current science building
structure that is heavily infested with termites. The bill authorizes a
total of $14 million for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to construct the
laboratory.
Madam Speaker, over the past two years, the Board of Regents of the
Smithsonian Institution has worked to address numerous management
shortfalls. I look forward to working with the Board of Regents and the
new Secretary of the Smithsonian, Secretary G. Wayne Clough, as we
continue to work together to improve the Smithsonian's management
practices and carry out James Smithson's mandate of 1826: ``for the
increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.''
I thank Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ranking Member
Mica, Subcommittee Chairwoman Norton, Committee on House Administration
Chairman Brady and Ranking Member Ehlers, the Smithsonian Congressional
Regents, Mr. Becerra, Ms. Matsui, and Mr. Johnson of Texas, and
Majority Leader Hoyer for their support in authorizing construction
funding of these two vital Smithsonian facilities.
I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6627, the
``Smithsonian Institution Facilities Authorization Act of 2008''.-
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in support
of the act to replace these two facilities, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6627.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, proceedings
will resume on motions to suspend the rules previously postponed.
Votes will be taken in the following order:
H. Res. 1335, de novo;
S. 2339, de novo;
H.R. 1594, de novo.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.
____________________
CELEBRATING THE 120-YEAR PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND STATE
VETERANS HOMES
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1335.
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. 1335.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
[[Page 19500]]
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 411,
nays 0, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 602]
YEAS--411
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
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
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
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)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
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)
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
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
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--22
Baca
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Conyers
Cubin
Dreier
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lampson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
Moran (VA)
Pitts
Poe
Reynolds
Stark
Udall (CO)
Waxman
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1754
Mr. BAIRD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
Stated for:
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I was inadvertently detained today and
regret missing the vote on House Resolution 1335. Had I been able to
vote, I would have voted ``yea''.
____________________
LIEUTENANT COLONEL CLEMENT C. VAN WAGONER DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS CLINIC
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the Senate bill, S. 2339.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
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 pass the Senate bill, S. 2339.
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. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 412,
nays 0, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 603]
YEAS--412
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
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
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
[[Page 19501]]
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
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)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
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
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
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 (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
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--21
Baca
Bishop (UT)
Brady (TX)
Cubin
Dreier
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lampson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
Pitts
Poe
Reynolds
Smith (TX)
Stark
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Waters
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in the
vote.
{time} 1802
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.
____________________
MICHAEL A. MARZANO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT CLINIC
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the question on
suspending the rules and passing the bill, H.R. 1594.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1594.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DONNELLY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 410,
noes 0, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 604]
AYES--410
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
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
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
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
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
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
Solis
Souder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
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)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
[[Page 19502]]
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Abercrombie
Baca
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Cubin
Dreier
Granger
Grijalva
Hastings (FL)
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lampson
Linder
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCrery
Pitts
Poe
Reynolds
Stark
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Two minutes remain in the
vote.
{time} 1810
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.
____________________
REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6604,
COMMODITY MARKETS TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2008
Ms. SLAUGHTER, from the Committee on Rules, submitted a privileged
report (Rept. No. 110-859) on the resolution (H. Res. 1449) providing
for consideration of the bill (H.R. 6604) to amend the Commodity
Exchange Act to bring greater transparency and accountability to
commodity markets, and for other purposes, which was referred to the
House Calendar and ordered to be printed.
____________________
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INQUIRE
WHETHER THE HOUSE SHOULD IMPEACH G. THOMAS PORTEOUS, A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of House
Resolution 1448 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Johnson of Georgia). Is there objection
to the request of the gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 1448
Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary shall inquire
whether the House should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge
of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana.
Sec. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary or any subcommittee
or task force designated by the Committee may, in connection
with the inquiry under this resolution, take affidavits and
depositions by a member, counsel, or consultant of the
Committee, pursuant to notice or subpoena.
Sec. 3. There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts
of the House such sums as may be necessary to assist the
Committee on the Judiciary in conducting the inquiry under
this resolution, any of which may be used for the procurement
of staff or consultant services.
Sec. 4. (a) For the purpose of the inquiry under this
resolution, the Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to
require by subpoena or otherwise--
(1) the attendance and testimony of any person (including
at a taking of a deposition by counsel or consultant of the
Committee); and
(2) the production of such things;
as it deems necessary to such inquiry.
(b) The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, after
consultation with the Ranking Member, may exercise the
authority of the Committee under subsection (a).
(c) The Committee on the Judiciary may adopt a rule
regulating the taking of depositions by a member, counsel, or
consultant of the Committee, including pursuant to subpoena.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
GENERAL LEAVE
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
subject of the resolution just adopted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
____________________
REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 2169
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove
Congressman Rick Larsen from H.R. 2169, the Clean Water Protection Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New Jersey?
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 tomorrow.
____________________
EXPAND AND PRESERVE HOME OWNERSHIP THROUGH COUNSELING ACT
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 3019) to establish an Office of Housing Counseling
to carry out and coordinate the responsibilities of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development regarding counseling on homeownership and
rental housing issues, to make grants to entities for providing such
counseling, to launch a national housing counseling advertising
campaign, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 3019
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 ``Expand and Preserve Home
Ownership Through Counseling Act''.
SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE OF HOUSING COUNSELING.
Section 4 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3533) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(g) Office of Housing Counseling.--
``(1) Establishment.--There is established, in the Office
of the Secretary, the Office of Housing Counseling.
``(2) Director.--There is established the position of
Director of Housing Counseling. The Director shall be the
head of the Office of Housing Counseling and shall be
appointed by the Secretary. Such position shall be a career-
reserved position in the Senior Executive Service.
``(3) Functions.--
``(A) In general.--The Director shall have ultimate
responsibility within the Department, except for the
Secretary, for all activities and matters relating to
homeownership counseling and rental housing counseling,
including--
``(i) research, grant administration, public outreach, and
policy development relating to such counseling; and
``(ii) establishment, coordination, and administration of
all regulations, requirements, standards, and performance
measures under programs and laws administered by the
Department that relate to housing counseling, homeownership
counseling (including maintenance of homes), mortgage-related
counseling (including home equity conversion mortgages and
credit protection options to avoid foreclosure), and rental
housing counseling, including the requirements, standards,
and performance measures relating to housing counseling.
``(B) Specific functions.--The Director shall carry out the
functions assigned to the Director and the Office under this
section and any other provisions of law. Such functions shall
include establishing rules necessary for--
``(i) the counseling procedures under section 106(g)(1) of
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C.
1701x(h)(1));
``(ii) carrying out all other functions of the Secretary
under section 106(g) of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1968, including the establishment, operation, and
publication of the availability of the toll-free telephone
number under paragraph (2) of such section;
``(iii) carrying out section 5 of the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604) for home
buying information booklets prepared pursuant to such
section;
``(iv) carrying out the certification program under section
106(e) of the Housing and
[[Page 19503]]
Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e));
``(v) carrying out the assistance program under section
106(a)(4) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968,
including criteria for selection of applications to receive
assistance;
``(vi) carrying out any functions regarding abusive,
deceptive, or unscrupulous lending practices relating to
residential mortgage loans that the Secretary considers
appropriate, which shall include conducting the study under
section 6 of the Expand and Preserve Home Ownership Through
Counseling Act;
``(vii) providing for operation of the advisory committee
established under paragraph (4) of this subsection;
``(viii) collaborating with community-based organizations
with expertise in the field of housing counseling; and
``(ix) providing for the building of capacity to provide
housing counseling services in areas that lack sufficient
services.
``(4) Advisory committee.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall appoint an advisory
committee to provide advice regarding the carrying out of the
functions of the Director.
``(B) Members.--Such advisory committee shall consist of
not more than 12 individuals, and the membership of the
committee shall equally represent all aspects of the mortgage
and real estate industry, including consumers.
``(C) Terms.--Except as provided in subparagraph (D), each
member of the advisory committee shall be appointed for a
term of 3 years. Members may be reappointed at the discretion
of the Secretary.
``(D) Terms of initial appointees.--As designated by the
Secretary at the time of appointment, of the members first
appointed to the advisory committee, 4 shall be appointed for
a term of 1 year and 4 shall be appointed for a term of 2
years.
``(E) Prohibition of pay; travel expenses.--Members of the
advisory committee shall serve without pay, but 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.
``(F) Advisory role only.--The advisory committee shall
have no role in reviewing or awarding housing counseling
grants.
``(5) Scope of homeownership counseling.--In carrying out
the responsibilities of the Director, the Director shall
ensure that homeownership counseling provided by, in
connection with, or pursuant to any function, activity, or
program of the Department addresses the entire process of
homeownership, including the decision to purchase a home, the
selection and purchase of a home, issues arising during or
affecting the period of ownership of a home (including
refinancing, default and foreclosure, and other financial
decisions), and the sale or other disposition of a home.''.
SEC. 3. COUNSELING PROCEDURES.
(a) In General.--Section 106 of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Procedures and Activities.--
``(1) Counseling procedures.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish,
coordinate, and monitor the administration by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development of the counseling procedures
for homeownership counseling and rental housing counseling
provided in connection with any program of the Department,
including all requirements, standards, and performance
measures that relate to homeownership and rental housing
counseling.
``(B) Homeownership counseling.--For purposes of this
subsection and as used in the provisions referred to in this
subparagraph, the term `homeownership counseling' means
counseling related to homeownership and residential mortgage
loans. Such term includes counseling related to homeownership
and residential mortgage loans that is provided pursuant to--
``(i) section 105(a)(20) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(20));
``(ii) in the United States Housing Act of 1937--
``(I) section 9(e) (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e));
``(II) section 8(y)(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1437f(y)(1)(D));
``(III) section 18(a)(4)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1437p(a)(4)(D));
``(IV) section 23(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1437u(c)(4));
``(V) section 32(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1437z-4(e)(4));
``(VI) section 33(d)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1437z-5(d)(2)(B));
``(VII) sections 302(b)(6) and 303(b)(7) (42 U.S.C.
1437aaa-1(b)(6), 1437aaa-2(b)(7)); and
``(VIII) section 304(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1437aaa-3(c)(4));
``(iii) section 302(a)(4) of the American Homeownership and
Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 1437f note);
``(iv) sections 233(b)(2) and 258(b) of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12773(b)(2), 12808(b));
``(v) this section and section 101(e) of the Housing and
Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x, 1701w(e));
``(vi) section 220(d)(2)(G) of the Low-Income Housing
Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990 (12
U.S.C. 4110(d)(2)(G));
``(vii) sections 422(b)(6), 423(b)(7), 424(c)(4),
442(b)(6), and 443(b)(6) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12872(b)(6), 12873(b)(7),
12874(c)(4), 12892(b)(6), and 12893(b)(6));
``(viii) section 491(b)(1)(F)(iii) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408(b)(1)(F)(iii));
``(ix) sections 202(3) and 810(b)(2)(A) of the Native
American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4132(3), 4229(b)(2)(A));
``(x) in the National Housing Act--
``(I) in section 203 (12 U.S.C. 1709), the penultimate
undesignated paragraph of paragraph (2) of subsection (b),
subsection (c)(2)(A), and subsection (r)(4);
``(II) subsections (a) and (c)(3) of section 237 (12 U.S.C.
1715z-2); and
``(III) subsections (d)(2)(B) and (m)(1) of section 255 (12
U.S.C. 1715z-20);
``(xi) section 502(h)(4)(B) of the Housing Act of 1949 (42
U.S.C. 1472(h)(4)(B)); and
``(xii) section 508 of the Housing and Urban Development
Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-7).
``(C) Rental housing counseling.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `rental housing counseling' means
counseling related to rental of residential property, which
may include counseling regarding future homeownership
opportunities and providing referrals for renters and
prospective renters to entities providing counseling and
shall include counseling related to such topics that is
provided pursuant to--
``(i) section 105(a)(20) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(20));
``(ii) in the United States Housing Act of 1937--
``(I) section 9(e) (42 U.S.C. 1437g(e));
``(II) section 18(a)(4)(D) (42 U.S.C. 1437p(a)(4)(D));
``(III) section 23(c)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1437u(c)(4));
``(IV) section 32(e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 1437z-4(e)(4));
``(V) section 33(d)(2)(B) (42 U.S.C. 1437z-5(d)(2)(B)); and
``(VI) section 302(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 1437aaa-1(b)(6));
``(iii) section 233(b)(2) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12773(b)(2));
``(iv) section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x);
``(v) section 422(b)(6) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 12872(b)(6));
``(vi) section 491(b)(1)(F)(iii) of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408(b)(1)(F)(iii));
``(vii) sections 202(3) and 810(b)(2)(A) of the Native
American Housing and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25
U.S.C. 4132(3), 4229(b)(2)(A)); and
``(viii) the rental assistance program under section 8 of
the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).
``(2) Standards for materials.--The Secretary, in
conjunction with the advisory committee established under
section 4(g)(4) of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3533(g)(4), shall establish
standards for materials and forms to be used, as appropriate,
by organizations providing homeownership counseling services,
including any recipients of assistance pursuant to subsection
(a)(4).
``(3) Mortgage software systems.--
``(A) Certification.--The Secretary shall provide for the
certification of various computer software programs for
consumers to use in evaluating different residential mortgage
loan proposals. The Secretary shall require, for such
certification, that the mortgage software systems take into
account--
``(i) the consumer's financial situation and the cost of
maintaining a home, including insurance, taxes, and
utilities;
``(ii) the amount of time the consumer expects to remain in
the home or expected time to maturity of the loan;
``(iii) such other factors as the Secretary considers
appropriate to assist the consumer in evaluating whether to
pay points, to lock in an interest rate, to select an
adjustable or fixed rate loan, to select a conventional or
government-insured or guaranteed loan and to make other
choices during the loan application process.
If the Secretary determines that available existing software
is inadequate to assist consumers during the residential
mortgage loan application process, the Secretary shall
arrange for the development by private sector software
companies of new mortgage software systems that meet the
Secretary's specifications.
``(B) Use and initial availability.--Such certified
computer software programs shall be used to supplement, not
replace, housing counseling. The Secretary shall provide that
such programs are initially used only in connection with the
assistance of housing counselors certified pursuant to
subsection (e).
``(C) Availability.--After a period of initial availability
under subparagraph (B) as the Secretary considers
appropriate, the Secretary shall take reasonable steps to
make mortgage software systems certified pursuant to this
paragraph widely available through the Internet and at public
locations, including public libraries, senior-citizen
centers, public housing sites, offices of public housing
agencies that administer rental
[[Page 19504]]
housing assistance vouchers, and housing counseling centers.
``(4) National public service multimedia campaigns to
promote housing counseling.--
``(A) In general.--The Director of Housing Counseling shall
develop, implement, and conduct national public service
multimedia campaigns designed to make persons facing mortgage
foreclosure, persons considering a subprime mortgage loan to
purchase a home, elderly persons, persons who face language
barriers, low-income persons, and other potentially
vulnerable consumers aware that it is advisable, before
seeking or maintaining a residential mortgage loan, to obtain
homeownership counseling from an unbiased and reliable
sources and that such homeownership counseling is available,
including through programs sponsored by the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development.
``(B) Contact information.--Each segment of the multimedia
campaign under subparagraph (A) shall publicize the toll-free
telephone number and web site of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development through which persons seeking housing
counseling can locate a housing counseling agency in their
State that is certified by the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development and can provide advice on buying a home, renting,
defaults, foreclosures, credit issues, and reverse mortgages.
``(C) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary, not to exceed
$3,000,000 for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010, for the
develop, implement, and conduct of national public service
multimedia campaigns under this paragraph.
``(5) Education programs.--The Secretary shall provide
advice and technical assistance to States, units of general
local government, and nonprofit organizations regarding the
establishment and operation of, including assistance with the
development of content and materials for, educational
programs to inform and educate consumers, particularly those
most vulnerable with respect to residential mortgage loans
(such as elderly persons, persons facing language barriers,
low-income persons, and other potentially vulnerable
consumers), regarding home mortgages, mortgage refinancing,
home equity loans, and home repair loans.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments to Grant Program for
Homeownership Counseling Organizations.--Section
106(c)(5)(A)(ii) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(c)(5)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(1) in subclause (III), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subclause (IV) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by inserting after subclause (IV) the following new
subclause:
``(V) notify the housing or mortgage applicant of the
availability of mortgage software systems provided pursuant
to subsection (g)(3).''.
SEC. 4. GRANTS FOR HOUSING COUNSELING ASSISTANCE.
Section 106(a) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the end
the following new paragraph:
``(4) Homeownership and rental counseling assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall make financial
assistance available under this paragraph to States, units of
general local governments, and nonprofit organizations
providing homeownership or rental counseling (as such terms
are defined in subsection (g)(1)).
``(B) Qualified entities.--The Secretary shall establish
standards and guidelines for eligibility of organizations
(including governmental and nonprofit organizations) to
receive assistance under this paragraph.
``(C) Distribution.--Assistance made available under this
paragraph shall be distributed in a manner that encourages
efficient and successful counseling programs.
``(D) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated $45,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2011 for--
``(i) the operations of the Office of Housing Counseling of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
``(ii) the responsibilities of the Secretary under
paragraphs (2) through (5) of subsection (g); and
``(iii) assistance pursuant to this paragraph for entities
providing homeownership and rental counseling.''.
SEC. 5. REQUIREMENTS TO USE HUD-CERTIFIED COUNSELORS UNDER
HUD PROGRAMS.
Section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) is amended--
(1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) Requirement for assistance.--An organization may not
receive assistance for counseling activities under subsection
(a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (a)(4), (c), or (d) of this section, or
under section 101(e), unless the organization, or the
individuals through which the organization provides such
counseling, has been certified by the Secretary under this
subsection as competent to provide such counseling.'';
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and for certifying organizations''
before the period at the end of the first sentence; and
(B) in the second sentence by striking ``for
certification'' and inserting ``, for certification of an
organization, that each individual through which the
organization provides counseling shall demonstrate, and, for
certification of an individual,'';
(3) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``organizations and''
before ``individuals'';
(4) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (5); and
(5) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new
paragraphs:
``(3) Requirement under hud programs.--Any homeownership
counseling or rental housing counseling (as such terms are
defined in subsection (g)(1)) required under, or provided in
connection with, any program administered by the Department
of Housing and Urban Development shall be provided only by
organizations or counselors certified by the Secretary under
this subsection as competent to provide such counseling.
``(4) Outreach.--The Secretary shall take such actions as
the Secretary considers appropriate to ensure that
individuals and organizations providing homeownership or
rental housing counseling are aware of the certification
requirements and standards of this subsection and of the
training and certification programs under subsection (f).''.
SEC. 6. STUDY OF DEFAULTS AND FORECLOSURES.
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall
conduct an extensive study of the root causes of default and
foreclosure of home loans, using as much empirical data as
are available. The study shall also examine the role of
escrow accounts in helping prime and nonprime borrowers to
avoid defaults and foreclosures. Not later than 12 months
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
shall submit to the Congress a preliminary report regarding
the study. Not later than 24 months after such date of
enactment, the Secretary shall submit a final report
regarding the results of the study, which shall include any
recommended legislation relating to the study, and
recommendations for best practices and for a process to
identify populations that need counseling the most.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS FOR COUNSELING-RELATED PROGRAMS.
Section 106 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x), as amended by the preceding
provisions of this Act, is further amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(h) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Nonprofit organization.--The term `nonprofit
organization' has the meaning given such term in section
104(5) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing
Act (42 U.S.C. 12704(5)), except that subparagraph (D) of
such section shall not apply for purposes of this section.
``(2) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Trust
Territories of the Pacific, or any other possession of the
United States.
``(3) Unit of general local government.--The term `unit of
general local government' means any city, county, parish,
town, township, borough, village, or other general purpose
political subdivision of a State.''.
SEC. 8. UPDATING AND SIMPLIFICATION OF MORTGAGE INFORMATION
BOOKLET.
Section 5 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of
1974 (12 U.S.C. 2604) is amended--
(1) in the section heading, by striking ``special'' and
inserting ``home buying'' ;
(2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the
following new subsections:
``(a) Preparation and Distribution.--The Secretary shall
prepare, at least once every 5 years, a booklet to help
consumers applying for federally related mortgage loans to
understand the nature and costs of real estate settlement
services. The Secretary shall prepare the booklet in various
languages and cultural styles, as the Secretary determines to
be appropriate, so that the booklet is understandable and
accessible to homebuyers of different ethnic and cultural
backgrounds. The Secretary shall distribute such booklets to
all lenders that make federally related mortgage loans. The
Secretary shall also distribute to such lenders lists,
organized by location, of homeownership counselors certified
under section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) for use in complying with the
requirement under subsection (c) of this section.
``(b) Contents.--Each booklet shall be in such form and
detail as the Secretary shall prescribe and, in addition to
such other information as the Secretary may provide, shall
include in plain and understandable language the following
information:
``(1) A description and explanation of the nature and
purpose of the costs incident to a real estate settlement or
a federally related mortgage loan. The description and
explanation shall provide general information about the
mortgage process as well as specific information concerning,
at a minimum--
[[Page 19505]]
``(A) balloon payments;
``(B) prepayment penalties; and
``(C) the trade-off between closing costs and the interest
rate over the life of the loan.
``(2) An explanation and sample of the uniform settlement
statement required by section 4.
``(3) A list and explanation of lending practices,
including those prohibited by the Truth in Lending Act or
other applicable Federal law, and of other unfair practices
and unreasonable or unnecessary charges to be avoided by the
prospective buyer with respect to a real estate settlement.
``(4) A list and explanation of questions a consumer
obtaining a federally related mortgage loan should ask
regarding the loan, including whether the consumer will have
the ability to repay the loan, whether the consumer
sufficiently shopped for the loan, whether the loan terms
include prepayment penalties or balloon payments, and whether
the loan will benefit the borrower.
``(5) An explanation of the right of rescission as to
certain transactions provided by sections 125 and 129 of the
Truth in Lending Act.
``(6) A brief explanation of the nature of a variable rate
mortgage and a reference to the booklet entitled `Consumer
Handbook on Adjustable Rate Mortgages', published by the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System pursuant to
section 226.19(b)(1) of title 12, Code of Federal
Regulations, or to any suitable substitute of such booklet
that such Board of Governors may subsequently adopt pursuant
to such section.
``(7) A brief explanation of the nature of a home equity
line of credit and a reference to the pamphlet required to be
provided under section 127A of the Truth in Lending Act.
``(8) Information about homeownership counseling services
made available pursuant to section 106(a)(4) of the Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(a)(4)), a
recommendation that the consumer use such services, and
notification that a list of certified providers of
homeownership counseling in the area, and their contact
information, is available.
``(9) An explanation of the nature and purpose of escrow
accounts when used in connection with loans secured by
residential real estate and the requirements under section 10
of this Act regarding such accounts.
``(10) An explanation of the choices available to buyers of
residential real estate in selecting persons to provide
necessary services incidental to a real estate settlement.
``(11) An explanation of a consumer's responsibilities,
liabilities, and obligations in a mortgage transaction.
``(12) An explanation of the nature and purpose of real
estate appraisals, including the difference between an
appraisal and a home inspection.
``(13) Notice that the Office of Housing of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development has made publicly available
a brochure regarding loan fraud and a World Wide Web address
and toll-free telephone number for obtaining the brochure.
The booklet prepared pursuant to this section shall take into
consideration differences in real estate settlement
procedures that may exist among the several States and
territories of the United States and among separate political
subdivisions within the same State and territory.'';
(3) in subsection (c), by inserting at the end the
following new sentence: ``Each lender shall also include with
the booklet a reasonably complete or updated list of
homeownership counselors who are certified pursuant to
section 106(e) of the Housing and Urban Development Act of
1968 (12 U.S.C. 1701x(e)) and located in the area of the
lender.''; and
(4) in subsection (d), by inserting after the period at the
end of the first sentence the following: ``The lender shall
provide the HUD-issued booklet in the version that is most
appropriate for the person receiving it.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous materials
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I
may consume.
Today, I rise in support of H.R. 3019, the Expand and Preserve Home
Ownership through Counseling Act. This important legislation
establishes an office of housing counseling at the Department of
Housing and Urban Development to carry out and to coordinate the
responsibilities of the Department with respect to counseling on
homeownership and rental housing issues.
The House of Representatives has already approved this bipartisan
bill in three separate measures that have passed during this Congress.
They include H.R. 3915, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending
Act of 2007; H.R. 5830, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Home
Ownership Retention Act of 2008; and the initial House version of H.R.
3221, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
{time} 1815
Given that the Senate has yet to act upon this important housing
counseling measure, it is important that the House pass this
legislation as a stand-alone bill.
HUD's current Housing Counseling Program authorizes HUD to provide or
contract with organizations to provide counseling and advice to
tenants, homeowners and low and moderate income families on a range of
housing issues. However, the current program lacks the stature,
organization and prominence in the Department to help ensure that its
counseling activities are high quality, widely available and well-
coordinated within other Department activities.
In the midst of this foreclosure crisis, this extraordinary crisis we
are going through at this very moment in our financial markets, there
can be no doubt that housing counseling, whether it is pre-purchase or
post-purchase, is a vital component of the homeownership process, and I
urge this House to support this bill, which will create an Office of
Housing Counseling at HUD to better focus the Department's resources in
this area.
Now, specifically this bill will do the following: It establishes an
Office of Housing Counseling to carry out and coordinate the
responsibilities of the Department with respect to counseling on
homeownership and rental housing issues; it will require and facilitate
the coordination of HUD's homeownership and rental housing counseling
programs, including programs targeted at low and moderate income
individuals, the homeless and senior citizens; it will require the
launch of a national public service multi-media campaign to promote
housing counseling, including the establishment of a Web site and toll-
free hotline; and it will authorize the assurance of homeownership and
rental housing counseling grants to HUD-certified State, local and
nonprofit organizations.
This is an important and critical piece of legislation, and much
needed, for all we know that the need for housing counseling far
outstrips its current availability. The enactment of H.R. 3019 is a
major step in addressing this need in a very comprehensive, thorough,
efficient and effective manner, and I urge this full House to support
this very important bipartisan home counseling legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as the author of H.R. 3019, the Expand and Preserve Home
Ownership Through Counseling Act, I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. First let me thank Congressman Ruben Hinojosa for being
the lead Democrat on this bill.
In 2005, we founded the House Financial and Economic Literacy Caucus,
which is now over 75 members strong, and we have been working together
on this issue for a very long time. This bill is just one more example
of how financial literacy can promote economic security and empower
Americans to make more informed decisions.
Second, I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member
Bachus for their support for this legislation. Both the chairman and
ranking member have included the language of this bill in various
mortgage and housing packages, two of which, as Mr. Scott said, have
previously passed the House but not the other Chamber. The first time
was in November of 2007, and the second time was in H.R. 3221, and that
bill passed the House on May 8 of this year. Unfortunately, the Senate
has not yet acted on this important
[[Page 19506]]
legislation. It is my hope that the Senate will consider the bill as a
stand-alone measure and send it to the President's desk before we
adjourn this year.
What does the bill do? Well, it elevates housing counseling within
the Department of Housing and Urban Development by establishing an
Office of Housing Counseling and a director of that office who reports
directly to the Secretary of HUD. The office will be tasked with
carrying out and coordinating HUD's Home Ownership and Housing Rental
Counseling Program, targeted at low and moderate income individuals,
the homeless and the seniors, just to name a few.
More specifically, the bill authorizes $180 million over the next 4
years for HUD to operate this office, offer grants to State and local
counseling agencies and launch a national outreach campaign. The bill
also calls for the office to provide a report to Congress on the root
causes of defaults and foreclosures, including recommendations for
policy reforms and best practices, as well as identification of
populations most in need of counseling.
Mr. Speaker, counseling can help guide homeowners into a loan that
best meets their budgets and needs, steering them way from possible
foreclosure down the road. Housing counseling, one form of financial
literacy, is often the first line of defense that first-time home
buyers have against predatory lending practices.
In addition, counselors can save the homes of borrowers currently
facing foreclosure. So many troubled mortgage holders genuinely want to
pay for their home and had solid payment histories before their rates
were reset. These are people that if given the right refinancing
options, can and would be able to make their monthly payments. But they
need someone to help them evaluate their options, guide them through
the process and facilitate discussions with their current lenders.
One thing that we have learned during this downturn in the housing
market is that many Americans need to better understand the terms of
financial products, including and especially mortgages. Education is
one of the most important tools in our arsenal to keep our economy and
American families on sound financial footing. It is my hope that by
providing greater access to home counseling services, we can help to
prevent a repeat performance of the recent housing bubble.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude today by thanking the folks at
the DuPage Homeownership Center of Northern Will County in Illinois.
They have helped so many residents of the 13th Congressional District
of Illinois to secure sound mortgages or avoid foreclosure. And I would
like to thank all the counselors and organizations across the country
that are now involved in the HOPE NOW initiative, which reported last
month it had helped over 2 million homeowners to avoid foreclosure.
With that, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this, let me state the appreciation this
entire Congress has for the distinguished leadership of Mrs. Biggert on
this issue. She has been a pioneer in financial literacy. She has
committed a tremendous amount of her time and energy to this bill and
to other bills. I want to commend her for that.
Another bill which she has provided leadership on has been a
financial literacy bill of utmost importance as we see now, and that is
K through 12th grade literacy programs, to get them into our schools. I
think it is very important for all of us here to know, and the Nation
to know, that Mrs. Biggert has provided sterling leadership on this
entire issue of financial literacy. I certainly want to say how
appreciative we all are for that leadership, Mrs. Biggert.
It points out, Mr. Speaker, as we look at where we are today with the
downturn of the financial markets, the meltdown of our mortgage
industry, at the core of it as we peel back the reasons and the causes
we will all find and come to the conclusion that we have a tremendous
need for financial literacy and financial education, because the core
of our problem is that there are so many complicated and complex
entities involved in financing, that we as a nation are coming up short
on financial literacy.
To you, Mrs. Biggert, I thank you for your leadership on this. It has
indeed been a pleasure working with you on this subject, and this bill
is a testimonial to your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for his
very kind words. I really appreciate it. He is a wonderful member of
the Financial Services Committee and is always there and always knows
what is going on and always participates and does a good job. I thank
you for all your work.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of of H.R. 3019, to expand and preserve home ownership through
counseling, introduced by my colleague from Illinois, Representative
Biggert. This important legislation will amend the Department of
Housing and Urban Development Act to establish an Office of Housing
Counseling which will conduct activities relating to homeownership and
rental housing counseling.
GENERAL
When the crisis in the mortgage industry began, it primarily hit
subprime borrowers. As the foreclosure crisis endured, home values
started declining and eventually affected homeowners who are considered
to be prime borrowers. This amendment to the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 will require a number of different stipulations
that will encourage the expansion of home ownership with adequate
information to make an informed decision. These stipulations include:
Directing the Office of the Secretary to establish, coordinate, and
monitor Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administration of
homeownership and rental housing counseling procedures provided in
connection with any HUB program, including all related requirements,
standards, and performance measures.
Requiring the Office of the Secretary to provide certification for
various computer software programs for consumers to use in evaluating
different residential mortgage loan proposals.
Encouraging the Director of Housing Counseling to develop, implement,
and conduct national public service multimedia campaigns designed to
make potential homeowners aware that counseling is available from
unbiased and reliable sources.
Requiring the Secretary to provide technical and financial assistance
to State governments, local governments, and non-profit organizations.
Directing the Secretary to study and report to Congress the root
cause of default and foreclosure on homes.
Amending the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 to revise
requirements for HUD booklets designed to help consumers applying for
federally related mortgage loans to understand the nature of real
estate settlement services.
MINORITIES
Problematic, unaffordable subprime loans are more often issued to
African-American and Latino homebuyers. Nationally, African-American
home purchasers were 2.7 times more likely to be issued a high cost
loan than white borrowers. Latinos were 2.3 times more likely to be
issued a high cost home purchase loan than white borrowers. Similarly,
for refinance loans, African-Americans were 1.8 times more likely to be
issued a high cost loan than whites. Latinos were 1.4 times more likely
to be burdened with a high refinance cost loan than white homeowners.
These racial disparities persist even among homeowners of the same
income level. In comparative terms, upper-income African-Americans were
3.3 times more likely than upper-income whites to be issued a high cost
loan when purchasing a home. Upper-income Latinos were 3 times more
likely than upper-income whites to be issued a high cost loan when
purchasing a home.
America's lower-income and minority communities receive a
disproportionate number of subprime loans and are therefore most
exposed to experience default and foreclosure. Based on public data for
2006 available under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA),
[[Page 19507]]
this report examines the extent of high-cost lending for 172
metropolitan areas, determines the disparities between borrowers of
various races and income levels and identifies metropolitan areas that
are at highest risk of facing concentrated foreclosures
CONCLUSION
I firmly believe that we must pass this legislation in order to
create equal terms and equal information for every homeowner or
potential homeowner in America. This legislation will ensure that
information is equally available to all homebuyers and enable every
person to have a fair chance to obtain the information necessary to
make informed financial decisions. There is a disparity of information
in our current mortgage system and H.R. 3019 will enable the Government
to alleviate this disparity by improving the flow of information
through house owner counseling.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3019 as well, as together we
search for solutions that will help constituents throughout the United
States.
Mrs. BIGGERT. 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 Georgia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 3019, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
FRANK MELVILLE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INVESTMENT ACT OF 2008
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 5772) to amend section 811 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to improve the program under
such section for supportive housing for persons with disabilities, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5772
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Frank
Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008''.
(b) References.--Except as otherwise expressly provided,
wherever in this Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in
terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, section 811 or any
other provision of section 811, the reference shall be
considered to be made to section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez
National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013).
SEC. 2. TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH CERTIFICATE
FUND.
(a) Termination of Mainstream Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance Program.--Section 811 is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking the first subsection designation and all
that follows through the end of subparagraph (B) of paragraph
(2) and inserting the following:
``(b) Authority To Provide Assistance.--The Secretary is
authorized to provide assistance to private nonprofit
organizations to expand the supply of supportive housing for
persons with disabilities, which shall be provided as--
``(1) capital advances in accordance with subsection
(d)(1), and
``(2) contracts for project rental assistance in accordance
with subsection (d)(2).''; and
(B) by striking ``assistance under this paragraph'' and
inserting ``Assistance under this subsection'';
(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (4); and
(3) in subsection (l), by striking paragraph (1).
(b) Renewal Through Section 8.--Section 811 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(p) Authorization of Appropriations for Section 8
Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated
for tenant-based rental assistance under section 8(o) of the
United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) for
persons with disabilities in fiscal year 2009 the amount
necessary to provide a number of incremental vouchers under
such section that is equal to the number of vouchers provided
in fiscal year 2008 under the tenant-based rental assistance
program under subsection (d)(4) of this section (as in effect
before the date of the enactment of the Frank Melville
Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008).
``(2) Requirements upon turnover.--The Secretary shall
develop and issue, to public housing agencies that receive
voucher assistance made available under this subsection and
to public housing agencies that received voucher assistance
under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937
(42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)) for non-elderly disabled families
pursuant to appropriation Acts for fiscal years 1997 through
2002 or any other subsequent appropriations for incremental
vouchers for non-elderly disabled families, guidance to
ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, such vouchers
continue to be provided upon turnover to qualified persons
with disabilities or to qualified non-elderly disabled
families, respectively.''.
SEC. 3. MODERNIZED CAPITAL ADVANCE PROGRAM.
(a) Project Rental Assistance Contracts.--Section 811 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (d)(2)--
(A) by inserting ``(A) Initial project rental assistance
contract.--'' after ``Project rental assistance.--''
(B) in the first sentence, by inserting after ``shall'' the
following: ``comply with subsection (e)(2) and shall'';
(C) by striking ``annual contract amount'' each place such
term appears and inserting ``amount provided under the
contract for each year covered by the contract''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Renewal of and increases in contract amounts.--
``(i) Expiration of contract term.--Upon the expiration of
each contract term, subject to the availability of amounts
made available in appropriation Acts, the Secretary shall
adjust the annual contract amount to provide for reasonable
project costs, and any increases, including adequate reserves
and service coordinators, except that any contract amounts
not used by a project during a contract term shall not be
available for such adjustments upon renewal.
``(ii) Emergency situations.--In the event of emergency
situations that are outside the control of the owner, the
Secretary shall increase the annual contract amount, subject
to reasonable review and limitations as the Secretary shall
provide.''.
(2) in subsection (e)(2)--
(A) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period
at the end the following: ``, except that, in the case of the
sponsor of a project assisted with any low-income housing tax
credit pursuant to section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 or with any tax-exempt housing bonds, the contract shall
have an initial term of not be less than 360 months and shall
provide funding for a term of 60 months''; and
(B) by striking ``extend any expiring contract'' and insert
``upon expiration of a contract (or any renewed contract),
renew such contract''.
(b) Program Requirements.--Section 811 is amended--
(1) in subsection (e)--
(A) by striking the subsection heading and inserting the
following: ``Program Requirements'';
(B) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(1) Use restrictions.--
``(A) Term.--Any project for which a capital advance is
provided under subsection (d)(1) shall be operated for not
less than 40 years as supportive housing for persons with
disabilities, in accordance with the application for the
project approved by the Secretary and shall, during such
period, be made available for occupancy only by very low-
income persons with disabilities.
``(B) Conversion.--If the owner of a project requests the
use of the project for the direct benefit of very low-income
persons with disabilities and, pursuant to such request the
Secretary determines that a project is no longer needed for
use as supportive housing for persons with disabilities, the
Secretary may approve the request and authorize the owner to
convert the project to such use.''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(3) Limitation on use of funds.--No assistance received
under this section (or any State or local government funds
used to supplement such assistance) may be used to replace
other State or local funds previously used, or designated for
use, to assist persons with disabilities.
``(4) Multifamily projects.--
``(A) Limitation.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
of the total number of dwelling units in any multifamily
housing project (including any condominium or cooperative
housing project) containing any unit for which assistance is
provided from a capital grant under subsection (d)(1) made
after the date of the enactment of the Frank Melville
Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008, the aggregate
number that are used for persons with disabilities, including
supportive housing for persons with disabilities, or to which
any occupancy preference for persons with disabilities
applies, may not exceed 25 percent of such total.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply in the
case of any project that is a group home or independent
living facility.''; and
(2) in subsection (l), by striking paragraph (4).
(c) Delegated Processing.--Subsection (g) of section 811
(42 U.S.C. 8013(g)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Selection Criteria.--'' and inserting
``Selection Criteria and Processing.--(1) Selection
criteria.--'';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
(6), and (7) as subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (E), (G),
and (H), respectively;
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Delegated Processing.--
``(A) In issuing a capital advance under subsection (d)(1)
for any multifamily project (but
[[Page 19508]]
not including any project that is a group home or independent
living facility) for which financing for the purposes
described in the last sentence of subsection (b) is provided
by a combination of the capital advance and sources other
than this section, within 30 days of award of the capital
advance, the Secretary shall delegate review and processing
of such projects to a State or local housing agency that--
``(i) is in geographic proximity to the property;
``(ii) has demonstrated experience in and capacity for
underwriting multifamily housing loans that provide housing
and supportive services;
``(iii) may or may not be providing low-income housing tax
credits in combination with the capital advance under this
section; and
``(iv) agrees to issue a firm commitment within 12 months
of delegation.
``(B) The Secretary shall retain the authority to process
capital advances in cases in which no State or local housing
agency has applied to provide delegated processing pursuant
to this paragraph or no such agency has entered into an
agreement with the Secretary to serve as a delegated
processing agency.
``(C) An agency to which review and processing is delegated
pursuant to subparagraph (A) may assess a reasonable fee
which shall be included in the capital advance amounts and
may recommend project rental assistance amounts in excess of
those initially awarded by the Secretary. The Secretary shall
develop a schedule for reasonable fees under this
subparagraph to be paid to delegated processing agencies,
which shall take into consideration any other fees to be paid
to the agency for other funding provided to the project by
the agency, including bonds, tax credits, and other gap
funding.
``(D) Under such delegated system, the Secretary shall
retain the authority to approve rents and development costs
and to execute a capital advance within 60 days of receipt of
the commitment from the State or local agency. The Secretary
shall provide to such agency and the project sponsor, in
writing, the reasons for any reduction in capital advance
amounts or project rental assistance and such reductions
shall be subject to appeal.''.
(d) Leveraging Other Resources.--Paragraph (1) of section
811(g) (as so designated by subsection (c)(1) of this
section) is amended by inserting after subparagraph (E) (as
so redesignated by subsection (c)(2) of this section) the
following new subparagraph:
``(F) the extent to which the per-unit cost of units to be
assisted under this section will be supplemented with
resources from other public and private sources;''.
(e) Tenant Protections and Eligibility for Occupancy.--
Section 811 is amended by striking subsection (i) and
inserting the following new subsection:
``(i) Admission and Occupancy.--
``(1) Tenant selection.--
``(A) Procedures.--An owner shall adopt written tenant
selection procedures that are satisfactory to the Secretary
as (i) consistent with the purpose of improving housing
opportunities for very low-income persons with disabilities;
and (ii) reasonably related to program eligibility and an
applicant's ability to perform the obligations of the lease.
Owners shall promptly notify in writing any rejected
applicant of the grounds for any rejection.
``(B) Requirement for occupancy.--Occupancy in dwelling
units provided assistance under this section shall be
available only to persons with disabilities and households
that include at least one person with a disability.
``(C) Availability.--Except only as provided in
subparagraph (D), occupancy in dwelling units in housing
provided with assistance under this section shall be
available to all persons with disabilities eligible for such
occupancy without regard to the particular disability
involved.
``(D) Limitation on occupancy.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the owner of housing developed under this
section may, with the approval of the Secretary, limit
occupancy within the housing to persons with disabilities who
can benefit from the supportive services offered in
connection with the housing.
``(2) Tenant protections.--
``(A) Lease.--The lease between a tenant and an owner of
housing assisted under this section shall be for not less
than one year, and shall contain such terms and conditions as
the Secretary shall determine to be appropriate.
``(B) Termination of tenancy.--An owner may not terminate
the tenancy or refuse to renew the lease of a tenant of a
rental dwelling unit assisted under this section except--
``(i) for serious or repeated violation of the terms and
conditions of the lease, for violation of applicable Federal,
State, or local law, or for other good cause; and
``(ii) by providing the tenant, not less than 30 days
before such termination or refusal to renew, with written
notice specifying the grounds for such action.
``(C) Voluntary participation in services.--A supportive
service plan for housing assisted under this section shall
permit each resident to take responsibility for choosing and
acquiring their own services, to receive any supportive
services made available directly or indirectly by the owner
of such housing, or to not receive any supportive
services.''.
(f) Development Cost Limitations.--Subsection (h) of
section 811 is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking the paragraph heading and inserting ``Group
homes'';
(B) in the first sentence, by striking ``various types and
sizes'' and inserting ``group homes'';
(C) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(D) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as
subparagraphs (E) and (F), respectively;
(2) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``established pursuant
to paragraph (1)'' after ``cost limitation''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(6) Applicability of home program cost limitations.--
``(A) In general.--The provisions of section 212(e) of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
12742(e)) and the cost limits established by the Secretary
pursuant to such section with respect to the amount of funds
under subtitle A of title II of such Act that may be invested
on a per unit basis, shall apply to supportive housing
assisted with a capital advance under subsection (d)(1) and
the amount of funds under such subsection that may be
invested on a per unit basis.
``(B) Waivers.--The Secretary shall provide for waiver of
the cost limits applicable pursuant to subparagraph (A)--
``(i) in the cases in which the cost limits established
pursuant to section 212(e) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act may be waived; and
``(ii) to provide for--
``(I) the cost of special design features to make the
housing accessible to persons with disabilities;
``(II) the cost of special design features necessary to
make individual dwelling units meet the special needs of
persons with disabilities; and
``(III) the cost of providing the housing in a location
that is accessible to public transportation and community
organizations that provide supportive services to persons
with disabilities.''.
(g) Repeal of Authority To Waive Size Limitations.--
Paragraph (1) of section 811(k) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``(or such higher number
of persons'' and all that follows through ``subsection
(h)(6))''.
(h) Minimum Allocation for Multifamily Projects.--
Subsection (l) of section 811, as amended by the preceding
provisions of this Act, is further amended by inserting
before paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(1) Minimum allocation for multifamily projects.--The
Secretary shall establish a minimum percentage of the amount
made available for each fiscal year for capital advances
under subsection (d)(1) that shall be used for multifamily
projects subject to subsection (e)(4).''.
SEC. 4. PROJECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE COMPETITIVE DEMONSTRATION
PROGRAM.
Section 811, as amended by the preceding provisions of this
Act, is further amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (k) through (n) as
subsections (l) through (o), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following new
subsection:
``(k) Project Rental Assistance-Only Competitive
Demonstration Program.--
``(1) Authority.--The Secretary shall carry out a
demonstration program under this subsection to expand the
supply of supportive housing for non-elderly adults with
disabilities, under which the Secretary shall make funds
available for project rental assistance pursuant to paragraph
(2) for eligible projects under paragraph (3). The Secretary
shall provide for State housing finance agencies and other
appropriate entities to apply to the Secretary for such
project rental assistance funds, which shall be made
available by such agencies and entities for dwelling units in
eligible projects based upon criteria established by the
Secretary for the demonstration program under this
subsection. The Secretary may not require any State housing
finance agency or other entity applying for project rental
assistance funds under the demonstration program to identify
in such application the eligible projects for which such
funds will be used, and shall allow such agencies and
applicants to subsequently identify such eligible projects
pursuant to the making of commitments described in paragraph
(3)(B).
``(2) Project rental assistance.--
``(A) Contract terms.--Project rental assistance under the
demonstration program under this subsection shall be
provided--
``(i) in accordance with subsection (d)(2); and
``(ii) under a contract having an initial term of not less
than 180 months that provides funding for a term 60 months,
which funding shall be renewed upon expiration, subject to
the availability of sufficient amounts in appropriation Acts.
``(B) Limitation on units assisted.--Of the total number of
dwelling units in any multifamily housing project containing
any unit for which project rental assistance under the
demonstration program under this subsection is provided, the
aggregate number that are provided such project rental
assistance, that are used for supportive housing for persons
with disabilities, or to which any occupancy preference for
persons with disabilities applies, may not exceed 25 percent
of such total.
``(C) Prohibition of capital advances.--The Secretary may
not provide a capital advance under subsection (d)(1) for any
project for which assistance is provided under the
demonstration program.
``(D) Eligible population.--Project rental assistance under
the demonstration program under this subsection may be
provided only for
[[Page 19509]]
dwelling units for extremely low-income persons with
disabilities and extremely low-income households that include
at least one person with a disability.
``(3) Eligible projects.--An eligible project under this
paragraph is a new or existing multifamily housing project
for which--
``(A) the development costs are paid with resources from
other public or private sources; and
``(B) a commitment has been made--
``(i) by the applicable State agency responsible for
allocation of low-income housing tax credits under section 42
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, for an allocation of
such credits;
``(ii) by the applicable participating jurisdiction that
receives assistance under the HOME Investment Partnership
Act, for assistance from such jurisdiction; or
``(iii) by any Federal agency or any State or local
government, for funding for the project from funds from any
other sources.
``(4) State agency involvement.--Assistance under the
demonstration may be provided only for projects for which the
applicable State agency responsible for health and human
services programs, and the applicable State agency designated
to administer or supervise the administration of the State
plan for medical assistance under title XIX of the Social
Security Act, have entered into such agreements as the
Secretary considers appropriate--
``(A) to identify the target populations to be served by
the project;
``(B) to set forth methods for outreach and referral; and
``(C) to make available appropriate services for tenants of
the project.
``(5) Use requirements.--In the case of any project for
which project rental assistance is provided under the
demonstration program under this subsection, the dwelling
units assisted pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be operated
for not less than 30 years as supportive housing for persons
with disabilities, in accordance with the application for the
project approved by the Secretary, and such dwelling units
shall, during such period, be made available for occupancy
only by persons and households described in paragraph (2)(D).
``(6) Report.--Upon the expiration of the 5-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Frank Melville
Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008, the Secretary
shall submit to the Congress a report describing the
demonstration program under this subsection, analyzing the
effectiveness of the program, including the effectiveness of
the program compared to the program for capital advances in
accordance with subsection (d)(1) (as in effect pursuant to
the amendments made by such Act), and making recommendations
regarding future models for assistance under this section
based upon the experiences under the program.''.
SEC. 5. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS.
Section 811 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking ``provides'' and inserting ``makes
available''; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting ``;
and'' ; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) promotes and facilitates community integration for
people with significant and long-term disabilities.'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``special'' and inserting
``housing and community-based services''; and
(B) in paragraph (2)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (A) and inserting the
following:
``(A) make available voluntary supportive services that
address the individual needs of persons with disabilities
occupying such housing;''; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the comma and
inserting a semicolon;
(3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``provided under''
and all that follows through ``shall bear'' and inserting
``provided pursuant to subsection (b)(1) shall bear'';
(4) in subsection (f)--
(A) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``receive'' and
inserting ``be offered'';
(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following:
``(C) evidence of the applicant's experience in--
``(i) providing such supportive services; or
``(ii) creating and managing structured partnerships with
service providers for the delivery of appropriate community-
based services;'';
(iii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``such persons'' and
all that follows through ``provision of such services'' and
inserting ``tenants''; and
(iv) in subparagraph (E), by inserting ``other Federal,
and'' before ``State''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``special'' and inserting
``housing and community-based services'';
(5) in subsection (g), in paragraph (1) (as so redesignated
by section 3(c)(1) of this Act)--
(A) in subparagraph (D) (as so redesignated by section
3(c)(2) of this Act), by striking ``the necessary supportive
services will be provided'' and inserting ``appropriate
supportive services will be made available''; and
(B) by striking subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated by
section 3(c)(2) of this Act) and inserting the following:
``(E) the extent to which the location and design of the
proposed project will facilitate the provision of community-
based supportive services and address other basic needs of
persons with disabilities, including access to appropriate
and accessible transportation, access to community services
agencies, public facilities, and shopping;'';
(6) in subsection (j)--
(A) by striking paragraph (4); and
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (5), (6), and (7) as
paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively;
(7) in subsection (l) (as so redesignated by section 4(1)
of this Act)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the
end of the first sentence the following: ``, which provides a
separate bedroom for each tenant of the residence'';
(B) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
``(2)(A) The term `person with disabilities' means a person
who is 18 years of age or older and less than 62 years of
age, who--
``(i) has a disability as defined in section 223 of the
Social Security Act;
``(ii) is determined, pursuant to regulations issued by the
Secretary, to have a physical, mental, or emotional
impairment which--
``(I) is expected to be of long-continued and indefinite
duration;
``(II) substantially impedes his or her ability to live
independently; and
``(III) is of such a nature that such ability could be
improved by more suitable housing conditions; or
``(iii) has a developmental disability as defined in
section 102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and
Bill of Rights Act of 2000.
``(B) Such term shall not exclude persons who have the
disease of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome or any
conditions arising from the etiologic agent for acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome. Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no individual shall be considered a person
with disabilities, for purposes of eligibility for low-income
housing under this title, solely on the basis of any drug or
alcohol dependence. The Secretary shall consult with other
appropriate Federal agencies to implement the preceding
sentence.
``(C) The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may
be necessary to prevent abuses in determining, under the
definitions contained in this paragraph, the eligibility of
families and persons for admission to and occupancy of
housing assisted under this section. Notwithstanding the
preceding provisions of this paragraph, the term `person with
disabilities' includes two or more persons with disabilities
living together, one or more such persons living with another
person who is determined (under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary) to be important to their care or well-being, and
the surviving member or members of any household described in
subparagraph (A) who were living, in a unit assisted under
this section, with the deceased member of the household at
the time of his or her death.'';
(C) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following
new paragraph:
``(3) The term `supportive housing for persons with
disabilities' means dwelling units that--
``(A) are designed to meet the permanent housing needs of
very low-income persons with disabilities; and
``(B) are located in housing that make available supportive
services that address the individual health, mental health,
or other needs of such persons.'';
(D) in paragraph (5), by striking ``a project for''; and
(E) in paragraph (6)--
(i) by inserting after and below subparagraph (D) the
matter to be inserted by the amendment made by section 841 of
the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-569; 114 Stat. 3022); and
(ii) in the matter inserted by the amendment made by
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, by striking ``wholly
owned and''; and
(8) in subsection (m) (as so redesignated by section 4(1)
of this Act)--
(A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``subsection (c)(1)'' and
inserting ``subsection (d)(1)''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and
inserting ``subsection (d)(2)''.
SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Subsection (n) of section 811 (as so redesignated by
section 4(1) of this Act) is amended to read as follows:
``(n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012
the following amounts:
``(1) Capital advance/prac program.--For providing
assistance pursuant to subsection (b), such sums as may be
necessary.
``(2) Demonstration program.--For carrying out the
demonstration program under subsection (k), such sums as may
be necessary to provide 2,500 incremental dwelling units
under such program in each of fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and
5,000 incremental dwelling units under such program in each
of fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
SEC. 7. NEW REGULATIONS AND PROGRAM GUIDANCE.
Not later than the expiration of the 180-day period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall issue new
regulations and guidance for the program under section 811 of
the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act for
supportive housing for persons with disabilities to carry out
such program in accordance with the amendments made by this
Act.
[[Page 19510]]
SEC. 8. GAO STUDY.
The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct
a study of the supportive housing for persons with
disabilities program under section 811 of the Cranston-
Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 8013) to
determine the adequacy and effectiveness of such program in
assisting households of persons with disabilities. Such study
shall determine--
(1) the total number of households assisted under such
program;
(2) the extent to which households assisted under other
programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development
that provide rental assistance or rental housing would be
eligible to receive assistance under such section 811
program; and
(3) the extent to which households described in paragraph
(2) who are eligible for, but not receiving, assistance under
such section 811 program are receiving supportive services
from, or assisted by, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development other than through the section 811 program
(including under the Resident Opportunity and Self-
Sufficiency program) or from other sources.
Upon the completion of the study required under this section,
the Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress
setting forth the findings and conclusions of the study.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) and the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs.
Capito) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
General Leave
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Chamber for its indulgence in
allowing us to bring before it today the Frank Melville Supportive
Housing Investment Act of 2008, which is a reauthorization and
improvement upon the existing section 811 supportive housing statute.
Before I go into very briefly the details and importance of this act,
I would just like to thank those that have worked on this bill and this
issue, including the chairman of the committee, Chairman Frank, the
chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Housing, Representative Waters, and
especially the Republican cosponsor of this legislation, along with
myself, Representative Biggert, who has been just a boundless champion
for the issue of supportive housing, the issue of compassionate care
for those individuals with physical and mental disabilities, and also
to Mrs. Capito, who has led this committee and this issue so ably.
Mr. Speaker, the 811 program today is the Nation's primary program
for funding supportive housing. What is supportive housing? Supportive
housing is housing for people with largely mental disability or
physical disability, that provides some basic supports around those
living arrangements so that those individuals can live independently.
Job skills, medication adherence, social work, a small amount of
support given to these individuals living with these disabilities can
make sure that those individuals can live on their own independently
and live full and productive lives. It is a cost-effective and
compassionate program that, unfortunately, has not worked as well as it
should have in the past several years.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates, Mr.
Speaker, that 1.3 million individuals, non-elderly disabled across this
country, are low income, living in substandard housing; 1.3 million
people, and our 811 program simply hasn't reached enough of them.
Last year, less than 1,000 new units were built around this country
with 811 dollars, and, as we heard before the subcommittee, it has
taken sometimes 6 years for projects funded with 811 capital dollars to
go from the development stage to the completion stage.
{time} 1830
That's an unacceptably long amount of time for projects that
sometimes only encompass four or six or eight units of housing. This
bill sets a, I think, very aggressive but reasonable goal, a tripling
over time the number of units constructed in this country with 811
dollars.
How does it do this? Primarily it does this by taking the $87 million
right now that are used as vouchers in the 811 program, and
transferring those vouchers over to the larger section 8 program. What
we have learned is that these vouchers that are supposed to be
dedicated to people with disabilities have not been traced
sufficiently, and in fact, probably are going to people without
disabilities, in many cases.
The section 8 program will do, I think, a much better job, is much
better equipped to track those vouchers going forward. We then take
that money that has now been freed up through the transition of those
vouchers to the section 8 program and use much of it to fund a new
demonstration program that will seek to leverage the capital dollars
from coming from the 811 program with low-income tax credits, private
dollars and State partnerships.
By doing that, we will be able to take existing, affordable housing
projects that are in the planning stages and, with small amounts of
rental subsidies, be able to reach out to those developers and
essentially make them a deal that we will give them a small rental
subsidy if, in exchange, they carve out a small number of units to be
supportive housing. This has worked remarkably well in States that have
endeavored this program already. North Carolina comes to mind most
immediately where, over the last 7 years, 1,200 units of supportive
housing have been built, in part, with this strategy put in place.
There are a number of other important improvements to the 811 program
in this act, allowing States and State housing agencies to do much of
the bureaucratic paperwork involved in these applications, which we
believe will greatly expedite the application process, a study which
will look into how we can better use dollars in existing housing
projects, 202 housing projects, and other affordable housing projects,
to get tenants that are living in other affordable housing sites, some
basic support services that will help them live independently. It is a
vast improvement over the current law, and we hope, as I said, it will
potentially triple the number of units built across this country.
This is important. These are some of the country's most vulnerable
citizens, who are playing by the rules, doing everything we ask, but
simply need a small apartment of help to be able to live independent,
productive lives in their community. This is one of the most
compassionate things that this Congress can do is to try to extend out
that basic building block of society, good, affordable housing to
individuals with mental disability, with mental illness and with
physical disabilities.
One last note, this bill is entitled the Frank Melville Supportive
Housing Investment Act, and it is titled after the late Frank Melville,
the founder, along with his wife, Ellen, of the Melville Charitable
Trust. This charitable trust that they have built up through their
generosity, the Melville family's generosity, has funded housing
advocacy and specifically supportive housing advocacy across this
country for a number of years. We would not have the housing advocacy
community that exists today if it weren't for the generosity of the
Melvilles.
Unfortunately, this world lost Frank Melville, who also happened to
be a constituent of mine, recently, and this act, I think, is a very
appropriate testament to the work that he has done.
I thank, again, Mrs. Biggert for her great work over the years on
this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, my
colleague from Connecticut.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield time now to the cosponsor of the
bill, a champion for housing in all forms and fashion, but particularly
supportive housing, Mrs. Biggert from Illinois.
Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
At this time I would like to submit for the Record a letter addressed
to
[[Page 19511]]
Speaker Pelosi from the National Alliance on Mental Illness in support
of this legislation.
National Alliance on Mental
Illness,
Arlington, VA, September 16, 2008.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Pelosi: On behalf of the 210,000 members and
1,200 affiliates of the National Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI), I am writing to offer our strong support for the
Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008
(H.R. 5772). As the Nation's largest organization
representing people with serious mental illness and their
families, NAMI is especially grateful to Chairman Barney
Frank and the bill's sponsors, Representatives Chris Murphy
and Judy Biggert, for their leadership in moving this
legislation forward.
As you know, Section 811 is a critical affordable housing
resource for non-elderly people with severe disabilities.
While the program has been effective in developing permanent
supportive housing, improvements are needed. H.R. 5772 will
streamline and simplify the existing process by which 811
sponsors compete for new projects. It will also reform
Section 811 and create an important demonstration program to
allow for investment of new capital resources from programs
such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and HOME in
supportive housing developments. Finally H.R. 5772 would
resolve the current threat to the program from the Section
811 ``mainstream'' voucher program.
NAMI applauds their commitment to improving supportive
housing options for people with severe disabilities. Thank
you for bringing this legislation to the full House. NAMI
urges all members to support passage of H.R. 5772.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Fitzpatrick,
Executive Director.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today as the cosponsor of this
legislation, and I certainly urge my colleagues to support it.
I would also like to thank my good friend, Congressman Murphy, who
introduced the bill, the Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment
Act of 2008, and thank him for his hard work to modernize the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD's section 811 program.
For the past 4 years, this administration has proposed deep cuts to
the section 811 program. In response, for the past 4 years we have sent
letters to the Appropriations Committee leaders urging them to reject
those cuts and fully fund the program.
Why? Because section 811 is the only Federal program that funds
housing and vouchers for people with disabilities who seek to live as
independent members of the community.
I am pleased to report that for the last 4 years, Congress has agreed
to fully fund this important program. This year, we are going beyond
the appropriations. We are seeking to modernize the program, which
hasn't been updated for over 15 years.
H.R. 5772 is critical to the goal of increasing the number of
affordable units for people with disabilities. By better aligning this
section 811 program with other Federal, State and local funding
resources, it allows nonprofit sponsors to more easily leverage
additional financing, thereby maximizing Federal dollars.
By requiring HUD to simplify its more than 400 pages of guidelines,
it streamlines the program. In addition, it delegates grant authority
to State and local housing authorities, which housing experts agree
will make the program more efficient.
Finally, the bill calls for a new demonstration project that is
estimated to generate as many as 3,000 new units of housing for
nonelderly people with disabilities. The bill we are considering today
will make the program more user friendly and attractive to nonprofits.
Before I close, I would like to once again thank my colleague from
Connecticut, Congressman Murphy, for working on this bill. In addition,
I would like to thank Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus,
Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Capito, as well as their staffs,
for helping us with this legislation.
Of course, I cannot forget to thank one of my constituents from
Tinley Park, Illinois, Tony Paulauski, the executive director of the
Arc of Illinois, who testified before our committee about the need for
these reforms.
On a similar note, I would also like to thank the wonderful people in
Illinois that work for Trinity Services and Cornerstone Services, as
well as all of those volunteers, parents and other members of the
community who have reached out to express their support for this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense bill that modernizes an important
Federal housing program that hasn't been updated. I urge my colleagues
to support it.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) for as much time as he may
consume.
Mr. LYNCH. I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5772, the Frank Melville
Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2008. This is the only HUD
permanent supportive housing program that is exclusively for people
with disabilities.
I am pleased to support this legislation, which will reform and
strengthen section 811 of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable
Housing Act. This bill will actually increase efficiency and better
serve eligible disabled persons and, importantly, I think, this bill
will streamline the bureaucracy.
Those of us who have tried to assist disabled persons with their
housing understand the hoops that one must go through. This bill, I
think, through the great work of Congressman Murphy and others, has
solved much of that. But there is much to be said about the
improvements to the current rental assistance program and the system
for disbursing capital advances, which actually create and maintain
affordable units.
Additionally, this bill will require HUD to carry out an important
competitive demonstration program to expand the supply of truly
supportive housing. I am especially pleased that this bill also
authorizes appropriations for that assistance under section 8 in fiscal
year 2009.
Having grown up in public housing, I am probably more aware than most
of the important role that public housing fills in terms of the needs
of our disabled community. This is especially true for our disabled
citizens, who have a greater need for housing and facilities that meet
their particular disabilities.
I encourage my colleagues to support those most in need in our
country by voting for this important bipartisan measure. I must say Mr.
Murphy has been very gracious in recognizing everyone who has been
involved here, but I must, in turn, I think, recognize his great
involvement and great leadership here.
On behalf of all the families out there, like mine, who have disabled
persons, and we recognize the challenges that they deal with every day
on a regular basis, I just want to extend our thanks to Chris Murphy,
the Congressman from Connecticut, for his great work on this bill.
Mrs. CAPITO. I would like to join in the chorus of support.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, the section 811 program provides
housing assistance and supportive services for persons with
disabilities. I have seen firsthand in my own district the good works
that this program provides, and I am sure it is the same for members
across the Nation.
The timing of the passage of this legislation is especially
significant, as the House just passed the Americans with Disabilities
Act amendments earlier today. It is appropriate that we would now
consider legislation to improve our housing programs for those with
disabilities who choose to live independently.
We have heard a good review, I believe, of the program. We know that
it allows persons with disabilities to live independently. I think
that's important to emphasize the independent nature of the 811
program. It is also the only Federal program that is solely dedicated
to very low-income folks with serious or long-term disabilities.
Unfortunately, sometimes those are coupled together because you have a
serious or long-term disability, which sometimes prevents you from
working,
[[Page 19512]]
and it puts you into that low or very low-income bracket.
We have talked about some of the revisions, programatic issues and
changes that have been made, terminating 811's Mainstream Tenant-Based
Rental Assistance Program and transferring those vouchers to section 8,
modernizing the Capital Advance Program, establishing a project rental
assistance demonstration program and revising the definitions of
``group home,'' ``people with disabilities,'' ``supportive housing for
persons with disabilities.''
Also in this bill, we repeal the authority of the Secretary to waive
size limitations on group homes and individual living facilities. These
improvements to the program will help provide a better life for
individuals with disabilities and their families.
The ability to live independently with the assistance of supportive
services is critical to improving the lives of the disabled and
allowing them to be active participants in their communities.
I join in thanking Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus. I would
like to particularly thank Mr. Murphy for his leadership on this issue
and Mrs. Biggert for her leadership as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank Mrs. Capito and Mrs. Biggert for
their leadership on this issue.
Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, although this bill will help scores of
individuals with physical handicaps, I think, to myself, of how much
help this is going to provide the millions of individuals across this
country with mental illness that are struggling to live independently.
Years ago, when this country and States across this Nation made the
decision, the right decision to close down the institutions that housed
many of those individuals, we made a promise that we would find new
housing, new opportunities for those individuals to live on their own
in the community.
We have not lived up to that promise. In Connecticut, those of us
that care about this issue often wear a button around the halls of the
State legislature entitled ``Keep the Promise.'' This legislation, I
believe, is a step towards doing just that.
With that, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5772, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS REFORM ACT OF
2008
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 5611) to reform the National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 5611
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2008''.
SEC. 2. REESTABLISHMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REGISTERED AGENTS AND BROKERS.
(a) In General.--Subtitle C of title III of the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. 6751 et seq.) is amended to read
as follows:
``Subtitle C--National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
``SEC. 321. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGISTERED AGENTS AND
BROKERS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established the National
Association of Registered Agents and Brokers (hereafter in
this subtitle referred to as the `Association').
``(b) Status.--The Association shall--
``(1) be a nonprofit corporation;
``(2) have succession until dissolved by an Act of
Congress;
``(3) not be an agent or instrumentality of the United
States Government; and
``(4) except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, be
subject to, and have all the powers conferred upon a
nonprofit corporation by the District of Columbia Nonprofit
Corporation Act (D.C. Code, sec. 29-301.01 et seq.).
``SEC. 322. PURPOSE.
``The purpose of the Association shall be to provide a
mechanism through which licensing, continuing education, and
other nonresident insurance producer qualification
requirements and conditions can be adopted and applied on a
multi-state basis (without affecting the laws, rules, and
regulations pertaining to resident insurance producers or
appointments or producing a net loss of producer licensing
revenues to States), while preserving the right of States to
license, supervise, discipline, and establish licensing fees
for insurance producers, and to prescribe and enforce laws
and regulations with regard to insurance-related consumer
protection and unfair trade practices.
``SEC. 323. MEMBERSHIP.
``(a) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--Any insurance producer licensed in its
home State shall be eligible to become a member in the
Association.
``(2) Ineligibility for suspension or revocation of
license.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a State-licensed
insurance producer shall not be eligible to become a member
if a State insurance regulator has suspended or revoked such
producer's license in that State during the 3-year period
preceding the date on which such producer applies for
membership.
``(3) Resumption of eligibility.--Paragraph (2) shall cease
to apply to any insurance producer if--
``(A) the State insurance regulator renews the license of
such producer in the State in which the license was suspended
or revoked; or
``(B) the suspension or revocation is subsequently
overturned.
``(4) Criminal background check required.--
``(A) In general.--A State-licensed insurance producer
shall not be eligible to become a member unless the producer
has submitted to a national criminal background record check.
``(B) Criminal background check ordered by home state.--Any
insurance producer licensed in a State that, as a condition
for such licensure, requires the submission of identification
information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a
national criminal background record check shall be deemed to
have submitted to a national criminal background record check
for purposes of subparagraph (A).
``(C) Criminal history check ordered by association.--
``(i) In general.--The Association may submit
identification information obtained from any State-licensed
insurance producer licensed in a State that has not submitted
to a national criminal background record check, and a request
for a national criminal background record check of such
producer, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
``(ii) Bylaws or rules.--The board of directors of the
Association shall prescribe bylaws or rules for obtaining and
utilizing identification information and criminal background
record information, including the establishment of fees
required to perform a criminal background record check.
``(D) Attorney general authorization.--Upon receiving a
request from the Association, the Attorney General shall--
``(i) search the records of the Criminal Justice
Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and any other similar database over which the
Attorney General has authority and deems appropriate, for any
criminal background records (including wanted persons
information) corresponding to the identification information
provided under subparagraph (F); and
``(ii) provide any relevant information contained in such
records that pertain to the request directly to the
Association.
``(E) Relevant information defined.--For purposes of
subparagraph (D)(ii), the term `relevant information' means
any of the following records:
``(i) All felony convictions.
``(ii) All misdemeanor convictions involving--
``(I) violation of a law involving financial activities;
``(II) dishonesty or breach of trust, within the meaning of
section 1033 of title 18, United States Code, including
taking, withholding, misappropriating, or converting money or
property;
``(III) failure to comply with child support obligations;
``(IV) failure to pay taxes; and
``(V) domestic violence, child abuse, burglary of a
dwelling, or a criminal offense that has as an element the
use or attempted use of physical force, or threat of great
bodily harm, or the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
a deadly weapon, against an individual, including committing
or attempting to commit murder, manslaughter, kidnapping,
aggravated assault, forcible sex
[[Page 19513]]
offenses, robbery, arson, extortion, and extortionate
extension of credit.
``(F) Form of request.--A request under subparagraph (C)
shall include a copy of any necessary identification
information required by the Attorney General concerning the
person about whom the record is requested and a statement
signed by the person acknowledging that the Association may
request the search.
``(G) Limitation on permissible uses of information.--
Information obtained under this section may--
``(i) be used only for regulatory or law enforcement
purposes or for purposes of determining compliance with
membership criteria established by the Association;
``(ii) be disclosed only to the Association, State
insurance regulators, or Federal or State law enforcement
agencies; and
``(iii) be disclosed only if the recipient agrees to--
``(I) maintain the confidentiality of such information; and
``(II) limit the use of such information to the purposes
described in clause (i).
``(H) Penalty for improper use.--Whoever uses any
information obtained under this section knowingly and
willfully for an unauthorized purpose shall be fined under
title 18, United States Code, imprisoned for not more than 2
years, or both.
``(I) Reliance on information.--Neither the Association nor
any of its directors, officers, or employees who reasonably
rely on information provided under this section shall be
liable in any action for using information as permitted under
this section in good faith.
``(J) Clarification of section 1033.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to any action brought under
section 1033(e)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, no
person engaged in the business of conducting financial
activities shall be subject to any penalty resulting from
such section if the individual whom the person permitted to
engage in the business of insurance is a member of the
Association or is licensed, or approved (as part of an
application or otherwise), by a State insurance regulator
that performs criminal background checks under this section,
unless such person knows that the individual is in violation
of section 1033(e)(1)(A) of such title.
``(ii) Financial activities defined.--For purposes of this
subparagraph, the term `financial activities'--
``(I) means banking activities (including the ownership of
a bank), securities activities, insurance activities, or
commodities activities; and
``(II) includes all activities that are financial in nature
or are incidental to a financial activity (as defined under
section 4(k) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956).
``(K) Fees.--The Attorney General may charge a reasonable
fee for the provision of information under this paragraph.
``(L) Rule of construction.--No provision of this paragraph
shall be construed as--
``(i) requiring a State insurance regulator to perform
criminal background checks under this section; or
``(ii) superseding or otherwise limiting any other
authority that allows access to criminal background records.
``(M) Regulations.--The Attorney General may prescribe
regulations to carry out this paragraph.
``(N) Ineligibility for membership.--The Association may
deny membership to any State-licensed insurance producer on
the basis of criminal history information obtained pursuant
to subparagraph (D).
``(b) Authority To Establish Membership Criteria.--The
Association may establish membership criteria that--
``(1) bear a reasonable relationship to the purposes for
which the Association was established; and
``(2) do not unfairly limit the access of smaller agencies
to the Association membership, including imposing
discriminatory membership fees on smaller insurance
producers.
``(c) Establishment of Classes and Categories of
Membership.--
``(1) Classes of membership.--The Association may establish
separate classes of membership, with separate criteria, if
the Association reasonably determines that performance of
different duties requires different levels of education,
training, experience, or other qualifications.
``(2) Categories.--
``(A) Separate categories for producers permitted.--The
Association may establish separate categories of membership
for producers and for other persons within each class, based
on the types of licensing categories that exist under State
laws.
``(B) Separate treatment for depository institutions
prohibited.--No special categories of membership, and no
distinct membership criteria, shall be established for
members which are depository institutions or for employees,
agents, or affiliates of depository institutions.
``(d) Membership Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The Association may establish criteria
for membership which shall include standards for personal
qualifications, education, training, and experience.
``(2) Qualifications.--In establishing criteria under
paragraph (1), the Association shall consider the NAIC
Producer Licensing Model Act and the highest levels of
insurance producer qualifications established under the
licensing laws of the States.
``(3) Assistance from states.--
``(A) In general.--The Association may request a State to
provide assistance in investigating and evaluating a
prospective member's eligibility for membership in the
Association.
``(B) Rule of construction.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be
construed as requiring or authorizing any State to adopt new
or additional requirements concerning the licensing or
evaluation of insurance producers.
``(4) Denial of membership.--The Association may deny
membership to any State-licensed insurance producer for
failure to meet the membership criteria established by the
Association.
``(e) Effect of Membership.--
``(1) Authority of association members.--Membership in the
Association shall--
``(A) authorize an insurance producer to sell, solicit,
negotiate, effect, procure, deliver, renew, continue, or bind
insurance in any State for which the member pays the
licensing fee set by such State for any line or lines of
insurance specified in such producer's home State license,
and exercise all such incidental powers, as shall be
necessary to carry out such activities, including claims
adjustments and settlement, risk management, employee
benefits advice, retirement planning, and any other
insurance-related consulting activities;
``(B) be the equivalent of a nonresident insurance producer
license issued in any state where the member pays the
licensing fee; and
``(C) subject an insurance producer to all laws,
regulations, provisions or other action of any State
concerning revocation or suspension of a member's ability to
engage in any activity within the scope of authority granted
under this subsection and to all state laws, regulations,
provisions and actions preserved under paragraph (4).
``(2) Duplicative licenses.--No State, other than the
member's home State, may require an individual member to
obtain a business entity license or membership in order to
engage in any activity within the scope of authority granted
in paragraph (1) or in order for the member or any employer,
employee, or affiliate of the member to receive compensation
for the member's performance of any such activity.
``(3) Agent for remitting fees.--The Association shall act
as any member's agent for purposes of remitting licensing
fees to any State pursuant to paragraph (1).
``(4) Preservation of state consumer protection and market
conduct regulation.--No provision of this section shall be
construed as altering or affecting the continuing
effectiveness of any law, regulation, provision, or other
action of any State which purports to regulate market conduct
or unfair trade practices or establish consumer protections
to the extent that such law, regulation, provision, or other
action is not inconsistent with the provisions of this
subtitle, and then only to the extent of such inconsistency.
``(f) Biennial Renewal.--Membership in the Association
shall be renewed on a biennial basis.
``(g) Continuing Education.--
``(1) In general.--The Association shall establish, as a
condition of membership, continuing education requirements
which shall be comparable to the continuing education
requirements under the licensing laws of a majority of the
States.
``(2) State continuing education requirements.--A member
may not be required to satisfy continuing education
requirements imposed under the laws, regulations, provisions,
or actions of any State other than such member's home State.
``(3) Reciprocity.--The Association shall not require a
member to satisfy continuing education requirements that are
equivalent to any continuing education requirements of the
member's home State that have been satisfied by the member
during the applicable licensing period.
``(4) Limitation on association.--The Association shall not
directly or indirectly offer any continuing education courses
for insurance producers.
``(h) Probation, Suspension and Revocation.--The
Association may place an insurance producer that is a member
of the Association on probation or suspend or revoke such
producer's membership in the Association, as the Association
determines to be appropriate, if--
``(1) the producer fails to meet the applicable membership
criteria of the Association; or
``(2) the producer has been subject to disciplinary action
pursuant to a final adjudicatory proceeding under the
jurisdiction of a State insurance regulator.
``(i) Office of Consumer Complaints.--
``(1) In general.--The Association shall establish an
office of consumer complaints that shall--
``(A) receive and, when appropriate, investigate complaints
from both consumers and State insurance regulators related to
members of the Association;
``(B) maintain records of all complaints received in
accordance with subparagraph (A)
[[Page 19514]]
and make such records available to the National Association
of Insurance Commissioners (hereinafter in this subtitle
referred to as the `NAIC') and to each State insurance
regulator for the State of residence of the consumer who
filed the complaint; and
``(C) refer, when appropriate, any such complaint to any
appropriate State insurance regulator.
``(2) Telephone and other access.--The office of consumer
complaints shall maintain a toll-free telephone number for
the purpose of this subsection and, as practicable, other
alternative means of communication with consumers, such as an
Internet web page.
``SEC. 324. BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
``(a) Establishment.--There is established the board of
directors of the Association (hereafter in this subtitle
referred to as the `Board') for the purpose of governing and
supervising the activities of the Association and the members
of the Association.
``(b) Powers.--
``(1) In general.--The Board shall have such powers and
authority as may be specified in the bylaws of the
Association.
``(2) Quorum required.--All decisions of the Board shall
require an affirmative vote of a simple majority of Board
members.
``(c) Composition.--
``(1) In general.--The Board shall be composed of 11
members, of whom--
``(A) 6 shall be State insurance commissioners appointed in
the manner provided in paragraph (2), and
``(B) 5 shall be insurance industry representatives
appointed in the manner provided in paragraph (3).
``(2) Members appointed by the naic.--
``(A) In general.--The NAIC shall appoint 1 member of the
Board from among State insurance commissioners in each of the
following 3 categories of States:
``(i) The 18 States with the smallest total direct written
premiums from all insurance policies written in such States.
``(ii) The 18 States with the largest total direct written
premiums from all insurance policies written in such States.
``(iii) The States that are not among the States described
in clauses (i) and (ii).
``(B) At-large members.--The NAIC shall appoint 3 Board
members pursuant to criteria established by the NAIC's
membership.
``(3) Members appointed by insurance trade associations.--
``(A) Insurance producer representatives.--3 of the 5
members who are insurance industry representatives shall be
appointed as follows by the following trade associations or
their successor organizations:
``(i) 1 member appointed by the Council of Insurance Agents
and Brokers from among representatives of such association.
``(ii) 1 member appointed by the Independent Insurance
Agents and Brokers of America from among representatives of
such association.
``(iii) 1 member appointed by the National Association of
Insurance and Financial Advisors from among representatives
of such association.
``(B) Property and casualty insurer representative.--1 of
the 5 members who are insurance industry representatives
shall be appointed by the American Insurance Association, the
National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and the
Property and Casualty Insurers Association of America from
among representatives of each such association, on a rotating
basis.
``(C) Life and health insurer representative.--1 of the 5
members who are insurance industry representatives shall be
appointed by the American Council of Life Insurers and the
Association of Health Insurance Plans from among
representatives of each such association, on a rotating
basis.
``(4) Alternate appointment.--
``(A) In general.--If the NAIC or a nominating group of
insurance trade associations fails to make appointments to
the Board as required under paragraph (2) or (3), the
President shall appoint such members of the Association's
Board from lists of candidates provided by the NAIC, in the
case of a member described in paragraph (2) or the nominating
group of insurance trade associations pursuant to the
relevant subparagraph of paragraph (3), in the case of a
member described in any such subparagraph.
``(B) Procedures for obtaining naic appointment
recommendations.--
``(i) Presidential appointment from list.--If the NAIC
fails to appoint members of the Board as provided under
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (2) within 60 days after
the date of the enactment of the National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2008, the
President shall, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
appoint 6 members to the Board who are current State
insurance commissioners in accordance with the requirements
of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (2) from a list of
candidates recommended to the President by the NAIC.
``(ii) Presidential appointment without a list.--If the
NAIC fails to provide a list within 90 days after the date of
the enactment of the National Association of Registered
Agents and Brokers Reform Act of 2008, or if any list that is
provided does not include at least 10 recommended candidates
or comply with the requirements of paragraph (2), the
President shall, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
appoint 6 members to the Board without considering the views
of the NAIC, in accordance with requirements of paragraph
(2).
``(C) Procedures for obtaining insurance trade association
group appointment recommendations.--
``(i) Presidential appointment from list.--If any group of
nominating insurance trade associations identified under
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (3) fails to
appoint members of the Board as provided under such
subparagraph within 60 days after the date of the enactment
of the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
Reform Act of 2008, the President shall, with the advice and
consent of the Senate, make the requisite appointments
pursuant to each such subparagraph from a list of candidates
recommended to the President by such group.
``(ii) Presidential appointment without a list.--If the
nominating group of insurance trade associations identified
under subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (3) fails to
provide a list within 90 days after date of the enactment of
the National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
Reform Act of 2008, or if any list that is provided does not
comply with the requirements of the subparagraph, the
President shall, with the advice and consent of the Senate,
make the requisite appointments without considering the views
of such group.
``(iii) List of recommendations.--Any list of recommended
candidates provided to the President by a nominating group of
insurance trade associations identified under subparagraph
(A), (B), or (C) of paragraph (3) shall include--
``(I) at least 2 recommended candidates from each
association identified under paragraph (3)(A);
``(II) at least 2 recommended candidates, in the case of
associations identified under paragraph (3)(B); and
``(III) at least 2 recommended candidates, in the case of
associations identified under paragraph (3)(C).
``(D) Alternate appointment of state insurance
commissioners.--If fewer than 6 State insurance commissioners
accept appointment to the Board pursuant to subparagraph (B),
the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, may
appoint the remaining State insurance commissioner members of
the Board from among individuals who are current or former
State insurance commissioners, to the extent that--
``(i) any former insurance commissioner appointed by the
President shall not be employed by or have a present direct
or indirect financial interest in any insurer or other entity
in the insurance industry other than direct or indirect
ownership of, or beneficial interest in, any insurance policy
or annuity contract written or sold by an insurer; and
``(ii) not more than 3 members appointed to membership on
the Board under this subparagraph belong to the same
political party as the President.
``(5) State insurance commissioner defined.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `State insurance commissioner'
means a person who serves in the position in State
government, or on the board, commission, or other body that
is the principal insurance regulatory authority for the
State.
``(d) Terms.--
``(1) In general.--The term of each Board member shall,
after the initial appointment of the members of the Board, be
for 2 years, with \1/2\ of the members to be appointed each
year and divided as evenly as possible between members
appointed under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c).
``(2) Limitation on successive terms.--Only Board members
appointed under subsections (c)(2) and (c)(3)(A) may be re-
appointed for an additional term.
``(e) Board Vacancies.--
``(1) In general.--Any vacancy on the board of directors
shall be filled as provided under subparagraph (A) or (B) of
paragraph (2), and any member appointed to fill a vacancy
occurring before the expiration of the term for which the
member's predecessor was appointed shall be appointed only
for the remainder of that term.
``(2) Alternate appointment.--If the NAIC or a nominating
group of trade associations fails to appoint a member to the
Board to fill a vacancy within 60 days from the date that
such vacancy occurs, the President shall, with the advice and
consent of the Senate, make the requisite appointment
pursuant to the procedures established under the applicable
subparagraph of subsection (c)(4).
``(f) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the
chairperson, or as otherwise provided by the bylaws of the
Association.
``SEC. 325. OFFICERS.
``(a) Positions.--The officers of the Association shall
consist of a chairperson and a vice chairperson of the Board,
an executive director, secretary, and treasurer of the
Association, and such other officers and assistant officers
as may be deemed necessary.
``(b) Manner of Selection.--Each officer of the Board and
the Association shall be elected or appointed at such time,
in such manner, and for such terms as may be prescribed in
the bylaws of the Association.
``SEC. 326. BYLAWS, RULES, AND DISCIPLINARY ACTION.
``(a) Adoption and Amendment of Bylaws.--
[[Page 19515]]
``(1) Copy required to be filed.--The board of directors of
the Association shall submit to the President, the Congress,
and the NAIC any proposed bylaw or rules of the Association
or any proposed amendment to the bylaws or rules, accompanied
by a concise general statement of the basis and purpose of
such proposal.
``(2) Effective date.--Any proposed bylaw or rule or
proposed amendment to the bylaws or rules shall take effect,
after notice published in an insurance trade journal and
opportunity for comment, upon such date as the Association
may designate.
``(b) Disciplinary Action by the Association.--
``(1) Specification of charges.--In any proceeding to
determine whether membership shall be denied, suspended,
revoked, or not renewed (hereafter in this section referred
to as a `disciplinary action') or to determine whether a
member of the Association should be placed on probation, the
Association shall bring specific charges, notify such member
of such charges, give the member an opportunity to defend
against the charges, and keep a record.
``(2) Supporting statement.--A determination to take
disciplinary action shall be supported by a statement setting
forth--
``(A) any act or practice in which such member has been
found to have been engaged;
``(B) the specific provision of this subtitle, the rules or
regulations under this subtitle, or the rules of the
Association which any such act or practice is deemed to
violate; and
``(C) the sanction imposed and the reason for such
sanction.
``SEC. 327. POWERS.
``In addition to all the powers conferred upon a nonprofit
corporation by the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation
Act, the Association shall have the following powers:
``(1) To establish and collect such membership fees as the
Association finds necessary to impose to cover the costs of
its operations.
``(2) To adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws and rules
governing the conduct of Association business and performance
of its duties.
``(3) To establish procedures for providing notice and
opportunity for comment pursuant to section 326(a).
``(4) To enter into and perform such agreements as
necessary to carry out its duties.
``(5) To hire employees, professionals or specialists, and
elect or appoint officers, and to fix their compensation,
define their duties and give them appropriate authority to
carry out the purposes of this subtitle, and determine their
qualification; and to establish the Association's personnel
policies and programs relating to, among other things,
conflicts of interest, rates of compensation. and
qualifications of personnel.
``(6) To borrow money.
``(7) To assess board member organizations and associations
fees for such amounts that the Association determines to be
necessary and appropriate to organize and begin operations of
the Association, which shall be treated as loans to be repaid
by the Association with interest at market rate.
``SEC. 328. REPORT BY ASSOCIATION.
``(a) In General.--As soon as practicable after the close
of each fiscal year, the Association shall submit to the
President, the Congress, and the NAIC a written report
regarding the conduct of its business, and the exercise of
the other rights and powers granted by this subtitle, during
such fiscal year.
``(b) Financial Statements.--Each report submitted under
subsection (a) with respect to any fiscal year shall include
financial statements setting forth the financial position of
the Association at the end of such fiscal year and the
results of its operations (including the source and
application of its funds) for such fiscal year.
``SEC. 329. LIABILITY OF THE ASSOCIATION AND THE DIRECTORS,
OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSOCIATION.
``(a) In General.--The Association shall not be deemed to
be an insurer or insurance producer within the meaning of any
State law, rule, regulation, or order regulating or taxing
insurers, insurance producers, or other entities engaged in
the business of insurance, including provisions imposing
premium taxes, regulating insurer solvency or financial
condition, establishing guaranty funds and levying
assessments, or requiring claims settlement practices.
``(b) Liability of the Association, Its Directors,
Officers, and Employees.--Neither the Association nor any of
its directors, officers, or employees shall have any
liability to any person for any action taken or omitted in
good faith under or in connection with any matter subject to
this subtitle.
``SEC. 330. PRESIDENTIAL REVIEW.
``(a) Removal.--If the President determines and certifies
to the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the
Senate Majority Leader and the Senate Minority Leader that
the Association is acting in a manner contrary to the
purposes of this subtitle or has failed to perform its duties
under this subtitle, the President may remove the entire
existing Board for the remainder of the term to which the
members of the Board were appointed and appoint, in
accordance with section 324(c)(4) with the advice and consent
of the Senate, new members to fill the vacancies on the Board
for the remainder of such terms.
``(b) Suspension of Rules or Actions.--The President, or a
person designated by the President for such purpose, may
suspend the effectiveness of any rule, or prohibit any
action, of the Association which the President or the
designee determines and certifies to the Speaker of the
House, the House minority leader, the Senate majority leader,
and the Senate minority leader is contrary to the purposes of
this subtitle.
``SEC. 331. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE LAW.
``(a) Preemption of State Laws.--State laws, regulations,
provisions, or other actions purporting to regulate insurance
producers shall be preempted to the extent provided in
subsection (b).
``(b) Prohibited Actions.--
``(1) In general.--No State shall--
``(A) impede the activities of, take any action against, or
apply any provision of law or regulation to, any insurance
producer because that insurance producer or any affiliate
plans to become, has applied to become, or is a member of the
Association;
``(B) impose any requirement upon a member of the
Association that it pay fees different from those required to
be paid to that State were it not a member of the
Association;
``(C) impose any continuing education requirements on
nonresident insurance producers; or
``(D) impose any licensing, registration, or appointment
requirements upon any nonresident insurance producer that
sells, solicits, negotiates, effects, procures, delivers,
renews, continues, or binds insurance for commercial property
and casualty risks to an insured with risks located in more
than 1 State, provided that such nonresident insurance
producer is otherwise licensed as an insurance producer in
the State where the insured maintains its principal place of
business and the contract of insurance insures risks located
in that State.
``(2) States other than a home state.--No State, other than
a member's home State, shall--
``(A) impose any licensing, integrity, personal or
corporate qualifications, education, training, experience,
residency, continuing education, or bonding requirement upon
a member of the Association that is different from the
criteria for membership in the Association or renewal of such
membership;
``(B) impose any requirement upon a member of the
Association that it be licensed, registered, or otherwise
qualified to do business or remain in good standing in such
State, including any requirement that such insurance producer
register as a foreign company with the secretary of state or
equivalent State official; or
``(C) require that a member of the Association submit to a
criminal history record check as a condition of doing
business in such State.
``SEC. 332. COORDINATION WITH OTHER REGULATORS.
``(a) Coordination With State Insurance Regulators.--The
Association may--
``(1) establish a central clearinghouse, or utilize the
NAIC or any other entity as a central clearinghouse, through
which members of the Association may pursuant to section
323(e) disclose their intent to operate in 1 or more States
and pay the licensing fees to the appropriate States; and
``(2) establish a national database for the collection of
regulatory information concerning the activities of insurance
producers or contract with the NAIC or any other entity to
utilize such a database.
``(b) Coordination With the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.--The Association shall coordinate with the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in order to ease any
administrative burdens that fall on persons that are members
of both associations, consistent with the purposes of this
subtitle and the Federal securities laws.
``SEC. 333. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND ENFORCEMENT.
``(a) Jurisdiction.--The appropriate United States district
court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over litigation to
which the Association is a party or any matter arising under
this subtitle, including disputes between the Association and
its members that arise under this subtitle, subject to
chapter 7 of title 5, United States Code.
``(b) Exhaustion of Remedies.--An aggrieved person shall be
required to exhaust all available administrative remedies
before the Association before it may seek judicial review of
an Association decision.
``(c) Equal Weight and Deference.--In any other proceeding
involving this subtitle, the court shall give at least equal
weight and deference to the interpretations of the
Association as would be given to any State or Federal agency
with respect to any law, regulation, interpretation, or order
addressing the same issues.
``SEC. 334. DEFINITIONS.
``For purposes of this subtitle, the following definitions
shall apply:
``(1) Home state.--The term `home State' means the State in
which the insurance producer maintains its principal place of
residence or business and is licensed to act as an insurance
producer.
``(2) Insurance.--The term `insurance' means any product,
other than title insurance, defined or regulated as insurance
by
[[Page 19516]]
the appropriate State insurance regulatory authority.
``(3) Insurance producer.--The term `insurance producer'
means any insurance agent or broker, excess or surplus lines
broker or agent, insurance consultant, limited insurance
representative, and any other individual or entity that
solicits, negotiates, effects, procures, delivers, renews,
continues or binds policies of insurance or offers advice,
counsel, opinions or services related to insurance.
``(4) State.--The term `State' includes any State, the
District of Columbia, any territory of the United States, and
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.
``(5) State law.--
``(A) In general.--The term `State law' includes all laws,
decisions, rules, regulations, or other State action having
the effect of law, of any State.
``(B) Laws applicable in the district of columbia.--A law
of the United States applicable only to or within the
District of Columbia shall be treated as a State law rather
than a law of the United States.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is amended by striking the items
relating to subtitle C of title III and inserting the
following new items:
``Subtitle C--National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers
``Sec. 321. National association of registered agents and brokers.
``Sec. 322. Purpose.
``Sec. 323. Membership.
``Sec. 324. Board of directors.
``Sec. 325. Officers.
``Sec. 326. Bylaws, rules, and disciplinary action.
``Sec. 327. Powers.
``Sec. 328. Report by association.
``Sec. 329. Liability of the association and the directors, officers,
and employees of the association.
``Sec. 330. Presidential review.
``Sec. 331. Relationship to state law.
``Sec. 332. Coordination with other regulators.
``Sec. 333. Judicial review and enforcement.
``Sec. 334. Definitions.''.
{time} 1845
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Scott) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
General Leave
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material
thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, I want to thank Chairman Kanjorski of the Capital Markets
Subcommittee, as well as Chairman Frank, for working with us and
allowing H.R. 5611, the National Association of Registered Agents and
Brokers Reform Act, to be considered today. This is, indeed, an
important piece of legislation.
I was pleased to introduce this bill, along with my good friend, the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), as insurance regulatory reform is
an issue many involved agree requires action. It, indeed, has been a
pleasure to work with Representative Davis on this, who is one of my
distinguished colleagues on the Committee on Financial Services. We
both believe that this bill is a good starting point for leveling the
playing field for insurance agents and brokers.
Never before, Mr. Speaker, have we really seen the significance and
importance of the financial services industry as we are seeing it
today. There are so many, many, many pieces that need to be reformed
and looked at and improved upon, and this legislation happens to be one
of those pieces.
H.R. 5611 will simply establish the National Association of
Registered Agents and Brokers, which we refer to as NARAB, to provide
for nonresident insurance agent and broker licensing while preserving
the rights of States to supervise and discipline insurance agents and
brokers. The legislation will further benefit consumers through
increased competition among agents and brokers, leading to greater
consumer choice.
This legislation is straightforward. Insurance agents and brokers who
are licensed in good standing in their home States can apply for
membership in the National Association for Registered Agents and
Brokers, NARAB, which will allow them to operate in multiple States.
This is very much needed. Membership will be voluntary and not
affecting the rights of a nonmember producer under any State license,
respecting the sanctity of the State. This legislation will benefit
policyholders by increasing marketplace competition and consumer choice
by enabling insurance producers to more quickly and responsibly serve
the needs of the consumer.
A private, nonprofit NARAB entity consisting of State insurance
regulators and marketplace representatives will serve as a portal for
agents and brokers to obtain nonresident licenses in additional States.
This is provided that they pay the required State nonlicensing fees and
meet the NARAB standards for membership.
This bill would also establish membership criteria which would
include standards for personal qualifications, education, training and
experience; and further, member applicants must be required to undergo
a national criminal background check. And, to be very clear, NARAB
would not, I repeat, would not be part of nor report to any Federal
agency and would not have any Federal regulatory power. This is being
done to streamline and bring greater efficiency and greater choice to
consumers.
Federal legislation is needed to ensure a reciprocal licensing
process for insurance agents and brokers, and Congress already endorsed
this concept when we passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. The
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would have created NARAB if a number of States
had not reached a certain number of licensing reciprocity, and although
enough reciprocity was provided to avoid the creation of NARAB, it has
been brought to my attention and to Mr. Davis' attention by agents
across this country that there is a frustration over incomplete
insurance licensing reciprocity, and this legislation addresses that
important fact. It is abundantly clear that the bar was not set high
enough in Gramm-Leach-Bliley, thus the reason behind this important
legislation that we are considering today. We, my colleague, Mr. Davis
and I, are simply working to ensure an updated version of NARAB.
I believe the increased competition among agents and brokers this
bill would create will be beneficial to all, and on all accounts, be
more fair; and, in addition, lead to greater consumer choice. Mr.
Speaker, this is what is important. The bottom line, it is the benefit
to the consumer.
As more and more agents operate across State lines, this problem of
reciprocity has become worse, and it has become apparent to us that
true nonresident licensing reform for insurance agents could only
really be achieved through legislation at the Federal level. That is
why this Congress is acting today.
The NARAB Reform Act that we are looking at today has garnered
support from both sides of the aisle, both Democrats and Republicans,
with 48 bipartisan cosponsors, and 27 of these cosponsors are Members
serving on the Financial Services Committee.
Again, I was very much pleased to work with the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Davis) on this legislation which again narrowly targets
only the area where there is a problem. We have gone in with a laser
beam and simply targeted where there is a problem to fix, and we have
done that.
Our manager's amendment was recently endorsed by the NAIC, showing
that the State insurance regulators believe that this type of
legislation is badly needed reform. Other groups that support this bill
include the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, the
IIABA; the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers,
the NAIFA; the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the
NAMIC; the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, PCI; and
the Council of Insurance
[[Page 19517]]
Agents and Brokers, the CIAB; as well as a number of individual
insurance companies.
As talks continue on this issue, we are very hopeful for the
expansion of our regulatory board to include PIA, the National
Association of Professional Insurance Agents. This has been a very
inclusive process, Mr. Speaker, working in a very much needed area to
bring a greater degree of consumer choice and benefits to the American
consumer of insurance products.
I am proud to have the opportunity again to work along with my
colleagues on the Financial Services Committee and Mr. Davis on this
important legislation. And to close, I would just simply urge all of my
fellow Members to support H.R. 5611.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5611, the National
Association of Registered Agents and Brokers Reform Act, or NARAB II.
First, I would like to commend my friend, David Scott. We come from
two different parties, but a common background in the business
community, in the small business community, understanding the issues
that business people deal with on a daily basis, and crossing multiple
regulatory frameworks dealing with multiple States.
My experience has led to my support and working to develop this bill
and to get it passed tonight and hopefully signed into law before the
end of year. It was based on my experience as a small business owner,
not as an agent, but as a business owner who had employees in several
different States, and suddenly found when I reached out to a good
friend of mine who was an agent himself that he had to deal with
several different agents. It suddenly became very complicated and very
costly from a time standpoint. It was inefficient and not cost
effective at all for any of us to get these different plans to fit the
needs and in compliance with each State.
After I came to Congress, with that experience in the back of my
mind, I also heard from many, many agents in the insurance industry,
and many small business owners who encountered situations like I had
sitting astride the nexus of three States.
Insurance reform has been the subject of discussion for many years
now. There are many different perspectives on it. What David and I have
tried to do through this bill, and our staffs, is to simply solve a
process problem that allows people to work together more effectively.
To me, this is the height of bipartisanism at its best. We are working
to common cause, to fix a process that helps our citizens across the
country.
I am very pleased to see this meaningful and targeted reform measure
make it to the floor today after over a year of work. NARAB II goes
straight to the heart of the difficulties that insurance agents and
brokers, and small business owners who are their customers, face on a
daily basis as they try to navigate this web of State licensing
requirements.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act would have created the original NARAB
system in the event that the States did not satisfy the producer
licensing reform objectives outlined in the underlying bill.
Ultimately, the States were perceived to have achieved a specified
level of licensing reciprocity, and NARAB was never created. Thus, the
problem remained.
Nearly 10 years since the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, we are still
in need of progress on this issue. H.R. 5611 mandates the creation of
NARAB. The board's purposes and function will be generally the same as
the provisions of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. In short, agents and brokers
licensed in good standing in their home State and meeting NARAB-member
criteria will be able to join NARAB. Members will pay the appropriate
fees required by each State in which they are licensed, and so this
will not eliminate any revenue States currently generate from
licensing. NARAB would not have any Federal regulatory authority, an
important point that my friend from Georgia highlighted during his
remarks as well. This is not an expansion of the Federal bureaucracy,
it is a correction to allow the private sector to continue to grow
business and create jobs.
I would like to think of NARAB as a stamp of approval for an
insurance agent acknowledged and accepted nationwide.
I appreciate the hard work, expertise and advice from all of the
insurance industry groups in helping us to come to compromise on H.R.
5611. In particular, the NAIC has been an invaluable source of
knowledge, and I appreciate their substantive suggestions for ways we
can improve the bill.
We made sure that the State insurance commissioners had a voice in
the shaping of this legislation to ensure that State rights were
protected, and at the same time we were able to address a direct issue
that was affecting these brokers and small business customers.
H.R. 5611 takes a significant step toward improving the way our
insurance markets operate within the existing State-based system. I
would like to thank in particular Chairman Frank, Ranking Member
Bachus, Chairman Kanjorski, and Ranking Member Pryce for their
leadership on the important issue of insurance reform and for their
support of this bill that Mr. Scott and I introduced.
Lastly, I want to thank my good friend, David Scott, for his work and
also his staff, Michael Andel and Tammy McAthey, and my legislative
director, Lauren O'Brien, who have worked long and hard to bring this
to pass. This has been a great piece of legislation. I urge support for
the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1900
Mr. SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I just want to
again echo my sentiments, and appreciate the fine work that Mr. Davis
has done on this. It's been a pleasure working with him and the full
committee and all of our staffs combined and working with the insurance
industry itself and especially our agents to make their work smoother
and to pass a bill that is very forward-looking to improve consumer
benefits on their end.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 5611, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
PERMISSION TO CONSIDER AS ADOPTED MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. 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 Monday,
September 15, 2008:
House Resolution 1255, House Resolution 1372, House Resolution 1425,
House Concurrent Resolution 410, H.R. 2352, H.R. 2535, H.R. 3437, H.R.
5293, H.R. 5350, H.R. 5736, H.R. 6064, H.R. 6503, and H.R. 6855.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, respective motions to
reconsider are laid on the table and titles are amended as applicable.
There was no objection.
____________________
CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY PROJECT ACT OF 2008
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 998) to direct the Librarian of Congress and
the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution to carry out a joint
project at the Library of Congress and the National Museum of
[[Page 19518]]
African American History and Culture to collect video and audio
recordings of personal histories and testimonials of individuals who
participated in the Civil Rights movement, and for other purposes, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 998
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 ``Civil Rights History Project
Act of [2007] 2008''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
(1) A fundamental principle of American democracy is that
individuals should stand up for their rights and beliefs and
fight for justice.
(2) The actions of those who participated in the Civil
Rights movement from the 1950's through the 1960's are a
shining example of this principle in action, demonstrated in
events as varied as the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the sit-ins,
the Freedom Rides, the March on Washington, the drive for
voting rights in Mississippi, and the March to Selma.
(3) While the Civil Rights movement had many visible
leaders, including Thurgood Marshall, Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., and Rosa Parks, there were many others whose impact and
experience were just as important to the cause but who are
not as well known.
(4) The participants in the Civil Rights movement possess
an invaluable resource in their first-hand memories of the
movement, and the recording of the retelling of their stories
and memories will provide a rich, detailed history of our
Nation during an important and tumultuous period.
(5) It is in the Nation's interest to undertake a project
to collect oral histories of individuals from the Civil
Rights movement so future generations will be able to learn
of their struggle and sacrifice through primary-source,
eyewitness material. A coordinated Federal project would also
focus attention on the efforts undertaken by various public
and private entities to collect and interpret articles in all
formats relating to the Civil Rights movement, and serve as a
model for future projects undertaken in museums, libraries,
and universities throughout the Nation.
(6) The Library of Congress and the Smithsonian Institution
are appropriate repositories to collect, preserve, and make
available to the public a collection of these oral histories.
The Library and Smithsonian have expertise in the management
of documentation projects, and experience in the development
of cultural and educational programs for the public.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to create a new
federally sponsored, authorized, and funded project that will
coordinate at a national level the collection of video and
audio recordings of personal histories and testimonials of
individuals who participated in the American Civil Rights
movement that will build upon and complement previous and
ongoing documentary work on this subject, and to assist and
encourage local efforts to preserve the memories of such
individuals so that Americans of all current and future
generations may hear from them directly and better appreciate
the sacrifices they made.
SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT PROJECT AT LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
AND NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORY
AND CULTURE TO COLLECT VIDEO AND AUDIO
RECORDINGS OF HISTORIES OF PARTICIPANTS IN
AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
(a) Establishment of Project.--
(1) In general.--Within the limits of available funds, the
Librarian of Congress (hereafter referred to as the
``Librarian'') and the Secretary of the Smithsonian
Institution (hereafter referred to as the ``Secretary''),
acting jointly, shall establish an oral history project--
(A) to survey, during the initial phase of the project,
collections of audio and video recordings of the
reminiscences of participants in the Civil Rights movement
that are housed in archives, libraries, museums, and other
educational institutions, as well as ongoing documentary
work, in order to augment and complement these endeavors and
avoid duplication of effort;
(B) to solicit, reproduce, and collect--
(i) video and audio recordings of personal histories and
testimonials of individuals who participated in the Civil
Rights movement, and
(ii) visual and written materials (such as letters,
diaries, photographs, and ephemera) relevant to the personal
histories of individuals;
(C) to create a collection of the recordings and other
materials obtained, and to catalog and index the collection
in a manner the Librarian and the Secretary consider
appropriate; and
(D) to make the collection available for public use through
the Library of Congress and the National Museum of African
American History and Culture, as well as through such other
methods as the Librarian and the Secretary consider
appropriate.
(2) Role of director of museum.--The Secretary shall carry
out the Secretary's duties under this Act through the
Director of the National Museum of African American History
and Culture.
(b) Use of and Consultation With Other Entities.--The
Librarian and the Secretary may carry out the activities
described in subsection (a)(1) through agreements and
partnerships entered into with other government and private
entities, and may otherwise consult with interested persons
(within the limits of available resources) and develop
appropriate guidelines and arrangements for soliciting,
acquiring, and making available recordings under the project
under this Act.
(c) Services of Experts and Consultants; Acceptance of
Volunteer Services; Advance Payments.--In carrying out
activities described in subsection (a)(1), the Librarian and
the Secretary may--
(1) procure temporary and intermittent services under
section 3109 of title 5, United States Code;
(2) accept and utilize the services of volunteers and other
uncompensated personnel and reimburse them for travel
expenses, including per diem, as authorized under section
5703 of title 5, United States Code; and
(3) make advances of money and payments in advance in
accordance with section 3324 of title 31, United States Code.
(d) Timing.--As soon as practicable after the enactment of
this Act, the Librarian and the Secretary shall begin
collecting video and audio recordings and other materials
under subsection (a)(1), and shall attempt to collect the
first such recordings from the oldest individuals involved.
(e) Definition.--In this Act, the term ``Civil Rights
movement'' means the movement to secure racial equality in
the United States for African Americans that, focusing on the
period 1954 through 1968, challenged the practice of racial
segregation in the Nation and achieved equal rights
legislation for all American citizens.
SEC. 4. PRIVATE SUPPORT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS HISTORY PROJECT.
(a) Encouraging Solicitation and Acceptance of Donations.--
The Librarian of Congress and the Secretary are encouraged to
solicit and accept donations of funds and in-kind
contributions to support activities under section 3.
(b) Dedication of Funds Provided to Library of Congress.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
(1) any funds donated to the Librarian of Congress to
support the activities of the Librarian under section 3 shall
be deposited entirely into an account established for such
purpose;
(2) the funds contained in such account shall be used
solely to support such activities; and
(3) the Librarian of Congress may not deposit into such
account any funds donated to the Librarian which are not
donated for the exclusive purpose of supporting such
activities.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act--
(1) $500,000 for fiscal year [2008] 2009; and
(2) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years [2009 through 2012] 2010 through 2013.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5
legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks in the
Record on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 998, which would create
the Civil Rights History Project. The bill directs the Library of
Congress and the Smithsonian Institution, through the National Museum
of African American History and Culture, to collaborate and establish
an oral history project. This joint venture will result in the
collection and preservation of audio and video recordings by
individuals who participated in the Civil Rights Movement.
A fundamental precept of our American democracy is that individuals
stand up for their rights and beliefs and pursue justice through civil
means. Many who participated in the Civil Rights Movement did so at
great personal sacrifice. Their actions were often heroic and tireless,
and challenged the practice of racial segregation in the Nation, which
resulted in
[[Page 19519]]
equal rights legislation for all American citizens.
As these pioneers continue to age, it is important that their
memories and stories of events are documented so that future
generations can witness their testimony regarding the lives and times
of that era.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 998, which would direct the Library of Congress and the
Smithsonian Institution to collect and preserve audio and video
recordings from individuals who were involved in the civil rights
movement.
In 1954 the Supreme Court landmark decision, Brown v. Board of
Education, served as a beacon of hope to those who had longed for
racial equality in this Nation, and is largely credited with beginning
the period commonly referred to as the civil rights movement. Rather
than viewing the case which provided for the desegregation of public
schools in the United States as the end of a journey, supporters of the
civil rights movement recognized the Court's decision as the beginning
of a long and difficult road ahead.
The years that followed brought many hard battles, from the
Montgomery Bus Boycott that was a result of Rosa Parks' brave refusal
to give up her seat to a white passenger, to the march in Selma,
Alabama, during which our own colleague, Congressman Lewis, suffered
severe physical trauma in defense of voting rights. Congressman Lewis'
recollections of this time have often brought those who have heard him
speak to tears. It is exactly those types of oral histories that are in
danger of being lost in the absence of a concerted effort to preserve
them. We cannot afford to lose those accounts of extraordinary courage
in the face of profound injustice.
With the passage of time, generations of Americans have now been born
with freedoms that would not have been possible without the struggle
and sacrifice of those who participated in the civil rights movement.
The audio and video recordings preserved as a result of this bill's
passage will be an invaluable resource from which those young people
who may learn about the struggle for racial equality and will serve as
an inspiration to all Americans as they reflect upon this pivotal time
in our Nation's history.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such
time as she may consume to Representative McCarthy of New York.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. I thank my colleague from California.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 998, the Civil Rights
Oral History Project. I want to thank Chairman Brady and Ranking Member
Ehlers and the Committee on House Administration for moving to the
floor on this bill.
I also want to thank my lead cosponsor of the bill, Congressman John
Lewis of Georgia, himself a civil rights hero, for all of his help in
developing and generating support for this bill.
Mr. Lewis was at the forefront of the battle to end segregation, and
his contribution to ensuring equality in our country cannot be
overstated. I know I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that we
are honored to serve with him, and grateful for all he has done and
continues to do for all Americans as a steward of justice and equal
rights.
We are fortunate to serve in Congress with several other influential
civil rights leaders, and I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you
for their sacrifices and commitment to the cause of freedom.
The fight for civil rights was one of the most significant social and
cultural movements in our Nation's history. The will of a generation to
right centuries of injustice changed the world we live in forever.
The leaders of the civil rights movement displayed tremendous courage
and persistence to ensure that all Americans were treated equally, with
dignity, regardless of their ethnic background, race or origins. Many
leaders from all walks of life put their lives on the line to make it
possible for all people to live freely and have the same fundamental
rights.
We can never overstate the contributions of our Nation's civil rights
leaders. Without their efforts, many of the things we take for granted
every day would not have come to pass. It is vital that future
generations know and understand the struggles and the challenges of
those that paved the way for us to live in this Nation free.
These brave Americans' stories must continue to be told to not only
inspire future generations, but to remind people what is possible in
America and how far we have come. Unfortunately, with each passing
year, our Nation loses more and more of the people that played major
roles in the struggles to secure equal rights for all Americans. In
recent years we have lost great leaders like Mrs. Coretta Scott King
and Mrs. Rosa Parks. Thankfully, their stories have been well
documented in the historical record, but there are many others who have
already passed or whose memories are fading.
While we know so much about the lives of the leaders of the civil
rights movement, such as Dr. Martin Luther King; our colleague,
Congressman John Lewis; and Thurgood Marshall, it's important that we
learn about the everyday people of all races who took a stand during a
pivotal time in our Nation's history.
There were so many people who were crucial to the civil rights
movement but have not had as much recorded about their experiences for
the public record. These were the people, in many cases, that were part
of some of the most significant battles in the fight for equality. The
workers in Memphis that went on strike and marched in protest with Dr.
King, the students that held sit-ins at lunch counters in the South,
the thousands of people that marched on Washington and witnessed the
``I Have a Dream Speech,'' and the millions of Americans that stood up
and worked in their own ways to make our country a better place for all
people. These people are heroes of the civil rights movement, and we
need to make sure that their stories are woven into the fabric of the
American story.
That's why I have introduced the Civil Rights Oral History bill. The
purpose of the Civil Rights Oral History bill is to catalogue and
preserve the stories and experiences of the people who were involved in
the civil rights movement.
This legislation stresses the importance of capturing the memories
and the deeds of the civil rights generation and will give us a unique
insight into the experiences of the people that we rely on in the front
lines of the civil rights movement.
This bill will create a joint effort between the future National
Museum of African American History and Culture and the Library of
Congress to collect oral histories of the people that were involved in
the civil rights movement and preserve their stories for future
generations. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to take the
time to acknowledge the contributions of these great Americans who
fought to make our Nation a more fair and just place.
Mr. Speaker, we have been going for a number of years working with
our veterans across this Nation to get the history from them, an oral
history, that has been going to the Library of Congress. That's where
this idea came from.
When you think that we are really a very young country, and
hopefully, we're going to be around for centuries to come, and I think
it's important that future generations actually know how we became a
great country, but also the struggles that many Americans went through.
This bill will help preserve that.
I hope my colleagues will support this bill. This is for the future
of America; it's for the future of the generations to see the history.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to Mr.
Hinchey of New York as much time as he may consume.
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to stand here this evening
with my friends and colleagues and particularly with my friend and
colleague, Congresswoman Carolyn
[[Page 19520]]
McCarthy, to voice my support for H.R. 998, a bill which she has
produced and which will enrich the lives of future generations. This
bill will collect oral history records from those whose struggles made
them among America's most notable heroes, the leaders of the civil
rights generation.
The civil rights movement has strengthened our social fabric by
extending basic rights to all of America's people through the right to
employment, the right to buy or rent a home, the right to education,
rights that are the most basic and fundamental in our country.
It is imperative that we collect oral history in order to preserve
the rich cultural heritage of our Nation. Preserving oral history gives
those in the future a firsthand account of the struggle that Americans
went through to change the laws and the lives of our people and our
government. These great Americans stood up to violence, they stood up
to death threats, they stood up to local, State and government
oppression and opposition, and they risked their own economic well-
being so that our great Nation could fulfill its promise to all of its
people. We must preserve that history that explains the hardship and
sacrifice that many African Americans and others went through to get
equal treatment under the law.
This history can be most richly delivered by the people who led the
movement themselves, those who fought so valiantly, and who can give
their account firsthand. This bill will preserve an important part of
our heritage through the process of collecting this oral history and
making it available. Firsthand accounts, which include the honesty,
emotion and accuracy are needed as an important part of our historical
record.
{time} 1915
Collecting these first person accounts from the civil rights movement
will also give generations, those in the future, inspiration and
motivation to uphold and strengthen America's promise for equal
opportunity and to be sure that that promise is fulfilled.
It is my hope that our future generations will always be able to
access oral histories and will blaze new trails that promote equality
and richness in diversity.
Again, I'd like to thank all of my friends who were involved with
this bill, especially my colleague and friend, Carolyn McCarthy, for
including me to celebrate the culture that makes America the great
Nation that it is by taking further steps to allow future generations
to learn from our notable American heroes.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, It is now my pleasure to yield
2 minutes to Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Davis and
particularly Congresswoman McCarthy for bringing H.R. 998.
I do represent Memphis, Tennessee, and much of the civil rights
history of Memphis, for better and for worse purposes, have occurred in
my district. It is important that the history of that struggle be
maintained to teach people about the courageous struggle, the
leadership that many, many people had to embark on to achieve their
rights that should have been part of 18th century America, but the 18th
century America was not complete, and all men were not created equal.
Certainly women weren't created equal either, and people had to fight
and risk their lives to attain rights for people who today are
beneficiaries thereof.
In my community, many of these heroes of the civil rights movement
have been dying lately. They're getting old. This bill I wish would
have come earlier, but I really thank Representative McCarthy for
bringing it. It's a start. And there are people like the great Reverend
Benjamin Hooks, who's getting up in his years but who's got many
stories to tell, and Russell Sugarman. We lost Mr. Ernest Withers, a
great photographer of the civil rights movement, this past year.
Time goes by for all of us, and the opportunities to collect history
become more difficult as each day passes.
So I'm proud to speak on behalf of this, but mostly as a
Congressperson from the Ninth District in Tennessee, I want to express
my appreciation to Representative McCarthy for having the leadership to
bring this and for initiating this process.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased that
Congresswoman McCarthy has brought this legislation forward. As someone
who's had an opportunity to travel on the pilgrimages of the civil
rights movement with our own John Lewis, Congressman John Lewis, I know
how important it is for us to act now and to capture the words and the
actions and the memories of those who played such an important and
historical role in this country.
I urge all Members to support this bill.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of
the Civil Rights Oral History Project. I want to thank Congresswoman
McCarthy for her leadership on this issue and for bringing this bill to
the floor today.
Oral history is such an important way to capture and share our
nation's story.
These are stories that need to be told, and preserved. These are the
stories of the civil rights movement; eye witness accounts of the
struggle for civil rights.
These are recollections of real people who marched, and even spilled
a little blood in the cause of civil rights and civil liberties, and in
the cause of voting rights.
These stories will be collected and preserved by the National Museum
of African American History and Culture and the Library of Congress.
Future generations will be able to hear the voices of people who were
there during the civil rights movement, and hear them tell their
stories in their own words.
We have lost too many of those voices in the last few years--Mrs.
Coretta Scott King and Mrs. Rosa Parks, and we will continue to lose
more courageous Civil Rights pioneers. We must begin this wonderful
Oral History Project today, before we lose parts of the story. I
strongly support this bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 998, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AND FEDERAL
VOTING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SHOULD ENSURE THAT MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS ARE PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION ON VOTING IN
THE 2008 GENERAL ELECTIONS
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 388) expressing
the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense and the Federal
Voting Assistance Program should take certain additional and timely
measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their
dependents are provided with reasonable information on how to register
to vote and vote in the 2008 general elections, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 388
Whereas members of the Armed Forces and their dependents
deserve every reasonable opportunity to participate in the
electoral process given their daily sacrifices to protect our
liberty and freedom;
Whereas Congress enacted the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act in part to ensure that members
of the Armed Forces and their dependents and citizens living
overseas are provided with sufficient information,
opportunities, and balloting materials to foster their
participation in Federal elections;
Whereas the Election Assistance Commission found that less
than 17 percent of the 6 million citizens eligible under the
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act chose to
participate in the 2006 general election;
[[Page 19521]]
Whereas the Election Assistance Commission further found
that of the 48,600 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act ballots that were not counted by States and local
jurisdictions in the November 2006 elections, 70 percent were
not counted due to incorrect or undeliverable addresses;
Whereas the Election Assistance Commission further found
that more than 10 percent of all uncounted military and
overseas absentee ballots were rejected because they were
received past the required deadline;
Whereas the Election Assistance Commission further found
that more effort needs to be made by the States and the
Department of Defense to ensure that members of the Armed
Forces and their dependents and citizens living overseas are
made fully aware of their voting rights;
Whereas the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness and the Federal Voting Assistance Program are
required to create and utilize a Federal Post Card
Application that allows members of the Armed Forces and their
dependents and citizens living overseas to use a single
application to register to vote and request an absentee
ballot;
Whereas a survey conducted recently by the Inspector
General for the Department of Defense analyzed the
effectiveness of the Federal Voting Assistance Program during
the 2006 general election, and found that only 40 percent of
members of the Armed Forces received voting information from
the military and only 33 percent were aware of the Federal
Post Card Application;
Whereas in April 2008 testimony before the Committee on
House Administration revealed that the Department of Defense
had not provided all members of the Armed Forces and their
dependents with post card applications by the January 15,
2008, deadline as required by Department policy, and that the
Department has yet to comply with this requirement; and
Whereas many of Department of Defense's outreach efforts,
including its Armed Forces Voter Week, are scheduled to occur
60 days before the November 2008 election, which may not
provide members of the Armed Forces and their dependents or
citizens living overseas with sufficient time to complete and
return the Federal Post Card Applications: Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that--
(1) it is in the interests of the United States to ensure
that the Secretary of Defense and the Federal Voting
Assistance Program provide members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents and citizens living overseas who are
eligible under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee
Voting Act with sufficient information regarding
opportunities to register to vote and to request an absentee
ballot for elections occurring in 2008, including the
November 2008 general election;
(2) the Secretary of Defense and the Federal Voting
Assistance Program must, on a monthly basis starting
September 22, 2008, and continuing on the first of each month
through the November 2008 general election, provide all
eligible members of the Armed Forces and their dependents
with an electronic reminder of the voter registration and
absentee ballot process available under the Uniformed and
Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and, as required by
Department policy, provide all members of the Armed Forces
and their dependents with an electronic or paper copy of the
Federal Post Card Application, along with sufficient
instruction on completing and returning the application to
the appropriate election official;
(3) State and local election officials should work with the
Federal Voting Assistance Program to develop methods,
consistent with privacy and security, for obtaining updated
addresses and contact information, if possible, for any
member of the Armed Forces or dependent and any citizen
living overseas who has been identified by the State or local
election official as having an undeliverable ballot address;
(4) the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness should report to the Committee on House
Administration of the House of Representatives, the Committee
on Rules and Administration of the Senate, and the Committees
on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and Senate
not later than October 15, 2008, on the efforts made by the
Department of Defense to--
(A) educate members of the Armed Forces and citizens living
overseas on the process of voter registration and absentee
voting in the 2008 general election,
(B) provide all eligible members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents and citizens living overseas with the
Federal Post Card Application to register to vote and cast
absentee ballots in such election, and
(C) cooperate effectively with State and local election
officials in their efforts to register these individuals and
distribute and collect their absentee ballots;
(5) States must redouble their efforts to make sure that
local jurisdictions collect the mandated information for
individuals who are eligible under the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act, and should work in partnership
with the Federal Government to develop best practices
(including the use of electronic means) for encouraging
voting participation among members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents and citizens living overseas; and
(6) the Department of Defense, the Federal Voting
Assistance Program, the Election Assistance Commission, and
State governments should examine recommendations made by the
Election Assistance Commission in its September 2007 survey
findings regarding the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I stand with the House leadership in full support of House Concurrent
Resolution 388. This resolution insists that the government strengthen
its promise under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting
Act to assist our military and overseas citizens to vote.
House Concurrent Resolution 388 would direct the Federal Voting
Assistance Program to provide military personnel and their dependents
with electronic reminders about the election process and ensure paper
and electronic copies of the Federal Post Card Application are
provided.
According to a 2006 U.S. Election Assistance Commission Report, 70
percent of uncounted military and overseas ballots were due to
incorrect or undeliverable addresses. House Concurrent Resolution 388
would also direct election offices to work with the Federal Voting
Assistance Program to update contact information as well as expand
outreach efforts to military and overseas voters.
I applaud Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Blunt for their leadership in drafting
this bipartisan resolution. House Concurrent Resolution 388 reinforces
the government's commitment to assisting our military and overseas
voters. I urge all Members to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H. Con. Res. 388, which would express the sense of Congress that the
Department of Defense and the Federal Voting Assistance Program should
take additional measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents are provided with reasonable information on voting in
the 2008 general elections. This bill will also extend information to
civilians living abroad for the same purpose.
Mr. Speaker, recent data compiled by the Election Assistance
Commission found that less than 17 percent of the 6 million citizens
eligible under the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act
chose to participate in the 2006 general election. Of the 48,600
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ballots that were
not counted by States and local jurisdictions in the November 2006
elections, 70 percent were not counted due to incorrect or
undeliverable addresses. It is simply unacceptable that thousands of
the brave men and women who fight for our freedom each day were denied
a voice in the electoral process due to incorrectly filling out a
ballot.
In September 2007, the EAC also found that ``the third largest reason
for rejected ballots was that they were received by election offices
after the deadline stipulated by State law.''
I have introduced H.R. 5673, the MVP Act, to ensure that military
personnel are not left out of the elections process while serving their
country overseas. Although my bill has been endorsed by the Vets for
Freedom, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars called it ``an important
piece of legislation ensuring that the men and women who wear our
Nation's uniform are not left out of the election process while serving
in harm's way,'' the MVP Act has not yet
[[Page 19522]]
been brought before the House for consideration. However, I am hopeful
that this resolution will create awareness of this issue and lead to
more comprehensive reform that will provide a solution to this problem.
In addition to meeting ballot deadlines and correctly completing
absentee ballots, there is also an issue with military personnel
receiving information from the Federal Voting Assistance Program. A
survey conducted recently by the Inspector General for the Department
of Defense analyzed the effectiveness of the Federal Voting Assistance
Program during the 2006 general election and found that only 40 percent
of members of the Armed Forces received voting information from the
military and only 33 percent were aware of the Federal Post Card
Application.
We must ensure that the Federal Voting Assistance Program improves
their communication efforts and promotes the Federal Post Card
Application and the Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot so that our
service men and women are aware of the resources available to them
during an election.
This year, perhaps more than any other year in recent memory, our
Nation's electorate is excited to cast their ballots for the candidates
of their choosing. For those serving their country overseas, and for
civilians living abroad, we must do everything in our power to ensure
that they have the information necessary to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 388, as
amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution, as amended, was
agreed to.
The title was amended so as to read: ``Concurrent resolution
expressing the sense of Congress that the Department of Defense and the
Federal Voting Assistance Program should take certain additional and
timely measures to ensure that members of the Armed Forces and their
dependents and citizens living overseas are provided with reasonable
information on how to register to vote and vote in the 2008 general
elections.''.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 6625) to require the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to permit facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to
be designated as voter registration agencies, and for other purposes,
as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 6625
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 ``Veteran Voting Support
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Veterans serving in foreign wars have performed a great
service to, and risked the greatest sacrifice in the name of,
our country, and should be supported by the people and the
Government of the United States.
(2) Veterans are especially qualified to understand issues
of war, foreign policy, and government support for veterans,
and they should have the opportunity to voice that
understanding through voting.
(3) The Department of Veterans Affairs should assist
veterans in meeting their medical, social, and civic needs,
including the full participation of veterans in our
democracy.
(4) The Department of Veterans Affairs should make every
effort to assist veterans to register to vote and to vote.
SEC. 3. USE OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES AS
VOTER REGISTRATION AGENCIES.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall permit a State to
designate facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs
located in such State as voter registration agencies under
section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 1973gg-5) solely for the purposes of providing voter
registration services under such section to individuals
receiving services or assistance from the facility (or
applying to receive services or assistance from the
facility).
SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE WITH ABSENTEE BALLOTS.
In addition to the services required to be provided under
section 7 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (42
U.S.C. 1973gg-5), any facility of the Department of Veterans
Affairs which is designated as a voter registration agency
under section 3 shall, with respect to the individuals for
whom the facility is required to provide such services--
(1) provide information relating to the opportunity to
request an absentee ballot;
(2) make available absentee ballot applications and, upon
request, assistance in completing such applications and
absentee ballots, except that nothing in this paragraph may
be construed to waive any requirement under State or local
law regarding an individual's eligibility to receive an
absentee ballot or vote by absentee ballot in any election;
and
(3) work with local election officials to ensure the proper
delivery of absentee ballot applications and absentee
ballots.
SEC. 5. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY NONPARTISAN ORGANIZATIONS.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall permit a meaningful
opportunity, including reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions, for nonpartisan organizations to provide voter
registration information and assistance at facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
SEC. 6. ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY ELECTION OFFICIALS AT
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FACILITIES.
(a) Distribution of Information.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall
not prohibit any election administration official, whether
State or local, party-affiliated or non-party affiliated, or
elected or appointed, from providing voting information to
veterans at any facility of the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
(2) Voting information.--In this subsection, the term
``voting information'' means nonpartisan information intended
for the public about voting, including information about
voter registration, voting systems, absentee balloting,
polling locations, and other important resources for voters.
(b) Voter Registration Services.--The Secretary shall
provide reasonable access to facilities of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to State and local election officials for
the purpose of providing nonpartisan voter registration
services to individuals.
(c) Coordination to Minimize Disruption of Regular
Activities.--Any election official providing nonpartisan
voting information or nonpartisan voter registration services
under this section at a facility of the Department of
Veterans Affairs shall coordinate the provision of the
information or services with the Secretary to ensure that the
information or services are provided in a manner which
minimizes the disruption of the regular activities of the
facility.
SEC. 7. ANNUAL REPORT ON COMPLIANCE.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall submit to Congress
an annual report on how the Secretary has complied with the
requirements of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as
I may consume.
H.R. 6625 will make certain that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
provides the voting assistance and opportunities that our veterans
deserve.
H.R. 6625 responds to a Department of Veterans Affairs voting
assistance policy established in May, which was misguided and
unacceptable. The VA directive permitted voting assistance only if
requested. It prohibited election officials and nonpartisan
organizations from providing assistance to our veterans at VA
facilities. Despite the policy changes made by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs last week, the policy still doesn't offer the
meaningful voter registration and voting assistance our veterans
deserve.
H.R. 6625 will require the VA to assist our veterans by permitting
States to
[[Page 19523]]
designate VA facilities as voter registration agencies under section 7
of the National Voter Registration Act. In addition, the bill would
prohibit the VA from banning State and local election officials and
nonpartisan groups from distributing nonpartisan information about
voting and providing voter assistance at VA facilities.
Voter registration drives conducted by these election experts have
energized millions of voters who historically have not participated in
elections. H.R. 6625 requires that nonpartisan groups with the
expertise and experience be allowed to assist veterans with the voting
process with minimal disruption to facility operations.
My district in San Diego is home to a large concentration of
veterans. I know that the future of our country matters so much to
them, and they want to be involved. Certainly, the veterans who have
fought and suffered to protect our democracy should be given every
opportunity to vote.
Much has been said about the importance of this bill for voter
registration, but I'd like to draw your attention to section 4 because
it may be the most important part.
Section 4 provides veterans with assistance in voting by absentee
ballot, also called voting by mail. It requires that absentee request
forms be available in VA facilities and ensures that veterans can get
help completing their absentee materials and returning them to the
elections office.
Why is this so important? Not only does voting by mail save voters
what can be a difficult trip to the polls, but it allows them more time
to study their choices. For veterans, having time to vote without the
pressure of a line of people behind them is especially helpful because
many are voting in new jurisdictions where candidates and issues may
not be familiar to them. Further, some of their illnesses or injuries
mean they need additional time to mark their choices.
Unfortunately, voting absentee is not as straightforward a process as
it should be in many places. State rules vary widely about who can vote
absentee and how. Some States have forms with plenty of fine print,
others require a formal letter just to request an absentee ballot, and
some States even insist on doctors' notes or notary signatures. And of
course, different States have a range of deadlines that must be met.
To make sure that votes count, some veterans could really use
assistance navigating this overly complex process. I am pleased that
our committee passed my legislation to lift some of the restrictions on
voting by mail, and it is my sincere hope that we will make voting
absentee more doable for everyone.
In the meantime, the least we can do for our brave veterans is to
give them a little help with their absentee ballots.
I want to thank Mr. Ehlers for working with the committee to draft
language that guarantees our veterans will always receive the voter
assistance they need. I would also like to thank the 54 colleagues who
have joined Mr. Brady and me to introduce this legislation and
especially applaud the dedication and work that Representatives Filner
and Watson have shown on this issue.
{time} 1930
Our veterans have dedicated their lives to protecting our democracy
and our government and we should be dedicated to ensuring veterans that
they are given every opportunity to vote and participate in the very
democracy they defend.
I urge all Members to support this legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 6625 which would permit facilities of the Department of Veterans
Affairs to be designated as voter registration agencies.
As I have stated in the past, it is important that we ensure that
every vote is counted and that every citizen is able to cast a ballot.
As a part of that effort, I'm pleased to join in support of this bill
which would designate veteran facilities as voter registration
agencies. Doing so will allow those who have risked their lives for our
freedom an opportunity to register to vote and make their voices heard.
I am also pleased that Chairman Brady addressed our chief concern
with the original version of the bill, that the desire to facilitate
the voting process for patients does not supersede patient care due to
intrusion by third party groups in VA facilities. This bill's original
language stated that nonpartisan groups would have ``reasonable
access'' to veterans in order to encourage voter registration. The word
``reasonable'' means different things to different people, and we would
hate to see a veteran who wishes to convalesce in a private setting be
intruded upon by activists from a voter registration group, however
well intended they may be. Also, some patients may choose not to cast a
ballot, and they should not feel pressured to do so.
Language was added to this bill that stipulates that third party
groups must work with the administrator of each VA facility to ensure
their efforts will not infringe upon a patient's right to privacy and
that their practices would not in any way disturb patients' recovery.
Implementing this provision will require a commitment of time and
personnel from the Veterans Administration. It is my sincere hope that
in acting as a liaison between their patients and outside groups, the
VA will not siphon off precious time and resources intended to improve
patient care.
Also, while the intention of this program is to ensure that our
Nation's veterans are more easily able to cast a vote, the passage of
the bill should not be taken as an invitation to disregard the absentee
voting programs implemented at the State level in favor of turning
Federal, State, or NVRA designated agencies into voting locations.
Veterans also require months of care as a result of their injuries
and have limited mobility during that time. This bill was crafted with
their unique circumstances in mind, and it is not intended to be a
gateway to similar programs at other agencies. When it comes to
establishing voting locations outside of each State's established
protocols, this bill should be considered the exception, not the rule.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Brady for his leadership on
this issue and his commitment to improving this bill in a bipartisan
fashion.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4
minutes to Representative Watson of California.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6625, the
Veteran Voting Support Act.
In May of 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs passed Directive
2008-25 that prohibited third party nonpartisan voting rights groups
from holding voter registration drives on VA grounds. Outraged by this
stance that the VA had taken, I, along with 54 of my colleagues,
including Chairman Brady and Chairman Filner, sent two letters to VA
Secretary James Peake requesting he overturn the policy.
As we returned from the August recess, on September 9, 2008, the VA
passed a new policy directive, 2008-53. The new directive now allows
State and local election officials and nonpartisan groups to give
veterans access to their fundamental right to vote. We applaud the VA
for overturning its previous directive, and I believe it is a step in
the right direction. But the new policy still falls short of providing
veterans complete access to voting in VA facilities. So H.R. 6625 will
fix that problem.
The Veteran Voting Support Act would designate VA facilities as voter
registration agencies under section 7 of the National Voter
Registration Act of 1993 which requires public assistance organizations
provide voter registration opportunities by offering information
related to requesting an absentee ballot, making absentee ballot
applications available, and require the VA to work with elected
officials to ensure the delivery of absentee applications and absentee
ballots.
Currently, our Nation is fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
as a consequence, our veterans are returning home with catastrophic
injuries
[[Page 19524]]
that require them to reside in a VA facility for extended periods of
time to receive treatment for their wounds. This is why it is
absolutely imperative that we give the selfless stewards of the
Constitution complete access to voting in our elections. It is because
of the sacrifice of men and women in the Armed Forces why we are free.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Brady and Chairman Filner
for working with me on the legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
support H.R. 6625.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 6625 and
commend Chairman Brady for introducing this important piece of
legislation, the Veterans Voting Support Act of which I am an original
cosponsor.
This legislation is significant to me because the issue of
registering veterans to vote was born out of concern by one of my
constituents, Steve Preminger. Steve went to the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) nursing home in Menlo Park, CA to register veterans.
Almost immediately, VA officials threw him out. The VA has since
explained that its decision to evict Preminger was part of a policy
that bars outside groups from registering voters who live in VA nursing
homes, hospitals, and transitional housing for homeless veterans. For
the past four years Mr. Preminger has litigated to ensure that all
veterans living on VA property have access to voter registration
I applaud the VA for its recent change in policy allowing state and
local election officials and non-partisan groups to access VA
facilities to assist officials in registering veteran voters who are
receiving care. But issuing a new policy is not enough and I question
the agencies commitment to it. Last Friday, September 12, 2008, the San
Francisco VA prohibited Veterans for Peace (``VFP''), a 501(c)(3), from
registering voters, even though the ``directive'' instructs local
officials to ``facilitate'' nonpartisan groups who wish to register
voters.
As Paul Sullivan of Veterans for Common Sense stated in his testimony
yesterday before the Senate Committee on Rules, ``The VA has changed
their policy on veteran voting rights three times in the past five
months. VA can easily reverse course again and issue yet another policy
banning voting assistance for veterans living in VA facilities.''
I support this legislation, but am concerned that the protection for
``nonpartisan'' activities may create the inference that a government
agency can regulate private ``partisan'' conversations just because
they are on federal property, even though there is no apparent
government sponsorship.
Over 5.3 million veterans (23.2 percent of all veterans) were not
registered to vote in 2006. Veterans have dedicated their lives to
protecting our country and deserve every commitment from the government
to offer them the opportunity to participate in the political process.
With November rapidly approaching it is imperative that we act both
swiftly and vigilantly in passing H.R. 6625.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of H.R. 6625,
the Veterans Voting Support Act, which contains several provisions to
help Veterans as they participate in the political process. First, it
will require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to allow States to
designate V.A. facilities as voter registration agencies. The bill will
also require V.A. facilities to provide information and assist election
officials to ensure proper delivery of voting material. Additional, the
bill prohibits the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from restricting non-
partisan organizations and state election organizations from providing
information at V.A. facilities. This bill will help to prevent
Department of Veterans Affairs policies from withholding information
from Veterans on voter registration and voting.
The Department of Veterans Affairs previously adopted a policy that
prohibits voter registration drives on V.A. grounds. The Department of
Veterans Affairs recently changed that policy and now allows state and
local election officials as well as non-partisan organizations to
provide veterans help. However, the language of the policy still allows
individual V.A. facilities to restrict access to these groups. This
legislation will guarantee that individuals and organizations with the
appropriate knowledge are given the right to assist our veterans in the
voting registration process.
Our veterans have dedicated their lives to our country's safety and
deserve the opportunity to be assisted in the political process. Given
that many of our veterans are disabled or ill with special assistance
needs as a result of their service to our country, we should make every
possible accommodation to provide them with the assistance they need to
take a part in the political process and have their voices heard. It
would be ironic for those fighting for our freedom and ability to
participate in our democracy to themselves be denied the ability to
participate.
I commend Rep. Brady, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, for his hard
work on this bill and urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my
friend Chairman Brady for bringing this legislation to the floor today,
and for his work to ensure that our veterans are full and able
participants in our democracy.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, last week, the VA revised its wrongheaded
directive barring nonpartisan voter registration drives at VA
facilities. Clearly, the VA felt the overwhelming bipartisan pressure
from local, state and federal members who supported this legislation,
as well as the Secretaries of State and countless veterans throughout
the country who rightfully decried it. We have asked enormous
sacrifices of our men and women in uniform, and it is simply
unconscionable to deny them the right to participate in a government
for which they have so valiantly served and fought for.
However, our presence here today attests to the fact that this fight
is not yet over--while the VA has acted wisely in withdrawing their
directive, they still retain the ability to reinstate it at some future
date. The VA's recent policy shifts on voting registration have been
sudden and unpredictable, and there is precious little assurance that
they will not undergo another change of heart.
That is why I am a strong supporter of H.R. 6625. I have been to
Connecticut's VA Hospitals and clinics, and I have seen and spoken with
the generations of proud veterans those facilities care for and serve.
They want to be able to enjoy the freedoms they worked to defend, and
they deserve to be able to do so at VA facilities. Connecticut's
Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General have joined this
fight and support the legislation before us because they know our
veterans' rights should not just be protected today, but for
generations to come as well.
Not only will H.R. 6625 guarantee the right of veterans to register
to vote at VA facilities, but the bill will also limit restrictions and
expand access for nonpartisan voter drives and ensure that veterans get
the assistance they need to complete the voter registration process. In
an election year such as this, it's important that veterans, with their
unique experience in serving their country, have their voices heard.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and stand up for our
veterans.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
6625, the Veteran Voting Support Act. I want to thank my colleague,
Chairman Brady, for sponsoring this important legislation.
We have a special duty to make it easier, not harder, for all our
citizens to participate in this great democracy. I was utterly appalled
to learn that earlier this year, the Department of Veterans Affairs was
blocking non-partisan voter registration organizations from its
facilities.
Congressional and public outrage forced the VA to revise its policy.
However, their ``new'' directive still falls short of providing the
voting assistance our veterans deserve. This is simply unacceptable.
H.R. 6625 requires the VA to actively offer voter registration and
assistance opportunities to our veterans.
Every day our soldiers risk life and limb to protect our liberties
and defend our freedoms. When they come home, we owe them the most
sacred of freedoms--the right to vote. We must do everything in our
power to help them register and participate in this historic election.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the
legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6625, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING LOWERING FLAG OVER CAPITOL TO HONOR
MILITARY DEATHS
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and
[[Page 19525]]
agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 61) expressing the
sense of the Congress that the United States flag flown over the United
States Capitol should be lowered to half-mast one day each month in
honor of the brave men and women from the United States who have lost
their lives in military conflicts.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 61
Whereas more than 1,000,000 brave men and women from the
United States have died in military conflicts from the time
of the Revolutionary War through Operation Iraqi Freedom;
Whereas the people of the United States mourn the loss of
the brave men and women who have given their lives for this
country;
Whereas the United States has not forgotten the sacrifices
that brave men and women have made to protect our Nation and
our freedom; and
Whereas paying tribute to the brave men and women from the
United States who gave their lives for this Nation
demonstrates the spirit of patriotism that is the foundation
of our great country: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that the
United States flag flown over the United States Capitol
should be lowered to half-mast one day each month in honor of
the brave men and women from the United States who have lost
their lives in military conflicts.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr.
McCarthy) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
General Leave
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks in the Record on
this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
This resolution recognizes our servicemen and -women who have fought
and died for our country and the sacrifice made by their families. The
resolution provides for the flag over the Capitol to be raised at half-
staff once a month in honor of all the U.S. men and women that have
made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our Nation.
While we in Congress and the majority of the American people go about
our day-to-day lives, this small gesture should serve as a constant
reminder of those brave men and women who have given their lives in
defense of the freedoms that we, the American people, enjoy. We owe all
of our fallen servicemen and -women a debt that can never be repaid.
I am pleased to support this resolution, and I urge all of my
colleagues to support it as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
H. Con. Resolution 61, which expresses the sense of the Congress that
the United States flag flown over the United States Capitol should be
lowered to half-mast 1 day each month in honor of the brave men and
women from the United States who have lost their lives in military
conflicts.
For all of those who work in or visit the Capitol each day, the flag
that flies atop this building is an emblem of the democratic principles
that guide this body. This powerful symbol of freedom is even more
striking when it's lowered to half-mast, signaling that our Nation is
in mourning.
The men and women of our military who defend our Nation in the time
of war may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice for our
country. Lowering the flag atop the Capitol once a month in their honor
is a small yet meaningful way to communicate how deeply their loss is
felt by all Americans.
In addition to being a moving tribute to the members of our military
who we have lost, it is also a reminder to all Members of Congress that
the actions we take--or do not take--have profound consequences on the
men and women of our military. When we talk about funding our armored
vehicles or express our views on intelligence gathering in the war on
terror, it is imperative that we do not forget the real ramifications
that our decisions will have on our servicemen and -women who must live
with the consequences of our actions.
I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting this moving
tribute to our Nation's Armed Forces.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much
time as he may consume to the sponsor of this bill, Representative
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee.
Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. I thank the gentlelady from
California.
All of us, I'm sure, have had an opportunity--at least most--to visit
the war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. And being there, we have
observed the greatness of the volunteers who volunteer their service
for this great country and to help preserve, defend, and to bring about
liberty and freedom to others in different parts of the world today,
mainly in those two war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the third
one in the area of the Balkans.
But as they serve, some give the ultimate sacrifice. And for all of
those who serve and who have served, and for those who have given the
ultimate sacrifice, we can never really do enough as a Nation to thank
them for their service and, ultimately, leaving their families with the
loss of their lives.
In 1775, a shot heard around the world brought American men and women
into battle at the Siege of Boston that lasted through the spring of
1776, which eventually brought us into war for our independence. After
several years and the loss of many lives, we obtained our independence.
Since that time, our young men and women have been willing to volunteer
to go into the battlefields to preserve the freedom that our first
military men and women fought to give us, and we've been willing to
preserve that and we should continue as a Nation.
But I think when we look at those who give the ultimate sacrifice,
sometimes we give the medals and we show sympathy and appreciation to
the families, and then after a while, we forget that. I know in every
courthouse and every city hall there are monuments that have the names
of those who have given their lives for this country and paid the
ultimate sacrifice.
On Memorial Day we visit and Veterans Day we visit, perhaps some
special days like 9/11 we again remember and we visit those who have
their names engraved on the markings and on the monuments in our
courthouses and city halls throughout this country.
{time} 1945
But I believe that just those two or three special occasions are not
enough.
And, Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize how little we were showing
appreciation for those who gave the ultimate sacrifice until my very
first visit in early 2004 to Iraq. We had just traveled from one part
of Iraq, flying back into Baghdad in a C-130. And before we boarded the
plane, there was an escort detail. And we noticed that there was a
casket, a flag-draped casket. A very solemn occasion as you looked at
the lines of the young men and women who were saying farewell to the
one who had given his life. And they placed that in that cargo bay off
the C-130. Those of us who were Members of Congress sat more to the
front--those who have traveled obviously know that we ride the jump
seats as we go in and out into Iraq or Afghanistan.
And for some reason, when I looked in the faces of those young men
who were the escorts, the solemn faces, the faces who weren't looking
to anyone, I don't think, for sympathy, but just understanding, for me,
on that occasion, I said, I don't think we do enough. And in 2004, I
introduced this bill, the same one that's here today, to where we can
at least once a month--12 times a year, plus the other occasions--say
thank you to the mothers and fathers, to the brothers and sisters of
the one who gave his life, and to the one who gave his life, that
America still cherishes, respects, loves and remembers the sacrifice
that you gave to this Nation.
[[Page 19526]]
So for me, it is my hope that this bill passes unanimously, and that
we honor those who have given their life for this great Nation of ours.
Mr. McCARTHY of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman
bringing this legislation forward.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.
Con. Res. 61, ``Expressing the sense of the Congress that the United
States flag flown over the United States Capitol should be lowered to
half-mast one day each month in honor of the brave men and women from
the United States who have lost their lives in military conflicts.''
The brave men and women who have sacrificed their lives to protect not
only the lives of Americans but democracy around the world, warrant a
day each month in which the Nation honors their service and sacrifice.
More than 1 million brave men and women from the United States have
died in military conflicts since the birth of our great Nation. It is
the right of the American people to mourn the loss of the brave men and
women who have given their lives for this country. All Americans must
remember that our freedom has not come without sacrifice. The heroic
men and women who have given the ultimate sacrifice, to protect our
Nation and our freedom must be honored and recognized. As Gertrude
Stein put it so eloquently, ``Silent gratitude isn't very much use to
anyone.''
Paying tribute to the fearlessness and courageousness that the men
and women from the United States have displayed throughout history,
demonstrates the spirit of patriotism that is the foundation of our
great country.
H. Con. Res. 61 must be supported by the Members of Congress in order
for us and all Americans to pay homage and show our respect for those
extraordinary soldiers who are no longer with us, but whose legacies
should live on. In honoring those who have fought for our country from
the time of its conception would be a grand opportunity to show the men
and women wearing the uniform today that their service is not in vain.
It is an opportunity for America to demonstrate the magnitude of
appreciation that we hold in our hearts for the service and bravery of
all our veterans. A simple gesture can demonstrate the immeasurable
amount of gratitude which emanates through us all.
The State of Texas alone is home to approximately 1,707,365 veterans.
H. Con. Res. 61 commemorates not only the valuable contribution of
heroes past but to our present champions of freedom and democracy. I am
reminded of something once said by author Melodie Beattie, ``Gratitude
unlocks the fullness of life. It turns what we have into enough, and
more. It turns denial into acceptance, chaos into order, confusion into
clarity . . . it turns problems into gifts, failures into success, the
unexpected into perfect timing, and mistakes into important events.
Gratitude makes sense of our past, brings peace for today and creates a
vision for tomorrow.''
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time and I urge passage of the legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 61.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
CELEBRATING 75 YEARS OF EFFECTIVE STATE-BASED ALCOHOL REGULATION
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res 415) celebrating 75 years of
effective State-based alcohol regulation and recognizing State
lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health
community and industry members for creating a workable, legal, and
successful system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and
sale.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
H. Con. Res. 415
Whereas throughout American history, alcohol has been
consumed by its citizens and regulated by the Government;
Whereas prior to the 18th Amendment to the Constitution,
which established Prohibition in the United States, abuses
and insufficient regulation resulted in irresponsible
overconsumption of alcohol;
Whereas passage of the 18th Amendment, which prohibited
``the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating
liquors'' in the United States, resulted in a dramatic
increase in illegal activity, including unsafe black market
alcohol production, organized crime, and noncompliance with
alcohol laws;
Whereas the platforms of the 2 major political parties in
the 1932 presidential campaigns advocated ending national
Prohibition by repealing the 18th Amendment;
Whereas on February 20, 1933, the 2nd Session of the 72nd
Congress submitted to conventions of the States the question
of repealing the 18th Amendment and adding new language to
the Constitution that the transportation or importation of
alcoholic beverages for delivery or use in any State would
have to be carried out in compliance with the laws of the
State;
Whereas on December 3, 1933, Utah became the 36th State to
approve what became the 21st Amendment to the Constitution,
the quickest-ratified amendment and the only ever decided by
State conventions, pursuant to article V of the Constitution;
Whereas alcohol is the only product in commerce that has
been the subject of 2 constitutional amendments;
Whereas Congress's reenactment of the Webb-Kenyon Act,
passage of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act, the 21st
Amendment Enforcement Act, annual appropriations to support
State enforcement of underage drinking laws, and the STOP
Underage Drinking Act demonstrated the longstanding and
continuing intent of Congress that States exercise their
primary authority to achieve temperance, the creation and
maintenance of orderly and stable markets, and the
facilitation of the efficient collection of taxes;
Whereas legislatures and alcoholic beverage control
agencies in the 50 States have worked diligently to implement
the powers granted by the 21st Amendment for 75 years;
Whereas legislatures and alcoholic beverage control
agencies in all States created and maintain State-based
regulatory systems for alcohol distribution made up of
producers and importers, wholesale distributors, and
retailers;
Whereas development of a transparent and accountable system
of distribution and sales, an orderly market, temperance in
consumption and safe practices, the efficient collection of
taxes, and other essential policies have been successfully
guided by the collective experience and cooperation of
government agencies and licensed industry members throughout
our geographically and culturally diverse Nation;
Whereas regulated commerce in alcoholic beverages
contributes billions of dollars in Federal and State tax
revenues and additional billions to the economy annually;
Whereas 2,500 breweries, distilleries, wineries, and import
companies, 2,700 wholesale distributor facilities, over
530,000 retail outlets, and numerous agricultural, packaging,
and transportation businesses support the employment of
millions of Americans;
Whereas the American system of State-based alcohol
regulation has resulted in a marketplace with unprecedented
choice, variety, and selection for consumers;
Whereas members of the licensed alcoholic beverage industry
have been constant partners with Federal and State
Governments in balancing the conduct of competitive
businesses with the need to control alcohol in order to
provide American consumers with a safe and regulated supply
of alcoholic beverages; and
Whereas members of the licensed alcoholic beverage industry
have created and supported a wide range of national, State,
and community programs to address problems associated with
alcohol abuse, including drunk driving and underage drinking:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That Congress--
(1) celebrates 75 years of effective State-based alcohol
regulation since the passage of the 21st Amendment;
(2) recognizes State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement
officers, the public health community and industry members
for creating a workable, legal, and successful system of
alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution, and sale; and
(3) continues to support policies that allow States to
effectively regulate alcohol.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
General Leave
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for all Members to
have 5 legislative days 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 Tennessee?
[[Page 19527]]
There was no objection.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res 415, which
celebrates 75 years of successful State-based alcohol regulation.
I want to commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) for
introducing this measure. It's the same as H. Con. Res 341, introduced
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), which has 98 bipartisan
cosponsors, and S. Res. 551, introduced by the senior Senator from
Montana, Senator Baucus, which has 14 cosponsors, also in a bipartisan
manner.
Seventy-five years ago--nearly to the day--on December 5, 1933, the
21st amendment to the Constitution of this country was passed. It
repealed prohibition, a great mistake in the social era in this
country, and the 21st amendment was ratified by the people in
constitutional form. It brought an end to a misguided experiment and
ushered in a new system of legal regulation of alcohol beverages.
Previously, we had an illegal system that encouraged organized crime
and worked against the public's wishes.
Section 2 of that amendment states that ``the transportation or
importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United
States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors in
violations of the laws thereof is hereby prohibited.'' The effect of
section 2 was to entrust regulation of alcoholic beverages to the
States.
Under the 21st amendment, and the terms of the Webb-Kenyon Act which
implemented it, States have done an outstanding job exercising their
primary authority to regulate this industry composed of producers,
importers, wholesale distributors and retailers, often dubbed the
``three tier system'' by such knowledgeable and legendary individuals
as Tom Hensley.
This has been a successful approach, and we have not had occasion to
reconsider it. It is a system that provides transparency and
accountability. It is one that prizes public safety in which the
industry works with State lawmakers--of which I was one for 24 years
and served on the State and local government committee in Tennessee
that had the responsibility of ensuring that the three-tier system
worked and the public was protected.
Public health officials and law enforcement people also worked on
this to provide quality products to consumers and ensure the
responsible use of alcoholic beverages. Through this partnership with
the Federal Government, we have pursued efforts to eliminate alcohol
abuse, underage drinking, drunk driving, and other problems associated
with the abuse of alcoholic beverages.
I commend Mr. Stupak of Michigan and Mr. Coble of North Carolina for
their leadership on this resolution, which commemorates the end of a
failed experiment, prohibition, and the establishment of a system that
served the citizens of this Nation well for over three-quarters of a
century.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is more symbolic than substantive. It
will not change the way the alcohol industry distributes their
products, and it will not change the way States regulate alcohol
distribution. But regrettably, it does celebrate the ``successful
system of alcoholic beverage regulation, distribution and sale.''
My opposition is not a reflection on those who support this
resolution; it is just that I am uneasy about Congress considering a
resolution with this purpose.
Certainly, the alcoholic beverage industry is a legitimate one. I
have hardworking business owners in my district who create jobs and pay
taxes. Most brewers, distributors and retailers try to ensure that
alcohol is made, transported and sold in a safe and legal manner.
However, the abuse of alcohol causes incalculable pain and suffering.
It has cost thousands of lives, devastated families, and ruined the
mental and physical health of many Americans. For the same reason, I
would voice concerns about a resolution celebrating the ``successful
distribution'' of cigarettes and tobacco products.
According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving, alcohol ranks as a
leading cause of death among young people age 10 to 24 due to motor
vehicle crashes, unintentional injuries, homicide and suicide. Vehicle
accidents have become the number one cause of death for teens in the
U.S., over one-third are alcohol related.
And although States have passed laws to prevent individuals from
driving while under the influence of alcohol, a huge number of alcohol-
related deaths occur on roads across the Nation. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration found that last year drunk driving killed
almost 13,000 people.
I do appreciate efforts of the alcoholic beverage industry, small
businesses and distributors to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors.
However, reports tell us that 33 percent of 12th graders still drink
beer on at least a monthly basis and over 70 percent say that beer is
easy to get.
When Congress can attest that alcohol is no longer easily accessible
to teens, that alcohol no longer contributes to 13,000 accident deaths
each year, and that alcohol no longer devastates families and
individuals, then a resolution celebrating the ``successful
distribution'' of alcohol might be in order. Until then, I continue to
have concerns with this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might
consume to my good friend and colleague from North Carolina (Mr.
Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the
distinguished gentleman from Texas who serves very ably as our ranking
Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of H. Con. Res 415. This
resolution celebrates the 75th anniversary of the end of Prohibition.
Furthermore, it recognizes our effective regulation of alcohol by State
and local governments and the dedication of our State lawmakers,
regulators, law enforcement officers, the public health community, and
industry members for creating a workable, legal and successful system
of alcohol regulation, distribution and sale.
Prohibition, Mr. Speaker, began in 1919, when the 18th amendment was
ratified. This led to a dramatic increase in illegal activity,
including unsafe black market alcohol production, a growth in organized
crime, and increasing noncompliance with alcohol laws. As a result,
only 14 years later, on December 5, 1933, the 21st amendment was
ratified, which repealed Prohibition and granted to the States control
of alcohol.
The 21st amendment wisely established a State-based regulatory system
for alcohol. This has permitted each State to adopt laws that reflect
the views of its citizens. The result has been one of most
comprehensive and community-sensitive alcohol regulatory programs in
the world. Furthermore, it has created a safe and reliable marketplace
for alcohol. Our consumers are free now from the threat of the harmful
chemicals that were unknowingly consumed during the Prohibition Era.
For 75 years, local regulation has worked well. And while alcohol
laws are continually tweaked and improved, adjusted and amended, our
beer, liquor and wine providers have worked diligently together with
regulators to ensure that public health and safety are first and
foremost.
Many beer distributors who strongly support this resolution and
recently concluded their national meeting in San Francisco play a vital
role in their respective communities by sponsoring a vast array of
programs that promote responsible consumption. The programs range from
providing free taxi rides home for restaurant patrons who do not have a
designated driver, to sponsoring alcohol-free after prom
[[Page 19528]]
events and producing educational materials to assist parents in talking
to their children about underage drinking.
Distributors also promote alcohol education initiatives that bring
guest speakers into local schools and community centers. Some of these
speakers who have made mistakes about alcohol, just as the
distinguished gentleman from Texas mentioned earlier, became reckless
and abandoned discretion and responsible drinking, but they have
overcome those mistakes and have lived to retell their stories, and
therefore, encourage others not to make the same mistakes.
The beer industry, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure in probably every district
represented on this floor, creates innumerable job opportunities. The
beer industry, furthermore, has spent nearly $700 million in
communities across the country to fight and oppose drunk driving,
underage drinking, and promote responsible consumption of alcohol
through public safety, prevention and education campaigns.
Additionally, the National Beer Wholesalers Association was
instrumental in working with Congress to pass the STOP Underage
Drinking bill, which was signed by President Bush in December of 2006.
{time} 2000
Mr. Speaker, there are many alcohol vendors in my district in North
Carolina who devote enormous amounts of time and money to improve the
lives of people in our communities. They have openly supported
community efforts for organizations such as United Cerebral Palsy, the
Special Olympics, law enforcement, the Greensboro Children's Museum,
the Greensboro Economic Development Partnership, the Rockwell Project
for alcohol awareness at Greensboro area high schools, the Hospice of
Greensboro, and others.
Many of these vendors have also unanimously supported countless other
efforts throughout the Sixth District of North Carolina. I'm sure many
of you can duplicate that in your respective districts.
The benefits vary from community to community. While there are sound
reasons that alcohol should be regulated, it is clear to me that we
should recognize and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the end of
Prohibition.
I encourage my colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 415.
Again, I thank the gentleman from Texas for having yielded to me.
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate Mr. Coble's and Mr. Smith's comments.
Mr. Smith, of course, comes from a city in Texas that my predecessor,
the Congressman from West Tennessee in the 1800s--Davy Crockett--went
to. Unfortunately, it was the last city that Congressman Davy Crockett
went to. I was noticing, in going through the Halls here, that Sam
Houston, who left my State, went to be Governor of your State. So Texas
and Tennessee have a lot in common. If it weren't for Tennessee, we
probably wouldn't have a Texas, so it's wonderful to work with you
today on this particular resolution.
As I look around the Chamber here, there are great lawmakers,
including Moses and Moses Maimonides. In Tennessee, we have a Bob Moses
who had a lot to do with this three-tiered system, and he did a lot of
work on it.
We don't have any further speakers. I'd like to inquire as to how
many more speakers the gentleman from Texas might have.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, before yielding back the balance of
my time, I do want to thank my friend and colleague on the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Cohen, the gentleman from Tennessee, for those nice
comments. He is right to point out the connections between Texas and
Tennessee. Frankly, I think they're a source of great interest and
pride to residents of both States. I certainly appreciate his
friendship. I appreciate the way he has conducted this debate tonight
as well.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, on a personal matter, I will note that
sometimes people see these bodies, and they think of our being
acrimonious or not bipartisan. There is nobody I've enjoyed working
with more than these two gentlemen on the Judiciary Committee, these
Members on the other side of the aisle. We do work together a lot of
times, and there is friendship, and there is work camaraderie and
respect that people can probably recognize from some of the debate.
With that having been said, I would ask that we pass this resolution
unanimously as introduced.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.
Con. Res. 415, ``Celebrating 75 years of effective State-based alcohol
regulation and recognizing State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement
officers, the public health community and industry members for creating
a workable, legal, and successful system of alcoholic beverage
regulation, distribution, and sale.''
H. Con. Res. 415 celebrates a remarkable time in American history. It
is worthy to remember how far the United States Government has come
since its inception. With the ratification of the 21st Amendment,
primary authority was delegated to the individual States, establishing
the State-based regulatory system for alcohol distribution we still use
today. The regulatory system has allowed each State to adopt individual
laws that fit the beliefs of its citizens and still remains effective
and in place today.
This State-based system created the safest and most responsible
alcohol marketplace in the world. It not only protects consumers from
tainted or counterfeit alcohol, but also provides transparency,
accountability, and tremendous choice and value for American consumers
for 75 years.
In 1919, following the passage of the 18th amendment, which
prohibited ``the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating
liquors,'' the United States experienced a dramatic increase in illegal
activity including unsafe black market alcohol production, a growth in
organized crime and increasing noncompliance with alcohol laws. By the
end of the decade, Gangster Al Capone controlled all 10,000 speakeasies
in Chicago and ruled the bootlegging business from Canada to Florida.
Numerous other crimes, including theft and murder, were directly linked
to criminal activities in Chicago and elsewhere in violation of
prohibition.
Many social problems have been attributed to the Prohibition era. A
profitable and typically violent, black market for alcohol flourished
during the Prohibition Era. Stronger liquor surged in popularity
because its potency made it more profitable to smuggle. The cost of
enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol
(some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers.
The 21st amendment is significant because when repeal of Prohibition
occurred in 1933, organized crime lost nearly all of its black market
alcohol profits in most States because of competition with low-priced
alcohol sales at legal liquor stores. The post-Prohibition period saw
the introduction of the American lager style of beer, which dominates
today, such as Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser and Coors Brewing Company.
Alcohol has been and still is a part of the American tradition. In my
great State of Texas there are 75 breweries and eight of them are
located in the city of Houston.
Let us celebrate the Cullen-Harrison Act which Franklin D. Roosevelt
signed into law in 1933, which once again, legalized the sale of 3.2
percent beer, signaling the beginning of the end of the 13-year
``failed experiment'' known as Prohibition.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 415, which
would celebrate 75 years of effective state-based alcohol regulation
since the repeal of Prohibition.
On May 5, 2008, I introduced H. Con. Res. 341 with the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Coble, to recognize the 75th anniversary of the
repeal of Prohibition and to commemorate the effective state-based
regulation of alcohol.
This legislation has 98 cosponsors.
In order to bring the resolution to the floor today, Mr. Coble and I
re-introduced it as H. Con. Res. 415.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for working with me on this
important resolution.
In 1919, the 18th amendment prohibited ``the manufacture, sale or
transportation of intoxicating liquors.''
During Prohibition, the United States experienced a dramatic increase
in illegal activity including unsafe black market alcohol production, a
growth in organized crime, and increasing noncompliance with alcohol
laws.
It was not uncommon for consumers to fall victim to counterfeit or
tainted alcohol, with disastrous results including blindness or brain
damage.
For example, the patent medicine Jamaica ginger, or ``Jake,'' was
often consumed by
[[Page 19529]]
those desiring to circumvent the ban on alcohol. In response, the
Treasury Department mandated changes in the formula to make it
undrinkable.
In an attempt to fool government testing, unscrupulous vendors would
sometimes adulterate their Jake with an industrial plasticizer. As a
result, tens of thousands of victims suffered paralysis of their feet
and hands--usually, this paralysis was permanent.
Other amateur distillers used old automobile radiators to distill
liquor, and the resulting product was dangerously high in lead salts--
which usually led to fatal lead poisoning.
On December 5, 1933, the United States ratified the 21st amendment,
repealing Prohibition and restoring the control of alcohol regulation
to the States.
For 75 years, this regulatory system has allowed each state to adopt
individual laws that fit the beliefs of the residents of each State.
State lawmakers, regulators, law enforcement officers, and public
health officials in each State have developed and implemented effective
policies that have protected consumers and encouraged safe and
responsible consumption.
While the United States now enjoys the safest and most responsible
alcohol distribution network in the world, cases of tainted or
counterfeit alcohol continue to occur across the globe.
Just yesterday in the United Kingdom, a police raid found 1,100
bottles of fake vodka that may blind consumers, many using the SPAR
Imperial label.
British officials believe it is likely that more of the vodka is on
the market. Small shops and stores in particular have been told to be
on the lookout.
The potential for counterfeit alcohol and unscrupulous vendors
remains a threat throughout the world today, and presents a real danger
to consumers.
The state-based system for regulating alcohol in the United States
has served as one of the safest and most responsible systems for
protecting consumers from tainted or counterfeit alcohol.
I think it is fitting to salute the State lawmakers, regulators, law
enforcement officers, and public health officials that have made this
regulatory system successful.
I'd like to thank the Judiciary Committee, specifically Chairman John
Conyers and Ranking Member Lamar Smith, for their support in allowing
us to consider this resolution today.
I urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the 75th anniversary
of the repeal of Prohibition, and in commemorating the effective state-
based system of alcohol regulation.
Vote ``yes'' on this important resolution.
Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 415.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________
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.
____________________
AMERICAN ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, you know, there's an old saying
that sometimes people whistle past the graveyard. I think, last night,
that's what this Congress did. The majority on the other side rammed
through a bill that's not going to do anything to move us toward energy
independence, and that means we're going to continue to send $700
billion a year overseas to Saudi Arabia, to Nigeria, to Venezuela, and
to other countries, many of whom don't like us at all and who are using
our own money against us. $700 billion a year.
While we didn't do anything about that, that which would create
hundreds of thousands of jobs in the United States, we have found that
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae we have bailed out for God only knows how
much money. It's in the hundreds and hundreds of billions. It's
probably going to be more than the S&L tragedy we had years ago. Bear
Stearns we bailed out. AIG, $85 billion last night. There's $25 billion
to $30 billion we're going to give to the auto industry. We're going to
be giving money, no doubt, to the aviation industry because it's in
trouble because of the energy crisis. The stimulus package we're
talking about is going to cost probably about $50 billion in the next
week because the Democrat majority is going to send that to the floor,
and we don't have the money. We're talking about $800 billion to $900
billion that the taxpayers are going to have to cough up that we do not
have. Now, what does that mean for the economy of the United States?
It means simply that the dollar and the economy are going the wrong
way. Today, get this: Gold went up over $70 an ounce. If you look back
over the past several years, gold was running between $250 an ounce.
Today, it went up by 25 percent over what the average was for the price
of gold. Do you know why?
It's because there is no confidence in the dollar right now, and
we're not doing a darned thing in this body or in the other body to
deal with the problem. Nothing. We had a chance last night to move
toward energy independence and to save $700 billion a year that we're
sending overseas. That would have made a dent in the problem we're
dealing with right now, and it would have provided a mechanism for
hundreds of thousands of jobs, and it would have cut the price of
gasoline and of heating oil and of everything else that we have to deal
with. It would have moved us radically toward energy independence. It
would have helped stabilize the economy of the United States. We didn't
do a darned thing, and everybody knows it. Everybody knows what we did
last night was a sham.
It's not going to result in any drilling. It's not going to result in
any more oil here in the United States. It's not going to result in
anything toward nuclear or toward alternative sources of energy. It's
not going to do a darned thing. Yet we went to the American people last
night, my Democrat majority with that bill, and said, ``Hey, we're
going to solve your energy problem,'' and it was a big lie, a facade.
We had an alternative bill. We had an alternative bill sponsored by
Democrats and Republicans--Mr. Abercrombie and Mr. Peterson, Democrats
and Republicans--that would have moved us toward energy independence
that was really a compromise. It didn't allow drilling in the ANWR,
which I preferred, but it did allow other things like coal shale
converted to oil and drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf. It would
have resulted in revenue sharing with the States that would allow us to
drill.
The bill that we passed did not do any of that. The bottom line is
this economy is in real trouble, and it's not just because of this
Congress, but it's in real trouble because of loans that we gave to
people who didn't deserve home loans, and it was because of the
packaging of those loans and selling them up the line.
The fact of the matter is we could have done something last night to
help stem the tide by passing an energy bill that would have led us not
only to energy independence but to saving about $700 billion a year
that we're sending overseas to people who are not our friends.
It's a real tragedy. This Congress is sitting on its hands, and it's
not doing anything at a time when this country is crying out for some
action, not just for energy, not just for lower gas prices but for some
kind of a movement toward solving the economic problems that face this
country.
I'm going to end by telling you this: If gold goes up $70 in one day,
that's an indication that the value of the dollar is going down the
tubes. In addition to that, everybody's 401(k)s and IRAs are going down
with it.
This is a very, very difficult time for America, and Congress needs
to respond, and we're not doing a darned
[[Page 19530]]
thing. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are listening.
The Democrat majority needs to do something about this, especially
about the energy crisis right now and not just sit on your hands and
pass bills to help get people reelected, which is what you did last
night.
____________________
AMERICAN ECONOMY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, Wall Street's big banking boys, those self-
proclaimed geniuses of high finance, are bankrupting America. These
plunderers of our economy who have fought tooth and nail against
financial regulation now are running home to mama. They who virulently
oppose government oversight in the markets have come begging to the
U.S. Government, mama, to bail them out of their bad decisions. They
want mama to make it all better.
Well, mama, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, now run by Wall
Street's best friends, have happily been shelling out from our
taxpayers more than $300 billion already and counting for those
irresponsible Wall Street giants. Meanwhile, homeowners in my district
are suffering as a result of these high flying bankers' self-
aggrandizing decisions.
I've not seen Secretary Paulson or Chairman Bernanke running around
Ohio over the weekend, expressing concern about working people's houses
and about helping them work out troubled loans. No. All they're doing
is sending those folks the bills.
The first check that mama wrote was in March. The Fed's main role in
the Bear Stearns buyout by JPMorgan Chase was a $29 billion loan to a
corporation it created to buy $30 billion worth of assets from Bear
Stearns. If the assets gained value, the Fed would profit. If the
assets lost value, the first $1 billion would be lost by JPMorgan
Chase, but the rest of the losses would be borne by--guess who?--the
American taxpayer.
Then mama wrote a blank check, a big one, to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac. Now, that bill is already $200 billion, and it could rise to $2.4
trillion, a blank check. Last year, the head of Freddie Mac earned
compensation of $18.3 million, and Fannie Mae's chief, David Schmidt,
received $11.6 million directly, not counting all of their other
bonuses and stock options and who knows what else.
Now mama has written a third check for the crisis on Wall Street, and
has effectively nationalized American International Group today with an
$85 billion loan.
{time} 2015
I wonder why we don't just change the name of the U.S. Treasury to
the Sovereign Wealth Fund, because we are borrowing money from other
countries in order to bail out these institutions.
By the way, from 1999 to 2004, the CEO of AIG, Maurice ``Hank''
Greenberg, was named to Forbes Magazine as among the ``world's richest
people,'' with a net worth in 2004 of $3.6 billion. What a cozy group
they have up there on Wall Street.
The CEO named earlier this year, Robin Willumstad, had been the
president of Citigroup since 2002, and his base salary was $1 million,
plus up to $4 million to $8 million in targeted annual bonuses, plus
$13 million targeted annual incentive pay and a one-time $24.5 million
restricted stock award to vest over 4 years.
Were our homeowners to get a deal like that. The American people are
truly getting bilked. They didn't get a fair share of the upside, and
they are getting all of the downside and a huge IOU. Foreclosures are
going up in Ohio. And while Wall Street is made whole, the folks back
on Main Street are losing their homes and getting the bill.
So while the banks get to run home to Mama and they are crying, we
really have to ask ourselves, what has Mama given us here? What does it
say about our values when we pump hundreds of billions of dollars into
preserving Wall Street's bad boys while ignoring the plight of the
American people?
Across Main Streets, from coast to coast, people are losing their
homes. But are Mr. Paulson or Mr. Bernanke giving them any bet on the
upside? They are not even helping them on the downside. All they are
giving them is a bill for Wall Street's excesses. When Roosevelt talked
about malefactors of wealth, boy, was he right.
I feel sorry for our country, I feel sorry for this Congress, that we
can't do a better job of standing up for the people today who are
losing their homes in Ohio. Thirty-eight thousand more perched at the
edge. Our State needs $20 billion just to do workouts in our State.
Where is the Federal Reserve? Where is the Treasury Department? Why do
they only help the rich people? What about the rest of the people who
have to work for a living?
I can't think when I have been as upset as I am tonight about what is
happening by the big shots, and the people who are paying the bill are
getting shoved off the edge.
Wake up, America. Wake up, America. Pay attention to what is
happening here. Contact your Member of Congress. Every citizen of this
country that is a taxpayer and every citizen who owns that home
mortgage has a right to a decent life, not just the big shots up at the
end of Wall Street up in New York City.
____________________
ASHE COUNTY ARMED SERVICES TRIBUTE A PATRIOTIC SUCCESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of Ohio). Under a previous order
of the House, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the people of Ashe
County, North Carolina, for their strong support for our men and women
in uniform.
Any time there is an opportunity to honor our active military and our
veterans, such as Memorial Day or Veterans Day, the folks in Ashe
County show their support in the strongest way possible. But on August
23rd of this year, Ashe County hosted its Armed Forces Tribute and
showed what a remarkable place Ashe County is and how remarkable the
people there are.
This event was a fitting way to honor our country's brave veterans
and those who are serving around the world to keep our Nation safe.
True to the organizers' goal for the event, it was a time to reflect on
the sacrifices of those who willingly put their lives on the line for
the cause of freedom. It made me proud once again to be an American and
proud to represent the fine people of Ashe County who made this special
time possible.
The Armed Forces Tribute was broadcast worldwide to military
personnel by the military's Pentagon Channel and aired across the State
of North Carolina on public television's UNC-TV. The use of technology
that day in this small county in western North Carolina was phenomenal.
It was a proud day in Ashe County for those who serve our Nation.
The tribute was filled with memorable moments of honoring those who
serve and have served in our military. Lieutenant General Thomas F.
Metz gave a stirring speech that will not soon be forgotten. North
Carolina's own 82nd Airborne parachuted from the skies over Ashe
County, not once but twice during the celebration.
And participants were even connected via satellite to our troops
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, family members came from all
over the United States to be able to talk electronically with their
member serving in the military overseas. And once again we heard the
extremely articulate men and women serving in the military describe
their experiences and their positive outlook on what is happening in
Iraq in particular, and all of us were extremely pleased to hear that.
Were it not for the generous spirit of patriotism and volunteerism of
the people of the High Country, this event would not have been
possible. I would like to thank everyone who gave their time and their
money to ensure the success of the Armed Forces Tribute.
But there is someone who deserves special thanks and recognition for
the passion and dedication she brings to make this tribute happen.
Vicky Moody, president of the Jefferson,
[[Page 19531]]
North Carolina, Rotary Club, once again brought the people of Ashe
County together to pull off a spectacular salute to our troops and led
her fellow Rotarians, who served as volunteers for this event, in the
cause.
Thank you, Vicky, for your work and your love of country and our
military men and women. Thank you, Jefferson Rotarians, for all of the
work, effort and money that you put into making this a wonderful event.
It is always fitting to honor those who put their lives on the line
for our Nation and make tremendous sacrifices for our freedom, and
today is no exception. Thank you to our veterans, their families, and
to the patriotic Americans like Vicky Moody and Ashe County who stand
behind our active duty military as they defend the front lines of the
fight for liberty. May God continue to bless you, and may God continue
to bless the United States of America.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO THE NEW YORK SUN
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of discussion about
New York institutions, great institutions that have been around for a
very long time, frankly, succumbing to economic pressures, bad
regulation, misfortune. But we are in a perilously close position in
New York to losing another great New York institution, and that is the
newspaper The New York Sun, which has been operating for the better
part of 7 years now.
It isn't often that someone in our line of work rises to pay tribute
to a periodical, particularly one that is frequently quite critical of
those of us in public life, but The Sun is a unique New York
institution. It is arguably the only newspaper, frankly the only outlet
in New York City right now, that is truly covering civic affairs in New
York, and doing a very good job of covering civic affairs here in
Washington and around the world.
For the purpose of making these remarks, I just grabbed at random a
copy of The Sun recently and pulled out this copy from September 8th.
And I defy any of my colleagues to find a publication in their part of
the world, and even the ones that are best known--The New York Times,
The Boston Globe, any of them--that has coverage comparable to The New
York Sun.
Right here is coverage of how Russian war games have begun in the
Caribbean, with a long description of how the Monroe Doctrine is
entangled; coverage by E.B. Solomont on health care, talking about the
challenges facing children's health care in New York and around the
country; conversation about arts and fashion. The Arts Section of The
Sun provides arts coverage second to no one. They even found some time
to put on the front page coverage of sports, Brett Favre's beginning of
his career with the New York Jets.
Now, you might be thinking this must be a newspaper that has been
particularly kind to my point of view, maybe the editorial page has
been particularly kind to the values that I share. Very often, if not
most of the time, I disagree with their editorial page. But it is
always erudite and thorough and gives us a great deal to think about.
Not long ago, many readers were shocked to find out what, frankly, we
are learning about in a lot of newspapers around the country, it has
fallen onto hard times financially. Well, there are many ways that we
are going to be called upon to participate in our civic life in this
election year. Obviously first and foremost among them is we are going
to be asked to vote. But one of the things that all citizens in New
York can do--and for those of you who have access to the Internet, you
can go to nysun.com and take a look at the newspaper online--one of the
things we all can do is engage in our civic debate well-armed with some
facts about the issues of the day.
There is no better place to get it than The New York Sun. You know,
perhaps it is ``old media,'' but it is good, old-fashioned, substantive
civic engagement with a balanced coverage and smart coverage. You are
going to find things in The Sun that, frankly, the other newspapers
gloss over, the other papers pay no attention to.
I recently got a lot of attention, and perhaps snickering, by
referring to how ``tabloidy'' a lot of the broadsheet newspapers have
become in New York City, and I singled out The New York Times for that
treatment. Well, frankly, if all newspapers had the level of
thoroughness and the level of sophistication and the level of respect
that it shows to readers that The Sun does, I think that, frankly, the
debate in New York City and around the country would be a lot better
off.
This is volume 124, number 101. I don't know exactly what those
numbers mean. But hopefully for years to come, New Yorkers, American
citizens of all stripes, will be able to pick up this newspaper, and I
think they will be better for it.
Now, while I have the microphone, I should say to any of their
editorial page who are listening, you are wrong about 90 percent of the
time, and hopefully you will get better over the course of the next 7
years. But, by all means, I am not going to stop reading, and I would
encourage all of my neighbors to do the same.
____________________
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
____________________
REMEMBERING RECENT NATURAL DISASTERS IN IOWA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to remember that, in
a time of widespread national disasters, it is important to remember
those disasters that have already occurred this year and not forget the
impact that they have had on people back in the great State of Iowa,
which I am proud to represent in this body.
For most of us, May 25th was the day before Memorial Day. It was the
day of my son's high school open house from his graduation, and our
biggest concern that day was how much rain we were going to get. But
shortly after all of our guests left, I started following a news story
that would have profound implications for me and the people I represent
back in Iowa's First District.
This wall cloud that is visible on the easel to my right was a wall
cloud that brought a devastating EF-5 tornado to the citizens of
Parkersburg, New Hartford, Dunkerton and Hazleton, killing eight
people, causing widespread destruction in those communities and serious
flooding in other parts of my district. And that was what transformed
the summer of 2008 for many Iowans.
{time} 2030
This wall cloud contained this powerful tornado and went right by one
of my constituents' farms, that was Senator Charles Grassley, who lives
near New Hartford, Iowa. The effects of this powerful tornado can be
seen in this photograph, this overhead shot of Parkersburg, Iowa, where
nearly one-third of homes and businesses in the south side of
Parkersburg were destroyed.
You can see here where the high school was destroyed. The folks in
Parkersburg are very proud of the fact that four of the graduates of
their high school, Aplington-Parkersburg, currently are starters in the
National Football League, an extraordinary accomplishment for a town of
less than 2,000 people. The widespread devastation as this EF-5 tornado
went through Parkersburg will be felt for many years to come and
illustrate the need for Federal emergency disaster assistance in times
when people are at their most vulnerable.
To give you a better view of how individuals were impacted, this
photograph shows the widespread destruction that leveled, literally,
every home, office, business and building in the swath of the tornado
pass through.
[[Page 19532]]
You can see that the trees are completely denuded of any vegetation.
Here you see people that are working hard to clean up an area where one
of the homes was destroyed near where two people were killed.
I was very proud that when this disaster struck, my staff did a
fantastic job of responding to the needs of every community wherever we
could. This photograph shows me with my chain saw in front of one of
the homes that was completely destroyed shortly after the tornado
struck.
This is the basement of the home that I was working on and a family
whose entire home contents were completely destroyed by the tornado. I
kept holding up things that I found in their basement and asking them
if they wanted to save it, and they said, well, that's not ours. This
is common.
There were things that were found, that were taken out of Parkersburg
during this tornado, in Prairie du Chien, Wisconsin, over 100 miles
away.
On the front edge of the tornado, the town of Lamont had 8 inches of
rain in a 24-hour period that flooded the community and caused
widespread destruction to their infrastructure, including this bridge,
all within the week of Memorial Day.
Then, as if that weren't enough, the week after Memorial Day, the
town of New Hartford, which had been hit by this EF-5 tornado, was
completely overwhelmed by flooding from Beaver Creek. The tragedy of
these storms is that, as you can see in the background of downtown New
Hartford, the hardware store has left town. The only convenience store,
the Kwik Star, has left town and is no longer in business. The places
where people went to get their basic necessities are being driven out
by the implications of these storms.
The town of Elkader, Iowa, up in Clayton County, which is one of the
most scenic parts of my district, had a flood predicted at 20 feet for
a 12-foot flood stage. The river crested at 31 feet and overwhelmed the
community, destroyed the grocery store, flooded businesses and caused
widespread destruction to homes in Elkader.
Waverly, Iowa, in Bremer County, also suffered widespread damage due
to the flooding. The same types of destruction can be seen in their
downtown streets, which has enormous implications for infrastructure.
Cedar Falls' utilities, completely overwhelmed by the flooding, and a
railroad bridge in downtown Waterloo, where I live, will need to be
replaced and has an enormous impact on the commerce at John Deere's
Waterloo works.
The disaster response that this Congress made was immediate and
swift, $2.65 billion, but much more is needed to address the needs in
the First District and the Second District and other parts of Iowa.
It's time for Congress to act and pass a supplemental disaster
assistance bill for all of the midwestern flooding and tornado victims
and also addresses serious problems from Hurricane Ike and Gustav in
our gulf coast.
The response initially to this disaster from our Federal disaster
agencies was very encouraging, but there has been a backlog in getting
the funds that Congress has appropriated through the Federal agencies
to the people in need in Iowa. The time to break that backlog is now.
We need to start freeing up the Community Development Block Grant
money so that it can have an impact in these communities that I have
been showing you here tonight. We need to free up other small business
loans and other funding that should be getting to the people in need in
Iowa, including the people of Cedar Rapids, who were devastated with
the highest flood that they have ever seen and has 400 square blocks of
downtown Cedar Rapids where homes and businesses were destroyed and
need to be rebuilt.
That's why the crisis is now. The time to act is now. We need to take
advantage of the widespread attention on people in need in this country
and address their concerns.
____________________
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr Speaker, we are here tonight as part of the 30-
Something Working Group. We will be joined tonight by several members
of the working group, including Congressman Tim Ryan from Ohio. I
believe Congressman Meek from Florida is going to be making an
appearance, and anyone else who wants to join in that may be viewing
us, certainly from their offices, is welcome to come down and join the
discussion on a couple of issues that are facing this country and some
things that are in the news this week and that we have dealt with in
Congress this week.
Number one, I am going to start with the economy. I don't think
anyone can pick up a newspaper, watch a TV or do any reading of any
kind without seeing that our economy is in crisis right now. The stock
market on this day went down 450 points after going down more than 500
points the day before yesterday.
We are in the position right now, as a Congress, and as a Nation,
where we have some very difficult decisions to make. The administration
came in and did their third major bailout of a major corporate
institution this week with the AIG Insurance Company, and we are going
to talk more about that. We are going to talk about the reasons why we
got to where we are today.
There is an instructive part of this whole thing to take a walk down
memory lane and to see what the economy was like 8 years ago and what
the economy is like today, and to discuss how we got from where we are,
where we were then, to where we are today.
We also have to talk about what's happening today, what is the
crisis, what, exactly, is next. In some ways we don't know, but there
are things that we can do immediately to take immediate action to
prevent this crisis from getting worse.
We are going to have a discussion about how we got here. We are going
to have a discussion about what we do now. That might be the most
important part. There is urgency to this.
Then we are going to talk about the future. What are the long-term
safeguards that we can put in place to make sure that this never
happens again?
That's, for many onlookers, the worst part of this whole process, the
fact that we had safeguards in the market that were supposed to work,
that were supposed to prevent this from happening, and those safeguards
didn't work. Then, as it applies to the securities industry and some of
the leveraging that was taking place in the market, we have the fact
that it was a completely unregulated market.
It was a free-for-all, and it wasn't that there was deregulation that
took place, in many cases these were markets that were never regulated
to begin with. It was a laissez-faire attitude that this administration
had, and the free-for-all that took place that led us to where we are
today and how are we going to fix that, moving forward into the future.
So with regard to the economy, those are the three things we are
going to do, talk about the mistakes that were made in the past that
led us to where we are today, talk about what this Congress is going to
do, hopefully in a bipartisan way, working with the administration,
because there is nothing more important than getting this crisis
solved. What are we going to do in the near term to solve the problem
and move forward? Then, what are we going to do to ever prevent this
from happening again.
To begin that discussion, I would ask the participants in the debate
to take a walk down memory lane with me while we talk about where the
stock market was 8 years ago. I think that now, now that we are in the
crisis we are in, it's fair to compare periods of time. Let's compare
the past 8 years to the previous 8 years.
In the 8 years of the Clinton administration, the stock market in
this country went up 226 percent, 226 percent increase in 8 years. Now,
what is that by the historical average? You say, I don't know, is that
a lot, is that a little? What is 226 percent?
[[Page 19533]]
Well, the historical average is an increase every year of 11 percent
in the stock market, and that's the historical trend. It doesn't matter
if you have a Republican president and a Democratic Congress, a
Democratic president and a Republican Congress, both chambers
represented by the same party, regardless of that, over time, no matter
who is in control of the White House and the Congress, the average
annual increase in the stock market is approximately 11 percent. In the
8 years in the 1990s, and the economic policies that we conducted in
the 1990s, we had a 226 percent increase over 8 years. Pretty good.
What's happened over the past 8 years, because we have had a dramatic
shift in our economic policies over the past 8 years. We are going to
talk about what some of those policies were. That's part of the subject
matter that is at hand with the Presidential race, the fact that we
have two candidates with very different views on the economy.
One of them, Senator McCain, has been a part of Congress for 26
years, was involved in the economic policies of the past and wants to
continue the policies of the past 8 years into the future. Let's talk
about what were the policies of the past 8 years, and what was the
impact? We are talking about the stock market.
Well, the stock market today is almost exactly where it was 8 years
ago. It's flat lined. It's gone up less than 1 percent. Now that's not
1 percent a year over 8 years, Mr. Speaker, that's less than 1 percent
total over the course of the entire 8 years.
The previous 8 years the stock market went up 226 percent. The next 8
years, the current administration's time in office, it's gone up less
than 1 percent total over that entire period of time.
It does not look like things are going very well moving towards the
future. Hopefully that will correct itself, and we will see some gain
in the stock market moving forward.
The point is, the decisions that are made by this Congress, and the
decisions that are made by whatever administration is in power, do have
a very real impact on our economy. They make a difference.
When you look at the fact that we have had 8 straight months of job
losses, this administration, over the 8 years, is going to have the
worst record of job creation of any presidential administration since
Herbert Hoover. That's not a good record, 8 straight months of job
losses. It does not look encouraging for the next several months. But
it is the worst record of job creation over an 8-year period for any
administration since Herbert Hoover's administration, and we all know
what happened there. That's not good.
Our financial industry is in crisis. It's in melt-down mode. Now we
can turn that around. We can take steps, working as a Congress and
working with the administration to turn it around, and we are going to
make the difficult decisions that need to be made to put our house in
order and get moving in the right direction.
But when you look at what the mistakes were to get us to where we are
today, let's take a look at the national debt, same deal. We will
compare the previous 8 years to the current 8-year's administration,
and I think that's a fair comparison.
When President Clinton left office, we had just had 4 consecutive
years of budget surpluses. Those surpluses were forecast as far as the
eye can see.
The Congressional Budget Office, which is an entity which scores over
a period of years what the expected surplus is going to be, predicted
that over the next 10 years, beginning in 2001 through 2010, we would
have a surplus of more than $5.5 trillion.
I would ask the participants that are here tonight, and anyone who
might be paying attention to this debate tonight, to think about what
the discussion was in the presidential election of 2000. We are a
little less than 7 weeks away from a major election here in this
country, presidential election, and you see what the debate is about.
In the 2,000 debate between then Governor Bush and then Vice
President Gore, the discussion was what are we going to do with this
enormous surplus? We are awash in cash. We have a $5.5 trillion
projected surplus over what were then the next 10 years. And we've just
had 4 consecutive years of budget surplus. So the discussion was, are
we going to pay down the debt? Are we going to shore up Social
Security?
What are we going to do with this money? Imagine what we could have
done. We have had a debate on energy over the past several months,
culminating with a vote last night in this House. What could we have
done in the past 8 years with $5 trillion if we had chosen to dedicate
that money to finding an alternative source of energy, getting us off
of our dependence on foreign oil?
{time} 2045
There are any number of things that we could have used that surplus
for. We could have nearly paid down the entire national debt. One of
the largest line items in the Federal budget today is interest on the
national debt, $240 billion for 1 year. What could we do with $240
billion if we had paid down the national debt and didn't have that line
item in the budget?
Well, that was 8 years ago. We are not having that discussion anymore
because instead of those four straight budget surpluses we had at the
end of the Clinton administration, we have had eight consecutive budget
deficits. And the parting gift that President Bush is going to leave to
this country as he leaves office is the largest single-year budget
deficit in this Nation's history, more than $480 billion for 1 year.
So we didn't have the $5.5 trillion surplus. No, we had a $4 trillion
debt over the course of 8 years and counting, unfortunately, because
now, instead of surpluses with no end in sight, we have deficits and
debt with no end in sight because of the economic policies that have
been conducted over the past 8 years.
Part of the problem, among many problems that have developed with
these policies, is the turmoil you are seeing in the market right now,
is the stock market, the low U.S. dollar, which one of our previous
speakers was talking about. We are going to get to that.
I have talked about this before, and my colleagues in the 30-
Somethings have heard me mention this before. If you had said to an
economist as President Bush was taking the oath of office, ``We are
expecting a $5.5 trillion surplus, but what would we need to do to have
a $9 trillion swing from positive to negative in the debt? What would
have to happen?'' That is going from $5 trillion in the positive to $4
trillion in the negative, a $9 trillion swing. If you asked what would
we have to do from an economic perspective if we were trying to have a
$9 trillion swing, what type of policies, well, any economist that you
asked would have said that is impossible. You couldn't possibly
mismanage the economy to such an extent you are going to have a $9
trillion swing. Well, unfortunately, we have.
Now, I know there are those who will say, well, it wasn't the
administration in the 1990s that were responsible for the enormous
surpluses, it was the Republican Congress. And people who look at
history might say it was President Bush the First who put into place
pay-as-you-go budget scoring. And pay-as-you-go budget scoring is one
of the factors that led to the record surpluses we had in the 1990s in
contrast to the record deficits we had in the 1980s.
Unfortunately, one of the things that one of the previous Congresses
did right after President Bush took office was to do away with pay-as-
you-go. What is pay-as-you-go? Pay-as-you-go budget scoring is what we
do in our home checkbooks, what every American does in their bank
accounts, and what every business in America does with their balance
sheet. It is very simple. You have to have money on one side of the
ledger if you want to spend it on the other.
Unfortunately, we did away with that in this country after the 2001
turn of the administration, and that has led to decisions being made
where nothing had to be paid for, just charge it to the credit card.
Whatever spending you want to do, don't worry, we don't have
[[Page 19534]]
to have an offset anymore because we don't have pay-as-you-go. So if
you want to increase spending, put it on the credit card; somebody will
take care of it.
The problem is that eventually the bill comes due. This leads me to
where we are today; the bill has come due. Anyone who has seen what
happened with Wall Street over the past several months and certainly
over the past few days can see that the bill has come due. And,
unfortunately, it is the American taxpayer that is now going to have to
pick up the bill.
And because of the decisions that have been made to bail out the
corporate executives and the big Wall Street financiers instead of
middle-class Americans, it is middle-class families in this country
that are going to have to pay the bill. It is middle-class families in
this country that are going to get that bill in the mail while we are
bailing out the big corporate executives.
We are going to continue that discussion, but rather than give a
monologue, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here, and I would like
to welcome him to the discussion and yield to him.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate you coming
down here and anchoring the 30-Something hour.
I think it is important as we are talking about the financial issues
just over the last couple of days, and I think you laid it out pretty
well, a 500-point drop and then a 100 or so increase, and then a 450-
point drop today, these are markets that are so destabilized that we
are losing companies that were established since before the Great
Depression. The only financial house that seems to be left is the
Department of the Treasury. And this has been because of the lack of
regulation on the markets, period, dot.
It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to say we need to deregulate. You
need law and order in order to build a capitalistic system. The
capitalistic system doesn't come first. The magic with capitalism was
that we had courts in place and regulatory bodies in place to make sure
that contracts could be enforced, to make sure that investments were
sound, not necessarily the decision that each person in the country
would make would be sound decisions, not that every loan that they
would take out would be sound, but there were precautions in place to
make sure that this whole operation was stabilized and regulated.
And you look at what happened to the savings and loan industry in the
1980s, and you look at what is happening now; it is because there
wasn't the proper watchdog in place.
I think putting the Republicans--as you stated earlier, there may be
a difference between some of our friends on the other side of the aisle
a few years back and the ones today--it is like putting a drunk in
charge of the liquor cabinet, putting the Republicans in charge of Wall
Street. I mean, let's be honest. Total deregulation.
The whole answer was, well, we will deregulate everything, and we
will have competition. In Ohio, it was deregulate energy, and it led to
an increase in prices. That's what has happened.
So we have this destabilized market here in the United States now,
not knowing what is going to happen from one day to the next, losing
businesses that were around since before the Great Depression. A long
history of stability has been destabilized by the Republican agenda.
Now, look at all of the different things that have happened. I think
this is the issue, the point. In 2000 the Republicans controlled the
House, the Republicans controlled the Senate, the Republicans
controlled the White House, and look at what has happened. Look at what
has transpired in the past 8 years with President Bush.
The only sign of any movement in another direction is when the
Democrats took over the Congress a year and a half ago, with issues
getting vetoed by President Bush. But look at what has happened over
those years.
My point is, before I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, is
that we don't have to think about what America would look like with a
neoconservative Republican agenda. We know. It has been implemented.
And for all of our friends on the other side of the aisle to somehow
erase history like you can erase your computer memory and think that
the American people don't remember that they were in charge for all of
these years and implemented their health-care policy, their energy
policy, their education policy, their foreign policy, and where we are
today on all of those issues, you don't have to believe me, you don't
have to believe Nancy Pelosi, Mr. Speaker, you don't have to believe
Jason Altmire, these are two diametrically opposed philosophies on how
to govern.
As you stated, in the 1990s with the Democrats in charge of the
Congress and the Presidency, it passed a budget that led to the
greatest economic expansion in the history of the country, 20 million
new jobs. And you look at what President Bush did with the Republican
Congress: Took us right off the cliff.
We were talking about in the Clinton years what we were going to do
with the surplus. One of the debates that President Clinton pushed
forward was save Social Security first. So he was going to take this
money and put it into the Social Security fund so we didn't have all of
these IOUs for all of these years.
Now the question in Washington and in Youngstown, Ohio, and in
Georgia and in western Pennsylvania, here is the question: What if the
Republican Party had their way when they wanted to privatize Social
Security? Imagine, with everything that is going on in the market
today, if President Bush and Senator McCain and all of the House
Republicans who were down here on the floor fighting for a Republican
privatization scheme for Social Security, imagine if that last base
security system that you have in place here, the American people have
in place, was all in the stock market today? Just think about what a
radical idea that is.
Mr. ALTMIRE. The gentleman sets me up perfectly because that is
exactly the point I was going to try to make. When the gentleman from
Ohio was talking about the policies of the past Congress and this
administration and things like the energy bill of 2005, we have
empirical evidence, what is the result when this Congress took action,
passed, sent to the President and was signed into law? Well, gas prices
skyrocketed, dramatically increased our dependence on foreign oil.
So what is the impact on our economy by the economic policies that
were carried out under this administration? You could not have more of
a stark contrast in evidence, the way that the economy boomed in the
1990s and what we are seeing here in the last 8 years.
As I mentioned earlier, the economy over the past 8 years is driven
by the stock market, and the stock market is up less than 1 percent
over 8 years, almost exactly today where it was 8 years ago.
The point I was going to make is we can lament, as the gentleman and
I have done many times, the policies of the past and look for ways that
we can solve the problem moving forward. But let's not forget a crisis
that was averted by the American people, a policy that was thankfully
not carried out.
This President, in the previous 6 years in Congress before the new
session came in, tried desperately to privatize Social Security.
President Bush, you'll remember, around 2004, 2005, and Vice President
Cheney traveled all around the country with their dog-and-pony show and
charts and graphs talking about Social Security, privatizing Social
Security, putting some of the money that is supposed to go, as it has
always gone, into the pockets of senior citizens and instead putting
that in the private market.
We already have ways to invest in the private market, and we
certainly encourage people to do that. And one of the things that we
are going to do moving forward is figure out a way to further
incentivize private savings through 401(k)s and IRAs and all the rest.
The point is that is not what Social Security is for.
If there was ever any doubt that was a good idea, and the American
people
[[Page 19535]]
certainly cast judgment upon that, imagine, I would ask my colleagues
when they go back home and talk to their constituents, imagine if you
had to retire and you reached the age at which you were going to start
to claim Social Security at some point in the past 8 years.
If you were retiring in 2000 and that stock market had just gone up
226 percent over the past 8 years, boy, that was a great deal. That was
quite an investment. It would have worked out just fine for you. But if
you are one of the millions of Americans who would have qualified for
retirement age in the past 8 years, maybe that wasn't such a good idea
after all. You wouldn't have even got a cost-of-living adjustment. You
would have flat-lined.
{time} 2100
And that's certainly unacceptable with our Social Security.
I would yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The point I want to add to what you're talking
about is, what if this would have happened?
It seems like we always have people in Washington, if something major
happens, like a major insurance company or a major investment company
or a major bank, it's like Washington, D.C. will step all over each
other as to who's going to help them first, who's going to bail them
out, who's going to give them something to make everything all right.
And I don't want this to sound like we don't understand the ripple
effect of what could happen if some of these entities aren't helped. We
understand that.
But when it was the average person who made a mistake with their
housing loan, hey, you're on your own. Pull yourself up by your
bootstraps.
Well, Lehman Brothers, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
Merrill Lynch, you pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
I'm not saying you don't need to take responsibility for your actions
because you certainly do. But when we needed to help 10 million kids
get health care through the State Children's Health Insurance Program,
President Bush says we don't have the money. $35 billion over 5 years.
We spend $10 billion a month in Iraq, but the President and a small
group of radical Republicans in the House said we don't have the money
for this. It's too much. It would be 3\1/2\ months in Iraq.
But if something like this happens where we have all this, a big
major financial company, something happens, well, here we are, all of a
sudden we've got more money.
Think about what the Republican Congress and Republican President did
to our financial situation, not just how they destabilized the markets.
I don't know if you got into this, Mr. Altmire, before I got here or
not. But think about what they did. They raised the debt limit five
times. Maybe six. I may be missing one. Five times. They borrowed $3
trillion from China, Japan and OPEC countries.
Now you want to talk about putting the next generation behind the
eight-ball, go borrow $3 trillion from our biggest competitor in China
and watch them wipe out manufacturing in Pennsylvania, in Ohio and all
over the industrial Midwest.
Don't regulate the markets. Don't invest in education. Make tuition
costs go up 8, 9, 10 percent a year all over the country. The Pell
Grant was almost meaningless. Student loans were 6.8 percent last year.
All of these issues add up to saying they weren't paying attention.
Their philosophy of government just doesn't work. That's what this
whole thing says.
We're joined by the gentleman from Colorado, the host of the
Democratic National Convention. I yield to Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank my friend for yielding. It's a pleasure to be
here with the 30-Somethings, even though I don't fit into that category
and haven't for some time. But this subject is so important, what you
two are talking about tonight.
We have a regime in place, in the personalities of George Bush and
Dick Cheney, that can't be described in any other way than radical
because we've got to go back to some basic principles of our country,
some basic values, the basic values that we were founded on, of thrift
and sacrifice, of investment, of opportunity for all.
But instead, what we've seen in the last 8 years that this
administration has pushed and promoted was a greed and gamble,
immediate gratification, the theory that I want it now, and I'm not
paying for it; my kids or your kids or somebody else is going to pay
for it later.
To have these tax cuts and prosecute a war immediately turned this
country's budget upside down. So you start with that failure. And we've
been running behind ever since.
Then you forget about the lessons of the past. Now these guys wanted
to reverse everything that's happened for the last 70 years, since the
thirties. We came through the roaring twenties. We had our Calvin
Coolidges, we had our Herbert Hoovers, and we paid dearly during the
thirties because we understood at that point that we're going to give
up a little bit of the upside so that we don't have the misery of the
downside. But those lessons were lost on our friends in the White
House.
They said, no. Let's not have any kind of regulatory, any kind of
constraint on the system.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can I add one point?
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Yes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Dick Cheney said debt doesn't matter when he first
got into office; debt doesn't matter.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Debt does matter. And my friend from Pennsylvania was
talking about how each of us has to live with the debt that we develop,
or our borrowing affects us. It affects this Nation. This Nation has
been on a drunken stumble through Wall Street down Main Street.
Instead of doing the sacrifice and the thrift, we've been borrowing
and spending. And I say we. George Bush, Dick Cheney and the Republican
Congress established this kind of an approach, and it has set our
country back so that we are a Third World Nation, borrowing from China,
borrowing from the Middle East, borrowing from our friends in Europe.
And we really are behind the eight-ball because when they don't loan we
have trouble, a la, we've had AIG which we've had to bail out; Fannie
Mae, Freddie Mac, and on down the line. Bear Stearns.
We've had a radical regime. We can't have this radical kind of an
approach anymore. But John McCain wants to subscribe to what George
Bush and Dick Cheney have been pushing on this country for the last 8
years. This country can't handle that anymore.
We have to have a change. And we have to have a future that really
looks at new ways to develop our economy and understand that there have
to be some constraints. The free market isn't perfect. It works well,
but it isn't perfect because we all have some tendencies that go
against those basic principles of sacrifice and thrift and investment
and opportunity for all.
So what I look forward to, and Barack Obama intends to develop, is a
new energy economy. That will put a lot of people back to work, and
it'll help us so we aren't hooked on one product and subject to ransom
when we go to the gas pumps.
We've got a lot of work to do ahead of us because these guys, in 8
years, have turned this country upside down. We can't allow it anymore.
We need a change and we need a new direction, and we need it right
now. Luckily, we've got an election coming in 40 days or 48 days. And
this country can renew itself, can rejuvenate itself. That's the
promise of America, thank God. That's the promise for America.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A lot of us were saying in the 2004 elections that
if you re-elect President Bush, you will not recognize this country in
4 years. And sad to say, here we stand, here we sit in America
thinking, you know, the stock market is under 10,000, unemployment is
up again. We borrowed $3 trillion. President Bush and the Republican
Congress have borrowed more than any previous administration in
Congress, combined. Still $10 billion a month in Iraq, and no end in
sight with what's going on. It's getting to the point
[[Page 19536]]
where we can't recognize what we're doing, and it's critical what's
happening to this country. It's sad what they have done.
Mr. ALTMIRE. It's worth mentioning, both of the gentlemen, I'm sure,
remember, early in this session of Congress, in the beginning of 2007,
we wanted to work with President Bush on a way to stabilize and shore
up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We, as a Congress, went to the
administration and said, look, there's going to be trouble down the
road if we don't take action. Will you work with us on that? And
President Bush said, no, I'm not interested in that and I won't support
that. So away we went.
And then we came to the beginning of 2008, the economy starting to
take a dramatic turn for the worse, so working together in fairness, in
a bipartisan way, the House and Senate, with the administration,
Republican and Democrat alike, and we put together very quickly a
stimulus package to put money immediately in the hands of people who
needed it, who were going to put it into the economy, get the economy
jump-started, and it worked. If you look at the second quarter, we had
an up tick in the economy because of the work that this Congress did.
Well, part of the stimulus that was not included, we, again, went to
the administration and said, you know what? Can we revisit that issue
that we asked you about a year ago? Can we revisit the Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac issue, because we really see trouble on the way here if we
don't act. Again we were told, well, we're not interested in including
that in the stimulus.
And guess what happened?
Now there's a multibillion-dollar bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac that's taken place. The government actually had to come in and take
over those two GSEs.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just love how our friends say, oh, this is going
to be socialism. You try to provide health care for 10 million kids.
It's going to be socialism. We can't do that.
Or if you try to provide any kind of preventative health care for
women, it's going to be socialism. Don't you dare do it.
But then we're taking over major investment groups, financial groups,
just taking them over. Here's billions of taxpayer dollars. We're now
investors in all these things.
But we want to invest in the 10 million kids, Mr. Altmire, and we
don't have the money to do that.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Would my friend yield for a second?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. But that goes to another basic value that they have
that just is wrong. They want to focus on the wealthiest 1 percent.
They don't care about the 99 percent of hardworking Americans who are
affected by this. It's hardworking America that are going to have to
pick up the pieces after this administration. And really it's going to
take all of us, in concert, together, pulling together, like only
Americans can do, to deal with the shambles that we have, whether it's
the way people were treated with Katrina, the fact that we have bridges
falling down in Minneapolis, I mean, this is a time when we all have to
pull together, and we have to look forward.
We can't go with the same old policies, the same old approaches of
the Grand Old Party. It just doesn't work. We're in a new century, and
it is time for some new ideas because we've got to move forward.
Mr. ALTMIRE. The gentleman reminds me of a point, which I meant to
bring up, that I'm amused when I hear the discussion about, is John
McCain's economic policy identical to George Bush's economic policy? Is
he a third term of George Bush?
The fact is, readers of history will know, actually, if you go back
and look at the economic policies of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge
and Herbert Hoover, you'll find a lot of similarities in what happened
over the previous 8 years, the mistakes that were made with the lack of
regulation.
I talked earlier that it wasn't, for the most part, deregulation. It
was non-regulation. We didn't take regulation away that existed. There
was just never any regulation at all; very similar to what took place
in the 1920s, leading up to the calamity of the Great Depression.
So I would ask readers of history and people who are interested in
this subject, compare the economic policies that have led us to where
we are today through President Bush and what Senator McCain is
proposing to those three presidents I mentioned.
And I would just say, before I transfer to Mr. Murphy from
Connecticut, or Mr. Ryan, if you wanted to comment, but I get asked a
lot recently, about bailouts of these three big companies, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac and then AIG and Bear Stearns before; and what's the
reason that we picked those while we let Lehman Brothers go under, and
who's minding the store here, and why are these decisions being made,
and who's next. What's the next shoe to drop is what you hear.
This is a systemic problem. This is not a problem with individual
financiers. This is not a problem that Bear Stearns had all on their
own or AIG had all on their own or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is
a system-wide problem that needs to be dealt with, and we can't
continue to take a piecemeal approach and decide on a day-by-day basis
who survives and who doesn't.
Well, Lehman Brothers, you can go under. We're sorry. But today we're
going to bail out AIG, the next day.
We can't continue down that road. We have to address the systemic
root of the problem to prevent this from happening. The first thing is
to stabilize.
I'll go to Mr. Perlmutter, and then we'll go to Mr. Murphy from
Connecticut.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I'd just like to make two points. And it is the
administration that is choosing who lives and who dies. I mean, this
really is about winners and losers, and this administration is choosing
Bear Stearns, does not choose Lehman Brothers, chooses Fannie Mae,
doesn't choose Merrill Lynch, chooses AIG.
{time} 2115
It is not a congressional action. These are happening within the
administration. They're making these choices. Now, maybe we would
agree, but we're not given that chance. They're doing these things
overnight.
Now, there's a Latin saying, ``Res ipsa loquitur.'' Now, many might
say, what the heck does that mean? It means, the thing speaks for
itself.
What's happened in this Nation with these two guys, these two oilmen
in the White House leading the charge, this country has turned upside
down. And they may want to spread the blame to whoever. You know, Harry
Truman had the old saying, ``The buck stops here.'' Those guys would
like to spread the blame. They're the leaders, and they've led us down
this path.
John McCain wants to follow that Bush path. He's trying to run away
from it now, but his votes were with the Bush administration over 90
percent of the time. We have to have a change.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And how many times do you hear our friends on the
other side say, ``Government shouldn't pick winners and losers,''
``Government shouldn't pick favorites,'' you know, ``Government has no
business picking out this kid should succeed and this kid's not going
to have the same opportunity,'' ``Government has no role there''?
Unless it's Wall Street.
Now, who do we need to help to keep things rolling? And as we've
said, I'm not saying that this is necessarily right or wrong. What I am
saying is this is a pretty complicated mess that we are in. And we're
not saying that you shouldn't get the buckets and go down to the river
and fill them up with water and throw water on the house that's
burning. That's not what we're saying. What we're saying is you're
supposed to have a fire code, and you're supposed to have fire trucks,
and you're supposed to have, you know, gas in the fire truck and
equipment for the firemen.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. And the best firefighters you can have.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the best firefighters you can have.
[[Page 19537]]
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. The Wall Street fire department is well-
equipped. The Main Street fire department, it's gone underfunded and
undermanned and unequipped for the last 12 years, particularly for the
last 6 years.
We were very quick to go and help out our friends on Wall Street, but
everybody sat here with their hands, you know, on their seats, tied
behind their backs, when all these families needed a little help, when
a kid who couldn't get an education in an inner city needed to access
the apparatus to opportunity that all the rest of us had, when that
small business that was about to go under because it couldn't find the
health-care insurance to keep its employees on staff needed a little
assistance. The little guys, when they needed the fire trucks, they
weren't there. But when the big guys needed them, they got there.
And so I think you're exactly right, it's just a matter of
consistency. Listen, government certainly can be an agent of help to
people who need some assistance. But it shouldn't just be the big Wall
Street firms. It should be regular, average, everyday families out
there.
And to Mr. Perlmutter, just a word of warning. I know you're sort of
new to the 30-Somethings here, but we don't use Latin. It's just a
rule, and I hope you will take that under advisement if you join us
from here on out.
Listen, I thank my friends for letting me join a little late here. I
just wanted to maybe add one thought to this, and maybe you have
covered it already. But I think people are searching today for the
reasons, as Mr. Altmire said, as to why last night AIG got the brass
ring. Now, why did they get help and Lehman Brothers didn't and IndyMac
didn't? Exactly why did they get help?
Well, part of it I think is that this is a company that does
tremendous international business. This is, at some level, a
representation of American economic power throughout the globe,
economic power that has been so greatly compromised by this
administration as we have sold this country to foreign banks and
foreign governments, that part of the reason, I think, that we have
decided to choose AIG is because we are in such a precarious situation
with regard to all of the foreign lenders and foreign governments that
hold our currency, that hold American money through the $9 trillion,
$10 trillion that we have given out in notes through the Federal debt,
that we are now in a crisis position, that when an American firm that
is a representation of our power across this globe comes under threat,
we have to prop them up. Because if we are seen as economically weak
around this globe, those countries are going to start calling their
notes, those countries are going to start asking for their money back.
And that's when the real economic ruin happens, when the $9 trillion
that we have out to lenders across this globe, the record amounts that
foreign governments hold, when they start to call in that money that
the Bush administration and the Republican Congress sent out to them in
record deficits and record debts, then we're in real trouble.
And so part of the reason I think we're standing here and trying to
answer the question as to why AIG is at the top of the headlines is
because we are trying now to make up for the terrible economic policies
of the Bush administration that John McCain seeks to perpetuate.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. What I was going to say is we are in a predicament,
and there is a crisis of confidence, both domestically as well as
around the world, because of so many steps that this administration has
taken, whether it's to go into Iraq, whether it's, you know, how we
dealt with Katrina, all of this mismanagement and unregulation or
nonregulation or anti-regulation of the financial markets.
The good news, the good news about our country, the good news about
America and Americans is that, with good leadership, we can do
anything. Times of crisis are also times of opportunity. With good
leadership, we can have this new energy economy, we can innovate, and
we can be ingenious, and we can imagine things that will really
transform this country and this world.
That's the kind of vision that is necessary, and we're not going to
see that with the other side. Those are old policies. Those are old
answers. That's the old way.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They had the opportunity to do it. They were in
charge of everything.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. And they couldn't do it. In fact, they did just the
opposite.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to highlight how radical of an agenda our
friends on the other side have, the one thing--deregulation or lack of
regulation, whatever the case may be, and then ignore the warning
signs, as Mr. Altmire stated, with Freddie and Fannie, ignore the
warning signs about the mortgage crisis that's coming, and to then also
to have as a part of your philosophy, deregulation, ignore the
warnings, let's put Social Security in the stock market too. That is
the Republican agenda.
We, with the 30-Something Working Group, started to fight President
Bush's Social Security privatization scam. The first time I walked on
this floor to speak was 4 years ago or 5 years ago when President Bush
wanted to start the Social Security privatization, and then-Minority
Leader Pelosi asked Kendrick Meek and I to come here and to combat it.
Now, can you imagine if they had won that battle down here, that
monumental battle? Your parents' and grandparents' Social Security
would now be sitting in Wall Street in a deregulated market that looks
like the Wild West with a Starbucks, is what it looks like.
Mr. ALTMIRE. And when I go back to western Pennsylvania and they hear
the word ``regulation,'' small businesses and families, they get a
little nervous, rightly, because in a lot of ways we are over-regulated
in this country.
And I want to just, before we close here, I want to make sure
everybody understands what we're talking about. We're not talking about
the small businesses. We're not talking about the small corner bank.
We're talking about the huge Wall Street financier, the conglomerates,
these people who are getting the $30 billion golden parachutes when the
CEO gets canned.
The small businesses in this country, the reason you're having
trouble in the credit market right now, the reason you may not be able
to get loans for capital development and whatever else it is that
you're working on is because the intra-bank lending, the staple of our
economy, bank-to-bank lending, is frozen. The credit market is in
crisis and it's frozen, and that's affecting small businesses.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I just wanted to throw something on top of
that, just to give you an example. You're giving one kind of example.
Let me throw another one on, as to what it means when you regulate the
small banks but you don't regulate the investment banks, you don't
regulate the Fannies and the Freddies of the world.
Local banks are still in business, largely, because they have
government regulation--sensible regulation, some of it; some of it a
little bit too much--that requires them to be appropriately leveraged.
They have 4:1, 5:1, 6:1 leverage rates. Fannie and Freddie had 60:1
leverage ratios, just unsustainable. The investment banks that went
under, Bear Stearns, 35:1 leverage ratios, money they didn't have. So
that's what we're talking about here.
We need to do something about the regulatory burden that is crippling
a lot of those small businesses. But we need to understand that it's
really the big guys that need to be part of the conversation that the
small businesses, the small banks have been a part of for a long time.
Mr. ALTMIRE. That's exactly what I want to clarify, and I thank the
gentleman.
We're talking about asking the big Wall Street firms to comply with
the same rules and regulations that the small business, that the corner
banks have to comply with. Now, it's not exactly the same, and we
understand that. But I understand the fear that it strikes in the heart
of ordinary Americans when we start talking about the word
``regulation.'' We are not talking
[[Page 19538]]
about everyday Americans. We're talking about what happens at the
absolute top of the food chain.
These large banks and institutions that you see right now that are
teetering on the brink, the Lehman Brothers of the world that are no
longer part of the process now, and the ones that we have to come in
and bail out with an $85 billion bailout at taxpayer expense, these are
things we want to avoid. So that's what we're talking about. We are not
talking about the small businesses and the corner banks.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I just think one last comment I'd like to make is
that there has been a transfer of wealth the likes of which we've never
seen in this country. Whether it's to the big oil companies or to some
of the Wall Street firms and to other nations, that has come out of the
pockets of middle America.
And it is time that we come up with new ways to power this Nation. It
is time that we, this country, instead of living on a borrow-and-spend
philosophy, which is what has been the Bush administration's approach
and is what McCain wants to pursue, that we start remembering the
values that made us so strong, of thrift and sacrifice and investment,
and opportunity for all, not just a select few at the very top.
The focus has been on the top 1 percent. It needs to be on the rest
of America. And when it's there, that's when we're strong. That's when
we are that shining light at the top of the hill, the beacon at the top
of the hill.
We are a great Nation, and we have stumbled because of bad leadership
over the last 8 years. But come November 4th, things are going to
change, and we will have a new direction.
Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I thank Mr.
Murphy from Connecticut, and I thank the Speaker for allowing us this
time to discuss the economic crisis in this country. I think it's safe
to say that this is not the last time the 30-Something Working Group
will address this issue on the floor.
And I would also say that I do look forward to my good friend Mr.
Westmoreland, who is going to come after us, and I'm sure he's going to
have something to say. He sat patiently through the entire hour and
listened to us speak, and I know he comes from a different point of
view. And I would encourage those interested in this topic to listen to
what he has to say as well. We've had many conversations about this and
the energy issue and other things. So we look forward to hearing him.
____________________
ENERGY
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. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how many people have been
watching the last hour, and I don't know that I can straighten it out
in the next hour. But I do want to start out with something that is
kind of elementary, I guess, to most people, but I want to explain the
makeup of Congress. And excuse my penmanship.
{time} 2130
The House consists of 435 Members. The Democrats have 235, and that's
because of the loss of the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
The Republicans have 199 Members.
You can see that the Democrat number is larger than our number.
To get anything passed in this body, it takes 218 votes. You can see
that the Democrats have more than 218 votes. In the Senate, 100
Members; Democrats have 51, Republicans have 49.
The Democrats have had the majority in Congress since January of
2007. And so what that says to me is that all of the stuff that I have
heard in the last hour, Mr. Speaker, if they've got all the answers,
why haven't they been brought to the floor?
Now I'm sure that's a question that many of us are asking because if
they are in control and they've got all of the brilliant ideas that's
going to save the world, then why haven't they brought them to the
floor and put 218 votes up to pass it out of the House? That's got to
be a question on a lot of people's minds.
Now in order to gain the majority, there were some things said and
some things promised during the campaign cycle that led up to the new
majority.
Here is one of their promises: ``Members should have at least 24
hours to examine bill and conference report text prior to floor
consideration. Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10
p.m. for a bill to be considered the following day.''
This was Speaker Pelosi in a New Direction for America, 2006.
Let me say that the sham of an energy bill that was brought to this
floor yesterday was presented the night before to the Rules Committee
at 10:45. This is just a little example of what we've been faced with
and the fact that the new majority won that majority by saying such
things as this that the people believed that they would actually carry
on.
I will tell you that this is not a rule. They did not make this a
rule. This was one of those empty promises.
Let's look at something else. Speaker Pelosi in 2006 before they
gained the majority: ``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
alternatives, including a substitute.''
Since the new majority has been in in 2007 and 2008, they have had
over 60 closed rules, which means that there are no amendments, you
can't bring your ideas here and have them openly debated. The last
energy bill that was here was one of those rules. I might add in the
109th Congress when Republicans were in control, we had just about half
of that amount in closed rules.
Now here is the thing that I think that most people will get a grasp
on, Mr. Speaker. This was by Representative Paul Kanjorski when he was
in his hometown after becoming the majority. He was in his hometown,
and he was asked about the Democrats' promise to bring back the troops
from Iraq. And as he was talking--but this kind of relates to
everything that has been said by them to gain the majority--before he
said this, he said, ``In our desire to win back the majority, we sort
of stretched the truth and people ate it up.''
Well, you know, that's something.
But then we got to the point where we're at today with the energy
crisis. In 2007 when the Democrats took over, gas was about $2.10 a
gallon. Unemployment was 4.5 percent. Today, gas is over $4 a gallon
and employment is 6.1 percent, but yet they want to blame the
Republicans. Now they're constantly blaming President Bush. I don't
know, Mr. Speaker, but I have never seen President Bush in this body
casting a vote.
In fact, if you've studied your government, you know that there's an
executive branch, there's a legislative branch, and there's a judicial
branch. The legislative branch is responsible for making laws.
Now if you go back to the first chart, you can remember that they
have more than enough to pass anything that they want to in this body,
and they control the Senate.
So what is the problem? We don't know. We want to understand why we
are constantly being blamed. They talked about the economic problems.
They've been in control since January of 2007. They passed a housing
bill that gave Secretary Paulson the ability to do what he's doing with
some of these bailouts. The majority of Republicans voted against that
bill. So when are we going to take some responsibility and stop all of
the blame shifting?
We've got some Members here tonight that might want to explain some
of that to you because it's a problem when the people in control want
to blame somebody else for their problems. I heard them mention the
SCHIP. Why didn't they proceed with it, continue on with that
leadership if they thought that was the right thing to do rather than
caving? No idea. I have no idea.
[[Page 19539]]
Why have they not done some of the other things that they talk about
that would help with the economic crisis that we find ourselves in
today? Hopefully we will give you some of those answers.
Now I would like to recognize my good friend from the State of
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to start by saying I have been here in the House for 14 years,
and I do not believe that either party has an exclusive on integrity or
ideas. I think that both parties have plenty to improve on, but I
wanted to come tonight to say that not a single issue in many months,
if not years, has so divided the two parties down the lines of what is
best for America and what's best for the special interests in this
issue of energy, because I really believe that extremism is what is
causing the majority party to be in retreat from serving the needs and
meeting the needs of the American people.
I'm talking about environmental extremists, and I say this with great
respect because I think conservation and preservation and environmental
responsibility are very important. And I have an excellent record of
supporting all of the alternatives on energy as the cochairman of the
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus here in the House for 8
years. I have helped lead the tax incentives for renewable and energy
efficiency programs, helped put it in the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
one of the most significant developments in the history of our country
for these alternatives, and I believe in these programs.
But I have to tell you, when it comes time now at this critical
moment in American history for new energy capacity and new production
at a time where the prices for consumers are unsustainable,
environmental extremism, which is a special interest--when you look at
the Environmental Defense Fund and Sierra Club and all of these
entities that are filing suit to keep our country from going after new
supplies, which does directly bring prices down for regular people who
are hurting badly, then extremism and special interests are trumping
the will of the American people.
And that's where, frankly, a very liberal mindset from places like
California should not dictate national policy that impacts consumers in
Tennessee. And that is happening today.
Monday, the price of gasoline in Knoxville, Tennessee, was $4.99 a
gallon. Let me tell you that is $2.50 above sustainability based on
market conditions and our economy. And something has to give. And the
American people are on our side. And what happened here last night was
extremism and radicalism trumped mainstream values and positions for
the American people.
Then I was asked today on National Public Radio why then would the
majority party tomorrow bring up this issue of speculation in the
marketplace again on energy when we've already voted on that earlier in
the year. And the reason is they are reeling over what happened last
night where, as Members are going to tell you and even call people by
name, dozens of Democrats that cosponsored a reasonable compromise bill
that we offered last night in the only option we had to offer an
alternative, cosponsored this mainstream, compromise, middle-ground
bill and then voted against it so that they could protect the liberal,
California-driven, no-energy bill, which is the equivalent of drinking
out of a straw when our country needs a fire hose right now. Right now.
And these hurricanes prove again any refinery capacity lost, any
natural disaster, any disruption can cripple our country overnight.
We need to diversify our supply, increase our supply, have a robust,
manufactured-driven economy where we are solving our own energy
problems and providing these solutions to the world. We can do it. I
have got to tell you we have candidates at the Presidential level, here
in the Congress, that are willing to do this. But last night we were
stymied by a majority that's in the back pocket of the extremists. And
that's the truth.
Now I am about as nonpartisan as anybody can be in this body and be
in one party or the other, but that is now happening, and it's very
frustrating because people are calling me from all across my district
saying, ``Why are you not doing something about it?'' And we are
trying.
Last night was a closed rule. No options, no alternatives except the
one alternative, which was a bill sponsored by Members of both parties,
written by Members of both parties. And the very people that sponsored
it in the majority party voted against it so that they could protect
themselves.
And then tomorrow they're going to then change the subject to try to
get the message back on Wall Street in a week where Wall Street,
obviously, is suffering more and more losses, and I will guarantee you
the conservatives in this body, people like me and the people on the
floor tonight, are not supporting bailouts and not supporting propping
up corporations that lent more credit than they should have. We're not
for bailing out anybody, and they're going to try tomorrow to convince
the American people that this is still all about Wall Street investors
running up the price of oil instead of the radical groups keeping us
from going after energy supplies in our country.
We need the alternatives, we need the investment; but what are we
going to do in the meantime while we're bringing those to the
marketplace? I'm not talking about months; I'm talking about years
before we have those alternatives ready for the market. And what do we
do as a transition, a bridge to get there? Increase capacity. Prices
will come down as we increase the capacity. The energy that we have at
our disposal--and we need all of it, all across the Outer Continental
Shelf, not 50 miles offshore. It limits it to just a little bitty
amount, and then the lawsuits just will be filed. Four hundred and
eighty-seven Outer Continental Shelf permits are under litigation,
immediately sued by these radical groups.
So to the average American, understand: extremism on policies like
this, locking up our energy resources, have brought us to our knees and
we actually have to have some kind of explosion here on the floor of
the House for the majority to let us unleash this and send a bill to
this President who will sign it. And they knew that last night if they
would have allowed their own Members who cosponsored this bill to vote
for it, we would have something working through the Senate, the
President would sign it, and we would begin production. And as soon as
we go after this new energy, the prices will come down.
{time} 2145
Now, that's where we're at.
And I hate to just be that critical of the other side, and I rarely
am, but tonight, this is the moment. And we've got to keep this issue
out there because they're looking for ways to cover it up and go home.
And tomorrow, it's change the subject. It's about speculation, or then
it's going to be about price gouging, or all of these diversionary
tactics to keep the American people thinking that it's something other
than production.
And right now it is production. We need to go after it. The American
people get it, but we need to let them know exactly what happened here
this week in the House of Representatives.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
And I wonder if the $9 billion bailout of IndyMac, the $29 billion
bailout of Bear Stearns, the $85 billion bailout of AIG, the $200
billion bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which, under that bill,
is some of the ability that they gave Secretary Paulson to do some of
these bailouts. Also, the $300 billion exposure that they gave the
American taxpayers to expand the FHA to refinance problem mortgages,
and now they're talking about a $25 billion bailout for the automakers.
So the gentleman from Tennessee has some great points.
But let me speak to the energy thing that he mentioned. In the
bipartisan bill, there were 25 of the 35 Democrats that sponsored this
bill that voted against it; they were actually cosponsors. But let me
tell you where a little of this makeup comes right quick.
[[Page 19540]]
Energy crisis: ``There is no energy crisis on our side of the
aisle.'' And that was from a Democratic House aide that was written in
the Politico on August 5, 2008. Also, according to Speaker Pelosi, ``If
Democrats relented on drilling, then we might as well pack it up and go
home.'' That was from July 11, 2008. Then we've got, ``This is a
political month. There's all kinds of things we try to do that will
just go away after we leave.'' And that's Representative John Murtha.
And if I could, Mr. Speaker, I would recall you to the quote that Mr.
Kanjorski said: ``We kind of stretched the truth, and the people ate it
up.'' So this makes me believe that what we've done here, just the sham
that's gone on, might be just to fool people until after we leave.
``This is all about politics, not necessarily about policy.'' And
this comes from Karen Whalen, who is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, that she spoke of in September.
Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, on the Democrats' latest energy
plan, said, ``It is dead on arrival in the Senate.'' So when they
passed this sham of a bill last night so they can go home and say that
they passed an energy bill, even their own party in the Senate
recognizes that this thing is dead on arrival. And some of the other
comments, it was just politics, it is election-year stuff.
Now, this is the last quote I'm going to show you tonight from
Speaker Pelosi, but her quote is, ``I'm trying to save the planet. I'm
just trying to save the planet.'' Well, we wish that her and the
Democratic majority would try to do something to relieve everyday
Americans of the pain at the pump that we're facing, the loss of jobs
that their economic policies that they've passed since they've been
here have created, the fact that gas has been from a little over $2 to
over $4, the fact that 17 of the refineries were closed down with
Hurricane Ike and the 3,200 drilling platforms because they are in the
direct path of hurricanes, when we could be expanding our energy
resources to the east coast, to the west coast, to Alaska, where these
hurricanes don't normally hit.
So keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that Speaker Pelosi is trying to save
the planet and not help the everyday American that is feeling the pain
at the pump.
Now I want to recognize our distinguished policy chairman of the
Republican Conference, the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
And I think you've hit upon, with the quote from Speaker Pelosi about
trying to save the planet, one of the fundamental problems that we've
run into trying to come up with a sound energy policy for the United
States.
As the gentleman from Tennessee talked about, we want a bridge. We
want a responsible transition from where we are today to where America
becomes energy-independent and secure. We believe we need maximum
American energy production, commonsense conservation, and free-market,
green innovations to provide that responsible transition that does not
allow for the callous infliction of economic pain upon the American
people.
And when you think about what we hear in phrases like, ``I'm trying
to save the planet, I'm trying to save the planet,'' what we're really
hearing is that the party that was elected to lower our gas prices, the
Democratic Party, has made a subtle shift in what they're trying to
accomplish. They're now trying to break us off our addiction--not to
foreign oil simply; they are now trying to break our addiction to oil.
So, in short, their solution to the problem of high gas prices is to
make sure that no one has access to any gas at all. And that's why
another quote, which I'm sure you'll put up, is that they have
described, in their own Democratic staff's words, ``Drive smaller cars
and wait for the wind.'' This is not a responsible solution.
Like many people, when I was growing up--I'm 43--I remember something
called the ABC Wide World of Sports. I remember ``The Agony of
Defeat.'' And I used to like Evel Knievel. Now, there was one time when
Evel Knievel, instead of just jumping over cars and busses--you know,
he worked for a living, it's tough work; if you can get it, it pays
well--he was going to jump something called the Snake River Canyon. And
I remember watching this on a little, tiny TV screen with my dad. And
my dad looked at it, just looked at Evel and his little suped-up
motorcycle, he looked at this enormous Snake River Canyon, and my dad
said, ``That boy ain't gonna get there from here.''
And when I think of the Democrats' energy strategy, whereby we have
no domestic production of our own natural resources from the Outer
Continental Shelf, from ANWR, from anybody else, anywhere else, and
they tell us, we're going to fix this with green technological
innovations, it's going to be magic, I think of poor Evel Knievel. The
only difference is that, in trying to jump immediately, cold turkey,
from our current petroleum-based economy into some distant green future
where we do not need our own domestic energy resources, is we are not
simply taking the American people over the Snake River Canyon, the
Democratic majority is pushing them over an economic cliff. And they
are already beginning to see where the abyss lays every time they drive
by and buy gas at the pump.
Now, as we heard about the process last night, people think, why does
process matter? I don't know. It seems to me that as a sovereign
citizen of our free republic, we live in a democracy for a reason; that
the will of one person will not be imposed upon any sovereign citizen
of the United States, certainly not by the subservient Members of
Congress because we work for these people. These people are our bosses,
and they want their voices heard on the floor of this House. And on an
issue as critical as American energy and how we transition to a secure
future not only for ourselves, but more importantly, for our children,
they expect to have their voices heard through their elected
representatives.
And as the gentleman from Georgia pointed out, we heard several
promises about what an open process this was going to be, how every
vote was going to count, how every voice was going to be heard and we
would come together in a bipartisan fashion to serve the American
people. And yet, what did we see? We saw a bill drafted in the dead of
night by a Speaker, handed to her Rules Committee, no amendments
allowed, and voted, rubber-stamped by her Democratic Congress, with no
debate on this floor, no dissent about amendments, no chance to offer
alternatives, no committee process. Silence, silence, in terms of input
on this bill.
And then we saw something that I thought I would never see. We saw 24
people who had co-sponsored a bipartisan bill, who had sang its praises
to their public and to the rest of the American people, and they voted
against it--and I didn't really hear a good reason put forward--so they
could pass a sham drill bill.
Now, we've heard a lot about why the Republicans didn't do certain
things over the course of their majority. And we paid a heavy price--
and a rightful price, as many of us have admitted. We were put into
minority, from majority to minority status by the American people, and
we are learning a painful lesson. But let us not forget the people who
obstructed a sound, sane, productive American energy policy for the
entire time they were in the minority. They act as if they had no hand
in it.
When we were in the majority, we tried, we tried mightily. Many times
the House would pass legislation and it would get to the Senate, yet
the Democratic minority did everything they could to prevent the
expansion of American domestic energy production to the level
sufficient that it would serve the American people and lower the gas
prices. The only difference now that they're in the majority is they
have to pretend that they're trying to lower them.
And that's why, when you pass a bill out of this House called a
compromise bill when you have not talked to anyone on this side of the
aisle about what goes in the bill, it means it's a compromise amongst
yourselves. That is a
[[Page 19541]]
unilateral compromise. So let's be clear about who compromised with
who.
And then when it comes to the floor, it's called ``landmark
legislation,'' it's going to create jobs. And if you vote against this,
you are a captive of Big Oil because you don't want to lock up 88
percent of America's reserves?
As our friend Steve Scalise from Louisiana said, the Democratic
``sham drill bill'' might as well have been written by OPEC; it's going
to make them a lot of money when America doesn't produce its own oil
and gas.
And the best part is their unilateral compromise the Speaker cut with
whomever, they didn't bother to talk to the Senate. As Senator Landrieu
from Louisiana mentioned, that bill is dead on arrival in the Senate.
How do the statements we've heard yesterday, the justifications, the
compromise, landmark legislation, when your own Democratic Senators
think it's dead on arrival?
Where is the hope for the economically struggling families across
America? Where is your sense of responsibility, not only to the people
of this country, but to their House right here, to this institution?
Where is the hope for the American people who are suffering under
energy prices, skyrocketing since you took power in this place? There
isn't. Because it's a sham.
And it is the Democratic Senate that will prove it. It is not
Republican Luddites that don't want to go forward towards a more
``green'' future. What it is is the Democratic Senate telling the
Democratic House we can't stomach your bill.
Now, the thing that I think that everybody should remember is there
is a solution to this. If and when this happens, if the Democratic
Senate refuses to pass the Democratic House ``lethargy bill,'' this
Democratic majority here in the House, the Democratic majority in the
Senate, this Democratic Congress can say we will not leave here until a
real piece of energy legislation helping the American people is signed
into law, until we have done the job we have been elected to do on
behalf of the American people. I do not think that is too much to ask.
I do not think that is something that the American people should be
denied.
I yield back to the gentleman.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the Policy Committee chairman. And
you're exactly right, we owe it to the American people to stay here
until we can put our partisanship aside, do a bipartisan bill that the
American people--and we thought we had that last night with the motion
to recommit, with all the Democratic cosponsors that were on it--to
have a bill that we could pass, send to the Senate, and hopefully get
some agreement on.
But you mentioned the process, that the process is important because,
you know, when the process is broken, the product is flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get too elementary, but this is a book
that we give to children that come to this body, and it says, ``How Our
Laws Are Made.'' The beginning of a bill: Propose a bill, introduce a
bill, committee action, subcommittee action. The bill is reported,
considered on the House floor. Vote the bill. Refer to the Senate.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is if we were going through the proper process
that our Founding Fathers and people who had the idea--this is the
process that was set up, and this is what we teach our young people
that come to the Capitol.
Now, I will show you the chart that is being used right now by the
majority. You have the beginning of the bill, propose a bill. And then
you kind of go through the introduction, the committee action, the
subcommittee action, and the bill is reported. It basically just kind
of comes to the floor of the House.
So what we're teaching our kids is not exactly right. And so I think
while the majority is in control of Congress, they may want to shift
this a little bit and give the children a more accurate depiction of
what's going on in the Congress.
And I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. Again, I am not critical most of the time of either party
here in the House, but this is an inconvenient truth that I need to
share as well. Because it's easy to forget now in September, but I've
been on the Appropriations Committee for 12 years. Every year, by June,
the Appropriations bills are moving through the House.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. How many do we have now?
Mr. WAMP. The end of the fiscal year is 13 days from now, and one
bill has been off this House floor.
But here's what happened, beginning in June, is we started debating
at the committee this issue of energy--because virtually every bill has
a component of energy, whether it's the defense bill, where there is a
huge energy consumption piece of all of our defense activities. And
when we started debating energy at these bills, they stopped the
process.
{time} 2200
And we don't have the appropriations bills at all, and the fiscal
year ends in 13 days.
Now, here is the problem with it because it gets really ugly. Even
under a stopgap funding bill, like a continuing resolution which we're
now expecting to carry us several months into the fiscal year, you
won't believe the waste associated with the budgets of all of these
agencies because they don't know what they're going to get. They may be
laying people off now. We're already hearing about this because they
don't have certainty in their budgets because the people running the
House stopped the trains, stopped the process, stopped the bills over
this issue of energy. They're in retreat on this issue of energy.
A lot of people criticize our party as the party of ``all about
drilling.'' It's not just the drilling. What about nuclear energy? The
very chairman of their new global warming committee, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, is the most anti-nuclear activist who I know of in the
country, let alone in the House. They're standing against nuclear and
against a host of other alternatives, not just oil and gas.
It's the idea of, if you don't use coal and you don't use nuclear and
you don't use oil, the alternatives will somehow surface, but I've got
to tell you, when you limit your supplies, the lights go out, and the
gas prices go up, and the availability of energy goes down. Consumers
are hurting, and that's why we have got to get over this.
These, again, are special interests that have taken control through
these people being elevated to power, and they just punt the process.
We are not moving appropriations bills. The global warming committee
now is kind of in the driver's seat. Let's just shut it all down, and
we will reduce the carbon footprint, but at what cost--American
competitiveness? American prices? Our ability to even survive? What
about bankruptcies? What about the people? What about the common man
who now doesn't even have a voice in this place because they're
shutting down the process?
Now I've got to tell you that I haven't complained in 14 years, but
it's time to complain. It's actually time to be righteously indignant
about this and force them to stay here until we get something done,
something real for the consumer.
I yield back.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I'd like to ask the gentleman from Tennessee a
question.
You're on the Appropriations Committee. On the bill that we passed
here yesterday, I believe there were some appropriations in there or
earmarks in there. I think there was $1.2 billion for Mr. Rangel for
the New York City liberty bonds. Was that not in the energy package
that we had?
Mr. WAMP. Actually, our leadership raised that, and they just tabled
it. They just quash it and go on. These are air-dropped. Again, this
didn't go through the committee process.
Listen, if the Congress is going to exert its constitutional right to
direct funding, there's a provision that you have to go through--the
subcommittee, the full committee. It has to be vetted. It has to be
filed. It has to be before the House, and people have to have the
[[Page 19542]]
right to offer amendments to strike it. Did that happen yesterday? No,
not at all.
Once again, these are the things that the American people are so
angry about, and I've got to tell you that it's time for reform, but if
anybody thinks reform is going to come from this new majority, they'd
better think twice.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Thank you.
Now it's my privilege to recognize the gentlelady--and I say
gentlelady--from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Well, I thank my colleagues tonight for being here on the
floor, and especially, I thank my colleague from Georgia for leading
this Special Order.
We've talked a little bit about the Constitution; we've touched on
it. Our colleague from Tennessee is bringing wonderful energy to this
issue of energy tonight, and I am so grateful for his being here
because, as he said, he generally is not a very partisan person. He
doesn't come here and talk very vociferously about issues that are
before the House. He's doing it now, and you can tell he is really is
passionate about this because this is a passionate issue for many of
us.
Today is Constitution Day, and I think it's very important that we
highlight some issues related to the Constitution as they relate to
what happened on this floor last night and as to what has been pointed
out tonight.
We have not followed the Constitution in the way that we should have
followed it. We haven't followed the way the House has operated in the
past. We haven't even followed the promises that were made by the
Speaker in 2006 when she said this would be the most open Congress,
that this would be the most fair Congress. Bills should go to
committee. They should come to the floor and be amendable, but none of
that has happened.
One of the things that bothers me the most about our not dealing with
issues as they relate to the Constitution is how the Congress is trying
to blame our President for everything bad that has happened in the last
2 years.
When I go out and talk to schoolchildren especially, I point out to
them that the first article in the Constitution, article I, is about
the Congress. That is not an accident. The founders wanted the Congress
to be the strongest part of our government. We have three branches of
government--the legislative, the executive and the judicial branches.
They intended the Congress to be the most important. We're the ones who
pass the laws. We're the ones who can make things happen in this
country and who can make things happen in a hurry, but what the
Democrats, who are in charge of the Congress and have been for the past
20 months, want to keep doing is saying, ``It's not our fault that
these things are happening. It's not our fault.''
Ladies and gentlemen, it is their fault, and the blame has to be laid
solely at their feet. Not only are they not taking on the
responsibility to create more American-made energy, which will help
every American in this country, but they seem to be almost anti
American energy. We have been proposing that we be pro American energy.
They are not.
Mr. McCOTTER. Will the gentlelady yield for a question?
Ms. FOXX. I will yield for a question from my colleague from
Michigan.
Mr. McCOTTER. You've brought up the Constitution. Previously, we had
heard throughout the energy debate that there is about $10 billion a
month being spent in Iraq.
Will the gentlelady please tell the Democratic Congress who controls
the power of the purse to appropriate those billions of dollars to
Iraq?
Ms. FOXX. As, I think, most people in this country know, it is the
House of Representatives. The founders specifically gave the power to
the House of Representatives to start revenue bills. It is, of course,
the House and the Senate which must vote on all bills, but it is the
House of Representatives that must begin revenue bills.
Mr. McCOTTER. Will the gentlelady please yield for one more
impertinent question?
Ms. FOXX. I'd be happy to.
Mr. McCOTTER. If the Democratic House and the Democratic Senate chose
not to appropriate money to Iraq to the tune of $10 billion a month,
could that money be spent there?
Ms. FOXX. No, it could not.
Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentlelady.
Ms. FOXX. The President does not have the power to wage war without
the consent of the Congress, and he could not fund any effort. He
couldn't fund any department in the Federal Government without the
consent of the Congress.
So, again, the founders set it up that way. They wanted the Congress
to be the most powerful branch of the government, and the Congress is
the most powerful branch.
What has happened in the last 20 months since the Democrats have been
in charge of the Congress? Let's look at the unemployment rate. It has
gone up. It was very, very low in January of '07. It has gone up over a
percentage point, in fact, about a percentage point and a half since
the Democrats have been in control. Look at the price of gasoline and
how it has gone up since they have been in charge.
What were they doing as these gas prices were going up? Voting on
bills like declaring National Passport Month, National Train Day, Great
Cats and Rare Canids Act where we appropriated either $20 million or
$50 million to other countries to help them identify rare cats in their
countries. Then the favorite of most people is the Monkey Safety Act,
which also appropriated, I think, about $50 million to teach people how
to handle monkeys safely in this country.
The Congress, the Democrat-controlled Congress, has abrogated its
responsibility for taking care of this situation. It has turned its
back on the average American, and that is a shame.
Last night, what happened was that a sham bill passed in this House
with very little support from our side and with many Democrats voting
against it. That was nothing but cover for Democrats. Even the media
here in Washington, D.C., the liberal media, has said that. It is only
so that Democrats can go home and say, ``I voted for more drilling.''
That's what the Republicans have been asking for, and I voted for more
drilling.
What's even worse is that 24 of the Democrats who had signed onto
this bipartisan bill, introduced by Representative John Peterson, who
is a Republican from Pennsylvania, and Representative Neil Abercrombie,
who is a Democrat from Hawaii--the bill is called the Peterson-
Abercrombie bill. We offered that as an alternative. It's not a perfect
bill. There are a lot of problems with it, but we thought surely the 39
Democrats who were cosponsors of that bill would have voted for it. No.
Only 15 of them voted for that bill, and 24 of them voted against it,
but they tell their constituents that they are working hard to bring an
alternative to the situation. I just want to quote a couple of them on
what they said.
Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat of Kansas, a freshman here, was
a cosponsor of the Peterson-Abercrombie bill, but she voted against it
when given the opportunity last night. She said in a press release,
though, on the 4th of September:
``I've been working with a large bipartisan group of representatives
to develop a comprehensive, commonsense energy bill. Our Peterson-
Abercrombie bill will provide sorely needed relief for Kansas families.
It will help create energy independence for America and millions of
jobs to help stabilize our struggling economy,'' press release,
Representative Nancy Boyda, Democrat of Kansas.
Now, what our Democratic colleagues think they can do is to tell
their constituents one thing and do another on the floor of the House.
We are not going to let that happen. We are going to tell the American
people what is going on here. Speaker Pelosi has said it will be okay
if these people campaign against her and blame her for not having
energy legislation. They can go out and promise it, but they don't have
to do anything.
We have Representative Baron Hill, Democrat of Indiana. This is in a
press release from his office on the 14th of
[[Page 19543]]
August 2008 while we were in the midst of being up here every day,
telling the American people what the Democrats were doing. This is what
his press release said:
`` `I hope this bipartisan Peterson-Abercrombie bill will, indeed, be
brought to the floor for a vote when we return to Washington in
September,' Hill said. `It would provide immediate relief while also
bolstering the development of new energy sources in order to move this
country closer to energy independence,' '' Representative Baron Hill.
You know, folks, they were right about the Peterson-Abercrombie bill.
It would have helped, but that's not what they voted for last night.
They voted for a bill that creates an illusion of doing something and
does absolutely nothing.
The last one I'm going to quote is a newspaper article that talks
about Representative Steve Kagen, also a freshman, who is a Democrat
from Wisconsin. This is a newspaper article from the Herald Times in
Wisconsin on 9/13/08:
``Kagen, who signed onto the bill Tuesday, said the Abercrombie-
Peterson bill `really is a comprehensive energy policy and a roadmap
forward. That bill has the balance in investing in renewable sources.
It raises royalty fees from those who are drilling, and it doesn't
limit drilling to four or five States.' '' The title of that article
was ``Congress Sitting on Energy Hot Seat.''
Ladies and gentlemen, we have to hold people accountable for doing
what they promise to do in this country.
{time} 2215
Republicans were held accountable in 2006, not just for not doing
what they had promised. What we were held responsible for was being
part of a party that has a philosophy that we stand for some things. We
need to hold these people responsible.
The other thing that I think needs to be pointed out, and this was
pointed out during the month of August several times, but not in
exactly this way; but the Democrats, while letting average working
Americans, all Americans, actually, suffer from the high price of
gasoline, but particularly our working friends who are paying high
prices and struggling, struggling every day to make ends meet and make
it in this country, obey the law and do what is right, the Democrats
came to the Congress saying we are going to work every day. We think
the Republicans haven't done all they should do. We are going to work
every day. But from the first of August until the end of December they
plan to work 14 days. Fourteen days, ladies and gentlemen.
While you are suffering, wondering how you are going to pay your
bills, they are going to go home the end of next week after having
worked this week, 4 days last week, maybe only 4 days this week. It may
end up being only 13 days. It may end up being only 12 days. They are
going to go home and leave you wondering how are you going to pay the
bills, pay for the gasoline and deal with the challenges that face you
and your family.
That is unacceptable to us as Republicans. That should be
unacceptable to every American. We must hold them accountable, and we
must make them stay here until we have an energy policy that will bring
relief to the American people.
Now I want to yield back to my colleague from Georgia, Mr.
Westmoreland.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina.
As she showed on this chart here with the unemployment rate going
from a little less than 4.5 percent up to over 6.1 percent, the
correlation, if you will notice, is with the gas prices. All this has
happened since the new Democratic majority took over.
When we look at this unemployment, we wonder is it because of record
energy prices? Is it because of increased labor costs because of the
minimum wage increase? Is it the assault on companies that are making
too much profit? Is it the trade agreements that have been ignored? Is
it the new government mandates on everything from cars to light bulbs
that could be causing this unemployment rate to go up?
We need to talk about that for just a minute, and I recognize the
gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. WAMP. One final point. I was here in the late nineties when we
balanced the Federal budget, and about 5 years ago I gave a speech at
the National Press Club talking about how the budget got balanced.
Because while a lot of people would like to believe that we somehow cut
spending to balance the budget, that didn't happen. We slowed the
growth of spending below inflation for the first time in a generation.
But why the budget got balanced was because revenues surpassed expenses
with a robust U.S. economy, driven principally by the information
sector, the likes of Bill Gates and Microsoft and us leading the world.
So the speech I gave was we could do the same thing again with energy
technology, with new energy solutions.
I have got to tell you now, before we leave there is going to be
another push by the new majority for a second stimulus bill, and their
idea of an economic stimulus is to extend unemployment benefits and to
give some assistance for low income energy, which is going to be needed
because this winter home heating fuel is going to be through the roof,
even worse than it was last year.
But I will tell you, the most important thing we could do for the
economy, again, is throw the ball deep, pass the American Energy Act,
go after all the energy sources we can, create many manufacturing jobs,
lead the world with our innovation with our manufacturing, with our
technology deployment, throw it deep, and we could balance the budget
again with a robust U.S. economy.
But as it sputters, the worst thing we can do is lock our energy
resources and kind of cower down and say how can we borrow our way into
prosperity? How can we bail out into prosperity? How can we just give
people money?
No, we need to invest in these energy resources we have and the new
technologies and all the new ideas. And nuclear, we ought to lead the
world in nuclear production and not be caught in a Three Mile Island
time warp of 30 years ago. Gracious, what do we have to be afraid of,
our own energy and our own country? This is asinine. And we need to do
that for the economy right now.
Governor Sarah Palin is saying it tonight. We ought to be saying it
and doing it. We have got it in Alaska. We have it off the coast. We
have got nuclear. We have the capability.
Energy, national security and the environment are together the most
important challenges we face. So this is not process. This is not just
a debate on the floor. This is our future, and this is whether or not
our way of life is extended to the next generation. That is how
important energy is tonight. We have got to stay and we have to fight
for the American people here, because, frankly, they are being stymied
on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Just to follow up on that, we have shale, we have
natural gas and we have the need for refineries. Not a new refinery has
been built in this country. And those are good paying, mostly union
jobs that are here. Those are good paying jobs that we are causing
people to go to Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, other
parts of the world to even have employment.
I recognize the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. McCOTTER. I thank the gentleman. Earlier the gentleman from
Tennessee had mentioned that we are going to be looking at the prospect
of a speculators bill on the floor again. My question is, regardless of
the merits of the speculators bill, it is a simple proposition to
anyone watching.
We have heard much debate about energy policy. I remember hearing
much of this back in a very unpleasant period of our Nation's history
called the 1970s. What is old is new again. So when we hear about the
speculators bill, the Democratic Congress, the Democratic majority, had
come in with a reputation for being against the production of American
domestic energy. Again, it was not limited to the technique of
drilling. Clean coal, nuclear
[[Page 19544]]
energy, all sorts of alternatives they were opposed to.
Now, if you were investing your money in the energy market and you
saw the anti-American energy party take power in Washington, and you
understood the concept of supply and demand, that as demand goes up, if
supply stays stagnant, prices skyrocket, it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to know that when the Democratic majority came into
Washington, it was against the domestic production of America's own
energy resources, that something was going to give and the prices were
going to shoot through the roof and you were going to make a lot of
money.
So, again what you see is the total denial of responsibility for
their policies, many of which have failed to be implemented, having an
impact on markets. Just as we will hear later on, or throughout the
rest of the year, the 12 days or so that they even show up for the work
they are paid to do, is when you promise the largest tax increase in
American history in your budgets, when your chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee talks about the ``mother of all tax increases,'' this
is going to have affect on markets.
This is going to have an effect on the rational, hard-working
Americans, who every day know that as much as they scrimp and save,
here comes big brother government to take that money right out of your
pocket. So consequences of ideas, or even bad ideas especially, can be
detrimental to the average, hard-working American.
Now, you and I, through the Chair the gentleman from Georgia, we know
one thing: The best economic stimulus for the United States of America
is an all-of-the-above energy strategy that gets that trend line on
energy prices stabilized and going down so that the unemployment
numbers can stabilize and start going down; so speculators start losing
money because the supply of oil will be coming online and they know it;
so big oil doesn't make the money as the supply floods the market to
meet the demand and the prices stabilize and go down; so hard-working
Americans know they are not going to have to choose between freezing
and eating, they are not going to have to worry about whether they can
drive to see their doctor in rural areas; so they can make sure they
still work in manufacturing because the fixed cost of energy hasn't
driven their job offshore or killed it altogether.
We know this, which is why we are so passionate about helping the
people who have entrusted us with the opportunity to serve them in
this, their House.
I will wrap it up with this, the gentleman from Georgia. There are
many people who say, Republicans, you weren't great. You told us you
stood for things. You told us you believed our liberty was from God,
not the government; our prosperity was from the private sector, not the
public sector.
Yes, we did, and we did not do a good enough job keeping with our
principles.
There is a difference between us and this Democratic majority. I want
to know what the succinct enunciation of the principles upon which you
base policy are. Because what I see in the energy debate, or lack
thereof, and the Democrat sham energy bill is a quite simple
proposition. They support the government rationing of American energy.
You will get 12 percent when you are suffering. We will lock up 88
percent forever. That is the gist of their argument.
Why does this matter now? Because you hear more of the same promises
that the gentleman from Georgia listed and had proven broken. And when
you start to do your thinking this year, as the American people are
want to do, I will be more than happy if the American voters judge this
Democratic Congress not by the fact that it took America in a new
direction to a 9 percent approval rating, which technically makes the
Democratic Congress the most hated in American history; I want
Americans to look at two numbers.
I want Americans to look at the price of gas when the Democratic
Party took power in January of 2007, promising to lower them; and I
want them to look at the price of gas, oh, maybe around early November
2008. And tell you me if you have changed your mind, if you no longer
think this Democratic Congress deserves to be the most hated in
American history. Because they have a chance to work with us. We are
putting politics aside. We will compromise in a real bipartisan fashion
to help the people whole elected us.
But if you refuse, there is nothing we can do, because, as the
gentleman started out earlier, the math doesn't add up in our favor.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank the gentleman for that. I have just
a few minutes to close. I appreciate all the kind folks that came here
tonight to help me with this.
But I want to bring up one other thing that will characterize what
the Democratic majority has said. I have already quoted Mr. Kanjorski
on ``we sort of stretched the truth and the people ate it up.'' I read
you quotes from then Minority Leader Pelosi, now Speaker Pelosi, and
the things that the American people were told, Mr. Speaker, to be able
to gain the majority.
But I want to tell you something that is a little more fascinating,
and we will have to talk about this again. This Congress passed a card
check bill. We all like to be in the privacy of the voting booth. Even
if somebody asks you how you are going to vote, you say, hey, that is a
personal matter. Because a lot of times the polls will say one thing,
the election results are something else, because people get in that
voting booth and they decide to do something else; or it may not have
been the popular thing to talk about with the people they were with.
We passed a card check bill that said if you wanted to become
unionized it would have to be an open vote; not anymore a secret
ballot, but an open vote. They passed this in this Congress. The bill
was introduced by Mr. George Miller.
But I want to read you a letter he sent to the Mexican Government in
2001. ``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed but not
required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot
is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not
intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose. We
respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we
feel that the increased use of the secret ballot in union recognition
elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.''
They want to bring democracy to the Mexican workplace, but they want
our guys not to have that same democracy that they want the Mexican
workers to have. This is right in line with everything that we have
heard tonight.
This Congress is being controlled by big labor, by environmentalists
and by trial lawyers. If you fit into one of those groups, then you
should be doing very well. If not, you are like all the rest of us; you
are suffering at the pump, you are worried about how you are going to
pay your high home heating oil bill, you are worried about your job as
the unemployment rate is skyrocketing with the price of gas. You are
living under the failed systems we have had in this body. And remember,
they have 235 Members. It only takes 218 to pass something out of this
House.
Quit whining. Get out of the fetal position and do something for the
American people.
____________________
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Mrs. Christensen (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today on account
of a funeral in her district.
Mr. Dreier (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today on account of
the death of his mother.
Mr. Poe (at the request of Mr. Boehner) for today after 5 p.m. and
the balance of the week on account of continuing recovery efforts after
Hurricane Ike.
____________________
SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED
By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
[[Page 19545]]
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Cohen) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Braley of Iowa, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Honda, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Weiner, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Holt, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Taylor, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Coble) to revise and
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Poe, for 5 minutes, September 23 and 24.
Mr. Jones, for 5 minutes, September 23 and 24.
Mr. Moran of Kansas, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Davis of Kentucky, for 5 minutes, September 24.
Mr. Conaway, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Foxx, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Member (at her request) to revise and extend her
remarks and include extraneous material:)
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
____________________
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION REFERRED
A Concurrent Resolution of the Senate of the following title was
taken from the Speaker's table and, under the rule, referred as
follows:
S. Con. Res. 87. Concurrent resolution congratulating the
Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration
of independence; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
____________________
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
Ms. Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House, reported and found truly
enrolled a bill of the House of the following title, which was
thereupon signed by the Speaker:
H.R. 5938. An act to amend title 18, United States Code, to
provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents,
and for other purposes.
____________________
BILLS PRESENTED TO THE PRESIDENT
Lorraine C. Miller, Clerk of the House reports that on September 11,
2008 she presented to the President of the United States, for his
approval, the following bills.
H.R. 5683. To make certain reforms with respect to the
Government Accountability Office, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6456. To provide for extensions of certain authorities
of the Department of State, and for other purposes.
H.R. 6532. To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
restore the Highway Trust Fund balance.
____________________
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 30 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 18,
2008, at 10 a.m.
____________________
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.
Under clause 8 of rule XII, executive communications were taken from
the Speaker's table and referred as follows:
8443. A letter from the Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling of Beef, Pork, Lamb,
Chicken, Goat Meat, Perishable Agricultural Commodities,
Peanuts, Pecans, Ginseng, and Macadamia Nuts [Docket No. AMS-
LS-07-0081] (RIN: 0581-AC26) received August 5, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Agriculture.
8444. A letter from the Congressional Review Coordinator,
Department of Agriculture, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Citrus Canker; Movement of Fruit From a
Quarantined Area; Bag Markings [Docket No. APHIS-2008-0080]
(RIN: 0579-AC81) received August 5, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
8445. A letter from the Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule -- Milk
in the Northeast and Other Marketing Areas; Delay of
Effective Date [Docket No. AMS-DA-07-0026; AO-14-A77]
received September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Agriculture.
8446. A letter from the Administrator, Department of
Agriculture, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Specialty Crop Block Grant Program-Farm Bill; Notice of
Request for Approval of a New Information Collection [Docket
No. AMS-FV-08-0057; FV-08-379 IFR] (RIN: 0581-AC88) received
September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Agriculture.
8447. A letter from the Secretary of the Commission,
Department of the Treasury, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Identity Theft Red Flags and Address
Discrepancies Under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act of 2003 [Docket ID OCC-2007-0017] (RIN: 1557-AC87)
received August 19, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Financial Services.
8448. A letter from the Director, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, transmitting
the Corporation's final rule -- Fair Housing and
Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability (RIN: 3064-AD31)
received September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Financial Services.
8449. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Truth
in Lending [Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1320] received August
8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
8450. A letter from the Assistant to the Board, Federal
Reserve System, transmitting the System's final rule -- Truth
in Lending [Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1305] received August
15, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Financial Services.
8451. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.202(b), Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast
Stations. (Dilley and Cotulla, Texas) [MB Docket No. 07-183
RM-11394] received September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
8452. A letter from the Division Chief, Federal
Communications Commission, transmitting the Commission's
final rule -- In the Matter of The Commercial Mobile Alert
System [PS Docket No. 07-287] received September 8, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
8453. A letter from the Chief of Staff, Media Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission, transmitting the
Commission's final rule -- In the Matter of Amendment of
Section 73.202(b) Table of Allotments, FM Broadcast Stations.
(Arlington and Boardman, Oregon; Boise, Caldwell,
Grangeville, Hazelton, Iona, Jerome, McCall, Melba, Salmon,
and Sun Valley, Idaho; Elko and Owyhee, Nevada; Finley,
Pasco, and Walla Walla, Washington; and West Yellowstone,
Montana [MB Docket No. 06-72 RM-11245 RM-11340] received
September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
8454. A letter from the General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the Commission's final
rule -- Modification of Interchange and Transmission Loading
Relief Reliability Standards; and Electric Reliability
Organization Interpretation of Specific Requirements of Four
Reliability Standards [Docket No. RM08-7-000; Order No. 713]
received August 11, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
8455. A letter from the Chief, Branch of Listing,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Devils River Minnow
[[FWS-R2-ES-2008-0018] [92210-1117-0000-B4]] (RIN: 1018-AV25)
received August 6, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Natural Resources.
8456. A letter from the Director, Office of Surface Mining,
Department of the Interior, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- North Dakota Regulatory Program [SATS No: ND-
050-FOR; Docket ID No. OSM-2008-0004] received September 9,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Natural Resources.
8457. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries Off West Coast States; Modifications of the West
Coast Commercial Salmon Fishery; Inseason Action #3 and #4
[Docket No. 070430095 7095 01] (RIN: 0648-XH91) received
August 4, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
8458. A letter from the Acting Director Office of
Sustainable Fisheries, NMFS, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, transmitting the Administration's final rule
-- Fisheries of the Caribbean; Gulf of Mexico, and South
Atlantic; Snapper-grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic;
Closure of the 2008 Commercial Fishery for the Golden
Tilefish in the South Atlantic [Docket No. 040205043-4043-01]
(RIN: 0648-XI45) received September 8, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Natural Resources.
[[Page 19546]]
8459. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Tier 1 Issue: IRC Section 118 Abuse Directive
#4 [LMSB Control No. LMSB-4-0608-034] received August 14,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
8460. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- Sec. 475 Valuation Safe Harbor
[Notice 2008-71] received August 14, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8461. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- Tier 1 Issue: IRC Section 118 Abuse Directive
#4 [LMSB Control No. LMSB-4-0608-034] received August 5,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Ways and Means.
8462. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- 26 CFR 601.202: Closing agreements. (Rev. Proc.
2008-50) received August 19, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
8463. A letter from the Chief, Publications and
Regulations, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the
Service's final rule -- 26 CFR 601.105: Examination of
returns and claims for refund, credit, or abatement;
determination of tax liability (Rev. Proc. 2008-53) received
August 20, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Ways and Means.
8464. A letter from the Chief, Publications and Regulations
Branch, Internal Revenue Service, transmitting the Service's
final rule -- 26 CFR 601.204: Changes in accounting periods
and in methods of accounting. (Also Part I, 56, 61, 1.61-4,
77, 162, 1.162-12, 166, 167, 168, 171, 174, 179B, 181, 194,
197, 263, 263A, 267, 280F, 404, 446, 447, 448, 451, 454, 455,
460, 461, 467, 471, 472, 475, 481, 585, 832, 846, 861, 985,
1012, 1272, 1273, 1278, 1281, 1363, 1400I (Rev. Proc. 2008-
52) received August 20, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Ways and Means.
____________________
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:
Ms. SUTTON: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 1449.
Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R.
6604) to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to bring greater
transparency and accountability to commodity markets, and for
other purposes (Rept. 110-859). Referred to the House
Calendar.
____________________
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
Under clause 2 of rule XII, public bills and resolutions of the
following titles were introduced and severally referred, as follows:
By Mr. BOUSTANY:
H.R. 6918. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for
expenses paid or incurred by reason of a mandatory
evacuation; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H.R. 6919. A bill to provide for the conveyance of certain
property from the United States to the Maniilaq Association
located in Kotzebue, Alaska; to the Committee on Natural
Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KANJORSKI:
H.R. 6920. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the
Treasury, on an emergency basis, to guarantee loans made by
depository institutions during the 2008-2009 heating season
to eligible consumers, under certain conditions, for home
heating purchases and repairs, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Financial Services.
By Mr. MORAN of Kansas:
H.R. 6921. A bill to provide additional oversight and
transparency to the commodity futures markets by authorizing
greater resources and authority for the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Agriculture.
By Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Dicks, Mr.
Salazar, and Ms. Herseth Sandlin):
H.R. 6922. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to
provide low-interest loans to small business concerns
providing transportation services to assist them in dealing
with high motor fuel prices; to the Committee on Small
Business.
By Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina:
H.R. 6923. A bill to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to complete at least 700 miles of reinforced fencing
along the Southwest border by December 31, 2010, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security.
By Mr. HERGER (for himself and Mr. Brady of Texas):
H.R. 6924. A bill to provide for the modification of duties
on environmental goods; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN:
H.R. 6925. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
require that each member of the Armed Forces receive
employment assistance, job training assistance, and other
transitional services provided by the Secretary of Labor
before that member separates from active duty service; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. KILDEE (for himself and Mr. Emanuel):
H.R. 6926. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Education
to make grants to support early college high schools and
other dual enrollment programs; to the Committee on Education
and Labor.
By Mrs. MALONEY of New York:
H.R. 6927. A bill to protect the civil rights of victims of
gender-motivated violence and to promote public safety,
health, and regulate activities affecting interstate commerce
by creating employer liability for negligent conduct that
results in an individual's committing a gender-motivated
crime of violence against another individual on premises
controlled by the employer, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Education and Labor, and in addition to the
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota (for herself and Mrs.
Lowey):
H.R. 6928. A bill to award grants to improve after-school
interdisciplinary education programs, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. MILLER of North Carolina:
H.R. 6929. A bill to amend title 28 of the United States
Code to require reporting on certain authoritative legal
interpretations issued by the Department of Justice,
including the Office of Legal Counsel, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself, Mr. Miller of
Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. King of New
York, Mr. McGovern, Mr. Israel, Mr. Rothman, Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Woolsey):
H.R. 6930. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
authorize extended benefits for certain autistic dependents
of certain retirees; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. MORAN of Virginia (for himself and Mr. Tom Davis
of Virginia):
H.R. 6931. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide an option of States to cover a children's
program of all-inclusive coordinated care (ChiPACC) under the
Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. NADLER (for himself, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr.
Wexler, and Mr. Franks of Arizona):
H.R. 6932. A bill to amend the Fair Housing Act to prevent
discrimination relating to the display of religious symbols,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. PLATTS:
H.R. 6933. A bill to extend the expiration date of coupons
issued under the digital television converter box program; to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. SOLIS:
H.R. 6934. A bill to amend and improve the Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Feeney):
H.R. 6935. A bill to provide technical corrections to the
Technology Administration Act of 1998, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas:
H. Con. Res. 418. Concurrent resolution honoring the 40th
Anniversary of the Project SEED Program; to the Committee on
Science and Technology.
By Ms. LEE:
H. Con. Res. 419. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. CONYERS (for himself and Mr. Smith of Texas):
H. Res. 1448. A resolution authorizing and directing the
Committee on the Judiciary to inquire whether the House
should impeach G. Thomas Porteous, a judge of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana;
to the Committee on Rules. considered and agreed to.
By Mr. CONAWAY (for himself, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Sullivan,
Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Marchant, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Broun of
Georgia, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr.
Bartlett of Maryland, and Mr. Bishop of Utah):
H. Res. 1450. A resolution amending the Rules of the House
of Representatives to require officers and employees of the
House to read the Constitution of the United States each
year; to the Committee on Rules.
[[Page 19547]]
By Mr. McGOVERN (for himself, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Berman, and
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H. Res. 1451. A resolution establishing the Tom Lantos
Human Rights Commission in the House of Representatives; to
the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey (for himself and Ms.
Kaptur):
H. Res. 1452. A resolution establishing the Select
Committee on Financial Bailouts; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Shimkus, and
Mrs. Christensen):
H. Res. 1453. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month; to the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. GERLACH (for himself, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. McCotter, Mr. Platts, Mr. Tiberi, Mrs. Biggert,
Mr. Shuster, and Mr. Hinchey):
H. Res. 1454. A resolution expressing the strong support of
the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with
Ukraine; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. LaHOOD (for himself, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Dreier, Mr.
Boustany, and Mr. Issa):
H. Res. 1455. A resolution commemorating the 25th
anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the United States
Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
By Mr. LANGEVIN (for himself, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr.
Wu, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, and Mr.
King of New York):
H. Res. 1456. A resolution supporting the goals and ideals
of National Cyber Security Awareness Month and raising
awareness and enhancing the state of computer security in the
United States; to the Committee on Science and Technology.
By Mr. LATTA:
H. Res. 1457. A resolution expressing the sense of the
House of Representatives that in order to continue aggressive
growth in our Nation's telecommunications and technology
industries, the United States Government should ``Get Out of
the Way and Stay Out of the Way''; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the
Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the
Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as
fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Ms. WATSON (for herself, Mr. Manzullo, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Jackson of Illinois,
Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Pallone, Ms. Kilpatrick,
Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Rangel, Ms.
Moore of Wisconsin, Mrs. Capps, Mr. Carson, Mr.
Cohen, Ms. Solis, Ms. Matsui, Mr. Berry, Mr. Hinchey,
Mr. Honda, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms.
Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. DeLauro, Ms.
Castor, and Mrs. Napolitano):
H. Res. 1458. A resolution recognizing and honoring Johnny
Grant for his work as the Honorary Mayor of Hollywood,
California for more than a quarter of a century; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. YOUNG of Alaska:
H. Res. 1459. A resolution congratulating Carlos Boozer,
Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons for their outstanding
achievements in the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympic Games; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
____________________
ADDITIONAL SPONSORS
Under clause 7 of rule XII, sponsors were added to public bills and
resolutions as follows:
H.R. 211: Mr. Tanner.
H.R. 618: Mr. Latta.
H.R. 861: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 1029: Mr. Moran of Virginia, Ms. Richardson, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Wu, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
H.R. 1073: Mrs. Biggert.
H.R. 1322: Mr. Israel.
H.R. 1363: Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 1398: Mr. Rodriguez.
H.R. 1428: Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 1456: Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California.
H.R. 1524: Mr. Mahoney of Florida.
H.R. 1650: Mr. Cazayoux.
H.R. 1655: Mr. Lewis of Georgia and Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart
of Florida.
H.R. 1738: Mr. Latham.
H.R. 1767: Mr. McCrery.
H.R. 1801: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 1820: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Murphy of
Connecticut, Mrs. Lowey, Mrs. Tauscher, Ms. Eddie Bernice
Johnson of Texas, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and Mr. Baca.
H.R. 1843: Mr. Boren.
H.R. 1903: Mr. Schiff.
H.R. 2015: Mr. Clyburn, Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr.
Conyers, and Mr. Foster.
H.R. 2216: Ms. Norton.
H.R. 2221: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Ms. Corrine
Brown of Florida, Mr. Baca, Mr. Miller of North Carolina, Ms.
Castor, and Mr. Udall of Colorado.
H.R. 2279: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 2332: Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California and Mr.
Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 2373: Mr. Emanuel.
H.R. 2652: Mrs. Bono Mack.
H.R. 2724: Ms. Zoe Lofgren of California.
H.R. 3080: Ms. Tsongas.
H.R. 3326: Mr. Hodes, Mr. Conyers, Mrs. Biggert, and Mr.
Foster.
H.R. 3333: Mr. Barrow.
H.R. 3442: Mr. Graves.
H.R. 3663: Ms. Hirono.
H.R. 4141: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 4851: Mr. Hare and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 5131: Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
H.R. 5174: Mr. Gerlach.
H.R. 5268: Mr. Costa, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Ms.
Hooley, and Mr. Berry.
H.R. 5469: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 5603: Mr. Space.
H.R. 5629: Mr. Donnelly.
H.R. 5635: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 5652: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H.R. 5656: Mr. Heller, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 5672: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 5714: Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Carney, Mr. Lewis of
Kentucky, Mr. McNulty, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Moran of
Kansas, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Feeney,
and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 5734: Mrs. Lowey, Mr. Carnahan, Mr. LaHood, and Mr.
Cohen.
H.R. 5742: Ms. Watson.
H.R. 5793: Mr. Graves, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Mollohan, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Poe, Mr. Weller, Mr. Israel, Mr.
Roskam, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Souder, Mr. Costa, Mr.
Alexander, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Brown of South Carolina,
and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 5823: Mr. Courtney and Mr. Carnahan.
H.R. 5842: Mr. Moran of Virginia.
H.R. 5854: Mr. Bishop of Georgia and Mr. Dicks.
H.R. 5868: Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
H.R. 5965: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6013: Mr. Cazayoux.
H.R. 6029: Mr. Serrano and Mr. Hinchey.
H.R. 6126: Mr. Carson.
H.R. 6209: Mr. Honda.
H.R. 6220: Mr. Scalise.
H.R. 6427: Mr. Lynch and Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 6453: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 6462: Mrs. Lowey.
H.R. 6477: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California and Mr. Brady
of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 6570: Mr. Bishop of Georgia.
H.R. 6581: Mr. Klein of Florida.
H.R. 6584: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 6585: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 6586: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, and Mr. Wu.
H.R. 6587: Mr. Hulshof.
H.R. 6594: Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. Gonzalez, and Mr.
Hodes.
H.R. 6666: Mr. Radanovich, Mr. Poe, Mr. Campbell of
California, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Davis of
Kentucky, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Goode, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. McCotter, and Mr. Marchant.
H.R. 6680: Ms. Matsui and Mr. Filner.
H.R. 6696: Mr. Shays.
H.R. 6735: Mr. Calvert and Mr. Simpson.
H.R. 6737: Mr. Lamborn.
H.R. 6742: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6747: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6792: Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 6797: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Hastings of Florida, and Mr.
Boswell.
H.R. 6800: Ms. Baldwin.
H.R. 6831: Mr. Scott of Georgia and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 6836: Mr. Ehlers, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, and Mr.
Rogers of Michigan.
H.R. 6848: Mr. Kline of Minnesota and Mrs. Bachmann.
H.R. 6849: Mr. Skelton, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr.
Shimkus, Mr. Peterson of Minnesota, Mr. Latta, Mr. Whitfield
of Kentucky, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Space, Mr.
Price of North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Rogers of Alabama,
Mr. Ellsworth, Mr. Terry, Mr. Lucas, Mrs. Miller of Michigan,
Mr. LaHood, and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 6853: Mr. Klein of Florida.
H.R. 6860: Mr. Poe, Mrs. Bachmann, Mrs. Musgrave, Ms.
Fallin, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Price of Georgia,
Mr. Goode, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. McCotter, Mr. Broun of Georgia,
Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Herger, and Mr.
Marchant.
H.R. 6864: Mr. McHugh, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, and Mr. Tim
Murphy of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 6871: Mr. Sherman.
H.R. 6873: Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida,
Mr. Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. McHugh, Mr.
Walberg, and Mr. Wolf.
H.R. 6884: Mr. Wolf, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Nadler, and Mr. Gene
Green of Texas.
H.R. 6898: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 6904: Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Walden of
Oregon.
H. Con. Res. 81: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 284: Mr. Carter, Mr. Souder, and Mr. Aderholt.
[[Page 19548]]
H. Con. Res. 333: Mr. Royce.
H. Con. Res. 360: Mr. Sestak and Mr. Nadler.
H. Con. Res. 383: Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mrs. Musgrave, and
Mr. Young of Alaska.
H. Con. Res. 388: Mr. Herger.
H. Con. Res. 393: Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Norton, and Mr. Kildee.
H. Con. Res. 405: Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Wilson of South
Carolina, and Mrs. Capps.
H. Con. Res. 407: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
H. Con. Res. 409: Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina, Mr. Herger, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mrs. Bachmann, Ms. Fallin, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Brown
of South Carolina, Mr. Scalise, Mr. Marchant, Mrs. Schmidt,
Mr. Davis of Kentucky, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, and Mr. Lamborn.
H. Con. Res. 411: Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. King of New
York, Mr. Gohmert, and Mr. Stupak.
H. Con. Res. 416: Mr. Barrow, Mr. Weiner, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Butterfield, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Towns, and Ms. Matsui.
H. Con. Res. 417: Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Franks of Arizona,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Wittman of
Virginia, Mr. Shimkus, Mr. Shadegg, Mrs. Bono Mack, Mr.
Stearns, Mr. Boustany, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, and Mr.
Neugebauer.
H. Res. 671: Mr. Wamp, Mr. Serrano, and Mr. Gene Green of
Texas.
H. Res. 757: Ms. Baldwin.
H. Res. 888: Mr. Carter.
H. Res. 988: Mr. Berry.
H. Res. 1042: Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Cole of
Oklahoma, Mr. Hare, Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Butterfield, Mr.
Gonzalez, and Mrs. Bachmann.
H. Res. 1179: Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H. Res. 1328: Ms. Castor, Mr. Dent, Mr. Coble, Mr. Latham,
and Mr. Buchanan.
H. Res. 1333: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Miller of North
Carolina, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. McDermott,
and Mr. Scott of Virginia.
H. Res. 1338: Ms. Schakowsky.
H. Res. 1352: Mr. Shays, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mrs. Miller
of Michigan, Mr. Reichert, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr.
Engel, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Serrano, Mr. Bachus, Mr. McNulty, Ms.
Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Burgess, Mr.
Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Arcuri,
and Mr. Rohrabacher.
H. Res. 1356: Mr. Gohmert.
H. Res. 1369: Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H. Res. 1375: Mr. McCotter, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of
Texas, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Foster, Mr. LaHood, Mr. Boswell, and
Mr. Jackson of Illinois.
H. Res. 1379: Mr. Abercrombie.
H. Res. 1381: Mr. Pastor, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Baca, Mr.
Chandler, Mr. Cardoza, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Jefferson, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr. Jackson of
Illinois, Mr. Sires, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Loebsack,
Mr. Pascrell, Mr. Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Fattah, Mr.
Doyle, Ms. Lee, Mr. Payne, Mr. Ross, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr.
Berman, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Engel, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Edwards of Texas, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Hill, Mr.
Holt, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Pomeroy, Mr. Kennedy, Ms.
Zoe Lofgren of California, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr.
Rodriguez, Mr. Becerra, Mr. Honda, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms.
Velazquez, and Mr. Doggett.
H. Res. 1386: Mr. Calvert, Mr. Radanovich and Mr. Reichert.
H. Res. 1405: Mr. McCotter and Mr. Wolf.
H. Res. 1414: Ms. Baldwin.
H. Res. 1427: Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr.
Fortenberry, Mr. Hensarling, and Mr. Young of Florida.
H. Res. 1438: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H. Res. 1440: Mr. Allen.
H. Res. 1445: Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Moore of Kansas, and Mr.
Higgins.
H. Res. 1446: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Grijalva, Mrs.
Napolitano, and Mr. Hinchey.
____________________
CONGRESSIONAL EARMARKS, LIMITED TAX BENEFITS, OR LIMITED TARIFF
BENEFITS
Under clause 9 of rule XXI, lists or statements on congressional
earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits were
submitted as follows:
Offered By Mr. Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota
H.R. 6604, the ``Commodity Markets Transparency and
Accountability Act of 2008,'' does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of
Rule XXI.
____________________
DELETIONS 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. 2169: Mr. Larsen of Washington.
[[Page 19549]]
EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________
HONORING PHILLIP TORRES
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Phillip
Torres of Kansas City, Missouri. Phillip is a very special young man
who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership
by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1707, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Phillip has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Phillip has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Phillip
Torres for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
HONORING THE 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
______
HON. KENNY MARCHANT
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Church of
the Nazarene on its 100th Anniversary for providing a place to worship,
learn, and assist those in need.
In honor of this special anniversary, the Church of the Nazarene has
declared October 5, 2008, as The Centennial Sunday. On that day,
churches of this denomination will gather across the globe as one body
united around a common worship, a common message, and a common
scripture. The Centennial Sunday is an organized effort by the church
to remember their heritage and those that have gone before them, as
well as look to the future, as they continue, through the power of the
Holy Spirit, to spread the gospel further throughout the world.
This occasion serves to highlight the Church of the Nazarene's
history and their continued commitment to the cause of Christ. The
sustained growth of this church and their pledge to holiness stands as
a lasting testament to the determination of a small group who overcame
prejudices and divisions as they devoted themselves to God and unity
with their fellow man.
During and shortly after this country's bloody Civil War, our nation
found itself bitterly divided. At that same time, the Wesleyan-Holiness
Movement likewise splintered into numerous divisions over race, region
and several theological issues such as baptism and women's role in the
church. For the next 40 years the Holiness Movement was reduced to
scattered denominations, divided by their location and ideologies.
The year between October, 1907 and October, 1908 marked a significant
turning point for the Holiness Movement. Three of the movement's
regional denominations made a commitment to put aside past differences
and embrace in unity the mutually held convictions of their faith. The
culmination of their efforts came to fruition on October 8, 1908 in
Pilot Point, Texas, where the denominations met together to form the
Church of the Nazarene. Under the leadership of individuals such as
Phineas Bresee and Hiram Reynolds, the church again united as one body
and began to spread the gospel throughout the world.
Looking back over the past 100 years, the Church of the Nazarene has
experienced significant change. Yet, through these years, their mission
has remained fundamentally the same. The Church itself has declared
that, their ``primary objective . . . is to advance God's Kingdom by
the preservation and propagation of Christian holiness as set forth in
the Scriptures.'' The Church of the Nazarene has always taken seriously
the call to take the Good News to all nations and to fellowship with
one another in love. The church continues to serve as a beacon for
holiness and Christian community throughout the world.
Madam Speaker, please join me in applauding the Church of the
Nazarene as it celebrates 100 years of dedicated fellowship. Clergy and
members of the past and present are to be commended for their service
to the church and greater community. It is my hope that the Church of
the Nazarene continues to stand as symbol of resolve, inspiration, and
worship for many years to come.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF HISPANIC AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND IN CELEBRATION OF
HISPANIC HERITAGE MONTH
______
HON. PETE SESSIONS
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hispanic
servicemen and women that have chosen honorable paths of public service
and devoted themselves to the cause of defending this great Nation.
Since 1968, the United States has set aside a designated period of
time to recognize the contributions of Hispanic Americans and to
celebrate Hispanic heritage and culture. Our soldiers put themselves in
harm's way and make sacrifices to protect the freedoms we enjoy. The
uniform they wear knows no gender, no social status, and no political
affiliation. It knows that these brave souls share only one thing--a
deep love for America.
Master Sargeant Roy Perez Benavidez and Staff Sargeant Marcario
Garcia were two remarkable individuals that proudly served in the U.S.
Army. They were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their
courage and heroic actions; Roy for his service in the Vietnam War and
Marcario for his service in Germany during World War II. While these
are two notable examples, there are many other Hispanic American
soldiers that deserve our gratitude. These are the men and women who
leave their loved ones to serve the greater good. They are the ones who
put on the uniform everyday knowing that their sacrifices today
guarantee us our freedom and safety tomorrow.
Madam Speaker, I ask my esteemed colleagues to join me in expressing
heartfelt gratitude to these soldiers.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MARINE CAPTAIN JESSE MELTON, III
______
HON. C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise before you today to honor
Marine Captain Jesse Melton, III, who died serving his country on
September 9th, 2008. Captain Jesse Melton, 29, of Randallstown,
Maryland, died as a result of multiple traumatic injuries sustained
while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. Captain Melton was
assigned to Headquarters Battery, 12th Marines, 3rd Marine Division,
Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii.
Jesse graduated from Randallstown High School in Baltimore County,
Maryland, where he played lacrosse and baseball. He then attended
Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, where he studied
communications. After his freshman year, however, Jesse decided to join
the Marine Corps Reserve and attended Boot Camp in South Carolina, an
experience his family says changed his life. Upon completion of his
basic training, Jesse's drill sergeant recommended him for Officer
Candidate School, training Jesse completed while earning his degree in
communications from Messiah College.
Jesse was commissioned as a second lieutenant in June of 2000 and
served two tours in Japan. He was promoted to the rank of captain and
deployed for a tour in Iraq. In March, Captain Melton was deployed
again, this time to Afghanistan. He was supporting combat operations in
the Parwan province at the time of his death.
The Randallstown High and Messiah College alumnus is survived by his
mother, Mrs.
[[Page 19550]]
Janice Chance, his younger sister Jenine Melton and brother Joshua
Melton, and stepfather Charlton Chance, all of Owings Mills, Maryland,
as well as his stepsisters Christine and Laura Chance, and his
grandmother Ethel Matthews of Baltimore.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join with me today in honoring the life
of a man truly dedicated to serving his country.
____________________
SUPPORTING TAIWAN'S FULL MEMBERSHIP IN THE U.N.
______
HON. THOMAS G. TANCREDO
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Taiwan's full
membership in the United Nations.
Taiwan is an independent, peace loving, and democratic nation that
enjoys formal diplomatic relations with more than twenty other nations.
In addition, the island nation maintains informal bilateral relations
with more than one hundred other countries, precisely because those
other countries know that the government in Beijing does not--as it
often asserts--speak for democratic Taiwan.
Beijing often argues that Taiwan's 23 million people are represented
by the unelected government of the People's Republic of China in
international bodies like the United Nations as well. But the Beijing
authorities routinely threaten to attack Taiwan, and have deployed more
than 1,000 missiles on its southeastern coast aimed directly at the
island. So while it might be politically expedient for China to argue
that it represents Taiwan, no fair-minded person or government could
honestly be expected to believe such a preposterous claim. And of
course, most countries realize this.
As I mentioned earlier, while Taiwan's government enjoys formal
diplomatic ties with some two dozen nations, Taipei maintains more than
100 quasi-embassies or ``trade offices'' in nearly every country in the
world. And most of these countries--including the United States--
maintain a reciprocal mission in Taiwan's capital, Taipei. Why? The
reason is obvious: because we all realize that the totalitarian
government of China doesn't really speak for the people of democratic
Taiwan.
The United Nations is no different.
Madam Speaker, Taiwan's new government has attempted to strike a more
conciliatory tone this year, asking only for Taiwan's participation in
U.N. affiliated agencies rather than for full membership. This modest
proposal is a good start, and I hope the Bush Administration will
direct our U.N. representative to support it.
Should Taiwan be successful in its quest for meaningful participation
in the United Nations this year, I sincerely hope that they will build
on that success by applying for full U.N. membership next year. After
all, Taiwan maintains its own military, elects its own leaders,
conducts its own foreign affairs, controls its own territory, has a
larger population than Australia, and boasts one of the most dynamic
economies in the world.
Simply put, Taiwan is more than qualified for membership, and eager
to make a meaningful contribution.
As a democratic friend and ally of Taiwan, the United States should
be among those speaking up for Taiwan. We should make it clear to the
other member states that we believe it is unfair to exclude Taiwan and
its 23 million citizens from the world community--and that Taiwan's
membership poses no threat to China, or the achievement of a peaceful
and equitable solution to Cross-Strait differences.
____________________
A TRIBUTE TO JOHN AMIOTT'S ``YESTERDAY A VETERAN DIED''
______
HON. KEITH ELLISON
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I submit the following:
Yesterday a Veteran Died
John Amiott, USAF 1967-1970
Yesterday a veteran died but the world hardly noticed. Age
or race or gender, it made no difference; soldier or sailor,
airman or marine, it made no difference.
Yesterday a veteran died. He was one of the millions, who,
over the centuries, interrupted his life to serve when his
country called.
Yesterday a veteran died. He wore his uniform with pride
and sense of purpose. He went where he was asked to go and
performed the duties for which he had been trained. He
committed to fight their fights and to safeguard their
secrets with a solemn oath that remained unbroken.
Yesterday a veteran died. He was changed forever by his
experiences but his society also changed. The lines of social
consciousness were redrawn, the old morality was altered and
by the time of his return he found different standards
applied.
Yesterday a veteran died. Like the hundreds of generations
before him and the endless roster of those who will follow,
he tried to make sense of the chaos and confusion created by
the metamorphous of a citizen turned warrior and then
returned to the life of a civilian.
Yesterday a veteran died. And, as with far too many of his
peers, the real conflict began when the tour of duty ended.
His personal battle would become a private hell; a hell born
from the memories of the reality of life in a shadow world. A
place where a chosen few practiced their craft; a world few
outsiders knew existed and even fewer understood. His was
that shadow world, the one he could never completely leave;
the one from which there was no escape.
Yesterday a veteran died. Now his soul would find the
elusive peace of mind and spirit for which he had been
searching. No longer will he awake, sweating and screaming in
the night, plagued by the nightmares of his past. No longer
will the ghosts of war haunt him, no longer will the cries of
conflict echo in his ears.
Yesterday a veteran died. When he is laid to rest an honor
guard will fire a rifle volley to mark his passing. And for
him the mournful wail of a bugle will sound one final time.
Yesterday a veteran died. He will face his God knowing he
served his country and did his best. The family and friends
he loved will weep and mourn their loss. And the world will
hardly notice that we have all been diminished.
Yesterday a veteran died. But with the grace of God and the
wisdom of nations, perhaps we are closer to the time when we
will no longer need to say, ``Yesterday a veteran died.''
And then, perhaps, finally, the world will notice.
____________________
HONOR TERESA McCABE, CARLA HUNTER, AND BETH PETERS CURTIN
______
HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
of west virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Teresa McCabe,
Carla Hunter and Beth Peters Curtin, who are being recognized as 2008
Women of Distinction by the Girl Scouts of Shawnee Council in West
Virginia.
These three ladies were chosen for their leadership and contribution
to the community, their profession, and how they serve as role models
for young women. The Girl Scouts of Shawnee Council honor three women
annually from the Eastern Panhandle that exemplify these qualities.
The first honoree, Teresa McCabe, was nominated by The United Way of
the Eastern Panhandle for the significant impact she has had in her
community. McCabe is the vice president of marketing and development
for West Virginia University Hospitals--East. She was involved with
both the United Way and the City Hospital before their mergers and is
also involved with the Rotary, American Cancer Society and both
Jefferson and Berkeley Counties Chambers of Commerce. Born and raised
in Charles Town, WV, McCabe has been able to give back to the community
in which she was raised.
Carla Hunter, the department chair and school counselor at Washington
High School, works tirelessly to make her school the best school in the
area. She was nominated for Women of Distinction by Asbury United
Methodist Church in Shepherdstown. Education is a passion of hers, and
she gives much of her free time to ensure young children have a bright
future. As a former Girl Scout, Carla knows how much of an impact Girl
Scouts can have on a young woman's life.
The final recipient of the 2008 Women of Distinction award is Beth
Peters Curtin. In addition to being the executive director of the
Berkeley Springs-Morgan County Chamber of Commerce, Beth is also a
member of the Economic Development Authority, founding member of the
Museum of Berkeley Springs and director of Apple Butter Festival. She
spends what little spare time she has serving her community. Beth has
learned from her mother's generation what great role models women can
be and wants to pass that on to the next generation as well.
It is an honor to represent these three outstanding women who serve
as strong leaders and excellent role models for young women in their
communities. Congratulations to Teresa McCabe, Carla Hunter and Beth
Peters Curtin as the 2008 Women of Distinction.
[[Page 19551]]
____________________
RECOGNIZING MR. STEVEN SHAPIRO FOR HIS NATIONAL LEADERSHIP IN BUILDING
SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION
______
HON. THELMA D. DRAKE
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Steven
Shapiro, a resident of Hampton, Virginia, and someone I am especially
proud to have as a constituent. In addition to his full-time public
service as the Building Official for Hampton, this year Steve has also
served as President of the Board of the International Code Council. It
is the on-going work of the Code Council that provides the nation with
an extensive body of model building and fire safety regulations. His
role as the President of the Code Council is the culmination of 30
years of experience, leadership and tireless work in ensuring that we
are well protected in the buildings where we live and work.
I would also like to recognize the Code Council's work on Capitol
Hill this year in advocating for legislation to build a program to
bolster local governmental capacity to ensure compliance with its
building and fire codes. A high point of their effort occurred in May
when the Code Council's leadership assembled here in Washington, D.C.
during Building Safety Week 2008. With focused attention, Mr. Shapiro's
delegation worked with over 120 Congressional offices like mine on
enactment of the Community Building Code Administration Grant Act. I am
proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 4461, the House version of the Act, and
to have worked with my Colleague Dennis Moore, the sponsor, and the
Code Council and its broad coalition in achieving House passage this
July.
Leading a membership association of over nearly 50,000 building
safety and fire prevention professionals is, of course, a substantial
preoccupation, and the City of Hampton, its Mayor Ross Kearney and City
Manager Jesse Wallace are also to be thanked for supporting Steve's
volunteer work in leadership of the Code Council. I am proud that local
leadership from my District is at work in leading the development and
maintenance of the building and fire codes that protect us all across
the country. These safety codes, independently modified for adoption by
the Commonwealth of Virginia and all across the country, govern
construction and maintenance of our residential and commercial
buildings, including the homes and the business, schools, and places of
worship we use and visit regularly.
So I applaud Steve's three decades as a relentless advocate for
building safety; a mission that he is sure to carry on for quite some
time. In working on that mission he serves not only Hampton and the
Commonwealth, but, in his role as President of the Board of the Code
Council, has served the rest of the nation as well. In his non-
volunteer job as Director of Codes Compliance for the City of Hampton,
he continues to ensure the safety of construction our very historic
city of nearly 150,000 residents; a town proud of the title as the
first continuous English-speaking settlement in America. Steve is an
honored and distinguished citizen of my District, and as a leader of
the ICC has shared with the nation his values as an outstanding public
safety professional and a truly dedicated public servant.
I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize the rest of
the ICC delegation who visited Capitol Hill during Building Safety Week
2008, and thank them for their efforts to promote and defend a safe and
sound built-environment. Those individuals include: Board Vice
President Adolf Zubia, Board Secretary/Treasurer Ron Lynn, Immediate
Past President of the Board Wally Bailey; Board members Gregori
Anderson, James Brothers, John Darnall, Gerald George, Greg Johnson,
Stephen Jones, Barbara Koffron, John LaTorra, Ronald Lynn, Doug
Murdock, Ronald Piester, James Ryan and Jeff Whitney; International
Accreditation Services Board Chair Majed Dabdoub, Vice Chair Ravi Shah
and Board Members John Barrios, Guy Tomberlin, Michael Bouse, and Isam
Hasenin and IAS President Chuck Ramani; ICC Government Relations
Advisory Committee Chair Rebecca Baker, and Committee Members Jim
Martin, Lynn Underwood and George Wiggins; ICC Chapter Leaders Tina
Rakes, Robert Boyer, Gary Schenk and John Glover; Matthew Wheeler of
the California Building Officials; and members of ICC's professional
staff including its CEO Richard Weiland, COO Dominic Sims, David
deCourcy, Sara Yerkes, Jim Tidwell, Mark Dinneen, Richard Kuchnicki,
Laura Scott, Matthew Lightfoot, Gretchen Hesbacher, and Jennifer
Gibson.
____________________
HONORING ANDREW O'NEIL
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Andrew O'Neil
of Kansas City, Missouri. Andrew is a very special young man who has
exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1374, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Andrew has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Andrew has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Andrew
O'Neil for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to my attendance at
events in my district and state discussing legislation that will help
move our country toward energy independence, I unfortunately missed
recorded votes on the House floor on Monday, September 15, 2008.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No.
589, Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Res. 1200, ``yes'' on
rollcall vote No. 590, Motion to suspend the rules and agree to H. Con.
Res. 390, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 591, Motion to suspend the
rules and agree to H.R. 6889.
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE RETIREMENT OF COLONEL RAY HELTON, UNITED STATES
ARMY
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Colonel
Ray Helton, United States Army, who is retiring after 33 years of
dedicated service to this Nation. Colonel Helton currently serves as
the Director of Legislative Affairs for the United States Special
Operations Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, with duty in
Washington, DC. He is the principal advisor to the commander and senior
USSOCOM officials on congressional affairs. In this capacity, I have
had the pleasure and honor to come to know Ray well as we have
travelled together on various congressional delegations.
Colonel Helton enlisted in the Army in February 1975, completed
Special Forces training, and served with the 10th Special Forces Group.
After his enlistment ended, he attended the University of Illinois
where he graduated as a distinguished military graduate. He returned to
active duty in January 1981 as an infantry officer. His Infantry
assignments included leading two platoons in the 3d Infantry Division
and commanding two companies in the 101st Airborne Division. He served
as a company commander, battalion executive officer and battalion
commander in the 3d Special Forces Group. He has conducted training and
operations with soldiers on five continents. Colonel Helton also served
as the chief of assignments of the Combat Arms Division in United
States Personnel Command, as a strategic planner and writer on the
Joint Staff and as the Garrison Commander of Fort Drum, New York.
Colonel Helton's military education includes the infantry officer
basic course, airborne school, combat divers course, air assault
school, ranger school, Special Forces qualification school, and the
joint psychological operations course, just to name a few. He also
received a master of arts degree in national strategy and policy from
the Naval War College and a master of science degree in national
resource strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
Madam Speaker, few can match the dedication and professionalism of
Ray Helton. He is a man of honor and a man of principle. On behalf of
the United States Congress, I wish to thank Ray for his years of
dedicated service. Vicki and I wish him, his wife Jane, and their
[[Page 19552]]
children and grandchildren the best wishes for continued success.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, unfortunately on September
16, 2008, I was unable to cast my votes on the Motion to Adjourn. Had I
been present for rollcall No. 592, on the Motion to Adjourn, I would
have voted ``nay.''
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. MICHAEL T. McCAUL
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker on rollcall No. 598 I was unable
to cast my vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
____________________
HONORING MITCHELL APPLEMAN
______
HON. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in memory of
Mitchell Appleman, a south Florida veteran of World War II and
President-Emeritus of the Hallandale Jewish Center. Mr. Appleman was a
well-known member of our community, involved with numerous causes and
organizations. He was born in Brooklyn, New York and attended Princeton
University before enlisting and fighting in General Patton's army in
Europe during World War II. Upon his discharge from the U.S. Army, Mr.
Appleman made a living in architectural woodworking, lending his skills
to schools, hospitals, courtrooms, and religious institutions. After
retiring to south Florida in 1976, he began his second career of
service in his new community. Mr. Appleman became active at the
Hallandale Jewish Center, serving as its longest acting president for
many years and most recently as Chairman of the Board and its
President-Emeritus. He was also Treasurer of the South Florida Chapter
of Friends for Life. Through his work at the Hallandale Jewish Center,
Mr. Appleman went on to support Jewish day schools in the south Florida
community, American Friends of Bar-Ilan University, the Anti-Defamation
League, and the Jewish Federation. In addition to his wife of 12 years,
Riki, Mr. Appleman is survived by his two children, Nanci Vassil and
Mark Appleman, and their spouses Nick and Billie; his grandchildren,
Aslan, Michael, Layla and Jason; his great-grandson, Brighton; and a
very close cousin, Howard Appleman. Mitchell Appleman was a kind,
wonderful man whose presence will be greatly missed.
____________________
HONORING MICHAEL KREKELER
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Michael
Krekeler of Blue Springs, Missouri. Michael is a very special young man
who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership
by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1362, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Michael has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Michael has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Michael
Krekeler for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
FLOODING IN ILLINOIS
______
HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the heroic
efforts of all those in my district who have responded to the
destruction that Hurricane Ike left in its path. After ravaging Texas
and Louisiana, Hurricane Ike's rains made their way through the
Midwest, devastating the area with record-level rainfall and causing
massive flooding in northeastern Illinois, including parts of my
district. Throughout the Chicagoland area, the amounts of rain broke
records--almost 7 inches of rain fell in my district on just 1 day, the
most in history. More than 90 billion gallons of rain were dumped on
the area.
Governor Blagojevich declared seven counties in Illinois disaster
areas. This will set in motion a process that will allow the Federal
Government to make a major disaster declaration so that Illinois can be
eligible for Federal assistance to help individuals, families, and
businesses and help local governments; and hazard mitigation assistance
so affected areas can implement projects to reduce future flood damage.
In the meantime, I have encouraged my constituents to avoid flooded
areas, to report instances of price gouging, and to be prepared with a
solid inventory of the items they have lost when they contact their
insurance companies to report damage.
Every single community in my district was affected, particularly the
towns of Des Plaines and Park Ridge. I would like to thank and commend
the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, local first-responders, the
American Red Cross, and local elected officials like my friend Des
Plaines Mayor Arredia--who has been a leader in the effort to prevent
flooding in the region--for quickly mobilizing the response and
providing relief for the flood victims. I also want to recognize the
neighbors who helped their neighbors, and all of the people who came
together in the face of hardship. Their response to Hurricane Ike was a
great example of the heart of the people of my district.
Yesterday, I joined Governor Blagojevich and other State, county, and
local elected officials at the Prairie Lake Community Center in Des
Plaines, which is serving as a relief and relocation shelter, to visit
with people displaced from their homes with nowhere to go and thank the
Red Cross volunteers who are doing such great work. I promised those
people taking shelter that I won't stop working with the Army Corps of
Engineers to complete the Des Plaines River Project. Those parts of the
project that have already been completed made a difference and saved
homes from being flooded. I will also keep working to ensure that local
municipal projects that address flood prevention get the funds they
need.
Congress needs to appropriate funds to respond to the devastation
that Hurricane Ike and Hurricane Gustav left in their wake. I urge all
of my colleagues to join me in making sure that we allocate sufficient
resources to help FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and States and
communities across the country rebuild in a coming spending package.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TIM MAHONEY
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Madam Speaker, on September 16, 2008, I was
unavoidably detained and unable to vote on rollcall votes 592 and 594.
Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes
592 and 594.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO STANTON THOMPSON
______
HON. IKE SKELTON
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, it has come to my attention that a long
and exceptionally distinguished career will soon come to an end. RADM
Stanton Thompson of Higginsville, Missouri, will retire from his
position as the county executive director for the Farm Service Agency
on November 14, 2008.
Rear Admiral Thompson grew up in Saline County, where he graduated
from Slater High School. Following that, Mr. Thompson received two
degrees from the University of Missouri--Columbia.
In 1977, Rear Admiral Thompson began his career with the Farm Service
Agency as the Caldwell County executive director. With the support of
his family and friends, he was able to carry on a successful career
spanning 30 years as the county executive director of both Lafayette
and Caldwell counties. In 2002, Rear Admiral Thompson's office was
nationally recognized when it received the FSA Administrator's Award
for efforts to educate
[[Page 19553]]
women landowners. Thompson has directed a comprehensive overhaul of the
state's management training program, utilizing his experience of
training over 100 county operations trainees. As director of the Farm
Service Agency, Rear Admiral Thompson helped issue millions of dollars
in Federal agricultural program benefits to over 3,000 customers.
In addition to his accomplished business career, Rear Admiral
Thompson is a retired two-star Admiral in the U.S. Navy Reserve,
providing our Nation with over 35 years of service. He is it veteran of
the Vietnam war, First Gulf war, and the global war on terrorism.
Madam Speaker, I know the Members of the House will join me in paying
tribute to RADM (Ret.) Stanton Thompson for his outstanding career and
dedication to his country and in wishing him all the best as he enters
the next stage of his life with his wife, Sandy, and with his loving
children and grandchildren.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO MAJOR GENERAL WALTER WOJDAKOWSKI
______
HON. LYNN A. WESTMORELAND
of georgia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a
great American soldier who has dedicated his life to our country. Maj.
Gen. Walter Wojdakowski will retire from the U.S. Army Jan. 1 after
more than three decades of service, capping his career as the
commanding general at Fort Benning in Columbus, Ga.
A native of Colorado, Wojdakowski found a welcoming home in Georgia.
In this way he is no different than thousands of soldiers who've come
before him. The people of west Georgia are deeply proud of Fort
Benning; they hold the soldiers in high esteem and treat them like part
of the family.
Wojdakowski felt that family feeling strongly in 1976 when he was
first stationed at Fort Benning. On one fateful July night that year, a
young Columbus woman named Candy Cooper caught his eye at the officers'
club. It wasn't long before they were off on their first date at a
local Shoney's Big Boy and a year later Candy Cooper would become Candy
Wojdakowski. The soldier's lifelong love would become his lifelong
partner in service to their nation and to fellow military families.
As a military family, the Wojdakowskis have moved their family to
points across the nation and across the globe--from Georgia to Alaska
to Germany and Kuwait. The Wojdakowskis' road, however, often pointed
back toward Georgia. In 1993, then a colonel, Wojdakowski assumed
command of the 11th Regiment at Fort Benning. He returned in 1996 as a
brigadier general.
Wojdakowski's final tour of duty at Benning began in 2005 when the
major general took charge of the entire base. Wojdakowski's crowning
achievement in the military would come at the same base where his own
family began, Fort Benning, GA. There, at the world's largest infantry
training center, Wojdakowski kept the focus on training our nation's
warriors and supporting the War on Terror. At the same time, his
leadership prepared Benning for a massive expansion that will greatly
transform the base.
While it was the general alone who wore the uniform that got a little
heavier every year with military hardware, Wojdakowski's career was
anything but a solo mission. It was a family affair. Candy volunteered
at every port of call. For example, she ran a family support group at
Fort Hood during the first Gulf War. At Fort Benning, she worked as a
master trainer for Army Family Team Building and she began a leadership
seminar. Their son Steven followed in his father's footsteps. After
graduating from Columbus High School in 1998, Steven entered West
Point--where his 6 foot 4 inch father played on the basketball team
under coach Bobby Knight 30 years before. Steven, now a captain, is
currently serving in Iraq as a Troop Commander to the 3rd Armored
Cavalry Regiment. Their daughter Ami may have started a family
tradition when she got married earlier this year in the same Fort
Benning chapel where her parents tied the knot.
The American people owe the Wojdakowskis a debt of gratitude for a
lifetime of service and sacrifice, a lifetime of duty before self. Maj.
Gen. Wojdakowski has worn his nation's uniform with honor, dignity and
pride since the day he graduated from West Point. On behalf of the U.S.
House of Representatives, I want to thank the general and his wife
Candy for everything they have given us. I congratulate them on their
many accomplishments and wish them years of happiness as they retire to
beautiful Harris County in Georgia's 3rd Congressional District.
____________________
POSTHUMOUS TRIBUTE TO JOHN S. PERAGALLO
______
HON. BILL PASCRELL, JR.
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention
the life of an outstanding individual, John S. Peragallo, who passed
away on September 12, 2008 at the age of 76. He will be remembered for
his life long dedication to his family, friends, and his family
business.
It is only fitting that he be honored in this, the permanent record
of the greatest democracy ever known, for he brought joy and peace,
through his craft, to many others throughout his lifetime.
John was born in New York, but was a lifelong resident of Paterson,
NJ. He graduated from Eastside High School in 1949 and went on to take
several classes at Newark College of Engineering. He served our country
in the United States Army during the Korean Conflict and was a
chaplain's assistant and a member of the honor guard.
Since John's childhood, he helped his father in the family business
of building and servicing pipe organs. The Peragallo Pipe Organ Company
was founded by his father, John Peragallo, Sr., in 1918, after learning
the craft as an apprentice with the famous E.M. Skinner Organ Company.
John Jr. joined the company in 1949 and made the business stronger with
a close father-son relationship. John Peragallo, Jr. was President of
the company. He was responsible for the construction and care of many
of the pipe organs throughout New Jersey, and for the complete
renovation of the organs at St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City.
John Jr.'s sons, John III and Frank, have been actively involved in the
business since the 1980's and now a fourth generation of Peragallos,
Janine, Anthony, and John IV, work alongside them. The company has
installed almost 700 new organs and currently maintains about 400 along
the east coast, including those at St. Patrick's Cathedral.
John was a member of the American Guild of Organists, Northern NJ
Chapter, St. John Vianney/St. Elizabeth of Hungary Fraternity and was
active with the Boy Scouts of America when his sons were younger.
John and his wife Christine met at the St. Anthony's Church Carnival
in Paterson in 1955, and he took her to the Plaza Theatre in Paterson
on their first date. Christine was indoctrinated into the family
business on their second date, which was to a church so John could
check the organ. They married eleven months after meeting and had a
dynamic, spontaneous, loving marriage of fifty-two years.
He will be dearly missed by his wife, Christine, his children John
III and his wife Kathleen, Frank and his wife Josephine, Stephen and
his wife Debra, and Christine Egan and her husband Christopher, his 10
grandchildren and one great-grandson, and his sister Catherine Miller
and her husband Charles.
Although John passed away, his spirit will always be with us. John
will forever be remembered for the love he shared with his family and
friends, and for the music that is made with the grand instruments that
John spent his life constructing and maintaining.
The job of a United States Congressman involves much that is
rewarding, yet nothing compares to learning about and recognizing
individuals like John S. Peragallo.
Madam Speaker, I ask that you join our colleagues, John's family and
friends, all those who have been touched by the sacred music that he
helped to create, and me in recognizing the contributions of John S.
Peragallo.
____________________
HONORING CHRISTOPHER MORROW
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Christopher
Morrow of Blue Springs, Missouri. Christopher is a very special young
man who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and
leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop
1138, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Christopher has been very active with his troop, participating in
many scout activities. Over the many years Christopher has been
involved with scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges,
but also the respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Christopher
Morrow for his
[[Page 19554]]
accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his efforts put
forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
____________________
IN SUPPORT OF THE 37TH RYDER CUP AT VALHALLA
______
HON. JOHN A. YARMUTH
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. YARMUTH. Madam Speaker, today my hometown of Louisville continues
to recover from windstorms that battered our region, leaving hundreds
of thousands without power. Still, the resilient residents of our
community will rise to host the 37th Ryder Cup at Valhalla Golf Course,
and in turn, the Ryder Cup will generate tens of millions of dollars
for our local economy over the next five days.
This is the culmination of Dwight Gahm's vision when he commissioned
Jack Nicklaus to design a Louisville golf course. The course has twice
held the PGA championship and today ascends to new heights with the 80-
year-old, biennial summit of sports. Here, Europe's best golfers will
compete against America's greatest, not for personal wealth but for the
spirit of competition. More than three million dollars will be donated
to charity on behalf of the Ryder Cup.
Among the 12 American players, I proudly welcome home two
Kentuckians, Kenny Perry and JB Holmes. I know they, along with their
other American teammates, will represent our country well.
I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Ryder Cup and the
people of Louisville who overcome adversity this week to host one of
the world's greatest sports traditions.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO LONGTIME WIREGRASS BROADCASTER, HOWARD PARRISH, JR.
______
HON. TERRY EVERETT
of alabama
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. EVERETT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to longtime
Wiregrass broadcaster and servant of his community, Mr. Howard Parrish,
Jr., of Ozark, Alabama, who passed away July 28 at the age of 82.
At the same time that local radio established itself as a vital link
between rural America and the world, Parrish became a familiar and
trusted voice for Ozark, Alabama listeners.
A veteran of the U.S. Army Air Corps, a graduate of Georgia Southern
and a native of Atlanta, he moved to southeast Alabama in 1955, leaving
the growing Atlanta radio scene and that city's first commercial FM
station to help run the relatively new broadcast station in Ozark,
WOZK, 900 AM.
To his many Dale County listeners, Howard was the voice of WOZK. But
he was much more than a friendly announcer. He was general manager,
sales manager and chief engineer for WOZK and its FM counterpart, WOAB,
for the better part of 45 years.
Parrish likely delivered over 16,000 newscasts over the Ozark
airwaves during his tenure at WOZK and WOAB-FM. Despite his continual
Ozark broadcast duties, he also found time to construct radio station
WELB in neighboring Elba in 1959 and he served as general manager of
WDHN-TV 18 in Dothan, Alabama in the early 1970s, returning the
struggling TV station to financial stability. He retired from WOZK/WOAB
and all local broadcasting in 2002.
Parrish leaves a long legacy of community service, both on the air
and through volunteerism. Parrish was an active member of the Ozark
Rotary and Kiwanis clubs and was a charter member of the local Civitan
Club.
Parrish was one of the Wiregrass's longest serving broadcasters and
he shared a great love for communications. He was also well known in
local amateur radio circles for his devotion to the hobby. He was a
licensed radio amateur, W4IEO, for over 65 years.
I wish to extend my condolences to his wife, Jane, and his children
and grandchildren for their loss. Ozark's long-time ``voice'' may now
be silent, but he will be long remembered.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. CANDICE S. MILLER
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. MILLER of Mighigan. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 598, I was
unavoidably delayed.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________
SUPPORTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RESIDENTS
______
HON. DARRELL E. ISSA
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House of
Representatives has voted to hold the District of Columbia accountable
for violating the civil rights of D.C. residents for decades. Making
the District adhere to the Constitution now is better than waiting 180
days. Once the District comes into compliance with the Supreme Court
decision, D.C. residents will finally be able to defend themselves
against armed criminals. The District's anti-gun law created a bastion
for crime. Our action here today puts D.C. residents first and
criminals second.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. THOMAS H. ALLEN
of maine
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, on September 15, 2008, I was unavoidably
absent from the House.
If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote
No. 591, a motion by Mr. Scott of Virginia to suspend the rules and
pass H.R. 6889, a bill to extend the authority of the Secretary of
Education to purchase guaranteed student loans for an additional year,
and for other purposes.
I ask unanimous consent that this statement be inserted in the
appropriate place in the Record.
____________________
HONORING JESSE ANDERSON
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jesse
Anderson of Grain Valley, Missouri. Jesse is a very special young man
who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership
by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1246, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Jesse has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Jesse has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Jesse
Anderson for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. AL GREEN
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and
missed rollcall vote 598 on September 16, 2008. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION ACT
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce
legislation today which will transfer property from the Department of
Health and Human Services to the Maniilaq Association in Kotzebue,
Alaska. This transfer would occur through the Indian Health Service,
the current owners of the properties.
Since 1995, Maniilaq Association, a Native non-profit entity in
Kotzebue, Alaska has carried out a comprehensive health care delivery
program to residents in Kotzebue, Alaska and the Northwest Arctic
Borough. They have carried out these responsibilities under the Alaska
Tribal Health Compact and Funding Agreement negotiated annually with
the Indian
[[Page 19555]]
Health Service. These agreements give Maniilaq Association the right to
acquire title to all federal property that they have utilized to
provide these health care services.
Currently, the Indian Health Service owns the properties that
Maniilaq Association uses to carry out its health care delivery
services. While there is an administrative process in place for them to
acquire these properties, the process is cumbersome and sometimes may
take years to accomplish the goal of acquiring these properties. Thus,
Maniilaq Association is asking for legislation to acquire the
properties listed in my legislation.
Madam Speaker, we are not setting a precedent with this legislation.
Congress, in the past, has enacted legislation which transfers excess
government properties to non-profits such as Maniilaq Association.
My legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Health and Human
Services, through the Indian Health Service, to transfer to the
Maniilaq Association by a warranty deed to a number of parcels of land
legally described in my legislation.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation on behalf of Maniilaq
Association to allow them to continue with their health care delivery
programs and to provide better services to their patients and residents
of the Northwest Arctic Borough.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. JERROLD NADLER
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, due to official business in New York
related to the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
I was unable to travel to Washington, DC. As a result, I missed votes
on September 11, 2008. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been
able to, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 585 approving
the Journal; ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 586 commemorating the
anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; ``aye'' on
rollcall vote No. 587 restoring the Highway Trust Fund balance; and
``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 588 motion to adjourn.
____________________
HONORING NEBRASKA'S WORLD WAR II VETERANS
______
HON. ADRIAN SMITH
of nebraska
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of the
men and women who served our country during World War II, and the
national non-profit organization dedicated to helping World War II
veterans visit the World War II Memorial here in Washington D.C.
I have had the honor of meeting with these veterans--in Nebraska and
at the memorial built to thank them for their strength, bravery, and
sacrifices.
It has been over 60 years since World War II ended with the surrender
of the Japanese, bringing to the close a war in which 16 million
American men and women served.
Less than five million are still with us.
This week, nearly 250 Nebraska World War II vets visited D.C. They
came from Omaha, Scottsbluff, and towns in between. They came from
small towns like Thedford and Nebraska's capital city, Lincoln.
I know their visit to Washington was a trip of a lifetime for each
and every one of them, and I know I speak for all of us when I thank
them for their service to our country.
I also want to thank the Heartland Honor Flight for their efforts to
make this trip a reality. During the past four years, honor flights
have transported more than 5,000 veterans to our nation's capital.
I'm proud to live in a country which honors our heroes.
____________________
2008 POW/MIA RECOGNITION DAY
______
HON. JOHN SHIMKUS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2008 National
Observance of POW/MIA Recognition Day.
In each conflict since the Revolution, brave Americans have found
themselves prisoners of the enemy. Far from home and country, cut off
from news of loved ones for months or even years, sometimes subjected
to physical and mental abuse, these Americans held out the hope that
they would one day see home again. Through the horrors of Andersonville
and the Bataan Death March, American prisoners of war have endured the
cruelest of humanity. Some did not survive to have their much awaited
reunion with loved ones. All have earned our Nation's abiding respect
and admiration for the sacrifices they made for our Nation.
It is my privilege to join this day with my colleagues in honoring
the 2008 National Observance of POW/MIA Recognition Day. Let us never
forget these great Americans and all that they have done for us.
____________________
HONORING CONNOR BLOSS
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Connor Bloss
of Blue Springs, Missouri. Connor is a very special young man who has
exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1332, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Connor has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Connor has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Connor
Bloss for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF THE SPACE COMMERCE ACT OF 2008
______
HON. MARK UDALL
of colorado
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the
``Space Commerce Act of 2008.'' This legislation would modify the
Technology Administration Act of 1998 and provide for the establishment
of an Office of Space Commerce in the Department of Commerce. As
chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee with jurisdiction
over commercial space activities, I am introducing this bill as a
courtesy to the Department, which requested it.
While I think the legislation that I am introducing today requires
review and potentially modification before it is ready to come back to
this floor for further consideration, I believe that introducing the
Department's proposed legislation will help us move forward in seeking
the best ways to encourage the vitality of this growing industry. This
bill will help stimulate discussion on what is the best approach to
enhancing the development and competitive posture of America's
commercial space sector. That discussion will help Congress craft the
best path forward in addressing this important topic.
I feel quite passionate about the important role that the commercial
space sector plays--and will continue to play in the coming years--in
ensuring the sustained vitality of the U.S. economy and its
competitiveness in world markets. My home State of Colorado is home to
some of the Nation's leading commercial space companies and is serving
as an incubator for more every year. I am proud of that fact, and I am
proud of the companies that are contributing so much to the nation's
strength in civil, commercial, and military aerospace.
As chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, I have seen
firsthand the growing impact that the commercial space sector is
having, both in enhancing the Nation's economic strength and improving
the quality of life of all our citizens. Whether it is advancing U.S.
geospatial applications, maximizing the benefits to be gained from U.S.
space-based positioning, navigation, and timing capabilities, or
numerous other endeavors, America's space commerce sector is leading
the way, and I want to do all I can to see that that continues to be
the case.
That is why I believe it is important to fully examine how the
Federal Government can best provide additional useful tools to help
expand and develop the space commerce sector. We in Congress should do
all we can to address space commerce policy issues and help encourage
the growth of the U.S. commercial space sector. I look forward to
hearing from all interested stakeholders as we move forward to fully
examine this proposal.
[[Page 19556]]
____________________
HONORING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS OF THE BOY
SCOUTS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA
______
HON. HEATH SHULER
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 2,000 committed
and dedicated volunteers who advise, educate and inspire over 4,000 Boy
Scouts in Western North Carolina.
The Boy Scouts of America was incorporated on February 8, 1910,
chartered by Congress in 1916, and organized in Western North Carolina
as the Daniel Boone Council since 1920. The Boy Scouts of America
strives to develop good traits of character in young people and to
instill in them values of good citizenship. The Boy Scouts program is
available to all youth regardless of race, religion, or socioeconomic
level.
The Daniel Boone Council of Western North Carolina serves 4,088 youth
in 14 counties through 173 Cub Scout Packs, Boy Scout Troops, Venturing
Crews, Sea Scout Ships, and Explorer Posts.
The youth are supported by 2,000 dedicated volunteer leaders who
recruit, raise funds, serve on the executive board and committees, and
educate and inspire the youth of the program. The Scouting volunteers
report that their involvement with the Boy Scouts has raised their
environmental awareness, aided them in ethical and moral decision-
making, and helped them become better parents and citizens. The
benefits to the volunteers, however, are slight in comparison to the
life altering experiences that their work provides to the Scouts.
The Boy Scouts of America has designated 2008 as the ``Year of the
Volunteer'' to honor the volunteers who serve across the Nation. In
Western North Carolina, the Daniel Boone Council has set apart
September 13 as their special day to honor their volunteers through a
Volunteer Recognition Banquet. It is my hope, however, that we continue
to honor the tremendous contributions of the Daniel Boone Council's
2000 volunteers throughout 2008 and for years and decades to come.
It is with great respect and gratitude that I commend these dedicated
and committed volunteers. I am honored to be able to stand with the
Daniel Boone Council in recognizing their hard work and service.
____________________
CONGRATULATING CARLOS BOOZER, COREY COGDELL, AND MATT EMMONS ON THEIR
OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENTS IN THE 2008 SUMMER OLYMPIC GAMES
______
HON. DON YOUNG
of alaska
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Carlos
Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons, three Alaskans who recently
returned from competing in the 2008 Summer Olympic Games in Beijing.
These three Alaskans, joined by their fellow athletes from across the
country, traveled to Beijing, and represented the United States in an
extraordinary manner. The U.S. Olympic team distinguished the United
States from other nations by winning 110 medals, the most of any
country. Carlos Boozer, Corey Cogdell, and Matt Emmons each won medals,
and boldly represented the United States in their specific
competitions.
I truly believe that the importance of the contributions of these
three talented Alaskan athletes to our country cannot be overstated,
which is why it is important that we honor their great accomplishments.
For this reason I am introducing the following resolution to honor
these three athletes for their accomplishments and representation of
our country.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TED POE
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, due to preparations for and recovery from
Hurricane Ike, which impacted my district, I unfortunately missed the
following votes on the House floor on Thursday, September 11th and
Monday, September 15th.
I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day,
I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 586, 587, 589, 590, and
591.
____________________
HONORING JOSEPH MOORE
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Joseph Moore
of Blue Springs, Missouri. Joseph is a very special young man who has
exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1332, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Joseph has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Joseph has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Joseph
Moore for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
WELCOMING THE 37TH RYDER CUP TO KENTUCKY
______
HON. RON LEWIS
of kentucky
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Madam Speaker, I rise today to welcome
athletes, fans, and sponsors of the PGA Tour to the City of Louisville
for the 37th Ryder Cup. The competition will take place at the Valhalla
Golf Club September 16-21, 2008.
The Ryder Cup matches the 12 best American golf professionals against
the best 12 from Europe. The competition will be seen by hundreds of
millions of golf enthusiasts throughout the world.
In the spirit of Olympians, athlete participation is grounded in the
prestige of representing their country rather than prize money. I would
like to make special note of two fellow Kentuckians, Kenny Perry and
J.B. Holmes, joining the American team. Their competitive spirit and
good sportsmanship will make our state and country proud.
I applaud the PGA of America, the PGA Tour, and First Tee for the
charitable contributions they will generate through this event. The
Ryder Cup will directly raise over $780,000 in funds for charity. An
additional $2.6 million will be donated on behalf of the U.S. Ryder Cup
captain and team.
It is my great privilege to recognize the athletes, sponsors, and
hosts of the 37th Ryder Cup for their collective contributions to
charity and international goodwill through this special event.
____________________
FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS AND INCREASING ADOPTIONS ACT
______
HON. EARL POMEROY
of north dakota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fostering
Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, important
legislation that improves and strengthens the Federal programs that
assist foster care and adoption assistance programs.
Under current law, States are reimbursed by the Federal Government
for eligible foster care or adoption assistance programs through Title
IV-E of the Social Security Act. Unfortunately, these very same
services are not directly reimbursed when provided by an American
Indian tribe. This was not a deliberate adoption policy decision, but
instead a drafting error that has meant that some tribes have been left
without the Federal resources they need to support services for these
priceless children.
My bill would provide parity to Native American children living on
tribal land by allowing Indian tribes to have the same direct access to
Federal funding for foster care and adoption services that States
currently receive via Title IV-E. This legislation improves the Native
American child welfare system by requiring tribal adoption and foster
care programs to
[[Page 19557]]
meet the same requirements that are required of States to ensure the
safety of children placed in tribal foster care programs, while
entrusting the establishment and maintenance of these programs to
tribes.
The critical importance of this legislation was driven home to me
when I met recently with the Mitzel family from West Fargo, ND. They
have served as foster parents for 13 children throughout the years and
are now adopted parents for a sibling group of five precious Native
American children who were scattered from one another in the foster
care system. For their persistent efforts to reunite this sibling
group, I nominated the Mitzels this year for the Congressional
Coalition on Adoption's Angels in Adoption Award.
I am deeply grateful for the commitment of tribal leaders to make
certain that these children were united and raised as a family even
though in this particular case it means that these children will be
raised off of the reservation. Meeting these children powerfully drove
home to me just how important it is that all of our children, including
American Indian children receiving services from a tribe, have the same
level of support.
This compromise bill with the Senate puts tribal adoption and foster
care one step closer to being on equal footing with States and gives
tribes the ability to provide their children with the culturally
appropriate care they deserve. I am hopeful that this bipartisan
legislation will quickly pass the Senate and be signed into law.
I urge my colleagues to support the Fostering Connections to Success
and Increasing Adoptions Act to ensure that all children in foster care
get the services, education and healthcare that they need.
____________________
RECOGNIZING THE YORK COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR 50
YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
______
HON. TODD RUSSELL PLATTS
of pennsylvania
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. PLATTS. Madam Speaker, I rise to commend the York County Economic
Development Corporation, YCEDC, for providing economic development
leadership to the York community for 50 years.
YCEDC was established in 1958 to attract new industry, promote
industrial development, and create new jobs. Since its inception, YCEDC
has facilitated funding in excess of $73 million toward an estimated
150 economic development projects, creating and retaining more than
10,200 jobs throughout York County.
YCEDC has facilitated effective community and business partnerships
and has evolved its leadership role in economic development to advance
a positive vision for York County's economic future. York County will
continue to experience the positive effects of the organization's
commitment for years to come.
Madam Speaker, the observance of the 50th anniversary of YCEDC
provides a special time to express our appreciation and gratitude to
its employees, board members, and members for their work and dedication
to York County's continued economic well-being and quality of life.
Therefore, it is with heartfelt wishes that I congratulate YCEDC for
their continued success.
____________________
HONORING ALEXANDER WILLIAMS
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Alexander
Williams of Kansas City, Missouri. Alexander is a very special young
man who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and
leadership by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop
1314, and earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Alexander has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Alexander has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Alexander
Williams for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for
his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SINTO SENIOR ACTIVITY CENTER
______
HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS
of washington
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and
honor the 50th anniversary of the Sinto Senior Activity Center in
Spokane, Washington. Early in the 1950's a group of enthusiastic senior
citizens and community leaders began building a dream, a dream that has
grown into an integral part of the Spokane community serving over 600
members.
The Sinto Senior Activity Center offers a variety of activities for
members which include ballroom dancing, pool, crafts, educational
opportunities, lunches, social clubs, entertainment, square dancing,
music, speakers, holiday events, pinochle, cribbage, exercise and
aerobic classes, round dancing, clogging, community service projects,
short trips and tours, and many, many more.
Madam Speaker, the Sinto Senior Activity Center has been a staple of
the Spokane community for over 50 years and through its leadership and
steadfast commitment has provided senior citizens of the Spokane area a
safe and comfortable place to engage in social activities. It is an
honor and privilege to invite my colleagues to join me in
congratulating the Sinto Senior Activity Center on its 50th
anniversary.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO COLONEL EMORY ``RAY'' HELTON
______
HON. ROBIN HAYES
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute
to Colonel Ray Helton, United States Army, on the occasion of his
retirement from active duty. Colonel Helton has served our great Nation
for more than 30 years as a truly exceptional officer and I am
extremely proud to call him my friend.
Over the past several years, as Co-Chair of the House Special
Operations Forces Caucus, I have had the honor of working with Colonel
Helton during his tenure as the Director of Legislative Affairs for
United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Soldier, leader,
scholar, statesman, gentleman--Ray truly personifies what a warrior
should be and he has been an outstanding ambassador for Special
Operations.
Colonel Helton's dedication to his work on behalf of the warfighter
has been unwavering. There is no doubt that Ray has been instrumental
in educating the House Armed Services Committee, other defense-related
Committees, and Members of Congress on a variety of issues critical to
our Special Operators and their missions. His tireless efforts working
with Members of Congress and the military perspective he brings to the
table have undoubtedly resulted in a better understanding of the
Special Operations community and its unique missions, requirements, and
needs. He has been a tireless advocate for all of his fellow Special
Operators. Though much of it has been behind the scenes, there is no
doubt that his work has furthered our nation's goals in the continued
Global War on Terror and saved lives in the field.
Colonel Helton graduated as a Distinguished Military Graduate from
the University of Illinois Army ROTC and began serving as an Infantry
Officer in January 1981. His Infantry assignments include leading two
platoons in the 3d Infantry Division and commanding two companies in
the 101st Airborne Division. He was transferred to the Special Forces
Branch in 1988 and served as a Detachment Commander, Battalion
Personnel Officer and Battalion Operations Officer in the 10th Special
Forces Group. He served as a Company Commander, Battalion Executive
Officer and Battalion Commander in the 3rd Special Forces Group. He has
conducted training and operations with Soldiers on five continents.
Colonel Helton also served as the Chief of Assignments of the Combat
Arms Division in United States Personnel Command, as a Strategic
Planner and Writer on the Joint Staff and as the Garrison Commander of
Fort Drum, New York. Colonel Helton's military education includes the
Infantry Officer Basic Course, Airborne School, Combat Divers Course,
Air Assault School, Ranger School, Special Forces Qualification School,
Infantry Officer Advanced Course, Survival Escape Resistance and
Evasion Course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Joint
Psychological Operations Course, Command and General Staff College,
[[Page 19558]]
and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He received a
bachelor's degree in History from the University of Illinois, a Master
of Arts degree in National Strategy and Policy from the Naval War
College and a Master of Science degree in National Resource Strategy
from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I express our
appreciation of Colonel Helton for his tireless service and support of
the warfighter. His professionalism, expertise, and efforts showcase
his patriotism, and his dedication to his Special Operators in the
field. Though the following phrase is often used, I can say without
reservation that it is rarely as appropriate as it is in this case:
Colonel Ray Helton is truly a great American.
I want to personally thank Colonel Ray Helton, his wife Colonel Jane
Helton, USA, and his entire family for their commitment, sacrifice, and
the contributions they have all made throughout his honorable and
distinguished military service. I congratulate Ray on completing an
exceptional and extremely successful military career and am humbled by
his dedicated service to our nation. I wish Colonel Helton and his
family many blessings and much success as he begins his future
endeavors and embarks on new adventures.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. J. GRESHAM BARRETT
of south carolina
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, due to my attendance at
events in my district and state discussing legislation that will help
move our country toward energy independence, I unfortunately missed
some recorded votes on the House floor on Tuesday, September 16, 2008.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No.
592 (Motion to adjourn), ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 593 (question of
consideration on H. Res. 1433), and ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 594
(Motion to adjourn).
____________________
HONORING THE LIFE OF JOHN F. SEIBERLING
______
HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH
of ohio
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I wish to honor the life and legacy of
Congressman Seiberling, an eight-term Congressman from Akron, Ohio.
John Seiberling won Ohio's 14th Congressional District in 1970. He ran
for Congress because of his strong opposition to the Vietnam War and a
belief that the system could be made to work in favor of a more livable
world, a peaceful world. His desire for peace was his primary reason
for running.
In a speech at the University of Akron on May 6, 1970, just two days
after the tragic shootings at Kent State University John Seiberling
said that ``the system can be made to work . . . 25 years ago I never
thought that a peace candidate would win a congressional election in
this district, even a primary election, in which the principal issue is
the cause of peace.'' He went on to speak about the importance of
Gandhi's accomplishments in India; how Gandhi used non-cooperation to
bring his cause to the attention of the world and non-violence to win
the hearts of his enemies.
During his time in Congress he had many major accomplishments. Among
them was the creation of Ohio's first national park, the Cuyahoga
Valley National Park and his coauthorship of the War Powers Act. He was
elected to and served as Chairman of the Members of Congress for Peace
Through Law Caucus. It is reported that he opened his office to Vietnam
veterans protesting against the war by allowing them to sleep there.
He was committed to a world that resolved conflict through peaceful
means. And as such, throughout his 16 years in the House he prioritized
disarmament. When he announced his retirement in 1986 he reportedly
told the Plain Dealer newspaper that it was the job of Congress to
``maintain a livable world, free of nuclear disaster, a world that we
have not polluted to the point where we can't breathe and where we
preserve some natural beauty so that we can have the solace and the
experience of being out in God's world.'' Following his retirement he
dedicated himself to teaching law at the University of Akron and for a
number of years was the head of the university's Center for Peace
Studies.
Since his passing on August 2, 2008 he has been sorely missed and
will be missed well into the future.
____________________
HONORING JACOB FUENFHAUSEN
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jacob
Fuenfhausen of Liberty, Missouri. Jacob is a very special young man who
has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership by
taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1320, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Jacob has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Jacob has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Jacob
Fuenfhausen for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and
for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle
Scout.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER
of texas
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Madam Speaker, due to a family emergency I was absent
for the following rollcall votes held on September 15, September 16 and
September 17, 2008. Had I been present, I would have voted as indicated
for each rollcall listed.
Rollcall vote 589: ``yea''; rollcall vote 590: ``yea''; rollcall vote
591: ``yea''; rollcall vote 592: ``nay''; rollcall vote 593: ``nay'';
rollcall vote 594: ``nay''; rollcall vote 595: ``nay''; rollcall vote
596: ``nay''; rollcall vote 597: ``nay''; rollcall vote 598: ``yea'';
rollcall vote 599: ``nay''; rollcall vote 600: ``yea''; and rollcall
vote 601: ``yea.''
____________________
IN RECOGNITION OF THE RETIREMENT OF COLONEL MICHAEL SHUPP, UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS
______
HON. JEFF MILLER
of florida
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the service of
Colonel Michael Shupp, United States Marine Corps, who is retiring
after 27 years of dedicated service to this Nation. I came to know
Colonel Shupp well as we travelled together on various Congressional
delegations. As a consummate professional, he did an outstanding job
representing the United States Marine Corps.
Colonel Shupp graduated from the Virginia Military Institute in 1981.
In 1985, he reported to the U.S. Naval Academy and was recognized by
President Bush and others for his outstanding performance.
In 1990, as a company commander, he deployed to Saudi Arabia for
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm where his unit served with
distinction. He also deployed twice to Bosnia-Herzegovina in the late-
1990s. Since 2001, I have had the pleasure and honor to come to know
Michael well during his assignment as the Marine Corps' Liaison to the
U.S. House of Representatives.
Colonel Shupp assumed command of Regimental Combat Team--1 (RCT-1) on
15 September 2004 at Camp Fallujah, Iraq while deployed on Operation
Iraqi Freedom II. There he led the Regiment through counter-insurgency
operations, the Battle of Fallujah (Operation Al Fajr), humanitarian
assistance efforts and the reconstruction of Fallujah, and the first
free Iraqi national election in January 2005. In early 2008, he became
Legislative Assistant for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
His personal decorations are numerous and include the Legion of Merit
with Combat ``Valor'' Distinguishing Device and gold star in lieu of
second award, the Bronze Star with Combat ``Valor'' Distinguishing
Device, and the Combat Action Ribbon with gold star in lieu of second
award.
Madam Speaker, few can match the dedication and professionalism of
Colonel Michael
[[Page 19559]]
Shupp. He epitomizes the values and traditions of the United States
Marine Corps. On behalf of the U.S. Congress, I would thank him for his
years of dedicated service. Vicki and I wish him and his family best
wishes for continued success.
____________________
SUPPORTING TAIWANESE MEMBERSHIP IN UNITED NATIONS SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
______
HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. ENGEL. Madam Speaker, on August 14, 2008, seventeen of the
Republic of China's diplomatic allies once again submitted a proposal
to the United Nations General Assembly supporting Taiwan's request ``
to examine the fundamental rights of the 23 million people of the
Republic of China (Taiwan) to participate meaningfully in the
activities of the United Nations specialized agencies.'' The 63rd
session of the U.N. General Assembly opened yesterday, September 16,
and, therefore, my comments today are especially relevant.
I strongly support Taiwan's request because I believe there is a
compelling need for the country to add its expertise, wealth, and
dynamism to the U.N. specialized agencies. For example, Taiwan has been
campaigning for participation in the World Health Organization (WHO)
for years, but has been unable to access or communicate with WHO
regarding global disease prevention. Membership in the WHO should not
be a political matter. Disease and illness know no boundaries, and we
must not let political disputes stand in the way of utilizing all tools
available to improve basic health care and fight pestilence. This
effort to fight disease takes global solidarity, not isolation
campaigns.
Fortunately, Taiwan is ready, willing, and able to contribute to the
international community. Moreover, Taiwan's international participation
might encourage the cross-strait dialogue and contribute to the easing
of tensions between Taiwan and the PRC.
I hope that the PRC will show good will and allow Taiwan to
participate meaningfully in the U.N. specialized agencies. I believe
this will be a step toward peace and cooperation in the Asia-Pacific
region and greater vitality in promoting the missions of the UN
specialized agencies.
____________________
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
______
HON. TIMOTHY WALBERG
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, on the following rollcall votes I am not
recorded due to a death in the family. Had I been present I would have
voted the following way: rollcall No. 589, I would have voted ``aye;''
rollcall No. 590, I would have voted ``aye;'' rollcall No. 591, I would
have voted ``aye;'' rollcall No. 592, I would have voted ``nay;''
rollcall No. 593, I would have voted ``nay;'' rollcall No. 594, I would
have voted ``nay;'' rollcall No. 595, I would have voted ``nay;''
rollcall No. 596, I would have voted ``nay;'' rollcall No. 597, I would
have voted ``nay;'' rollcall No. 598, I would have voted ``aye;''
rollcall No. 599, I would have voted ``nay.''
____________________
REGARDING PASSAGE OF H.R. 6842
______
HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, today the United States House of
Representatives took a large and much anticipated step towards
protecting every American's 2nd Amendment right by passing H.R. 6842,
The National Capital Security and Safety Act. The amendment to this
legislation, authored by Representative Childers, is a much needed
improvement to the underlying bill and will help the District of
Columbia to fully comply with the United States Supreme Court's
decision in D.C. vs. Heller.
Today is truly a great day for every American as Congress has
mandated that the stringent restrictions placed on citizens of the
District of Columbia and their ability to possess firearms has been
replaced with a law that is in line with what our founding fathers
originally intended. It is my hope that other cities and municipalities
with similar, restrictive gun ownership laws will now change those laws
to come in line with our Constitution.
____________________
HONORING THE GARDEN CITY SCHOOL BLUE RIBBON AWARD
______
HON. CAROLYN McCARTHY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
Garden City Middle School for having received the prestigious Blue
Ribbon School Award. The Blue Ribbon Schools Program recognizes schools
that make significant progress in closing the achievement gap or whose
students achieve at very high levels.
Garden City Middle School succeeds in providing an atmosphere where
students foster a desire for life long learning and are motivated to
reach their highest potential academically, creatively, socially,
physically and emotionally. Last year Garden City Middle School ranked
first in Nassau County in the percentage of students passing the New
York State Grade 8 Math Assessment and second on the New York State
Grade 8 English Assessment. Additionally, Garden City Middle School
students ranked first on the New York State Grade 8 English Assessment
of students scoring at the mastery level. A supplemental aspect of
their curriculum is to teach the students social responsibility. Last
year Garden City Middle School raised more money for St. Jude's
Children's Hospital than any other school in the nation while also
participating in Toys for Tots drives, collecting food for food banks,
and collection campaigns to support the troops in Iraq.
The future of this country depends on the hopes and dreams of its
children, and our community, and our nation, are enhanced by the
contributions of high achieving students like those at Garden City
Middle School.
Madam Speaker, it is with pride and admiration I offer my thanks and
recognition to Garden City Middle School.
____________________
REINTRODUCTION OF THE ``SAKS'' BILL
______
HON. CAROLYN B. MALONEY
of new york
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, the U.S. Justice Department
estimates that 8 percent of all rapes occur on the job. Yet, many of
these victims are told their only remedy is workers' compensation. When
rape occurs on the job, employers should not be able to hide behind a
system designed to compensate for job-related accidents. The bill that
I am introducing today sends a clear message: Rape is not all in a days
work.
Workers' compensation systems were created by States to provide a
means of redress for work-related personal injuries which occur during
the course of employment. Workers' compensation is an exclusive remedy.
In the event that an injury is covered by workers' compensation, no
other legal action may be taken by the injured employee. This bill
gives victims of workplace violence across the Nation a remedy outside
the workers' compensation system. It does this by creating a Federal
civil rights cause of action, under certain conditions, for employees
who have been the victims of gender-motivated violence at work.
We need to create an American workplace safe from violent crime. This
bill will encourage employers to create a job environment free of
violent sexual assault and rape.
____________________
HONORING JONATHAN McCOLE
______
HON. SAM GRAVES
of missouri
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. GRAVES. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to recognize Jonathan
McCole of Kansas City, Missouri. Jonathan is a very special young man
who has exemplified the finest qualities of citizenship and leadership
by taking an active part in the Boy Scouts of America, Troop 1419, and
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Jonathan has been very active with his troop, participating in many
scout activities. Over the many years Jonathan has been involved with
scouting, he has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the
respect of his family, peers, and community.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending Jonathan
McCole for his
[[Page 19560]]
accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America and for his efforts put
forth in achieving the highest distinction of Eagle Scout.
____________________
THE DAILY 45: LAVAL CRAWFORD
______
HON. BOBBY L. RUSH
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, everyday, 45 people, on average, are fatally
shot in the United States.
Three men were charged, today, in the September 13 fatal shooting of
17-year-old Laval Crawford from Pontiac, Michigan. Laval was ambushed
at his home and one of the men charged allegedly was in possession of a
concealed weapon, an AK-47 rifle to be exact.
The killing was the 19th homicide this year in Pontiac, which has
experienced a rash of recent violent incidents, including shootings in
recent weeks, according to news reports. I look forward to a day when
the news is filled with good news; news that peace has increased on our
streets--not another death.
Americans of conscious must come together to stop the senseless death
of ``The Daily 45.'' When will Americans say `enough is enough, stop
the killing!'
____________________
IN HEARTFELT AND GRATEFUL MEMORY OF DR. ELLEN WOLFE
______
HON. JACKIE SPEIER
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, if the world has seemed a bit grayer in
recent weeks, it is no doubt due to the passing of one of its brightest
lights. Ellen L Wolfe, the highly respected and much-loved registered
nurse and Doctor of Public Health, left us on August 4.
As director of Children's Medical Services for the City and County of
San Francisco and throughout her career, Ellen dedicated her life to
the care and well being of underserved children and their families. Dr.
Wolfe was a pioneer in the field of children's health and a passionate
advocate for abused children. She served as director of the Early
Parenting Project, San Francisco General Hospital's landmark abuse
prevention program, and was instrumental in creating the Child
Protection Center at SFGH, serving as the program's Associate Director
for Health Care Services from 1989 through 2005.
Madam Speaker, a measure of anyone's life is how fondly they are
remembered after their passing. By this yardstick, Ellen surpasses all
measurements. Thousands of San Franciscans owe their health, mental
well-being and, in many cases, very lives, to the intellect, instinct
and intervention of this intrepid public servant.
Ellen came to us by way of Denver, Colorado. She attended the
University of Northern Colorado, Greeley on a music scholarship and her
love of the violin and classical music only grew stronger after
graduation. Ellen received a Master of Science in Nursing from the
University of California, San Francisco and a Master and Doctor of
Public Health from UC Berkeley.
Her accomplishments in San Francisco are many and notable, including
the development of a Health Passport system for children in foster
care, creation of a widely-used child abuse manual for doctors and
nurses, and educating foster parents, health professionals and students
about child abuse reporting and health issues. A tireless advocate,
Ellen served on the California Subcommittee on Medically Fragile
Children in Foster Care, the Personnel Advisory Committee for Early
Intervention Services, and the San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention
Center.
Dr. Wolfe authored numerous professional publications addressing
foster care and prenatal drug and alcohol use and served as an
assistant clinical professor in the Department of Family Health Care
Nursing at the UCSF School of Nursing.
Outside of work, Ellen is remembered as a passionate woman who
embraced life to its fullest. She is missed dearly by her mother
Marian, sisters Christine and Charlotte, brothers Fred and Sam, and a
great many close friends and colleagues. They remember fondly her love
of classical music, fine food and the great outdoors, which were
eclipsed only by her commitment to children's health.
Madam Speaker, when those of us from San Francisco are asked what
makes our city so special, we often say, ``the people.'' With the
passing of Ellen Wolfe, our beautiful hometown has lost a favorite
sister, but her legacy of good works and sound public policy will
outlive all of us.
____________________
RECOGNIZING SERGEANT CHAUNCEY K. LOVELL AND AIRMAN FIRST CLASS ALTHEA
LOVELL--SCOTTSDALE HEALTHCARE'S ``SALUTE TO MILITARY'' HONOREES
______
HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of two
members of the Armed Forces from my home state of Arizona. Every month
Scottsdale Healthcare honors service members that perform diligent
service to this country. This month, they have recognized two siblings:
Sergeant Chauncey K. Lovell and Airman 1st Class Althea Lovell.
I commend Scottsdale Healthcare for paying tribute to such
outstanding service members for their bravery and service to our
country.
Sergeant Chauncey Lovell has been in the Marine Corps for six and a
half years, which he has included three deployments to Iraq in 2004,
2006, and 2008. He is currently deployed and will be transferred in
November to his home station, Marine Corps Base Kaneohe, on the island
of Oahu, Hawaii. His record includes the National Defense Service
Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, Iraq Campaign Medal, a
Meritorious Mast and a Certificate of Commendation among others.
Airman First Class Althea Lovell is also on active duty as a Dental
Hygienist at the Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany. Having joined the
Air Force three years ago, this is her first deployment. She is
accompanied by her husband, Gil, who is a Tech Sergeant working in the
operating room on the same base, and their six-month-old daughter,
Chloe. Airman First Class Lovell and her family expect to be reassigned
to Hickham Air Force Base in Hawaii.
Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the inspiring combined
efforts of this brother and sister who are serving our country and
protecting the lives of their fellow servicemen in combat.
____________________
COMMEMORATING WARREN AND BARBARA WINIARSKI FOR SIGNIFICANT
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NAPA VALLEY COMMUNITY
______
HON. MIKE THOMPSON
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor
Warren and Barbara Winiarski. The Winiarskis are being honored by Napa
County as the 2008 Grandparents of the Year.
Mr. and Mrs. Winiarski met at St. John's College in Annapolis,
Maryland. The Winiarskis along with their three children, Kasia, Julia
and Stephen, moved to Napa County in 1964. They settled into the Stags
Leap region, purchasing 44 acres in which they planted Cabernet
Sauvignon and Merlot. They named the vineyard Stag's Leap, now known as
S.L.V.
The Winiarskis started their vineyard with modest means, but were
soon propelled into the spotlight when their wine essentially changed
the way California wines were perceived. In 1976 at the famous blind
tasting in Paris, the second vintage produced by Stag's Leap Vineyard
beat world renowned Chateau Mouton-Rothschild and Chateau Haut-Brion.,
They were visionaries in supporting the 1968 decision by the Napa
County Board of Supervisors to approve Agricultural Preserve Zoning.
The decision prohibits the splitting of lots on the valley floor that
are less than 20 acres in size. The Winiarskis also championed Measure
J in the 1990s, which prevents the development of agricultural lands
without voter approval. Stag's Leap Vineyard was also the first
vineyard placed under a conservation easement, leading the way in
environmental protection.
Throughout their time in the Napa Valley, the Winiarskis have
contributed greatly to the community. They always keep the futures of
their five grandchildren in mind, whether preserving the land or
creating fine wine.
Madam Speaker and colleagues, the Winiarskis have earned the respect
of their colleagues and community. Through visionary leadership they
created pathways for others in the community to follow. For these
reasons and for the lasting impact that Stag's Leap Vineyard has had,
it is fitting at this time that we honor the Winiarskis.
[[Page 19561]]
____________________
VETERAN VOTING SUPPORT ACT
______
HON. RUSH D. HOLT
of new jersey
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
Veteran Voting Support Act, and to commend the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brady) for his leadership in offering it. I was
honored to join him as an original sponsor of it, and I urge all of my
colleagues to support it.
In a few short weeks, we will participate in two celebrations of our
democracy: Election Day, the day upon which we will exercise our most
fundamental right--the right by which we secure all others--the right
to vote. And one week later, we will celebrate Veterans Day, the day
upon which we honor those who always risk and who all too often give
their very lives to preserve and protect our ability to engage in that
fundamental right. Arguably, we should celebrate Veterans Day first,
and Election Day thereafter, because without the sacrifice of the
former we could not continue to be endowed with the latter.
That is why I offer my heartfelt support for the Veteran Voting
Support Act, which responds to a flawed policy of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs that would have prohibited voter registration at VA
facilities. The measure permits states to designate facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs as voter registration agencies, requires
the VA to provide assistance with absentee ballots, and requires that
nonpartisan organizations and election officials be given opportunities
to assist veterans with registration and to provide voting information.
Above all others, our service men and women should be provided with
every convenience and resource to facilitate their ability to vote.
This balanced measure does that, while protecting their privacy and
preserving the high standard of their care. Our veterans' have fought
for our right to vote, and we must now fight for theirs. I urge my
colleagues to honor their sacrifice by supporting this measure.
____________________
CHIPACC BILL: CHILDREN'S PROGRAM OF ALL-INCLUSIVE, COORDINATED CARE
______
HON. JAMES P. MORAN
of virginia
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about an
issue of concern to all families, and everyone who has ever known a
sick child.
The Children's Program of All-inclusive, Coordinated Care, ChiPACC,
serves the needs of Medicaid-eligible children who suffer from
potentially terminal illnesses or conditions. The legislation I am
introducing will make ChiPACC a state option under Medicaid.
Medicaid-eligible children--like all children who suffer from
potentially terminal illnesses or conditions--need comprehensive,
coordinated care. Currently, nearly 30 percent of the children in the
United States who have life-threatening conditions qualify for
Medicaid. These children are forced into a system that will only treat
them on an emergency basis, sending them home to wait until their next
health emergency.
Based on the highly effective, collaborative model of care developed
by Children's Hospice International, CHI, the Children's Program of
All-inclusive, Coordinated Care provides each enrolled child an
individualized treatment plan that includes and manages services from
providers across the health care spectrum. ChiPACC's services will
improve upon the often inconsistent care that is currently available to
seriously ill children under Medicaid, doing so at a savings to
taxpayers.
With appropriate comprehensive and coordinated services under
ChiPACC, many emergency episodes can be avoided or anticipated and
managed, such that children receive appropriate care in their homes
instead of in hospitals, and so that even when they require critical
care they can enter the hospital through the front door instead of the
emergency room, significantly reducing health care costs.
Under the traditional Medicaid model, individuals can receive only
``hospice'' services and only after their doctors give them a prognosis
of 6-months to live. Children, however, are much more likely than
adults to go in and out of terminal phases multiple times. No family
should be forced to give up curative care for their, child in order to
receive services that are predicated on accepting that their child has
no more than 6 months to live. ChiPACC addresses this problem by
combining medical and support services currently available in Medicaid
with counseling, respite, and other care that have previously only been
available as hospice services.
____________________
HONORING THE WORK OF RALPH GROSSI
______
HON. LYNN C. WOOLSEY
of california
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend Ralph
Grossi of Marin County, California, who has recently retired as
President of American Farmland Trust (AFT), an organization he co-
founded. During his 23 years at the helm, AFT became the leading
organization in the country focused on conserving farmland and local
food systems while promoting environmental stewardship.
Ralph has made AFT a major force in protecting farmland against
development, especially around the urban edge--a growing crisis that
can effect food availability. About 86 percent of U.S. fruits and
vegetables and 65 percent of dairy products are produced in urban-
influenced areas. Under Ralph's leadership, the American Farmland Trust
has steadfastly fought against destroying our agricultural lands for
roads, malls and housing developments.
AFT has taken a comprehensive approach to further farmland
preservation, providing policy assistance on the state and local level,
and nationally lobbying for reform of agricultural subsidies programs
and increased funding for conservation programs. Recognizing how the
challenge of climate change intersects with farm preservation, AFT
promotes ``buy local'' programs and has joined in the call for energy
efficiency and the increased use of renewables.
Policy models developed and/or promoted by AFT are now used across
the nation, including a ``Right to Farm'' and ``no net loss of
farmland'' ordinances, Agricultural District programs, special tax
credits, mitigation for farmland loss, and, perhaps most widely,
conservation easements, now commonly used by local land trusts.
I can proudly say that Ralph pioneered the AFT amazing farm
preservation tool box in Marin County, in my district. As a member of
four generations in a family dairy and beef business, Ralph was a co-
founder and chairman of Marin Agricultural Land Trust, the first such
agency in the nation to preserve agricultural land by acquiring
easements that enable local ranchers to maintain their land for farm
uses. His years with MALT and the Marin County Farm Bureau, as well as
his time working on the family ranch, shaped his dedication to
protecting this vanishing resource.
MALT's success demonstrated that environmentalists and ranchers
working together can accomplish their mutual goals. ``We tried to
develop a different system for protecting land,'' he said. ``You could
be going along just great for a few years, and then the political
nature of the county changes. We wanted to move away from the political
area . . . and be fair to land owners.'' Protecting this land ensures
our nation's food supply (``No farms, no food'' is the AFT
catchphrase), while preserving our soil, water, wildlife, and rural
beauty.
Phyllis Faber, who developed the idea for MALT with rancher Ellen
Straus, emphasized Ralph's key role in making the concept work. ``He
was so respected by the ranchers,'' she says. ``By becoming the first
Chair, he secured their interest and support. Ralph was the spark.''
Ralph's grandparents emigrated from Switzerland and began ranching in
1896. His father James, one of eleven children, continued the family
tradition, as did many of his siblings, establishing the family ranch
in 1917. James and his wife Rose, also from a Swiss family, had four
children, who learned the business at a young age. Ralph described
following his dad around from the age of four or five, then ``when we
were about seven or eight years old, we got our first chores to do,
feeding some calves or taking care of some small livestock.''
Ralph later graduated from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, with a degree
in agriculture. He continued working on the family ranch and developed
the first methane digester West of the Mississippi, becoming an early
innovator in converting cow manure into power. Along the way he married
college sweetheart Judy Lamb, and the couple has three daughters Amy
(married to Brian Carr), Erin, and Katie.
Madam Speaker, although Ralph Grossi will be returning with Judy to
the hills and meadows of Marin County to focus on the family's
Marindale Ranch, he will continue to champion the cause of farmland
preservation. Ralph led the way for so many of us and has been a
partner to me in these efforts. I know we will
[[Page 19562]]
continue to work together to ensure that we protect the lands that are
the backbone of this country. I wish Ralph and Judy and their family
the very best.
____________________
HONORING MS. LILLIAN PERRY
______
HON. BILL FOSTER
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. FOSTER. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Ms. Lillian Perry, a
dedicated public servant in my home district.
Ms. Lillian has been a resident of the area since the 1950s, when she
made a move from the state of Georgia to establish roots in Aurora,
Illinois. She has spent her life taking up the causes of civil rights,
integration, and equality.
As an active member of the community, she has volunteered for various
organizations, including Blacks in Politics, the Aurora Youth Job
Program, and the Citizens for Neighborhood Improvement Program.
This work above is not the extent of her involvement in the
community. Ms. Lillian was part of an effort to establish the Kane
County Health Department, and she also speaks out on a regular basis
against violence in her community.
Currently, Ms. Lillian serves as a liaison to area communities in the
Office of State Representative Linda Chapa LaVia. In this position she
works with Representative Chapa LaVia's constituents on a daily basis,
and is a strong advocate for their needs.
Her work has not gone unnoticed in the community. She has been the
recipient of awards from various city organizations, and was named a
Women of Distinction by the Aurora YMCA. This summer, her community
selected her as the Grand Marshal of the Aurora Independence Day Parade
to honor her work and achievements.
I join the community in thanking her for her continued work for those
who face adversity, and I look forward to seeing some of the great
things that Ms. Lillian will continue to do for the great people of my
congressional district.
____________________
CONGRATULATING RALPH ``TOM'' BROWNING, TRIS S. CASTLE, ROBERT F.
DELKER, WILLIAM H. WALLACE--INDUCTEES TO THE ARIZONA VETERANS HALL OF
FAME
______
HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ralph
``Tom'' Browning, Tris S. Castle, Robert F. Delker, and William H.
Wallace, the Class of 2008 inductees to the Arizona Veterans Hall of
Fame. As veterans, these citizens have bravely served our country and
their selfless efforts deserve considerable recognition.
The Arizona Veterans Hall of Fame Society is committed to promoting
camaraderie among those who have served and continue to serve the state
of Arizona and our country. Its message of perpetuating service and
patriotism through recognition is inspirational to the entire
community. These individuals have been selected for this prestigious
honor by the Office of Governor Janet Napolitano as well as the Arizona
Department of Veterans' Services.
These Arizona residents were selected to be part of the Arizona
Veterans Hall of Fame not just because they honorably served our
country, but because they have continued their commitment to the idea
of selfless service throughout their lives.
I commend the Arizona Veterans Hall of Fame Society for awarding such
deserving citizens. These four people truly exemplify the courage and
patriotism that we as Americans value so highly. As members of Hall of
Fame Society, I am sure these veterans will continue to serve and
inspire future generations.
Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing Ralph Browning, Tris
Castle, Robert Delker, and William Wallace's continued service to the
community.
____________________
RECOGNIZING DR. ALBERT L. LORENZO
______
HON. SANDER M. LEVIN
of michigan
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Albert L.
Lorenzo, as he retires from the presidency of Macomb Community College
after nearly 30 years of devoted and talented service. It has been a
distinct honor working with Al Lorenzo throughout the years. I have
come to know him as an active and passionate advocate for the education
system, economic development, Macomb County and the State of Michigan.
Al Lorenzo became Macomb County Community College president in July
1979. Macomb Community College provides educational services to more
than 59,000 students annually and is the largest grantor of associate's
degrees in Michigan. MCC is also a leader in workforce training,
school-to-work programs and continuing education programs that support
the needs of the community. Al Lorenzo helped to create the University
Center on Macomb Community College's Center Campus, which facilitates
partnerships with institutions of higher education in offering bachelor
level course work. He wrote about that experience, ``The University
Center: A Collaborative Approach to Baccalaureate Degrees'' in The
Community College Baccalaureate; Emerging Trends and Policy Issues.
I have had the pleasure of working with Al Lorenzo on key projects to
try and advance educational opportunities for Macomb County residents.
In 2006, Al Lorenzo served as a member of Governor Jennifer Granholm's
Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth in Macomb County.
The Commission held a series of public hearings across the county to
better understand the area's higher education needs. Its
recommendations include stepped-up involvement of Oakland and Wayne
State Universities in meeting the county's immediate need for better
access to degree programs and support services and authority for Macomb
Community College to award bachelor's degrees in specific technical
fields. In its report, the Commission stressed that these and other
steps should be consistent with the goal of creating a 4-year
university in Macomb County.
Since that Commission report, Al Lorenzo has worked to increase the
involvement of Oakland University and Wayne State University. In 2007,
Al Lorenzo led the effort, partnering with Federal, State and county
officials, to bring a branch of Michigan State University's Osteopathic
College to Macomb's campus, the first of its kind in the Metro Detroit
area.
In addition to his longtime commitment to Macomb Community College,
Al Lorenzo has been an integral member of the community. Active on
several corporate boards throughout his career, he currently serves on
the boards of the Michigan Education Trust and Citizens State Bank, and
chairs the board of Henry Ford Macomb Hospitals. He has been appointed
by three Michigan Governors to state policy commissions and asked to
serve on numerous national advisory committees. His work has been
recognized through 12 major leadership awards and 2 Honorary Doctoral
degrees.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the
achievements of Al Lorenzo, thanking him for his devoted service and
wishing him the best in his retirement. I am confident he will continue
to play a role in the area of education, in addition to enjoying a bit
of retirement with his wife Katherine and large family.
____________________
HONORING THE CITY OF FAMAGUSTA, REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS
______
HON. JOHN P. SARBANES
of maryland
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a
city that once represented all that is good about Democracy and free
enterprise, of a city that was a vibrant cultural and economic center
and of a city that has been rendered a ghost town by an unlawful
military occupation.
The city of Famagusta is located in the outer rim of Europe on the
island Republic of Cyprus. Before Turkey's 1974 illegal invasion and
occupation of the Republic of Cyprus, Famagusta showcased the successes
of the newly independent Republic.
Famagusta led the development of the nascent Republic's economy and
was known to the world as a great entertainment and tourist
destination. The city housed 50 percent of Cyprus's touristic
accommodations and also served as Cyprus's principal port, handling
over 80 percent of the country's general cargo, and nearly 50 percent
of the total passenger traffic to and from the island.
In 1974, 60,000 Cypriots called Famagusta home, and another 15,000
made their living working in the city. During the summer months
[[Page 19563]]
European holidaymakers swelled the population to more than 100,000.
The vitality and good fortune of Famagusta ended when the Turkish
military subjected it to intense aerial bombardment. In the face of the
Turkish air force and invading army, the Greek-speaking Cypriot
population evacuated the city.
The Turkish military sealed off the Varosha section of the city and
has forbidden the entry of human life there for 34 years. Varosha lays
frozen in time with the shelves of its department stores stocked with
the wares of the 1970s, the hotel's breakfast tables are set for the
tourist who never arrived and the roads and buildings are overrun by
brush and vermin.
The decline of this once proud and vibrant city has been catalogued
by its inclusion on the World Monuments Fund's 2008 Watch List of the
100 Most Endangered Sites in the world.
The Turkish military's continued occupation of the city and exclusion
of its lawful inhabitants has been condemned by United Nations Security
Council Resolution 550/1984 that calls for the transfer of the
occupied, but uninhabited city of Famagusta to the United Nations for
the orderly resettlement of the city by its rightful inhabitants.
Following Turkey's illegal invasion and occupation of Cyprus,
Congress enacted 22 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2373(a)(5), which sets forth the
requirement that United States foreign policy support the United
Nations Secretary General's efforts to resettle the occupied, but
uninhabited city of Famagusta by its rightful inhabitants.
Once again this June 2, 2008, the Report of the Secretary General on
the United Nations Operation in Cyprus holds the Government of Turkey
responsible for the failure to hand over Famagusta for resettlement by
its rightful inhabitants.
It is on this Remembrance Day of Famagusta that I tell my fellow
members of the House that it is high time for Turkey to end its
senseless and cruel occupation, and allow the people of this fine city
to return to their homes so that they may rebuild and restore her faded
glory for the benefit of all Cypriots.
____________________
CONGRATULATING NEA CHAIRMAN DANA GIOIA
______
HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
of minnesota
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
congratulate Dana Gioia on his accomplished tenure as the Chairman of
the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has been significantly
strengthened under his leadership, which he has recently announced will
end in January when he steps down to focus on his writing.
When Mr. Gioia took the reins of the NEA in 2003, federal support for
the arts had been badly damaged by decades of partisan feuds. The NEA
budget had been cut in half, and many were questioning the long-term
viability of the organization. Today, NEA funding has nearly doubled
from its 1990s lows and the agency is expanding its efforts. For this,
Mr. Gioia deserves much of the credit.
Mr. Gioia's impressive leadership skills helped build bipartisan
support for the NEA. He understands the importance of listening to
different groups, from artists to politicians to average citizens, and
has the savvy to address their needs in creative ways.
One of his first initiatives was Shakespeare in American Communities,
a program that brings professional theater companies into schools
across the nation. This program has employed nearly 2,000 actors and
introduced more than 1 million students to theater. The NEA also
launched Operation Homecoming under his leadership, which sends writers
to military bases to work with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Mr. Gioia ensured that every congressional district had an
opportunity to earn an NEA grant--a move that brought the arts to many
new communities and demonstrated to Congress how the NEA's work touches
every corner of the country.
As a member of the Congressional Arts Caucus and the National Council
on the Arts, I am grateful for Mr. Gioia's leadership. When his tenure
at the NEA ends early next year, he will leave behind an organization
that is much stronger than it was when he arrived in 2003. I urge my
colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Gioia on his leadership and
his tremendous contributions to the arts.
____________________
TRIBUTE TO AUCLAIR'S MARKET IN SOMERSET, MASSACHUSETTS
______
HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN
of massachusetts
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Auclair's
Market in Somerset, MA, which is celebrating its 90th anniversary this
week. The celebration also include a well-deserved ``Happy 90th
Birthday'' to Fernand C.E. Auclair, whose father Francis started the
business in 1918.
For all those years, Auclair's Market has combined the highest-
quality food with excellent customer service. In an era when giant
chain stores dominate the marketplace, Auclair's has remained steadfast
in its dedication to the Greater Fall River area.
Things have certainly changed since the store first opened on
Brightman Street in Fall River. At that time, meats were presented on
cold marble slabs and the market's doors were left open in the winter
to help preserve the food. Today, the store provides its customers with
all the modem conveniences and several of its own specialties. Let me
assure you, Madame Speaker, you haven't truly lived until you've
grilled a steak with Auclair's Steakhouse marinade.
What hasn't changed is the Auclair family's commitment to the
community. As Denis Auclair, third-generation owner recently told the
Fall River Herald-News, ``We can say it's our business, but it's our
customers' store. Without them, we're nothing.''
Madam Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues in the House to join me in
congratulating Auclair s Market on their 90th Anniversary and wishing
Fernand C.E. Auclair a very happy 90th birthday.
____________________
HONORING HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES WEEK
______
HON. DANNY K. DAVIS
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate National Historically Black
Colleges and Universities week, designated as September 7-13, 2008. It
is a pleasure to recognize Historically Black Colleges and
Universities--or HBCUs--and their successes in educating many of the
nation's African American undergraduate and graduate students.
There are over 100 HBCUs, and they provide a key pathway for African
Americans and other minorities to take part in higher education.
Although HBCUs represent only about 2.4 percent of higher education
institutions, they enroll almost 12 percent of African American
students who attend college. These institutions offer degrees at
various levels across many subject areas. They play a critical role in
educating black students in the fields of science and engineering.
Indeed, 2004 data demonstrate that, of degrees earned by African
American students, HBCUs conferred 20 percent degrees in engineering,
39 percent in the physical sciences, 26 percent in computer science, 37
percent in mathematics, 36 percent in the biological sciences, 47
percent in agricultural sciences, 16 percent in social sciences, and 21
percent in psychology. This success is especially impressive given the
historical financial discrimination these institutions endured from
Federal and State governments.
It was an HBCU that started me on my path to become the person that I
am today. Growing up in rural Arkansas, my parents were low-income
sharecroppers, who raised ten children. Seven of us attended the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, which was then called Arkansas
AM&N College. Subsequently, three of my nephews, a niece, as well as
several of my cousins attended the same college. If it were not for the
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, I strongly believe that my family
members and I would not have been able to attend college. Many African
American members of Congress and many of our nation's leaders have
attended HBCUs--Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jesse Jackson, Sr., Alcee Hastings,
Dr. Martin Luther King, W.E.B. Du Bois, and Thurgood Marshall, just to
name a few.
The continued support and funding of HBCUs is essential to create
more opportunities for people of color to thrive in education and
become leaders of tomorrow. To this end, I advocated actively on their
behalf during the recent reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
Today more than ever, professional success is linked with a higher
education degree. I am pleased that the 110th Congress has demonstrated
a commitment to strengthening HBCUs and other minority-serving
institutions. HBCUs serve large populations of students
[[Page 19564]]
with great financial and academic needs and deserve continued Federal
support to graduate men and women of color. In honor of the 2008 HBCU
week, I recognize HBCUs for their rich heritage, history, and culture
and for the opportunities they provide to students to learn, grow, and
succeed, regardless of race, ethnicity, or income.
____________________
INTRODUCTION OF NATIONAL CYBERSECURITY AWARENESS MONTH RESOLUTION
______
HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN
of rhode island
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of National Cybersecurity
Awareness Month.
Each year, the National Cyber Security Division (NCSD) of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) joins with the National Cyber
Security Alliance (NCSA), the Multi-State Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (MS-ISAC) and other partners to support National Cyber
Security Awareness Month. The goal of National Cyber Security Awareness
Month is to show everyday Internet users that by taking simple steps,
they can safeguard themselves from the latest online threats and
respond to potential cyber-crime incidents.
It would be dangerous to believe, however, that simple steps by end
users will sufficiently combat the larger threats associated with a
growing networked society. As Chairman of the Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and
Technology, I have held eight hearings in the 110th Congress on our
nation's cybersecurity posture and the various vulnerabilities in our
critical information infrastructure. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities can
significantly impact our national and economic security. This issue has
been largely ignored and misunderstood for too long. The oversight that
the Homeland Security Committee is undertaking will help change that,
but much work remains to be done.
I thank my colleagues for cosponsoring this resolution, and look
forward to working with them on these critical issues in the future.
____________________
SUPPORTING PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' BENEFIT
PROGRAM
______
HON. DONALD A. MANZULLO
of illinois
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Department of
Justice for recently proposed regulations relating to the Public Safety
Officers' Benefit Program. The program provides death benefits for the
survivors of public safety officers who die in the line of duty; and
disability benefits to those officers who have been permanently and
totally disabled by a catastrophic personal injury sustained in the
line of duty, and thereby prevented from performing any gainful work;
and also educational assistance benefits for surviving family members.
Among other things, these proposed regulations will help to shore up
the program against fraud and abuse by clarifying the requirements for
certifications and their effect. I strongly support the mission of the
Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program, and I commend the Department
of Justice for keeping the regulations up to date and for taking action
to ensure that the funds available go to those public safety officers
(and their survivors) that deserve them. I would like to take a moment
to comment on the statutory predicate for some of these regulations.
As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recognized, Public Law 94-430
creates a ``limited program,'' whose principal purpose is to help
ensure that the families of ``public'' officers be protected from
financial calamity that is likely to result from the death or permanent
and total disability, in the line of duty, of the primary money-maker.
The statute (including the two parallel 2001 benefits statutes, which
do not, strictly speaking, amend the Public Law or directly affect the
precise program it creates) enshrines various and competing policy
considerations and purposes that it proposes to achieve by particular
means that have been worked out, over the last 30 years and more, in
the legislative process. Because no law pursues its ends at all costs,
the limitations expressly or implicitly contained in its text and
structure are no less an articulation of its purposes (and the intent,
goals, and policies that inform it), than its substantive grants of
authority are. Benefits under these statutes--charges on the public
fisc--are to be granted fairly, but not speculatively, or beyond what
the statutory language unequivocally requires and unequivocally
expresses, or beyond the letter of the difficult judgments reached in
the legislative process and clearly reflected in the statutory text. It
is precisely to enable the Department to balance and harmonize these
various considerations into a single workable and coherent program that
the law confers extraordinary administrative and interpretive authority
on the Department. For example, at least seven distinct statutory
provisions--42 U.S.C. 3796c(a) (twice), 3796(a) & (b), 3796d-3(a) &
(b), 3782(a)--expressly authorize the Department to issue program
regulations and policies here, and the law expressly provides that
those regulations and policies are determinative of conflict of law
issues relating to the program, and that responsibility for making
final determinations shall rest with the Department. Under the Public
Law (as under the parallel 2001 statutes), the very right to a death or
disability benefit, which the Supreme Court correctly has recognized as
a legal ``gratuity'' (and thus not ``remedial'' in nature), is not
freestanding, but contingent, rather, upon a determination by the
Department.
When Public Law 94-430 was enacted in 1976, only the Circuit Courts
or the old Court of Claims (of similar rank) heard appeals from final
rulings of the Department of Justice thereunder, which meant that only
one level of judicial review ordinarily was available to claimants and
the Department, alike. In 1982 (when the appellate functions of the
Court of Claims generally were merged into the newly-created Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit), jurisdiction over these appeals--
apparently as a result of an oversight--was not transferred to the
Federal Circuit, and thus (unlike the case with other administrative
appeals, see, e.g., 28 U.S.C. 1295, 1296), by default, lay in what is
now the Court of Federal Claims, established under Article I of the
Constitution, rather than Article III, with an additional level of
appeals available in the Federal Circuit. Although there are notable
and distinguished exceptions, over the past decade or so, many of the
Federal Claims Court's rulings on these appeals applied the law
incorrectly, sometimes disregarding the express terms of the relevant
statute or implementing regulations, or binding and applicable Federal
Circuit/Court of Claims precedent, and even Supreme Court precedent. To
order the administering agency to pay on a claim when payment is not
clearly warranted by the programmatic statutes and their implementing
regulations and administrative interpretive superstructure is as much
an affront to the law as for the agency not to pay when payment is
clearly required by those statutes and regulations.
Overall, the 16 opinions issued to date by the Federal Circuit (and
its predecessor) under the statute indicate a proper understanding of
the law and the application of the Chevron doctrine to the Department's
determinations. (All but two of these opinions were affirmances of the
administering agency; in Demutiis, the agency was affirmed on all
points but a very minor one (relating to application of a (now-
repealed) regulation), and the 1980 holding in Harold, which reversed
the Department's determination, itself soon thereafter was rendered
moot, as a practical matter, by a statutory amendment consonant with
the Department's position.) For these reasons, the corrective proviso
in the consolidated appropriations legislation, entrusting judicial
appeals under Public Law 94-430 (and the two 2001 statutes) exclusively
to the Federal Circuit (and returning to a single level of judicial
review, as originally intended) should further the purposes of the
program, reduce litigation costs for claimants and the taxpayers, and
serve the interests of justice.
____________________
RECOGNIZING JOSEPH STALNAKER AND THE PAWS WITH A CAUSE ORGANIZATION
______
HON. HARRY E. MITCHELL
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Joseph
Stalnaker and the Paws with a Cause organization. On the morning of
Wednesday, September 13, 2008, Mr. Stalnaker suffered a seizure as a
result of an injury he received while serving in the U.S. military.
While Mr. Stalnaker was unable to help himself, his trained service
dog, Buddy, managed to place the 911 call that saved his life. He had
adopted Buddy from Paws with a Cause a year earlier.
The Paws with a Cause organization trains seeing eye and service dogs
to be placed for
[[Page 19565]]
adoption by people with disabilities. They are the nation's largest
non-profit group providing service dogs trained especially to handle
people with seizure-related disorders. Their goal is to not only assist
people with serious disabilities, but to encourage them to be able to
live independently. Paws with a Cause purveys a message of awareness
through education, and provides service dogs to its clients free of
charge.
Through these advocacy programs, people with disabilities like Joseph
Stalnaker, who bravely served our country, are able to live
independently. The Paws with a Cause program tirelessly serves the
community, providing both aid to those with disabilities, and providing
homes to many dogs that would not otherwise have these opportunities.
Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the Paws with a Cause
organization and one of its fortunate beneficiaries, Joseph Stalnaker.
____________________
SUNSET MEMORIAL
______
HON. TRENT FRANKS
of arizona
in the house of representatives
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I stand once again before this
House with yet another Sunset Memorial.
It is September 17, 2008 in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, and before the sun set today in America, almost 4,000
defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on demand. That's
just today, Madam Speaker. That's more than the number of innocent
lives lost on September 11 in this country, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 13,022 days since the tragedy called Roe v.
Wade was first handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of its own
children. Some of them Madam Speaker, cried and screamed as they died,
but because it was amniotic fluid passing over the vocal cords instead
of air, we couldn't hear them.
All of them had at least four things in common. First, they were each
just little babies who had done nothing wrong to anyone, and each one
of them died a nameless and lonely death. And each one of their
mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never be quite the same.
And all the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity
are now lost forever. Yet even in the glare of such tragedy, this
generation still clings to a blind, invincible ignorance while history
repeats itself and our own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the
most helpless of all victims, those yet unborn.
Madam Speaker, perhaps it's time for those of us in this Chamber to
remind ourselves of why we are really all here. Thomas Jefferson said,
``The care of human life and its happiness and not its destruction is
the chief and only object of good government.'' The phrase in the 14th
Amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It says, ``No State shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of
law.'' Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here.
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the clarion declaration of
the self-evident truth that all human beings are created equal and
endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. Every conflict and battle our Nation has
ever faced can be traced to our commitment to this core, self-evident
truth.
It has made us the beacon of hope for the entire world. Madam
Speaker, it is who we are.
And yet today another day has passed, and we in this body have failed
again to honor that foundational commitment. We have failed our sworn
oath and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly
4,000 more innocent American babies who died today without the
protection we should have given them.
So Madam Speaker, let me conclude this Sunset Memorial in the hope
that perhaps someone new who heard it tonight will finally embrace the
truth that abortion really does kill little babies; that it hurts
mothers in ways that we can never express; and that 13,022 days spent
killing nearly 50 million unborn children in America is enough; and
that it is time that we stood up together again, and remembered that we
are the same America that rejected human slavery and marched into
Europe to arrest the Nazi Holocaust; and we are still courageous and
compassionate enough to find a better way for mothers and their unborn
babies than abortion on demand.
Madam Speaker, as we consider the plight of unborn America tonight,
may we each remind ourselves that our own days in this sunshine of life
are also numbered and that all too soon each one of us will walk from
these Chambers for the very last time.
And if it should be that this Congress is allowed to convene on yet
another day to come, may that be the day when we finally hear the cries
of innocent unborn children. May that be the day when we find the
humanity, the courage, and the will to embrace together our human and
our constitutional duty to protect these, the least of our tiny, little
American brothers and sisters from this murderous scourge upon our
Nation called abortion on demand.
It is September 17, 2008, 13,022 days since Roe versus Wade first
stained the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own
children; this in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
____________________