Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2 - Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 for February 14, 2008

[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 2]
[Issue]
[Pages 2172-2337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

[[Page 2172]]

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Thursday, February 14, 2008

The House met at 10 a.m.
Monsignor Richard W. O'Keeffe, Immaculate Conception Church, Yuma,
Arizona offered the following prayer:
Ditat Deus, God Enriches. Those magnificent words are found on the
seal of the State of Arizona as we celebrate today our 96th birthday as
entering into the States of the United States. And so this morning we
thank God for all those enriched graces that He has given to each and
every one of us.
As we pray here this morning, we ask the Lord of all our endeavors to
give our elected Congress men and women the courage to follow noble
aspirations, strength to support worthy causes, integrity to seek the
truth, and in all of their legislative duties, be their inspiration and
guide.
Lord, You remember forever Your covenant with us. Even though it was
centuries ago that You formed a community of family life with us, still
You remain continually faithful. Enable us by Your merciful help to
keep faith with You, to renew our covenant at important or difficult
moments of our life so that at the end we may receive the promise of
the covenant.
Lord, to those who believe in You, You promise kindness and truth,
justice and peace. When we are faced with difficulties, increase our
faith, but do not lower our ideals. From the least likely places You
can bring forth the triumph of Your grace. These things we ask in Your
name. Amen.

____________________

THE JOURNAL

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

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Will the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) come forward and lead the House in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Mr. BLUMENAUER 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 MONSIGNOR RICHARD O'KEEFFE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is recognized for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to welcome Monsignor O'Keeffe as our guest chaplain
today.
Monsignor O'Keeffe has been tending to the spiritual and human needs
of people in Arizona for over 40 years, of which the last 30 has been
in Yuma, Arizona. It is fitting that he provides today's blessing, as
we also memorialize the passing of Congressman Lantos, a great champion
of human rights.
Monsignor O'Keeffe is highly respected in Yuma and all of Arizona for
the work he does on behalf of human rights, civil rights and advocating
for the underrepresented in our community.
He is an active member of the community, encouraging community
leaders to take responsibility for social justice, recruiting young and
old to engage in civic participation. His experience and passion has
led him to be a founder of the Yuma Interfaith Organizing Committee.
I am honored to work with him and receive spiritual and community
guidance from him. He is a source of strength for all of us who
interact with him.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome my friend Monsignor O'Keeffe to the House of
Representatives.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

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

____________________

GO TIGERS, GO

(Mrs. BLACKBURN asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I know today we're going to talk a lot
about FISA, but before we do I want to rise to commend the University
of Memphis men's basketball team on an outstanding season. So far the
Tigers have amassed 24 wins, no losses, earning them the top national
ranking in college basketball.
Thanks to the enthusiastic support of the Memphis Tiger fans, and
especially the ``Blue Crew,'' the Tigers hold the Nation's longest home
court winning streak, 47 wins in a row.
ESPN has called them and their coach, John Calipari, relentless and
unselfish.
I applaud the Tiger basketball team for setting an example of
teamwork and tenacity that all teams, individuals and even this
Congress would do well to follow.
On behalf of the people of the great City of Memphis and the great
State of Tennessee, I congratulate the Tigers, and I wish them luck on
the remainder of the season.
Thank you for making us proud.

____________________

PRESIDENT BUSH'S BUDGET TARGETS PUBLIC BROADCASTING AGAIN

(Mr. BLUMENAUER asked and was given permission to address the House
for 1 minute.)
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, it's a new year and again the Bush budget
targets public broadcasting. Year after year, they've attempted to chop
away at that investment. Year after year Congress rejects it.
This year it is a $420 million reduction, including $200 million
that's already been allocated for this year. This assault on public
broadcasting is not just undermining the digital conversion, the
education and public affairs that we have grown to rely on, it's a
direct assault at small-town and rural America where it's more
expensive to reach and they don't have the donor base to provide it for
themselves.
The irony is that San Francisco, New York, Washington and, dare I
say, Portland, Oregon will always have public broadcasting. But if this
Bush budget is adopted, it's going to decimate public broadcasting in
rural and small-town America.
Please join the over 110 members of the bipartisan Public
Broadcasting Caucus to again reject this assault on public
broadcasting.

____________________

PROTECT AMERICA ACT

(Ms. GRANGER asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, once again the Protect America Act is set
to expire. If the bipartisan Senate FISA bill is not passed in time,
our intelligence agency will be blinded to our enemies' plans and
required to consult a lawyer before eavesdropping on foreign
terrorists.
The House should immediately pass the Senate's bipartisan bill which

[[Page 2173]]

passed the Senate by a 68-29 vote. Our intelligence community needs a
long-term fix in our intelligence laws, not a month-to-month extension.
More importantly, the Senate FISA bill grants liability protection to
telecommunications companies that helped the government after September
11. Allowing these companies to be subjected to frivolous lawsuits
threatens their cooperation in the future. This could have a crippling
effect on America's counterterrorism efforts.
Yesterday, the Democrat majority chose partisan politics in the face
of a strong bipartisan solution that directly determines the fate of
our intelligence gathering abilities, and the House Democrat leadership
failed. The American people have asked for solutions, not political
grandstanding.
We should take up the bipartisan Senate FISA bill immediately. This
cannot wait until we return from the President's Day recess.

____________________

GUN VIOLENCE

(Mr. RUSH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to speak on what I call
``The Daily 45.''
The Department of Justice reports that on average, every day here in
America, 45 people are shot and killed in a fit of revenge, robbery or
troubled relationships. These are more than our soldiers who are killed
in Iraq and Afghanistan each and every day.
Today I reflect on a story that has captured the hearts and the minds
of Chicago area residents. On Saturday, February 2, the day began like
any other day for 6 unsuspecting women. Five of these women, customers
and workers at a Lane Bryant clothing store in the southwest suburbs of
Chicago, were heartlessly murdered during an apparent midday botched
robbery attempt by an assailant wielding a gun.
37-year-old Connie Woolfolk, 42-year-old Rhoda McFarland, 22-year-old
Sarah Szafranski, 33-year-old Carrie Hudek Chiuso, and 34-year-old
Jennifer Bishop should not be forgotten. Neither should we forget the
sixth woman who was shot in the neck, but survived.
When will America say, ``Enough is enough''? Stop the killings.

____________________

FISA

(Mr. HOEKSTRA asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute.)
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, what is it that my friends on the other
side don't understand about the threat that faces our country today?
Have they not seen the reports coming from Iraq where al Qaeda in Iraq
has now stated that their objective is to use Iraq to launch attacks
against Jerusalem and Israel? Have they not read the reports today
about a radical Islamist plot to perhaps assassinate the President of
the Philippines? Have they not read about the attacks or the arrests in
Denmark of radical Islamists perhaps planning an attack in Denmark?
What is it that you don't understand about the nature of the threat,
that this is a global threat that wants to defeat us in Iraq, that
wants to destabilize modern Islamic regimes, wants to eliminate the
State of Israel, establish the caliphate and reach for the brass ring,
which is to attack the United States? Why are you unwilling to put the
Senate FISA bill on the floor and give the intelligence community the
tools that they need to keep America safe?

____________________

HEALTHY HOSPITALS ACT

(Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to
address the House for 1 minute.)
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, here's today's grisly
toll. 235,626 cases, 11,661 deaths, and a cost of $5.89 billion. What
I'm talking about here are the number of people who obtain and die and
the overall cost of infections in our hospitals every year, from MRSA,
from pneumonia and other infections. It is time that Congress got
serious about this.
In the last 3 years since I've first introduced this bill, 90,000
people have died each year from infections they pick up at hospitals.
It is time we pass the Healthy Hospitals Act, H.R. 1174, and work to
make sure our hospitals are safer.

____________________

THE LAWLESSNESS SOUTH OF THE BORDER

(Mr. POE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, Americans are under vicious attack in Mexico.
The new threat comes from south of the border in the form of organized
and violent Mexican kidnappers.
Last year, 26 San Diego, California residents were kidnapped and held
for ransom while traveling to Mexico. Numerous Mexican nationals also
were kidnapped. Some victims were murdered. Only a few of the people
kidnapped were ever rescued. They reported that they were beaten,
tortured and sexually assaulted.
The FBI says that these sophisticated kidnappers are growing in
number. The State Department has even issued a travel alert for U.S.
citizens living and traveling in Mexico. This new form of terrorism is
very disturbing.
While President Calderon is here in the United States lobbying for
illegal immigrants to get amnesty, Mexican and U.S. citizens are being
victimized in his home country. President Calderon would do well to
stay home in lawless Mexico, get his house in order and protect the
rights of hundreds of his own people and the U.S. citizens who are
being abducted and held for ransom by these outlaws.
And that's just the way it is.

____________________

{time} 1015
IMPERATIVE FISA RENEWAL

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to address the House for
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan Protect America Act, a
critical anti-terrorist law that closes loopholes in our intelligence
laws and protects civil liberties is, once again, about to expire. The
House must act today on this critical piece of legislation, which
passed the Senate by 68-29. If this Senate bill is not passed in time,
our intelligence agencies will be blinded to our enemies' plans and
required to consult a lawyer before eavesdropping on foreign
terrorists.
Democrats have had more than 6 months to make the Protect America Act
permanent and provide immunity to telecommunications firms that
assisted our government and performed their patriotic duty after 9/11.
The time for indecision and second-guessing is over. The time to get
this important legislation passed into law is today.
House Democrats should pass the Senate bill and get it to the
President, again, today.

____________________

THE NEED FOR A PERMANENT FISA BILL

(Mr. KLINE of Minnesota asked and was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, al Qaeda and their terrorist
allies are America's number one enemy. We all know that. They are
constantly updating the way they communicate and dodge our intelligence
networks. We should be doing nothing short of providing our
intelligence officials with every tool necessary to always stay a step
ahead of these radical extremists.
Admiral Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, when
asked about the Protect America Act, said this, ``We must be able to
continue effectively obtaining the information gained through this law
if we are to stay ahead of terrorists who are determined to attack the
United States.''
House Republicans have led the way in delivering 21st century
intelligence collection to protect our citizens. The law now gives
enforcement the tools and flexibility needed to quickly respond to
terrorist threats because

[[Page 2174]]

House Republicans acted to close a dangerous loophole in an outdated
intelligence law. But the law is threatened today by the House Democrat
majority who are more interested in getting it for partisan reasons
than to provide this country and our allies abroad the protection
necessary as we continue to fight terrorism.
A short-term extension is not enough. We need a permanent fix now.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER AND HON. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN TO ACT AS
SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
THROUGH FEBRUARY 25, 2008

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

Washington, DC,

February 14, 2008.
I hereby appoint the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer and the
Honorable Chris Van Hollen to act as Speaker pro tempore to
sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions through February
25, 2008.
Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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

____________________

RECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12(a) of rule I, the
Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
Accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 18 minutes a.m.), the House stood in
recess subject to the call of the Chair.

____________________

{time} 1105
AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the
Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher) at 11 o'clock and 5 minutes a.m.

____________________

MOTION TO ADJOURN

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to adjourn.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 2, nays
390, not voting 36, as follows:

[Roll No. 58]

YEAS--2

Barton (TX)
Johnson (IL)

NAYS--390

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

NOT VOTING--36

Ackerman
Berkley
Brown, Corrine
Cardoza
Davis (IL)
Dingell
Doyle
Engel
Garrett (NJ)
Honda
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jones (OH)
Lowey
Lucas
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Moore (KS)
Moran (VA)
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Renzi
Rohrabacher
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sestak
Shays
Shimkus
Simpson
Solis
Tierney
Towns
Watson
Wilson (NM)
Wittman (VA)
Wynn

{time} 1157

Messrs. RAHALL, MILLER of Florida, OBERSTAR, and FRANK of
Massachusetts changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 58, I was with my six-
year-old daughter, Alex, at the hospital. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 58 on the motion
to adjourn, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''

____________________

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

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

[[Page 2175]]

H.R. 5270. An act to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

The message also announced that pursuant to section 5 of title I of
division H of Public Law 110-161, the Chair, on behalf of the Vice
President, appoints the following Senator as Chairman of the U.S.-Japan
Interparliamentary Group conference for the One Hundred Tenth Congress:
The Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens).

____________________

PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF H. RES. 979, RECOMMENDING THAT HARRIET MIERS
AND JOSHUA BOLTEN BE FOUND IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, AND ADOPTION OF H.
RES. 980, AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY TO INITIATE OR
INTERVENE IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TO ENFORCE CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 982 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

Resolved, That House Resolution 979 and House Resolution
980 are hereby adopted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln
Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.

General Leave

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H. Res. 982 provides that upon its adoption, House
Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 are hereby adopted.
House Resolution 979 recommends that the House of Representatives
find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten, the White House Chief of Staff,
in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas duly
issued by the Judiciary Committee.

{time} 1200

House Resolution 980 authorizes the Judiciary Committee to initiate
or to intervene in any judicial proceedings to enforce certain
subpoenas.
Madam Speaker, I've had so many requests for time that I will cut my
own time short. I simply want to give some reasons why it's important
that we're here today.
In my 21 years in the House, I have known that there were Members who
came to Congress simply hoping that throughout their career they will
always land on the safe square; not wanting to take a vote that might
challenge them in any way, not wanting to take a vote that might
require explanation. Fortunately, this is the safe square today.
What we are doing here today is protecting the Constitution of the
United States of America, which all of us are pleased, when we come
here, to raise our hand and swear so to do. It is critically important
that we protect the powers of the Congress of the United States for
future generations. It would be dreadful if a future President, having
looked back over the recent events, used it as a precedent.
We have a strong case on the merits, is the first point I want to
make. The administration's assertions of executive privilege are weak,
excessively broad, and unprecedented. We win the executive privilege
argument both on legal grounds and our compelling need for requested
information.
Aside from prevailing on the merits of the executive privilege
dispute, enforcing our subpoenas is part and parcel of our current
ability to perform effective oversight. If we accept the White House
stonewalling in this instance, the House, in the future, will not be
able to conduct its oversight. And every future President can view
Congress, not as a coequal branch of this government, but as
subordinate to the executive.
The enforcement of the subpoenas in this investigation seeks to
strengthen, rather than weaken, the House's prerogatives by
demonstrating that we are serious about citizens resisting the issuance
of validly authorized congressional subpoenas. If we countenance a
process where subpoenas can be readily ignored, where a witness, under
a duly authorized subpoena, doesn't even bother to appear, where
privilege can be asserted on the thinnest of reeds and the broadest
possible manner, then we have already lost, and we may be in much more
danger than even we believe.
There's ample precedent supporting the House's prerogative to
initiate a civil action. If we pursue this course of action and it
proves to be legally incorrect, then we here in Congress, where the
laws are passed, can take necessary steps to correct that procedure. If
we do not pursue this course of action at all, we, again, have already
lost.
There are some who believe that the court will say that indeed we
have no rights here. If that is the case, if that even should be a
possibility, then I think we have to say that if the Justice Department
has become that politicized and that weak, then we are in worse shape
in this democracy than we know.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would like to
thank the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for the time, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I was in the funeral of our distinguished friend and
colleague, Congressman Lantos, someone whom I admired very, very much
and who was a personal friend. I was standing by the ranking member of
the Rules Committee.
At the time during the funeral, the House was in recess subject to
the call of the Chair under the understanding that we would not come
back into session until after the funeral. And I was most disturbed and
hurt and pained when, even though the funeral was still proceeding and
distinguished guests were speaking, the bells rang that the House was
going back into session and I had to leave.
Because of my obligation today, I have the assignment, as a member of
the Rules Committee, to be here during this rule. I had to leave the
funeral to be here today. It's most unfortunate, and I'm very, very
sorry that the day has begun in that ultimately unfortunate fashion.
Madam Speaker, today the majority proposes that the House consider a
rule that, according to the Parliamentarian, is unprecedented in the
history of this institution. It will prevent any and all debate on two
contempt motions against former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and
White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten.
A contempt resolution is a privileged matter because it directly
concerns the constitutional rights and privileges of the House. Chapter
17, section 2 of House Practice states, ``Such a resolution may be
offered from the floor as privileged, because the privileges of the
House are involved.''
The action of the majority today is most unfortunate. Never before in
the history of this House has a contempt resolution, one of the highest
questions regarding the rights and privileges of this institution, been
treated in such an underhanded manner. If this rule is adopted, there
will be no debate, no vote, and the contempt resolutions will magically
and automatically be hereby adopted when this rule is adopted.
Now, if the majority believes the contempt resolution to be correct,
the just and proper course of action to assert the rights of this
institution would be to debate and vote on the resolution.
The majority leadership is subverting the rights of every Member of
this House, allegedly in order to assert the

[[Page 2176]]

rights of this House. The irony can escape no one. These are the
constitutional rights of this institution that are in question, and not
one Member of this institution is going to be allowed to discuss it or
vote, to have a vote on these resolutions.
The majority's attempt to rush this contempt resolution through the
House will have repercussions that many Members may not be aware of.
And so I urge my colleagues to pay close attention because, by this
action, the House majority risks causing great harm. It risks causing
grave harm and undermining Congress's oversight authority for
generations to come, and here is why.
The administration is claiming executive privilege, and any attempt
to force testimony from the President's former counsel and his Chief of
Staff will be fought by the administration within the courts. This
could very possibly lead to the courts ruling that Congress does not
have civil contempt authority, for example; that the U.S. Attorney, for
example, does not have to prosecute criminal citations against
executive officials or that the President's senior advisors are
absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress. Any of
those rulings would weaken Congress's ability to conduct oversight in
the future, and a weakened Congress means a strengthened executive.
This is not an extreme or farfetched theory, Madam Speaker.
Administrations from both parties have claimed executive privilege for
many decades. The former Attorney General, for example, Janet Reno,
stated, and I quote, ``the President and his immediate advisors are
absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by a congressional
committee, because subjecting a senior Presidential advisor to the
congressional subpoena power would be akin to requiring the President
himself to appear before Congress on matters relating to his
constitutionally assigned functions.''
What the majority is doing today is needlessly tempting a court loss
that could gravely undermine Congress's oversight authority, the very
authority the majority is allegedly seeking to protect. If Congress
loses in the courts, we could forever disable one of our most important
powers, the power of oversight. And for what in return, Madam Speaker?
Harriet Miers is no longer with the administration; Alberto Gonzales is
no longer Attorney General. But the majority, with its action today,
risks quite a bit.
Let's remember, Members will not even get the opportunity to vote on
these resolutions today. And that's not only uncalled for, but
absolutely unprecedented. Members will only be able to vote on this
rule. Once the rule passes, so do the two resolutions and so does the
majority's gamble.
So, back in July, the Judiciary Committee cited both Mr. Bolten and
Ms. Miers for contempt of Congress. Now, here we are, 8 months later,
considering these two contempt resolutions, but not really, just the
rule. By passing the rule, automatically those contempt resolution will
be passed, after an emergency Rules Committee meeting last night.
So the question is, why the rush? For some reason the majority feels
that after 8 months, now this is a pressing issue. But I can think of a
large list of other issues that I feel that Americans would rather we
address; none more than considering the FISA bill that the Senate
approved this week to give the administration the ability to protect
the United States from terrorist attacks.
The tragic events of September 11, 2001, taught us many lessons, and
one of the lessons we learned that day was that our Nation must remain
aggressive in our fight against international terrorism. We must always
stay one step ahead of those who wish to harm America, and now is not
the time to tie the hands of our intelligence community. And the
majority seeks to leave today and go home without addressing this
issue.
The modernization of the foreign intelligence surveillance into the
21st century is a critically important national priority, and I'm
pleased that several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
agree as well.
On January 28, 21 members of the Blue Dog Coalition sent a letter to
the Speaker in support of the Senate FISA legislation. The letter
states, and I quote, ``The Senate FISA Rockefeller-Bond legislation
contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we
would fully support the measure should it reach the House floor without
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong
national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe
and save American lives here at home.''
Madam Speaker, I will insert the letter sent by the Blue Dogs to the
Speaker into the Record.

Dear Madam Speaker: Legislation reforming the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is currently being
considered by the Senate. Following the Senate's passage of a
FISA bill, it will be necessary for the House to quickly
consider FISA legislation to get a bill to the President
before the Protect America Act expires in February.
It is our belief that such legislation should include the
following provisions: Require individualized warrants for
surveillance of U.S. citizens living or traveling abroad;
Clarify that no court order is required to conduct
surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications that are
routed through the United States; Provide enhanced oversight
by Congress of surveillance laws and procedures; Compel
compliance by private sector partners; Review by FISA Court
of minimization procedures; Targeted immunity for carriers
that participated in anti-terrorism surveillance programs.
The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory
language addressing all these issues and we would fully
support that measure should it reach the House floor without
substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a
strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism
across the globe and save American lives here in our country.
It is also critical that we update the FISA laws in a
timely manner. To pass a long-term extension of the Protect
America Act, as some may suggest, would leave in place a
limited, stopgap measure that does not fully address critical
surveillance issues. We have it within our ability to replace
the expiring Protect America Act by passing strong,
bipartisan FISA modernization legislation that can be signed
into law and we should do so--the consequences of not passing
such a measure could place our national security at undue
risk.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell, ------, Mike Ross, Bud Cramer, Heath
Shuler, Allen Boyd, Dan Boren, Jim Matheson, Lincoln
Davis, Tim Holden, Dennis Moore, Earl Pomeroy, Melissa
L. Bean, John Barrow, Joe Baca, John Tanner, Jim
Cooper, Zachary T. Space, Brad Ellsworth, Charlie
Melancon, Christopher P. Carney.

The extension of this important program is set to expire at 11:59
p.m. tomorrow night. After that, our ability to conduct surveillance on
foreign terrorists will be severely hampered. It's time to make our
country safer, and Congress needs to act today. The House should vote
on the Senate measure, and we should do it now, instead of debating
these contempt motions in an unprecedented and uncalled-for fashion.
Today I will give all Members of the House an opportunity to vote on
a bipartisan, long-term modernization of FISA. I call on my colleagues
to join with me in defeating the previous question so that we can
immediately move to concur in the Senate amendment and send the bill to
the President to be signed into law before the current law expires and
our Nation is at greater risk.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Conyers.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I will insert into the Record from
today's New York Times, ``Time To Vote Contempt.''

[From the New York Times, Feb. 14, 2008]

Time To Vote Contempt

Alberto Gonzales may be out, but the country is still
waiting for a full accounting

[[Page 2177]]

of how he and his White House patrons cynically politicized
the Justice Department. Congress is rightly asking questions
about the actions of yet another United States attorney: New
Jersey's Christopher J. Christie. The House also needs to
stop procrastinating and vote to hold witnesses in contempt
for refusing to testify in the wider scandal.
Federal prosecutors must be scrupulously nonpartisan. Mr.
Christie, a Republican activist who got his job despite a
lack of trial and criminal-law experience, has gone up to the
line of acceptable behavior--and possibly crossed it.
He began an investigation of Senator Robert Menendez, a New
Jersey Democrat, late in a hard-fought election campaign. The
charges now appear baseless, but at the time the news
provided a big boost to Mr. Menendez's Republican opponent.
Mr. Christie went against a long Justice Department
presumption against opening investigations or bringing
indictments right before an election, to avoid affecting the
outcome.
There are also questions about Mr. Christie's decision to
award, without competitive bidding, a lucrative contract to
monitor a company accused of consumer fraud. The winner?
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an influential
Republican who was once Mr. Christie's boss. Senate and House
leaders have asked the Government Accountability Office to
investigate.
Some of the people who likely know the most about the role
politics has played in the Bush Justice Department have
defied Congressional subpoenas to testify. Joshua Bolten, the
White House chief of staff, and Harriet Miers, the former
White House counsel, contend that they are protected from
testifying by executive privilege. That is not enough. They
have a legal obligation to appear before Congress and plead
that privilege to specific questions.
The House Judiciary Committee voted in July to hold Mr.
Bolten and Ms. Miers in contempt. The House's Democratic
leadership has been trying to figure out the pros and cons
ever since. The public needs to hear the testimony of these
officials (along with Karl Rove, who is also refusing to
appear), and the full House should vote as quickly as
possible to hold them in contempt.
The House should also approve a resolution authorizing the
Judiciary Committee to go to court to enforce the contempt
citations if the current attorney general, Michael Mukasey,
as expected, refuses to do so.
The stakes are high. There are people in jail today,
including a former governor of Alabama, who have raised
credible charges that they were put there for political
reasons. Congress's constitutionally guaranteed powers are
also at risk. If Congress fails to enforce its own subpoenas,
it would effectively be ceding its subpoena power. It would
also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea of an
imperial president--above the law and beyond the reach of
checks and balances.
The founders did not want that when they wrote the
Constitution, and the voters who elected this Congress do not
want it today.

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the resolution we are considering
today is not steps that I take as chairman easily or lightly. It's been
8 months that we've tried to negotiate, nine letters, but this is what
is necessary to protect the constitutional prerogatives as a coequal
branch of government in this democracy of ours.
I believe the investigation we have been engaged in is an important
one. And it's not about whether the U.S. Attorneys can serve at the
pleasure of the President. They clearly can and do. But it concerns
whether the American people can be assured that their laws are being
fairly and impartially enforced by the United States Department of
Justice. That's why we're here.
In order to pursue this investigation, we've done what committees in
the Congress have traditionally done: We've sought our documents and
testimony initially on a voluntary basis and through compulsory process
only as a last resort. The investigation did not begin with the White
House but has ended up there only after the review of thousands of
pages of documents and obtaining the testimony and interviews of nearly
20 current and former Department of Justice employees.

{time} 1215

We have been open at all times to any reasonable compromise and have
been fully respectful and cognizant of the prerogatives of the
executive branch. As a matter of fact, I have written the White House
counsel on no less than 9 separate occasions, and talked with him
seeking a compromise on this matter.
What I am not open to, as the chairman of Judiciary, is accepting a
take-it-or-leave-it offer which would not allow us access to
information that we need, would not even provide for a transcript, and
would prevent us from seeking any additional information in the future.
That is the only proposal we've ever received from White House counsel,
and so I would hope that all of the Members in this body, as an
institutional matter, recognize the problems inherent in such an
approach.
Now, some may argue that the stakes in this confrontation, and I
think that's what's been suggested already, are so high that we cannot
afford to risk that we might lose. Well, I'd say to them that if we
countenance a process where our subpoenas can be readily ignored, where
a witness under a duly authorized subpoena doesn't even have to bother
to show up or tell us that they're not coming, where privilege can be
asserted on the thinnest of bases and in the broadest possible manner,
then we've already lost.
This is not a matter of vindicating the Judiciary Committee; and if
you're really concerned about Congress' rights, which I think all of us
are, you would contact the White House counsel's office.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes
to the distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Smith of Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
rule.
Yesterday, House Democrats said that Congress does not have enough
time to pass critical FISA modernization legislation to keep America
safe from foreign terrorists. Today, we are wasting Congress' time on
an issue that does nothing to make our Nation safer. Clearly, the
Democratic majority is out of touch with the needs of our intelligence
community and is placing Americans' lives at risk.
On the eve of the expiration of critical intelligence legislation,
the House Democratic majority has chosen to put extreme partisanship
ahead of our country's safety. Apparently, the Democratic majority
cares more about the alleged steroid use of a few baseball players and
the personnel decisions of the White House than they do about promoting
national security.
Last year, Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence,
warned Congress that the intelligence community was missing two-thirds
of all overseas terrorist communications, endangering Americans' lives.
Congress enacted the Protect America Act to close this terrorist
loophole.
Now House Democrats are going to let the Protect America Act expire.
If the act expires, we will return to the status quo, unable to begin
any new foreign intelligence surveillance without a court order and
risk losing two-thirds of all foreign intelligence.
Today we find ourselves at two very dangerous thresholds: first,
expiration of legislation vital to this Nation's national security, the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The House Democratic majority
has let this legislation lapse without even allowing a straight up-or-
down vote on the bipartisan Senate bill approved earlier this week by a
vote of 68-29. Instead of reauthorizing FISA, the Democratic majority
chooses to take us to another threshold, that of a needless
constitutional confrontation in the courts over the dismissal of a
handful of United States Attorneys.
We know that the President has the authority to dismiss U.S.
Attorneys. We know that his executive privilege claims are consistent
with those made by previous Presidents for decades. We know that by
tilting at the executive privilege windmill we risk severely
undermining the very oversight authority we would want to protect. But
most of all, we know that reauthorization of FISA is infinitely more
important than this spat over executive privilege.
Once again, we see why Congress' approval rating is at an historic
low. It's because the Democratic majority engages in extreme
partisanship and ignores the people's business.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Miller).

[[Page 2178]]

Mr. MILLER of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I am not overly
concerned by what the courts ultimately decide executive privilege
covers. The Bush administration's claim of executive privilege here
goes well beyond any privilege ever recognized by any court decision,
but the Republic can obviously survive a court decision on the narrow
question of the exact extent of executive privilege.
But, Madam Speaker, the courts must decide. The President cannot
decide by decree. The President cannot announce with absolute,
unreviewable authority what information the administration will provide
or withhold.
The Framers of our Constitution had just fought a war against an
autocratic King. It is inconceivable that they intended to create an
executive with the powers that the Bush administration now claims and
that the minority now supports.
For the entire history of our Republic, our courts have recognized
that Congress needs information to carry out our constitutional duties,
to decide what the laws should be, to decide what to appropriate
Federal funds for, and that we cannot rely on information that is
voluntarily, cheerfully provided. Congress must have the power to
require information, including information that the President does not
want to provide, that the President sees as inconvenient or
embarrassing.
We must inquire into the need for new laws. We must inquire into how
existing laws are being administered. And the Supreme Court said half a
century ago that Congress' investigative powers are never greater than
when inquiring into abuse of authority or corruption by Federal
Government agencies.
Madam Speaker, the allegations here are very serious. Does the
minority think that these are trivial allegations? Prosecutorial
decisions cannot be used to reward political friends or punish enemies.
Elections have consequences, Madam Speaker; but they should never have
these consequences, not in America. Criminal prosecutions guided by
political concerns are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and
the rule of law.
The two resolutions that we are considering will allow the courts to
decide these questions of what information Congress can require in the
discharge of our constitutional duties. It will allow important
constitutional questions to be decided, as they should be decided in a
democracy, by the courts.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished minority whip, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I'm
here to say that I am fully supportive of the prerogatives of the
Congress. I think the Congress has a right to ask for, receive, demand
information from the administration; but I don't think that right
extends to this case.
I think the idea that we would expect to get information that is
dealing with advice to the President on the status of at-will employees
is a loser for us on the House floor. It's a loser for us in court. It
will set back the prerogatives of the Congress; and beyond that, I
think the idea that we're here today, as we see the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act get less value to us every day because
we're unwilling to deal with a permanent solution, this is the wrong
debate to have at any time. It's certainly the wrong debate to have at
this time.
And the idea that somehow if we extend that act, if we've done all we
could do by trying to extend an act, a bipartisan group of Members of
this Congress for various reasons said we don't want to extend and then
we come back today and we take our time focusing on a contempt charge
on two dedicated civil servants is the wrong thing to do at any time,
and it's particularly the wrong thing to do at this time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi of
California.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the Chair of the
Rules Committee, for yielding.
Today is a very sad day for us for more than one reason. One reason
is, though, the matter that is before us. I had hoped, frankly, that
this day would never have come, that the respectful negotiations that
should take place between article I, the legislative branch, and
article II, the executive branch, would have yielded the information
that is necessary for Congress to make its decisions.
I thank Chairman Conyers for his distinguished lifetime leadership of
protecting the Constitution of the United States. We all take that oath
of office, every single one of us who serves. Indeed, every person who
serves in any civic capacity in our country does so. Today, we are
honoring our oath of office with this resolution that is before us.
Again, I rise in sadness, not in confrontation. This is not a
conflict that the Congress has sought. In fact, as the distinguished
chairman of the Judiciary Committee has indicated, the committee has
repeatedly sought to avoid confrontation, repeatedly making requests
that have been ignored or rejected by the White House on completely
unacceptable terms.
The Judiciary Committee, indeed the Congress, is clearly entitled to
this information. It involves neither national security information nor
communications with the President. The President has no grounds to
assert executive privilege.
On the other hand, Congress has the responsibility of oversight of
the executive branch. I know that Members on both sides of the aisle
take that responsibility very seriously. Oversight is an institutional
obligation to ensure against abuse of power, in this case the
politicizing of the Department of Justice. Subpoena authority is a
vital tool for that oversight.
Today, we seek to require the Department of Justice to bring contempt
motions against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten. When our resolution
passes, we hope the administration will realize that this House of
Representatives, this Congress, is serious about our constitutional
role of oversight and will reach a settlement with us over the
documents and testimony at issue. I still hold out the hope that they
will cooperate.
But if the administration fails to do so, and if it orders the
Department of Justice not to file contempt proceedings, we will then,
through this resolution, have the power ourselves to go to Federal
court and seek civil enforcement of our subpoenas.
The resolution before us today should not be a partisan issue. It
should not be. This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. Former
Congressman Mickey Edwards, who once served in the Republican
leadership, has said that the enforcement of the subpoenas in the U.S.
Attorney matter is about defending Congress, not a Democratic or a
Republican Congress, but the people's Congress, as a separate,
independent, and completely equal branch of government.
The subject of the Judiciary Committee's investigation involves
serious and credible allegations that Federal law enforcement was
politicized. Political manipulation of law enforcement undermines
public confidence in our criminal justice system. Congress must find
out what happened not just in terms of those who were fired but also
whether improper criteria were used to retain the remaining U.S.
Attorneys.

{time} 1230

We must have the information in order to protect against political
manipulation of law enforcement, and it must be provided in terms
consistent with our constitutional obligations.
The so-called White House offer refused to permit even a transcript
of any interviews and to permit questions on discussions and required
the committee to promise in advance not to seek further information.
This is beyond arrogance; this is hubris taken to the ultimate degree.
As former Congressman Edwards, again I remind, a former member of the
Republican leadership in the House, said, ``No Congress, indeed, no
lawyer, would ever agree to such an outrageous demand.''

[[Page 2179]]

Madam Speaker, we must continue in our efforts to restore our
Nation's fundamental system of checks and balances. This Congress and
future Congresses must have the ability to conduct meaningful
oversight. It is the hallmark of our constitutional democracy that has
served us well for more than two centuries.
Thank you, again, Chairman Conyers, for your leadership,
Congresswoman Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the subcommittee that dealt
with this issue, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, for the important work of
the Rules Committee on all of this. To the new Members of Congress, on
this issue of article I led by John Yarmuth, article I, protecting the
prerogatives of the Congress of the United States, we thank our new
Members for their leadership honoring their oath of office. And Brad
Miller, an expert on the subject in the Congress, has been a tremendous
resource to us as well.
Let us uphold our oath of office by voting for this resolution, my
colleagues. Let us restore the rule of law. Let us act to protect and
defend our constitution by ensuring appropriate congressional oversight
in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier
of California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi is absolutely right, this
is a very, very sad day for all of us. We just memorialized our
colleague, Tom Lantos, and we have come back today to deal with an
issue which I believe is one that creates the potential to undermine
the power of the first branch of government.
Now, as has been said, if we looked at the potential court challenge
that we can see, this notion that has been put forward by our former
colleague, Mr. Edwards, that we are, in fact, a separate, independent,
and equal branch of government could be thrown out the window.
The other thing that's very sad about today, Madam Speaker, is the
fact that we are here with an absolutely unprecedented rule. Never
before in the history of the Republic has there been such a rule. This
rule actually undermines the deliberative nature of the people's House.
What we're doing is we are saying that there will be no debate
whatsoever, no debate whatsoever on these very important two contempt
resolutions, no debate whatsoever. When this rule is adopted, we will
see those two measures hereby adopted, meaning that there will be no
chance for us to, as a House, have the kind of debate that we did for
an hour upstairs in the Rules Committee. And so, we're throwing out the
window the notion of participation in a free and open debate.
And Madam Speaker, the other thing that is very sad about today is
that, while we were promised 1 year ago last month a new direction for
America, a new era of openness, an opportunity for free-flowing debate,
we will, with passage of this resolution, be on the brink of seeing the
110th Congress, and I will say to the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Rules, since she is presiding over this, Madam Speaker, we
will have, this Congress, adopted more closed rules than any Congress
in the history of the Republic.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. And I urge strong support for the
resolution which will allow us to finally bring about modernization of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
majority leader of the House, Mr. Hoyer of Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
We are dealing, in these days, with serious issues. And serious
people have been considering these issues in committee, and we will now
consider them on the floor. This matter has been pending now for over
half a year.
Madam Speaker, in 1885, a young scholar wrote an influential book
about the United States Congress entitled ``Congressional Government.''
And in that book he offered the following observations about
legislative branch oversight, and he said this, ``Quite as important as
legislation is vigilant oversight of the administration. Not any
particular administration, but of the other coequal branch of
government.''
He continued, ``It is the proper duty of a representative body to
look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about
what it sees. The informing function of Congress, not just informing
ourselves, but informing the American public as well, the informing
function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative
function.'' An interesting observation. Many years later, in 1913, that
young scholar, Woodrow Wilson, became President of the United States.
Congressional oversight of any administration is absolutely
imperative to the proper functioning of our government, to our system
of checks and balances, and to the fulfillment of our constitutional
duty. A President who is forced to answer for his administration's
actions, decisions, and conduct is a President who is less likely to
amass power beyond that which the Constitution proscribes for his
office or to imperil the welfare of our republic form of government.
And that is the constitutional interest that today's resolution
addresses.
I support the rule before us because I believe in a system of checks
and balances in which no branch holds itself above the constitutional
objectives of the sharing of authority, which the Founders wisely
believed was essential to protect against the abuse of that authority
by any one of those branches.
The issue before this body is not fundamentally whether the current
administration acted properly and within the law when it dismissed
seven U.S. attorneys in 2006, that may be the issue at some point in
time, but unless we have the information to get to that point, such a
question will be moot. Nor is this a partisan clash between a
Democratic House and a Republican President. Rather, the basic issue
before this House is this: whether this body and the committee system,
which is central to our duties to perform meaningful and vigorous
oversight, can simply be ignored by the executive branch when this body
seeks testimony and documents relevant to an important public policy
controversy.
As the New York Times noted this morning, ``If Congress fails to
enforce its own subpoenas, it would effectively be ceding subpoena
power. It would also be giving its tacit consent to the dangerous idea
of an imperial President, above the law, and beyond the reach of checks
and balances.''
What profit it a Nation if we include checks and balances within our
constitutional framework to protect our country's freedom, and more
importantly, our people's freedom, if, in fact, we honor it only in the
breach? And as Bruce Fein, the constitutional scholar and former
Department of Justice official during the Reagan administration, has
stated, ``If Congress shies from voting for contempt in this case,
secret government will become the rule.'' This is perhaps the most
secretive administration in our history. This is a danger to our
democracy.
He went on to say ``that Congress would be reduced to an ink blot on
the constitutional map.'' That is why every one of us, every one of the
435 of us who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the
United States and uphold its laws, ought to vote for this resolution,
because it does not matter whether there is a Republican President or a
Democratic President, for them to refuse to respond to a subpoena of
the Congress of the United States, and to even come here and claim a
privilege, which they have not, our democracy will be lessened.
I urge my colleagues to carry out the intent and the vision of the
Founders and the writers of our Constitution. Support this resolution.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would remind our
colleagues that one of the reasons why the minority is outraged with
the conduct of the majority today is that we are not even allowed to
debate nor vote on the contempt resolutions, but rather on a rule that
will

[[Page 2180]]

self-adopt, automatically adopt even resolutions of this magnitude of
importance; totally unprecedented and uncalled for.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Yesterday, the Democratic leadership tried to sweep a bipartisan FISA
bill under the rug, and today they're trying to throw the President's
Chief of Staff in jail. I am curious to know what happened to the
pledge of partnership with Republicans in Congress, and with the
President, and not partisanship.
The vote we are going to take this afternoon has been festering since
July, when the House Judiciary Committee decided to vote on holding
White House officials in contempt. This pandering to the left reflected
a political and unnecessary escalation on the part of the Democratic
majority.
The contempt resolution was approved on a straight party line vote in
the committee, and today's vote will be the same. The threat of losing
in court should be enough for this institution to back down from this
escalation.
My concern with the Democratic leadership's course of action is that
it will likely weaken Congress' position in situations where we
disagree with the President on matters of executive privilege. If the
Speaker and the House Judiciary Committee chairman really cared about
getting to the bottom of this matter, they could have taken the
nonpolitical route, such as directing the House Office of General
Counsel to file a civil lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia. This proposal, which I suggested last summer,
would be a legitimate effort to resolve our issues with the President
in an arena where the Congress would have equal footing.
So, what's next? How will we rehabilitate our image to give the
public confidence in the Congress? I don't think throwing the
President's Chief of Staff in jail will do the trick.
It amazes me that the Democratic leadership would bring such a
divisive matter to the floor so soon after receiving accolades for
working so well with the minority to pass an economic stimulus package.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New York, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Arcuri.
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Chairman, today is not about a FISA debate.
Actually, it's not even about whether or not Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten
have a right to claim an executive privilege. What it is about is does
a person in this country have to follow the laws of the United States,
follow the rule of law, follow the Constitution and abide by a legally
administered subpoena.
And I guess the best way to talk about that is to draw a comparison.
Under the Constitution, a person has an absolute right to claim their
fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. So, if a person is
subpoenaed to testify in a criminal matter, they can't call the judge
up and say, ``Judge, I think I might have a fifth amendment problem
here. I'm not going to show up.'' The judge will tell them they have to
be in court and they have to assert their fifth amendment right after
they are asked a question. The same thing applies here. They have to
appear before Congress and at least assert that right before they can
claim some kind of privilege; otherwise, the entire system falls apart.
Oh, today is a very important day for Congress. We are taking up a
very, very important measure, and that is is the Constitution going to
be followed and are we going to do our constitutional job.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished Member from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

{time} 1245

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I have prepared a whole series of remarks to respond
to the comments made on the floor as to the substance of the concept
citation. Unfortunately, because we're only able to debate the rule, we
don't have time to do that. Let me just try to make a couple of points
here very quickly.
First of all, the question is, is this the most important thing we
should be doing today? Is there a time limit on the action of the House
of Representatives that requires us to act on this today? And the
answer is no. This doesn't expire today. It doesn't expire tomorrow. It
doesn't expire the next day. We are able to do this anytime until the
end of this Congress.
But what does expire? The Protect America Act. It expires at midnight
tomorrow. We should be doing the Nation's business with respect to
that, rather than this. If, in fact, we are serious about the war on
terror; if, in fact, we are serious about gathering that information
which is necessary to protect us against those who would harm us and
those we represent, we would be acting on the FISA Act reconstitution
here today. We'd be acting on the Senate bill. That's the time limit.
There is no reason for scheduling this today. We have had 8 months to
schedule this. But yet we find that this is what we're going to be
dealing with before we go home. And we're going to say it is
unimportant as to whether or not we would continue with the Protect
America Act. Unimportant except in the opinion of the number one
intelligence officer in the United States, Admiral McConnell, who
served under Democrat and Republican administrations, who told us if we
allow this to go down, that is, the Protect America Act, we will close
our eyes for 60 percent of the legitimate terrorist targets around the
world prospectively.
What are we doing here?
Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California, the Chair of the Commercial and Administrative Law
Subcommittee (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, we have
reluctantly reached today's vote to hold former White House Counsel
Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt
of Congress.
Since March 9 of 2007, Chairman Conyers and I have patiently
negotiated in good faith to reach an accommodation with the White House
for documents and testimony relevant to the U.S. Attorney
investigation.
Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Under normal instances, I would,
but I don't have the time. I apologize.
Mr. CANNON. I hope the gentlewoman will remain on the floor so that
on my time I will be able to yield for a colloquy.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I apologize to the gentleman, but
this is my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will proceed.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, we have patiently
negotiated in good faith to reach an accommodation with the White House
for documents and testimony relevant to the U.S. Attorney
investigation. Unfortunately, the White House has stubbornly refused to
move off its opening position, an unreasonable offer that testimony be
given without an oath or a transcript and that any testimony and
documents provided exclude internal White House communications. To have
negotiations, concessions by both sides are necessary. Otherwise, it's
just capitulation.
I was extremely disappointed that Ms. Miers, Mr. Bolten, and the
White House based their refusal to comply with our subpoenas on
sweeping claims of executive privilege and immunity that some experts
have called ``Nixonian in breadth.'' The subcommittee carefully
considered these claims in two separate meetings last year. In detailed
rulings, I found that these claims were not properly asserted and were
not legally valid. Even if the claims were properly asserted and
legally valid, the strong public need for

[[Page 2181]]

information about the U.S. Attorney firings substantially outweighs the
assertion of executive privilege here.
I was also very disappointed to hear from Attorney General Mukasey in
testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week that he will direct
the D.C. U.S. Attorney not to comply with the contempt statute, which
provides that the U.S. Attorney ``shall'' refer the contempt citation
to a grand jury for action after receiving it from the Speaker.
Members on both sides of the aisle should recognize the gravity of
this vote. If the executive branch is allowed to simply ignore
congressional subpoenas while Congress stands idly by, we will have
abdicated our role of oversight of the executive branch and undermined
our system of checks and balances. Further, our lack of action will be
cited by future Presidents as justification for questionable claims of
executive privilege.
I hope that my colleagues on the other side will stand together in
support of this body's institutional prerogatives. Time is long overdue
for Congress to reassert itself as a co-equal branch of government.
I urge support of the rule and House resolutions 979 and 980.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I would ask the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, who has oversight of
this matter and which committee I rank on, to remain on the floor so we
could have a colloquy on this issue.
It appears that she has left the floor. That's unfortunate. Her
response to my inquiry about yielding was that she didn't have enough
time, and we are standing here today with very little time to debate an
issue that is dramatically important. It's important for this
institution, and, by the way, people on both sides of the aisle have
said and the Speaker and majority leader have both made a point of how
important this issue is to this body. It is vitally important to me
that we retain the rights of this body as it relates to administration,
whether that's a Republican administration or Democratic
administration.
In his opening statements, Mr. Diaz-Balart gave a quote from former
Attorney General Janet Reno in which she said there was no right to do
what we're trying to do today. I would have loved to have asked the
chairman on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law if
she thought that was the case or if she disagreed with what the scope
of the right of the administration is to not appear.
Obviously, there is a sense in this case that we ought to get
something done; and, in fact, we have done a great deal. We have had
hundreds of hours of depositions, literally tens of thousands of pages,
tens of thousands of e-mails. We have asked questions of everyone
involved in the matter in the case. And what have we come up with? I
wanted to ask the chairman what the evidence we are going to present to
the U.S. Attorney is that he can take and say, I have a need to get
this information from these people in the administration who won't show
up to the House. I have a need to understand these facts which seem to
be in confusion. I have a need to decide what between these two
different stories is the truth.
But we haven't said that to him. We don't have evidence that we can
give the U.S. Attorney. What we are giving to him is a desire to
continue a witch hunt which has produced up to today zero, nothing, as
far as I can tell; and I've been in every meeting, every hearing, and
followed on every single deposition that we have had. There is nothing
that indicates that anybody has lied or that there is a reason that the
White House has been involved. And, therefore, there is no reason that
I can understand, and I have asked many times on the record in
committee hearings what those reasons are, what it is, what the
discrepancies, what the problems are for which we need to subpoena
people in the White House and create a showdown, a showdown between our
institution and the White House. And I ask the gentleman, as the
chairman of the committee has just risen to his feet, and I would love
to yield to him if he is willing to answer that question: What are the
discrepancies?
Mr. CONYERS. We don't know because we can't get one sheet of paper
from Mr. Bolten and nobody else will talk to us. That's precisely why
we were forced to this position, sir.
Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
gentleman's position. The gentleman has said that eloquently in the
past on many occasions. But we are now talking about getting a
subpoena, enforcing a subpoena in a criminal process against people for
whom we have no evidence, as far as I can tell, and I will be happy to
yield to the gentleman if he has evidence, no evidence that they have
been involved.
There are no discrepancies in the testimony that we have had before
us, is there?
Mr. CONYERS. If the gentleman is so kind to yield again, we don't
have any evidence. We aren't accusing them of anything, sir. We're
merely seeking the documents that could be relevant to the
determination of whether the Department of Justice has been
politicized.
Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
gentleman's candor, and I appreciate the very gracious way the
gentleman has handled this whole investigation. But it comes back down
to this: we have no evidence.
Let me just finish by saying that having seen this, if there was a
conspiracy, and I know that the majority believes there is something
evil that is happening out there, then we ought to have given enough
time and enough context to be able to track that down and prove that
this administration has done something wrong.
As opposed to what the gentleman has just said, we have had a number
of statements by the chairman of this committee saying that there is
evidence of corruption. But we have had no evidence of corruption, none
at all adduced anywhere from all the investigations we have done, and
there is no basis for these contempt citations. I ask that we vote
against them.

Cooper & Kirk,

Washington, DC, December 4, 2007.
Hon. Lamar S. Smith,
Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Smith: We write in response to your request for
our views regarding the legal issues raised by the Judiciary
Committee's resolution recommending that the House of
Representatives find Harriet Miers and Joshua Bolten in
contempt of Congress. Each of us has had substantial
experience in the Executive Branch, including in the Office
of Legal Counsel. Charles J. Cooper served as Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of legal Counsel from
November 1985 through July 1988. Howard C. Nielson, Jr.
served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Counsel from June 2003 through August 2005. In
addition, our law firm has successfully litigated a number of
significant separation of powers cases.
We have reviewed the opinions of the Justice Department
regarding the assertion of executive privilege and
testimonial immunity in response to the Miers and Bolten
subpoenas. We have also reviewed the committee report
relating to this matter, the additional views of the Chairman
and Subcommittee Chair, and the minority views. The positions
asserted by the Administration reflect the longstanding and
considered views of the Executive Branch, views repeatedly
affirmed by Administrations of both parties. These views were
held during our tenures in the Office of Legal Counsel, and
we continue to believe that they are sound. Moreover, we
believe that a decision by the House to hold Ms. Miers and
Mr. Bolten in contempt would likely be a legally futile
gesture that could ultimately undermine Congress's ability to
obtain information from the Executive Branch.
As an initial matter, even if the House votes to hold Ms.
Miers and Mr. Bolten in contempt, and even if a contempt
citation is referred to the appropriate United States
Attorney, the United States Attorney will have no choice but
to decline to take action on the matter. It has long been the
position of the Executive Branch that ``the criminal contempt
of Congress statute does not apply to the President or
presidential subordinates who assert executive privilege.''
Application of 28 U.S.C. 458 to Presidential Appointments of
Federal Judges, 19 Op. O.L.C. 350, 356 (1995) (opinion of
Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger). As then-
Assistant Attorney General Theodore B. Olson explained the
position of the Executive Branch in 1984:
``First, as a matter of statutory interpretation reinforced
by compelling separation of

[[Page 2182]]

powers considerations, we believe that Congress may not
direct the Executive to prosecute a particular individual
without leaving any discretion to the Executive to determine
whether a violation of the law has occurred. Second, as a
matter of statutory interpretation and the constitutional
separation of powers, we believe that the contempt of
Congress statute was not intended to apply and could not
constitutionally be applied to an Executive Branch official
who asserts the President's claim of executive privilege in
this context.''
Prosecution for Contempt of Congress of an Executive Branch
Official Who Has Asserted a Claim of Executive Privilege, 8
Op. O.L.C. 101, 102 (1984); see also id. at 119, 129
(documenting similar positions taken by the Eisenhower and
Ford Administrations).
While the Chairman and Subcommittee Chair note that Justice
Department opinions such as the Dellinger and Olson memoranda
are not binding on Congress or the Judiciary, such opinions
are binding on members of the Executive Branch--including the
United States Attorney to whom a contempt citation would be
referred. Furthermore, because a prosecutor's ``decision
whether or not to prosecute . . . generally rests entirely in
his discretion,'' Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 607
(1985), it is highly unlikely that Congress could obtain any
sort of judicial review of the United States Attorney's
refusal to submit the contempt citation to a grand jury.
Assuming Congress could somehow obtain judicial review of
the claim of executive privilege, we believe that it could
not overcome that claim on the facts presented here. To be
sure, there is a paucity of judicial authority resolving
executive privilege disputes between Congress and the
Executive; still, the following factors should persuade a
court to uphold the claim of executive privilege here.
First, the threshold arguments that executive privilege has
not been, or cannot be, properly invoked to protect the
communications at issue here appear insubstantial. The
Chairman and Subcommittee Chair have identified no
authority--and we are aware of none--requiring the Executive
Branch to submit a privilege log to sustain a claim of
executive privilege in a legislative proceeding. The letter
sent to Chairman Conyers by Counsel to the President
Fielding, written ``at the direction of the President'' to
``advise and inform [Congress] that the President has decided
to assert Executive Privilege,'' Letter of Fred F. Fielding
to Chairmen Leahy and Conyers at 1 (June 28, 2007), plainly
suffices to invoke executive privilege under controlling
precedent. See In re Sealed Case, 121 F.3d 729, 744, n.16
(D.C. Cir. 1997). And In re Sealed Case clearly establishes
that executive privilege extends to ``communications of
presidential advisors which do not directly involve the
President,'' id. at 751, and protects ``communications that
these advisors and their staff author or solicit and receive
in the course of performing their function of advising the
President on official government matters''--whether or not
the President is aware of those communications. Id. at 752.
Given the essential role of the President in appointing and
removing United States Attorneys, communications to or from
senior presidential advisors regarding the replacement of
United States Attorneys plainly fall within the scope of the
privilege recognized by In re Sealed Case. As the D.C.
Circuit explained, where ``the President himself must
directly exercise the presidential power of appointment and
removal . . . there is assurance that even if the President
were not a party to the communications over which the
government is asserting presidential privilege, these
communications nonetheless are intimately connected to his
presidential decisionmaking.'' Id. at 753.
Second, there is nothing novel or unprecedented in the
claim of privilege here. On the contrary, many historical
precedents support the Administration's refusal to disclose
confidential communications and deliberations relating to the
appointment or dismissal of executive officers. For example,
as early as 1886, the Cleveland Administration rejected
Congress's attempt to obtain communications relating to the
dismissal of a district attorney (the historical predecessor
of today's U.S. Attorneys). As President Cleveland explained,
``the documents related to an act (the suspension and removal
of an Executive Branch official) which was exclusively a
discretionary executive function.'' History of Refusals by
Executive Branch Officials to Provide Information Demanded by
Congress, 6 Op. O.L.C. 751, 767 (1982) (opinion of Assistant
Attorney General Theodore B. Olson); see also id. at 758-759
(discussing similar refusals to provide information regarding
the appointment or removal of executive officers by the
Jackson and Tyler Administrations). Furthermore, D.C. Circuit
precedent addressing executive privilege expressly recognizes
that ``confidentiality is particularly critical in the
appointment and removal context.'' In re Sealed Case, 121
F.3d 729, 753 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
Third, when the judiciary has adjudicated executive
privilege disputes between Congress and the Executive, it has
required Congress to establish that the information it seeks
``is demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of
[Congress's] functions'' to overcome even a generalized claim
of executive privilege. Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities v. Nixon, 498 F.2d 725, 731
(D.C. Cir. 1974) (en banc). To satisfy this burden, it is not
enough for Congress to show that the information it desires
``may possibly have some arguable relevance to the subjects
it has investigated and to the areas in which it may propose
legislation.'' Id. at 733. Rather, it must identify
``specific legislative decisions that cannot responsibly be
made without access to materials uniquely contained in'' the
documents or testimony it seeks. Id. Furthermore, decisions
such as United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and In
re Sealed Case that limit executive privilege to accommodate
the special needs of the criminal justice system offer little
support for Congress here. As the D.C. Circuit has explained:
``There is a clear difference between Congress's
legislative tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury, or
any institution engaged in like functions. While fact-finding
by a legislative committee is undeniably a part of its task,
legislative judgments normally depend more on the predicted
consequences of proposed legislative actions and their
political acceptability, than on precise reconstruction of
past events; Congress frequently legislates on the basis of
conflicting information provided in its hearings. In
contrast, the responsibility of the grand jury turns entirely
on its ability to determine whether there is probable cause
to believe that certain named individuals did or did not
commit specific crimes.''
Senate Select Committee, 498 F.2d at 732. Cf. Nixon, 418
U.S. at 713 (``Without access to specific facts a criminal
prosecution may be totally frustrated.'').
Given the voluminous documentary evidence and testimony
already provided by the Executive Branch--not to mention the
additional documents and testimony that the White House has
offered to make available in attempt to resolve this
controversy, see e.g., Letter of Fred F. Fielding to Chairmen
Leahy and Conyers at 1-2 (June 28, 2007)--it seems clear the
lingering factual ambiguities identified by the Committee
Chairman and the Subcommittee Chair are inadequate to
overcome even a generalized claim of executive privilege
under controlling precedent. And a judicial determination to
that effect would plainly prejudice Congress's ability to
obtain sensitive information from the Executive Branch not
only in this investigation but in future investigations as
well.
The Justice Department's determination that Ms. Miers is
immune from compulsion to testify before Congress likewise
reflects the longstanding and consistent position of the
Executive Branch. As Attorney General Reno explained in a
formal opinion to the President, ``It is the longstanding
position of the executive branch that `the President and his
immediate advisors are absolutely immune from testimonial
compulsion by a Congressional committee.' '' Assertion of
Executive Privilege with Respect to Clemency Decision, 23 Op.
O.L.C. 1, 4 (1999) (quoting Memorandum from John M. Harmon,
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Re:
Executive Privilege at 5 (May 23, 1977). This view is not
only that of the current Administration and the Clinton
Administration. As documented in Attorney General Reno's
opinion, this view also reflects the position of the Reagan,
Carter, and Nixon Administrations. See id. (collecting
opinions from Assistant Attorneys General Theodore B. Olson,
John M. Harmon, Roger C. Crampton, and William H. Rehnquist).
This view also reflects the position of the Johnson and
Truman Administrations. See History of Refusals, 6 Op. O.L.C.
at 771-72, 777-78. And as documented by the Justice
Department in its opinion regarding Ms. Miers, the Executive
Branch--including, again, Administrations of both parties--
have long taken the position that the same immunity extends
to former Presidents and their Advisors. See Memorandum from
Stephen G. Bradbury, Principal Assistant Attorney General
Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Immunity of Former Counsel to
the President from Compelled Testimony at 2-3 (July 10, 2007)
(documenting positions taken by the Truman and Nixon
Administrations).
In short, we believe the President's assertions of
executive privilege and testimonial immunity in this instance
are entirely constitutionally sound. We also believe that a
determination by the House to hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers
in contempt of Congress would be futile as a legal matter and
might ultimately prejudice Congress's ability to obtain
information from the Executive Branch.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Cooper.
Howard C. Nielson, Jr.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
Mr. YARMUTH. I thank the distinguished chairwoman from the Rules
Committee, a native Kentuckyan and someone who has always stood for the
finest traditions of this body.
In November of 2006, the American people decided to give the
Democrats the control of the House of Representatives and the Congress.
I was fortunate

[[Page 2183]]

enough to be elected as one of the 43 new Democrats in that class.
And many people have said, in examining that election, oh, we were
elected because of the war in Iraq. But that's not what I heard. What I
heard when I was campaigning in 2006, and I think most of my colleagues
in this class would say the same thing, is we want to return the
Government to the tenets of the Constitution. We want to restore the
checks and balances that the Founding Fathers prescribed. We want to
make sure that this President and every President is held accountable,
is not above the law.
So when we came here, one of the things we did was to start talking
about article I, which established that all legislative powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. We started
wearing these buttons, article I buttons, and we offered them to
Members of both parties, hoping that this would not be a partisan issue
and not be an expression of partisanship but, instead, a respect for
the integrity of this institution.
Unfortunately, most of my colleagues on the other side chose not to
wear these buttons. They have chosen to make this a partisan issue in
spite of the fact that during the last 6 years before we took control
of the Congress, no subpoenas were issued against this President. No
efforts to hold him accountable were made, in spite of the fact that in
the prior administration a thousand subpoenas were offered by the
Republican Congress to the Democratic President.
So, unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue when it shouldn't
be. To me this is all about institutional integrity, about restoring
the checks and balances.
Fundamental to our power, legislative power, is our ability to gather
information. If we do not stand up for our right to gather information,
then in spite of the fact that my colleagues on the other side have
said we may lose our prerogatives if we go to court, if we don't
challenge the President on this issue, we will have surrendered our
prerogatives; and that is the worst fate that we could commit this body
to.
So I would say, in closing, that many people look at polls today and
say the standing of the Congress is at its lowest ebb ever, and they
say maybe that's because we are not doing anything. I think it's
because the American people recognize that we have been negligent in
not upholding our responsibilities under the Constitution.
This is an important step in restoring the integrity of this
institution and restoring the confidence of the American people in this
body in its willingness to respond to the dictates of the Constitution.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes
to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, rather than spinning our wheels on this
issue, there is a much more important issue that we should be dealing
with today, and the very safety of our Nation is at issue. I'm
disappointed that we have reached the point in this House that
reasonable minds could not prevail on an issue that involves the very
safety of the American people.
Last August Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the
Protect America Act. This critical legislation closed the gaps which
had previously caused the intelligence community to miss more than two-
thirds of all overseas terrorist communications, finally allowing the
United States to stay one step ahead of the terrorists.
The Senate amendments to H.R. 3773 would enable law enforcement and
the intelligence community to continue their counterterrorism efforts,
including working with telecommunications companies and allowing
officials to gather intelligence from potential foreign terrorists
outside the United States.
At the same time, this bill is mindful of our Constitution and the
protections it affords to U.S. citizens, whether they are inside or
outside the United States. Furthermore, the authority provided by the
bill would sunset in 6 years, allowing Congress to revisit any issues
that might arise.
We cannot afford to let the terrorists, particularly those who are
conspiring abroad, to have the upper hand. Our law enforcement and
intelligence communities must have every resource available to do their
jobs in keeping this Nation safe. I urge my colleagues to support the
United States, not the terrorists, by passing the Senate amendments to
H.R. 3773.
And I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

{time} 1300

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. CONYERS. I wanted to respond, or continue our discussion that was
raised by the gentleman from Utah. As a matter of fact, in our
resolution recommending that contempt of Congress be issued, we found
plenty of evidence of wrongdoing at the Department of Justice, nearly
100 pages of it. This was voted out of the committee. For example:
The decision to fire or retain some U.S. attorneys may have been
based in part on whether or not their offices were pursuing or not
pursuing public corruption or vote fraud cases based on partisan
political factors;
Department officials appear to have made false or misleading
statements to Congress, many of which sought to minimize the role of
White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney firings;
Actions by some department personnel may have violated civil service
laws.

Executive Summary

To date, the committee's investigation--which has reviewed
materials provided by the Department of Justice in depth and
obtained testimony from 20 current and former Department of
Justice employees--has uncovered serious evidence of
wrongdoing by the Department and White House staff with
respect to the forced resignations of U.S. Attorneys during
2006 and related matters. This includes evidence that: (a)
the decision to fire or retain some U.S. Attorneys may have
been based in part on whether or not their offices were
pursuing or not pursuing public corruption or vote fraud
cases based on partisan political factors, or otherwise
bringing cases which could have an impact on pending
elections; (b) Department officials appear to have made false
or misleading statements to Congress, many of which sought to
minimize the role of White House personnel in the U.S.
Attorney firings, or otherwise obstruct the Committee's
investigation, and with some participation by White House
personnel; and (c) actions by some Department personnel may
have violated civil service laws and some White House
employees may have violated the Presidential Records Act.
Based on this evidence, and because of the apparent
involvement of White House personnel in the U.S. Attorney
firings and their aftermath, the committee has sought to
obtain relevant documents from the White House and documents
and testimony from former White House Counsel Harriet Miers--
who appears to have been significantly involved in the
matter--on a voluntary basis and, only after taking all
reasonable efforts to obtain a compromise, on a compulsory
basis. The committee's subpoenas have been met with
consistent resistance, including wide-ranging assertions of
executive privilege and immunity from testimony. This has
gone so far that the administration indicated in July that it
would refuse to allow the District of Columbia U.S.
Attorney's office to pursue any congressional contempt
citation against the White House's wishes. In addition to the
many infirmities and deficiencies in the manner in which the
White House Counsel has sought to assert executive privilege,
in the present circumstance such privilege claims would be
strongly outweighed by the committee's need to obtain such
information.

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the
distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Possibly five, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 4 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I reserve at this time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Sutton) who serves on both the Committee on Rules and
Judiciary.
Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, let us recall what this is all about. We
are here today because the now-resigned Chief of Staff to former
attorney, Alberto Gonzalez, ran a plan over a period of just under 2
years during which

[[Page 2184]]

he maintained a revised list of U.S. attorneys to be fired or retained.
If prosecutors were placed on this list for political reasons, or
alternatively kept off because of a willingness to engage in political
prosecutions, these actions are not only improper and illegal, but they
constitute criminal abuse. These are serious allegations, and we have a
constitutional duty to pursue this proceeding today.
Congress is not only entitled to look into this matter, we must
conduct a thorough oversight of the executive branch. Now, some of my
colleagues argue that the United States attorneys serve at the pleasure
of the President. However, it is very critical to note that throwing
out this term, ``at the pleasure of the President,'' may be accurate in
the sense that the President may fire somebody for no reason, Alberto
Gonzalez can fire somebody for no reason, but they can't fire him for
an illegal reason.
And that is what we are looking at here. The Committee on the
Judiciary Chairman Conyers testified yesterday that he pursued
documents from the White House and the testimony of Ms. Miers and from
Mr. Bolten for 8 long months, and in return the White House did not
provide a single document and specifically directed Ms. Miers and Mr.
Bolten to ignore the Judiciary Committee's subpoenas citing executive
privilege.
This is not a situation of exerting executive privilege, because Ms.
Miers did not even show up for the hearings that they were called to
testify before to assert that claim. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, it is
one thing for them to decline to answer certain questions based on a
claim of executive privilege; it is an entirely different matter to
defy even orders to appear.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve, Madam
Speaker.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. COHEN. I appreciate the time. I do serve on Judiciary Committee,
and I looked at that empty chair that Ms. Miers was supposed to be
sitting in when she was asked to testify before our committee.
Nothing is more contemptuous of an official than not to simply
appear. To appear by counsel, to appear in person, to allege a
privilege is one thing. Not to show up is the uttermost peak of
contempt that a person could have for the Congress and for the
legislative body. She didn't even send a little note, Ms. Miers
regretfully cannot attend your hearing.
This is the highest contempt. We are representatives of the people,
and we are upholding the Constitution and our jobs as being an equal
branch of government, which this legislative body is, and there is no
such thing as an imperial Presidency, and no one is above the law.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I continue to reserve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) from the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. WEXLER. Madam Speaker, no one is immune from accountability and
the rule of law, not Harriet Miers or Josh Bolten, and especially not
President Bush or Vice President Cheney.
It is high time to defend the Constitution and Congress as a coequal
branch of government. Our liberty and freedoms as Americans are
dependent upon the checks and balances that protect our Nation. Not
since Watergate, not since Watergate has a President so openly
disregarded the will of Congress. Josh Bolten and Harriet Miers have
blatantly ignored congressional subpoenas, thumbing their nose at
Congress and our obligation of legitimate oversight.
The power of the congressional subpoena safeguards our liberty. It
protects against an all-powerful President. The Constitution demands
that we hold these renegade officials in contempt of Congress.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members that the
wearing of communicative badges is not in order while under
recognition.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I continue to
reserve.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) of the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this
resolution. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as Members
of a coequal branch of government to issue these contempt citations to
members of the Bush administration who clearly feel that they are above
the law.
Last year, when the Judiciary Committee was legitimately
investigating the political purge of U.S. attorneys and conducting
oversight into the politicization of the Justice Department,
administration officials not only failed to turn over key documents
after receiving subpoenas, they didn't even bother to show up to
testify.
Madam Speaker, I am deeply frustrated by this administration's
continued stonewalling and, frankly, the contempt that it has shown for
Congress. As our former Republican colleague Congressman Mickey Edwards
told our committee, the administration's actions have been outrageous
and it continues to erode the separation of powers.
I applaud Chairman Conyers' patience and his many attempts to resolve
this situation short of the manner in which we will today, but I know I
speak for many of my colleagues when I say enough is enough.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I would ask the
distinguished chairwoman how many speakers she has remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe I have just one. And so I will yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of
the Judiciary Committee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleagues of the
Judiciary Committee, and I thank my colleagues of the Rules Committee.
Madam Speaker, I stand on this floor with a very heavy heart. It is a
heavy heart compounded by the fact that Harriet Miers is my friend. We
practiced law together in the State of Texas. We worked together. And
so it is very difficult to stand here today and to acknowledge what is
an enormous crisis in our Government, and that is the lack of
recognition of the constitutional premise of the three equal branches
of Government. I came yesterday to talk of the embeddedness of the
Constitution not only in many books but also in the hearts of
Americans. When I go home to Texas, people still ask the question: What
are you doing about the U.S. attorney situation? What happened to the
fairness and integrity of the appointment process? The American people
want to know. We are now doing their bidding. They want us to be able
to clear the air.
As a member of the Judiciary Committee, let me tell you, John Conyers
has the patience of Job. Over and over again, and Chairwoman Sanchez,
over and over again, working with Ranking Member Cannon, said that we
wanted to do this in a way that you could come and give information,
that information could be transcripted. We will then try to find out
the truth.
We come here with a broken heart, a humble spirit, but with the
Constitution deeply embedded in our heart, recognizing that there is
nothing to protect if the President says that he is not involved.
Let the Constitution stand. Let us do what we are supposed to do. My
friends, vote for this in a bipartisan way so that the Constitution
remains sacred in our hearts and in this country.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 982, which
provides that upon adoption of the rule, both H. Res. 979 recommending
that the House of Representatives find former White House Counsel
Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in contempt
of Congress for their refusal to comply with subpoenas issued by the
Committee on the Judiciary and H. Res. 980--Authorizing the Committee
on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in judicial proceedings to
enforce certain subpoenas are adopted. Both

[[Page 2185]]

of the resolutions were introduced by my distinguished colleague from
Michigan, the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.

H. Res. 979

This resolution highlights the accountability issues that this body
has continued to have with the Bush administration. This committee made
attempt after attempt to secure critical information voluntarily from
both former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of
Staff Joshua Bolten. At no point did they cooperate and comply with our
requests. Even as this committee directed their appearance by subpoena,
the White House sought to avert our inquiries by citing executive
privilege.
Instead, the White House offered this committee a very limited
inquiry, completely controlled by providing: (1) virtually no access to
internal White House documents, (2) no questioning regarding internal
White House discussions, and (3) no interview transcripts. The White
House is not bluffing with this act of defiance. Rather, it seems the
Bush administration wants to test, and attempt to expand, the limits of
presidential power.
Madam Speaker, it was on July 12, 2007 that Ms. Harriet Miers was
asked to testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law investigating the removal of U.S. attorneys by the
Bush administration, and did not attend. That same day, the
subcommittee's Chair, the Honorable Linda Sanchez, undertook the
preliminary steps necessary to declare Miers in contempt. The
subcommittee voted 7-5 that there was no legal justification for Ms.
Miers's failing to appear pursuant to the subpoena.
Notwithstanding this blatant affront to the House Judiciary
Committee, Republican Members allowed party affiliation to trump
institutional responsibility, just as they had when they controlled
Congress. The Minority continues to make excuses for the Bush
administration's defiance, and appears content to let the President
slight the subcommittee by instructing both Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to
not testify.

H. Res. 980 and CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Congresssional oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated
power. My colleagues across the aisle may make the argument that
nothing explicitly grants this body the authority to conduct inquiries
or investigations of the Executive, to have access to records or
materials held by the Executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or
testimony from the Executive.
However, congressional investigations sustain and vindicate our role
in our constitutional scheme of separated powers. The rich history of
congressional investigations from the failed St. Clair expedition in
1792 through Teapot Dome, Watergate, and Iran-Contra, has established,
in law and practice, the nature and contours of congressional
prerogatives necessary to maintain the integrity of the legislative
role. Numerous Supreme Court precedents recognize a broad and
encompassing power in this body to engage in oversight and
investigation that would reach all sources of information necessary for
carrying out its legislative function. Without a countervailing
constitutional privilege or this body self-imposing a statutory
restriction on our authority, this chamber, along with our colleagues
in the Senate, have plenary power to compel information needed to
discharge our legislative functions from the Executive, private
individuals, and companies.
In McGrain v. Daugherty, 1927, the U.S. Supreme Court deemed the
power of inquiry, with the accompanying process to enforce it, ``an
essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function.''
Senate Rule XXVI, 26, and House Rule XI, 11, presently empower all
standing committees and subcommittees to require the attendance and
testimony of witnesses and the production of documents. This chamber
was given an implied power of oversight by the U.S. Constitution; that
power has supported by our 3rd branch of government, the Supreme Court;
we ourselves have expressed this authority in our Senate and House
Rules, and yet two attorneys under the direction of the White House
continue to tell us we do not have the proper authority.

H.R. 5230, Contempt of the House of Representatives Subpoena Authority
Act of 2008 [110th]

On February 6, I introduced legislation that would amend Title 28,
of the United States Code and grant this chamber the statutory
authority to bring a civil action to enforce and secure a declaratory
judgment to prevent a threatened refusal or failure to comply with any
subpoena or order for the production of documents, the answering of any
deposition or interrogatory, or the securing of testimony issued by the
House or any of its committees or subcommittees.
Once we pass H.R. 5230, we should have no further need to adopt
resolutions for authorization to enforce certain subpoenas; we would
already hold that statutory authority. As it stands now, we must
collectively support both H. Res. 979 and H. Res. 980 under H. Res.
982, the adopted rule. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting H. Res. 982 an important piece of legislation that allows
for not only accountability but enforcement.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I would ask the distinguished
chairwoman if she has no other speakers, obviously besides herself.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. That's correct, if the gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Actually I will yield myself 2
minutes at this time.
The actions of the majority today are unprecedented. We have checked
with the House Parliamentarian, and they are absolutely and totally
unprecedented, that privileged resolutions would be taken to the floor
in this fashion, in effect, avoiding even the floor by virtue of the
fact that when the rule is passed, the rule that we are debating,
automatically the two privileged resolutions of contempt will be
considered adopted. That is absolutely unprecedented as well as
uncalled for.
And the nature of the actions of the majority today are most, most
unfortunate. I had the recent opportunity to speak at Florida
International University's law school. Professor Levitt asked me to
speak there about the rule of law. In studying, restudying the issue,
the rule of law, I stressed how the independence of the judiciary is
perhaps the key, or certainly one of the fundamental keys, to the rule
of law. And judicial restraint has permitted the judiciary to remain
independent throughout these two-plus centuries. All of the branches,
Madam Speaker, must exercise restraint.
And the actions of the majority today manifest the opposite, not only
restraint, but I would say unprecedented, uncalled for, an
unprecedented and uncalled for manner of dealing with even an issue of
this importance.
As I stated, the majority is not even allowing debate on the
resolutions of contempt, not even permitting votes on the resolutions
of contempt.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

____________________

MOTION TO ADJOURN

[Roll No. 59]

YEAS--2

Johnson (IL)
Young (AK)

NAYS--400

[[Page 2186]]

DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--26

Ackerman
Brown, Corrine
Costa
DeGette
Dicks
Edwards
Engel
English (PA)
Frelinghuysen
Green, Gene
Hill
Hinchey
Honda
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
Lowey
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Peterson (PA)
Renzi
Ruppersberger
Solis
Tierney
Towns
Young (FL)

{time} 1340

Mr. McHUGH, Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota, Messrs. LINCOLN DAVIS of
Tennessee, HIGGINS, SESTAK, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. RUSH, and Ms. BERKLEY
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to adjourn was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 59, had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 59, on the motion
to adjourn, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes
remaining; the gentlewoman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield the balance of our time
to the distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker and my colleagues, many of you have heard
me say on numerous occasions that I think the American people sent us
here to work together to get things done on behalf of our country.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have had an opportunity with the
economic growth package to work in a bipartisan way on behalf of the
American people, and I really think it showed our Chamber and our
Congress at its best. But I don't think there is any priority that we
have that is more important than protecting the American people.
For more than 6 months, we have reached out to the majority on the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because we want to give our
intelligence officials all the tools they need to protect us. That bill
that was passed in late July expired on February 1, and several weeks
ago we provided an extension that runs out on Saturday. But for the
last 6 months, as we have tried to come to an agreement on this bill,
we have reached out to the majority, trying to find common ground, and
we have been turned down at every turn.
This week, the President, the Senate, and, frankly, a majority of the
Members of this House have said enough is enough, no more extensions.
But instead of working with the Republicans and Democrats who are
interested in working on this bill that would protect our country and
protect the American people by passing the bipartisan Senate Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance bill, the House floor is the scene of a
partisan political stunt.
Yesterday, the majority leader said that this political stunt would
occur today because we have space on the House schedule. In other
words, we have space on the calendar today for a politically charged
fishing expedition, but no space for a bill that would protect the
American people from terrorists who want to kill us.

{time} 1345

Madam Speaker, I think this is the height of irresponsibility. It is
an insult to this House, and it is an insult to the American people.
The actions on the floor of this House today will not make America
safer. It will not help us protect Americans from being attacked.
Earlier today, the President announced that he would delay his trip
to Africa, a long-planned trip. He would delay it so he could work with
us to sign the long-term Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
modernization law into law. House Republicans stand ready to stay here
as long as it takes to get this bill passed and get it to the
President's desk.
Ladies and gentlemen, we will not stand here and watch this floor be
abused for pure political grandstanding at the expense of our national
security. We will not stand for this, and we will not stay for this. I
would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe that we
should be here protecting the American people not vote on this bill;
let's just get up and leave.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, this is an interesting turn of events.
They are apparently attaching no importance whatsoever to the
Constitution of the United States. But that has not always been the
case. I want to read to you a little from the debate in 1998 when Mr.
Boehner speaks.
Mr. Boehner says: ``Mr. Speaker, it is time for the stonewall tactics
to end and the cooperating to begin. Whether it is stalling on basic
requests for information or invoking executive privilege, the result is
the same: the American people are denied the right to know what is
going on inside their White House. In the end, Mr. Speaker, this is
what this fight is about, the American people's right to know what
happens in their government.
``The government does not belong to politicians in Washington, D.C.
This government belongs to the American people, and they have a right
to know what happens in Washington, D.C. They have a right to know what
is going on in their White House.''

[[Page 2187]]

I concur completely with Mr. Boehner on that statement. I want
neither Republican nor Democrat President to stonewall the House of
Representatives or Congress.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the majority leader, the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
The debates we have been having over the past few days are
consequential and about the most important thing that this body does,
and that is uphold the law. Not just pass the law, uphold the law.
As I said a little earlier in this debate, part of that was
overseeing the executive branch to ensure that they execute our laws
appropriately and legally. And the Congress has been given under the
Constitution the authority to seek information. The Judiciary Committee
has sought information and that information has not been forthcoming.
The Congress, as Mr. Boehner said, cannot do its job if the Congress
simply fails to assert its constitutional role.
Now there is a situation that we confront that a large number say
they want to adjourn. They have been making motion after motion after
motion to adjourn and they haven't been voting for it, but they have
been making it.
And now they walk off the floor on the assertion that we are not
working. They assert that we are not passing the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act. They assert that, but they all voted to a person not
to give us the time to perform our extraordinarily important duties in
resolving the differences between the Senate and the House in a
conference committee.
Now, I will tell my friends on the Republican side of the House, they
know as well as I do that the reason the Senate did not pass us a bill
3 months after we passed our bill to them was because of Republican
delay in the United States Senate. That's the reason this bill is so
late getting to us. That is the reason we don't have the time to work
it out. That is the reason we are not passing legislation.
Now, the President asserts that the expiration of the Protect America
Act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security
Council Adviser on Terrorism says that is not true. Former Assistant
Attorney General Wainstein says that is not true. Numerous others, and
the chairman, have asserted that is not true. Why is it not true?
Because FISA will remain in effect.
The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect.
And if there are new targets, a FISA Court has full authority to give
every authority to the administration to act.
So I tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear, unfounded
fear; 435 Members of this House, and every one of us, every one of us,
wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us wants to
subject America or Americans to danger.
The President's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically: the
President's assertion is wrong. Now the President says he will delay
his trip to stay here and work with us. I know Mr. Reyes and Mr.
Conyers will be contacting Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Leahy to discuss
with them how we might move forward. They in turn will talk with their
Republican counterparts, as well, to see how we can move forward.
But the time that we asked for, less than 24 hours after the Senate
passed us a bill, the time we asked for to elect this process, which is
the normal legislative process to bring the Senate and the House
together to fashion a bill that both Houses feel comfortable with, feel
is good for America, was denied to us yesterday by unanimous vote by
the minority party and gave us no time to accomplish that objective.
The President said he was going to veto it, which is why I presume
all of you voted against it, because, of course, in the first 6 years,
we never passed anything to the President that he wasn't supportive of.
We were a very cooperative Congress with this President. This President
is not used to the Congress saying, We may have a different view, Mr.
President. We, too, have a responsibility and we may see it slightly
differently than you.
But, yes, as the leader on the other side said, we have come
together. We worked together. We passed a stimulus package together. We
can do that on this bill. But we can't do it overnight. This matter is
much too serious to do it overnight.
My friend from the Rules Committee indicates that this does not give
us full time for debate on this rule. He opposes this rule. The
interesting thing is he says contrary, we ought to be considering
something overnight, overnight, without any time to consider it in
conference.
The minority has now effected a strategy that they tried to use on
the agriculture bill: let's work, but by the way, we are leaving. And
why are we leaving? We are leaving so we can preclude a majority
responding to a quorum call and if a majority does not respond, we will
have to go out of session. So it is somewhat ironic that on the one
hand they say we ought to be doing something, and on the other hand
they walk out to preclude us from doing our business.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I simply rise to say that my very good
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, is incorrect when he
said that we are asking for a measure to be considered overnight. On
Tuesday of this week, this measure was sent to this House. We have had
an opportunity, as we have looked at the issue of FISA modernization
since July of this past year to get it done, and there is an urgency at
this moment. So it has not been overnight.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his comment. There is no
urgency. That claim is a claim made to stampede this House and the
American people, I tell my friend from California. And the reason that
there is no urgency is because in 1978 this Congress passed legislation
to ensure the fact that we could intercept communications while at the
same time protecting our Constitution. That is why there is no urgency.
Is there an important reason to act? There is. Do we have every
intention of acting? We do. But we will not be presented with a bill on
Tuesday night and be asked to pass it on Wednesday afternoon without
full and fair consideration. That is our duty, that is our
responsibility, and that is what we will do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I began my speech today by saying we
must not always live our lives hoping simply to land on a safe square.
Some votes may be tough. This one isn't. The first thing we do when we
enter this Congress is swear to uphold the Constitution of the United
States. That is what we are asking you to do today on both sides of the
aisle. For some of our friends, it is obviously easier for them to
pass; they would rather not vote on this. But for the rest of us, let
us stand up to our duty, why we were sent here, and reassert that the
Congress of the United States is a co-equal branch, and vote ``yes'' on
this.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the contempt
resolutions. Unfortunately, these resolutions are necessary for
Congress to meet its Constitutional obligations and conduct oversight
and investigations. We provided many opportunities for the
administration to avoid this situation. But here we are.
We are here today to consider issuing contempt citations for former
White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House Chief of Staff Josh
Bolten for their failure even to appear in response to valid subpoenas
issued in our investigation of the firings of a number of United States
Attorneys and related matters concerning the politicization of the
Justice Department. We issued these subpoenas only after repeated
unsuccessful attempts to secure their cooperation voluntarily.
It is one thing to assert a legal privilege; but no one has a legal
right simply to refuse to appear at all.
This investigation seeks answers to ensure that the American people
can trust the Justice Department to be guided by the law and not by
political obligations or pressures.

[[Page 2188]]

This resolution is about the rule of law. We are taught about a
system of checks and balances to prevent abuses, but this Executive has
shown that it thinks the rules do not apply to it. This sets a
dangerous precedent for our democracy. Our system of government works
only when each branch respects the authority and role of the others,
and follows the rule of law.
For the sake of our democracy, for the sake of the rule of law, and
for the sake of our Constitution, I urge my colleagues to support the
resolutions.
Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Madam Speaker, I plan to vote in favor of this
resolution--first and foremost--because of the essential importance of
maintaining the constitutional role of the Congress as a coequal branch
of government with the executive. However, the partisan division over
this resolution is highly regrettable and serves to obscure the vital
principles at stake.
As my colleagues are well aware, the House Judiciary Committee has
initiated an inquiry into the unusual firing of several U.S. Attorneys.
The impartial administration of federal law around the nation depends
upon the integrity of the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S.
Attorneys. The decisions of the department and the officials who
implement its vast legal authority should be free of even the
appearance of impropriety, and free of politics. This is true under any
administration, regardless of party.
The importance of the committee's inquiry into this matter is clear.
In order to secure the facts necessary to make an informed judgment
regarding the propriety of those firings, the committee first sought
the voluntary cooperation of the administration in producing all of the
information the committee needed to form a fair assessment. When that
cooperation was not forthcoming, subpoenas were duly issued to Chief of
Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. On
the basis of an assertion of executive privilege, neither complied with
the subpoenas. In the face of the White House's inflexibility and
refusal to cooperate, the committee ultimately voted to approve a
contempt citation and bring the matter before the House.
I still believe that focusing on civil proceedings as a way to
resolve the dispute could have garnered bipartisan support, and thereby
avoided much of the partisan division we have witnessed regarding this
resolution. However, that is not the choice before the House today. We
must choose between recognizing and supporting the constitutional role
of Congress, or allowing the administration to direct officials and
former officials to ignore an important inquiry under way in the House.
At this crucial moment in our nation's history, it's more important
than ever to maintain the balance of powers between the federal
government's executive and legislative branches. That balance was
carefully designed by the Founders, and we have consistently seen
through the years the wisdom of that arrangement. Over the last several
years, we witnessed first-hand the unfortunate and regrettable
consequences when that balance was disturbed, and Congress failed to
carry out its oversight responsibilities. The American people deserve
better.
Thus, I cast my vote today not only to support the centuries-old role
of the House under the Constitution, but for greater transparency,
greater accountability, and to ensure the fair administration of
federal law. Once the facts are known, the House can make an informed
judgment about what course of action is best. Until we learn what the
administration knows, but isn't willing to share with the Congress, we
cannot form a final judgment in this matter.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I regret that it is necessary
for the House to consider this matter today, but I will support the
resolution because I have concluded that the Bush administration has
made it necessary to do so. When this is disposed of, I hope we can
promptly return to the pressing needs of the American people that
Congress needs to address.
Last year, the Judiciary Committee began reviewing the actions of the
administration related to the firings of a number of U.S. Attorneys and
allegations that this was part of a pattern of improper politicization
of the Justice Department.
After failing to get requested information voluntarily, the Committee
served subpoenas on then-White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of
Staff Josh Bolten. The president then invoked executive privilege and
Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten, despite the subpoenas, refused to appear
before the Committee. In response, the Judiciary Committee approved a
resolution citing them both for contempt of the Congress.
I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert on questions of
executive privilege. But it seems clear to me that the administration
has refused to negotiate in good faith to resolve this matter, offering
only to allow some interviews under severe restrictions, including a
bar to keeping of transcripts.
This is not the first time Congress has sought information from a
president's advisors. The Congressional Research Service reports there
have been 74 instances since World War II where even sitting White
House advisers, including White House counsel, have testified before
Congress, including 17 between 1996 and 2001. But I am not aware of any
instance in which executive privilege has been invoked as a reason why
a former advisor--such as Ms. Miers--will not even make an appearance
before a Congressional committee in response to a subpoena.
And I am not persuaded by the administration's explanations about why
it refused to allow Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolton to even appear, let alone
to testify. For example, we have been assured that the President was
not involved in the decision to fire the U.S. Attorneys. But if that is
true, how can executive privilege, which is intended to assure that a
president will receive candid advice, apply to this matter?
After reviewing the history of this matter, I find myself in
agreement with someone who is both a lawyer and a distinguished former
Member of Congress--Mickey Edwards, who during his service here as a
Representative from Oklahoma chaired the Republican Policy Committee.
Commenting on this matter, he has written, ``If Congressional leaders
are not able to persuade the administration to reverse its position and
allow Ms. Miers to testify and Mr. Bolten to produce documents, then
all Members of Congress, regardless of party, should insist that the
subpoenas be enforced promptly and vigorously and to use civil
litigation if, as the White House has hinted, it prohibits the D.C.
U.S. Attorney from performing his enforcement duties.''
I agree, and because that is exactly the purpose of this resolution,
I will vote for it.
Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
resolution. Many Americans are frustrated and angry because they
believe that this administration is not being held to account for its
actions. Now, after 7 years, much of the public turns this frustration
at Congress because it is the branch with the responsibility for
oversight.
Last year, the House Judiciary Committee undertook a very serious
investigation into allegations that a number of key law enforcement
officers in our country--United States attorneys--were being fired for
their unwillingness to respond to political pressure in various cases.
This led to information about other actions that were clearly
politicizing the work of the Department of Justice. You will hear
people on the other side talk about the investigation wasting time.
This was no fishing expedition. The fact is that the revelations from
this investigation led to the resignation of the Attorney General of
the United States.
We are here today because this administration responded to a
legitimate investigation--the exercise of our oversight duty--by
stonewalling in the extreme. The disrespect shown to this body has been
stunning, culminating in the fact that when the committee subpoenaed
the testimony of Harriet Miers, neither she nor her attorney bothered
to even show up to assert the privilege she claimed.
To justify the administration's behavior, the President has asserted
an astonishingly broad theory of executive privilege which claims that
any document or information from any individual who has ever worked for
the President is covered and therefore immune from being compelled to
testify before Congress. This view of executive privilege may be
unprecedented in our history, and if accepted, it would chill any
meaningful oversight of the executive branch and grant near limitless
power to the President to hide information from Congress, the courts,
and the American people.
The utter contempt shown by this administration toward Congress and
its constitutional duties is unacceptable, and to permit these actions
to stand unchallenged would be an abrogation of our constitutional
responsibility.
Approving these contempt resolutions would send a strong message to
the administration that Congress will not be ignored. At the end of the
day, whether civil or criminal action is successful, our most important
goal should be getting to the truth.
If we do not respond to the administration's disregard of the
legislative branch, we risk rendering permanent damage to our own
institution and to this country's cherished system of checks and
balances. Failure to act will also set a dangerous precedent that
future administrations will almost assuredly seek to exploit. To my
colleagues on the other side who are trying to dismiss these
resolutions as partisan--I urge you not to be shortsighted. This is not
a partisan issue. It is a matter that

[[Page 2189]]

strikes at the heart of our democracy and the checks and balances on
which it depends.
Congress has been eminently patient in awaiting the President to
provide information on the U.S. attorneys scandal. Yet, rather than
work with us to get to the bottom of wrongdoing in his administration,
the President has continued his pattern of actively hiding possible
evidence of illegal behavior by high-ranking officials in his
Government and stonewalling any inquiries to get to the truth. Because
it is each Member's very responsibility to support and defend the
Constitution, we have absolutely no other choice than to pursue this
action against the President's Chief of Staff and his former chief
legal counsel. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.
Res. 982, a resolution recommending that the House find White House
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet
Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas
properly issued by the Judiciary Committee.
Recommending the House cite someone for contempt of Congress is a
significant step, one that I support under only the most necessary
circumstance. Regrettably, it is a step that must be taken. Since
assuming office in 2001, the Bush Administration has repeatedly thumbed
its nose at Congress, ignored our constitutional mandate as a check
upon the executive branch.
This resolution comes after the Judiciary Committee attempted for
months to gain access to information requested by the committee. The
Congress has a responsibility to investigate this matter and therefore,
the White House's refusal to cooperate with the Congress leaves us no
choice.
Testifying before the House Rules Committee yesterday, my colleague
John Conyers said that he had written nine letters over more than 8
months trying to resolve this matter. But despite properly issued
subpoenas, the White House had ``determined that it has the unilateral
authority to prevent Mr. Bolten from providing us with a single piece
of paper and to prevent Ms. Miers from even showing up at a committee
hearing.'' Madam Speaker, the President is wrong and we have a
responsibility to the American people to correct him.
If the executive branch can disregard congressional subpoenas in this
way, we no longer have a system of checks and balances. That is the
cornerstone of our democracy, and it is our responsibility to protect
it. That is why I am proud to join my colleagues today in support of
the resolution.
Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H. Res. 982, yet I feel a great sense of disappointment that Congress
has been put in the position to take such action. This resolution
recommends that the U.S. House of Representatives finds White House
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet
Miers in contempt of Congress for refusal to comply with subpoenas
issued by the Committee on the Judiciary. Furthermore, H. Res. 982
authorizes the Committee on the Judiciary to initiate or intervene in
judicial proceedings to enforce certain subpoenas.
Over the past year, Congress has been investigating the firing of
U.S. Attorneys by former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales based on
what appears to be purely political grounds. Congress has been
investigating with the intent of exposing any wrongdoing and to restore
integrity and transparency to the Justice Department. Clearly, Congress
and the American people will not tolerate an Attorney General, our
Nation's top law enforcement officer, politicizing the conduct of the
Department of Justice. Congress and the American people have the right
to know what role Bush administration officials have played in the
dismissal of these Federal prosecutors--including the former U.S.
Attorney for Minnesota.
In July of 2007, Congress subpoenaed Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers after
previous requests for information from them had been denied. At the
direction of the White House, Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers refused to
comply with the Congressional subpoenas. They cited executive privilege
in an apparent attempt to avoid answering questions under oath as to
their involvement and their knowledge of the involvement of others in
the firing of the U.S. Attorneys.
Now, Congress has decided it must hold Mr. Bolten and Ms. Miers
responsible for their failure to appear. A subpoena from Congress is
not to be ignored. Their decision to dismiss the Congressional subpoena
like a piece of junk mail is regrettable and has serious consequences
as H. Res, 982 demonstrates.
The Executive Branch--regardless of occupant of the White House--must
be held accountable by both Congress and the American people. The Bush
administration too often forgets that Congress is a co-equal branch of
government and deserves open and honest cooperation when conducting
oversight duties. H. Res. 982 reflects the House of Representatives'
frustration with the conduct of this White House in impeding legitimate
oversight and I strongly support the passage of this resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of
Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 982 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution, before
consideration of any order of business other than one motion
that the House adjourn, the bill (H.R. 3773) to amend the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a
procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign
intelligence, and for other purposes, with Senate amendment
thereto, shall be considered to have been taken from the
Speaker's table. A motion that the House concur in the Senate
amendment shall be considered as pending in the House without
intervention of any point of order. The Senate amendment and
the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to final adoption without intervening motion.
____

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

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.

[[Page 2190]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a
recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 223,
noes 32, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 173, as follows:

[Roll No. 60]

AYES--223

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

NOES--32

Aderholt
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Conaway
Cubin
Cuellar
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Duncan
Ehlers
Fossella
Foxx
Gallegly
Hall (TX)
Hoekstra
Johnson (IL)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LoBiondo
McHugh
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Poe
Ramstad
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Weller
Wittman (VA)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Porter

NOT VOTING--173

Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Honda
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Lamborn
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Solis
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 4 minutes remaining to vote.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
is 1 minute remaining on this vote.

{time} 1423

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 60 on H. Res. 982,
Contempt on Miers and Bolten, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. By the adoption of House Resolution 982,
House Resolution 979 and House Resolution 980 stand adopted.
The text of House Resolution 979 is as follows:

H. Res. 979

Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to appear
before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
as directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia, to the end that Ms. Miers be
proceeded against in the manner and form provided by law; and
be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to
testify before the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law; and be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to
produce documents to the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law as directed by subpoena, to the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia, to the end that
Ms. Miers be proceeded against in the manner and form
provided by law; and be it further
Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 192 and 194, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall certify the
report of the Committee on the Judiciary, detailing the
refusal of White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten to
produce documents to the Committee on the Judiciary as
directed by subpoena, to the United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, to the end that Mr. Bolten be proceeded
against in the manner and form provided by law.

The text of House Resolution 980 is as follows:

H. Res. 980

Resolved, That the Chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary is authorized to initiate or intervene in judicial
proceedings in any Federal court of competent jurisdiction,
on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, to seek
declaratory judgments affirming the duty of any individual to
comply with any subpoena that is a subject of House
Resolution 979 issued to such individual by the Committee as
part of its investigation into the firing of certain United
States Attorneys and related matters, and to seek appropriate
ancillary relief, including injunctive relief.

[[Page 2191]]

Sec. 2. The Committee on the Judiciary shall report as
soon as practicable to the House with respect to any judicial
proceedings which it initiates or in which it intervenes
pursuant to this resolution.
Sec. 3. The Office of General Counsel of the House of
Representatives shall, at the authorization of the Speaker,
represent the Committee on the Judiciary in any litigation
pursuant to this resolution. In giving that authorization,
the Speaker shall consult with the Bipartisan Legal Advisory
Group established pursuant to clause 8 of Rule II.

____________________

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. 966, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 1834, by the yeas and nays;
S. 2571, by the yeas and nays;
H. Con. Res. 289, by the yeas and nays;
H.R. 4169, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 790, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 963, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 972, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

HONORING AFRICAN AMERICAN INVENTORS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 966,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) that the House
suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 966.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 387,
nays 0, not voting 41, as follows:

[Roll No. 61]

YEAS--387

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
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
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
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
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--41

Ackerman
Alexander
Bachus
Bono Mack
Boustany
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Capito
Cole (OK)
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Emerson
Engel
Feeney
Hayes
Honda
Jones (OH)
King (IA)
LaTourette
Lowey
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
McCrery
McMorris Rodgers
Myrick
Neal (MA)
Olver
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Price (NC)
Reichert
Rogers (KY)
Ruppersberger
Solis
Stark
Sullivan
Towns
Visclosky
Westmoreland

{time} 1443

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. COLE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, on Thursday, February 14, 2008,
I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 61. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' (on motion to suspend the rules and
agree to H. Res. 966, honoring African American inventors, past and
present, for their leadership, courage, and significant contributions
to our national competitiveness).
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 61 on motion to
suspend and pass H.R. 966, honoring African-American Inventors, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT

Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill (H.R. 1834) to authorize the national ocean exploration
program and the national undersea research program within the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as proposed to be adopted under
suspension of the rules, be modified by the amendment that I have
placed at the desk.
(For the text of H.R. 1834, see proceedings of the House of February
13, 2008, at page 2106.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

TITLE I--NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Ocean Exploration
Program Act''.

[[Page 2192]]

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION.

The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall, in consultation with the National
Science Foundation and other appropriate Federal agencies,
conduct a coordinated national ocean exploration program
within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
that promotes collaboration with other Federal ocean and
undersea research and exploration programs. To the extent
appropriate, the Administrator shall seek to facilitate
coordination of data and information management systems,
outreach and education programs to improve public
understanding of ocean and coastal resources, and development
and transfer of technologies to facilitate ocean and undersea
research and exploration.

SEC. 103. AUTHORITIES.

(a) In General.--In carrying out the program authorized
under section 102, the Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (in this title referred to as
the ``Administrator'') shall--
(1) conduct interdisciplinary voyages or other scientific
activities of discovery in conjunction with other Federal
agencies or academic or educational institutions, to explore
and survey little known areas of the marine environment,
inventory, observe, and assess living and nonliving marine
resources, and report such findings;
(2) give priority attention to deep ocean regions, with a
focus on deep water marine systems that hold potential for
important scientific discoveries, such as hydrothermal vent
communities and seamounts;
(3) conduct scientific voyages to locate, define, and
document historic shipwrecks, submerged sites, and other
ocean exploration activities that combine archaeology and
oceanographic sciences;
(4) develop and implement, in consultation with the
National Science Foundation, a transparent, competitive
process for merit-based peer-review and approval of proposals
for activities to be conducted under this program, taking
into consideration advice of the Board established under
section 104;
(5) enhance the technical capability of the United States
marine science community by promoting the development of
improved oceanographic research, communication, navigation,
and data collection systems, as well as underwater platforms
and sensors and autonomous vehicles; and
(6) establish an ocean exploration forum to encourage
partnerships and promote communication among experts and
other stakeholders in order to enhance the scientific and
technical expertise and relevance of the national program.
(b) Donations.--In carrying out the program authorized
under section 102, the Administrator may accept donations of
property, data, and equipment to be applied for the purpose
of exploring the oceans or increasing knowledge of the
oceans.

SEC. 104. OCEAN EXPLORATION ADVISORY BOARD.

(a) Establishment.--The Administrator shall appoint an
Ocean Exploration Advisory Board composed of experts in
relevant fields to--
(1) advise the Administrator on priority areas for survey
and discovery;
(2) assist the program in the development of a five-year
strategic plan for the fields of ocean, marine, and Great
Lakes science, exploration, and discovery;
(3) annually review the quality and effectiveness of the
proposal review process established under section 103(4); and
(4) provide other assistance and advice as requested by the
Administrator.
(b) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14 of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not
apply to the Board appointed under subsection (a).

SEC. 105. APPLICATION WITH OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LANDS ACT.

Nothing in this Act supersedes, or limits the authority of
the Secretary of the Interior under the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).

SEC. 106. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this
title--
(1) $30,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $33,550,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $36,905,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(4) $40,596,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(5) $44,655,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(6) $49,121,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(7) $54,033,000 for fiscal year 2014.

TITLE II--UNDERSEA RESEARCH PROGRAM

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``National Undersea Research
Program Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION.

The Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration shall conduct an undersea research,
exploration, education, and technology development program
and shall designate a Director of that program.

SEC. 203. PURPOSE.

The purpose of the program authorized under section 202 is
to increase scientific knowledge essential for the informed
management, use, and preservation of oceanic, marine,
coastal, and Great Lakes resources. The Director, in carrying
out the program authorized in section 202, shall cooperate
with institutions of higher education and other educational
marine and ocean science organizations, and shall make
available undersea research facilities, equipment,
technologies, information, and expertise to support undersea
research efforts by these organizations. The Director may
also enter into partnerships, using existing authorities,
with the private sector to achieve the goals of the program
and to promote technological advancement of the marine
industry.

SEC. 204. PROGRAM.

The program authorized under section 202 shall be conducted
through a national headquarters, a network of extramural
regional undersea research centers that represent all
relevant National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
regions, and the National Institute for Undersea Science and
Technology. Overall direction of the program will be
developed by the program director with a Council of Center
Directors comprised of the directors of the extramural
regional centers and the National Institute for Undersea
Science and Technology. Draft program direction shall be
published not later than 1 year after the date of enactment
of this Act. The draft program direction shall be published
in the Federal Register for a public comment period of not
less than 120 days. Final program direction with Agency
responses to the comments received shall be published in the
Federal Register within 90 days after the close of the
comment period. The program director shall update the program
direction, with opportunity for public comment, at least
every five years.

SEC. 205. REGIONAL CENTERS AND INSTITUTE.

(a) Programs.--The following research, exploration,
education, and technology programs shall be conducted through
the network of extramural regional centers and the National
Institute for Undersea Science and Technology:
(1) Core research and exploration based on national and
regional undersea research priorities.
(2) Advanced undersea technology development to support the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's research
mission and programs.
(3) Development, testing, and transition of advanced
undersea technology associated with ocean observatories,
submersibles, advanced diving technologies, remotely operated
vehicles, autonomous underwater vehicles, and new sampling
and sensing technologies.
(4) Undersea science-based education and outreach programs
to enrich ocean science education and public awareness of the
oceans and Great Lakes.
(5) Discovery, study, and development of natural products
from ocean and aquatic systems.
(b) Operations.--Operation of the extramural regional
centers and the National Institute for Undersea Science and
Technology shall leverage partnerships and cooperative
research with academia and private industry.

SEC. 206. COMPETITION.

(a) Discretionary Fund.--The program shall allocate no more
than 10 percent of its annual budget to a discretionary fund
that may be used only for program administration and priority
undersea research projects identified by the Director but not
covered by funding available from centers.
(b) Competitive Selection.--The Administrator shall conduct
an initial competition to select the regional centers that
will participate in the program 90 days after the publication
of the final program direction required in section 204 and
every five years thereafter. Funding for projects conducted
through the regional centers shall be awarded through a
competitive, merit-reviewed process on the basis of their
relevance to the goals of the program and their technical
feasibility.

SEC. 207. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this
title--
(1) $17,500,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $19,500,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $21,500,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(4) $23,500,000 for fiscal year 2011;
(5) $25,500,000 for fiscal year 2012;
(6) $27,500,000 for fiscal year 2013; and
(7) $29,500,000 for fiscal year 2014.

TITLE III--INTERAGENCY PLANNING AND COORDINATION

SEC. 301. OCEAN EXPLORATION AND UNDERSEA RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY
AND INFRASTRUCTURE TASK FORCE.

(a) In General.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, in coordination with the
National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, the United States Geological Survey,
the Department of the Navy, the Mineral Management Service,
and relevant governmental, non-governmental, academic,
industry, and other experts, shall convene an ocean
exploration and undersea research technology and
infrastructure task force to develop and implement a
strategy--
(1) to facilitate transfer of new exploration and undersea
research technology to the programs authorized under titles I
and II of this Act;

[[Page 2193]]

(2) to improve availability of communications
infrastructure, including satellite capabilities, to such
programs;
(3) to develop an integrated, workable, and comprehensive
data management information processing system that will make
information on unique and significant features obtained by
such programs available for research and management purposes;
(4) to conduct public outreach activities that improve the
public understanding of ocean science, resources, and
processes, in conjunction with relevant programs of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National
Science Foundation, and other agencies; and
(5) to encourage cost-sharing partnerships with
governmental and nongovernmental entities that will assist in
transferring exploration and undersea research technology and
technical expertise to the programs.
(b) Budget Coordination.--The task force shall coordinate
the development of agency budgets and identify the items in
their annual budget that support the activities identified in
the strategy developed under subsection (a).

Mr. BAIRD (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the original request
of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.

____________________

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.

____________________

NATIONAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1834, as amended,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 1834, as amended.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 352,
nays 49, not voting 27, as follows:

[Roll No. 62]

YEAS--352

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

NAYS--49

Barrett (SC)
Blackburn
Broun (GA)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Carter
Conaway
Culberson
Doolittle
Duncan
Flake
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey
Gohmert
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Lamborn
Latta
Manzullo
Marchant
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Poe
Radanovich
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walberg
Wilson (SC)

NOT VOTING--27

Ackerman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Boehner
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Capuano
Conyers
Deal (GA)
Drake
Engel
Feeney
Hayes
Honda
Jones (OH)
Lowey
Miller (NC)
Neal (MA)
Peterson (PA)
Pryce (OH)
Ruppersberger
Slaughter
Solis
Towns
Udall (CO)
Westmoreland
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1453

Mr. PENCE and Mr. LAMBORN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 62, on motion to
suspend and pass H.R. 1834, authorizing Ocean Exploration Program Act,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea''.

____________________

MAKING TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE, AND
RODENTICIDE ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S. 2571, on which
the yeas and nays were ordered.
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.

[[Page 2194]]

Cardoza) that the House suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill, S.
2571.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 400,
nays 0, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 63]

YEAS--400

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

NOT VOTING--28

Ackerman
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Capuano
Conyers
Deal (GA)
Drake
Engel
Eshoo
Feeney
Granger
Hayes
Hinojosa
Honda
Jones (OH)
Klein (FL)
Lowey
Miller (NC)
Moore (WI)
Neal (MA)
Peterson (PA)
Ruppersberger
Slaughter
Solis
Towns
Udall (CO)
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1459

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the Senate bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 63, on motion to
suspend and pass S. 2571, FIFRA Amendments, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

HONORING AND PRAISING THE NAACP ON ITS 99TH ANNIVERSARY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution, H.
Con. Res. 289, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
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. 289.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 403,
nays 0, not voting 25, as follows:

[Roll No. 64]

YEAS--403

[[Page 2195]]

Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Tsongas
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)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--25

Ackerman
Bishop (UT)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Carney
Conyers
Crowley
Cuellar
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Drake
Engel
Hayes
Honda
Jones (OH)
Lowey
Miller (NC)
Neal (MA)
Peterson (PA)
Ruppersberger
Slaughter
Solis
Towns
Udall (CO)
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1507

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the concurrent 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:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 64, on motion to
suspend and pass H. Con. Res. 289, praising the NAACP, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 62, 63, and 64, had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

QUESTION OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause
1 of rule IX, I rise to a question of personal privilege.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has been made aware of a valid
basis for the gentleman's point of personal privilege.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is with great
regret, but I must rise today for a question of personal privilege. An
article appeared today, Madam Speaker, on the Web site of a publication
called The Politico reprinting a statement by a spokesperson for the
majority leader of this House describing actions of mine as
``incomprehensible'' and ``unjustifiable'' and insinuating that I
purposely brought disrespect to the House and to the memory of my dear
friend and colleague, Congressman Tom Lantos.
It was not my actions which were incomprehensible or unjustifiable,
Madam Speaker, but rather the actions of the majority which deprived
all Members of this House the opportunity to debate or even consider or
vote on the contempt resolutions brought to the floor today by the
majority in an absolutely totally unprecedented fashion.
The majority knows that the rule we considered earlier is totally and
absolutely unprecedented. Its sole purpose was to prevent us from even
debating or voting on these contempt resolutions. And further, the
majority denied us the opportunity to take up the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act amendments passed by the Senate, which we feel very
strongly are in the supreme national interest of the United States.
The majority knew that the minority was strongly of the belief that
the only options available to us were procedural votes. The majority
knew that we intended to utilize our procedural options to register our
displeasure with this uncalled-for process.
We purposely refrained from all procedural motions during the opening
moments of the session today precisely to show respect for our friend
and departed colleague.
We were assured by the majority that we would not begin consideration
of the rule, in other words, that the House would not reconvene until
11:30 a.m. or the conclusion of Mr. Lantos' memorial service.
Tom Lantos, Madam Speaker, was an extraordinary man, a great man, and
he was my friend. It was an honor for me to be present today at his
memorial service in Statuary Hall. I was suddenly summoned out of the
memorial service for my friend Mr. Lantos to perform my
responsibilities as a member of the Rules Committee, to manage the rule
for the minority side for the contempt resolutions. The majority had
decided to resume the session during the memorial service.
Madam Speaker, I am a member of the minority. Neither I nor my
leadership control when the House convenes. What we saw today was an
uncalled-for effort by the majority to force the minority to give up
our rights to protest a process we feel is blatantly unfair.
The majority's decision to reconvene the House interrupted the
tribute to my good friend Mr. Lantos. It is the majority that decides
when to convene the House. It is the majority that chose to convene the
House even though many speakers remained to speak in the memorial for
Mr. Lantos.
I was told by my good friend Mr. Dreier that he does not recall any
memorial being interrupted by a House session, and he has been here
more years than I have. I have been here 15, and obviously I don't
recall any either.
Madam Speaker, the statement attacking me today by a spokesperson for
the majority leader was totally uncalled for and unacceptable.
I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the
Rules Committee, the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. And we
have all come to the conclusion that this has been a very sad day in
many ways. Of course, the saddest part of it was the loss of our dear
friend and colleague, Tom Lantos.
I would simply like to say that Mr. Diaz-Balart had the
responsibility of serving as the floor manager for a rule that was, as
he said in his very thoughtful statement, unprecedented. And we had a
debate on that rule, and this House chose to do something it had never
done before, pass a rule which took two contempt resolutions and
adopted them. That was a decision of the House. And I think it was an
unfortunate one.
Mr. Diaz-Balart had a responsibility to stand up for this
institution. He and I stood together at that service, heard from
colleagues of ours and heard from many other distinguished people who
remembered the life of Tom Lantos.

{time} 1515

We were stunned when all of a sudden the bells rang and the House was
going to reconvene in the middle of this memorial service.

[[Page 2196]]

Now, members of the majority staff, Madam Speaker, had been informed,
had been informed, of exactly what it was that we in the minority were
going to do. If the House reconvened and we proceeded with
consideration of this special rule, we had informed the members of the
majority staff that we were going to call for a vote.
So Mr. Diaz-Balart was simply working to, under very, very, very
challenging, and, again, from my perspective, unprecedented
circumstances, where I had never before seen the House of
Representatives convened during a memorial service being held in
Statuary Hall, but under those circumstances, Mr. Diaz-Balart had the
responsibility to fulfill his duties, not to the Republican Members,
but to do what he believed to be right, and I agree with him,
obviously, in upholding the rights of this institution. So for any
Member, any Member or anyone outside to malign Mr. Diaz-Balart for
simply doing his job under very difficult circumstances is not right.
Let me conclude by simply saying that Mr. Diaz-Balart is one of those
Members who we all know is a fighter for freedom and has been
throughout his entire life. In many respects, Lincoln Diaz-Balart is
very similar to Tom Lantos.
Madam Speaker, I will say that it is a tragic irony that as we are
remembering the life of Tom Lantos that a Member like Lincoln Diaz-
Balart would in any way be maligned for his work on behalf of the
struggle for freedom and democracy and the liberation of people all
over this world.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from
Missouri.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would say, of course, we come to the floor today with lots of
disappointment on what we are failing to do today. We think we should
stay until we get other matters done. But on this issue that relates to
the activities of the day, first of all, I was at the memorial service,
as many of you were. I was privileged to be there. Frankly, there are
very few Members of Congress, in the history of the Congress, that
could have, on the very short notice that we would have this sad
service today, would have the Foreign Minister of Israel, the Secretary
of State, the head of the United Nations, the Speaker of the House
present. It was an impressive service, and I hate that we are having
this debate around any lack of respect for that service.
On the other hand, the only work we had to do today was 1 hour of
debate on a rule that would then also replace the debate. One hour of
debate. The service was scheduled to last from 10 o'clock until 11:30.
It turned out it lasted until 11:50. But it was scheduled to last from
10 o'clock until 11:30.
When at 10:45 the majority decides we are going to start the 1 hour
of work we have to do today at 11, the majority should expect the other
side to complain. If in fact Mr. Diaz-Balart had not had his objection,
50 minutes of that 1-hour debate would have gone before I ever walked
out of the memorial service. The vote lasted 50 minutes, or
thereabouts. Apparently, Members couldn't even get in to vote for 50
minutes, let alone to get in to participate in the debate.
Of course, we should have said, let's not start the debate on the
only work we are doing today while we are passing up the work on the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We are voting to talk about how
you can kill rats in the technical correction to the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. That is the only debate we
were going to have during 50 minutes of the 1 hour of the memorial
service. And of course Lincoln Diaz-Balart or somebody should have
stepped up to stop that, and thank goodness he did.
I am really sad that a service we should have all agreed on would be
the priority of the morning, we couldn't manage for that to be the
priority of the morning. We had to start the 1 hour of work we had to
do 50 minutes before that service turned out to end and 30 minutes
before it was scheduled to end.
I am regretful that my good friend had to rise to this moment of
personal privilege, but I certainly support him in seeking this
privilege and hope that the Members of the House will understand what
happened here and appreciate the great respect we all have for Tom
Lantos.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from
Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I rise, as I have a couple of times in the past, to simply
say that I think on our side, obviously, we believed that we needed to
move forward on the work. All of us, however, share what has been said
about Tom Lantos, for whom we had the greatest respect, and we all
share a sadness at his loss.
I regret that the actions that precipitated this hour that you are
taking have occurred. They have occurred. We can't change them. Having
said that, I want to say that I understand the point the gentleman is
making, and I understand the point my friend Mr. Blunt has made. I
think it will suffice to say that. But I can appreciate the position
the gentleman found himself in and that Mr. Blunt and his leadership
found themselves in.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Thank you.
Madam Speaker, I utilized the opportunity of the rules to rise to a
question of personal privilege due to the statements attributed in the
press that I mentioned before to a spokesperson, which I stated and
restated I believe were totally uncalled for and unacceptable.
I thank all of you for having listened to me with such courtesy. It
is for someone who arrived as a 4-year-old refugee with his family
fleeing oppression, an extraordinary moment in the midst of the sadness
of the day, and the offense that I felt, it is an extraordinary moment
to be able to rise and invoke the rules of the House to seek the
attention of the representatives of this extraordinary Nation. So I
thank each and every one of you for your patience and your courtesy.
At this point, after thanking Mr. Dreier, thanking Mr. Blunt, and
thanking the majority leader for their kind words, I simply end
remembering a friend who everyone in this room can agree enriched our
lives. My son mentioned the other day this week when we were talking
about the sad news, he said, Dad, do you remember when I was a little
kid and you wanted me to get my posture up, what you would tell me? I
will never forget, he told me. Lantos. Your posture. That is one of the
first things that impressed me about Tom Lantos, even before I learned
about his zealous extraordinary commitment to the oppressed everywhere
where people are still longing to be free.
So let us all then end this recollection of what I believe was a very
unfortunate moment remembering someone who we can all agree was
extraordinary, enriched our lives, and was a great Member of Congress
and a great American. Thank you all very much.

____________________

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.R. 4169, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 790, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 963, by the yeas and nays;
H. Res. 972, by the yeas and nays.
The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes.

____________________

AMERICAN BRAILLE FLAG MEMORIAL ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4169, on which the
yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by

[[Page 2197]]

the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4169.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 396,
nays 0, not voting 32, as follows:

[Roll No. 65]

YEAS--396

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

NOT VOTING--32

Ackerman
Barton (TX)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Drake
Engel
Eshoo
Hall (NY)
Hayes
Honda
Jones (OH)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
McNerney
Miller, George
Murphy, Tim
Neal (MA)
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Ruppersberger
Sanchez, Loretta
Sestak
Solis
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 5 minutes remaining on this vote.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1543

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.
Stated for:
Mr. HALL of New York. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, I was
chairing the VA Disabilities Subcommittee hearing. Had I been present,
I would have voted ``yea.''
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 65, on motion to
suspend and pass H.R. 4169, Placement of American Braille Tactile Flag,
I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. SESTAK. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, H.R. 4169, I was at a
special access briefing with U.S. Air Force and immediately attempted
to return but votes closed just as I arrived. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, I was
inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 65, I
was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea.''

____________________

COMMENDING THE PEOPLE OF WASHINGTON FOR SHOWING THEIR SUPPORT FOR
VETERANS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 790,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 790.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 383,
nays 0, not voting 45, as follows:

[Roll No. 66]

YEAS--383

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare

[[Page 2198]]

Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
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
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Tsongas
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--45

Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Barton (TX)
Blunt
Boehner
Boswell
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Cantor
Cuellar
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Engel
Eshoo
Gohmert
Hayes
Honda
Issa
Jones (OH)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Miller, George
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pascrell
Peterson (PA)
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Rush
Solis
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Walberg
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1550

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:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 66, on motion to
suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 790, Commending State of Washington
for Showing Their Support for Veterans, I was unavoidably detained. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF NATIONAL SALUTE TO HOSPITALIZED
VETERANS WEEK

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 963,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 963.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 384,
nays 0, not voting 44, as follows:

[Roll No. 67]

YEAS--384

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

[[Page 2199]]

Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--44

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bonner
Broun (GA)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Cleaver
Conyers
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Doyle
Drake
Engel
Eshoo
Feeney
Gohmert
Hayes
Hodes
Honda
Jones (OH)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Miller, George
Neal (MA)
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Ruppersberger
Rush
Solis
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Walsh (NY)
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1556

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:
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 67 on motion to
suspend and pass H. Res. 963, National Salute to Hospitalized Veterans
Week, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''

____________________

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF AMERICAN HEART MONTH AND NATIONAL
WEAR RED DAY

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The unfinished business is the vote on the
motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 972,
on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) that the House suspend the
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 972.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 389,
nays 0, not voting 39, as follows:

[Roll No. 68]

YEAS--389

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Arcuri
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pitts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
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
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Tsongas
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)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--39

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Barton (TX)
Boren
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Doyle
Drake
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Gohmert
Green, Gene
Hayes
Honda
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Miller, George
Neal (MA)
Pascrell
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pryce (OH)
Ruppersberger
Smith (TX)
Solis
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Udall (CO)
Woolsey
Wynn

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1603

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 68, had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 68, on motion to
suspend and pass H. Res. 972, American Heart Month and National Wear
Red Day, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. DRAKE. Madam Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 61-68, I was attending a
funeral for a Navy SEAL. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''
on each rollcall.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, due to events in my district I
will miss votes on February 14, 2008. Had I been present, the Record
would reflect the following votes:
H. Res. 982, providing for the adoption of H. Res. 979 and H. Res.
980, contempt of Congress resolutions, ``yea.''
H. Res. 966, honoring African-American inventors, past and present,
for their leadership, courage, and significant contributions to our
national competitiveness, ``yea.''
H.R. 1834, National Ocean Exploration Program Act, ``yea.''
S. 2571, to make technical corrections to the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, ``yea.''
H. Con. Res. 289, honoring and praising the National Association for
the Advancement of

[[Page 2200]]

Colored People on the occasion of its 99th anniversary, ``yea.''
H.R. 4169, American Braille Flag Memorial Act, ``yea.''
H. Res. 790, commending the people of the State of Washington for
showing their support for the needs of the State of Washington's
veterans and encouraging residents of the other States to pursue
creative ways to show their own support for veterans, ``yea.''
H. Res. 963, supporting the goals and ideals of National Salute to
Hospitalized Veterans Week, ``yea.''
H. Res. 972, supporting the goals and ideals of American Heart Month
and National Wear Red Day, ``yea.''

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). 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.

____________________

UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, we leave today for the President's Day
Recess. We leave at a time where we have our troops committed in Iraq,
we have our troops committed in Afghanistan, where, in the last 48
hours there have been reports that radical Islamists have perhaps been
plotting an attack to assassinate the President of the Philippines,
where al Qaeda in Iraq has said that they are going to launch new
attacks or additional attacks against Israel, against Jerusalem, where
there have been arrests in Denmark of individuals perhaps planning to
assassinate, murder the cartoonists, their declaration of war by
Hezbollah.
And we're going back home without extending the Protect America Act.
It's unilateral disarmament. The head of our intelligence community has
said that the Protect America Act, that the authorities provided under
FISA have been the tip of the spear in keeping America safe.
But it is not only about keeping America safe, because the
information, the intelligence that we have gathered under the Protect
America Act, under FISA, over the last 6 years have kept America safe,
but has also enabled us to identify threats and potential attacks
against our allies.
And what this now does, this unilateral disarmament, means that an
important tool in keeping America safe and our allies safe expires on
Saturday night.
If you take a look at what's happened here, it's the day after
September 11. The President, meeting with his national security team,
they're looking for ways to identify exactly what the other threats are
against the United States, what the capabilities of al Qaeda are. They
come back with some suggestions and ideas, one of which is to use our
telecommunications folks, perhaps, and others, to get information and
insights into al Qaeda and to radical jihadists.
Members of Congress are brought in. The current Speaker of the House
was briefed four times, I believe, within the first 8 months in terms
of what we were going to do, what we expected to collect and how that
would keep us safe. And today, these folks are thrown under the bus.
This unilateral disarmament makes America less safe. The President
has said, I'm willing to stay until Congress completes its work. I'm
willing to postpone or delay a trip to Africa that's been in the
planning stages for a long time so that Congress can complete its work.
I'm willing to work with Congress to make that happen.
The Senate did their job. Senator Rockefeller was being briefed at
the same time, 6 years ago, that the current Speaker of the House was
briefed. He recognizes the responsibility that they have and that the
Senate has to making sure that America keeps these tools in the hands
of our intelligence community. They did the right thing.
Overwhelmingly, the other body passed a bill that keeps America safe,
bipartisan, protecting those who helped our government to stay, to put
in place the mechanisms to keep us safe over the last 6 years.
And now, the House walks away from this for the next 12 days. And
each day that we are gone, our ability to monitor radical jihadists and
the threats to the United States begins to erode just a little bit each
and every day. But every time we identify potentially a new threat to
the United States, we need to go back through a cumbersome process, one
that ties the hands of our intelligence community. As al Qaeda and
radical jihadists have evolved, and they're becoming more coordinated
and more effective in planning attacks against the United States, we're
moving back and we're degrading and we are unilaterally disarming.
It is a disappointment and a disgrace that this House is leaving
today without finishing this business.

____________________

{time} 1615
WE ARE STANDING AT A CRITICAL CROSSROAD

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Tim Murphy) is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we are facing massive
problems with regard to the price of energy. Energy costs money, and
expensive energy costs jobs, and we are seeing that now happen in our
economy.
We are standing at a critical crossroad, and if we fail to deal with
our energy needs in a responsible way, we will face not only the
concerns about the environment, but we will face and we are facing
economic recession threats and major job losses.
Earlier today, the Department of Commerce released December's trade
deficit numbers, which, once again, strongly underscored the need for
American energy independence. The good news is that the trade deficit
shrank by 6.9 percent to $58.76 billion. But the bad news is that
energy imports continue to make up over half of our trade deficit, over
half, 55 percent. In November, it was the reason why we had major
increases.
We continue to see risk that oil was sold for only $50 a barrel a
year ago and gas into $2.50, and is going to continue to climb.
As long as we continue down this road of importing foreign oil to the
United States, we will be allowing OPEC nations to call the shots for
our economy and becoming more dependent upon hostile countries for oil.
When OPEC manipulates production, rural oil prices soar. And our
President is left to go and ask Saudi leaders to produce more oil, more
Saudi oil, not more American oil.
We have Venezuelan leader, President Hugo Chavez, threatening to cut
off oil to the United States and Exxon. If they were to do that, the
price of oil would increase throughout the world. Chavez himself
predicted the cost per barrel would double to $200 and increase our
prices. Such a move would show all of these oil-producing countries
that they can control our actions by shutting down our access to oil.
We've already seen natural gas prices manipulated by Russia. We've seen
these energy prices increase. But when we buy oil from countries with a
history of supporting terrorism, the worst part about this is we are
funding both sides of the war on terror.
Meanwhile, what has Congress done in the last year or two? Well, it's
put on an embargo on our own oil. It's blocked exploration for American
oil. Congress has voted to prevent oil production, oil drilling in the
Atlantic coast, the gulf coast, the Pacific coast, Colorado and Alaska.
These bans on drilling for our own oil are particularly preposterous in
light of the fact that China and Cuba are drilling within 60 miles of
our Florida coast while we are not allowed to drill off our coast.
The U.S. contains 70 percent of the world's shale oil reserves,
enough to supply our country with energy for hundreds of years if we
are allowed to use it. But rather than turning to this resource that
can lead us to energy independence and energy security, we once again
turn our backs to it. Last

[[Page 2201]]

year, we cut off access to 2 trillion barrels of shale oil in the
western States in the omnibus spending bill. Such policies have forced
us to continue this increase of importing oil.
What happens is the impact upon the American family in terms of
costs. We see increased costs for food as we also try using corn for
ethanol. But when 20 percent of corn is being used for ethanol, we see
the cost of food go up. We see the costs of transporting food go up. We
see the cost of wheat climbing because not only is it a concern with
regard to shortages of wheat coming from other nations, but it's also a
huge concern on the cost of transporting that wheat. So what was $16
per hundred weight last year for wheat for our bakers to use their
flour, now it's $40, with anticipation to climb much more.
How will Americans react when they know that while Congress continues
to embargo the American oil resources, a loaf of bread is going to
climb from $1.50 to $3 a loaf. Americans don't understand why we cannot
drill for our own oil.
Yes, we need to do so many things to clean up the air. Yes, we need
to make sure we are investing in clean coal technology so that the 300
years' worth of coal we have in this Nation can be used to cleanly
produce electricity. We have to make sure we are using clean nuclear
energy. We have to make sure that natural gas is used for what it's
supposed to be as a chemical product to make fertilizer rather than
producing energy at a very high cost and thereby allow us to use it for
making fertilizer and other products that can help also reduce the cost
of our food products.
But instead, we continue to say no to American oil, and it just
doesn't make sense. Here is what America's going to face by 2050: our
energy demands are going to double. That means we have 400 coal-fired
power plants that need to be rebuilt and an additional 400 built. We
have 100 nuclear power plants that need to be rebuilt because they are
old, and we need to build an additional 100.
That means starting in the year 2010, we have to open up a new clean
coal power plant every 2\1/2\ weeks and a nuclear plant every 2\1/2\
months, and we haven't even started building them yet. It cannot be
done. Instead, what we are probably going to face is rolling brownouts
because the efforts we are doing are not going to suffice.
I hope this House will move forward, take the embargoes off coal, and
begin to really move towards clean coal technology and stop the embargo
on oil.

____________________

THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, it's 4:14 p.m. on the 14th day of the second
month of this year. This House is basically empty except for a few of
us. Everyone has gone home.
We found time today to do important business for the people of the
country. I have some of the bills that we passed today. One of those
was that we had the time to vote after debate on regulating insects,
roaches, fungus, and rats in the United States. Oh, such an important
piece of legislation that the House of Representatives debated and
voted on.
But while we had the time to vote on these important issues of
regulating the rats and roaches and fungi in the United States, we
didn't take the time to protect the American people from those people
throughout the world who want to kill us, who want to do harm to us and
our families. And not to America only, but to all freedom countries
throughout the world.
Because we didn't have time to work on the Protect America Act, a
bill that does exactly what it says, Mr. Speaker, it protects America.
It protects America from terrorists. And one of those ways is being
able to eavesdrop into conversations when one terrorist overseas talks
to another terrorist overseas, amending the FISA, the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance, Act. But, oh, we didn't have time to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, it troubles me because has the House of Representatives,
without firing a shot, raised the ``white flag of surrender'' to those
people who wish to do us harm? The head of the National Intelligence
Service has told us that 50 percent of the intelligence that they
attained is through FISA. And yet we have cut off that resource by
failing to vote on that, failing debate on that. But yet we had time to
talk about roaches, rats, and fungi.
Mr. Speaker, this ought not to be. Under FISA, we have been able to
prevent crimes from being occurred against the United States. One of
those was the bombing of the Brooklyn Bridge, another was the bombing
of Fort Dix in New Jersey. Those were prevented because of FISA,
because we had the intelligence, because we had the eavesdropping, the
legal eavesdropping capability.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has not done a service to
the people of the United States by failing to debate this issue and at
least have an argument, a lively debate, and then vote on it to protect
the United States. The people of the United States deserve better from
us. Our job is to protect America through legislation. And, Mr.
Speaker, I think we have not done that today because we are off doing
other things.
So I hope that I am proven wrong by history that this did not hurt
the United States down the road for failing to act on this important
legislation. And it's important that the House come back as soon as
possible and deal with the issue of protecting America first and making
sure that we know what they're saying throughout the world when they
want to do us harm, because the people we fight, the war we fight
against are people who will do anything to get their way and their
radical beliefs including killing children and women and the innocents
and car bombs and anyone else that gets in their way.
And there is probably joy throughout the terrorist cells in the world
that the United States Congress did not do its duty today.
And, Mr. Speaker, that's just the way it is.

____________________

THE MILITARY FREEDOM ACT

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow my friend, a
former judge also, from Texas, Mr. Poe; and he nailed it on the head.
And I tell you, following up on that is another travesty going on this
week, and that's why I just filed a bill in the last 15 minutes called
the Military Freedom Act.
We are endowed by our creator with liberty. But like any inheritance,
we only get to keep it if we are willing to fight for it. That is
precisely why so many of our uniformed military members have laid down
their lives. And the plain fact is that there is no more important
purpose for the Federal Government than to provide for the common
defense.
In order to do that, there's got to be a military. But we have all of
the rights of freedom of speech. Even those rights have limits, such as
when you can't yell ``fire'' in a crowded theater. There is, however,
no right to trespass, there is no right to obstruct lawful ingress and
egress into a military recruiter's office. The City of Berkeley,
California, chose not to protect the Marines' lawful right to ingress
and egress. They instead chose to aid and abet lawbreakers by
encouraging them and passing an ordinance to make it easier to violate
the Marines' rights.
The restricting of funding that is proposed and put forward in the
bill I have just filed has been done previously in matters such as the
speed limits of States or to encourage States to limit drinking and
driving. So it's nothing new.
It has been deemed appropriate to encourage political entities in
areas in which the Federal Government has a vested interest, and it has
no more vested interest than what we have in providing for the common
defense.
But Berkeley and any other city has the right to rule over its own
city as they wish, and they're welcome to do that. But the Federal
Government should not reward a city that chooses

[[Page 2202]]

to obstruct and prevent the obtaining of military members who provide
the very freedoms and the umbrella of freedom under which that city
acts. They have a right to use freedom of speech, but they have no
right to take United States taxpayers' dollars to aid and abet hurting
our military readiness.
We took an oath in this body, in this room, to defend this Nation
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and those who prevent the
United States from attaining military members are not the Nation's
friends. Though such a city may deserve punishment, all we are trying
to do with this bill is just not reward them for hurting our national
defense.
Other city leaders, such as those in San Francisco, Toledo, Ohio,
like the mayor there, have snubbed or restricted our military. They
need to be aware that when they begin to prevent the military from
having enough troops to protect us and being militarily ready, they
should not expect Federal subsidies to assist them.
It is true that the actions addressed in the Military Freedom Act are
mainly actions or omissions by community leaders and not all of their
citizens. We understand that. There are good citizens in each of those
towns. But the choice of the citizens is either to replace the hurtful
leaders or bear the consequences or move. The old adage is democracy
ensures the people are governed no better than they deserve. Therefore,
those cities either deserve to have better leaders who don't hurt our
national defense, or they deserve not to have funds to award their
harmful conduct.
Cities like Berkeley should take stock of how many of their very own
first responders in the business in their cities of saving lives were
trained in the military.
I would remind you also, and I remember vividly because I was about
to go on active duty about the time Vietnam was ended, our heroes came
back from Vietnam and were spit on. Some of the hippies that did the
spitting cut their hair, got into positions in cities and have found,
figuratively, new, effective ways of spitting on our military.
But everyone should understand, Mr. Speaker, this is not taking away
money for expressing free speech. It's simply not rewarding the
obstruction of providing for the common defense. Since it will cost
additional money to overcome the obstruction to our military readiness,
the Military Freedom Act takes money from the appropriate place to do
that.
This is the ultimate PAYGO bill for military readiness and national
security.
In any event, I hope and I encourage the leaders, the majority
leaders, the Democratic majority leaders of this body to bring this
bill to a vote and let the cities know that we don't reward those who
prevent our providing for the common defense.

____________________

{time} 1630
PAY ATTENTION AMERICA

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the American people mostly don't
pay a whole lot of attention to what goes on here on the floor, and
it's probably better, but hopefully they're paying attention now
because it's a sad day, and they need to take note.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what has happened today on this
floor has been an abrogation of duty, an abrogation of our duty as
representatives of the people, the finest Nation on the face of the
Earth. But given what we've done today, we may not be there long.
Mr. Speaker, there are individuals who have as their stated goal the
destruction of the West. You can call them what you will, radical
jihadists, terrorists. Their threats are real and they are continuing.
And this House, under this liberal Democrat leadership, is ignoring
their words.
You don't have to take my word for the fact that these threats are
real. Benazir Bhutto was assassinated on December 27, allegedly on
orders from al Qaeda. And one might say, well, that's 6 weeks ago.
Well, just in the past 48 hours we have seen threats from other radical
jihadists. In Denmark, 3 jihadists were arrested in a plot to murder a
cartoonist for drawing an editorial cartoon years ago that they found
objectionable. Mr. Speaker, I know that some on the majority side view
this as comic relief, I guess, but the 3 jihadists who were arrested to
plot the murder of a cartoonist in Denmark within the past 48 hours
didn't view it as comedy. And this Democrat majority and leadership
says, oh, that's okay, don't worry about it. Mr. Speaker, I hope the
American people are paying attention.
In the last 48 hours, in the Philippines, jihadists with 2 terrorist
groups associated with al Qaeda are said to be plotting to assassinate
the Filipino President and bomb western embassies. And this Democrat
majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't worry.
Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours in Iraq, the reputed leader of al
Qaeda in Iraq posted on a jihadi Web site a call for war with Israel
and for jihadists to use Iraq as a launching pad to seize Jerusalem.
And this Democrat majority leadership says, oh, that's okay, don't
worry about it.
And just this morning, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah raised the
prospect of war with Israel declaring, ``Zionists, if you want this
kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open.''
And the Democrat majority leadership in this House said, that's okay,
don't worry about it.
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded that the House of Representatives will
leave town today and go home when Saturday of this week the opportunity
and the ability of our intelligence community to protect us and other
freedom-loving people around the world will expire. I'm astounded.
Most of what we do on this floor my constituents think doesn't make a
whole lot of difference in their lives. Mr. Speaker, this makes a whole
lot of difference in the lives of my constituents, in the lives of your
constituents, in the lives of every single American. And not to have
acted today on this bill to allow our intelligence community to keep us
safe and protect us, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, is an abrogation of
duty.
I call on the Democrat leadership and the Speaker of the House to
bring us back into session as soon as possible and, on behalf of the
American people, act responsibly, live up to your oath, and pass this
bill, the Protect America Act.

____________________

SUNSET MEMORIAL

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I stand once again before this
body with another sunset memorial.
It is February 14, 2008, Valentine's Day, in the land of the free and
the home of the brave. And before the sunset today in America, almost
4,000 more defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on
demand. That's just today, Mr. Speaker. That is more than the number of
innocent lives that America lost on September 11, only it happens every
day.
It has now been exactly 12,806 days since the tragic judicial fiat of
Roe v. Wade was handed down. Since then, the very foundation of this
Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of America's
own children. Some of them, Mr. Speaker, cried and screamed as they
died, but because it was amniotic fluid passing over the vocal cords
instead of air, we couldn't hear them.
And all of them had at least four things in common. 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 of their other
mothers, whether she realizes it or not, will never quite be the same.
And all the gifts that these children might have brought to humanity
are now lost forever. Yet, even in the full glare of such tragedy, this
generation clings to blindness and

[[Page 2203]]

invincible ignorance while history repeats itself and our own silent
genocide mercilessly annihilates the most helpless of all victims to
date, those yet unborn.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it's more important for those of us in this
Chamber to remind ourselves again of why we are really all here. Thomas
Jefferson said, ``The care of human life and happiness and not its
destruction is the chief and only object of good government.''
Mr. Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and their
constitutional rights is why we are all here. It is our sworn oath. The
phrase in the 14th amendment capsulizes our entire Constitution. It
says, ``No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.''
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the declaration, not the
casual notion, but the 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. And
every conflict 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 whole world. It is who we are. And yet, Mr. Speaker,
another day has passed, and we in this body have failed again to honor
that commitment. We failed our sworn oath and our God-given
responsibility as we broke faith with nearly 4,000 more innocent
American babies who died without the protection that we should have
given them.
But perhaps tonight, Mr. Speaker, maybe just one someone new who has
heard this sunset memorial will finally realize that abortion really
does kill a baby, that it hurts mothers in ways that we could never
express, and that 12,806 days spent killing nearly 50 million children
in America is enough, and that this Nation is great enough to find a
better way than abortion on demand.
So, Mr. Speaker, may we each remind ourselves that our own days in
this sunshine of life are numbered, and that all too soon each 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 other day to come,
may that be the day when we hear, when we finally hear the cries of the
unborn. 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 the least of these, our tiny American brothers and sisters from
this murderous scourge upon our Nation called abortion on demand.
Mr. Speaker, it is February 14, 2008, 12,806 days since Roe v. Wade
first stained the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own
children. This, on Valentine's Day, in the land of the free and the
home of the brave.

____________________

HEALTH CARE

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
Mr. KAGEN. Mr. Speaker, joining me this evening is Congressman
Altmire from Pennsylvania.
I think it's only fitting that on this Valentine's Day we begin to
have a discussion about health care in America. It's a heartwarming
day. It's a day of friendship, a day of conversation between one's
loved ones.
When I was sent here by the people of northeast Wisconsin, I was sent
here to listen to their concerns. In my previous existence, I was a
physician caring for many thousands of people across northeast
Wisconsin. And I continue to listen to them while I'm here in the halls
of Congress, and I want to share in the first few minutes of this hour
some of their conversations with me.
Tom and Sue Wright from New London, when I asked them what was
important to them, 50 million people without health insurance is a
disgrace. Tom and Sue are right, but they're not alone. Bob from Green
Bay writes, ``If taxpayers can't get the same health insurance as
Congress, at least get drug costs down so we can afford our pills.''
What about from Casco, Russ writes, ``I'm 60 years old, and I have a
$5,000 deductible on my health insurance per family member; all of my
health expenses out of pocket. We need help desperately.'' That's Russ
in Casco.
In Greenville, it's the same story. This is from Al and Linda. ``As
we near retirement, we know we can't afford health insurance premiums
or drugs on our own. Please help. We're getting towards retirement. We
don't have the money.''
From De Pere, it's Kathleen. ``It's time for all Americans to have
the same health care benefits as their Representatives in Washington.''
And finally, from Crivitz, Al writes, ``Without a job that pays a
fair wage, I won't have money to pay for health care, gas, a war,
Social Security, or anything else.''
My friends, my colleagues, it's time for us to have an open and
honest discussion about what's important in America. And if it's not
your health, I don't know what it is. Because if you don't have your
health, you don't have anything.
I yield to my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. And I want to commend Dr. Kagen for his leadership on
this issue. As all of our colleagues know, Dr. Kagen, right from the
very start, has made health care his priority here in Congress using
his expertise.
I have a health care background as well, health care policy is my
professional background, and the gentleman and I have spoken numerous
times about the importance of health care. And I wanted to come down
today to talk about the need for health care reform as we are currently
discussing, but also just to commend the gentleman for his continued
leadership on this at a time when clearly the political system is in
unchartered waters, with a Presidential election that is going on
around us, divided governments, we have a Congress with the House and
the Senate that are having issues with other things going on.
But we continue to see the health care system get worse and worse.
And I think the gentleman and I agree on many things, but most
importantly on the need to do something about the health care issue
right now. It would be very easy to say let's kick the can down the
road another year. We'll come back here in March of 2009 and everything
will be different and we'll take up health care then. That's great. You
know what? When next year comes along, we are going to take up health
care. And there is a variety of differences of opinion on what the
approach should be for health care reform, how expansive do you want it
to be.
But there are things that we can do now, this year, in this political
environment, that are realistic. And that's what the gentleman and I
have been discussing. We want to do things this year that would be
considered, if not low-hanging fruit, at least issues that we can all
agree on or most can agree on that we can pass and set the table for a
further discussion next year on health care reform.

{time} 1645

We have a country where there is over $2 trillion that gets spent
every single year; 17 percent of our GDP goes to health care. And I
don't think in my district there's an issue that I hear about more
often than health care reform when I go around and visit my
constituents, and the reason is this is an issue that affects
everybody. It's not just your wallet. Obviously, a $5,000 premium, as
Dr. Kagen was describing, something that we can all relate to, the
exponential increases in health care costs. Small businesses every day
in this country by the thousands have to make decisions on what to do
about their health care costs for their employees. Do they shift the
cost to an unmanageable level? Do they stop offering health care? But
they know they can't afford it and it affects everything that we do.
$1,500 of the price of your car, if you buy an American-made car, is
due to the health insurance costs of the automaker. Your State taxes
are higher because of exploding Medicaid costs. Health care is the last
remaining item on the table in every labor dispute in the country.
That's why those issues

[[Page 2204]]

come up. And we have a system that in many ways is better than any
other system in the world. It's why people from all over the world come
here for their transplants and for their high-end, high-tech care. We
have medical innovation and technology advances that far surpass
anything happening anywhere in the world. That's if you can get in, if
you can afford our system.
The problem is when we are compared to other countries as a nation in
life expectancy and infant mortality, we're not just in the middle of
the pack; we're at the bottom of the pack when compared to other
nations. We have tremendous issues. We're talking about 47 to 50
million Americans that lack access to health care. They don't have
insurance. There are tens of millions more that live in fear of losing
their coverage. They are one accident or illness away from losing
everything. So we have major issues to discuss.
Most important, and I know the gentleman is going to deal with this
issue at some length tonight, is the fact that if you're an individual
or you're a small business owner and one of your employees gets sick or
injured, you get a call from the insurance company, and they say guess
what, we have to drop you because you've had this incident. And I think
everyone can agree that your individual health status shouldn't be a
factor in your health insurance rates.
And something that the gentleman has taken a leadership role on,
which I'm going to leave him with because I'm on a limited schedule
myself, and I appreciate his giving me the time, is talking about ways
that we can incentivize the 47 million Americans and others who have
insurance to join large risk pools, community-rated risk pools, whether
it be the 180 million people in the country that are privately insured,
that would be everybody, or metropolitan statistical areas, regional
groups, whatever we can agree on. And I realize that there are
differences of opinion on how big the group should be. But we can all
agree that your individual health status should not be a factor in
setting your individual health rates. It should be a larger pool's
health status, which would lower the costs for almost everybody.
So at this point I am going to thank the gentleman for allowing me to
say a few words and commend Dr. Kagen for his work.
Mr. KAGEN. I appreciate your being here tonight, Mr. Altmire. Your
contributions to Congress have already been exemplary, and I look
forward to working with you in the future on health care issues. And
it's not just you and I, it's not just the Members of the class of
2006, a group I call America's hope for a real change and a positive
change in the direction of our country, it's not just the people that
call us up, not just the people who send us postcards, not just my
patients back home; but it's the most trusted person in Washington, DC
that understands the importance of health care costs today. And who is
that person? That's our Comptroller General, David Walker, who, on
January 28 before the Senate Budget Committee, had these words to say:
``Under any plausible scenario, the Federal budget is on an imprudent
and unsustainable path. Rapidly rising health care costs are not simply
a Federal budget problem; they are our Nation's number one fiscal
challenge. The growth in health-related spending is the primary driver
of the fiscal challenges facing the State and local governments.
Unsustainable growth in health care spending is a system-wide challenge
that also threatens to erode the ability of employers to provide
coverage for their workers and undercuts our ability to compete in a
global marketplace.''
And he went on to say that the key points in his presentation are:
``Although recently declines in our annual budget deficit are good
news, our longer-term fiscal outlook is worse, and absent meaningful
action, we will face spiraling levels of debt. Our long-term fiscal
challenge is primarily a health care challenge.''
Well, I think the Comptroller General has it right. It's our health
care challenge. And people every day in Wisconsin and across the
country are challenged when they receive in the mail a solicitation
from an insurance company, one such as this: with happy smiling faces
on the front, they invite you to call an 800 number to see if you
qualify. But here's the list, and it reads: ``Important information
about preexisting conditions. Although we make every effort to extend
coverage to all applicants, not everyone will qualify. If you have had
treatment for any of the following conditions, you may not qualify for
coverage.'' And it lists a long list of conditions that many millions
of people have. And at the very end there is a real teaser, and it
says: ``This list is not all-inclusive. Other conditions may apply.''
My friends and my fellow Americans, I believe it's time on this
Valentine's Day, February 14 of 2008, to bring an end to the
discriminatory actions that insurance companies now enjoy. We have to
bring an end to the discrimination against any citizen in this country
based on their preexisting medical conditions.
Before I highlight the bill that I am putting in for submission today
called No Discrimination in Health Insurance Act, I'd like to review
with you what we have today in our health care system, and it's here to
my right.
Our health care system is simply unsustainable. There are three tiers
to health care. In tier one, in red and orange, we have Medicaid, which
is 61 million Americans; and Medicare, 43 million. These people, in
general, don't pay for the bill. They don't feel the economic costs
because government is providing for their needs in most cases.
So in tier one, you have a group of people that aren't paying the
bill. In tier two you will pay a portion of your bill, and this has to
do with the 149 million Americans that have health insurance. But
increasingly today, the health insurance premium is skyrocketing, and
the cost for care averages $14,000 each year for a household of four.
This price and this cost is beyond what the normal hardworking family
in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the country can afford to pay.
In tier three, this is the 47 million American citizens who have no
health care coverage at all, and I am one of them as the only Member of
Congress who has not signed on for health care benefits. For I didn't
come here for a benefit; I came here to guarantee access to affordable
care for everyone. But 47 million Americans who choose not to purchase
insurance either because they don't have the money in their pocket or
they can't afford it. So our system, as it exists today, is
unsustainable, unbalanced, and is tipping over rapidly.
That is why I submitted for passage a bill called the No
Discrimination in Health Insurance Act. This bill seeks to do three
things: first, it guarantees that if you're a citizen, you're in
because no insurance company in group or individual health should be
allowed to sell you a policy that excludes you from the community. We
have to begin again to ensure communities rather than individuals
because what's happening amongst the insurance world today is you will
be cherry-picked away from your mate. A husband will qualify but not
his wife. A mother may be separated from her family. And what's worse,
your neighbor may have a completely different health care coverage only
because we're being cherry-picked and divided.
I believe we have to get back to community ratings. It's not just my
opinion. Many millions of Americans agree with me. The SEIU agrees with
this idea, families USA as well. And our Constitution, in fact,
guarantees any citizen and every citizen has protections against
discrimination. This is the result of very long and hard-won gains by
ordinary people who for decades showed extraordinary courage fighting
for positive change and the rule of law to protect each and every
citizen. Now I believe is the time to apply this fundamental principle
of anti-discrimination to our health care system, because my patients,
quite frankly, cannot hold their breath any longer. And that's why I
have introduced this bill, the No Discrimination in Health Insurance
Act. This essential

[[Page 2205]]

piece of legislation will guarantee access to affordable care for every
citizen in America by bringing an end to the discriminatory practices
employed by insurance companies today who deny lifesaving coverage to
millions of Americans only because of a preexisting medical condition.
Look, the grim reality is that our Constitution protects us from
discrimination unless and until we become sick. I believe our
legislation here that I am putting forward will put discrimination
where it belongs: in the past.
Ending all forms of discrimination is essential, I believe; but it's
also time we pull back the veil of secrecy because today the real price
of health insurance, the real price of a pill, the real price of a
hospital service is hidden. And that's why the second thing that this
bill will do is to show us the price, openly disclose the price, and
then allow every citizen to purchase that product, that health
insurance policy at that same lowest price within the region. Ending
all forms of discrimination is paramount and tantamount to why we are
here as a Congress.
If you go to your favorite restaurant, you'll find the solution to
our health care crisis right in front of you. They'll hand you a menu,
and when you open the menu and see that your ice cream for dessert
might cost $5 for you, what's the price that the person sitting next to
you or across the table will pay? $5. Show us the price, and everyone
gets to pay the same price.
If you go today to a pharmacy anywhere in the country and you're
standing in line with five people to buy the same prescription drug,
you may all pay five different prices for the same product because the
price is not openly disclosed and there isn't a free and open medical
marketplace.
As a physician for the past 30 years and now as a Congressman for the
past 13 months, I understand how difficult it is for families to pay
not just their health care bills but their insurance premiums. People
today all across the country are choosing between taking their next
pill and skipping a meal or vice versa.
But you don't have to be a doctor to know our system is broken
because ordinary people cannot afford to pay for their health
insurance. These skyrocketing costs are excessive. They're simply out
of reach for small businesses. They're out of reach for families across
America.
We need to do more. We need to do more now. We need to pass
legislation that contains the essential elements of openly disclosing
the price, guaranteeing if you're a citizen, you're in and you will not
be discriminated against, and that everyone in your region, every
citizen or legal resident can pay the lowest price possible.
The reality is our Nation's insurance industry has been successful.
It has been successful beyond all measure. And it's been successful by
dividing and conquering. Dividing you by your neighbor, dividing up
families, and individually insuring people based upon their preexisting
condition. We have to put the letters ``unity'' back into community and
restore community-based ratings. We can begin to heal our Nation by
doing this, by becoming a community once again.
My No Discrimination in Health Insurance Act requires companies to
openly disclose their price, to charge every citizen the same fee for
the same service within the region, and allows all citizens to find a
benefit by paying the lowest available price. It will end
discrimination in health insurance. It's the right thing to do, and it
will reduce the cost for everyone across the country for health care.
Simply put, if you're a citizen, you're in, without any discrimination
against you due to a previous medical condition.
I ask all of you to join me in this effort because it will be a big
battle. There are some very strong forces in the insurance industry
that don't want to compete for our business. This legislation is
essential not just for you and your family; it is essential for small
business to survive.
The greatest expense everywhere in Wisconsin, as I went around the
district to listen to different employers, whether you're in
agriculture and a family farmer or a small businessman trying to run a
photography shop, the greatest expense in their overhead is their
health care cost. We can and we must do better. And we can do better by
forming an openly disclosed marketplace where people begin to compete
once again for each other's business. This is important. It is
essential not because I say so, but because the people that I represent
say so and, as I mentioned earlier, the Comptroller General agrees.
Everyone in this House, every Member of Congress in the Senate and
the House has a health care story to tell. I can share that with you
nonconfidentially because they come up to me on the floor and ask me
about their health.

{time} 1700

They ask me about the pills they are taking. And I am here, I am
available, and I can't bill them because, well, I have taken an oath. I
only get paid by the people I represent.
The fact is everybody has a health care story to tell. We have to
make certain that we don't discriminate against people based on their
political affiliation, be they independent, Democrat, or Republican,
but by the condition that they are a citizen and they ought to be
involved in the risk pool.
Mr. Speaker, I will close my remarks on health care by suggesting
very strongly that every Member of Congress consider this. Either you
are for discrimination and on the side of the insurance industry or you
are against it and you are on the side of the consumer, the patients,
and the millions and millions of Americans who need health insurance at
prices they can afford to pay.
It was said first in the White House several years ago, either you
are with us or you are against us. But this bill allows everybody in
the House to decide whose side are you on. Whose side are you on? Are
you sitting in the boardroom with the CEOs of the insurance company or
are you sitting at home at the kitchen table with mothers and fathers
who are struggling to pay their bills every month?
In my State of Wisconsin, and it is true across the United States,
the most common reason that people go bankrupt today is they go
bankrupt because they cannot afford their health care bills. They
cannot afford this. In Shawano County several months ago when I stopped
into the county courthouse, I was told that 19 out of 20 families who
had come through an education policy after going bankrupt did so only
because they couldn't afford their health care bills. We can and we
must do better in America. And it starts by reforming our health care
system. When we drive down the cost of health care, we are going to cut
taxes for everyone. Now this sounds like it is voodoo economics, but if
I lower the cost of doing business for every city, every county, every
town, every State in the country by lowering health care costs, I can
reduce your taxes. This is not just a health care issue. It is a
business issue. It is a tax issue.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with you some words I was
privileged to listen to in a small town in the northern part of
Wisconsin, a district I have the honor and privilege of representing.
It is a city called Niagara, Wisconsin. And as Niagara goes, so goes
our Nation. Niagara is a small town of 1,880 people. And the major
employer there is a paper mill, which was recently purchased and then
closed. Three hundred twenty jobs in this small town are about to
disappear in April. And I went to Niagara to interview some people and
listen to their concerns to see what government can do to help them. I
spoke with George. George is nearly 80 years old. I would like to share
with you his words for our country. They will be available, if not
today, then tomorrow at my congressional Web site, Kagan.house.gov, as
a video clip.
I asked George, ``Are you still working?'' And George responded,
``Nope, I'm retired 19 years. Put 41-plus years in there. But what I
want to say is that Congress should have been aware of this happening
because it has been in all the union papers.'' And he is referring to
the closing of the mill, the one

[[Page 2206]]

major employer in town. ``People been talking about it. They put one or
two paper machines out of there. They pulled the machines out. And what
do they do? They ship the machine to India. That machine was 100 years
old, and now it is operating in India. So why was Congress so lax? All
these jobs been deteriorating right along.''
And I asked him, ``How long have you lived here?'' He responded,
``All my life.''
``You were born right here?''
``Yup. I will be 80 years in April. And I have 5 brothers who worked
in the paper mill also, 41, 42, 45, they all worked there that long.
And my children during the summer months worked in that mill.''
I asked him, ``What did you do in the mill?''
``I worked on the paper machines.''
``Which one?''
``I worked on them all, all machines. Started off in the old mill,
number one, went to number two, and then went to number three, and then
to number four''
``And do they have any retirements,'' I asked him, ``at the mill?''
``I have very good benefits, and I am thankful for that. That is what
I am worried about now, though. I was told that at the end of 2008,
things are going to change. I am going to have to get something else. I
don't know that. Nobody told me that. But that is just the rumor. So we
have to start looking into something else.'' He is referring to health
care benefits and the prescription pills.
``What makes me mad is that we found out we can get medication in
Minnesota and in Canada. And what happens? They tell me I can't do it
no more because we would get sued, the company would get sued. They
would save the mill about $300 every 3 months, and we would save
ourselves $250 every 3 months. And they said, `No, we can't do it,' so
now we have to buy them at Wal-Mart.''
And I asked him, ``So you think there is a better way of doing
things?''
``You better believe it.'' I asked him then at the end of my
conversation if there is anything else he would like Congress to hear?
If he were talking then with Congress and with President Bush, what
would he have to say, what would you ask him to do.
And George responded, ``Get on the ball. Take care of the United
States, not foreign countries. They always said foreign countries are
going to take us from within. They don't have to fight a war with us.
Well, that is what is happening right now. They are buying up all the
United States.''
George had it right. We have to be able to take care of our own
people. I represent people in Wisconsin, not foreign nations. And
taking care of people in Wisconsin means, first of all, guarantying
them access to health care that they can afford, high-quality care that
is delivered right close to home. And how can we do that? How can we
afford to continue to pay for those costs when our jobs are being
shipped overseas?
So, Mr. Speaker, as a close this evening, I would like everyone to
begin to think differently in America. Health care is intimately tied
up with our employment opportunities, with our jobs. We need higher
wage jobs that will sustain America and provide living wages, a living
wage that can afford health care. Health care is intimately involved
with our jobs and also with our environment and the education of our
children. You can't unwrap all of these problems. They are all stuck
together. But the single greatest problem we face today is our health
care crisis. And by submitting this bill for passage today, the No
Discrimination Health in Insurance Act, I hope to lay the first brick
in the new wall for the foundation of the House of Health Care. We have
to begin to think differently in America, and hopefully that starts
today.

____________________

BIPARTISAN EARMARK REFORM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) is recognized
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the need for earmark reform should be an issue
that we can all agree upon, a bipartisan agreement. As reported last
week, Congress' approval rating fell to just 22 percent. Will the House
sit idly by patting each other on the back as this issue continues to
grow and be one that the American people care deeply about?
Quite frankly, the effort in the House to bring a level of
transparency in the earmark process, as good as it may appear, has yet
to satisfy the American people. As a first step to restoring confidence
in the earmark system, Congressman Jack Kingston, a member of the
Appropriations Committee, Zack Wamp, a member of the committee, and
myself have introduced H. Con. Res. 263, which calls for a joint select
committee to review the earmark process, and it places a moratorium on
all earmarks while the panel undertakes its work.
Congress holds the power of the purse, and, quite frankly, I don't
believe the American people really want us to cede that authority to
the executive branch. Under the Constitution, that is the job of the
congressional branch. And while I believe that the majority of earmarks
are for purposes which help people, those Members who oppose earmarks
have made some legitimate claims, and they have to be addressed.
There have been positive earmarks to fight gangs, to fight the
violent MS 13 gangs. We created an office of gang intelligence in the
FBI to track the gang movement across the country, and there is a
growing problem with regard to gangs.
The Iraq Study Group was an earmark, and that helped bring about
fresh eyes on the target, if you will, bringing former Secretary of
State Jim Baker and former cochairman of the 9/11 Commission, Lee
Hamilton, along with Ed Meese, former Attorney General of the Reagan
administration whose son is on the staff with General Petraeus over in
Iraq, and people like Chuck Robb who is a former marine and Governor
and Senator who fought in Vietnam. So it brought together a group of
people to take a look at that, and 61 of the 70-some recommendations of
the Iraq Study Group have been adopted now, and that basically was an
earmark.
I also was told that the work that Dr. Francis Collins has done, and
I may be wrong on this, but Dr. Collins has received the gold medal. He
is the one who has mapped the human genome system. And there are people
alive today because of the work that Dr. Collins has done. Dr. Collins
will map those genes whereby we know that some individual with a
certain gene may get a certain condition and now they can deal with
that to save their life. So there have been some very positive ones.
But I think it is important to acknowledge that the Members who have
opposed earmarks have made some legitimate claims, and they deserve
that we look at those claims and address those claims.
The joint select committee on earmark reform, which is called for in
the bill, would be comprised of 16 members, Mr. Speaker, evenly split
between the House and the Senate, because whatever we do, the House and
the Senate have to be together, also, between Republicans and
Democrats. And I think the American people are thirsty. They are
thirsty for some bipartisan activity out of this Congress. So we will
come together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, to form
this committee.
The panel would examine the way the earmarks are included in
authorizing bills, which has not been done, appropriation bills. And to
the credit of the committee, there has been some work done on the
appropriations. Also, tax and tariff measures. Also, what has not been
done very well, executive branch earmarks would also be studied. I want
to stress that again, because I think the Congress has ignored some of
this and I think the general public doesn't understand, but this panel
would also, Mr. Speaker, look at executive branch earmarks, reviewing
earmarks in all bills considered by Congress. All bills is really the
key.
The House, during this period of time, should place a moratorium on
all

[[Page 2207]]

earmarks until the joint select committee has finished its work and we
are able to put into place a rule system that restores the confidence
of Americans that legislation is not loaded up with hidden special
interests or wasteful spending. It would restore honesty, integrity,
and openness to the process that everyone would feel very confident
because the ground rules would have been agreed to by everyone. The
American public would see how this was done.
I strongly support the earmark reform, including listing names of
sponsors on earmarks or specific line item spending. But the rules, Mr.
Speaker, must apply an equal standard to all legislation,
appropriations, as well as authorizing and tax bills and disclosing
earmark sponsors. It must be across the board in every bill, but it
also must be a process of indisputable integrity and probity that is
honest and authentic, and one in which the American people have
absolute trust. That is the key. It has to be a process, Mr. Speaker,
in which the American people have absolute trust.
Earmark reform must be bipartisan. It must be an issue on which both
political parties can come together so that every Member of Congress
can know what is in there, the American people can know it. And I am
hopeful that Members on both sides of the aisle will join this effort
and support the Kingston-Wamp-Wolf earmark reform bill.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity after we do that, because
I know most Americans are concerned about the spending with regard to
the Federal debt and the deficit. I have a bill with Congressman
Cooper, again, a bipartisan bill, and again, it is good to see, we have
to work across the aisle. It is called the Cooper-Wolf bill, Mr.
Speaker, and what it does, it sets up a national commission of eight
Republicans and eight Democrats, and I would tell Members that there
are 70 Members plus on the bill, roughly 30 Democratic Members and 40
Republican Members. I must say, Congressman Hoyer gave a very powerful
speech at the Press Club several months ago endorsing this concept. On
the bill, we have Congressman Boehner, the minority leader. We have
Congressman Blunt, the minority whip. We have people on both sides of
the aisle of all political viewpoints from every part of the country.
And what it does, Mr. Speaker, it puts everything on the table.

{time} 1715

It puts Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax policy on the
table. It has the support of the Heritage Foundation and Brookings.
Alice Rivlin, head of the Office of Management and Budget in the
Clinton administration, supports it. We have the support of some of the
more thoughtful think-tanks, such as Brookings. A lot of different
groups. We have had favorable editorials and comments from David Broder
from The Washington Post, David Brooks from The New York Times, and
Robert Samuelson, who writes a column for The Washington Post. Also we
have had editorials in papers like the Tennesseean and the Richmond
Times Dispatch and papers like that.
What it would basically do, it would have this national commission of
eight Republicans and eight Democrats to go around the country having a
conversation with the American people. They would listen to the
American people. Then they would hold public hearings in every Federal
Reserve district in the Nation. So they are required to go everywhere.
Interestingly enough, the Brookings Foundation and Heritage, along
with David Walker of the Government Accountability Office, are now
doing this in what they call ``wake-up tours,'' where they are going
out around the Nation to tell the American people of the danger, the
fiscal danger, the financial danger, that awaits this Nation if we do
nothing about this spending and the debt and the deficit.
Congressman Cooper knows so much about this. I wish he was with me
here today. But I respect his knowledge and understanding and his work
on the Budget Committee.
But, Mr. Speaker, David Walker said, and I will insert it in the
Congressional Record, I have sent it out to some Members of the House,
David Walker said there was a tsunami, a financial tsunami off the
coast waiting to come in and overcome and overtake this country.
As the father of five children, if our children were on the beach and
someone said there was a tsunami off the coast of New Jersey or the
North Carolina coast or the Maryland coast, we would as parents want to
do everything we can to help our kids. So for our children and for our
grandchildren, we have an obligation to deal with this problem.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also a moral issue. In the Ten
Commandments it says: ``Thou shall not steal,'' and for one generation
to be living off the next generation is in essence stealing.
With all the support that we have, the bipartisan support, again, a
lot of good Members on both sides of the aisle, I am hopeful that there
can be a way that we can bring this bill up and vote on it in this
session.
So with the earmark bill that I spoke about earlier which deals with
a fundamental problem that the Congress has to deal with, and with this
bill, we can have a renaissance in this Nation, create jobs and make a
tremendous difference. So I just hope that we can pass both of these
bills in this Congress.
I see my friend from Tennessee, and I will yield to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank Frank Wolf for a distinguished career
of public service. We honored the life of Tom Lantos today here in
Congress, but Frank Wolf is the same kind of person as Tom Lantos in
terms of always caring about what is right, what is just, human rights
anywhere and everywhere in the world that need our attention in the
greatest Nation in the history of the world. Frank Wolf is one of the
people here that I look to always for the integrity on decisions that
are controversial, that are impassioned. He seems to have a level-
headed approach that honors the Constitution, honors what is right.
So here we are again working together. Jack Kingston and Frank Wolf
and I, as long-standing Members of the Appropriations Committee, know
that this is a problem. This abuse of earmarks has created clearly the
need for sweeping reforms of this process. But I think that we need to
do it the right way instead of the wrong way.
One of the things I like about John McCain is that he doesn't pander
to people based on whatever might be popular for the moment. The right
approach to this particular problem with congressional earmarking in
2008 is to step back and establish a bipartisan, bicameral select
committee to overhaul the process in its entirety.
I say that because any kind of a ban that is temporary or only for an
individual is not lasting. So if you pledge to say no earmarks, well,
for how long and who all is affected, and how about the Senate, how
about the House, how about the executive branch, how about everybody
else? Because unless it is a systemic change, it is not a permanent
change; it is not a real change. It is a political posture. Therefore,
we should be careful not to pander on this issue, but truly seek
change. I think that is what this does.
This select committee, what is a select committee? Well, Congress has
this provision so that that committee can rise above the other
committees. It has subpoena power. It has tremendous authority. It is
unusual. But it is a committee set up to reform a system like this.
Now, a lot of people don't realize that article I, section 9 of the
United States Constitution clearly says that Congress shall appropriate
the money. We need also look at history and realize over the last 40
years there is a continuing separation of powers under way where the
executive branch pulls and pulls more and more authority from the
legislative branch.
One of the things that this select committee would allow us to do is
over a 6-month period of time, with five public hearings, have a
national debate

[[Page 2208]]

about what is the Congress' role, what is the executive branch's role,
both under the Constitution and in reality.
Just 2 weeks ago, February 1, the President's budget request came
over. Actually, it was February 4. But when it came over, it was full
of specific requests for specific programs which are an earmark. They
are earmarks. So one of the first things we need to do with this select
committee is define what is an earmark, because right now it is not
clear as to what is and is not an earmark.
For instance, is it an earmark for a Member of Congress to request an
increase in a specific account at the National Institutes of Health? If
it is the National Institutes of Health and you believe that it should
be increased and you are a Member of the United States Congress, and
under article I, section 9 you have the authority to appropriate money,
that should not be an earmark. But I have got news for you. A lot of
things right now classified as an earmark should not be an earmark. It
should be programmatic in nature; it should be looked at in a different
way.
So this whole system needs an overhaul, and that select committee can
get to that without people claiming turf protection or feeling like you
are stepping on their toes, and then they can come back with these
recommendations that would have the force of law and truly change this
whole process without the legislative branch retreating from its
constitutional responsibility or just ceding more and more authority to
the executive branch, many times to people at the Office of Management
and Budget, OMB, that submits these budget requests, who are neither
elected nor educated enough on these issues to actually make these
recommendations. That why it is important for elected representatives
to do this in a very responsible way. The select committee is exactly
that approach, the responsible way to do this.
It is comprehensive in nature. As Representative Wolf said, it
doesn't just apply to the Appropriations Committee. It applies to
authorization committees, tax and trade and tariff bills, the executive
branch requests, the whole gambit of direction of funding of
appropriated dollars. And the whole thing needs to be reformed.
I will give you an example. The Bridge to Nowhere request is one of
the most egregious earmarks that we can point to, and it did not come
through the Appropriations Committee. It was in fact an authorization
bill from the Transportation Committee. That is gas tax dollars that
every 5 years the Congress directs to this projects or that projects or
this priority or that priority, and in fact that Bridge to Nowhere was
an authorization bill. So you can wipe out all the earmarks on
appropriations; and if that is allowed to continue, the most egregious
abuse we can point to continues.
You need a comprehensive and systemic approach to this, and that is
why we have had consensus developing in our conference on the
Republican side for basically a timeout, a moratorium: 6 months, no
earmarks, hold up the trains, let's stop and do this right. But do it
responsibly. Don't just willy-nilly say we are going to do this for
political purposes or that for political purposes, or we are going to
grandstand or pander. No, we are going to do this the way that people
50 years from now can look back and study the record and say, they put
the institution and its congressional prerogatives and responsibilities
above the passions of the moment, and they recognized that some people
abused it and that needed to be cleaned up and reformed and changed,
but they did not give the people down the street at the executive
branch more and more authority and violate the separation of powers
under the Constitution of the United States.
This is an important principle as we go forward on how to truly have
a systemic approach to clean this mess up. But it needs change. Anybody
who thinks that this system stands the ``smell test'' in America is
wrong. It needs to change, and we are trying to change it from this
place because that is the responsible thing to do. People have abused
it.
I would argue that the last election in 2006 was lost by our party in
large part because of these abuses of earmarks, on authorization, tax,
trade, energy bills and appropriations, and we could use an overhaul, a
statutory framework that the House and the Senate would both have to
adhere to. The public is demanding it.
So some self-imposed thing is not going to bring about systemic
change. Systemic change is what this institution needs, change that
will still be here 10 years from now, not just for the next election.
This shouldn't be political; it should be bipartisan.
Just this week, one of the leading Democrats here in the House
basically called for the same thing. He said we ought to have a
moratorium; we ought to have a timeout and we need to overhaul this
practice. His name is Henry Waxman. I talked to him today. I don't want
to put words in his mouth. But I was encouraged that one of the leading
Democrats said the same thing, basically: We need to have a
comprehensive reform of this process known as earmarking.
But I believe step one is to define it, what is and what is not an
earmark, and then go forward. Things that are existing by law that have
been around for a long period of time should not be an earmark.
Another thing we need to do is separate the ability of people to have
a cottage industry through lobbying for earmarks. That, frankly, makes
everybody in Washington look bad. It erodes the public trust over a
period of time.
There are times where someone advocating for you for a specific cause
in this country is necessary, and that is called lobbying. Today
lobbying has a bad name. If I was a lobbyist I would want these reforms
so that my reputation is not tarnished. Just like we appropriators,
Wolf, Kingston, Wamp, Kirk, Culberson, Weldon, Goode and others that
have helped us with this cause, we don't want our integrity tarnished
by the people who abused this prerogative under the Constitution.
They are the ones, just like the local law enforcement guy who takes
a bribe, all police officers are not like that, and all Members of
Congress are not going to do what these people did. Thankfully, the
people that have violated our trust are either under investigation or
they are already gone or some of them are in jail. But the system needs
to be cleaned up so that they cannot do that again. That is what hasn't
happened. Frankly, there are some people in this institution who are
kind of arrogant about this, saying that it ought to continue and that
there is no reason for reform. But that is not true either.
So we have got to meet in a rational, logical way. That is why the
select committee approach is the right approach. I am very, very proud
to stand with Representatives Wolf and Kingston and others in support
of this approach, and we will have a moratorium on earmarks until we
make the needed changes to begin to restore the public trust and uphold
the honor and the dignity that should be associated with our fulfilling
our responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. His comments are very good. I think
it really needs to be bipartisan and it needs to be institutionalized,
and it needs to be done in such a way that the American people have
confidence.
I would yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), also a
member of the Appropriations Committee.

{time} 1730

Mr. KIRK. I thank the gentleman for yielding and join this group of
what we might call apostate appropriators who are leading the reform
cause, because I think we all agree that the current system was broken
under Republican leaders and broken under Democratic leaders.
I believe that we should not tax the American people more than
necessary, that taxpayer monies should be spent wisely, and that
Congress should use its power to cut waste to keep taxes low. Many
congressional earmarks are a waste of the taxpayers' money.
I authored the amendment to kill the Bridge to Nowhere. It was a
difficult

[[Page 2209]]

choice, taking on a very powerful Member of Congress who had the
ability, in some eyes, to delete all transportation funding for my own
district. But I looked at this project, it was an earmark not by the
Appropriations Committee but by the Transportation Committee, to build
a $320 million structure slightly shorter than the Golden Gate Bridge,
slightly taller than the Brooklyn Bridge, connecting Ketchikan, Alaska,
population 8,000, with Gravina Island, population 50. Gravina Island
has no paved roads, no restaurants, and no stores. It was clear that
this was an extravagant expenditure of money by the United States
taxpayers to benefit a very, very few number of Americans.
It was also disturbing about how this project was handled, as so many
other low quality earmarks are done: air-dropped without consideration
by the House or Senate floors; no potential to amend or kill this
project by Senators or Members of Congress; added to a conference
report, that is a final bill, at the last minute where everyone is only
given one vote, ``yes'' or ``no,'' on the complete package and not able
to reach in and delete funding for a low quality project.
Our battle, after the Kirk Amendment passed, was a long one, but
finally the Governor of Alaska relented. And thanks to public outrage,
thanks to congressional scrutiny, thanks to concerned Americans around
this country, the Bridge to Nowhere will not be built.
But we have seen so many other projects which do not pass even a
laugh test among American taxpayers. For example, a new earmark, I
understand, for the Berkeley school system would create French gourmet
menus for school lunches, clearly something that does not even pass the
laugh test here on the House floor among Republicans or Democrats.
Also, we have seen these earmarks for Monuments to Me. I think it is
perfectly appropriate when we see a proud public structure funded by
the taxpayers to be named after one of our national heroes, to be named
after a great American, or just great humanitarian from history, but
not for sitting politicians who currently hold public office. I am
worried that, for example, throughout West Virginia we have many
Senator Byrd centers. It seems like almost a large part of the State is
now named after a sitting Member of Congress, who comes with feet of
clay, someone who can have great, great attributes and great
detriments, and someone who really should be judged by history before
we name great public works after them.
Our reforms talk about ending funding for these Monuments to Me. It
calls for an increased level of, I think, appropriate humility in what
we fund. In the past, like many of my colleagues, I have requested
earmarks because I have been struck by critical needs in my district.
But increasingly, in order to get funding for small projects in your
district, you are asked to support funding for large projects in other
people's districts, for Bridges to Nowhere, for more Monuments to Me,
for things that are, quite frankly, not defensible for the public fisc
and for the taxpayers' expenditure. I think we have to recognize that
some of these earmarks will simply lead directly to higher taxes for
the American people and for programs which do not reflect an
appropriate decision by the government to remove funding from an
individual taxpayer to provide for these projects.
That is why I back this moratorium that we have come forward with and
I back the Kingston-Wolf reforms, because I think it is a recognition
by members of the Appropriations Committee that the system is broken;
that the public's confidence in how this money is spent is not there;
that Republicans and Democrats should join together to fix it; that the
power of the purse is rightly put by the Constitution in the Congress.
But it has to be a power that is respected. It has to be a power in
which judgment is leveled and which the burden of proof is against
spending the taxpayers' funds so that always we have a feeling towards
the bottom line of balancing the budget and making sure the tax burden
on the American people is as low as possible.
That is why I thank the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman
from Virginia for having this Special Order and hope that this
legislation can pick up bipartisan steam and be adopted by the American
people. They get it, but some of the elected representatives of the
American people here still don't get it, and their voices need to be
heard.
I yield back to my friend from Virginia.
Mr. WOLF. I thank the gentleman. And in closing, unless the gentleman
has any other comments, I would say this needs to be bipartisan. It is
H. Con. Res. 263. I believe it will pass the House. I think it is
inevitable that it will pass the House. We have to come together. I
acknowledge there have been some sincere efforts made, and I think we
come together and institutionalize this with regard to this select
committee.
So I want to thank both Mr. Wamp and Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kingston who
could not be here, and the other Members who have put this together and
say it needs to be done bipartisan. We have to do it so the American
people can say, ``Well done. It really makes sense.''
I yield back the balance of my time.

____________________

GEORGE WASHINGTON

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel
E. Lungren) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, in 1968, Congress
officially moved the Federal holiday acknowledging our first
President's birthday to the third Monday in February, so now it is
commonly known as President's Day. I rise today to give more
specificity to such an ambiguously titled designation and to try to pay
appropriate tribute to that first President in our experiment of
constitutional self-government.
George Washington was born February 22, 1732, almost 276 years ago.
He died on December 14, 1799, at the age of 67, a mere 2 years after
choosing not to run for a third term, thereby establishing a precedent
now enshrined in our 22nd amendment.
He has been described as America's premier military and civilian
leader during the Revolutionary era, and yet, as one historian has
recently written, young people in particular do not know much about
Washington.
By our time, in the early 21st century, George Washington seems so
far removed from us as to be virtually incomprehensible. He seems to
come from another place, another time, from another world.
He did not write a literary, political, military, or philosophical
treatise that transformed our understanding of philosophy, physics,
human affairs, or government. Nonetheless, throughout our history he
has been compared to Cincinnatus, that late fifth century Roman figure
who spurned his plow for a defense of Rome when so called by the Roman
Senate. Why is this so?
The basic facts of Washington's life have been retold on innumerable
occasions. Nevertheless, if only because this man is on our quarter, on
the dollar bill, and on Mount Rushmore, they bear repeating.
Born in 1732 in Virginia along the Potomac River, he was a fourth-
generation American. He was not the first-born son and his family was
not in the top tier of the Virginia aristocracy. Probably standing at
6-2 to 6-3, and slightly above 200 pounds, he was a physically imposing
man. He once threw a stone over the Natural Bridge in the Shenandoah
Valley, which was 215 high, was generally regarded as the finest
horseman in Virginia, the rider who led the pack of most fox hunts, and
was a graceful dancer.
Washington was an adventurer and a surveyor in the Shenandoah Valley
as well as an explorer of the Ohio country, then comprised of western
Pennsylvania and parts of present-day Ohio. He became a Virginia
militia officer, and was at Fort Necessity in 1754 for that ignominious
surrender to the French. He left the Army 4 years later, married

[[Page 2210]]

the wealthiest widow in Virginia, Martha Dandridge Custis, in 1759, and
inherited the now magnificent Mount Vernon when his brother Lawrence
died.
At this estate, he was an ambitious farmer, planter, and businessman,
at first specializing in tobacco. During the course of time that he had
Mount Vernon under his direction, he systemically quadrupled its size,
eventually overseeing five farms and introducing new crop rotation
schemes that are even today admired for their direction.
While he never seemed to have very much to say, he wasn't indifferent
to the larger world. We are told he subscribed to ten papers at Mount
Vernon, and in the 1760s, despite owning 50,000 acres, found himself
12,000 British pounds in debt. From this and other things, he came to
believe the extant system of commercial trading with his British
counterparts was designed for his and his neighbors' perpetual
indebtedness. He became a nonimportation believer and a supporter of
colonial efforts at self-sufficiency.
As we know, Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. He
spoke out against the Stamp Act of 1765, the Declaratory Act of 1766,
and the Coercive or Intolerable Acts of 1774. During the First
Continental Congress, Washington was a member of the Virginia
delegation. After the clashes at Lexington and Concord, he attended the
Second Continental Congress, wearing his old military uniform, and was
nominated by John Adams on June 15, 1775, to command the volunteer
forces that had amassed in Massachusetts because of the British
occupation of Boston. On July 3, 1775, he took command of that Army,
then called the Army of the United Colonies.
A couple of years ago, I was privileged to spend a semester at
Harvard, and I remember walking through the streets just sort of
looking at the people playing soccer and baseball, and I saw a monument
that appeared to be not very spectacular. I went over to see what it
was all about, and it was a monument to George Washington taking over
that Army. Inscribed on the walls thereon are the words that he spoke
that day to those troops. And while I do not have them from memory, I
recall that he indicated to the men then assembled that they were to be
united in this effort to fight for freedom. And as I stood there and
looked at those words and tried to drink them in, you could almost
sense the power of such a magnificent figure of George Washington
talking to those assembled scattered troops from all over. He was, in a
very simple sense, a commander who commanded the attention and the
loyalty of his men. Of course, the Army of the United Colonies was the
next year changed to the Continental Army, sounding quite a bit more
professional than it was in reality.
While never known for groundbreaking military tactics or strategic
innovations, Washington nevertheless displayed admirable courage;
exemplified by his exploits in 1755 at Pittsburgh when, with British
General Braddock injured, Washington had at least two horses shot out
from under him, had bullets graze his uniform, only to be unhurt and
commended for his bravery in leading the troops and organizing their
retreat.
His subsequent leadership during the Revolutionary War was
indispensable to the colonies' eventual success, finally achieved 8
long years later in the Treaty of Paris. He never accepted a salary as
Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. More importantly, he was a
visionary commander, finding such competent and important figures as
the 33-year-old Rhode Island Quaker Nathanael Greene and the 25-year-
old Boston bookseller Henry Knox.
While he fought a mere total of nine battles of which he only won
three, Washington knew he had to keep the colonial forces intact in
order to defeat the British and woo the French, a dual task he
accomplished by not focusing on captured grounds, a war of posts as
they say, but on maneuvering and survival. While highly critical of the
untrained and undisciplined colonial forces, as Commander in Chief he
wrote annual letters to the State governments and kept Congress
knowledgeable of his situation in order to maintain some semblance of
trust and harmony.
His surprise military and moral victories at Trenton and Princeton,
as well as his steadfastness at Valley Forge the following winter, have
gone down in American lore as true measures of commitment, of
greatness, of endurance, and leadership. The suffering at Valley Forge
was unimaginable. There, he wrote, ``To see Men without Cloathes to
cover their nakedness, without Blankets to lay on, without Shoes, by
which their Marches might be traced by the blood from their feet, and
almost as often without Provisions as with; Marching through frost and
Snow, and at Christmas taking up their Winter Quarters within a day's
March of the enemy, without a House or a Hutt to cover them till they
could be built and submitting to it without a murmur, is a mark of
patience and obedience which in my opinion can scarcely be
parallel'd.''

{time} 1745

He helped to surround Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781, effectively
ending the military aspect of the war. And after the Treaty of Paris
was finalized, he resigned as Commander in Chief of the American forces
and surrendered his sword to Congress on December 23, 1783.
Now, his decision to leave for retirement at Mount Vernon and attend
the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was not one
without risk. As James Madison said, Washington would be making a
decision to ``forsake the honorable retreat to which he had retired and
risk the reputation he had so deservedly acquired.'' He did attend the
convention and was elected President. As he later said: ``Whensoever I
shall be convinced the good of my country requires my reputation to be
put at risk, regard for my own fame will not come in competition with
an object of so much magnitude.''
At the Constitutional Convention, his presence was a calming and
vital force. Probably ``the most graphic illustration of the singular
status that Washington enjoyed was the decision of the Constitutional
Convention to deposit the minutes of its secret deliberations with him
for safekeeping.'' And as James Monroe later told Thomas Jefferson:
``Be assured, his influence carried this government.''
His universal admiration helped overcome the suspicions of the
possibility of monarchy arising out of the new Constitution and its
king-resembling, popularly elected executive office, a suspicion of
which he was very much apprehensive. Republics were thought to be
possible only in small, homogeneous enclaves, not on sprawling, vast
continents. A fear of monarchy and the concomitant heavy-handed
government rule, either from necessity or the nature of power-hungry
man, was widespread.
As our Nation's first President, he instinctively knew he would be
setting precedents for future executives to follow as they walked this
tightrope between centralization and dispersion of power, between
deference and democracy.
He was twice elected President unanimously by the Electoral College.
As one of the premier historians of the founding era has written, ``The
whole thing,'' that is the creation of the Constitution, ``was merely
words on paper until implemented by Washington's government. Washington
knew how malleable the situation was; he understood that every move he
and his administration made would be a precedent that would shape the
actuality of the Constitution, and he proceeded with great care. It was
Washington, for example, who created the structure of the executive
offices,'' we now call the Cabinet, ``and it was he who defined the
Senate's role in foreign policy and something of the operational
meaning of the words `advise and consent.' ''
As Washington himself said: ``We are a young nation and have a
character to establish. It behooves us, therefore, to set out right,
for first impression will be lasting.''
As President, he believed in the rule of law, however unpopular such
a belief might be at any given time. When the Whiskey Rebellion, a
popular uprising

[[Page 2211]]

in four counties in western Pennsylvania protesting an excise tax on
whiskey, occurred, when it threatened to stop the normal functioning of
civil government, Washington firmly stood against the subverting of
civil authorities. More importantly, in relation to constitutional
government, Washington was a firm adherent to its principles. He
believed, in contrast to others of the age who sympathized with
frequent revolutions ex nihilo, that decisions of a republican people
``only be unmade in the same way they had been made.''
This preference for ballots over bullets and appeal to republican,
constitutional, ballot-driven self-government would be made again by
Abraham Lincoln in 1861 and be equally as powerful. Self-government in
the new Republic required adherence to the law, that is our
Constitution, and the laws under it which articulate the boundaries and
dimensions of our communal lives together as citizens.
As he said in his farewell address: ``This government, the offspring
of our own choice uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full
investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its
principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with
energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment,
has a just claim to your confidence and support. The very idea of the
power and right of people to establish government presupposes the duty
of every individual to obey the established government.''
So this combination of constitutionalism and consent, he believed, is
the bedrock of self-government.
In 1775 Washington said: ``Make the best of mankind as they are,
since we cannot have them as we wish.'' And as President, he ably
navigated the waters between Anglo and French factions and their
sympathizers, both overseas and within his own Cabinet.
It was Thomas Jefferson's opinion that Jay's Treaty of 1795, an
important agreement which kept the United States out of the Franco-
British imperial intrigues, that it passed because of the ``one man who
outweighs them all in influence over the people,'' Washington.
Perhaps the words of the author Joseph Ellis sum up this magnificent
life most eloquently when he says: ``Throughout the first half of the
1790s, the closest approximation to a self-evident truth in American
politics was George Washington. A legend in his own time, Americans had
been describing Washington as `the Father of the Country' since 1776,
which is to say, before there ever was a country. By the time he
assumed the Presidency in 1789, no other candidate was even thinkable,
the mythology surrounding Washington's reputation had grown like ivy
over a statue, effectively
covering the man with an aura of omnipotence, rendering the distinction
between his human qualities and his heroic achievements impossible to
delineate.''
In fact: ``Some of the most incredible stories also happened to be
true. During General Edward Braddock's ill-fated expedition against the
French outside Pittsburgh in 1755, a young Washington had joined with
Daniel Boone to rally the survivors, despite having two horses shot out
from under him and multiple bullet holes piercing his coat and creasing
his pants. At Yorktown in 1781, he had insisted on standing atop a
parapet for a full 15 minutes during an artillery attack, bullets and
shrapnel flying all about him, defying aides who tried to pull him down
before he had properly surveyed the field of action. When Washington
spoke of destiny, people listened.''
Finally: ``His commanding presence had been the central feature in
every major event of the revolutionary era: the linchpin of the
Continental Army throughout 8 long years of desperate fighting from
1775 to 1783; the presiding officer at the Constitutional Convention in
1787; the first and only Chief Executive of the fledgling Federal
Government since 1789. He was the palpable reality that clothed the
revolutionary rhapsodies in flesh and blood, America's one and only
indispensable character.''
Joseph Ellis's description speaks for itself in relation to the man
that we honor this month. Still, it is not only for these facts alone
that George Washington has earned our highest esteem. He is also
frequently commended in discussions of republican political thought and
classical virtue. One historian has recently written that ``Washington
became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the
way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral
character that set him off from other men.''
Washington's life was immersed in this classical milieu of
republicanism, virtue, honor, and deference. Washington loved the
classical play ``Cato'' by Joseph Addison in which virtue, not purely
self-aggrandizement, is exemplified and praised. As a young man, he
copied for himself a text called ``Rules of Civility and Decent
Behavior in Company and Conversation,'' a list of over 100 short
instructions on how to conduct oneself in the company of others, in
society, and in the cultivation of one's manners and morals. While some
may call these pithy exhortations trite or simplistic today, are we
really going to ridicule Washington for being concerned with his
ethical philosophy, a philosophy in which private and public morality
are a seamless whole?
Washington did not have a classical education. He did not attend
college. He was always insecure about these facts and tried to make
``up for this lack by intensive self-cultivation in liberal enlightened
values.'' This self-cultivation was successful and it helped him lead
others throughout his military and civilian endeavors. As one scholar
has commented, adulation for Washington's classical virtues cannot
simply be dismissed. He writes: ``General Greene, a Rhode Islander who
became one of his most trusted deputies, told a friend that
Washington's very presence spread `the spirit of conquest throughout
the whole army.' Greene hoped that `we shall be taught to copy his
example and to prefer the love of liberty in this time of public danger
to all the soft pleasures of domestic life and support ourselves with
manly fortitude amidst all the dangers and hardships that attend a
state of war.' In part, these rapturous assessments simply expressed
the excitability of men putting their lives on the line for what seemed
a hopeless cause. They needed to see greatness, and so they saw it. But
the accounts are too specific and too consistent for that to be the
only reason. Soon after Washington's appointment as Commander in Chief,
that dour critic of men, John Adams, told his wife that the Virginian
was destined to become `one of the most important characters in the
world.' Again and again, Washington struck the men of his day as an
exemplar of ancient republican ideals, almost as though he had stepped
from the pedestal of the ages.''
Another historian has written: ``Washington's writings are crowded
with ringing affirmations of revolutionary ideals'' and ``Washington's
friends and enemies alike testified that he deeply believed what he
wrote. Like Cromwell's captain, Washington knew what he fought for, and
loved what he knew. He was of one mind about that.''
Today, Washington speaks to us across the ages about virtue,
education, and religious freedom. In his first inaugural address,
Washington stated: ``There is no truth more
thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course
of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between
duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and
magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity.'' And
``that we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of
heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal
rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.''
About the importance of seeing education and virtue as one
philosophical whole, Washington wrote to his nephew George Steptoe
Washington these words: ``Should you enter upon the course of studies
here marked out, you must consider it as the finishing of your
education, and, therefore, as the time is limited, that every hour

[[Page 2212]]

misspent is lost forever, and that future years cannot compensate for
lost days at this period of your life. This reflection must show the
necessity of an unremitting application to your studies. To point out
the importance of circumspection in your conduct, it may be proper to
observe that a good moral character is the first essential in a man,
and that the habits contracted at your age are generally indelible, and
your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is
therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be
learned but virtuous.''
In relation to religion, he was also convinced, as he declared in his
farewell address, religion was an indispensable foundation for both
morality and republican government.

{time} 1800

As President, he attended the services of a variety of denominations.
He addressed Jews as equal fellow citizens in his famous and articulate
letter to the Newport Hebrew congregation in 1790. In it he said, ``the
citizens of the United States of America, have a right to applaud
themselves for having given to mankind examples of a enlarged and
liberal policy, a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty
of conscience, and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that
toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class
of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural
rights. For happily the government of the United States, which gives to
bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that
they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good
citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. . . .
May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land,
continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants;
while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and
there shall be none to make him afraid.''
This commitment to freedom of conscience had been previously heard in
1775 when Washington had written, ``while we are contending for our own
Liberty, we should be very cautious of violating the Rights of
Conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the Judge of
the Hearts of Men, and to him only in this Case, they are answerable.''
Finally, his Farewell Address, with its encouragement to avoid
excessive partisanship, maintain American neutrality, achieve
diplomatic independence, in short, to implement ``unity at home and
independence abroad'' still strikes the chords of wisdom and prudence
in our ears.
I salute the man in whose tribute a monument without words stands in
our capital today. Its height, stature and distinctiveness speak for
themselves. He was a unique man who seemed to be immune to both bullets
and smallpox. It may or may not be true that Washington ``had neither
copiousness of ideas nor fluency of words.''
Nevertheless, even a sometime harsh critic like Thomas Jefferson had
to admit that ``the moderation and virtue of a single character . . .
probably prevented this revolution from being closed, as most others
have been, by a subversion of that liberty it was intended to
establish.''
Now, Washington did say that ``with our fate will the destiny of
unborn millions be involved,'' and as we look to his birth, life,
service, and death, we know that he was right, and that should give us
pause.
Without Washington's character, his perseverance and achievements,
all the important historiographical debates over the founding would be
merely parlor games of philosophical intrigue. Unlike events in decades
and centuries past, Washington believed in, literally started, and
served in the system of government which would be called self-
government. Feudalism; monarchy; primogeniture; artificial hereditary
distinctions, sectarian bloodbaths. These were not to be the
demarcations of this new Nation. As Washington, in his cautiously
optimistic manner said in his 1783 Circular to the States, ``the
foundation of our empire was not laid in the gloomy age of ignorance
and superstition, but at an epoch when the rights of mankind were
better understood and more clearly defined than at any former period.''
These rights were understood and defined on this newly freed and
expanding continent, a land of which Washington said, ``is there a
doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let
experience solve it. . . . It is well worth a fair and full
experiment.''
For ``Washington, America was a practical experiment in the
preservation of liberty and the success of republican government.'' As
he said in his First Inaugural Address on April 30, 1789, ``The
preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the
republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as
deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted in the hands of
the American people.''
In contrast to monarchies, Washington established the republican
principle of rotation in office. ``Presidents, no matter how
indispensable, were inherently disposable.''
George Washington was ``an extraordinary man who made it possible for
ordinary men to rule.'' In the words of the great Frederick Douglass,
the former slave and abolitionist, ``I would not, even in words,'' he
said, ``do violence to the great events, and thrilling associations,
that gloriously cluster around the birth of our national
independence.'' ``No people ever entered upon pathways of nations, with
higher and grander ideas of justice, liberty and humanity than
ourselves.''
Madam Speaker, we have George Washington to thank for such
beneficence. He made it happen. Now let us live up to that challenge to
articulate and legislate the contours of liberty and justice for our
collective humanity in these United States.
Happy birthday, President Washington. We honor you and appreciate
your service to this, to our great country.

____________________

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
Ms. Eshoo (at the request of Mr. Hoyer) for today after 2:45 p.m.

____________________

SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was
granted to:
(The following Members (at the request of Mr. Hastings of Florida) to
revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
(The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
Mr. Hoekstra, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes, today.
Mr. Price of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.

____________________

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I move that the
House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 6 o'clock and 9 minutes
p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, February 15, 2008,
at 10 a.m.

____________________

EXPENDITURE REPORTS CONCERNING OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL

Reports concerning the foreign currencies and U.S. dollars utilized
for speaker-authorized official travel during the fourth quarter of
2007 and the first quarter of 2008, pursuant to Public Law 95-384 are
as follows:

[[Page 2213]]

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN JAN. 1 AND JAN. 9, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Joseph R. Pitts................... ........ 1/1 United States............ ........... ........... ........... \3\ 9,544.0 ........... ........... ........... 9,544.00
0
1/2 1/2 Kuwait................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/2 1/3 Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
1/3 1/4 Kuwait................... ........... 164.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 164.00
1/5 1/6 Jordan................... ........... 291.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 291.00
1/6 1/9 Israel................... ........... 2,095.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,095.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 2,550.00 ........... 9,544.00 ........... ........... ........... 12,094.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Total cost of all commercial flights.
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Chairman, Jan. 29,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMISSION ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Kyle Parker............................ ........ 10/1 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 7,318.79 ........... ........... ........... 7,318.79
10/2 10/6 Poland................... ........... 1,346.95 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,346.95
Janice Helwig.......................... ........ 10/1 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 3,130.96 ........... ........... ........... 3,130.96
10/1 12/21 Austria.................. ........... 14,298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 14,298.00
Mischa Thompson........................ ........ 10/6 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 5,169.52 ........... ........... ........... 5,169.52
10/7 10/13 Spain.................... ........... 2,156.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,156.00
Janice Helwig.......................... ........ 10/7 Austria.................. ........... ........... ........... 1,496.39 ........... ........... ........... 1,496.39
10/7 10/11 Spain.................... ........... 1,732.30 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,732.30
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings................. ........ 11/26 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 6,199.76 ........... ........... ........... 6,199.76
11/27 11/30 Spain.................... ........... 1,419.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,419.00
Lale Mamaux............................ ........ 11/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 7,698.84 ........... ........... ........... 7,698.84
11/26 12/1 Spain.................... ........... 2,115.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,115.00
Winsome Packer......................... ........ 11/25 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 5,209.76 ........... ........... ........... 5,209.76
11/26 12/1 Spain.................... ........... 2,115.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,115.00
Janice Helwig.......................... ........ 11/26 Austria.................. ........... ........... ........... 1,496.39 ........... ........... ........... 1,496.39
11/26 12/1 Spain.................... ........... 2,115.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 2,115.00
Shelly Han............................. ........ 12/9 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 17,222.33 ........... ........... ........... 17,222.33
12/10 12/13 Morocco.................. ........... 824.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 824.50
12/14 12/18 Kyrgyzstan............... ........... 1,474.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Alex Johnson........................... ........ 12/9 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 8,637.50 ........... ........... ........... 8,637.50
12/10 12/14 Morocco.................. ........... 1,083.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,083.50
Hon. Alcee L. Hastings................. ........ 12/15 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 8,785.08 ........... ........... ........... 8,785.08
12/16 12/19 Israel................... ........... 1,348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,348.00
Marlene Kaufmann....................... ........ 12/15 United States............ ........... ........... ........... 6,828.28 ........... ........... ........... 6,828.28
12/16 12/20 Israel................... ........... 1,348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,348.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 33,375.25 ........... 79,193.60 ........... ........... ........... 112,568.85
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Chairman, Jan. 30,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Collin C. Peterson................ 11/18 11/20 Brazil................... ........... 502.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/21 .......... Argentina................ ........... 122.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 122.00
11/21 11/23 Colombia................. ........... 198.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 198.00
11/23 11/24 Panama................... ........... 244.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 244.00
Hon. Randy Neugebauer.................. 11/26 12/1 Brazil................... ........... 1,474.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Hon. John Salazar...................... 11/26 12/1 Brazil................... ........... 1,474.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Hon. Tim Mahoney....................... 11/26 12/1 Brazil................... ........... 1,474.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Hon. Virginia Foxx..................... 11/26 12/1 Brazil................... ........... 1,474.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Hon. Tim Holden........................ 11/26 12/1 Brazil................... ........... 1,474.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,474.00
Hon. Tim Walberg....................... 11/27 11/28 Ghana.................... ........... 139.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 139.00
11/28 11/29 Burundi.................. ........... 136.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 136.00
11/29 11/30 Ethiopia................. ........... 140.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 140.00
11/30 12/1 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 386.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 386.00
12/1 12/3 Czech Republic........... ........... 146.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 146.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 9,383.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 9,383.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Chairman, Jan. 31,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Bud Cramer........................ 10/4 10/9 Italy.................... ........... 4,091.46 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 4,091.46
Hon. Bill Young........................ 10/4 10/9 Italy.................... ........... 4,091.46 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 4,091.46
Hon. Kay Granger....................... 10/4 10/9 Italy.................... ........... 4,091.46 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 4,091.46

[[Page 2214]]

John Shank............................. 10/4 10/9 Italy.................... ........... 4,091.46 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 4,091.46
John Blazey............................ 10/4 10/9 Italy.................... ........... 4,091.46 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 4,091.46
Hon. Allen Boyd........................ 10/5 10/7 Qatar.................... ........... 458.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 458.00
10/7 10/8 Jordan................... ........... 279.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 279.00
10/8 10/9 Germany.................. ........... 223.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 223.00
Hon. Roger Wicker...................... 10/5 10/7 Qatar.................... ........... 458.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 458.00
10/7 10/8 Jordan................... ........... 279.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 279.00
10/8 10/9 Germany.................. ........... 223.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 223.00
Paul Terry............................. 10/5 10/7 Qatar.................... ........... 458.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 458.00
10/7 10/8 Jordan................... ........... 279.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 279.00
10/8 10/9 Germany.................. ........... 223.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 223.00
Hon. Ciro Rodgiguez.................... 10/8 10/9 Mexico................... ........... 493.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 493.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 460.08 ........... ........... ........... 460.08
Hon. Ed Pastor......................... 10/8 10/9 Mexico................... ........... 350.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 350.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 378.58 ........... ........... ........... 378.58
Hon. Ben Chandler...................... 11/2 11/5 Italy.................... ........... 2,425.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,425.00
Hon. John Murtha....................... 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,210.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,210.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 975.32 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 975.32
Hon. David Hobson...................... 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,210.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,210.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 975.32 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 975.32
Hon. Norman Dicks...................... 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,210.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,210.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 975.32 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 975.32
Hon. Sanford Bishop.................... 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,210.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,210.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 975.32 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 975.32
John Blazey............................ 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,000.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,000.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 871.78 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 871.78
Sarah Young............................ 11/21 11/24 Kuwait................... ........... 1,000.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,000.50
11/24 11/25 Turkey................... ........... 357.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 357.00
11/25 11/26 Brussels................. ........... 871.78 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 871.78
Hon. Steve Israel...................... 11/21 11/22 Bahrain.................. ........... 114.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 114.00
11/24 11/25 Kuwait................... ........... 104.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 104.00
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 10,916.16 ........... ........... ........... 10,916.16
Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen.............. 11/27 11/28 Belgium.................. ........... 217.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 217.00
11/28 11/30 France................... ........... 356.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 356.00
11/30 12/2 Germany.................. ........... 418.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 418.00
Hon. James Moran....................... 11/24 11/25 Germany.................. ........... 745.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 745.00
11/25 11/27 Oman..................... ........... 815.56 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 815.56
11/27 11/29 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 2,149.45 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,149.45
11/29 11/30 Behrain.................. ........... 407.42 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 407.42
11/30 12/1 Germany.................. ........... 380.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 380.00
Paul Juola............................. 11/24 11/25 Germany.................. ........... 745.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 745.00
11/25 11/27 Oman..................... ........... 711.66 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 711.66
11/27 11/29 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 2,149.95 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 2,149.95
11/29 11/30 Behrain.................. ........... 381.80 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 381.80
11/30 12/1 Germany.................. ........... 380.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 380.00
Hon. John Carter....................... 11/27 11/28 Greece................... ........... 1,044.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 1,044.00
11/29 11/30 Cyprus................... ........... 344.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 344.00
12/1 12/2 France................... ........... 962.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 962.00
Hon. Tim Ryan.......................... 11/24 11/26 Italy.................... ........... 292.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/26 11/28 Chad..................... ........... 230.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 230.00
11/28 11/30 Ethiopia................. ........... 610.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 610.00
11/30 12/1 Kenya.................... ........... 268.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 268.00
12/1 12/2 Belgium.................. ........... 167.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 167.00
John Blazey............................ 11/27 12/1 Germany.................. ........... 1,159.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,159.18
12/1 12/4 Norway................... ........... 1,299.60 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,299.60
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,553.20 ........... ........... ........... 9,553.20
Kristi Mallard......................... 11/27 12/1 Germany.................. ........... 1,159.18 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,159.18
12/1 12/4 Norway................... ........... 1,299.60 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,299.60
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,553.20 ........... ........... ........... 9,533.20
Hon. Betty McCollum.................... 11/24 11/30 Jordan................... ........... 1,638.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,638.00
11/27 11/28 Syria.................... ........... 500.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 500.00
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,390.51 ........... 3,390.51
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,974.91 ........... ........... ........... 7,974.91
Hon. Robert B. Aderholt................ 11/27 11/27 Mauritania............... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/28 Ghana.................... ........... 139.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 139.00
11/28 11/28 Burkina Faso............. ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 11/29 Burindi.................. ........... 136.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 136.00
11/29 11/30 Ethiopia................. ........... 140.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 140.00
11/30 12/2 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 386.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 386.00
12/2 12/2 Poland................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/3 Czech Republic........... ........... 146.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 146.00
Hon. Andrew Crenshaw................... 11/27 11/27 Mauritania............... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/28 Ghana.................... ........... 139.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 139.00
11/28 11/28 Burkina Faso............. ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 11/29 Burindi.................. ........... 136.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 136.00
11/29 11/30 Ethiopia................. ........... 140.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 140.00
11/30 12/2 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 386.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 386.00
12/2 12/2 Poland................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/3 Czech Republic........... ........... 146.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 146.00
Hon. Adam Schiff....................... 12/14 12/14 Ireland.................. ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/15 12/15 Kuwait................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/15 12/16 Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/16 12/17 Ireland.................. ........... 278.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 278.00
Misc. Embassy Costs................ ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 205.00 ........... 205.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 64,455.04 ........... 38,836.13 ........... 3,595.51 ........... 106,886.68
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Includes conference fees.
DAVID OBEY, Chairman.

[[Page 2215]]

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS (SURVEYS AND INVESTIGATIONS STAFF), HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
HOUSE COMMITTEES
Please Note: If there were no expenditures during the calendar quarter noted above, please check the box at right to so indicate and return. x
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
DAVID M. POMERANTZ.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEENP OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Visit to Iraq, Kuwait, September 26-
October 1, 2007:
Paul Arcangeli................... 9/27 10/1 Kuwait.................. ........... 465.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 465.00
1/28 9/29 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30 ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30
Michael Casey.................... 9/27 10/1 Kuwait.................. ........... 465.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 465.00
1/28 9/29 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 7,938.30 ........... ........... ........... 7,938.30
Roy Phillips..................... 9/27 10/1 Kuwait.................. ........... 465.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 465.00
1/28 9/29 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30 ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30
Alexander Kugajevsky............. 9/27 10/1 Kuwait.................. ........... 465.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 465.00
1/28 9/29 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30 ........... ........... ........... 9.416.30
Stephanie Sanok.................. 9/27 10/1 Kuwait.................. ........... 465.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 465.00
1/28 9/29 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30 ........... ........... ........... 9,416.30
Visit to Italy, Germany, October 4-9,
2007:
Hon. Solomon Ortiz............... 10/5 10/8 Germany................. ........... 1,012.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,012.00
10/8 10/9 Italy................... ........... 70.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 70.00
Hon. Candice Miller.............. 10/5 10/8 Germany................. ........... 1,012.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,012.00
10/8 10/9 Italy................... ........... 70.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 70.00
David Sienicki................... 10/5 10/8 Germany................. ........... 1,012.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,012.00
10/8 10/9 Italy................... ........... 70.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 70.00
Visit to Kuwait, Afghanistan, October
11-16, 2007:
John Kruse....................... 10/12 10/14 Kuwait.................. ........... 210.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 210.00
10/14 10/15 Afghanistan............. ........... 50.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 50.00
10/15 10/16 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 10,455.62 ........... ........... ........... 10,455.62
Julie Unmacht.................... 10/12 10/14 Kuwait.................. ........... 210.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 210.00
10/14 10/15 Afghanistan............. ........... 50.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 50.00
10/15 10/16 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 8,022.24 ........... ........... ........... 8,022.24
Roger Zakheim.................... 10/12 10/14 Kuwait.................. ........... 210.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 210.00
10/14 10/15 Afghanistan............. ........... 50.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 50.00
10/15 10/16 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 8,339.84 ........... ........... ........... 8,339.84
Eryn Robinson.................... 10/12 10/14 Kuwait.................. ........... 210.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 210.00
10/14 10/15 Afghanistan............. ........... 50.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 50.00
10/15 10/16 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 10,878.62 ........... ........... ........... 10,878.62
Vickie Plunkett.................. 10/12 10/14 Kuwait.................. ........... 15.33 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 15.33
10/14 10/15 Afghanistan............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/15 10/16 Kuwait.................. ........... 7.67 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 7.67
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 10,455.62 ........... ........... ........... 10,455.62
Visit to Germay, Iraq, Kuwait,
October 18-22, 2007:
Hon. David Loebsack.............. 10/19 10/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
10/20 10/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/21 10/22 Germany................. ........... 298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 298.00
Hon. Tom Cole.................... 10/19 10/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
10/20 10/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/21 10/22 Germany................. ........... 298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 298.00
Robert DeGrasse.................. 10/19 10/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
10/20 10/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/21 10/22 Germany................. ........... 298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 298.00
Kari Bingen...................... 10/19 10/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
10/20 10/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/21 10/22 Germany................. ........... 298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 298.00
Visit to Iraq, Kuwait, Germany,
November 2-6, 2007:
Hon. Adam Smith.................. 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Hon. Mac Thornberry.............. 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Hon. Gabrielle Giffords.......... 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 134.22 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 134.22
Hon. Bill Shuster................ 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
William Natter................... 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Timothy McClees.................. 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Alexander Kugajevsky............. 11/3 11/3 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/3 11/4 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........

[[Page 2216]]

11/4 11/5 Germany................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Visit to Brazil, Argentina, Colombia,
Panama, November 18-24, 2007:
Hon. Loretta Sanchez............. 11/18 11/20 Brazil.................. ........... 502.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/20 11/21 Argentina............... ........... 352.52 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 352.52
11/21 11/23 Columbia................ ........... 198.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 198.00
11/23 11/24 Panama.................. ........... 254.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 254.00
Hon. Roscoe Bartlett............. 11/18 11/20 Brazil.................. ........... 502.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/20 11/21 Argentina............... ........... 352.52 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 352.52
11/21 11/23 Columbia................ ........... 198.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 198.00
11/23 11/24 Panama.................. ........... 254.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 254.00
Debra Wada....................... 11/18 11/20 Brazil.................. ........... 502.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 502.00
11/20 11/21 Argentina............... ........... 352.52 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 352.52
11/21 11/23 Columbia................ ........... 198.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 198.00
11/23 11/24 Panama.................. ........... 254.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 254.00
Visit to Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain,
Afghanistan, Germany, November 18-
26, 2007:
Hon. Jim Marshall................ 11/19 11/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
11/20 11/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/21 11/22 Bahrain................. ........... 114.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 114.00
11/22 11/23 Persian Gulf-Carrier ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Embark.
11/23 11/24 Afghanistan............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/24 11/25 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 11,987.19 ........... ........... ........... 11,987.19
Kevin Coughlin................... 11/19 11/20 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
11/20 11/21 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/21 11/22 Bahrain................. ........... 114.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 114.00
11/22 11/23 Persian Gulf-Carrier ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Embark.
11/23 11/24 Afghanistan............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/24 11/25 Kuwait.................. ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 10,930.19 ........... ........... ........... 10,930.19
Visit to Kenya, Ethopia, Chad,
Belgium, Italy, November 24-December
2, 2007:
Hon. Kentrick Meek............... 11/24 11/26 Italy................... ........... 292.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/26 11/28 Chad.................... ........... 230.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 230.00
11/28 11/30 Ethiopia................ ........... 610.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 610.00
11/30 12/1 Kenya................... ........... 268.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 268.00
12/1 12/2 Belgium................. ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Mark Lewis....................... 11/24 11/26 Italy................... ........... 292.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/26 11/28 Chad.................... ........... 230.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 230.00
11/28 11/30 Ethiopia................ ........... 610.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 610.00
11/30 12/1 Kenya................... ........... 268.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 268.00
12/1 12/2 Belgium................. ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Stephanie Sanok.................. 11/24 11/26 Italy................... ........... 292.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/26 11/28 Chad.................... ........... 230.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 230.00
11/28 11/30 Ethiopia................ ........... 610.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 610.00
11/30 12/1 Kenya................... ........... 268.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 268.00
12/1 12/2 Belgium................. ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Catherine Steadman............... 11/24 11/26 Italy................... ........... 292.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/26 11/28 Chad.................... ........... 230.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 230.00
11/28 11/30 Ethiopia................ ........... 610.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 610.00
11/30 12/1 Kenya................... ........... 268.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 268.00
12/1 12/2 Belgium................. ........... 167.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 167.00
Delegation Expenses.............. 11/28 11/29 Ethopia................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3,284.22 ........... 3,284.22
Visit to India, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Hungary, with CODEL
Bennett November 25-December 4,
2007:
Hon. Joe Wilson.................. 11/27 11/28 India................... ........... 536.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 536.00
11/28 11/29 Afghanistan............. ........... 75.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
11/29 11/20 Pakistan................ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/30 12/3 India................... ........... 1,608.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,608.00
Visit to Germany, France, Belgium,
with STAFFDEL Creadon November 26-
December 1, 2007:
Frank Rose....................... 11/27 11/28 Germany................. ........... 334.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 334.00
11/28 11/29 Brussels................ ........... 380.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 380.00
11/29 12/1 France.................. ........... 962.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 962.00
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 9,577.89 ........... ........... ........... 9,577.89
Visit to Mauritania, Burkina Faso,
Burundi, Ethiopia, United Arab
Emirates, Pakistan, Afghanistan,
Poland, the Czech Republic, Ireland,
with CODEL Inhofe November 26-
December 3, 2007:
Hon. Mike McIntyre............... 11/27 11/27 Mauritania.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/28 Ghana................... ........... 139.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 139.00
11/28 11/28 Burkina Faso............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 11/29 Burundi................. ........... 131.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 131.00
11/29 11/30 Ethopia................. ........... 140.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 140.00
11/30 12/2 United Arab Emirates.... ........... 386.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 386.00
12/1 12/1 Afghanistan............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/2 Poland.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/3 Czech Republic.......... ........... 147.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 147.00
Hon. Dan Boren................... 11/27 11/27 Mauritania.............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/28 Ghana................... ........... 139.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 139.00
11/28 11/28 Burkina Faso............ ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 11/29 Burundi................. ........... 131.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 131.00
11/29 11/30 Ethopia................. ........... 140.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 140.00
11/30 12/2 United Arab Emirates.... ........... 386.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 386.00
12/1 12/1 Afghanistan............. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/2 Poland.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/3 Czech Republic.......... ........... 147.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 147.00
Visit to Germany, France, Belgium,
England, November 27-December 2,
2007:
Hon. Neil Abercrombie............ 11/27 11/28 Belgium................. ........... 217.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 217.00
11/28 11/30 France.................. ........... 356.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 356.00
11/30 12/2 Germany................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 418.00
Hon. Susan Davis................. 11/27 11/28 Belgium................. ........... 217.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 217.00
11/28 11/30 France.................. ........... 356.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 356.00
11/30 12/2 Germany................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 418.00
Doulas Roach..................... 11/27 11/28 Belgium................. ........... 217.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 217.00
11/28 11/30 France.................. ........... 356.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 356.00

[[Page 2217]]

11/30 12/2 Germany................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 418.00
Aileen Alexander................. 11/27 11/28 Belgium................. ........... 217.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 217.00
11/28 11/30 France.................. ........... 356.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 356.00
11/30 12/2 Germany................. ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 418.00
Visit to Greece, Cyprus, France, with
CODEL Sires November 27-December 1,
2007:
Hon. Phil Gingrey................ 11/27 11/29 Greece.................. ........... 198.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 198.00
11/29 12/1 Cyprus.................. ........... 788.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 788.00
12/1 12/2 France.................. ........... 228.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 228.00
Visit to Kuwait, Iraq, Ireland,
Germany, December 14-16, 2007:
Hon. Gene Taylor................. 12/15 12/15 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/15 12/16 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/16 12/17 Ireland................. ........... 278.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 278.00
William Ebbs..................... 12/15 12/15 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/15 12/16 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/16 12/17 Ireland................. ........... 278.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 278.00
Joshua Holly..................... 12/15 12/15 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/15 12/16 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/16 12/17 Ireland................. ........... 278.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 278.00
Visit to Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey,
December 24-30, 2007:
Hon. Ike Skelton................. 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 150.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 150.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
Hon. Gene Taylor................. 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial transportation.... ........ ............. ........................ ........... ........... ........... 3,028.87 ........... ........... ........... 3,028.87
Hon. Nancy Boyda................. 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 155.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
Hon. Randy Forbes................ 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 155.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
Erin Conaton..................... 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 155.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
Stephanie Sanok.................. 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 155.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
Kyle Wilkens..................... 12/23 12/24 Kuwait.................. ........... 155.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 155.00
12/24 12/25 Iraq.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/25 12/27 Turkey.................. ........... 360.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 360.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total................ ........ ............. ........................ ........... 36,401.78 ........... 129.279.58 ........... 3,284.22 ........... 168,965.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
IKE SKELTON, Chairman, Jan. 31, 2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON BUDGET, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Mark Hadley............................ 11/10 11/19 Kenya.................... ........... 1,260.00 ........... 9,845.37 ........... ........... ........... 11,105.37
Barbara Chow........................... 11/26 11/19 Haiti.................... ........... 705.00 ........... 1,736.20 ........... ........... ........... 2,441.20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 1,965.00 ........... 11,581.57 ........... ........... ........... 13,546.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
JOHN M. SPRATT, JR., Chairman, Jan. 30,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. John R. Kuhl, Jr., CODEL led by 11/26 11/28 Rio de Janeiro........... ........... 1,237.40 ........... (\3\) ........... \4\ 691.60 ........... 1,929.00
Hon. Eliot Engel to Brazil from
November 25-December 1, 2007.
11/28 11/29 Brasilia................. ........... 504.60 ........... (\3\) ........... \4\ 276.17 ........... 780.77
11/29 11/30 Manaus................... ........... 419.00 ........... (\3\) ........... \4\ 209.06 ........... 628.06
11/30 12/1 Salvador................. ........... 467.14 ........... (\3\) ........... \4\ 223.96 ........... 691.10
Hon. Carolyn McCarthy, CODEL led by 11/27 11/28 Belgium.................. ........... 217.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 217.00
Hon. Neil Abercrombie to Belgium,
France, and Germany from November 27-
December 2, 2007.
11/28 11/30 France................... ........... 356.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 356.00
11/30 12/2 Germany.................. ........... 418.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 418.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 3,619.14 ........... ........... ........... 1,400.79 ........... 5,019.93
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Hotel expense.
GEORGE MILLER, Chairman, Jan. 31, 2008.

[[Page 2218]]

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
HOUSE COMMITTEES
Please Note: If there were no expenditures during the calendar quarter noted above, please check the box at right to so indicate and return. x
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
ROBERT A. BRADY, Chairman, Jan. 22,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Steve Cohen....................... 10/5 10/7 Qatar.................... ........... 458.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/7 10/8 Jordan................... ........... 279.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/8 10/9 Germany.................. ........... 223.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 960.00
Hon. Ric Keller........................ 10/19 10/20 Kuwait................... ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/20 10/21 Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
10/21 10/22 Germany.................. ........... 298.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 403.00
Hon. Louis Gohmert..................... 11/24 11/26 Turkey................... ........... 702.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/29 Iraq..................... ........... 542.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/29 11/30 Jordan................... ........... 274.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/30 12/2 Czech Republic........... ........... 306.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/2 12/4 Austria.................. ........... 778.00 ........... 10,542.43 ........... ........... ........... 13,144.43
Ur Jaddou.............................. 11/24 12/2 Jordan & Syria........... ........... 835.00 ........... 7,407.36 ........... ........... ........... 8,242.36
David Shahoulian....................... 11/24 12/2 Jordan & Syria........... ........... 835.00 ........... 7,407.36 ........... ........... ........... 8,242.36
Hon. Bob Goodlatte..................... 11/27 12/1 England.................. ........... 1,086.00 ........... 1,424.00 ........... ........... ........... 2,510.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 6,721.00 ........... 26,781.15 ........... ........... ........... 33,502.15
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
JOHN CONYERS, JR., Chairman, Jan. 31,
2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Christopher Shays................. 11/26 11/30 Turkey................... ........... 843.00 ........... 8,656.65 ........... ........... ........... 9,499.65
11/30 12/2 Jordan................... ........... 174.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 174.00
12/2 12/3 Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/3 12/4 Kuwait................... ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
R. Nicholas Palarino................... 11/26 11/30 Turkey................... ........... 843.00 ........... 8,656.65 ........... ........... ........... 9,499.65
11/30 12/2 Jordan................... ........... 174.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 174.00
12/2 12/3 Iraq..................... ........... ........... ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/3 12/4 Kuwait................... ........... 105.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 105.00
Hon. Tom Davis......................... 11/24 11/25 Germany.................. ........... 348.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 348.00
11/25 11/27 Oman..................... ........... 143.99 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 143.99
11/27 11/29 United Arab Emirates..... ........... 386.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 386.00
11/29 11/30 Bahrain.................. ........... 164.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 164.00
11/30 12/1 Germany.................. ........... 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Hon. Darryl Issa....................... 11/26 11/27 Czech Republic........... ........... 153.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 153.00
11/27 11/28 India.................... ........... 536.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 536.00
11/28 11/29 Kabul.................... ........... 75.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
11/29 11/30 Pakistan................. ........... 339.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 339.00
11/30 12/2 India.................... ........... 1,513.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,513.00
12/2 12/3 India.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/3 12/4 Hungary.................. ........... 131.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 131.00
Frederick Hill......................... 11/26 11/27 Czech Republic........... ........... 153.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 153.00
11/27 11/28 India.................... ........... 536.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 536.00
11/28 11/29 Kabul.................... ........... 75.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 75.00
11/29 11/30 Pakistan................. ........... 339.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 339.00
11/30 12/2 India.................... ........... 1,513.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,513.00
12/2 12/3 India.................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
12/3 12/4 Hungary.................. ........... 131.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 131.00
Kristina Moore Husar................... 12/9 12/15 Indonesia................ ........... 910.00 ........... 9,069.70 ........... ........... ........... 9,979.70
Aimee Brooke Bennett................... 12/9 12/15 Indonesia................ ........... 660.00 ........... 9,069.70 ........... ........... ........... 9,729.70
Jeffery Baran.......................... 12/10 12/14 Indonesia................ ........... 471.00 ........... 6,258.70 ........... ........... ........... 6,729.70
Erik Jones............................. 12/6 12/14 Indonesia................ ........... 410.00 ........... 7,785.70 ........... ........... ........... 8,195.70
Hon. Michael Turner.................... 12/27 12/28 Germany.................. ........... 212.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 212.50
12/28 12/30 India.................... ........... 270.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 270.00
12/30 1/1 Egypt.................... ........... 266.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 266.00
1/1 1/4 Israel................... ........... 519.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 519.00
1/4 1/5 Germany.................. ........... 212.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 212.50
Michael Heaton......................... 12/27 12/28 Germany.................. ........... 212.50 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 212.50
12/28 12/30 India.................... ........... 270.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 270.00
12/30 1/1 Egypt.................... ........... 266.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 266.00
1/1 1/4 Israel................... ........... 519.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 519.00
1/4 1/5 Germany.................. ........... 212.50 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 212.50
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 14,538.99 ........... 49,497.10 ........... ........... ........... 64,036.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
HENRY A. WAXMAN, Chairman, Jan. 30,
2008.

[[Page 2219]]

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Jean Fruci............................. 11/11 11/19 Spain.................... ........... 2,019.00 ........... \4\ 1,854.3 ........... ........... ........... 3,873.33
3
Dan Pearson............................ 11/12 11/18 Spain.................... ........... 1,855.00 ........... \4\ 1,199.3 ........... ........... ........... 3,054.33
3
Tara Rothschild........................ 11/12 11/17 Spain.................... ........... 1,620.00 ........... \4\ 5,354.2 ........... ........... ........... 6,974.24
4
Hon. Laura Richardson.................. 11/23 11/24 Germany.................. ........... 170.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 170.00
11/25 11/27 Oman..................... ........... 386.00 ........... \4\ 5,760.1 ........... ........... ........... 6,146.19
9
11/27 11/29 United Arab Emirates..... ........... \4\ 348.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 348.00
Hon. Brian Baird....................... 11/30 12/2 Jordan................... ........... 275.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 275.00
James Turner........................... 12/16 12/22 India.................... ........... 970.00 ........... \4\ 8,358.9 ........... ........... ........... 9,328.98
8
Chris King............................. 12/6 12/16 Indonesia................ ........... 1,827.00 ........... \4\ 7,088.7 ........... ........... ........... 8,915.70
0
Bart Forsyth........................... 12/6 12/7 Singapore................ ........... 254.00 ........... \4\ 10,172. ........... ........... ........... 10,426.70
70
12/7 12/14 Indonesia................ ........... 1,274.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 1,274.00
Tara Rothschild........................ 12/8 12/15 Indonesia................ ........... 1,827.00 ........... \4\ 7,785.7 ........... ........... ........... 9,612.70
0
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 12,825.00 ........... 47,574.17 ........... ........... ........... 60,399.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
\4\ Commercial airfare.
BART GORDON, Chairman, Jan. 29, 2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Michael Arcuri.................... 11/24 11/28 Italy.................... ........... 292.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 292.00
11/28 11/29 Ethiopia................. ........... 12.00 ........... (\3\) ........... ........... ........... 12.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 304.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 304.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
JIM OBERSTAR, Chairman, Jan. 31, 2008.

REPORT OF EXPENDITURES FOR OFFICIAL FOREIGN TRAVEL, PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, EXPENDED BETWEEN OCT. 1 AND DEC. 31, 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Per diem \1\ Transportation Other purposes Total
---------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar U.S. dollar
Name of Member or employee Country Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent Foreign equivalent
Arrival Departure currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S. currency or U.S.
currency currency currency currency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\-----------------------\2\----
Hon. Leonard Boswell................... 10/4 10/9 Europe................... ........... 1,082.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... \3\ 1,082.0
0
Hon. Silvestre Reyes................... 10/8 10/9 Mexico................... ........... 300.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 431.08 ........... ........... ........... 731.08
Michael Delaney........................ 10/8 10/9 Mexico................... ........... 300.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 873.58 ........... ........... ........... 1,173.58
Hon. Silvestre Reyes................... 11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 848.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,628.20 ........... ........... ........... 9,476.20
Michael Delaney........................ 11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 848.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,863.20 ........... ........... ........... 10,711.20
Hon. Mike Thompson..................... 11/25 11/28 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 1,125.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,167.20 ........... ........... ........... 10,932.32
Linda Cohen............................ 11/25 11/28 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 1,125.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,038.70 ........... ........... ........... 9,803.82
Diane La Voy........................... 11/25 11/28 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 1,125.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,213.70 ........... ........... ........... 9,978.82
Sarah Roland........................... 11/25 11/28 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Latin America............ ........... 1,125.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 7,193.70 ........... ........... ........... 9,958.82
Hon. Peter Hoekstra.................... 11/26 11/27 Europe................... ........... 387.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Europe................... ........... 1,146.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,282.63 ........... ........... ........... 9,815.63
Jim Lewis.............................. 11/26 11/27 Europe................... ........... 387.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Europe................... ........... 1,146.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,645.63 ........... ........... ........... 8,178.63
Hon. Mike Rogers....................... 11/27 11/30 Middle East.............. ........... 1,569.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 10,287.13 ........... ........... ........... 11,856.13
Kathleen Reilly........................ 11/27 11/30 Middle East.............. ........... 1,569.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,364.61 ........... ........... ........... 12,933.61
Donald Vieira.......................... 11/27 11/30 Middle East.............. ........... 1,569.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,058.61 ........... ........... ........... 12,627.61
Wyndee Parker.......................... 11/26 11/29 Europe................... ........... 402.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 11,395.38 ........... ........... ........... 11,797.38
Hon. Bud Cramer........................ 11/27 12/28 Europe................... ........... 217.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 11/29 Europe................... ........... 356.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/30 12/2 Europe................... ........... 418.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... \3\ 991.00
Hon. Silvestre Reyes................... 11/28 11/30 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 8,662.20 ........... ........... ........... 10,302.32
Michael Delaney........................ 11/28 11/30 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,883.20 ........... ........... ........... 11,523.32
Jeremy Bash............................ 11/28 11/30 Latin America............ ........... 1,640.12 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 3,879.20 ........... ........... ........... 5,519.32
Mark Young............................. 11/25 11/29 Europe................... ........... 1,736.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/30 12/1 Europe................... ........... 868.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........

[[Page 2220]]

........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... \3\ 2,604.0
0
George Pappas.......................... 11/25 11/29 Europe................... ........... 1,736.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/30 12/1 Europe................... ........... 868.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... \3\ 2,604.0
0
Stacey Dixon........................... 11/26 11/28 Europe................... ........... 732.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Europe................... ........... 1,704.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,224.37 ........... ........... ........... 11,660.37
Jody Houck............................. 11/26 11/28 Europe................... ........... 732.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/28 12/1 Europe................... ........... 1,704.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 9,877.37 ........... ........... ........... 12,313.37
Josh Kirshner.......................... 11/25 11/27 Europe................... ........... 250.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/29 Europe................... ........... 1,107.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/29 12/1 Europe................... ........... 331.61 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,516.49 ........... ........... ........... 8,205.10
Mieke Eoyang........................... 11/25 11/27 Europe................... ........... 250.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/29 Europe................... ........... 1,107.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/29 12/1 Europe................... ........... 331.61 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,516.49 ........... ........... ........... 8,205.10
Fred Fleitz............................ 11/25 11/27 Europe................... ........... 250.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/27 11/29 Europe................... ........... 1,107.00 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
11/29 12/1 Europe................... ........... 331.61 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
Commercial airfare................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... ........... ........... 6,516.49 ........... ........... ........... 8,205.10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee total.................. ........ .......... ......................... ........... 43,670.67 ........... 169,519.16 ........... ........... ........... 213,189.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per diem constitutes lodging and meals.
\2\ If foreign currency is used, enter U.S. dollar equivalent; if U.S. currency is used, enter amount expended.
\3\ Military air transportation.
SILVESTRE REYES, Chairman, Jan. 30,
2008.

____________________

RULES AND REPORTS SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO THE CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(d), executive communications [final rules]
submitted to the House pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1) during the period
of July 27, 2007, through January 3, 2008, shall be treated as though
received on February 14, 2008. Original dates of transmittal,
numberings, and referrals to committee of those executive
communications remain as indicated in the Executive Communication
section of the relevant Congressional Record.

____________________

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, ETC.

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

5352. A letter from the Senior Vice President for
Congressional Affairs, Export-Import Bank, transmitting the
Bank's FY 2007 annual report for the Sub-Saharan Africa
Initiative; to the Committee on Financial Services.
5353. A letter from the President and Chairman, Export-
Import Bank of the United States, transmitting the annual
report to Congress on the operations of the Export-Import
Bank of the United States for Fiscal Year 2007, pursuant to
12 U.S.C. 635g; to the Committee on Financial Services.
5354. A letter from the Acting Director, Office of
Management, Federal Housing Finance Board, transmitting the
Board's information on its 2008 compensation program,
including current base salary structures, pursuant to 12
U.S.C. 1833b; to the Committee on Financial Services.
5355. A letter from the Chairperson, National Council of
Disability, transmitting the Council's report entitled, ``The
No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report''; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
5356. A letter from the Administrator, Energy Information
Administration, Department of Energy, transmitting a copy of
the Energy Information Administration's ``Profiles of Foreign
Direct Investment in U.S. Energy 2006,'' pursuant to Public
Law 95-91, section 205(h); to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
5357. A letter from the Director, Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, Department of Energy,
transmitting the 2006 Annual Report on the activities and
expenditures of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management system, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3512(c)(3); to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
5358. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Commerce,
transmitting the Department's Performance and Accountability
Report for Fiscal Year 2007; to the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
5359. A letter from the Secretary, Department of Energy,
transmitting the Department's Fiscal Year 2007 Agency
Financial Report; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
5360. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
Annual Report for 2007 on the Implementation of the Federal
Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999,
pursuant to Public Law 106-107, section 5(d); to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
5361. A letter from the Director, Office of Management and
Budget, transmitting the Office's annual report for fiscal
year 2007, in accordance with Section 203(a) of the
Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), Public Law 107-174; to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
5362. A letter from the Secretary of the Board of
Governors, U.S. Postal Service, transmitting the Service's
Report, as required by Section 3686(c) of the Postal
Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006; to the Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform.
5363. A letter from the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Department of Justice, transmitting the Department's
report detailing the progress and the status of compliance
with privatization requirements, pursuant to Public Law 105-
33, section 11201(c) (111 Stat. 734); to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
5364. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a copy of
Presidential Determination No. 2008-9, Waiver of Section 1083
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2008; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
5365. A letter from the Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting the Department's
final rule -- Visas: Documentation of Nonimmigrants Under the
Immigration and Nationality Act -- January 25, 2007, pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
5366. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Pottsville, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22490; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-018] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5367. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Philipsburg, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22493; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-021] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5368. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Fort Scott, KS. [Docket No.
FAA-2007-28771; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-8] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5369. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Modification of Class E Airspace; Lee's Summit, MO.

[[Page 2221]]

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28776; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-10]
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5370. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; St. Marys, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22492; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-020] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5371. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Tappahannock, VA. [Docket
No. FAA-2007-29264; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-04] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5372. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Muncy, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2007-0023; Airspace Docket No. 07-AEA-08] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5373. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Establishment of Class E Airspace; Hailey, ID [Docket FAA No.
FAA-2007-27911; Airspace Docket No. 07-ANM-8] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5374. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Williamsport, PA. [Docket No.
FAA-2005-22491; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-019] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5375. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Du Bois, PA [Docket No. FAA-
2005-22489; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-017] received February
5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5376. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Amendment of Class E Airspace; Aguadilla, PR [Docket No. FAA-
2007-29086; Airspace Docket No. 07-ASO-22] received February
5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5377. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Docket No. 30585; Amdt. No. 3249] received February 5, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5378. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 777 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-27619; Directorate Identifier 2005-NM-164-AD;
Amendment 39-15257; AD 2007-23-11] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5379. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 767-200, -300, and -
300F Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28376; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-108-AD; Amendment 39-15255; AD 2007-23-09]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5380. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna Model 560 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-0190; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-234-AD;
Amendment 39-15259; AD 2007-23-13] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5381. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-400, 747-400D, and
747-400F Series Airplanes; Model 757-200 Series Airplanes;
and Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-300F Series Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-28380; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
088-AD; Amendment 39-15254; AD 2007-23-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5382. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 707 Airplanes and
Model 720 and 720B Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-
28828; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-010-AD; Amendment 39-
15258; AD 2007-23-12] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5383. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-0073; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-229-AD;
Amendment 39-15240; AD 2007-22-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5384. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; EADS SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-0158; Directorate Identifier 2007-CE-
081-AD; Amendment 39-15253; AD 2007-23-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5385. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; CTRM Aviation Sdn. Bhd. (Formerly
Eagle Aircraft (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.) Model Eagle 150B
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28957 Directorate Identifier
2007-CE-069-AD; Amendment 39-15252; AD 2007-23-06] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5386. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Goodrich Evacuation Systems
Approved Under Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C69b and
Installed on Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 Series Airplanes,
Model A340-200 and -300 Series Airplanes, and Model A340-541
and -642 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28882; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-035-AD; Amendment 39-15247; AD 2007-23-01]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5387. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330-200, A330-300,
A340-200, A340-300, A340-500, and A340-600 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-0076; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
241-AD; Amendment 39-15246; AD 2007-22-10] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5388. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A330 Airplanes [Docket
No. FAA-2007-0073; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-229-AD;
Amendment 39-15240; AD 2007-22-04] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5389. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300 Series Airplanes
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27927; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
182-AD; Amendment 39-15239; AD 2007-22-03] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5390. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 757-200, -200PF, and -
200CB Series Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-27560;
Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-211-AD; Amendment 39-15198; AD
2007-19-07] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5391. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A300-600 Series
Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28853; Directorate Identifier
2006-NM-218-AD; Amendment 39-15241; AD 2007-22-05] (RIN:
2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5392. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 Airplanes [Docket No. FAA-2007-28923; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NM-133-AD; Amendment 39-15242; AD 2007-22-06]
(RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
5393. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Hazardous Materials; Miscellaneous Amendments [Docket No.
PHMSA-05-21812 (HM-218D)] (RIN: 2137-AE10) received February
5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5394. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Docket No. 30576 ; Amdt. No. 3241] received February 5,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

[[Page 2222]]

5395. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments
[Docket No. 30578 ; Amdt. No. 3243] received February 5,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.
5396. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures; Miscellaneous
Amendments [Docket No. 30579; Amdt. No. 3244] received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5397. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211 Trent
768-60, 772-60, 772B-60, and 772C-60 Turbofan Engines [Docket
No. FAA-2007-28976; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-28-AD;
Amendment 39-15244; AD 2007-22-08] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received
February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5398. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. Model
205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP Helicopters
[Docket No. FAA-2007-27496; Directorate Identifier 2005-SW-
37-AD; Amendment 39-15238; AD 2007-22-02] (RIN: 2120-AA64)
received February 5, 2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A);
to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
5399. A letter from the Program Analyst, Department of
Transportation, transmitting the Department's final rule --
Airworthiness Directives; Bell Helicopter Textron Canada
Model 206A and 206B Series Helicopters [Docket No. FAA-2007-
0055; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-12-AD; Amendment 39-
15237; AD 2007-22-01] (RIN: 2120-AA64) received February 5,
2008, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A); to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure.

____________________

REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as
follows:

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania: H. Res. 989. Resolution
dismissing the election contest relating to the office of
Representative from the Thirteenth Congressional District of
Florida (Rept. 110-528). Referred to the House Calendar.

____________________

PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. ROSS (for himself and Mr. Nunes):
H.R. 5437. A bill to promote alternative and renewable
fuels, domestic energy production, conservation, and
efficiency, to increase American energy independence, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and
in addition to the Committees on Science and Technology,
Oversight and Government Reform, Armed Services, Agriculture,
Natural Resources, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA:
H.R. 5438. A bill to name the Department of Veterans
Affairs medical facility in Tafuna, American Samoa, as the
``Fuga Tolani Teleso Satele Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Facility''; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. THORNBERRY:
H.R. 5439. A bill to establish the Civil Service Reform
Commission; to the Committee on Oversight and Government
Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FOSSELLA (for himself, Mr. King of New York, Mr.
Hoekstra, and Mr. Smith of Texas):
H.R. 5440. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for
authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in
addition to the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select),
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. JONES of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Kline
of Minnesota, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California, Mrs.
Boyda of Kansas, Ms. Shea-Porter, and Mr. Wilson of
South Carolina):
H.R. 5441. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
extend the special survivor indemnity allowance to survivors
of certain members of the Armed Forces who die on active
duty; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself, Mr. Emanuel, and Mrs.
Capps):
H.R. 5442. A bill to provide individuals with access to
health information of which they are a subject, to ensure
personal privacy, security, and confidentiality with respect
to health related information in promoting the development of
a nationwide interoperable health information infrastructure,
to impose criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized use
of personal health information, to provide for the strong
enforcement of these rights, to protect States' rights, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means,
Education and Labor, and Financial Services, for a period to
be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. ROYCE (for himself and Mrs. Tauscher):
H.R. 5443. A bill to improve defense cooperation between
the Republic of Korea and the United States; to the Committee
on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. Honda, Mr.
Faleomavaega, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Matsui,
Mr. Wu, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Baca, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Cardoza, Mr. Costa, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Gutierrez, Mr.
Hinojosa, Mrs. Napolitano, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Rodriguez, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms.
Loretta Sanchez of California, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Serrano, Ms. Velazquez, Mr. Sires, Ms.
Kilpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr. Cleaver, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida, Mr. Butterfield, Mr.
Clay, Mrs. Christensen, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Cummings, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Mr. Ellison, Mr.
Hastings of Florida, Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr.
Fattah, Mr. Jackson of Illinois, Mr. Jefferson, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Ms. Waters, Ms. Watson, Mr.
Watt, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Scott of Virginia, Mr. Scott of
Georgia, Mr. Rush, Ms. Richardson, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Payne, Ms. Norton, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Mr. Meeks
of New York, Mr. Meek of Florida, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Johnson of Georgia,
and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas):
H.R. 5444. A bill making supplemental appropriations for
fiscal year 2008 for summer youth employment activities; to
the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the
Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. PRICE of Georgia (for himself and Mr. Scott of
Georgia):
H.R. 5445. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act to increase Medicare payments for
physicians' services through December 31, 2009; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the
Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. SMITH of New Jersey (for himself, Mr. Doyle, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, Mr. Langevin, Mr. Pence, Mr. Wolf, and
Mr. Weldon of Florida):
H.R. 5446. A bill to establish a health and education grant
program related to autism spectrum disorders, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Shays, Mrs. Davis of
California, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Lee, Mr. Gutierrez,
and Mrs. Jones of Ohio):
H.R. 5447. A bill to establish the Social Work Reinvestment
Commission to provide independent counsel to Congress on
policy issues associated with the recruitment, retention,
research, and reinvestment in the profession of social work;
to the Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr. Michaud):
H.R. 5448. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the disability compensation evaluation procedure of
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for veterans with post-
traumatic stress disorder, to improve the diagnosis and
treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. KAGEN (for himself, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Perlmutter, Mr. Cohen, Mr. McNerney, Ms. Castor, Mr.
Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr.
Grijalva, Ms. Hirono, Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Sutton,
Ms. Clarke, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Ellison):
H.R. 5449. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974,

[[Page 2223]]

Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to prohibit discrimination in group health coverage and
individual health insurance coverage; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on
Education and Labor, and Ways and Means, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. Pomeroy,
Mr. Herger, Mr. Camp of Michigan, Mr. Brady of Texas,
Mr. Tiberi, and Mr. Cantor):
H.R. 5450. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to remove cell phones from listed property under section
280F; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. BORDALLO (for herself, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Saxton,
Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr.
Gilchrest, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Capps, Mrs. Christensen,
Mr. Allen, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Brown of South Carolina,
Mr. Pallone, and Ms. Ros-Lehtinen):
H.R. 5451. A bill to reauthorize the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Bordallo,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Farr, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Faleomavaega,
and Ms. Matsui):
H.R. 5452. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 to authorize grants to coastal States to support
State efforts to initiate and complete surveys of coastal
State waters and Federal waters adjacent to a State's coastal
zone to identify potential areas suitable or unsuitable for
the exploration, development, and production of renewable
energy, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Natural
Resources.
By Mrs. CAPPS (for herself, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Saxton,
Mr. Markey, Mr. Pallone, Mr. Inslee, Mr. Farr, Mr.
Delahunt, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Matsui, and Mr.
Hinchey):
H.R. 5453. A bill to amend the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 to authorize assistance to coastal states to develop
coastal climate change adaptation plans pursuant to approved
management programs approved under section 306, to minimize
contributions to climate change, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Natural Resources.
By Mr. BROWN of South Carolina (for himself and Mr.
Price of North Carolina):
H.R. 5454. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
establish a presumption of service connection of amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis for purposes of the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BURTON of Indiana:
H.R. 5455. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States
Code to make nondischargeable debts for personal injuries
that result in permanent disability; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. CLEAVER:
H.R. 5456. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Tembotrione; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLEAVER:
H.R. 5457. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Deltamethrin; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLEAVER:
H.R. 5458. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on
Hydrazine monohydrate; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. CLEAVER:
H.R. 5459. A bill to extend the temporary suspension of
duty on Triadimefon; to the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Ms. ESHOO (for herself and Mr. Thompson of
California):
H.R. 5460. A bill to amend the Detainee Treatment Act of
2005 and title 18, United States Code, to include
waterboarding in the definition of cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment or punishment and in the definition of
torture, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence
(Permanent Select), and Armed Services, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for
consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. FATTAH (for himself, Mr. Porter, Ms. Ginny
Brown-Waite of Florida, Mr. Cardoza, Mr. Cummings,
Mr. Payne, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Stark, Mr.
Filner, Mr. Platts, Ms. Loretta Sanchez of
California, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. Ellison, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. English of Pennsylvania, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Woolsey, Ms.
Bordallo, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. McDermott,
Mr. Lampson, Mr. Terry, Mr. Sestak, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Grijalva, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Young of Alaska, Mr.
Jefferson, Ms. Norton, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Ms.
Schakowsky):
H.R. 5461. A bill to require the President to call a White
House Conference on Children and Youth in 2010; to the
Committee on Education and Labor.
By Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. Kline of Minnesota,
Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr.
King of Iowa, Mr. Sali, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Conaway, Mr.
Shadegg, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Price of Georgia, Mr. David
Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Sam Johnson of
Texas, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Goode, Mr. Pitts, Mr. Wamp,
Mr. Feeney, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Marchant,
Mr. Herger, Mrs. Bachmann, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Akin,
Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Brown of South
Carolina, Mr. Issa, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Hunter, Mr.
Poe, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Burton of
Indiana, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. McHenry, Mr.
Sessions, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Latta, Mr. Pence, Mr. King
of New York, and Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of
California):
H.R. 5462. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to
deny Federal funds for any State or city, county, or other
political subdivision of a State that prohibits or unduly
restricts the establishment or operation of a military
recruiting office; to the Committee on Armed Services, and in
addition to the Committee on Education and Labor, for a
period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each
case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the
jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. HENSARLING (for himself and Mr. Royce):
H.R. 5463. A bill to protect investors by fostering
transparency and accountability of attorneys in private
securities litigation; to the Committee on Financial
Services, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary,
for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in
each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
By Mr. KLEIN of Florida (for himself, Mr.
Sensenbrenner, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Wexler,
Mr. Cohen, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Ms. Sutton, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Granger, Mr. Chandler, Mr.
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Hastings of Florida, Mr.
Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Meek of
Florida, and Mr. Scott of Virginia):
H.R. 5464. A bill to direct the Attorney General to make an
annual grant to the A Child Is Missing Alert and Recovery
Center to assist law enforcement agencies in the rapid
recovery of missing children, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. LOEBSACK (for himself, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Bishop
of Georgia, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Brady of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Abercrombie, Mr. Braley of Iowa,
Ms. Hooley, and Ms. Shea-Porter):
H.R. 5465. A bill to require the Department of Defense to
implement a pain care initiative, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. McDERMOTT (for himself, Mr. Stark, Mr. Lewis of
Georgia, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Davis of Alabama, Ms.
DeLauro, and Mr. Fattah):
H.R. 5466. A bill to improve outcomes for vulnerable
children by investing in families, improving accountability
in the child welfare system, and finding safe, stable, and
permanent homes for foster children; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. PATRICK MURPHY of Pennsylvania (for himself and
Mr. Bilbray):
H.R. 5467. A bill to amend the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note) in order to
prevent the loss of billions in taxpayer dollars; to the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
By Mr. SHUSTER (for himself and Mr. Platts):
H.R. 5468. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security
Act to provide Medicaid coverage of drugs prescribed for
certain research study child participants; to the Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
By Ms. SLAUGHTER (for herself, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Cohen,
Mr. Shays, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Braley of Iowa, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Thompson of California, Mr. King of
New York, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. Cuellar, Mr.
Serrano, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Ruppersberger, Ms. Sutton,
Mr. Snyder, Mr. Barrow, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Kennedy):
H.R. 5469. A bill to provide grants for the revitalization
of waterfront brownfields; to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently
determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of
such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the
committee concerned.
By Mr. STUPAK:
H.R. 5470. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934
to require the carriage of all local television signals by
satellite carriers in all local markets; to the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. TOWNS (for himself and Mrs. Blackburn):
H.R. 5471. A bill to require the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to prescribe

[[Page 2224]]

rules requiring distinctive markings on toy and look-alike
firearms; to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. VISCLOSKY (for himself, Mr. Donnelly, Mr.
Souder, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Hill, Mr. Pence,
Mr. Ellsworth, and Mr. Buyer):
H.R. 5472. A bill to designate the facility of the United
States Postal Service located at 2650 Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr. Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as the ``Julia M. Carson
Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform.
By Mr. WELCH of Vermont:
H.R. 5473. A bill to increase the supply and lower the cost
of petroleum by temporarily suspending the acquisition of
petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. ROGERS of Alabama (for himself, Mr. Meek of
Florida, Mr. Towns, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Aderholt, Mr.
Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Bishop of Georgia,
Mr. McGovern, Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Udall of Colorado,
Mr. Snyder, Mr. Bachus, Mr. Bonner, Mr. Hastings of
Florida, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Carter, Mr. Rangel, Mr.
Farr, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Filner, Ms. Sutton, Mr.
Davis of Alabama, Mr. Everett, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
Mrs. Myrick, and Mr. Cramer):
H. Con. Res. 297. Concurrent resolution recognizing the
60th anniversary of the integration of the United States
Armed Forces; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H. Con. Res. 298. Concurrent resolution expressing the
Sense of Congress on the Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. MARKEY (for himself and Mr. Stearns):
H. Con. Res. 299. Concurrent resolution supporting the
goals and ideals of National Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month;
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
By Mr. BOEHNER (for himself, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Putnam, Mr.
McCotter, Mr. Cantor, Ms. Granger, Mr. Carter, Mr.
Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Dreier, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Akin,
Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr.
Brady of Texas, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Camp of Michigan,
Mr. Conaway, Mrs. Cubin, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Mario
Diaz-Balart of Florida, Mr. Everett, Mr. Feeney, Mr.
Forbes, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Garrett of New
Jersey, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Hall of Texas,
Mr. Hayes, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Issa, Mr.
Kline of Minnesota, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr.
Mack, Mr. Marchant, Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mr. McHenry,
Mr. McKeon, Mrs. Miller of Michigan, Mr. Gary G.
Miller of California, Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr.
Neugebauer, Mr. Paul, Mr. Pence, Mr. Poe, Mr.
Reynolds, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen,
Mr. Saxton, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Smith of
Texas, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Westmoreland,
and Mr. Wilson of South Carolina):
H. Res. 986. A resolution recognizing the courage and
sacrifice of those members of the United States Armed Forces
who were held as prisoners of war during the Vietnam conflict
and calling for a full accounting of the 1,729 members of the
Armed Forces who remain unaccounted for from the Vietnam
conflict; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. BAIRD (for himself, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. Crowley,
Ms. DeGette, Mr. Ehlers, Mr. Etheridge, Mr. Gordon,
Mr. Inslee, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mrs. Maloney of
New York, Mr. Murphy of Connecticut, Mr. Patrick
Murphy of Pennsylvania, Ms. Schwartz, Mr. Smith of
Washington, Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Upton, Mr. Van
Hollen, Mr. Walden of Oregon, and Mr. Wamp):
H. Res. 987. A resolution encouraging Americans to join
others across the country in using their rebate checks to
invest in renewable energy and energy-efficient products and
services in order to save money, stimulate the economy, and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. MATHESON (for himself, Mrs. Cubin, Ms. Baldwin,
Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Sessions, Mrs. Capps,
Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ross, Mr.
Fossella, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr.
Towns, Mr. Baird, and Ms. Hooley):
H. Res. 988. A resolution designating the month of March
2008 as ``MRSA Awareness Month''; to the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
By Mr. CHABOT (for himself, Mr. Payne, Mr. Flake, Mr.
Berman, Mr. Royce, Mr. Blumenauer, and Mr. Moran of
Virginia):
H. Res. 990. A resolution encouraging the accelerated
removal of agricultural subsidies of industrialized countries
to alleviate poverty and promote growth, health, and
stability in the economies of African countries; to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
By Mr. ISRAEL:
H. Res. 991. A resolution recognizing the exceptional
sacrifice of the 69th Infantry Regiment, known as the
Fighting 69th, in support of the Global War on Terror; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. ISRAEL (for himself and Ms. Pryce of Ohio):
H. Res. 992. A resolution honoring the sacrifice of all
mothers in the Armed Forces who have deployed to theaters of
combat on behalf of the United States; to the Committee on
Armed Services.

____________________

ADDITIONAL SPONSORS

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

H.R. 25: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 78: Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
H.R. 552: Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Porter, and Ms.
Shea-Porter.
H.R. 563: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 657: Mr. Mica.
H.R. 760: Mr. Costa.
H.R. 768: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Jones of North
Carolina, and Mr. Akin.
H.R. 769: Mr. Akin.
H.R. 882: Mr. Putnam and Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 917: Mr. Manzullo.
H.R. 946: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 997: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 1110: Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 1174: Mr. Kirk.
H.R. 1237: Mrs. Gillibrand and Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 1386: Mr. Stupak and Mr. Sestak.
H.R. 1419: Mr. Garrett of New Jersey.
H.R. 1422: Ms. DeGette and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 1431: Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
H.R. 1532: Mr. Payne, Mr. McNulty, and Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 1576: Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida.
H.R. 1610: Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Abercrombie.
H.R. 1629: Mr. Platts and Ms. Hooley.
H.R. 1665: Mr. Wittman of Virginia and Mr. Platts.
H.R. 1732: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 1742: Mr. Gallegly, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Chandler, and
Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 1767: Mr. Aderholt, Mr. King of Iowa, and Mr.
LaTourette.
H.R. 1884: Ms. Norton and Mr. Moore of Kansas.
H.R. 2016: Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Sarbanes.
H.R. 2040: Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Herger,
Mr. Issa, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Gary G. Miller of
California, Mr. Brady of Texas, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Tom Davis
of Virginia, Mr. Linder, Mr. Forbes, Mr. Terry, Mrs. Cubin,
Mr. Renzi, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Flake, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Reichert,
Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. Keller, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Duncan, Mr.
LaTourette, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Walden of Oregon,
Mr. Petri, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, and Mr. Blunt.
H.R. 2169: Ms. DeGette and Mr. Braley of Iowa.
H.R. 2303: Mr. Chabot, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Walden of
Oregon, Ms. Granger, Mr. Loebsack, and Mr. Stearns.
H.R. 2312: Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr.
McCaul of Texas, and Mr. Boozman.
H.R. 2325: Mr. Gene Green of Texas.
H.R. 2332: Mr. Latta and Mrs. Maloney of New York.
H.R. 2352: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 2464: Mr. Buyer.
H.R. 2507: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 2550: Mr. Barrett of South Carolina.
H.R. 2588: Mr. Fossella and Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 2762: Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cummings, Mr.
Cramer, and Mr. Weller.
H.R. 2827: Mr. Udall of New Mexico.
H.R. 2922: Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 2933: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 2965: Mr. Ellison and Mr. Pastor.
H.R. 2991: Mr. Doggett and Mr. Chandler.
H.R. 3010: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California, Ms. Shea-
Porter, and Mrs. McCarthy of New York.
H.R. 3041: Mr. Platts.
H.R. 3109: Mr. Buyer.
H.R. 3130: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 3175: Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Jefferson.
H.R. 3186: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 3197: Mr. Loebsack.
H.R. 3212: Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H.R. 3232: Mr. Young of Florida.
H.R. 3234: Mr. McCaul of Texas.
H.R. 3257: Mr. Towns.
H.R. 3286: Mr. Hall of Texas.
H.R. 3289: Mr. Bishop of New York.
H.R. 3326: Mrs. Maloney of New York, Ms. Berkley, and Mr.
Brady of Pennsylvania.
H.R. 3363: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H.R. 3366: Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Honda, Mr. Pastor, Mr.
Gonzalez, Mr. McDermott, and Mr. Fattah.
H.R. 3423: Mr. Filner.
H.R. 3438: Mr. Honda and Mrs. Napolitano.
H.R. 3439: Mr. Hill and Mr. Matheson.

[[Page 2225]]

H.R. 3494: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 3544: Mr. Van Hollen and Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H.R. 3663: Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Sestak, Mrs.
McCarthy of New York, Mr. Gonzalez, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas,
Mr. Rangel, Ms. Moore of Wisconsin, Ms. Berkley, and Mr.
Pastor.
H.R. 3680: Mr. Burgess.
H.R. 3700: Mr. Walberg.
H.R. 3749: Mr. Skelton.
H.R. 3750: Mr. Knollenberg.
H.R. 3754: Mr. Matheson and Mr. Hill.
H.R. 3817: Ms. Herseth Sandlin and Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H.R. 3819: Mr. Filner and Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 3834: Mr. Pastor, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr.
Blumenauer, Mr. Renzi, and Mr. Platts.
H.R. 3861: Mr. Porter.
H.R. 3934: Mr. Porter, Mr. Heller, Mr. Tim Murphy of
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Davis of Illinois.
H.R. 3954: Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 3975: Mr. David Davis of Tennessee.
H.R. 3980: Mr. McDermott.
H.R. 4008: Mr. Holden.
H.R. 4071: Mr. LoBiondo.
H.R. 4126: Mr. Hinojosa and Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H.R. 4174: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4206: Mr. Payne.
H.R. 4208: Ms. Matsui and Ms. Shea-Porter.
H.R. 4218: Mr. Taylor, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, and Mr.
McNulty.
H.R. 4236: Ms. Solis and Mr. Holden.
H.R. 4251: Mr. Cohen and Ms. DeGette.
H.R. 4266: Mr. Graves.
H.R. 4291: Ms. McCollum of Minnesota and Mr. Peterson of
Minnesota.
H.R. 4464: Mr. Chabot, Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Franks of Arizona,
Mr. McCaul of Texas, Mrs. Drake, Mr. Hayes, and Mr. Upton.
H.R. 4544: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4652: Mr. Grijalva.
H.R. 4688: Mr. Renzi.
H.R. 4790: Ms. Slaughter.
H.R. 4897: Mr. Rush, Mrs. Napolitano, and Mr. Gordon.
H.R. 4900: Mr. Campbell of California, Mr. Gallegly, Mr.
Walberg, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Renzi, Mr. Holden, and Mr. Shuler.
H.R. 4930: Mrs. Christensen and Mr. Goode.
H.R. 4934: Mr. Filner, Mr. Nadler, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stupak,
Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, Mr. Kildee,
Mr. Stark, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 5032: Mrs. Musgrave, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Feeney, Mr.
Latta, Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland,
Mr. Manzullo, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Gingrey, and Mrs. Myrick.
H.R. 5035: Mr. Al Green of Texas, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Wynn,
and Mr. Serrano.
H.R. 5036: Mr. Clay.
H.R. 5057: Mrs. Blackburn.
H.R. 5060: Mr. Goodlatte.
H.R. 5087: Mr. Mahoney of Florida, Mr. Carney, Mr. Hall of
New York, and Mr. Kind.
H.R. 5106: Mr. Langevin, Mr. Cohen, and Mr. Moran of
Virginia.
H.R. 5110: Mr. Hill, Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Cohen, Ms. McCollum
of Minnesota, and Mr. Doyle.
H.R. 5124: Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas, Mr. Sullivan, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, and Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 5131: Mr. Akin, Mr. Gingrey, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Goode,
Mr. Walberg, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr.
Shadegg, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Sali, Mr. Bilbray, Mrs.
Cubin, Mr. Barrett of South Carolina, Mr. Campbell of
California, Mr. David Davis of Tennessee, Mrs. Musgrave, and
Mr. Franks of Arizona.
H.R. 5143: Mr. Fossella, Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Hill, Mr. Walz of
Minnesota, Mr. Meeks of New York, Mr. Wynn, Mr. Watt, Mr.
Dingell, Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Arcuri, and Mr. Mollohan.
H.R. 5148: Mr. Gallegly and Mr. McIntyre.
H.R. 5161: Mr. Lipinski.
H.R. 5171: Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Inslee.
H.R. 5173: Mr. Kuhl of New York.
H.R. 5176: Mr. McNulty.
H.R. 5180: Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky, Mr. Bishop of
Georgia, Mr. Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, Mr. Frank of
Massachusetts, Mr. Matheson, Ms. Bordallo, Ms. Loretta
Sanchez of California, Mr. Carney, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Mr.
Thompson of Mississippi, Mr. Johnson of Illinois, Mr. Walden
of Oregon, Mr. Capuano, Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California,
Mr. Scott of Virginia, and Mr. Allen.
H.R. 5216: Mr. Salazar.
H.R. 5222: Mr. Walden of Oregon, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr.
Young of Florida, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey,
Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Neugebauer, and
Mr. Shimkus.
H.R. 5233: Mr. Kuhl of New York, Mr. Cantor, and Mrs.
Musgrave.
H.R. 5236: Mr. Pearce and Mrs. Cubin.
H.R. 5242: Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida.
H.R. 5244: Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Mr. Becerra, and Mr.
Chandler.
H.R. 5265: Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Jackson
of Illinois, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Mr. Oberstar, Mr.
Etheridge, Mr. Filner, and Mr. Hinojosa.
H.R. 5351: Ms. Berkley.
H.R. 5430: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 5431: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 5432: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.R. 5433: Mr. Neal of Massachusetts.
H.J. Res. 67: Mr. Wittman of Virginia.
H. Con. Res. 85: Mr. Sestak.
H. Con. Res. 163: Mr. Carney, Ms. Zoe Lofgren of
California, Mr. Weller, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Bartlett of
Maryland, Mr. King of New York, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Wittman of
Virginia, Mrs. Maloney of New York, and Mr. Neugebauer.
H. Con. Res. 249: Mr. Emanuel.
H. Con. Res. 263: Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia, Mr. McCrery,
Mr. Paul, Mr. Radanovich, and Mr. Walden of Oregon.
H. Con. Res. 286: Mr. Baca, Ms. Solis, Mr. Becerra, Mr.
Lewis of Georgia, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mrs.
Jones of Ohio, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Clyburn, Mr. Doyle, Mr.
Doolittle, Mr. Frelinghuysen, Mr. Kingston, Mr. Rogers of
Kentucky, Mr. Brown of South Carolina, Mr. Lewis of
California, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sires, Mr.
Kind, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Hare, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Issa, Mr.
Cuellar, Mr. Farr, Mr. Regula, Mr. Capuano, Mr.
Gutierrez, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, Mr. Sherman, Mr.
Olver, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Visclosky, Ms. Velazquez, Ms.
Hooley, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Brady of Pennsylvania, Mr.
Murtha, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Boucher.
H. Con. Res. 290: Mr. Markey.
H. Con. Res. 292: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Mr. Clay, Mrs.
Emerson, Mr. Graves, Mrs. Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Taylor, Mr.
Akin, and Mr. Hulshof.
H. Con. Res. 295: Mr. Whitfield of Kentucky.
H. Res. 111: Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas.
H. Res. 248: Mr. Broun of Georgia and Mrs. Wilson of New
Mexico.
H. Res. 333: Mr. Boswell.
H. Res. 339: Mr. Walz of Minnesota.
H. Res. 356: Mr. Altmire and Mr. English of Pennsylvania.
H. Res. 679: Ms. Schakowsky and Mr. Cummings.
H. Res. 887: Mr. Marchant, Mr. Fossella, Ms. Herseth
Sandlin, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Kline of Minnesota, and Mr.
Altmire.
H. Res. 924: Ms. Sutton.
H. Res. 930: Mr. Scott of Georgia and Mr. Pascrell.
H. Res. 934: Ms. Granger.
H. Res. 939: Mr. Carter and Mr. Porter.
H. Res. 948: Mr. Boswell, Mrs. Davis of California, Mr.
Braley of Iowa, Mr. Honda, Mr. Walz of Minnesota, Ms.
Bordallo, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Ortiz, and
Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
H. Res. 951: Mr. Arcuri, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Etheridge, Mr.
Gary G. Miller of California, Mrs. Musgrave, Mr. Simpson, Mr.
Tiahrt, Mr. Wexler, Ms. Clarke, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Holden, and
Mr. Kagen.
H. Res. 953: Mr. Miller of Florida, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Rogers
of Alabama, Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mrs. Miller of Michigan,
Mr. Sessions, Mr. Shuster, Mr. LoBiondo, Mr. Lamborn, Mr.
Franks of Arizona, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Everett, and Mr. McHugh.
H. Res. 962: Mr. Wynn, Ms. Kilpatrick, Ms. Jackson-Lee of
Texas, and Ms. Linda T. Sanchez of California.
H. Res. 977: Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania,
Mr. Pallone, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Ross, and Ms. Hirono.
H. Res. 978: Mr. Moore of Kansas, Ms. Kilpatrick, and Mr.
Meeks of New York.

[[Page 2226]]

SENATE--Thursday, February 14, 2008

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

prayer

The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, who desires truth in the inward parts, keep our
lawmakers in Your care. As they dedicate their talents to the Nation's
well-being, make our Senators faithful to each challenging duty, loyal
to every high claim, and responsive to the human needs of this
suffering Earth. Set a seal upon their lips that no thoughtless words
shall sting or harm another. Strengthen them to meet this day's waiting
tasks with kindness and good will. Lord, give them strength of will,
steadiness of purpose, and power to do good for the glory of Your Name.
We pray this in the Name that is above every name. Amen.

____________________

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Honorable Mark L. Pryor led the Pledge of Allegiance, as follows:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of
America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

____________________

APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
The legislative clerk read the following letter:

U.S. Senate,

President pro tempore,

Washington, DC, February 14, 2008.
To the Senate:
Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable
Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to
perform the duties of the Chair.
Robert C. Byrd,
President pro tempore.

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

____________________

RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY LEADER

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

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR--S. 2633, S. 2634, S. 2636

Mr. REID. Mr. President, there are three bills at the desk due for
their second reading.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bills by
title for the second time.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2633) to provide for the safe redeployment of
United States troops from Iraq.
A bill (S. 2634) to require a report setting forth the
global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al
Qaeda and its affiliates.
A bill (S. 2636) to provide needed housing reform.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with
respect to these bills, and I object en bloc.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bills will
be placed on the calendar.

____________________

SCHEDULE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, following my remarks and any the Republican
leader wishes to make, we will resume consideration of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act. Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski are
here. I believe this is our fourth day. Someone told me yesterday: But
they were short days. The only reason they were short is because nobody
has been here to offer any amendments. They would have been longer
days, as I indicated last night.
I hope people will come and offer amendments. That is what we need to
do. We need to move through this legislation. We have been told that
Members who have amendments are waiting to offer them. I hope they will
do that. We are going to finish the bill this week. We have a break
coming next week. We really would like to get the work done. We could
finish it today. I hope we can do so.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________

RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME

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

____________________

INDIAN HEALTH CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS OF 2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 1200, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 1200) to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend that Act.

Pending:

Bingaman/Thune amendment No. 3894 (to amendment No. 3899),
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide
for a limitation on the charges for contract health services
provided to Indians by Medicare providers.
Vitter amendment No. 3896 (to amendment No. 3899), to
modify a section relating to limitation on use of funds
appropriated to the Service.
Brownback amendment No. 3893 (to amendment No. 3899), to
acknowledge a long history of official depredations and ill-
conceived policies by the Federal Government regarding Indian
tribes and offer an apology to all Native Peoples on behalf
of the United States.
Dorgan amendment No. 3899, in the nature of a substitute.
Sanders amendment No. 3900 (to amendment No. 3899), to
provide for payments under subsections (a) through (e) of
section 2604 of the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of
1981.
Gregg amendment No. 4022 (to amendment No. 3900), to
provide funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program in a fiscally responsible manner.
Barrasso amendment No. 3898 (to amendment No. 3899), to
require the Comptroller General to report on the
effectiveness of coordination of health care services
provided to Indians using Federal, State, local, and tribal
funds.

Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak as in morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.

2-Year Budget Process

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the congressional budget process, which
we will begin again soon, is clearly broken. Since fiscal year 1980,
only three times has Congress enacted all its appropriations bills by
the start of the next fiscal year, which is October 1.

[[Page 2227]]

During that same time, 138 continuing resolutions have been needed to
keep the Government running. In other words, if Congress does not
appropriate money, it cannot be spent by the executive branch. It
cannot be spent by the Government, period. So when we do not pass an
appropriations bill to fund the Department of Defense or the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, they cannot operate. They shut down.
As a result, we come through with continuing resolutions to allow
funding to continue at the previous year's level while we debate and
argue over the appropriate appropriations for that next fiscal year.
Repeatedly, we have been late. On average, there have been 4.8
continuing resolutions each fiscal year. On average, we have been
almost 3 months late passing the appropriations bills, putting us well
into the next fiscal year. For fiscal year 1996, 10 years ago, the
final appropriations bill was signed almost 7 months late.
Over the past 13 budget cycles, Congress has passed 10 omnibus
spending bills. These omnibus bills occur when, instead of passing each
of the 12 appropriations bills separately, as we are set up and plan to
do, they cannot pass them individually. Because they are so far behind,
all the bills are cobbled together in an omnibus bill and moved at one
time, which creates so much momentum that it is difficult to stop a
bill such as that. It is certainly almost impossible to read and know
what is in it. On average, these spending packages have combined 7.6
regular appropriations bills. So the average omnibus bill is 7.6 of the
12 appropriations bills piled all together in 1 bill and passed,
basically rammed through the Senate and the House.
Last year, Congress enacted a $555 billion, 1,600-page omnibus
package that combined 11 of the 12 required appropriations bills in 1.
It was passed in late December, not long before Christmas, when people
were anxious to go home. I am sure that is part of the plan. It all
moved forward. Mr. President, 1,600 pages--it is unlikely many Members
of this Senate read it. Basically, what they would do is send out their
staff to determine if something they especially cared about was in it,
and if what they wanted was in it, they would vote for the bill. That
is the way things have gone around here. It is not a good policy. The
package we passed last December was the largest omnibus bill since
1988, when we enacted a $598 billion package that included all 13
bills.
Finally, this broken budget process has resulted in almost $1.7
trillion in deficit spending over the past 13 budget cycles.
There is no single cure, I will certainly admit, for all of what ails
Congress and the way Congress spends the people's money. However, a
biennial, 2-year budget, 2-year appropriations would be, I am convinced
and have been for quite a number of years, a tremendous step in the
right direction. It is a good-government reform. I wish to talk about
biennial budgeting a bit.
Biennial budgeting has been supported by the last four Presidents. It
is a very simple concept. Under current budget law, Congress must pass
the twelve 1-year appropriations bills each year to fund the Federal
Government. With biennial budgeting, twelve 2-year appropriations bills
would be enacted instead of 1-year bills. A change from a 1-year to 2-
year budget cycle would have many great benefits.
I emphasize, this is not a partisan matter. This is a matter that I
believe will strengthen the Congress and help us increase some of those
very poor ratings we have with the American people.
A change from a 1-year to 2-year budget would deal with this problem
that is a reality for us: that under the current system, the budget
process, the appropriations process is never-ending. We should have
completed this process last year before October 1, the start of the new
fiscal year, the appropriations funding for the next fiscal year. We
did not get that done until late December. Now we are going to be
starting soon trying another series of 12 appropriations bills to try
to pass them before October 1.
Last year, it took 325 days from the release of the President's
budget until the appropriations process was completed on December 26.
Now, only 40 days later, the process has begun again with the
submission of the President's new budget on February 5.
By limiting budget decisions to every other year, Congress would have
considerably more time to spend passing critical legislation. Whether
it be immigration reform, which we need to do, tax cuts, or legislation
addressing our Nation's housing problems, Congress could focus more on
important legislative matters rather than just always every year backed
up, jammed up with appropriations debates, arguing over pork and
earmarks, among others.
Some will argue that 2-year budgeting would increase the need for
enacting supplemental spending. They say we will have more supplemental
emergency spending. As such, we will not save a lot of time, and it
still will not be a healthy process.
I ask this: How much more supplemental emergency spending can
Congress do?
Over the last 10 budget cycles, even though we are passing regular
appropriations bills every single year, Congress has enacted at least
25 supplemental emergency appropriations packages. These packages have
approved almost $884 billion in additional emergency spending. That is
a shocking number.
But I will add this. When someone does bring up an emergency spending
bill--and there may be a number of times that it is quite legitimate--
and asks that it be brought up and spent above the budget--and that is
what emergency spending does; we approve a budget, we should stay
within the budget--we pass an emergency bill and it busts the budget.
It goes above the budget. We say it is emergency spending that is so
important that we don't adhere to the budget and we are going to spend
the money anyway. Of course, all of that goes straight to the debt,
since we are already in deficit. Any additional spending over our
budget is even more monies that go to our debt. But it takes 60 votes,
at least. A person is able to come to the floor and object and create a
discussion and demand a supermajority of 60 votes to have emergency
spending. I think that in itself should deter some frivolous use of
emergency spending, I really do.
I think we would be better off, even though I am sure we will have
emergency spending packages with a 2-year budget, because we certainly
have had them even with a 1-year budget cycle. I do think the taxpayers
won't be defenseless when those emergency bills come up.
Another big thing. All of us in the Congress, and I think all of us
in the Senate, know in our hearts, know in the deepest part of our
being, that we are not doing a good job of oversight over this massive
Government we are supposed to be managing. We don't do a good job of
oversight. One reason we don't do oversight in an effective way is
because we have to pass the funding bills. We are always arguing over
how much should be spent on this or that program, how much should be
spent on this or that pet project, and we spend our time doing that and
not going out and looking at agencies and departments with a fresh
view.
The Office of Management and Budget has made a long list of agencies
that are poorly performing, that they question the legitimacy of. If we
would focus on that effectively, I think we could do a much better job.
Also, I would suggest that with a 2-year budget, Federal agencies
could focus more on their core missions. The Department of Defense, for
example, spends untold hours preparing their budget every year, and it
creates a lot of uncertainty because they are never sure whether this
or that program will be continued. It causes quite a bit of stress and
uncertainty. Agencies are spending thousands of hours on their annual
budget process.
Constituent groups and organizations could save a lot of money. They
come up every year. We see them. They are some of the best people we
know, and those people come up every year. They wouldn't have to come
up but every 2 years with biennial budgeting. Save

[[Page 2228]]

some money for those agencies and departments that are worried about
their budgets and maybe even save our constituents a little money on
air travel.
Finally, a 2-year budget would create a more stable system of
government because Congress has proven it cannot complete its budget
process each year. It can't do it. Funding delays would surely occur
less often and less frequently with a 2-year budget, and the Federal
agencies could function more effectively.
Process often does drive policy. The current budget process, the
current appropriations process, we know, is not working. It is an
embarrassment to us. It embarrasses us every year, not just because the
Democrats failed last year in their first year in the majority, but
because Republicans failed too, consistently, to pass budgets in an
effective way. It is a bipartisan problem. We need to look no further
than the $400 billion deficit projected for this year, or our Nation's
$9 trillion debt to know we are not being effective in managing the
taxpayers' money.
By itself, a 2-year budget will not end the profligate spending of
Congress, that is for sure. But a 2-year budget cycle would be a huge
improvement. I have no doubt about it. Twenty-one States currently
operate with a 2-year budget cycle. I think it is time for Congress to
do the same.
When I was working on this the last several years, when the
Republicans had a majority in the Senate, I felt as though there might
be a slight advantage to the majority party because the majority party
has an agenda. They have items they feel obligated to effectively
promote. But they are not able to do it oftentimes because all the time
on the floor of the Senate is spent on trying to pass appropriations
bills. So whether it helps the majority or the minority party, I am not
sure, but it will help the taxpayers. It is good government reform.
It is not a partisan thing we are talking about. We are talking about
a historic change in the way we do business that will help every agency
and department of government because they will have at least 2 years of
a solid budget from which to work. They will only have to put together
their proposals every 2 years instead of every year. Congress will be
able to deal with it one time, and then during the off year, we would
be able to examine how we are spending money and make new proposals and
new ideas for improving the health care system of America, the savings
system of America, and the defense of America.
I thank the Chair, and I note my colleague Senator Alexander from
Tennessee is here. I know he strongly shares this view. We have both
worked with and met with Senator Pete Domenici, long-time former
chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Appropriations
Committee in the Senate, who has championed this battle. Frankly, I
think it would be a nice tribute to Senator Domenici if, when he
completes his tenure, distinguished as it has been in the Senate, we
were to pass a 2-year budget.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Alexander has not indicated to me
the purpose of his presence on the floor, but we are most anxious to
get started on the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. That was
scheduled for 9:30 this morning. I wish to begin an opening statement
at some point, and I know Senator Murkowski would, and we want to do a
managers' package.
Senator Coburn is here, because I asked if he would be here at 9:30,
and he has a number of amendments. I appreciate very much his work and
his efforts on Indian health care. I am hoping we can work with Senator
Coburn this morning to deal with some of his amendments. I know he has
filed a number of them, and he and I have had many discussions about
it. I appreciate his attendance. He has just walked into the Chamber.
Our interest is in getting a lot of work done this morning and this
afternoon in order to try to see if we can finish this bill. This will
be the third day that the Indian Health Care Improvement bill has been
on the floor, so I wish to begin on that. I know Senator Alexander has
appeared, though I don't know for what purpose, and perhaps I would be
happy to yield to him if he would tell us if he is wanting to do
something else on the floor.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I hope to take 5 minutes on the 2-year
budget and how I hope, and many of us hope, that it will be something
the Democrats and Republicans can agree on to change the way Washington
works.
I will be glad to defer that, knowing the importance of moving ahead
on Indian affairs.
Mr. DORGAN. If the statement is 5 minutes, I would not object to
that, but I do want, at the end of that 5 minutes, to begin the bill.
Again, Senator Coburn has arrived, and we have a lot of work to do. But
I know Senator Alexander has worked on budget issues for a long while,
so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Alexander be recognized for 5
minutes, and after that I will make some comments, Senator Murkowski
then will make some comments, and we will begin a discussion with
Senator Coburn.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the courtesy of
the Senator from North Dakota. He himself is an expert on
appropriations and budget matters, both at the Federal level and at the
State level. It would be my hope that as this subject I am about to
talk about moves ahead, it would be something that would interest him
as well.

2-Year Appropriations

I can make my point quickly and simply. We have heard a lot this year
that the people of this country would like a change in the way we do
business in Washington, DC. One way to do that is change how we go
about our business. That means I would prefer, and I believe almost all
of us would prefer, and I know the people would prefer, that we focus
on big issues and we come up with good principled ideas. And then we
debate those principles, and then we reach across the aisle, because it
takes 60 votes to get anything done here to come to a result.
We did that on the economic stimulus, we did that on energy, we did
that on terrorism, and it didn't mean we didn't have debates. We had
big debates. That is why we are here. But we came to a result and the
result had to be bipartisan. I am not so interested in the
bipartisanship as I am interested in the result. I heard Rick Warren
speak the other day, and he said he wasn't so interested in interfaith
dialog as he was interested in good works.
I think that is what the people want to see from us. My suggestion
for good works and for results is that we adopt a 2-year appropriations
and budget process, as described by the Senator from Alabama and as
advocated by the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. This is not
a Republican idea, this is not a Democrat idea, this is a good idea. It
has the support of Senator Feingold from the other side, and it has the
support of the independent Senator, Senator Lieberman, so I would hope
it has strong support all across the aisle here.
Let me give an example or two of why it would make a difference. When
we debate the higher education bill in a few weeks, I am going to ask
permission to bring on the floor several boxes containing all the rules
and regulations that 6,000 higher education institutions in this
country must wade through in order to accept students who receive a
Federal grant or a loan. The stack of boxes is about that high--that
many rules and regulations. But this new higher education bill that we
will likely pass doubles the number of rules and regulations. Maybe
some of them are needed, but what we haven't had time to do is go
through that stack of boxes as tall as I am to see if we can cut the
regulations in half. We don't have time to do that.
If we spent every other year drawing up a budget and our
appropriations bills, and then, in the odd year, going back through
rules, laws, and regulations already on the books, I think we

[[Page 2229]]

would have a strong force for fewer rules, fewer regulations, and fewer
laws. And also more effective, if not less, spending.
A second example. The State of Missouri has told the Department of
Transportation that with the Federal money we already give the State of
Missouri, they can repair every broken bridge they have in 5 years.
They can do this as long as we let them do it first under their rules
and regulations, without waiting for our appropriations process. In
other words, if we let them build the bridges and then we buy the
bridges to reimburse them, according to specifications, we don't have
to spend any more money to fix all the broken bridges in Missouri.
What that should indicate to us is the gross inefficiency of our
appropriations and budget processes when it comes to building roads,
when it comes to making contracts, when it comes to waging war. Our
process wastes billions of dollars a year. No wonder the people of this
country are upset with us.
Final action on appropriations measures has occurred, on average, 86
days after the start of the fiscal year. And our fiscal year starts
when? On October 1. I mean, who else begins their year on October 1?
That is not the Chinese calendar, it is not most Americans' calendar,
but it is our fiscal calendar. So everybody has to adjust their
business to a strange year, and then we never meet it.
My hope is that this year we can honor Senator Domenici and
ourselves. We can add a Democratic name right up there with his, as
prominently, and we can say to the country: We are going to change the
way Washington does business. We are going to do it in a bipartisan
way. We are going to adopt a 2-year budget for spending. We are going
to spend every other year revising and repealing laws and make the
Government run efficiently. And we are going to get our appropriations
and budgeting done on time. We can save the taxpayers dollars so that
States, cities, companies, and countries that deal with the United
States of America can do so in a timely and efficient way.
I thank the President, and I thank again the Senator from North
Dakota and the Senator from Alaska for allowing me this time.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we are going to turn now to the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act, and I am going to be very brief, and I
know my colleague will as well because we will have a chance later to
speak at greater length.
The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has been the subject of
reauthorization for many years, and the Congress has not been able to
do it. The fact is we have very serious problems with respect to Indian
health care. The Indian Health Service is a very important Federal
agency. We have some people who work in that area who do important work
and are good and dedicated people, but the fact is the system isn't
working very well. We have American Indians--the first Americans, by
the way--who are supposed to get health care as a result of treaties
and trust responsibilities who are not getting the health care they
deserve.
I will again, later today, describe the horrors of Indian health care
that does not work. People are dying, people are routinely being denied
the health care that every one of us would expect for ourselves and our
family. We are trying to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act after 8 years. Eight years ago, it was supposed to have been
reauthorized. Eight years later, we are still on the floor of the
Senate, struggling.
So my hope is, perhaps we will now succeed. Senator Murkowski and the
Indian Affairs Committee have worked on a piece of legislation that is
not giant reform, it is not a huge step forward, but it is a step
forward in the right direction.
Some of my colleagues--I believe my colleague, Senator Coburn--will
say we need much larger reform. I do not disagree with that. I am going
to be supporting much broader reform in Indian health care. But if you
cannot get a modest step in the right direction, how on Earth can you
get big, bold reform?
This is the first step in a two-step process to fix what is wrong. I
think this Indian Health Care Improvement Act will give us substantial
opportunity to improve the health care in the lives of American
Indians.
Let me make the point that is important. We owe this health care
through treaties, through a trust responsibility. We have made
commitments. We owe this health care to American Indians through
promises the Federal Government has made.
Regrettably, it has not been adequately delivered. So I am going to
talk a little bit later. I know my colleague, Senator Coburn, is on the
Senate floor, and he has amendments. I am going to give him an
opportunity to speak. I am as well, but I will have an opportunity
later this morning to describe in much greater detail why there is an
urgency and why this system must be improved. We cannot wait any
longer.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Indian
Affairs Committee for his leadership on this very importation
reauthorization bill. As he has indicated, this work is a long time in
coming, and it is a collaborative effort not only of those on the
committee, those of us who represent so many in Indian country across
the Nation, but truly for so many who have put so much work into this
reauthorization, this very important health care reform.
We do have amendments we have received and are looking forward to
having discussion on them. As Chairman Dorgan has noted, Senator Coburn
will have an opportunity to offer some of those this morning. But in
the spirit of focusing on what we have in front of us today, I think it
is important that we keep in mind we have an obligation to advance a
health care system that has been left behind the times in terms of any
updates, whether it is in the area of behavioral health or telemedicine
or substance abuse or what we are doing with diabetes treatment or how
we are moving forward with construction of facilities. We recognize
that we have a ways to go in updating the system. This is important and
is necessary.
Recognizing the limitations on Senator Coburn's time at this point, I
yield to the Senator so he can offer his amendments. We will continue
our conversation later in the morning.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank the chairman
and ranking member, Senator Murkowski, for their work on this effort.

Amendments Nos. 4024 through 4037 to Amendment No. 3899

Oklahoma is the No. 1 State in the country as far as tribal members.
Indian health care is an issue on which we are struggling, and there
are all sorts of components for it. I am going to ask unanimous consent
now to bring up my amendments numbered 4024 through 4037 as if brought
up individually and ask that each be set aside so they will be
considered pending. I ask unanimous consent that be carried out at this
time.
Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection to that. The Senator and I have
talked about this. He wants to get all of his amendments pending. But
he will be asking for discussion and votes on a number of them.
Mr. COBURN. Far less than what I bring up.
Mr. DORGAN. I have no objection.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 4024 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To ensure that tribal members receive scientifically
effective health promotion services)

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. SCIENTIFICALLY EFFECTIVE HEALTH PROMOTION
SERVICES.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, coverage
of health promotion services under this Act shall only be for
medical or preventive health services or activities--

[[Page 2230]]

``(1) for which scientific evidence demonstrates a direct
connection to improving health; and
``(2) that are provided in accordance with applicable
medical standards of care.

amendment no. 4025 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To clarify the absence of authorization of racial preference
in employment)

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. NO RACIAL PREFERENCE IN EMPLOYMENT.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, nothing
in this Act authorizes any racial preference in employment.

amendment no. 4026 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to child sexual abuse and
prevention treatment programs)

Strike paragraph (5) of section 713(b) of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101) and insert
the following:
``(5) To identify and provide behavioral health treatment
to Indian perpetrators and perpetrators who are members of an
Indian household making efforts to begin offender and
behavioral health treatment while the perpetrator is
incarcerated or at the earliest possible date if the
perpetrator is not incarcerated.
At the end of section 713 of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), add the
following:
``(d) Limitation on Funding.--Treatment shall be provided
for a perpetrator pursuant to this section only if the
treatment is scientifically demonstrated to reduce the
potential of the perpetrator to commit child sexual abuse
again, and shall not provide the basis to reduce any
applicable criminal punishment or civil liability for that
abuse.

amendment no. 4027 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To clarify the effect of a title)

At the appropriate place in title VII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 7__. CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

``Nothing in this title--
``(1) establishes any defense, not otherwise applicable
under law, for any individual accused of any crime, including
physical or sexual abuse of children or family violence; or
``(2) preempts or otherwise affects any applicable
requirement for--
``(A) reporting of criminal conduct, including for child
abuse or family violence; or
``(B) creating any new privilege concerning disclosure.

amendment no. 4028 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To provide a blood quantum requirement for Federal
recognition of Indian tribes)

On page 347, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 104. BLOOD QUANTUM REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL RECOGNITION
OF INDIAN TRIBES.

Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
in determining whether to extend Federal recognition to an
Indian tribe or other Indian group under part 83 of title 25,
Code of Federal Regulations (or successor regulations), the
Secretary of the Interior shall require that each member of
the Indian tribe or group possess a degree of Indian blood of
not less than \1/512\.

amendment no. 4029 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To require a study of membership criteria for federally
recognized Indian tribes)

On page 347, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 104. GAO STUDY OF MEMBERSHIP CRITERIA FOR FEDERALLY
RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBES.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study of membership criteria for federally
recognized Indian tribes, including--
(1) the number of federally recognized Indian tribes in
existence on the date on which the study is conducted;
(2) the number of those Indian tribes that use blood
quantum as a criterion for membership in the Indian tribe and
the importance assigned to that criterion;
(3) the percentage of members of federally recognized
Indian tribes that possesses degrees of Indian blood of--
(A) \1/4\;
(B) \1/8\; and
(C) \1/16\; and
(4) the variance in wait times and rationing of health care
services within the Service between federally recognized
Indian Tribes that use blood quantum as a criterion for
membership and those Indian Tribes that do not use blood
quantum as such a criterion.

amendment no. 4030 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To ensure tribal members have access to the highest levels of
quality and safety in the Service)

Strike section 221 of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (as amended by section 101) and insert the following:

``SEC. 221. LICENSING.

``Nothing in this Act preempts any State requirement
regarding licensing of any health care personnel.

amendment no. 4031 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To promote transparency and quality in the Service)

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. GAO ASSESSMENT.

``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008, the
Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct, and
submit to Congress a report describing the results of, an
assessment of--
``(1) the average wait time of patients in the Service;
``(2) the extent of rationing of health care services in
the Service;
``(3) the average per capita health care spending on
Indians eligible for health care services through the
Service;
``(4) the overall health outcomes in Indians, as compared
to the overall health outcomes of other residents of the
United States;
``(5) patient satisfaction of Indians receiving health care
services through the Service;
``(6) the total amount of funds of the Service expended
for--
``(A) direct medical care; and
``(B) administrative expenses;
``(7) the health care coverage options available to Indians
receiving health care services through the Service;
``(8) the health care services options available to
Indians; and
``(9) the health care provider options available to
Indians.

amendment no. 4032 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To protect rape and sexual assault victims from HIV/AIDS and
other sexually transmitted diseases)

At the appropriate place in the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. ___. TESTING FOR SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES IN
CASES OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE.

``The Attorney General shall ensure that, with respect to
any Federal criminal action involving a sexual assault, rape,
or other incident of sexual violence against an Indian--
``(1)(A) at the request of the victim, a defendant is
tested for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and such
other sexually transmitted diseases as are requested by the
victim not later than 48 hours after the date on which the
applicable information or indictment is presented;
``(B) a notification of the test results is provided to the
victim or the parent or guardian of the victim and the
defendant as soon as practicable after the results are
generated; and
``(C) such follow-up tests for HIV and other sexually
transmitted diseases are provided as are medically
appropriate, with the test results made available in
accordance with subparagraph (B); and
``(2) pursuant to section 714(a), HIV and other sexually
transmitted disease testing, treatment, and counseling is
provided for victims of sexual abuse.

amendment no. 4033 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To allow tribal members to make their own health care
choices)

On page 336, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

``SEC. 817. TRIBAL MEMBER CHOICE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project in not less than 3 Service Areas
(chosen by the Secretary for optimal participation) under
which eligible participants shall be provided with a risk-
adjusted subsidy for the purchase of qualified health
insurance (as defined in subsection (f)) in order to--
``(1) improve Indian access to high quality health care
services;
``(2) provide incentives to Indian patients to seek
preventive health care services;
``(3) create opportunities for Indians to participate in
the health care decision process;
``(4) encourage effective use of health care services by
Indians; and
``(5) allow Indians to make health care coverage and
delivery decisions and choices.
``(b) Eligible Participant.--
``(1) Voluntary enrollment for 12-month periods.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible
participant' means an Indian who--
``(i) is a member of a federally-recognized Indian Tribe;
and
``(ii) voluntarily agrees to enroll in the project
conducted under this section (or in the case of a minor, is
voluntarily enrolled on their behalf by a parent or
caretaker) for a period of not less than 12 months in lieu of
obtaining items or services through any Indian Health Program
or any other federally-funded program during any period in
which the Indian is enrolled in the project.
``(B) Voluntary extensions of enrollment.--An eligible
participant may voluntarily extend the participant's
enrollment in the project for additional 12-month periods.
``(2) Hardship exception.--The Secretary shall specify
criteria for permitting an eligible participant to disenroll
from the project

[[Page 2231]]

before the end of any 12-month period of enrollment to
prevent undue hardship.
``(c) Subsidies Requirement.--The average amount of all
subsidies provided to eligible participants enrolled in the
demonstration project established under this section for each
12-month period during which the project is conducted shall
not exceed the amount equal to the average of the per capita
expenditures for providing Indians items or services from all
Indian Health Programs for the most recent fiscal year for
which data is available.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Treatment.--The amount of a subsidy provided to an
eligible participant in the project shall not be counted as
income or assets for purposes of determining eligibility for
benefits under any Federal public assistance program.
``(2) Budget neutrality.--In conducting the demonstration
project under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the aggregate payments made to carry out the project do not
exceed the amount of Federal expenditures which would have
been made for the provision of health care items and services
to eligible participants if the project had not been
implemented.
``(e) Demonstration Period; Reports to Congress.--
``(1) Demonstration period.--
``(A) Initial period.--The demonstration project
established under this section shall begin not later than the
date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this
section and shall be conducted for a period of 5 years.
``(B) Extensions.--The Secretary may extend the project for
such additional periods as the Secretary determines
appropriate, unless the Secretary determines that the project
is unsuccessful in achieving the purposes described in
subsection (a), taking into account cost-effectiveness,
quality of care, and such other criteria as the Secretary may
specify.
``(2) Periodic reports to congress.--During the 5-year
period described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
periodically submit reports to Congress regarding the
progress of demonstration project conducted under this
section. Each report shall include information concerning the
populations participating in the project, participant
satisfaction (determined by indicators of satisfaction with
security, affordability, access, choice, and quality) as
compared with items and services that the participant would
have received from Indian Health Programs, and the impact of
the project on access to, and the availability of, high
quality health care services for Indians.
``(f) Qualified Health Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `qualified
health insurance' means insurance which constitutes medical
care as defined in section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 without regard to--
``(A) paragraph (1)(C) thereof, and
``(B) so much of paragraph (1)(D) thereof as relates to
qualified long-term care insurance contracts.
``(2) Exclusion of certain other contracts.--Such term
shall not include insurance if a substantial portion of its
benefits are excepted benefits (as defined in section 9832(c)
of such Code).''.

amendment no. 4034 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To allow tribal members to make their own health care
choices)

On page 336, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

``SEC. 817. TRIBAL MEMBER CHOICE PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program
in geographically feasible Service Areas (as determined by
the Secretary, taking into account those Service Areas that
are likely to have optimal participation) under which
eligible participants shall be provided with a risk-adjusted
subsidy for the purchase of qualified health insurance (as
defined in subsection (f)) in order to--
``(1) improve Indian access to high quality health care
services;
``(2) provide incentives to Indian patients to seek
preventive health care services;
``(3) create opportunities for Indians to participate in
the health care decision process;
``(4) encourage effective use of health care services by
Indians; and
``(5) allow Indians to make health care coverage and
delivery decisions and choices.
``(b) Eligible Participant.--
``(1) Voluntary enrollment for 12-month periods.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible
participant' means an Indian who--
``(i) is a member of a federally-recognized Indian Tribe;
and
``(ii) voluntarily agrees to enroll in the program
conducted under this section (or in the case of a minor, is
voluntarily enrolled on their behalf by a parent or
caretaker) for a period of not less than 12 months in lieu of
obtaining items or services through any Indian Health Program
or any other federally-funded program during any period in
which the Indian is enrolled in the program.
``(B) Voluntary extensions of enrollment.--An eligible
participant may voluntarily extend the participant's
enrollment in the program for additional 12-month periods.
``(2) Hardship exception.--The Secretary shall specify
criteria for permitting an eligible participant to disenroll
from the program before the end of any 12-month period of
enrollment to prevent undue hardship.
``(c) Subsidies Requirement.--The average amount of all
subsidies provided to eligible participants enrolled in the
program established under this section for each 12-month
period during which the program is conducted shall not exceed
the amount equal to the average of the per capita
expenditures for providing Indians items or services from all
Indian Health Programs for the most recent fiscal year for
which data is available.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) Treatment.--The amount of a subsidy provided to an
eligible participant in the program shall not be counted as
income or assets for purposes of determining eligibility for
benefits under any Federal public assistance program.
``(2) Budget neutrality.--In conducting the program under
this section, the Secretary shall ensure that the aggregate
payments made to carry out the program do not exceed the
amount of Federal expenditures which would have been made for
the provision of health care items and services to eligible
participants if the program had not been implemented.
``(e) Implementation; Reports to Congress.--
``(1) Implementation.--
``(A) Initial period.--The program established under this
section shall begin not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this section and shall be
conducted for a period of at least 5 years.
``(B) Extensions.--The Secretary may extend the program for
such additional periods as the Secretary determines
appropriate, unless the Secretary determines that the program
is unsuccessful in achieving the purposes described in
subsection (a), taking into account cost-effectiveness,
quality of care, and such other criteria as the Secretary may
specify.
``(2) Reports to congress.--During the initial 5-year
period in which the program is conducted, and during any
period thereafter in which the program is extended, the
Secretary shall periodically submit reports to Congress
regarding the progress of program. Each report shall include
information concerning the populations participating in the
program, participant satisfaction (determined by indicators
of satisfaction with security, affordability, access, choice,
and quality) as compared with items and services that the
participant would have received from Indian Health Programs,
and the impact of the program on access to, and the
availability of, high quality health care services for
Indians.
``(f) Qualified Health Insurance.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `qualified
health insurance' means insurance which constitutes medical
care as defined in section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 without regard to--
``(A) paragraph (1)(C) thereof, and
``(B) so much of paragraph (1)(D) thereof as relates to
qualified long-term care insurance contracts.
``(2) Exclusion of certain other contracts.--Such term
shall not include insurance if a substantial portion of its
benefits are excepted benefits (as defined in section 9832(c)
of such Code).''.

amendment no. 4035 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To prioritize patient care over administrative overhead)

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. REQUIREMENT.

``Not less than 85 percent of amounts made available to
carry out this Act shall be used to provide the medical
services authorized by this Act.

amendment no. 4036 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To prioritize scarce resources to basic medical services for
Indians)

On page 121, strike line 15 and insert the following:
``(c) Prioritization.--Before providing any hospice care,
assisted living service, long-term care service, or home- or
community-based service pursuant to this section, the
Secretary shall give priority to the provision of basic
medical services to Indians.
``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section,

amendment no. 4037 to amendment no. 3899

(Purpose: To prioritize scarce resources to basic medical services for
Indians)

On page 121, strike line 15 and insert the following:
``(c) Effective Date.--
``(1) Effective date.--This section takes effect on the
date on which the Secretary makes the certification described
in paragraph (2).
``(2) Certification.--The certification referred to in
paragraph (1) is a certification by the Secretary to Congress
that--
``(A) the service availability, rationing, and wait times
for existing health services within the Service are--
``(i) acceptable to Indians; and
``(ii) comparable to the service availability and wait
times experienced by other residents of the United States;
and

[[Page 2232]]

``(B) the provision of services under this section will not
divert resources from or negatively affect the provision of
basic medical and dental services by the Service.
``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section,

Mr. COBURN. Let me start by saying, improving the health care of
Indians in this country is a widely supported goal. Senator Dorgan's
heart is in the right place on this issue. He knows the problems we
have, and he spent countless hours trying to get to this point with
this bill. I do not want to be seen--I have told him, and I committed
to him my goal is not to block his progress on this bill.
However, I believe this legislation as drafted does not fix the
underlying problems. He and I have had several conversations about
that. It does not fix rationing that is going on today. It does not fix
waiting lines that are going on today. It does not fix the inferior
quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans
in this country. It does not fix any of those problems. In fact, it
authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to
follow it. The average Native American in this country has $2,100 per
year spent on them.
Now, let's put that in perspective. The average veteran we take care
of has $4,300. The average individual per person, per capita,
expenditure in our country is $7,000. Yet we are going to pass a bill
that does not fix anything. It does not fix the real problems about
addressing the No. 1 problem which is, we are not sending enough
dollars to meet the treaty obligations that we have with Native
Americans. So really what this bill is, it is called the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act, but it improves our position with tribes because
we have done something, but it does not improve health care. It is not
going to improve health care. It is going to increase the availability
of services without the money, without the control, without the
quality, without eliminating the waiting lines.
As a matter of fact, it is going to add to the waiting lines as I
read this bill, as somebody who is somewhat experienced in medicine.
Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct.
However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor
modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment. It is a
greater violation. Dozens of tribal leaders are not expressing
enthusiasm for the current structure.
Chuck Grim, an Oklahoman, head of this service, knows what is broken.
I have had lots of conversations with him. We know what is broken, we
know how to fix it, but we have to be bold in how we go about fixing
it. We are not bold in this. We are not changing it. We are not doing
the structural changes that have to happen for us to live up to the
commitment that we have made to Native Americans.
The myriad of problems facing Indian health care in Indian country
are many of the same issues that are facing health care delivery
throughout rural America. They are compounded, however, in this system
by a system that refuses to recognize its own role in holding back
health care delivery for Native Americans.
In designing health care reforms, markets work when they are allowed
to. They lower the price of all goods and services, and they attract
much needed outside investment. Many tribes in Oklahoma are at the
forefront of new and innovative health care delivery systems. They are
poised to become a model for delivery throughout the system.
Congress must ensure, however, that their efforts are not discouraged
or stopped altogether by the current system. Furthermore, there is no
good reason that forward-thinking tribal governments should not be
prevented from developing market-driven health care centers of
excellence that will attract researchers, physicians, and patients for
cutting edge lifesaving treatments. We do not do that in this bill.
Furthermore, this legislation fails to focus on empowering individual
tribal members. Individual patients tend to receive better care and
more effective care when they are empowered to make their own health
care decisions. Congress should explore ways to accomplish this
objective and give tribal citizens a reason to invest in their own
health. Long lines, bureaucratic headaches, and rationed substandard
care completely disallow this sort of investment. That is what we have.
Our Chairman has been on the Senate floor multiple times showing how
we are rationing care, how we have lines, how we do not give quality
care, how we take contract health care--it runs out in 4 or 5 months.
And so what happens? People who need care do not get it, and we have
not fixed that in this bill. Yet we are calling this health care
improvement.
The health care status of tribal members ranks below the general
population. The Federal Government has been providing health care to
tribal members for 175 years. The first time was to give them a
smallpox vaccine in 1807. That is when we started Indian health care.
And what we are doing today in comparison to what our treaty
obligations are--in comparison, it is the same thing we are doing to
the veterans when we tell the veterans: We are going to give you health
care and do not give it. It is the same thing we tell schools: We are
going to have an IDEA program and then not fund it. It is morally
bankrupt legislation that does not meet the commitments that we say we
have.
The Snyder Act of 1921 provided a broad and permanent authorization
for Federal Indian programs, including--and this is an important
thing--the conservation of health; in other words, the prevention of
disease, which Chuck Grim was just starting to get into, but we do not
have the funding to do it the way we need to do it. We know the
manifestation of diabetes and addiction and hypertension and heart
disease among our tribal members is higher than any other group in our
country. Yet the conservation of health has not been exploited, the
paradigm shift that has to happen in Native American care to where we
go to prevention instead of treatment of disease. It is not in here. We
are not doing it.
Last year, we spent $3.18 billion doing this. If we just funded it at
the level we fund per capita veterans care, we should be funding $6.5
billion in Native American health care. That is just on a per capita
basis, let alone any structural changes on how we might make
preventative care, quality care, timely care, and compassionate care a
part of Native American care. But we are not doing that. Indians in
comparison with the general population are 6.5 times more likely to die
from alcoholism. That is a disease we need to be preventing. That is a
health care problem. They are six times more likely to die from
tuberculosis, a preventable disease; three times more likely to die
from diabetes, a controllable and now preventable disease, it is a
preventable disease; 2.5 times more likely to die from an accident.
Now, how can we look those statistics in the face and say we have met
our treaty obligations? We have failed. We have absolutely failed. Only
71 percent of Native Americans receive prenatal care. That means one
out of four Native American moms who get pregnant do not have any
prenatal care. We ought to be ashamed. We have failed. We have failed.
Eighteen percent of Native Americans who are pregnant smoke. That is
twice the rate of others. Where is our prevention? Where is our
education? Where is the priority on what we can do something about?
American Indians suffer from a great death rate from chronic liver
disease and cirrhosis. It is 22.7 per 100,000. That is twice what it is
for Whites and three times what it is for African Americans in this
country. We know what causes it. We do not put the dollars there. We
have not put in a streamlined prevention program.
My words are harsh. They are not intended for either the chairman or
the ranking member. I passionately care that we meet our commitments,
and so I do not want you to take the words I say as directed toward you
because I know you care as well.
Where we have a difference is in the ``now.'' What do we do now
rather than what do we do later? I think we should be doing it all now.
I think we should

[[Page 2233]]

radically change how we approach our obligations in Native American
health care in this country.
Rationing plagues Indian Health Services. It is rationed care. That
is why it is not good care. That is why it is not consistent care. That
is why it is not preventative care, because we don't have the
resources. We haven't applied the resources to the need. Senator Dorgan
has had numerous hearings. He has spoken on the floor about this
rationing crisis. But if we don't radically change the system, if we
don't change incentives in the system, improving the old will just
bring more failure.
The job vacancy rate for dentists is 32 percent. They don't have 80
percent of the nurses they need. They don't have 85 percent of the
optometrists, and they only have 86 percent of the doctors, based on
the present system. I am proposing a better system with better care
based on prevention, a paradigm that says it is a whole lot cheaper to
prevent your illness than it is to treat it once you get it. It is
common to hear in Indian Country--and I have heard the chairman say
it--``don't get sick after June. Contract money is gone. If you get
sick after June, nothing will happen. You will not get the referral to
the center to take care of you because we don't have the money.
A quote from Dr. Charles Grim, who has been a stellar leader for the
IHS:

We're only able to provide a certain level of dental
services in certain populations. We're only able to refer a
certain level or number or types of referrals with our
contract health service budget into the private sector. . . .
But I guess one generalized statement would be that we have a
defined population and a defined budget. . . . But it has led
to rationing in some parts of our health care system.

Here is the former head of IHS admitting we are rationing the care.
When we ration care, we don't match up need with resources. We say:
Here are all the resources there are regardless of what the need is. We
don't get on the leading edge on prevention. We don't get on the
leading edge on treatment because we are scrambling to keep the doors
open. How can we have a coherent, fair health care system when we are
rationing because the demand is so far greater than we are willing to
supply the resources?
According to a GAO report in 2005, health care services are not
always available to Native Americans. There are wait times and
insufficient care. GAO visited 13 IHS-funded facilities in 2005 and
found waiting times at four range from 3 to 6 months to get in to see
anybody. Six months? That is worse than England. What happens when you
can't get in? The disease gets worse. The complications are worse. The
quality of the your health gets worse. Also, the cost to meet the need
explodes. So what we have done is raised the cost of care. But more
importantly, we have failed on our commitment to provide health to
Native Americans.
Three IHS facilities had 90-mile one-way visits to get into a clinic,
many without transportation available to them. Three of these, the
average was 90 miles to get to a clinic. Even if they have the
resources and there is no access because there is a distance to travel,
we are going to see the same problem. Nobody is going to go until they
absolutely have to. So we lose the benefit of prevention.
Most of the facilities in this GAO report did not have the staff or
equipment to offer services onsite so they resorted to contract care.
The contract care budget, of course, is small. So what happens? We
ration contract care at 12 of the 13 facilities. This idea of rationing
isn't a political statement; it is a reality. We are not doing what we
are committed by treaty to do. Now we are going to bring a bill to the
floor that doesn't meet that commitment. We are still not going to meet
the commitment. We will improve it, but we need to overhaul it. We need
a top-down, complete change in how we approach our commitment to Native
Americans as far as health care. If we did that, we could offer a whole
lot more care for a whole lot less money.
We have a bureaucracy that is stumbling all over itself. We are
spending money. I will get to the point on the number of bureaucratic
positions in IHS that don't deliver any care. Gaps in services result
in diagnoses and treatment delays which, of course, make the health of
the patient worse and raise the cost. IHS reports that their facilities
are required to pay for all priority one services but admit that many
of their facilities' available funds are expended before the end of the
fiscal year and the payment isn't made.
I experienced that in my own hometown. People come to Hastings
Hospital to deliver a baby. Our hospital hasn't been paid on contract
care for years. So those in the rest of the community are going to pay
for it. The problem is, there is no continuity in care. Prenatal care
was provided. Now all of a sudden you don't have a record and you have
somebody you have to take care of, let alone that the private hospital
that is there isn't going to get paid for the service. Somebody is
going to pay for the service, but contract health care isn't. So the
fact is, one in four Native Americans in Alaska aren't getting prenatal
care. And we know the risk. The average cost for a premature baby is
$250,000, let alone the consequence of the problems those kids have.
Why in the world would we ever allow that to happen? It is akin to
pouring money down the drain because we have not addressed prenatal
needs of Native Americans.
Twenty-one percent of those who do get care have less than three
prenatal visits on average. That is one in four has less than three
prenatal visits. That is like not having prenatal care. Yet we count
that as if they had prenatal care. What do we think the consequences
will be? The antenatal, postnatal, and perinatal consequences to the
Native American population are higher. The birth complications are
higher because we are not doing the prenatal care.
The average recommended prenatal visits by the American College of
Obstetrics and Gynecology is 14. We average six with Native Americans.
You can't call that care.
Under an overburdened system such as this, drastically expanded
services to four broad new areas--and this is the problem I have with
this bill--will only drain the resources available to the basic core
medical services. We are going to expand where we can offer new
services. Many of these people are already eligible under Medicaid or
Medicaid anyway, but we are going to expand it. What is going to happen
is, the tribal government is going to offer the service, and they are
going to take the money off the top. They are going to put that into
the rest of the tribal funds. So we are actually going to take money
out of dollars for health care for tribal members by expanding care and
not making sure there are adequate funds.
Making new promises, when we don't keep current ones, doesn't help
the Native American population. Let's keep the promises we have already
made before we expand services and not throw money at it. It sounds
good. The tribes like to hear what we are going to do. We are going to
add these four services, but we are not funding the services we are
supplying now. Why would we add services knowing that? If we do it, we
are going to do it on the cheap. But it feels good because they think
we are doing something, when, in fact, we are not fixing the problems.
It is kind of like taking a loan out on a brandnew car when you can't
buy food. It is the same thing. That is what we are doing with these
additional services.
The majority of the bill is more of the same. I have expressed to the
chairman that I think we need to radically overhaul the care of Native
Americans. I will have a lot more to say. I do have some complications
with other commitments in terms of markup. My staff e-mailed me a
moment ago that you have made some substantive changes in the managers'
amendment on some of the Medicaid and the tribal issues related to
urban Indians. I will get with you and try to discuss that because it
may affect some of my amendments. I wasn't aware of that until this
morning.
I will have an amendment I will talk about now. I don't know that I
will when I actually bring it back up. One way to meet our commitment
to Native Americans is to give them options.

[[Page 2234]]

According to CBO, the amendment I will be offering costs no money. It
is a zero cost. But what it allows Native Americans is an insurance
policy that says you can apply this and go to any Indian Health Service
you want to or anywhere else in the country you want to, but you get to
choose. The same dollars get spent, but the services will be far
superior.
There are two results. One, when we do that, it makes the Indian
Health Service have to get more competitive. No. 2, and most
profoundly, when we do that, we finally live up to our commitment that
is embodied in every treaty we have with Native Americans. Here is the
real care. It is not rationed. It is not limited to contract funds. You
don't have to get in line to wait in line. You don't have to get an
appointment to get an appointment. You don't have to travel 90 miles,
if you don't want to. You don't have to have your care rationed. And at
no cost increase to the Indian Health Service, we can give Native
Americans their own health insurance policy which gives them freedom,
dignity, and choice.
I know that will be controversial. It is not controversial with any
Indian I have talked to. It is controversial with tribal leaders
because it takes the dominance of tribal leaders away and gives freedom
to members of the tribes to whom we have made a commitment for health
care.
So as we offer that amendment and look at it, I know there will be
objections, but it does--most importantly, with the same dollars--allow
us to fulfill a commitment we are not fulfilling today. It allows a
pregnant Native American to have 14 visits, allows her to have the same
care anybody else would have. It allows us to get better outcomes. It
allows us to get a patient into an endocrinologist, where they will
manage their diabetes so they will not have complications. Kidney
failure is twice as high in this population as anybody else. Why?
Because diabetes is not managed. How many of you have gone into a
dialysis center and watched people sit there for 8 hours a day, chained
to a machine to keep them alive, because we didn't keep our commitment
by having the dollars there to prevent the complications of diabetes?
This gives an equal ranking to a Native American as a Member of
Congress. You can have preventative care for your diabetes so you don't
end up on dialysis or with an amputation or losing your vision. It
offers them hope. It offers honor and integrity because we finally keep
our commitments.
I wanted to talk about a couple other things and then I will close
and come back. I appreciate the chairman giving me this time. As
Congress discusses Indian health care over the next several days,
America as a country should take note of what a single-payer system
means in terms of the quality of care we can expect. America should not
go the route of a single-payer system. That is what we are seeing. That
is what we have in IHS. It is a single-payer system. The promise sounds
alluring, but the reality is inevitably negative. It is negative in
terms of prevention. It is negative in terms of care. It is negative in
terms of complications. It is negative in terms of innovation. It is
negative in terms of the paradigm of prevention.
Second, fixing the system for our Native Americans demands more than
adding more new programs and services. We need a fundamental overhaul
of the system. The Members of federally recognized tribes whom we have
a trust obligation to provide health care for deserve better than is in
this bill. Actually, I believe Chairman Dorgan believes that too. He
believes this is a stepped process. They deserve a choice. They deserve
the security to know they can get health care when they need it. They
deserve quality. They deserve the health care outcomes the rest of this
country enjoys that they presently do not have.
Throughout this debate on this bill, you will hear the same
statistics on rationing, wait lines from both the Democrats and
Republicans. We see it. We know it is there. Some will argue it is a
solution that just involves passing this bill that has new programs.
Every time we pass an Indian Health Care Improvement Act bill, we cite
the same terrible statistics. We pass the bill because we need to do
something. But each time we pass the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act, Indian health care does not improve.
What does that mean? We pass an Indian Health Care Improvement Act,
but Indian health care does not improve. Indian health care never
improves because we never fix the inefficiency that plagues the IHS. We
just reauthorize and add new regulations, new obligations to the same
dinosaur.
Now, the statistics I was referring to earlier: The Indian Health
Service has 14,392 employees, including 2,192 commissioned officers;
the latter COs include 8 Assistant Attorneys General, 439 director
grade individuals, 601 senior grade individuals. The salaries for the
COs total $135 million. The salaries for all other IHS employees is
estimated at $655 million. The IHS spent $33.7 million on travel last
year. On travel? Think about what $33 million could do in terms of
prevention for the complications of diabetes for American Indians and
Native Alaskans.
The other significant thing is, IHS carried, in 2005--I do not have
the number for 2006 or 2007 yet--their obligated balance at the end of
the year was $162 million. Just efficiency in how we spend the money
could improve health care in Indian Country.
I say to the Senator, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your efforts. I know
you are truly committed to trying to make a difference. I believe we
need to be bold. I believe we have an obligation to do better. I
believe this is short of the mark. So I am going to be voting against
this bill. I am going to be offering amendments to try to make it
better. I say to the Senator, I know in the long run you and I have a
lot of commonality in how we go about trying to solve this problem.
I do not think Indian Country can wait for us to come back. I do not
think the lady who gets on a dialysis machine today for the first time
thinks we can wait. I do not think the lady who pops into the delivery
room who has not had any prenatal care thinks we can wait. I do not
think the person who ends up with coronary artery disease at 40 years
of age, because their diabetes and their cholesterol and their
hypertension have not been managed, thinks we can wait.
The body will probably think we can wait. But I think we have a moral
obligation to meet our commitments, and that means radical change. When
you have a cancer, you do not treat it lightly. You go in, you cut it
out, you treat it, you follow it, and you aggressively change things so
you make an impact in the quality of that person's life.
I think we have to do better. I appreciate the efforts of the
chairman and ranking member. My hope is we will live up to our
obligations.
With that, I yield back the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma cannot possibly
win a debate we are not having. I have given his speech 17 times on the
floor of the Senate. There is no disagreement between us. I am going to
give him a chance to be bold, however, as we go down the road on
appropriations because that is what he started talking about: the need
for the resources, the need for the money. We have to reform this
system. I agree with that. Then we have to fund it. The fact is, we are
going to have amendments that add sufficient money. You talk about the
fact that we are spending twice as much per person on Federal prisoners
for health care as we are to meet our responsibility for American
Indians--twice as much for those we have incarcerated because we have a
responsibility for their health care.
Now, we need additional money in this system, and we need an overhaul
of the system itself. The Senator will find no controversy with me with
respect to giving American Indians a card to show up at a health
facility and get the health care they need. He knows, and I know, there
are many American Indians who live far out on a reservation, 90 miles
away from the nearest hospital, and they do not have competition in the
health delivery system. They have one place to go when

[[Page 2235]]

they are sick that morning or their child is sick that afternoon.
So we are going to have a chance to be bold. This is an authorization
bill, not an appropriations bill. When appropriations come up, we will
have a chance to be bold. I hope the Senator will join me on that.
Let me make a couple comments about this issue.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a couple
moments?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple comments, and then
I have to go to a markup.
You will find me an ally on appropriations if we have the courage to
make priority choices on where we fund money. You know that. That has
been my history. But we do not have extra money, so that means we have
to take it from something else. My goal will be that we take from the
waste we all know is there and we put it to the commitments.
So I look forward to that debate. I think you are right. I think we
need to up the ante, and we need to add the money. But there is plenty
of money for us to go get, and I hope the chairman will help me go get
it so we can put it there.
Thank you.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I certainly will do that.
It is interesting, we are spending $16 billion a month, $4 billion a
week to replenish the accounts for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and
other issues. There are plenty of places for us to decide it is time to
fix things here at home.
But I wish to talk about a couple of issues. First of all, there are
waiting lines. There is rationing. The Senator from Oklahoma is
absolutely correct. Dr. Grim, by the way, came to the Committee in
support always of the President's request, saying that was enough
because he had a responsibility and a requirement to support the
President's budget. But get him off the dais at the hearing and ask him
the question, and he would admit there is rationing. About 40 percent
of the health care that is needed by American Indians is not available.
That is health care rationing. That would be scandalous if it were
happening in other parts of the country. It ought to be front page
headlines, but you will not hear and you will not read many stories
about it, regrettably.
But the fact is, we have a circumstance that brings tears to my eyes.
I disagree with the Senator from Oklahoma that this is not a worthy
bill. This is a step forward in the right direction. It is not the
reform we need, but this is a two-step process. If you cannot get this
kind of thing done for 10 years, how on Earth are you going to decide
to do something much bolder?
Now, we just faced a budget that came up last week that says not only
do we not have enough money for Indian health care, let's cut it. The
President says, let's cut what we do have, at a time when we have 40
percent rationing. So we are fighting a battle just to keep the money
we have. We need much more if we are going to do what we promised we
were going to do.
But let me show the Senator a photograph, if I might. Let me show him
a photograph of Ta'shon Rain Littlelight because he says the system
does not work. I showed the photograph before because her family has
given me permission. This beautiful young 5-year-old girl is dead. She
is dead, in my judgment, because of a system that does not work.
They took her again and again and again and again to the clinic. It
was on the Crow Reservation in Montana, where I held a hearing and her
grandmother stood up with this photograph. She told about little
Ta'shon Rain Littlelight. You can see she loved to dance.
Ta'shon Rain Littlelight got sick, and they took her to the health
clinic. They treated her for depression. Again and again, they treated
her for depression. Even her grandparents said: Well, the way her
fingers look, with the swelling of the fingertips, and so on, there
must be something else wrong.
Well, one day, of course, they had to fly her to Billings, MT, and
then immediately fly her to Denver, CO, where they discovered she had
terminal cancer and about 3 months to live.
She asked if she could go see Cinderella's Castle, so Make-A-Wish
gave her the opportunity, with her mother, to go to Orlando, FL, to see
Cinderella's Castle. This little girl with terminal cancer, the night
before she was to see Cinderella's Castle, in the motel room in
Orlando, FL, told her mother, ``I am so sorry. I am going to try to be
better, Mommy. I won't be sick anymore.'' And she died in her mother's
arms that night. This little 5-year-old died because the system did not
work.
I have shown a picture of Avis Littlewind. She was 14 years of age,
lying in a fetal position in a bed for 90 days and then finally took
her own life because there was no mental health treatment available on
that reservation--no mental health treatment available to try to help
that little girl who felt hopeless and helpless.
This is a photograph, by the way, of Avis Littlewind on the Spirit
Lake Nation Reservation. Avis was 14, and she took her life. Her sister
took her life. Avis took her life.
This is a photograph of Ardel Hale Baker. Ardel Hale Baker was having
a heart attack, diagnosed as having a heart attack on an Indian
reservation. They wanted to send her to a hospital an hour and a half
away. She did not want to go in the ambulance because she knew if it
did not get paid somehow, she would have to pay it, and she did not
have any money. They put her in an ambulance anyway and took her to the
hospital. As Ardel Hale Baker was being taken off the gurney in the
emergency room in the hospital, to be put on a hospital gurney, here is
what was taped to her thigh--a piece of paper taped to the thigh of
this Indian woman; and it was to the hospital from the Department of
Health and Human Services--it was saying, by the way, ``If you admit
this woman, understand there is no money in contract health care to pay
for her,'' warning the hospital: ``Admit this woman and it is very
likely you will not be paid.'' This woman is having a heart attack, and
shows up with a piece of paper taped to her leg, saying: ``There is no
money for you to be paid, if you admit this woman to your hospital,''
or the woman who goes to the Indian Health Service with a knee that is
so painful she cannot walk. It is bone on bone; an unbelievable problem
with her knee that you or I or our family would get fixed by having a
new knee joint put in. She goes to the Indian Health Service, and the
Indian Health Service doctor says: ``Wrap it in cabbage leaves for 4
days.'' That is Indian health care. That is unbelievable, just
unbelievable to me.
My colleague from Oklahoma says, well, he does not support this bill
because it is not bold. I have been on the floor of the Senate. I have
offered amendments to add $1 billion to Indian health care, and it gets
defeated. I have seen the budget that came last week from this
administration that says they want less money for Indian health care.
Let me put up something Chief Joseph said years and years ago. We
took all this Indian land, took all those millions and millions of
acres--hundreds of millions of acres--from the Indians, but we said to
them: Trust us. We will make you a promise. We will sign treaties. We
will tell you that we will provide for your health care. We believe we
have a trust responsibility. You can trust us.
Well, regrettably, that responsibility has not been met. Those
promises have not been kept. Here is Chief Joseph. He said:

Good words don't last long unless they amount to something.
Words don't pay for my dead people. . . . Good words cannot
give me back my children. Good words will not give my people
good health and stop them from dying.

I care a lot about this issue. In my State, we have four Indian
reservations. I have spent a lot of time with them. The fact is, we
have people living in the shadows. We have people living in abject,
desperate poverty.
I sat with a young girl once at a table with her grandfather. This
was a young girl who was put in a foster home at age 3. The woman who
put her

[[Page 2236]]

in a foster home was working 150 cases--150 cases. She did not have
time to go check out the home, so she put a 3-year-old girl in a foster
home. And on a Saturday night, in a drunken party brawl, a young 3-
year-old girl got her arm broken, her nose broken, and her hair pulled
out by the roots. That young girl will live forever with those scars.
One hundred and fifty cases a social worker is dealing with? There is
such unbelievable difficulty because the resources do not exist. We
have people living in Third World conditions.
We had a tribal leader, a chairman of a tribe, say: ``My two
daughters live in used trailer houses that we moved from Michigan to
the reservation in South Dakota. They don't have indoor plumbing. They
have an outdoor rest room, outdoor toilet. One of them has a wood stove
in the living room of the trailer house vented out through the
window.'' I have seen all of these things. I have experienced all of
this. My colleague has seen the same in Alaska. We have people living
in Third World conditions in this country. There is a full-scale, bona
fide crisis in health care, housing, and education. This bill deals
with the question of health care. We have a special responsibility,
unlike other responsibilities, because this country has promised. We
have signed treaties. The Supreme Court says we have a trust
responsibility. We have not kept our promise, and we have not met our
responsibility. I am just flat tired of it.
My colleague says: Let's be bold. Nobody wants to be bolder than I
want to be, but we haven't been able to get a bill through here in 10
years, for God's sake. If you can't pass a bill in a decade, how on
Earth are you going to be bold? Let's at least take a step in the right
direction. I am going to follow that with step 2 on the Indian Affairs
Committee, and that is bold, dramatic reform, because this system is
not nearly as good as it can be.
He talks about: Why would you add new services? Well, services
dealing with diabetes, with cancer screening, with mental health--let's
add those services because they are needed, and then let's decide, when
the appropriations bill comes around, to add the funding. My colleague
knows this is an authorization bill, not a funding bill. We will have a
chance to be bold. Let's see who is going to be bold. Let's add the
funding to keep our promises, for a change.
My colleague talked a lot about Dr. Grim. I like Dr. Grim. He
retired--resigned, I should say--from the Indian Health Service. Dr.
Grim came every year, supporting the President's budget. He knew it was
not adequate. We know we are rationing health care. The fact is, we all
know it. We need to stop it. Are we rationing health care with
incarcerated prisoners in Federal prisons? No, we are not, because we
have a responsibility for them. We arrest them, we convict them, we
send them to prison, and then it is our responsibility to provide for
their health care in Federal prisons, and we do it. We spend twice as
much per person for them as we do for American Indians. Yet we have the
same responsibility for American Indians because we made the promise,
signed the treaties, and told them we would provide for these needs.
What gives us the right to continue to break our promises? We have done
it for decades and decades over almost 200 years. What gives us the
right to continue to do that in the face of little children who are
dying and in the face of elders who can't get health care? What gives
us that right?
I say to my colleague, if you want to be bold, we are going to have a
chance to be bold together, because this country ought to stare truth
in the face and look at what is happening on Indian reservations.
The other night, I was on an Indian reservation, having a listening
session with Indians. There were two sisters sitting in the front row.
One sister stood up to speak, and the other sister sobbed
uncontrollably--cried and sobbed. It was an unbelievable story about
the sister who desperately needed health care and couldn't get it and
couldn't find it. She finally had her heart surgery, and of course it
was charged back to her, because there was no contract health care. It
has completely ruined her credit rating because she doesn't have
anything to pay for it, and the Indian Health Service did not serve her
needs. She was also treated for depression. She had a heart valve
problem that needed surgery, and she was treated for depression. When
she finally found a way to get the surgery, it could not be paid for by
Indian contract health because they were out of funds. ``Don't get sick
after June.'' We had one reservation tell us, don't get sick after
January, because they didn't have the money. This poor woman sat there
in the chair sobbing as her sister recounted the details of her
desperate attempt to deal with a health care problem that was very
acute.
So, yes, I am a little bit emotional about these issues. When we have
people say, well, let's do much more, I say: Absolutely. Let's do much
more than we are now doing. Let's do that in appropriations. That is an
awfully good start.
This is an authorization bill which does a lot more than the current
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It does a lot more in areas we know
are in urgent need.
We have teen suicide clusters on Indian reservations. In the northern
Great Plains, there is a 10 times greater rate of suicide among
teenagers--not double, triple, or quadruple, but 10 times the rate of
suicide. I went and sat and talked with kids on that reservation, the
one where we had a cluster recently. It was just me with some high
school kids, talking about what is going on, what is their life like.
It is unbelievable.
We need to address these things. That is what we try to do in this
Indian Health Care Improvement Act. It is not perfect, but it is
certainly a step in the right direction.
I have other things to say, and my colleague may wish to weigh in, as
well. My hope will be at the end of the day today that we will be able
to get the amendments up and get them voted on. Some of the amendments
my colleague described, I likely will support, because I think we can
improve this piece of legislation. I think at the end of the day, all
of us will hope we will have done something we are proud of, to say to
those who don't now have adequate health care or whom we promised
health care that we have made a step forward in trying to meet those
needs.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, let me make just a few comments in response
to the Senator from North Dakota.
First of all, I commend him for his work on this bill, as well as the
Senator from Alaska, who has worked very hard to get this bill in a
position where it could be brought to the floor and considered by this
body--in particular, in helping to work out some very contentious
issues that have bedeviled people on both sides of the aisle for quite
a long time. In the best spirit of working to get legislation
accomplished in a bipartisan way, staffs from the committee itself and
the two Senators I mentioned and my staff and others rolled up their
sleeves, sat down, and have worked out very satisfactory resolutions to
three big problems that previously existed. As far as I know now, those
issues are totally resolved, language is ready to be substituted into
the bill, and it represents a real achievement to try to move this bill
forward. I appreciate their cooperation, and I commend the others who
have worked on it as well.
I must say also that I am looking forward to working with the Senator
from North Dakota when he comes to the State of Arizona to address
another issue dealing with Indian Country; that is, the deplorable
state of law enforcement, of facilities to deal with people who are
apprehended on Indian reservations, and the staff to deal with those.
Crime is a huge problem, as is health care, on our Indian reservations
throughout the country. It is neglected. It needs more attention. I
applaud the Senator from Alaska and the Senator from North Dakota for
their attention to this as well, and I look forward to working with
them.

[[Page 2237]]

Finally, I would note just on a personal basis that a very good thing
happened to me because of the Indian Health Service, even though there
are a lot of improvements which need to be made in that. Were it not
for the Indian Health Service, I probably wouldn't be married to my
wife right now. One might say: How on Earth did that happen? But it
happened because her father was a pharmacist with the Indian Health
Service, and I had the good fortune of being assigned to Tucson, AZ, to
work on what was then called the Papago Indian Reservation, now the
Tohono O'odham. As a result, his daughter--now my wife--attended the
University of Arizona, where we met, and the rest is history, as they
say. So I have had some knowledge and information about this for a long
time.
I wish to make the point that there are--and I know the Senator from
North Dakota and the Senator from Alaska agree with this--thousands of
dedicated personnel who are serving our Indian community throughout all
of our States under great difficulty. The working conditions are not
good, but the professionals are very professional. They are very good.
They are dedicated and really work hard on behalf of our Native
American citizens. It is as much to give them the resources they need
as well as to help those whom they serve to get this legislation
adopted and move the process forward.
So I compliment those who have been working on this important
legislation and hope that in the remainder of this day--and I will make
this point to my colleagues--that if you have amendments you think
would improve this legislation, please bring them to the floor so that
we can complete work on this legislation, so that we can take the
amendments up and we can dispose of them. Based upon the work we have
done in the past, I think it is quite possible that a lot of good
suggestions can be considered by staff and eventually Members and
perhaps adopted without the need to take up the full Senate's time.
But, in any event, bring your amendments down here so we can move this
legislation forward as soon as possible to do so.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me thank the Senator from Arizona. He
has been working very hard with us to try to move this bill along. I
would say to my colleagues on this side of the aisle as well: If you
have amendments, please bring them. The majority leader has indicated
we are going to finish this bill this week, and that will be a
significant step forward. I thank the Senator from Alaska and the
Senator from Arizona for their work to help us move this bill. He is
correct that we had four or five very controversial issues that
provoked some opposition. We worked through those, negotiated, and I
think all of them are now resolved.
I think when the Senator from Alaska has completed any statement she
is going to make, we do have the managers' amendment that amends the
substitute we had offered, and that has been negotiated and agreed to
on both sides. So when Senator Murkowski has completed her statement,
we will ask that it be completed as well.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska is
recognized.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from
Oregon, Mr. Smith, is on his way to the floor, so when he arrives, I
will yield such time to him as he needs. I know he wants to speak to an
amendment.
I wish to take just a couple of minutes this morning to respond to
some of the comments made by the Senator from Oklahoma. Clearly, he is
very passionate about Indian health care and making sure that we do
right by our treaty obligations and that we do right by all American
Indians and Alaska Natives when it comes to their health care needs. He
cited some of the obvious. Unfortunately, the statistics are real. In
fact, the statistics may be even more devastating than he has indicated
because we know that a lot of times our statistics aren't as reliable
as we may want, and, in fact, they are worse than what we have seen.
When he spoke to prenatal care, when he spoke to the incidence of
diabetes and substance abuse and suicides, we know they are horrific
statistics. We recognize we must do more. I, too, applaud him for bold
action, for reform in a system that has been unwieldy and bureaucratic
and stovepiped in so many areas.
Senator Barrasso yesterday brought forward an amendment that asks for
a GAO study to look to the efficiency. There are some other amendments
that have been introduced that also task us with evaluating to make
sure we are doing right by the programs that are put in place, how the
funding is directed to them, and are we doing what we need to be doing.
I think it is fair to say that we recognize it is not sufficient, it is
not enough. We do need to be doing more, and certainly, as the chairman
of the Indian Affairs Committee has mentioned, we have to put our money
where our mouth is. We have to put our money toward those programs. We
have to make sure we put the resources there to make the difference.
The Senator from Oklahoma spoke about the rationed care. It is not
rationed care because we just don't want to give it; it is rationed
care because of the lack of resources, and that is very real and
something that must be dealt with, and it must be dealt with in a very
strong way.
The Senator from Oklahoma really spoke as well to the issue of
prevention, and it was his opinion in his comments that this Indian
Health Care Improvement Act doesn't go far enough, that we need to be
doing more in the area of prevention. He speaks to a part of me that I
feel very strongly about. When we talk about health care in this
country, whether it is in Indian Country or in the United States as a
whole, it has been referred to as not a system of health care, it is a
system of sick care. We take care of you after you are sick. It is no
different within the Indian health system. That does have to change. We
must focus on the prevention. We know this. We are seeing this. We are
working here in the Congress to change those policies to help put
greater focus on prevention because we know for a fact that we can
reduce costs if we focus on prevention.
Now, the Senator from Oklahoma has indicated that there isn't enough
here in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in the area of
prevention. I want to mention some of the initiatives that are included
in the legislation that will make a difference, that will reduce health
care costs, and that will provide for greater access. It is in the area
of prevention.
Diabetes--we have all listened to the stats. They are absolutely
unacceptable. We have to be doing more when it comes to diabetes
prevention. We must be doing more to keep the elderly woman whom he was
discussing off of the dialysis machine. We have to have the focus
there. So included within the legislation is a focus on diabetes
prevention.
We also look to the issue of domestic violence and sexual assault.
Again, in these areas, our statistics with our American Indians and our
Alaska Natives are absolutely unacceptable. Are we doing enough in the
area? No, we need to do more.
It has been mentioned we have not reauthorized the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act in some 10 years. Think about what has happened in this
country in terms of health care and how we provide health care, how we
focus on prevention in the last 10 years, the technologies that are
made available to us, and also the areas of focus. Behavioral health is
something about which in my State of Alaska we have been forced to be
innovative. We do not have the psychologists and the psychiatrists who
are available in all of our little communities. We have been forced to
utilize a telehealth system, and we are absolutely making some
remarkable progress. But through this Indian Health Care Improvement
Act and what we are allowing for, we can allow for expanded
opportunities to help, such as in the area of behavioral health.
I have a whole list of other programs that are also included--
programs to

[[Page 2238]]

control blood pressure, immunizations, youth suicide prevention, injury
prevention, sudden infant death syndrome training, tobacco cessation
programs. These are all programs that go right to the heart of
prevention. These are initiatives that will help us reduce our costs,
that will help us keep people from becoming ill in the first place,
keep people from losing a limb due to diabetes, keep young people from
having to live a life afflicted with FAS or FASD.
There are initiatives contained within this legislation that need to
be authorized, need to be updated and included to allow American
Indians and Alaska Natives the same opportunity for preventive care
that we find wherever we go in the country in a community hospital or
in the clinic down the street. We have to make sure these programs are
included.
Mr. President, I see Senator Smith has arrived. In recognition of his
time limitations today, I yield to him so he can speak to an amendment
he is proposing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Chair recognizes Senator Smith.

Amendment No. 3897 to Amendment No. 3899

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up for
consideration amendment No. 3897.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. Smith], for himself, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Crapo, and Mrs. Murray, proposes an
amendment numbered 3897 to amendment No. 3899.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To modify a provision relating to development of innovative
approaches)

Strike subsection (f) of section 301 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101) and insert
the following:
``(f) Development of Innovative Approaches.--The Secretary
shall consult and cooperate with Indian Tribes and Tribal
Organizations, and confer with Urban Indian Organizations, in
developing innovative approaches to address all or part of
the total unmet need for construction of health facilities,
that may include--
``(1) the establishment of an area distribution fund in
which a portion of health facility construction funding could
be devoted to all Service Areas;
``(2) approaches provided for in other provisions of this
title; and
``(3) other approaches, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of
reauthorizing the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. I begin by
thanking Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Murkowski for their
leadership and for building on the momentum from the last Congress to
reauthorize this very important and overdue reauthorization of this
act.
Like most of my colleagues, I feel that passing this legislation is
critical and it is about time. Since passage of the act in 1976, this
legislation has provided the framework for carrying out responsibility
to provide Native Americans with adequate health care. As we know, the
act has not been updated in 16 years despite the growing needs among
Native Americans. We cannot allow the health of this population to
remain in jeopardy any longer.
Today, funding levels meet only 60 percent of the demand for services
each year which requires the Indian Health Services tribal health
facilities and urban Indian health care providers to ration care,
resulting in tragic denials of needed services.
Speaking of the urban Indian health programs, reauthorization of the
act will facilitate the modernization of the systems, such as
prevention and behavioral health programs, for approximately 1.8
million Native Americans. I sincerely hope we can pass this legislation
and send it to the President for his signature.
Although this bill makes vast and necessary improvements upon
existing law, it is not perfect. Currently, the vast majority of
Federal funding for construction and modernization of tribal health
care facilities goes to tribes in less than 10 States. Unfortunately,
this bill maintains that inequity among tribes by favoring construction
in those few States.
I offered today an amendment with Senator Cantwell that will correct
this problem and instill equity among all of the Native American
tribes.
This concern is particularly relevant in my home State of Oregon
which is 1 of over 40 States that have never--I repeat, never--received
funding to build an Indian Health Service hospital.
Since the beginning of last year, I have worked with my colleagues to
find a compromise to resolve this issue in a way that is not
detrimental to any region of the country. I believe my amendment is
just that: a good-faith compromise that will provide equity to the
health facility system. It does so by providing the Indian Health
Service the authority to use an area distribution fund which would
allocate a portion of health facility construction funds to all 12
Indian Health Service areas to improve, expand, or replace existing
health care facilities.
This area distribution fund is not the idea of a single Senator or a
single region of the country. It is the product of years of work and
compromise by the Indian Health Service and tribes and after Congress
recognized the need to create a more equitable facilities construction
system.
The current system has been locked into place since 1991, and it will
be over 20 or 30 years before funding will go to new projects. I do not
see how that is fair and equitable if we have an obligation to all.
Sadly, this has resulted in wide disparities in the level of health
services provided to tribal communities across the country. I believe
this amendment represents a rational middle ground on this issue.
I also want to highlight that this compromise language is supported
by regions of the country with nearly 400 of the 561 federally
recognized tribes that reside in 23 States. Those folks are out if this
does not pass.
I also want to add that it is not my intention to rob one IHS area to
pay another. I believe that an area distribution fund works best when
and if funding for IHS is expanded. We simply have to enlarge this pie
so we are not disadvantaging any tribes in the Southwest of our
country, but we must not abandon, as we have been, the tribes all over
the rest of the country. That is why I asked my colleagues to join me
in sending a letter to the administration seeking a 15 percent increase
in IHS funding for fiscal year 2009. I hope we are successful in this
effort. But regardless, we must take steps through this bill to
establish a fairer system--just a fairer system--to distribute Federal
funding.
If we are sincere about the title of the legislation at hand--of
better meeting our statutory, our treaty, and our moral obligations to
improve the health care of all Native Americans--then my amendment
should be adopted.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to ensure that all
Native American Indians receive the health care they need, they
deserve, and what we have promised.
I close with a quote from Morning Dove, the literary name of
Christine Quintasket, a Sa-lish tribal woman from the Pacific
Northwest, now recognized as the first Native American woman to publish
a novel. She wrote:

Everything on the earth has a purpose, every disease an
herb to cure it, and every person a mission . . . this is the
Indian theory of existence.

There are, indeed, cures and treatment for the maladies that
disproportionately affect Native Americans--diabetes, alcoholism,
suicides that result from mental disorders, and so many others. The
purpose and the mission of this bill is to connect those cures with
those who need it most, those who have sought it longest, and through
the dismal chapters of our Nation's history have a unique claim to
those cures and treatments.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 2239]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COLEMAN. 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. COLEMAN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Mikulski-
Coleman-Klobuchar amendment to place a moratorium on CMS's December 4
rule on Medicaid case management services. Last night, Senator
Mikulski--and I joined with her--and Senator Klobuchar offered this
case management legislation as an amendment to the Indian health bill
being debated on the floor.
I begin by saying I fully understand the fiscal challenges our
entitlement programs face, and I look forward to the day when we can
put politics aside and have an honest and productive discussion about
how to preserve these programs for future generations. I think we can
all agree that the goal of that conversation is to find a delicate
balance between fiscal responsibility and making sure our Nation's most
vulnerable populations still have access to the health care services
they so desperately need. Unfortunately, when it comes to the case
management rule, while I support CMS's intent to cut out wasteful
spending, it is clear to me that it fails to achieve this delicate
balance.
I cannot think of a better way to describe case management than to
say it is the glue that holds together our Nation's Medicaid system. In
my home State of Minnesota, I have consistently heard from social
workers, county supervisors, health care providers, and others about
how devastating this new regulation will be for at-risk individuals and
families.
Suffice it to say, when I travel throughout Minnesota and I meet with
county commissioners, one of the first things they say to me is
targeted case management and they raise the deep concern that the
proposed CMS rules will have on their ability to service needy
individuals in my State. I suspect if my colleagues across the country
talk with a county commissioner, this is what they are going to hear.
I hear that without comprehensive case management services, millions
of Americans with mental illness will not be able to access the
treatment medications they need to survive; that people living with
disabilities will find themselves forced to remain in institutions
instead of enjoying the dignity of independent community-based living;
that our most vulnerable children, those in foster care, will be left
alone to navigate a complex and often overwhelming Medicaid system.
That is why I introduced the legislation this amendment is based on,
and that is why this legislation is not only cosponsored by 19 of our
Senate colleagues but also has the support of several advocacy groups
throughout the country, including the Child Welfare League, Muscular
Sclerosis Society, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National
Council for Community Behavioral Health, and many others.
All these groups recognize the devastating effect this regulation
will have on those most in need of important case management services.
Let me take a moment to highlight some of the fundamental problems
with this rule. This new regulation requires that case management
services must be delivered by a single case manager, which sounds
reasonable enough. However, we are talking about populations that can
have up to four or five or six chronic conditions. If this rule is
finalized, it would require that a single case manager provide quality
case management services to a person who may be suffering with HIV,
mental illness, and diabetes all at the same time. Should we not have a
health system that allows a team of specialized case managers to work
together to address each of these complex issues?
Isn't the kind of care, integrated care a key element of making sure
our health care system is keeping people healthy, not just treating
them when they get sick?
Another concern I have consistently heard is the new limitations on
moving people from an institutional setting to a less restrictive
community-based setting. Let me remind you that moving people to
community-based settings was a key recommendation of the President's
own New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Yet under this new rule,
case managers would have significantly less time to prepare people to
move from an institution to a community. Let me also point out that the
administration has made ``home and community-based waivers'' a key
element of its Medicaid reform efforts. I could not be more supportive
of this initiative. We should, whenever possible, make every effort to
allow people to live with dignity and independence in the setting of
their choice. Unfortunately, this new rule will stand in the way of
these efforts and force many people to remain institutionalized.
Finally, this new rule eviscerates case management for some of our
Nation's most vulnerable children, those living in the foster care
system. By not allowing child welfare workers to provide case
management services, many children will be left to fend for themselves
when seeking medical services. As I said before, I am all for fiscal
responsibility, but I cannot support reforms that will have such a
destructive impact on America's foster care system. These children
already have enough obstacles to face. Let's not make their lives more
challenging by taking away these critical case management services.
I should note that this amendment is fully paid for. Actually, the
``paid for'' is a key step forward in preserving our entitlement
programs. My investigation, as ranking member of the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, revealed that thousands of Medicare
providers who are supposed to be serving our Nation's elderly and
disabled are, instead, cheating American taxpayers in order to line
their own pockets. As a solution, a provision in this amendment will
save American taxpayers close to $160 million over the next 5 years by
ensuring that CMS participates in the Federal Payment Levy Program so
that Medicare payments to these tax cheats can be levied. The
administration supports this proposal, going so far as to include it in
the 2009 budget.
This amendment is simple. We recognize that we need to provide more
direction in case management services, but all we are asking CMS to do
is take another year and work with Congress and the relevant
stakeholders to develop a reasonable rule that clarifies the scope of
the case management program but still provides the critical services
our most vulnerable populations rely on.
My father was a carpenter by trade. He told me always that we should
measure twice and cut once. In this case management program, what we
have is individuals working as a system to deliver, in the most
effective way possible, services to the neediest. It makes sense. I
understand their concerns. CMS in my State--and I suspect in Wisconsin,
the State of the Presiding Officer--our folks do this well. CMS found
out that, in fact, we are doing it well. We are doing what the program
is supposed to do, with very little waste. If there is waste in other
areas of the country, let us have a conversation about it but don't
hurt the neediest and penalize the States that are doing a good job in
providing coordinated services to those at risk and those in need.
As I said before, this is an issue that each and every time I travel
and visit with my county commissioners, those involved in the
unheralded work of simply dealing with those in need--they don't get a
lot of credit being county commissioners, but they are all worried and
concerned. They tell me: Senator, we are doing it right and we are
about to be penalized.
We should be better than that. Let's step back and take a breath and
put a hold on the implementation of this rule, and let's figure out a
way to do it right. Let's measure twice and only cut once.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I filed a number of technical improvements
to

[[Page 2240]]

this bill, which I wish to work on with the chairman to see if we can
resolve these without a vote. These are very small wording amendments,
in some cases, that I would like the chairman and his staff to look at
before I call them up, because I think it is very unlikely we will need
votes on these particular amendments.

Amendment No. 4067 to Amendment No. 3894

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect
to the Bingaman amendment No. 3894 and I send a second-degree amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The clerk will report the second-degree amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 4067 to amendment No. 3894.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To rescind funds appropriated by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, for the City of Berkeley, California, and any
entities located in such city, and to provide that such funds shall be
transferred to the Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps account of
the Department of Defense for the purposes of recruiting)

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. RECISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

(a) Recission of Certain Earmarks.--All of the amounts
appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
(Public Law 110-161) and the accompanying report for
congressional directed spending items for the City of
Berkeley, California, or entities located in such city are
hereby rescinded.
(b) Transfer of Funds to Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps.--The amounts rescinded under subsection (a) shall be
transferred to the ``Operation and Maintenance, Marine
Corps'' account of the Department of Defense for fiscal year
2008 to be used for recruiting purposes.
(c) Congressional Directed Spending Item Defined.--In this
section, the term ``congressional directed spending item''
has the meaning given such term in paragraph 5(a) of rule
XLIV of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my
amendment and the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to obtaining the yeas and
nays on both amendments in one request?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I object. I have not had a chance to visit
with my colleague. I wish to do so first.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, we will talk about it and get the vote
later on. I want to say a few words about this amendment.
My amendment is identical to the Semper Fi Act, which I introduced
along with Senators Allard, Bond, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Cornyn,
Inhofe, Martinez, McConnell, Vitter, and probably a number of other
Members. Since the bill that is pending now will probably be the last
vote before the recess, I think it is important that we vote on this
Semper Fi amendment. Last week, when I introduced the bill, the
majority leader did not recess so that we could not get this on the
calendar. This is an important bill, which I will explain in a minute.
We also tried to move it by unanimous consent through the hotline
process, and all of the Republicans approved the bill, but apparently
someone on the majority side is holding it. That is why it is important
that this amendment be part of the bill we are considering today.
The Semper Fi Act would rescind all earmarks, or specially designated
spending projects, contained in the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
Omnibus Appropriations Act for the city of Berkeley and entities
located therein, and redirects those funds to the U.S. Marine Corps.
For those who have not been paying attention, the Berkeley City
Council recently voted to ask the U.S. Marine Corps to vacate their
recruiting office in town, and that if they chose to stay they did so
as ``uninvited and unwelcome intruders.''
During debate of the resolution, one council member called the
Marines ``the President's own gangsters'' and ``trained killers.''
Another said the Marines had given the country ``horrible karma'' and
said they had a history of ``death and destruction.'' In a document
drafted to support the resolution against the Marines, the council
stated: ``Military recruiters are sales people known to lie to and
seduce minors and young adults into contracting themselves into
military service with false promises regarding jobs, job training,
education and other benefits.''
After voting to insult the men and women who fight and bleed for
their freedom, the city council cast another ridiculous vote in favor
of giving the radical protest group Code Pink a parking space directly
in front of the Marine Corps recruiting station. They also voted to
give Code Pink a sound permit for protests in front of the Marine Corps
building. The city council stated in the resolution that they
``encourage all people to avoid cooperation with the Marine Corps
recruiting station'' and to ``applaud'' Code Pink for working to
``impede, passively or actively'' the work of the Marines Corps in
Berkeley.
Frankly, I just returned from a visit to Iraq, saw our marines on the
ground and what they were doing. It is inconceivable to me that any
governing body in this country would say such things to our marines.
Code Pink is a fringe organization that distinguishes itself by
attacking American policy, while defending dictator Hugo Chavez. The
group is so disrespectful that they have no problems demonstrating in
front of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Medical Center with signs
reading ``Maimed for a lie.''
The council's resolution sparked an escalation of anti-Marine
protests. Code Pink organizer Zanne Joy points to the city council as
justification for the escalation. She said that ``anything legal is
justified if it succeeds in persuading the Marine Corps to move its
recruiting station out of Berkeley.'' According to the San Francisco
Chronicle, Code Pink protesters have been heard shouting at young men
who are trying to enter the recruiting station, ``You guys are just
cannon fodder!'' and ``They want to train you to kill babies!''
It is sad to see a city like Berkeley moving so far left. The city in
which the legendary World War II Pacific Theater Commander, Fleet
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, established the Naval ROTC in the fall of
1926 is now sadly a shell of its former self, thanks to its elected
leadership.
This is disappointing, but in a republican form of government, it
must be up to local voters to change their leadership.
However, this particular case became the business of all Americans
when they insulted our troops and their constitutional mission to
defend our country; while coming to the Federal Government asking for
special taxpayer-funded handouts. Over $2 million was secretly tucked
away for Berkeley earmarks in the 2008 Omnibus appropriations bill,
projects that were never voted on or debated.
I do not believe a city that has turned its back on our country's
finest deserves $2 million worth of pork barrel projects. So my
amendment revokes these earmarks.
Included in the $2 million worth of pork are some particularly
wasteful projects.
One earmark provides gourmet organic lunches to schools in the
Berkeley School District. While our Marines are making due with MREs of
Sloppy Joe and chili with beans, Berkeley students will get Federal tax
dollars to design meals that promote ``environmental harmony.'' Chez
Panisse's menu features ``Comte cheese souffle with mache salad'',
``Meyer lemon eclairs with huckleberry coulis''; and ``Chicory salad
with creamy anchovy vinaigrette and olive toast''. That is
unacceptable.
Are we to understand that the city that has been home to many of the
country's most rich and famous cannot afford to pay for its own
designer school lunches?
Another $975,000 earmark is for the Matsui Center for Politics and
Public

[[Page 2241]]

Service at U.C. Berkeley, which may include cataloging the papers of
the late Congressman Robert Matsui. Is it really necessary to tax the
paychecks of Marines so we can earmark nearly $1 million for a school
that is already sitting on a $3.5 billion endowment?
Let me be clear, my amendment does not cut off all Federal funds to
the city of Berkeley, though I am sure most Americans would feel that
is justified. It merely rescinds wasteful earmarks. Berkeley is free to
compete with other towns and cities across America for merit-based
Federal grants.
Actions have consequences. When the Berkeley City Council decided to
insult the Marines in a time of war, it was a $2 million decision.
Especially in a time of war, we cannot just allow cities to play
insulting games at our troops' expense while continuing to shower them
with congressional favors.
On Tuesday, the city council met to revisit its ridiculous actions.
Hundreds of military supporters and antiwar protesters gathered at
Berkeley City Hall. Berkeley police reported four arrests before the
meeting began, all misdemeanors. Police said there were minor scuffles
between the antiwar and promilitary camps. An American flag was set
aflame outside the city council chambers, damaging a pair of bicycles.
When the council meeting finally started, more than 100 speakers took
turns at the podium.
In a sense, what happened in Berkeley was a quintessential American
experience, a spirited exchange and protest followed by debate and
democratic action. And while I find some of the views and behavior of
many of the protestors repugnant, the exchange itself is a solemn
reminder of those who have sacrificed so much to preserve our freedom,
especially our freedom of speech.
Let me be clear. I do not question the sincerity of anyone on either
side of the issue. I think there is genuine concern among many in this
country about the war. But while we can respect the legitimate worries
about the war and can respect the sincerity of even the most radical
protestors, we must recognize that words have meaning and actions have
consequences. Some of the hateful words that have come out of Berkeley,
CA, have had real consequences on our troops, their families, and our
recruiting.
One of those who spoke at the city council meeting was Debbie Lee of
Arizona, whose son Marc was the first Navy SEAL to die in the Iraq war.
She demanded an apology from the council, and she said: My son gave up
his life for you. Lee told the council, as she clutched his framed
picture, ``I'm appalled at what you did,'' referring to the council's
vote on Marine recruiters.
Debbie Parrish, another military mom whose son Victor is currently
serving in Iraq, said to the Berkeley City Council:

It is despicable what you said about our military. It is
very, very sad. Shame on you.

After all the testimony from the military supporters and families,
the Berkeley City Council could only muster the votes to not send a
letter insulting the U.S. Marines by calling them ``uninvited and
unwelcomed intruders.'' Let's be clear. They did not apologize for the
letter. They just didn't mail it. Of course, the sending of a letter at
this point is inconsequential given that the text of the letter has
been running on national television for a week. The city council also
modified one of its past resolutions to ``recognize the recruiters'
right to locate in our city and the right of others to protest or
support their presence.''
But the resolution also stated that the city council opposes ``the
recruitment of our young people into this war.''
The resolution proposing a formal apology to the Marines failed. The
city council also voted to let four additional items passed at last
week's meeting stand. One resolution encouraged all people to avoid
cooperation with the Marine Corps recruiting station. A second one
requested that the city attorney investigate if the Marines are in
violation of Berkeley's policy against discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
In addition, two resolutions giving the radical antiwar group Code
Pink a weekly parking space and a weekly sound permit to protest the
Marine recruiting station were upheld by the council's decision.
It was my hope that the city would apologize and revoke its previous
resolutions and move on. The council chose not to do that. We have no
choice but to acknowledge the reality of what they have done and to
defend our military recruiters who are doing the job we asked them to
do. If we don't take action, we will be sending a message to other
towns or cities that they can use their power to try to influence U.S.
foreign policy, thwarting our recruitment efforts.
This issue is not about free speech. It is about a city that has
shown total disdain for our Armed Forces and used its official
government powers to harass our military as they try to keep our
country safe. And this amendment is not about forcing the city to
change its mind. It is about whether we are going to shower the city
with favors, with special goodies that do not meet national needs. I
think the American people have spoken loudly and clearly that they do
not believe that should be the case.
There is a video with clips of the city council meeting on YouTube.
It has been viewed by over 200,000 people. It is the 70th most viewed
video this week and the 11th most viewed video in news and politics,
with 767 people posting comments overwhelmingly in support of the
legislation. People are paying attention.
I am amazed at the response received regarding my public outrage over
the city of Berkeley's behavior. My office has received thousands of
calls and letters from military supporters all over the country. On
Wednesday afternoon, I received a call from Sgt James Strowe of the
U.S. Marine Corps. Sergeant Strowe is currently fighting to protect our
freedom in Kuwait. Sergeant Strowe understands what the Marine
recruiters in Berkeley are going through quite well because he served
as a recruiter himself for 7 years. And he just told me his folks
serving with him wanted to thank those of us who were standing up for
them while they were fighting for our country.
After talking with the sergeant, I decided it would be a good idea to
call the marines at the Berkeley recruiting station to ask how they
were holding up amidst all the controversy. I talked to GSgt Rick
O'Frente, who seemed to be taking the events in stride. He even said a
number of citizens from Berkeley had come into the recruitment office,
brought them food, and some had apologized for the actions of the
council.
I guess I have said enough about all of what we are hearing. I have
pages and pages of comments from people who are asking us to stand up
for our marines while they are fighting for us, and we will be asking
again for votes as part of the deliberations on this package.
Mr. President, now that I think the chairman has had a chance to
understand in more detail what this bill is about, I will once again
ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment and the Bingaman amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to obtaining the yeas and
nays on both amendments at the same time?
Mr. DORGAN. I object. I have not had a chance to visit with the
Senator, and I will be glad to do so at some point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.

Amendment No. 4023

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 4023, a
very important amendment that affects over 200,000 people in my State.
I am not calling up the amendment right this moment, pending some other
parliamentary action, but I do wish to speak on the amendment.
This is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senator Klobuchar, who
has taken a very impressive lead, as well as Senator Coleman. This
bipartisan amendment is to stand up for constituents all over the
United States of

[[Page 2242]]

America who are severely disabled and who are about to lose their case
managers.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of people--severely handicapped
or disabled, both children and adults--are about to lose either their
social workers or their nurses because of a new, harsh, punitive rule
put out by the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare. The amendment does
the same thing as Senate Bill 2578 that is sponsored by the Senators
from Minnesota and myself and 17 others and would simply do this: It
would stop the CMS from implementing the new rule by delaying its
implementation until April 2009, when we have a new President and a new
attitude.
Now, let me give the background. In December, CMS proposed this rule
that would cut Medicaid funding to something called ``targeted case
management'' services. The rule will go into effect March 3. That is
why we are offering it on this very important bill of Indian health,
and we thank the managers of the bill for their courtesy.
We hear all these government words, but I am going to talk today not
only as the Senator from Maryland standing up for my constituents, but
also as a professionally trained social worker. What is this? Well, a
Medicaid case manager is either a social worker or a nurse who helps
adults and children with very complicated problems. Children in foster
care and children with disabilities get the medical and social services
they need to be able to have a quality of life to be independent. But
what does that mean in real terms? Well, let me give you an example.
I have a constituent in Baltimore, a 2-year-old, who was diagnosed
with a genetic disorder that leads to significant feeding problems.
This disease causes very severe problems and without help in early
life. So what does the case manager do? If the case is a very
complicated medical situation, often the case manager is a nurse. If it
requires lots of complicated social intervention, it will be a social
worker. First of all, the case manager gets in there and does a family
assessment and works with the doctors, such as Johns Hopkins or the
University of Maryland, so we know what medical plan is in order for
this little child to have the ability to thrive. Then the case manager
works with the family, who is in acute distress, to make sure they know
someone is on their side and helps them comply with the treatment plan.
Now, what might that be? Well, in the genetic disorder case, it will
be very specialized nutrition services. That is a lot of coordination
to get the right people there to help that family. It will be also
speech and language and occupational therapy, so a lot of compliance to
make sure that child will be able to get what they need. Then, very
important, psychosocial help because when a child has this type of
disorder, there are other very severe psychosocial problems that
emerge. Then the case manager is working with the family to get the
child in the appropriate very specialized daycare. You can imagine the
kind of supervision this is. This is tough, hands-on, gritty work.
Let's also take a look at when there is a child born with cerebral
palsy. Again, you have a biomedical plan and the need to get the right
education for the child and also assistance for the family on how to do
it, then a lot of nitty-gritty work. In this case, the child would be
evaluated, say, at the fantastic Kennedy-Krieger Institute, where some
of the best neurosurgeons and neuroscientists will be working with
them. But the case manager helps get the family a wheelchair, a ramp
for the home, special education services, and counseling for the
parents because this is going to be a significant responsibility for a
long time.
Without case management, the whole thing falls apart. If you don't
get the right services for the family in the home and the educational
programs, you will not have the follow through on the biomedical plan
that helps them remain independent or able to grow up.
Now, CMS says they do not want to pay for that. They say they have
the authority from the Deficit Reduction Act and they can just slash
these services from Medicaid funding. Well, in my State, this affects
200,000 people. It means that over 1,400 social workers and nurses who
have devoted their life to helping these families will be impacted, and
it means a Governor will have to pick up the bill. In my State, these
services cost $150 million, with 50 percent paid by the feds and the
other 50 percent paid by the State.
CMS wants to eliminate the 50 percent, which means Maryland will lose
$75 million. I know Senator Klobuchar will tell us equally horrific
stories. Senator Coleman has spoken about this. We object to CMS. We
object to this rule. We want to delay the rule until sensible heads
prevail.
We have 20 Senators who have cosponsored the bill that is the same as
this Amendment. They have names such as Cardin, Corker, Domenici,
Bingaman, Alexander, Voinovich, Brown, Snowe, Wyden, Sanders, Kennedy--
the list goes on. Thirty States would be so affected they have taken it
upon themselves to write directly to CSM.
I must say to the distinguished chairman of the Indian Affairs
Committee, this also affects his State of North Dakota. It affects
severely handicapped Native American children.
This is not about who is your favorite bean counter at OMB or how can
we control runaway Medicaid costs; it is how do we in this country make
sure our constituents and our people get the services they need to be
able to have an independent life. I believe we can give help to those
who are practicing self-help. For those families who are out there
struggling to make sure a loved one with a handicap, a child, or an
adult is able to remain independent, they need a government on their
side.
So my amendment will delay the implementation. It is not my
amendment, it is our amendment. It is a bipartisan amendment. I say to
my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, let's be those
compassionate conservatives whom you once talked about. Join with us.
Let's do this.
At the appropriate time, I will call up this amendment officially,
and I will ask for a vote on it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise to speak in strong support of
amendment No. 4023. This is the amendment my friend, Senator Mikulski,
just spoke about. It is a bipartisan amendment. Cosponsors are myself,
Senator Mikulski, Senator Coleman, and many other Senators from across
this country.
This amendment would stop the administration from making drastic
changes to its targeted case management system that would hurt those in
our country who are most in need of assistance.
Targeted case management benefits children in foster care, kids and
adults battling mental illness, and seniors and disabled people
receiving institutional care. It exists to help those individuals to
navigate the complicated web of available services, to help these men,
women, and children overcome bureaucratic barriers in order to achieve
independence. These services include transporting people with
disabilities to and from doctor's appointments as well as managing
pharmacy services for individuals with severe mental illness. These
essential services are now threatened by a proposed rule change from
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
For 8 years, I served as the chief prosecutor and top lawyer for
Minnesota's largest county, serving Minneapolis and 45 suburban
communities, with a population of over 1 million people. In that role,
I worked closely with our county child protection and adult protection
agencies, with our hospital, which was the biggest emergency hospital
in the State of Minnesota. So I saw firsthand what would happen if we
did not prevent people from getting in trouble, what would happen when
they would end up at the emergency room or when they would end up in
the jail because they were not getting the necessary mental health care
they needed. I know firsthand the vulnerability of these individuals,
young and old, and the responsibility of Government to

[[Page 2243]]

help them achieve as much independence, well-being, and dignity as
possible.
When Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005, it clarified
exactly what services are eligible for payment under the Targeted Case
Management Program. Senator Mikulski went through those important
services.
Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has
since come up with a rule that goes miles and miles beyond what
Congress intended. That rule is scheduled to be implemented next month.
This impending rule will have a devastating fiscal impact on States and
local communities. It will endanger the well-being of vulnerable people
who benefit the most from these crucial services.
Our States received over $2 billion in funding for targeted case
management in 2005. If this rule is put into effect, that funding will
be slashed in 2008.
I want to use one example; it is from a county in my State, Dakota
County. Now, this is not exactly a sort of wild-eyed county; it tends
to be a more conservative county in our State. But, like any other
county in our State, they have needs for case management services for
people who are mentally ill, seniors, young kids who need help. This
county has made a practice of developing a cost-effective, community-
based system of services that relies heavily on case management. Why
did they do it? Well, they did it to save money.
Medicaid funding has been key to developing service alternatives in
homes and in less expensive settings than in institutional settings.
This is the kind of innovative, cost-effective approach we want to
encourage from Government. Instead, with this sudden rule change, they
are being punished. Even worse, the vulnerable individuals they serve
are being punished.
I always believed this was a country where we wrapped our arms around
the people who need the help. That is what America is about. That is
what patriotism is about. But with this rule slash-and-burn of all
these services, they are not wrapping their arms around these people,
they are rejecting them for Dakota County, this suburban county in
Minnesota.
For States such as California, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, New
York, and North Dakota, pulling the plug on targeted case management
will disrupt the lives of those served by these cost-effective efforts.
Furthermore, in the end, it will just increase the total costs borne by
State, local and Federal governments, which means all of us as
taxpayers also pay more. It simply defies common sense.
Our amendment will postpone the Center for Medicaid and Medicare
Services' rulemaking by 1 year. We need a year to examine exactly how
badly this will hurt our States and local governments, especially the
children, the disabled, and the seniors who need these services most.
I occupy the Senate seat once held by Hubert Humphrey. Some of my
colleagues had the great privilege of serving in the Senate with him.
Hubert Humphrey was someone who, of course, was never at a loss for
words. Many of those words were memorable.
There is one statement in particular that I believe is very
appropriate for this topic. Senator Humphrey once said this:

The moral test of Government is how that Government treats
those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who
are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are
in the shadow of life, the needy, the sick, and the disabled.

I submit that this hasty, ill-considered action to cut essential
services for the most vulnerable people fails that moral test of
government. I believe we can and we must do better. That is why I
strongly support our bipartisan amendment, an amendment focused on
saving money in the long term by keeping people in settings that
actually save taxpayers money, by not slashing funds to the most
vulnerable in our society. That is why we support this amendment, and
we ask our colleagues to vote with us.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The second-degree DeMint amendment to the
Senator's amendment.

Amendment No. 3894 Withdrawn

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, if it is in order, I will withdraw my
underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is in order. The amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I now call up amendment 4023.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] for herself, Mr.
Coleman, and Ms. Klobuchar, proposes an amendment numbered
4023 to amendment No. 3899.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To temporarily delay application of proposed changes to
Medicaid payment rules for case management and targeted case management
services)

On page 397, after line 2, add the following:

SEC. 213. MORATORIUM ON IMPLEMENTATION OF CHANGES TO CASE
MANAGEMENT AND TARGETED CASE MANAGEMENT PAYMENT
REQUIREMENTS UNDER MEDICAID.

(a) Moratorium.--
(1) Delayed implementation of december 4, 2007, interim
final rule.--The interim final rule published on December 4,
2007, at pages 68,077 through 68,093 of volume 72 of the
Federal Register (relating to parts 431, 440, and 441 of
title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations) shall not take
effect before April 1, 2009.
(2) Continuation of 2007 payment policies and practices.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services shall not, prior to April 1, 2009,
take any action (through promulgation of regulation, issuance
of regulatory guidance, use of Federal payment audit
procedures, or other administrative action, policy or
practice, including a Medical Assistance Manual transmittal
or issuance of a letter to State Medicaid directors) to
restrict coverage or payment under title XIX of the Social
Security Act for case management and targeted case management
services if such action is more restrictive than the
administrative action, policy, or practice that applies to
coverage of, or payment for, such services under title XIX of
the Social Security Act on December 3, 2007. Any such action
taken by the Secretary of Health and Human Services during
the period that begins on December 4, 2007, and ends on March
31, 2009, that is based in whole or in part on the interim
final rule described in subsection (a) is null and void.
(b) Inclusion of Medicare Providers and Suppliers in
Federal Payment Levy and Administrative Offset Program.--
(1) In general.--Section 1874 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395kk) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) Inclusion of Medicare Provider and Supplier Payments
in Federal Payment Levy Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services shall take all necessary steps to participate in the
Federal Payment Levy Program under section 6331(h) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as soon as possible and shall
ensure that--
``(A) at least 50 percent of all payments under parts A and
B are processed through such program beginning within 1 year
after the date of the enactment of this section;
``(B) at least 75 percent of all payments under parts A and
B are processed through such program beginning within 2 years
after such date; and
``(C) all payments under parts A and B are processed
through such program beginning not later than September 30,
2011.
``(2) Assistance.--The Financial Management Service and the
Internal Revenue Service shall provide assistance to the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to ensure that all
payments described in paragraph (1) are included in the
Federal Payment Levy Program by the deadlines specified in
that subsection.''.
(2) Application of administrative offset provisions to
medicare provider or supplier payments.--Section 3716 of
title 31, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by inserting ``the Department of Health and Human
Services,'' after ``United States Postal Service,'' in
subsection (c)(1)(A); and
(B) by adding at the end of subsection (c)(3) the following
new subparagraph:

[[Page 2244]]

``(D) This section shall apply to payments made after the
date which is 90 days after the enactment of this
subparagraph (or such earlier date as designated by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services) with respect to
claims or debts, and to amounts payable, under title XVIII of
the Social Security Act.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I ask for a vote at an appropriate time.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there were ever a time and a piece of
legislation where we should try to help the people whom this
legislation is directed to help, it is this--Native Americans Indians.
But that is not the case. For reasons I do not comprehend, we are not
able to legislate on this most vital piece of legislation to an
underclass in America that we created--Native Americans.
There is--I knew it--a stall going on in regard to this legislation.
I understood the direction of the minority on FISA legislation. They
wanted to stall it at the last minute so that the House would have no
time to work on it. They accomplished that. But why on this? Why now,
when we can legislate to try to help a group of people who badly need
help? And the place they need help more than any other place is their
ability to be taken care of when they are sick and injured.
Look what has happened in the State of Nevada. We used to have
hospitals for Native Americans in Nevada. They are gone. They have been
taken away over the years. The health care for Native Americans in
Nevada is extremely limited. They are not served well.
We have an obligation--an obligation as a country--to help these
people. This is our opportunity, after years, to legislate in that
regard, and we are not going to do it. I am saddened to hear about
this. I am saddened that the Republican minority is even filibustering
Indians. What is this place coming to? Why are they doing this? There
is no reason we cannot legislate here, offer amendments dealing with
Native Americans. But that is where we are. I am very disappointed.
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. SANDERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. DORGAN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue the call of the roll.
The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
Mr. SANDERS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Indian
health care package being put together by Senator Dorgan. As Senator
Reid indicated, these are a group of people who have been the most
neglected in our country, and it is imperative we move rapidly to
address longstanding concerns.
I have an amendment pending to provide $800 million in emergency
funding for the LIHEAP program. The reason I am offering this amendment
is simple and obvious. At a time when home heating fuel is
skyrocketing, millions of senior citizens on fixed incomes, millions of
low-income families with kids, and persons with disabilities are
desperately trying to keep their homes warm this winter. Without this
additional source of immediate funding, there is a major risk that old
people and lower income people all over America will go cold. In the
richest country on the face of the Earth, we have a moral
responsibility not to allow that.
Over the past week, as everybody knows, in many parts of America,
temperatures have been going well below zero. In my State of Vermont,
in Lincoln, VT, was 21 below zero. In Nome, AK, the high temperature
was 15 below; Grand Forks, ND, 12 below zero; Eureka, SD, 3 below zero.
On and on all across the country, temperatures are getting cold. The
cost of home heating oil is outrageously high. LIHEAP funding is being
depleted. People are unable to afford to keep their homes warm. That,
in a nutshell, is what we are discussing.
The amendment I am offering has been endorsed by many organizations
and many Members of the Senate. Some of the endorsees include the
National Governors Association, the AARP, the National Conference of
State Legislatures, many others. Let me briefly excerpt from a letter I
received from the National Governors Association in support of the
amendment:

Additional funding distributed equitably under this
amendment will support critically needed heating and cooling
assistance to millions of our most vulnerable, including the
elderly, disabled, and families that often have to choose
between paying their heating or cooling bills and food,
medicine and other essential needs.

That is from the National Governors Association. The AARP also has
come out in support of the amendment, indicating that some of the most
significant victims of what happens when it becomes cold are senior
citizens who suffer from hypothermia. They are very much in support of
this amendment, and we thank them for their support.
This bipartisan amendment is also cosponsored by many of my
colleagues, including: Senators Clinton, Obama, Snowe, Collins, Leahy,
Sununu, Kennedy, Gordon Smith, Coleman, Kerry, Stabenow, Schumer,
Lautenberg, Lincoln, Klobuchar, Murray, Cantwell, Menendez, Durbin, and
Whitehouse. I thank them.
Yesterday, Senator Gregg offered a second-degree amendment to my
amendment. In my view, his amendment is a poison pill which, if passed,
would either kill or slow down all our efforts to increase emergency
funding for LIHEAP. The Gregg amendment would pay for the $800 million
increase in LIHEAP by cutting overall discretionary nondefense spending
by about .2 of 1 percent. I am opposed to the Gregg amendment for a
number of reasons. First, it is an extremely irresponsible way to do
budgeting. There are some agencies that need to be cut a lot more than
.2 of 1 percent. And there are, in fact, programs and agencies that
need significantly more funding. An across-the-board cut, regardless of
the needs of a program or agency, is irresponsible.
Secondly, Senator Gregg excludes from his cuts the department that
receives over half the discretionary funding, and that is the
Department of Defense. If Senator Gregg thinks all of the $500 billion-
plus that goes to the Department of Defense is well spent and well
accounted for, he is mistaken. You cannot exclude the largest recipient
of discretionary funding from examination.
In the real world, what would be the impact of the Gregg amendment if
it were to pass? I know that .2 of 1 percent may not seem like a lot of
money at first blush, but let's take a look at what this cut would
mean. It would mean a $54 million cut for veterans medical care, and
overall veterans funding would be reduced by $86 million. I don't think
any Member of the Senate supports that. While we are trying to fight
and come up with an understanding of various cancers, Alzheimer's
disease, Parkinson's disease, the National Institutes of Health would
be cut by over $58 million by the Gregg amendment. The Gregg amendment
would cut special education by $22 million. People are paying higher
and higher property taxes because this Congress, for many years, has
not kept the promise it made by adequately funding special education.
The Gregg amendment would cut funding for special ed by some $22
million. Head Start would be cut by $14 million. We are grossly

[[Page 2245]]

underfunding Head Start right now. We have a major early education
crisis from one end of America to the other. This would only make that
problem worse. The Gregg amendment would cut community health centers
by over $4 million at a time when 47 million Americans have no health
insurance, creating a process by which even fewer Americans can access
primary health care. Homeland security would receive a cut of $70
million. Education would be cut by over $100 million.
I certainly share Senator Gregg's concerns about the national debt. I
look forward to working with him and other members of the Budget
Committee to discuss how we should reduce our $9.2 trillion national
debt, which increased by $3 trillion under President Bush. It is a real
issue, one we have to get a handle on. But maybe we will discuss in the
Budget Committee the absurdity of trying to eliminate the estate tax
which would add $1 trillion to our national debt over 20 years by
giving tax breaks exclusively to the wealthiest .3 of 1 percent.
We are debating whether we should help senior citizens who are going
cold this winter. But there are many, including the President, who say:
No problem, a trillion dollars in tax relief for the wealthiest .3 of 1
percent.
We should be discussing why we are providing other tax breaks to some
of the wealthiest people in this country. Perhaps we can discuss the
appropriateness of spending $12 billion a month on the war in Iraq,
with most of that sum being budgeted as emergency spending. It is not
an emergency. We know what is going on. Yet we are not prepared to pay
for the war. We are leaving that cost to our kids and grandchildren.
That is emergency spending. We can pass that $12 billion a month. Yet
there are those who balk at spending $800 million on a real emergency,
and that is keeping senior citizens and families all over America warm
this winter.
Providing a mere $800 million for LIHEAP would primarily benefit
senior citizens, families with children, and people with disabilities
earning between $10 and $15,000 a year. At a time when gasoline and
home heating oil prices in the State of Vermont and throughout the
country are well above $3 a gallon, we should not be forcing seniors
and others to make a choice about whether they are going to buy the
medicine or food they need--hunger is increasing--or keep warm this
winter.
There is no great secret that the American people are increasingly
disenchanted with what is going on in Washington, whether in the White
House or in Congress. They wonder what planet we are living on. They
are struggling, millions, every single day to keep their heads above
water to pay for the food they need, to fill up their gas tanks in
order to go to work, to keep warm in the winter. They wonder why we are
not responding to their needs. We have people here talking about more
tax breaks for billionaires, when workers are losing their jobs.
Passing the Sanders amendment certainly is not going to solve all
those problems.
But maybe at a time when people are going cold and others know that
people are going cold, maybe--maybe--it will make the American people
understand some of us are aware of the reality of American life as it
exists in cities and towns all across this country, that maybe we know
what is going on, and we are prepared to respond in a proper way.
Madam President, having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate now resume the Gregg amendment No. 4022 and that it be modified
to be a first-degree amendments and that the Senate then debate
concurrently amendments No. 3900 and No. 4022, as modified, with 40
minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to each amendment, with
the time equally divided and controlled between Senator Sanders and
Senator Gregg or their designees; that each amendment be subject to a
60-affirmative vote threshold, and that if the amendment does not
achieve that threshold, it be withdrawn; that if either amendment
achieves 60 affirmative votes, then the amendment be agreed to and the
motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the vote in relation
to the Gregg amendment No. 4022, as modified, occur first in the
sequence and that there be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior
to each vote; provided further that no intervening amendment be in
order to either amendment; that upon the use or yielding back of time,
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Gregg amendment, to be
followed by a vote in relation to the Sanders amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I
will object--I am certainly a supporter of LIHEAP, but I object at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I am kind of new to the Senate, but I
would ask my friend from Alaska or my friend from New Hampshire: Why?
Why the objection? If we are sympathetic to LIHEAP----
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the Senator from Vermont, it is not in
order to propound questions to other Senators who do not have the
floor.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I wonder why it would be that when we
face a dire crisis all across this country, we cannot move forward
vigorously in providing relief to seniors and low-income people who
need this help. I would love to have a response to that, Madam
President.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, is the Senator yielding the floor?
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I yield to my friend from New
Hampshire.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, obviously, I have an amendment which is
caught up in this effort. I would hope we could vote on it. I think it
is the right approach that we fund LIHEAP but that we also pay for that
funding so we do not pass the bill for LIHEAP on to our children, so we
do not put ourselves in a position where we are paying today's energy
bills with our children's dollars 10 years from now, plus interest.
But I understand, having heard the majority leader come to the floor
earlier and say he did not want this bill filibustered or slowed down,
that this is sort of part of an exercise by the leaders of this bill on
this bill--because this is the Indian health bill--to try to, I guess,
clear the table so amendments which are not directly relevant to Indian
health do not end up slowing down this bill.
I do not think this decision can be laid at the feet of either party.
It appears it is a joint decision by the leadership of the committee of
jurisdiction on Indian health. That is why this proposal, which Senator
Sanders has laid out, which I am perfectly amenable to--and I would
actually support the unanimous consent request that he propounded. It
has been objected to.
I understand an amendment from our side dealing with the fact that
the city of Berkeley has said the Marines there are unwelcome and has
offered protesters a free parking site in front of the Marine
recruiting headquarters, with a megaphone to yell at the marines--men
and woman who have served us in war in Iraq--that proposal, which would
have basically laid out the objection of the Senate to that despicable
act by the city council in Berkeley relative to the treatment of our
marines, is also not going to probably be offered because there is an
attempt to move this bill forward.
I guess I appreciate the fact that the Indian health bill is a good--
I don't know if it is a good bill; I don't know enough about it, but it
appears to be supported by both sides here, and they want to move it
forward. It is unfortunate the LIHEAP issue, which I think should be
addressed in the context I am proposing, which is that it be paid for,
will not be able to be addressed at this time. But I understand the
situation, and I understand why it has happened. But I do not think it
can be laid at the feet of either party.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reclaiming my time, to the best of my

[[Page 2246]]

knowledge, I heard the objection coming from the Republican side, not
the Democratic side.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if I may seek the floor, I think it is
pretty obvious what is happening. I want the Record to show that prior
to the objection being made--it is not my fight--but as a practical
matter, the majority leader came to the floor and castigated the fact
that the bill was being slowed down by amendments, one of which would
be the LIHEAP amendment.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, reclaiming my time, it is absolutely
not my intention, as I indicated to Senator Dorgan, to slow this down.
This is important legislation we want to pass. I would limit my time to
20 minutes, to 10 minutes. I think most people here know what the issue
is. I would like an up-or-down vote, and let's move on to Indian
health.
Mr. GREGG. Madam President, if the Senator is going to allow the bill
to be open to LIHEAP, then I presume it should be open to all
extraneous amendments. I suspect the amendment of the Senator from
South Carolina relative to the city of Berkeley is an extraneous
amendment but one that is worth debating and should be discussed.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, will the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. SANDERS. Yes, I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont yields to the Senator
from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, if I could further explain, first of all, I
appreciate that the Senator from Vermont has offered an amendment that
is very important to his State. It is not germane to the Indian health
bill. I also understand how both Senators from New Hampshire are
supportive of the LIHEAP approach. Whether it is paid for or not paid
for is another question. But the point is, that amendment is not
germane to the Indian health bill, and if there is a vote on the LIHEAP
amendment, the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, there will be
requests, I know, from this side of the aisle and perhaps other
requests to consider other nongermane amendments to the bill.
I think what the majority leader was saying is something that I
subscribe to on this side, which is that the Indian health bill is an
important bill to get done. If we begin consideration of a lot of
extraneous or nongermane amendments to the Indian health bill, it may
well jeopardize our ability to conclude work on the Indian health bill.
That is the only reason for the objection, and I hope the Senator can
appreciate that.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I would ask my
friend from Arizona--and I understand that. We want to move to the
Indian health bill. There is a real solution to that in the real world
if we are serious; that is, limiting the amount of time and reaching a
unanimous consent agreement about a few amendments that might be
offered so we can vote on them and move on to Indian health.
Would the Senator from Arizona be prepared to do that?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I would be happy to respond to the Senator
from Vermont but in this way: There are people on my side of the aisle
who have already attempted to propound nongermane amendments that they
would like to have a time agreement on as well. I suspect that before
we begin to get into that kind of a negotiation, the leaders will want
to consider what that is going to be doing to the time schedule for the
bill, and the managers of bill are going to want to do the same because
we would like to try to conclude the bill as soon as we can; and that
will open up a process that could delay matters.
Mr. SANDERS. Reclaiming my time, Madam President, I think, again, we
want to move and pass, I hope, the Indian health bill. But I think if
we are honest--obviously, if people want to bring up 30 amendments,
that would kill the Indian health bill, but if that is not the desire,
if there are very few amendments and leadership can agree on a time
limit on them, we can move forward on some serious amendments, have
votes, and pass--at least vote on--the Indian health bill.
Again, I ask my friend from Arizona if that is something he would
entertain. It does mean that not everybody can offer every amendment
they want. There would have to be a limitation and a time limitation.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I will respond again to the Senator from
Vermont: There are nongermane amendments--at least one of which has
already been brought up--that I doubt the leaders and certainly the
managers of the bill would like to see embroiled into the Indian health
care debate. Once the process begins, it is hard to control it. So it
is not as simple as asking, would I be agreeable to a time agreement on
perhaps the amendment of the Senator from Vermont and the amendment of
the Senator from South Carolina--because that would undoubtedly get
brought into this. But there may be others as well.
So it is not a question we can answer when one cannot see where the
end of it might be. I think that is the concern we have with beginning
this kind of process. But I suggest that the Senator from Vermont
continue to consult with his leader, with the managers of the bill, and
see if we can move the process forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, it is more than a little frustrating. We
have been here for 3 hours this morning. We have amendments on this
bill dealing with Indian health care. We have nongermane amendments
that have been offered: Medicare, LIHEAP, earmarks for Berkeley,
abortion.
This is a very serious issue. We have people dying in this country
with respect to this health care question about American Indians. I
spoke earlier this morning that the U.S. Government has a
responsibility for health care for Indians. If you ask the question:
Why? Because we signed up for it. We signed the treaties. We said: We
promise, and we have a trust responsibility for it.
So we spend twice as much money to provide health care to Federal
prisoners as we do for American Indians. We are not meeting the needs.
We have people dying. So it takes 10 years to get a bill to the floor
of the Senate--10 years to get a bill to the floor--to try to improve
health care for Indians, and we get here, and we have unending
appetites for amendments that have nothing to do with Indian health.
Look, I support low-income energy assistance. I support that. I
support a lot of these issues. Many of them have nothing to do with
Indian health. We are just trying to get a bill passed here.
Let me describe something I heard about a month ago to describe the
urgency. I was at the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota.
It straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border. The husband of
Harriet Archambault came to a meeting I had--a listening session on
Indian health care--and he described his wife Harriet and her battle to
try to deal with this health care dilemma. They lived nearly 20 miles
from a clinic in South Dakota. It was an Indian health care clinic. She
would get up in the morning and drive 18 miles to the clinic because
that clinic can take only 10 people in the morning and 10 people in the
afternoon. So five times, she got up in the morning to drive to that
clinic. All five times she got there, there were 10 people ahead of
her.
Her medicine ran out on October 25, 2007, her husband said. Five
times for the next month, she got up and drove to that clinic. She
could not stay there, because she was also a day care provider for her
grandchildren. So this woman went, tried to sign up, but there were 10
people ahead of her--that is all they would take--and she had to go
home.
Five times she did that in a month. A month later, she died. Her
medicine ran out October 25. She died November 25. She had called her
sister about 3 weeks before, and she said: ``What do I have to do here
to get the medicine I need? Die?'' Well, she did die because she could
not get service in this Indian health system.

[[Page 2247]]

The fact is, people are dying. All we are asking is that we maybe
have somebody come over and offer an amendment on Indian health care
and start a debate on these amendments. If we have people who have
these amendments, come over and offer them. We have some that are
filed. Let's have some votes and try to get through this piece of
legislation.
This is the third day we are on the floor of the Senate with this
bill. I said earlier, it has taken 10 years to get here. Every single
year we have worked on this. Senator McCain, who was chairman of the
Indian Affairs Committee, worked on it with me--Senator Murkowski. We
work on it and never get it to the floor. We finally get it to the
floor of the Senate, and this is like a root canal, except a root canal
hurts less, because at least you are accomplishing something.
Here we come to the floor of the Senate, and we cannot get amendments
up. We cannot get amendments voted on. So my hope would be we can find
a way to move through this legislation.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I am happy to yield for a question.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I thank my friend from North Dakota.

Amendment No. 3900 Withdrawn

Madam President, I ask for the regular order with respect to the
Sanders amendment No. 3900.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from North Dakota yield for
that purpose?
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I yield for that purpose. I believe I
understand what the Senator from Vermont is doing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is now pending.
Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, given the objection, I withdraw my
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me say to the Senator from Vermont,
I understand his passion. He knows I have a lot of passion about this
bill, and I have expressed it this morning. I understand his passion
about LIHEAP. Somebody from Vermont does not have to tell somebody from
North Dakota about cold weather. I know about cold weather and my
constituents do. LIHEAP is unbelievably important, and we need to find
a way to get the money out for LIHEAP. I understand that. I am very
sorry he was unable to get the yeas and nays and so on. But he also
understands you have to try to offer amendments where you can to
authorization bills. I understand that. He is a supporter of this bill,
the underlying Indian health care bill we need to get done. It is also
the case, I am sure, that the Senator from Alaska knows a little about
cold weather. I have been to Alaska. So my hope is that working
together in this Chamber we will fund the LIHEAP program, because it is
very important. That also can be life or death for people, so my hope
is we can get that done.
But having said all of that, again let me say we have a managers'
package that perfects--after having negotiated now for several weeks on
about five or six very controversial issues, we have negotiated in a
way that we have reached a compromise on all of them, satisfactory to
all of the parties. We now have that in a managers' package which we
intend to offer next. It has not yet cleared. It has been a couple of
hours since we have been able to clear that. My hope is that in the
next 30 minutes or so we can clear that so at least we can get the
managers' package done.
I believe Senator Coburn will be here. He has some amendments filed.
I hope he will be here to call up amendments which I believe he will do
reasonably soon, and I think Senator Tester wishes to speak on the bill
generally.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Amendment No. 3906 to Amendment No. 3899

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside
the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 3906. This is the
amendment of Senator Martinez of Florida. I ask that it be made the
pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. Martinez,
proposes an amendment numbered 3906.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To amend titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide increased civil and criminal penalties for acts involving fraud
and abuse under the Medicare program and to increase the amount of the
surety bond required for suppliers of durable medical equipment)

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. ___. INCREASED CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES AND CRIMINAL FINES
FOR MEDICARE FRAUD AND ABUSE.

(a) Increased Civil Money Penalties.--Section 1128A of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the flush matter following
paragraph (7)--
(A) by striking ``$10,000'' each place it appears and
inserting ``$20,000'';
(B) by striking ``$15,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''; and
(C) by striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting
``$4,000'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting
``$4,000''; and
(C) in paragraph (3)(A)(i), by striking ``$5,000'' and
inserting ``$10,000''.
(b) Increased Criminal Fines.--Section 1128B of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), in the flush matter following
paragraph (6)--
(A) by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting ``$100,000''; and
(B) by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$20,000'';
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), in the flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting
``$100,000''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), in the flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting
``$100,000'';
(3) in subsection (c), by striking ``$25,000'' and
inserting ``$100,000'';
(4) in subsection (d), in the second flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``$25,000'' and inserting
``$100,000''; and
(5) in subsection (e), by striking ``$2,000'' and inserting
``$4,000''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to civil money penalties and fines imposed for
actions taken on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. ____. INCREASED SENTENCES FOR FELONIES INVOLVING
MEDICARE FRAUD AND ABUSE.

(a) False Statements and Representations.--Section 1128B(a)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(a)) is
amended, in clause (i) of the flush matter following
paragraph (6), by striking ``not more than 5 years'' and
inserting ``not more than 10 years''.
(b) Anti-Kickback.--Section 1128B(b) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), in the flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``not more than 5 years'' and
inserting ``not more than 10 years''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), in the flush matter following
subparagraph (B), by striking ``not more than 5 years'' and
inserting ``not more than 10 years''.
(c) False Statement or Representation With Respect to
Conditions or Operations of Facilities.--Section 1128B(c) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(c)) is amended by
striking ``not more than 5 years'' and inserting ``not more
than 10 years''.
(d) Excess Charges.--Section 1128B(d) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(d)) is amended, in the
second flush matter following subparagraph (B), by striking
``not more than 5 years'' and inserting ``not more than 10
years''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to criminal penalties imposed for actions taken
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. ___. INCREASED SURETY BOND REQUIREMENT FOR SUPPLIERS OF
DME.

(a) In General.--Section 1834(a)(16)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(a)(16)(B)) is amended by
striking ``$50,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to the issuance (or renewal) of a provider number
for a supplier of durable medical equipment on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.

[[Page 2248]]

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we understand that Senator Martinez
will come to the floor to speak to this amendment that relates to civil
and criminal penalties for Medicare fraud, but I did want to get that
rolling.
I understand Senator Tester has some comments he wishes to make at
this time regarding the Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I thank the ranking member of the
committee.
Today I rise in strong support of the Indian health care program. The
reason this bill is on the floor right now is due to the hard work of
our chairman and ranking member which has been exhibited here in the
last few minutes. They know how important this bill is. I express my
appreciation to Senator Dorgan and Senator Murkowski for all of their
hard work.
Since arriving in Washington a little more than a year ago, I have
been meeting with leaders throughout Indian country, and one aspect is
clear: The challenges that face Indian country are large. I tell tribal
leaders that despite all of the good intentions, there is no way
Congress can solve all of their problems this year.
As I began my tenure on the Indian Affairs Committee, I asked my
friends in Indian country to share with me their top priorities. I have
met with representatives and leaders from each of the seven
reservations in Montana multiple times, and every time they point out
to me that the most important issue is health care or the lack of it.
Why is it such a priority? Let's consider a few examples.
Now 5 years old, a small girl from the Crow tribe was diagnosed with
a rare form of cancer in her eye. The condition required that her right
eye be surgically removed. When doctors originally removed it in
October of 2001, they fitted her with a prosthetic eye with the
understanding that every few years, she would need a new prosthesis as
she grew. Because doctors had already taken her eye, and because the
wrong size prosthetic eye wouldn't immediately threaten her life when
she needed a new eye, her case failed to meet medical priority criteria
for contract Indian Health Services, which is life or limb. Her family
was left with two options: She goes without the new prosthesis, leading
to permanent disfigurement or raise $3,000, which is not an easy task
for a struggling family on Montana's economically depressed
reservations.
Here is another example of the critical needs of the Indian health
care system. A 35-year-old Montana woman was diagnosed with a heart
condition that led to dramatic heart failure. Her heart lost its
ability to pump blood adequately and she could hardly move without
becoming short of breath. She needed a new heart. She was referred to
the Mayo Clinic where she received special cardiology care and was put
on a list for a heart transplant. Thanks to close monitoring and the
use of many medications and a permanent pacemaker, her condition
stabilized and her ability to function improved a bit. However, due to
lack of funding in the Indian Health Service, her ongoing visits with
the cardiologist, not to mention the heart transplant, were no longer
covered. Without this followup, her prospects for survival are grim.
I could go on and on. There are thousands of examples of how the
Indian health care system has failed.
After I asked tribal folks about their priorities, I asked what we
can do in the Senate to improve Indian health care. The response is
unanimous and overwhelming. They tell me to start with the
reauthorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, and do it
now.
This reauthorization is long overdue. The last comprehensive
authorization of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act was 16 years
ago, in 1992. The disparity in the quality of health care provided to
Native Americans is real, and it is disturbing. The Indian Health
Service, or IHS, reports that members of the 560 federally recognized
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and their descendants are
eligible for IHS services. This agency, within the Department of Health
and Human Services, is supposed to provide comprehensive health care
for approximately 1.8 million of the Nation's estimated 3.3 million
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Its annual appropriation is $3
billion--$3 billion. Keep that number in mind as we consider the facts:
Approximately 55 percent of American Indians and Alaska Natives
living in the United States rely on IHS to provide access to health
services in 49 hospitals and nearly 600 other facilities. American
Indians and Alaska Natives die at higher rates from a myriad of things
more than regular Americans do: tuberculosis, 600 percent higher;
diabetes, nearly 200 percent higher; and the list goes on and on and
on.
American Indians and Alaska Natives born today have a life expectancy
that is lower than all other races in the United States. This lower
life expectancy is due, in part, to the disproportionate disease burden
that exists in Indian country.
It is suggested that the IHS-appropriated funding provides 55 percent
of the necessary Federal funding to assure mainstream personal health
care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. Let me repeat
that: IHS provides only 55 percent of the funding necessary to meet the
health care needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives in that IHS
system. So now you can see why passing this bill is so critically
important to improving health care in Indian country.
This legislation will help the Indian Health Service facilities
become up to date. It will create programs to address behavioral and
mental health issues that have been severely neglected. It will begin
to address the disturbing disparities between the health status of
American Indians and the general U.S. population. This legislation
authorizes appropriations necessary to increase the availability of
health care, develop new approaches to health care delivery, improve
the flexibility of the Indian health care service, and promote the
sovereignty of American Indian tribes.
Now we must start funding Indian health care at levels authorized in
this bill. Don't think that failing to adequately fund Indian health
care is a budget savings. Without proper funding of this program, the
cost will shift to our emergency rooms and our already overburdened
hospitals. Make no mistake about it, we will all pay for the health
care of our citizens, but we will pay a premium if we choose not to do
the right thing today and fully fund this program.
There is another reason why we need to pass this bill. The Federal
Government has a trust responsibility to Native American Indians, a
legally binding trust responsibility. As many in this body know, this
bill has made it to the Senate floor in previous years and failed. The
managers of this bill this year have addressed a few remaining concerns
and we have another chance to pass it today. The bill before us is not
perfect, but it represents a good compromise bill. At the end of the
day, this legislation represents an historic opportunity to make an
incredible difference in the lives of Americans who need it most.
This problem will not go away without our action. The longer we wait,
the worse the problem becomes. The longer we wait, the more expensive
the problem becomes. By passing this important bill, we take a critical
step toward improving Indian health care and thus fulfilling our trust
responsibility to American Indians.
I hope this bill passes and passes quickly today. I hope it doesn't
get bogged down in amendments that are important but have no connection
to Indian health care. I ask my comrades here in the Senate to vote yes
for this critical legislation.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 2249]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3906, As Modified

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to send to
the desk a modification to Martinez amendment No. 3906. With this
modification, the surety bond amount is reduced to better effectuate
the intent of the act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end of title II, add the following:

SEC. __. INCREASED CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES AND CRIMINAL FINES
FOR MEDICARE FRAUD AND ABUSE.

SEC. __. INCREASED SENTENCES FOR FELONIES INVOLVING MEDICARE
FRAUD AND ABUSE.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I come to the floor to express grave
concern at reports that I hear out of the House of Representatives that
they intend to adjourn and basically go on vacation for the next week
or so without taking action on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act reauthorization. That, of course, is the legislation we passed out
of the Senate that provides the eyes and the ears for the intelligence
community in the United States to detect and to deter future terrorist
attacks against the United States.
To me, it is unthinkable that the House of Representatives would
adjourn and be so irresponsible as to leave this unfinished business
undone and to leave America unprotected against future terrorist
attacks. I know there is an argument that existing surveillance could
be continued for up to a year. But what we are talking about is new
contacts, new information that the intelligence community gets that
would be impeded, impaired, and blocked by the failure of the House of
Representatives to act on this critical piece of legislation that will
expire on February 15 unless they act today or tomorrow. So it is the
height of irresponsibility. I find myself questioning whether it could
possibly be true that would happen.
Also, one important part of the Senate legislation was to provide
protection for the telecommunications carriers that may have cooperated
with the U.S. Government shortly after September 11, 2001, in providing
the means to listen in to al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists who
were plotting and planning attacks against the United States and its
citizens.
I think it is a terrible message from the House of Representatives,
if they are not going to act in a way that provides protection for
those citizens, whether they be individual citizens or corporate
citizens, who are asked by their country to come to the aid of the
American people and provide the means to protect them from terrorist
attacks. What kind of message does that send, that we are going to
basically leave them out twisting slowly in the wind and being left to
the litigation--some 40 different lawsuits that have been filed against
the telecommunications industry that may have cooperated with the
Federal Government in protecting the American people. This is on a
request at the highest levels, from the Commander in Chief, and upon a
certification by the chief law enforcement officer of the United
States, the Attorney General.
What they were being asked to do was entirely appropriate and within
the bounds of the law. But then, when the litigation ensues, to
basically leave them hanging out to dry would be wrong. The Senate
wisely addressed that issue. But if the House adjourns without passing
the Senate version of the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, which includes protection for the telecommunications
industry that may have participated in this lawful exercise of our
powers to protect our country, it would again be the height of
irresponsibility and send the message that next time a citizen, whether
it is a corporate or individual citizen, is asked to come to the aid of
their country, you better think twice and consult your lawyers because
you are going to get sued and the Congress is not going to take
appropriate measures to make sure those who helped protect the safety
and security of the American public are protected.
Finally, I don't have the information in front of me right now, but
there are substantial news reports that indicate that a group of trial
lawyers who stand to make considerable amounts of money in terms of
legal fees off this litigation are substantial contributors to Members
of Congress. I hope the evidence does not develop that there are
decisions being made in the House of Representatives on the basis of
the interests of special interest groups such as trial lawyers who
stand to gain financially from continuing this litigation that should
be brought to an end here and now.
I am here primarily to voice my grave concern that while the Senate
has acted responsibly--I know not everybody is happy with the outcome--
to address this issue, if the House of Representatives leaves town and
leaves

[[Page 2250]]

this matter undone, the security of the American people is in peril,
and it would be a tragedy indeed if something were to happen as a
result of our intelligence community being blind or deaf to the dangers
that do work both within our shores and beyond.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me say, I don't think anybody in the
Congress, the Senate, or the House wishes our intelligence community to
be blind or deaf. Obviously, we have a process in this country with the
FISA Court that allows emergency actions. The opportunity to be able to
engage in surveillance and the appropriate surveillance to make sure we
are listening to terrorists and all of those things are available.
There is a debate about how wide should the drift net be, that the
administration might want to gather almost every communication
everywhere in the world and data mine to find out who is saying what.
That is an important conversation because it deals with the basic
rights in our Constitution. I think there is no one in this Chamber or
in the other who believes we want our intelligence community to be
blind or deaf and to not have the opportunity to do the kind of
surveillance necessary to protect our country. That is very important
to state.
Madam President, we are not in morning business, although we are
doing some morning business. We are on the piece of legislation that we
reported out of the Indian Affairs Committee, dealing with Indian
health care improvement. I have always been enormously proud to serve
in this body. I am privileged and proud to serve. I have occasionally
told friends that the Senate is 100 bad habits--that includes myself,
of course. We are not doing anything at the moment, I understand,
because one Senator is downtown someplace, giving speeches, and the
instruction is that nothing is to be done while that Senator is gone.
Good for that Senator, but I don't think this place ought to come to a
stop because somebody decides they are going to be gone for 2 or 3
hours, so they want others to object to everything on their behalf.
That is, in my judgment, discourteous, and my hope is that the Senate
could do a little business today on something that is urgent. That is
not too much to ask for the Senate to perhaps consider legislation that
is before it. We are now on the third day of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, a very urgent and serious matter. This is the third
day. We have been here for over 3 hours today, and we have had
amendments on all kinds of issues, except issues that deal with this
legislation.
Even just attempting to offer the managers' package, which has been
negotiated over the last month or so, in which we successfully
negotiated on about five or six very controversial issues--we
negotiated an agreement between the sides, and even being able to offer
that at this point is denied because someone who is not even on the
Hill told their staff to tell others that the leadership cannot allow
this. It is unbelievable to me.
One might expect, perhaps, that today we can make progress on this
legislation. Everybody puts on a blue suit and shined shoes and comes
to work, and one might expect we can get something done for a change.
We will have additional morning business, and we will see if those who
have left the Hill and want the entire world to stop and wait for their
whims will show up at some point and maybe we can consider some
amendments. I hope that will be the case.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate up to 10 minutes in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Rural Report Card

Mr. BROWN. This past week, President Bush submitted to Congress his
last budget for the Federal Government. It is a revealing document that
pretty clearly demonstrates the priorities of this administration. It
used to be that budgets were designed to rein in the Federal deficit.
Under this administration, budget after budget has been submitted that
would, if enacted, widen the deficit.
We know 7 years ago, when President Bush took the oath of office in
January 2001, we had a huge Federal surplus. Today, we have a huge
Federal deficit that will be a burden on the backs of our children and
grandchildren.
While funding for programs to help middle-class families hard hit by
stagnant wages would be slashed by the President's budget, he gives
enormous tax cuts to people who don't need them--and generally didn't
ask for them--the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. They simply
don't need a tax cut.
In 2009, the President will give tax cuts of $51 billion to those
people making over $1 million a year--again, that is $51 billion for
those making over $1 million a year. Yet he is cutting $15 billion from
many of the programs that I am going to mention.
Perhaps most disconcerting are the President's cuts in Federal
programs that serve rural America. The President has failing grades on
his budget and what it does. He gets an F in health care, an F in
education, an F in law enforcement, and an F in economic development.
With faltering infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, disappearing
jobs, underfunded schools, and spotty access to health care, rural
areas in Ohio, southeast Ohio--and northwest Ohio especially--and
across our Nation, these areas are fighting an uphill battle without
anywhere near the Federal support they used to get or that they need
now.
More than one-half of Ohio's counties are rural as defined by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Of the top 10 counties in Ohio--and
there are 88 counties--with the highest unemployment, every 1 of them
is rural. Of the top 10 counties in Ohio with the highest proportion
below the poverty line, 9 out of 10 are rural. Of the top 10 counties
in Ohio with the highest percentage of residents eligible for Medicaid,
9 are rural.
Seven rural Ohio counties make all three of these lists: Vinton Pike,
Scioto, Adams, Meigs, Jackson, and Morgan--all counties in southeast
Ohio. Citizens of this counties need our help, and they need it today.
Yesterday, I spoke with about two dozen officials and activists in
those counties in southern Ohio--people from the chamber of commerce,
the county commissioners, the mayors, health department directors,
community development people--and the stories they told about the
President's failure on health care, education, law enforcement, and
economic development will be devastating and are devastating for
southeast Ohio.
Despite the alarming statistics and the crucial role rural America
plays in our Nation's self-sufficiency and in our cohesiveness and
culture, the President chose to slash funding for rural economic
programs, slash funding in rural health care, in rural law enforcement,
in rural education--all so that he could give a tax cut of $51 billion
in 2009 to people making over $1 million a year and look what happens
to health care, education, law enforcement, and economics development.
While communities in rural Ohio struggle to keep jobs, President Bush
proposes to wipe away established rural development programs that these
people with whom I talked yesterday--Republicans and Democrats alike,
conservatives and liberals alike, public health people, chamber of
commerce people, mayors, commissioners, community development people--
these programs matter to their well-being, to the economic vitality of
these rural areas. These housing programs, for instance, support the
construction, purchase, and rehabilitation of single-family homes,
giving struggling rural Ohioans a chance to own their own homes. With
all the problems we have with foreclosures, they are not just urban
problems, suburban problems, or rural problems; they are every year.
But the President takes special attention to wiping out rural programs
that can make a big difference in people's lives.

[[Page 2251]]

These programs encourage rural business expansion, job creation, and
grants to extend broadband access across Ohio.
These are critical programs that provide water and sewer
infrastructure. The EPA comes in and says to these communities: You
need major renovation--major replacement in some cases--of a lot of
these water and sewer systems, and then they simply do not help them do
that. It means higher sewer and water rates for unemployed people and
higher sewer and water rates for people struggling, middle-class
families who are proud and struggling to stay above water.
In places such as Vinton County in southeast Ohio, a third of the
people are on Medicaid. Medicaid is not a luxury; it is a crucial
support system for children, the disabled, and the elderly living in
poverty. Medicaid covers about one in every three nursing home
residents. What is to be become of seniors under the President's
Medicaid cuts? Medicaid cuts: F in health care. What is to become of
the seniors without this successful insurance program? The President's
budget cuts $18.2 billion from Medicaid over 5 years. These cuts touted
by the administration as ``savings'' will be primarily achieved by
shifting costs to States, regardless of whether States can actually
shoulder these costs. Again, these $18 billion cuts to Medicaid are to
pay for a tax cut for people making over $1 million a year.
The Bush budget slashes other programs designed to help rural
communities address unique health care challenges. People who have to
go to the emergency room have to drive 30 minutes, 45 minutes. A lot of
people go to emergency rooms in southeast Ohio because they cannot
afford any other care, and they go in hoping to get charity care. These
are not people who are lazy. These are not people without a decent work
ethic. These are people who work hard, have jobs, are barely making it,
they go to food banks, in too many cases, they are on Medicaid, and
they have to rely on the Government because they are struggling,
working hard, working a couple of jobs, and simply cannot make it.
Rural Ohio is experiencing unprecedented challenges in law
enforcement as meth labs multiply and threaten families and
communities. Yet, since 2001, President Bush has cut funding for State
and local law enforcement programs by over 50 percent. Law enforcement:
The President gets an F in rural Ohio for his budget. This year's
budget would slash funding 63 percent for all State and local law
enforcement programs in the Department of Justice. That is $1.6
billion, again, so the President can give tax cuts to people making
over $1 million a year.
The budget also eliminates funding for the COPS Program. Talk to
people in Windham, Athens, Gallipolis, Chillicothe or Blair,
communities that need the COPS Program to keep these communities safe.
It is a program that has worked for 10 years. So the President wants to
eliminate it so he can give tax breaks to people making over $1
million.
I sound like a broken record, but it is morally outrageous to do tax
cuts for people making over $1 million a year and then earn an F on
health care, F on education, F on law enforcement, and F on economic
development for these struggling communities, the same kind of rural
areas in the Preside Officer's State of Missouri, rural areas where I
know she has spent a lot of time, rural areas where I have spent a lot
of time, where people are struggling, trying to stay in the middle
class, trying to support their kids, and trying to just get along.
The President's proposal shortchanges overall education funding by
$826 million. This budget would cut or eliminate programs to support
educational opportunities for rural Ohio families, particularly
programs such as career and technical education, for elementary school
counseling, for Safe and Drug-Free Schools--the kinds of jobs many of
these people, young people in southeast Ohio, want to get--career
education, tech education, elementary school education. They want to
teach, they want to be nurses, they want to be occupational therapists,
they want to be physical therapists. They want to work in their
communities. They don't want to go off to big cities and leave home.
They want to raise their children where their parents are so their
parents can see their grandchildren. And they need jobs in Chillicothe,
in Zanesville, in Cambridge, and all over southern Ohio.
Our Nation's future depends on our actions now. We can either address
barriers to our children's success in education, we can address the
issues of law enforcement, we can address the needs of health care, or
we can abdicate responsibility and watch our rural areas continue to
decline. If our rural areas decline--and we know the strength of our
rural areas in building our country in the last 200 years--if they
decline in Missouri, Ohio, and around this country, it means our
country declines, and we cannot stand for that.
As my State's first Senator to serve on the Agriculture Committee in
four decades and a member of the HELP Committee, which has jurisdiction
over health and education programs, I will continue to fight to ensure
that our Nation invests in rural America. It is the smart thing to do
for our future. It is the right thing to do for our families.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as
in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Ms. Klobuchar pertaining to the submission of S. 2642
are located in today's Record under ``Submission of Concurrent and
Senate Resolutions.'')
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Senator Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S.
2641 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. DORGAN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. I know my colleague, Senator Coburn, is here. He is going
to offer an amendment. I should tell you how pleased I am. Senator
Coburn indicated he would be here around 2 o'clock. He was good enough
to come this morning at 9:30 and engage in discussion on this bill.
But we have discussion about virtually everything about the bill on
the floor of the Senate, Indian health care. The fact is we have had
all kinds of amendments that have nothing to do with the bill. I hope
we can finally get this moving.
I had spoken this morning of some people whose experience with the
Indian health care system and the lack of health care for American
Indians has been devastating. Some people died as a result of not
having access to adequate care that we would take for granted in our
country.
Let me mention my colleague from Oklahoma is on the floor and is
going to discuss one of his amendments. You know, we have a trust
responsibility. We have a responsibility to keep a promise we have made
in treaty after treaty for Indian health care. I do not think there is
a disagreement on the floor of the Senate about that.

[[Page 2252]]

There is no disagreement that we have a responsibility, that
responsibility is in writing in all kinds of treaties. So we have made
the promise; we have not kept the promise.
Let me make one final point. There is no group of Americans who have
served this country in greater percentage of their population than
American Indians. You take a look at the percentage of veterans who
have served this country in wars and during peacetime, no population
has had a greater percentage of people who have gone to serve America
than American Indians.
I told my colleagues once previously about a Sunday morning in Fargo,
ND, at the veterans health care facility, veterans hospital, where a
veteran named Edmond Young Eagle was dying of lung cancer. I did not
know it that day, but he would die 7 days later of lung cancer.
He was a man who lived on an Indian reservation. When called by his
country, he served in Africa during the Second World War, at Normandy,
throughout Europe, served with great distinction.
He came back. He never had very much, lived a tough life, didn't have
many relatives. At the end of his life his sister asked if I could get
his medals he had earned but never received. I did. I took them on a
Sunday morning to the veterans hospital in Fargo, to this man who was
in his mid- to late-seventies, a World War II veteran, had a tough
life, never had very much, was dying of lung cancer. We cranked up his
hospital bed to a seated position. He was a very sick man but very well
aware of what was going on. I pinned a row of medals on his pajama top
at the veterans hospital. The doctors and nurses from the hospital
packed into his room. This proud man said to me, as I pinned his medals
on his pajama top: This is one of the proudest days of my life.
This is a man who had a difficult time in life. He never had very
much but served his country when asked in Africa, in Europe, fought for
his country. Many years later, just prior to his death, he was
recognized by his country, as I told him: A country that is grateful
for your service. There are so many who have provided so much service
from Indian reservations, from Indian nations.
We have made a solemn pledge to the Indians--we signed it into
treaties; we have it as a trust responsibility--we will provide for
your health care.
As my colleague from Oklahoma said this morning, take a look at
Medicare, Federal prisons, Indian health, a whole range of things. Just
to take Federal prisons as an example, we spend twice as much per
person providing health care for prisoners as we do meeting our
responsibility to provide health care for American Indians. That is a
disgrace. It has to change.
I can't tell you how pleased I am to see my colleague from Oklahoma
because we have had so many amendments that have so little to do with
the underlying bill. I know my colleagues have offered a number of
amendments that deal directly with it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, every amendment I have has something to do
with this bill. They are all germane, not meant to delay. I am happy to
vote for cloture right now to prove that I don't want to delay this
bill. What I am going to ask is unanimous consent for the regular order
and discuss my amendment No. 4034, after which I will ask for a vote.
Then if the leadership wants to stack votes, I am fine with that.
This is a simple amendment. I know the chairman is critical of it
because he thinks it is false in terms of its intent. During our budget
debate, I plan on adding $2 billion to Indian health care. I also plan
on making us make the tough decisions on where we take it from. We
don't have extra money, so it is about priorities, about keeping
commitments. I will be offering that when we get to the budget to make
sure there is an extra $2 billion for Native American care, and then we
will decide whether we think that is a priority as we vote on the
budget and on the appropriations bills.
This is a straightforward amendment. This allows tribal members to
get insurance. If they want to use the IHS service, great. But if they
have to wait in line to wait in line to get care, maybe they can go
somewhere else. Then we are keeping our commitment. If they know that
the care for a certain type of disease is terrible at IHS, they can go
where it is better. We are going to put the security of our promise in
real terms, and we are going to put choice, the same thing every Member
of this body has, and security in health care, into the hands of the
Native Americans. That is what the amendment does. The reason it
doesn't cost anything is because we are going to charge IHS for what it
costs. We have designed the amendment. We are waiting to see what the
budget chairman does with the budget and where we are going to find
this $2 billion. But I promise you, we are going to get a chance to
vote on my amendment to put in $2 billion. So it is not an empty
promise.
One of the things we know that improves everything is competition.
One of the ways to get rid of some of the waste that is in IHS and to
put a priority back in is to start competing.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. COBURN. I am happy to.
Mr. DORGAN. This is an authorization bill. The Senator is amending
it. Does his amendment anticipate an increase by $2 billion for the
authorized level because we are authorizing expenditures? The Senator
will perhaps offer a $2 billion appropriations measure. I will as well.
I hope we will be able to work together on that. But we will also have
to increase the authorization. Does the amendment increase the
authorization?
Mr. COBURN. It does not at this time. I will give a commitment to the
chairman. Under our rules, when I want to take money away from
something else, I have to deauthorize it. We don't have enough money in
Indian health so we have to deauthorize something else. If we get it
under the budget, I have every intention of making us make a choice. I
will vote for an increased authorization at this point in time right
now for $2 billion. But I will also come back and say we have to find
the money to pay for it.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, why don't we do that, provide the
authorized room? The Senator this morning indicated--and I agreed--that
we are about $2 billion short of fully funding Indian health care. We
have full-scale rationing going on. The amendment has a restriction in
it. He limits the amount of funding in his amendment to the amount of
funding that currently exists in Indian health. The President has just
proposed a reduction in funding, even though we are only meeting 60
percent of current need. My question is, should we not then remove that
restriction and actually increase the authorization because he and I
have the same goal. Let's get the amount of money in the system that
provides health care for Indians that we have promised.
Mr. COBURN. I will happily vote for that. But what we have to do is
deauthorize something else. I know you disagree with my thoughts on
increased authorizations versus offsets. I believe we have a
commitment. I believe we have a treaty obligation. I believe we have a
moral obligation. But I also believe it has to be balanced with the
obligation that Members of Congress refuse to do, which is to make
judgments about priorities. An empty promise to authorize that is not
offsetting some authorization somewhere else without coming around and
doing it; tons of bills go through this place authorizing things so we
can send a signal out there that we did something, knowing that we
never intend to fund it.
Right now we have over $8 trillion a year in authorizations. It can't
be hard to find $2 billion to deauthorize to increase the authorization
for Indian health. We have to have a vote, and we have to decide what
that is.
I will commit to the chairman, I will vote for that, as long as we
are decreasing somewhere else. I am willing to go find where that is
for the chairman. I

[[Page 2253]]

will commit that I will offer an amendment to increase the spending for
this in our budget. I also will commit that when the appropriations
come through, although I may not vote for the whole appropriations bill
because it is not going to just be for Indian health care, I will vote
for amendments that will increase the amount of money that goes to
Indian health care as long as it is within the budget. That is why I
said my goal is to do that within the budget where we could have a
debate about priorities.
Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, one of the dilemmas in
providing Indian health care, not so much in the State of Oklahoma but
in other areas where there are reservations, is in many cases the only
health care that is available is the Indian Health Service clinic, and
you are 80 miles away from the nearest hospital. In many cases there
will never be competition in an area where someone is desperately sick
and needs to see a doctor quickly. I happen to agree the underlying
notion of this amendment of providing a card to someone to say, take
this card to a health care facility and get that need fixed, if you
must--I happen to think that has merit. I will be working with the
Senator on that with respect to the bolder approaches to Indian health
care. But on page 4, line 4, is where you have budget neutrality: In
conducting the program under this section, the Secretary shall ensure
the aggregate payments made to carry out the program do not exceed the
amount of Federal expenditures which have been made available. That is
saying that we want to do all of this, which would expand contract care
and so on but within the same amount of money that currently exists in
Indian health care. It is kind of a chicken and egg.
Mr. COBURN. I would like to reclaim my time if I might. The fact is,
we appropriate $280 billion a year in stuff that is not authorized
right now. So we will not have any problem appropriating this money if
we don't authorize it. A quarter of the discretionary budget is not
authorized right now. We will not have any problem with that. My
amendment says, on the areas the Senator just described, to do it only
if it is geographically feasible. I recognize there are some places
where we have isolated reservations and we have IHS. I am willing to
put the money behind it, but I also realize more of the same doesn't
get it done. So if we double Indian health care money, we are still
going to have an inefficient system that will deliver care at a lower
level than what you can get in the private sector.
What I am saying with my amendment is, let's have both. We ought to
do both. I am making a statement on the Senate floor--and the Senator
will recognize, I believe, that I usually keep my word about coming
back and doing what I say I will do--I will work to get the extra $2
billion, but an extra $2 billion in a broken system is not just money
that is broken with IHS. I believe the chairman will agree. What I
wanted to do is fix the system and increase the money, increase the
choice and security that Native Americans are entitled to that all the
rest of us have.
The fact is, if the only place a Native American can get care is IHS,
that is not freedom. That is not the promise kept in its fullest bloom.
It is saying, here is the only place you can get care. If the care
happens to be great, super. But if the care happens to be average and
they need better, they don't have that opportunity. If the care happens
to be--and sometimes we know it is, like some of the cases the chairman
has presented--when it is substandard and that is the only choice they
have, that is not acceptable.
Let me finish my deal, and I will let you go and you can hammer me. I
hope I can get you to come around. Maybe I would not get your vote. I
know I will get your commitment to work toward it in the future. But I
think just adding more money to IHS doesn't fix the problem. I
described that earlier when I talked about 30 or 45 minutes. What this
does is, it treats Native Americans like every other American. That is
what this amendment does. It gives them choice. It gets them out of the
prison we have placed them in that says: You only have one place you
can go. And, by the way, if we run out of contract funds, even if you
need to go somewhere else, you can't go.
Contract funds actually have run out on average in June. So for 5
months of the year, when we need to send Native Americans somewhere
else, we don't have the money to do it. So who suffers?
Under this system, you would not run out of contract money because
you bought an insurance policy. You have given them the average cost of
an individual insurance cost with what we are spending now on care.
By the way, I have another amendment where we describe what an Indian
is because, in my State, we have people who are \1/512\th stepping in
front of a full blood. And most people don't think somebody that is \5/
11\th out of \5/12\th ought to be getting full pay for their health
care. And in fact, there are .12 of 1 percent Native blood. We call
that light blood in Oklahoma. We have whole blood, mixed blood, and
light blood in our State. It actually is very complicated because what
is happening now, we have tribes that have quantums and say: If you are
not a quarter or an eighth, you are not eligible. But under the IHS
system, from some of the other tribes who have members who are \1/
512\th, they come down to their area and they get into IHS. So here is
somebody with \1/512\th taking Indian dollars away from somebody who is
a quarter or somebody who is a full blood.
What we have said is: Tribes, you have to decide who is an Indian. We
actually have some people who are a thousand and 24th that we are
giving full blown care to in Oklahoma. They have access to care
somewhere else, but they don't want to pay the deductible or the copay.
So they step in line in front of a full blood. We have to change that.
We have to fix that. We have to fix that because our obligation has to
be to the person with the most and then come down. So if we really have
restricted dollars, what we have to say is, if you are below a certain
level, you have to contribute something. That is the other way that we
solve this problem. That doesn't demean the heritage of our Native
Americans.
What that says is, the reality is, in 2016 in this country, we are
going to be cutting spending all over the place because that is the
year interest rises through the roof. That is the year we run out of
Social Security with which to pay for Medicare. That is the year in
which for the projected spending, based on revenues, based on growth
even at 4 percent, we start running trillion-dollar deficits--trillion-
dollar deficits.
Have we ever asked ourselves why gold is worth four times more
against the American dollar than it was 10 years ago? Do you think it
has anything to do with people thinking we cannot pay back our debt?
So this idea that we are going to have more money in the future to do
more things is not going to be there. We need to come to the reality of
the situation. We need to start making some of the hard choices. To me,
keeping our commitment to Native Americans has to be set up now;
otherwise, it is not going to happen, and the funding is not going to
get increased between now and 2016. Other than what we do this year, it
is going to be hard. The money is going to be hard to get, even if we
get out of Iraq.
We are going to get notice today on what I have been working on for 2
years, talking to the Census Bureau about that they are going to be out
of control and spend a whole lot more money. I am getting ready to get
notice by the Secretary of Commerce--I have a meeting with him this
afternoon--that there is going to be a close to $3 billion more pickup
to do something we have to do because it has been totally mismanaged--
totally mismanaged. We have been having hearings for 2\1/2\ years on
it, where they have been denying it, and now they are coming to say it
has been mismanaged. They are coming to agree.
It is why oversight matters. Had we gotten some of the amendments
through this body that we offered on

[[Page 2254]]

the census, we would not be here. But, instead, we are going to spend
$2 billion to $3 billion more because we did not pass the amendments
offered based on oversight that we did in my committee.
The whole goal--I am not perfect. I am not right, necessarily, on how
I want to do that. I will admit that to the chairman and ranking
member. But I know more money does not solve the problem on this, and
unless we create real freedom, real choice, and real health care
security for Native Americans, we will never have an efficient IHS
system, and we will never meet the commitments that we say we have.
So I will ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment. I will listen
to the chairman. I do have a meeting at 2 o'clock I have to be at.
Whenever the chairman would like to stack the votes, if we run others,
I will be happy to work with whatever is his pleasure.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is not currently pending.

Amendment No. 4034

Mr. COBURN. I ask that amendment be brought up, No. 4034 be made
pending, and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. COBURN. I inquire of the Chair, earlier this morning I made all
my amendments pending.
Mr. President, I ask for the regular order on amendment No. 4034.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the
amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for coming and
debating the amendment. I understand he has to leave.
The Senator from Oklahoma certainly is right, it is not more money
necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee
you that less money will not solve the problem. If we are 40 percent
short of money needed now, I guarantee you that the same amount of
money will not solve the problem. The amendment he has offered has a
provision that says we are going to do something different, we are
going to do something that is unique, and, by the way, you cannot spend
any more money than you are now spending in a system that is already 40
percent short of money.
How can we have an amendment that restricts the amount of funding?
When he says that--he started this morning by saying we are $2 billion
short. It is interesting, I do not necessarily disagree with the
proposition of trying to find choices, providing an insurance card, or
some other mechanism by which we create some competition with the
Indian Health Service. But this may be much better for Oklahoma than it
might be for other States.
If you have an Indian Health Service area where you are in an Indian
reservation 80 miles from the nearest hospital, and the only health
care capability you have is to go to the Indian Health Service, well,
you know what, we better have adequate funding for that, at least
current funding for that. If you add another program on top of this for
other Indians who can go somewhere else in a metropolitan area and be
able to present a card, because they have now taken money out of the
system and purchased their own insurance--you allow that to happen,
then the American Indian who is living on the reservation with the
current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money.
How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no
competition? It seems to me the way this is written, with a restriction
that says there cannot be any additional resources beyond that which
currently exist--and, by the way, the President wants to cut that. We
have wide-scale health care rationing going on in this country, with
people dying because of it, and the President's budget cuts it.
My colleague says: I will support--quoting him--increased funding,
increased authorization. But the amendment he authors actually
restricts the amount of money available. In order to do something new,
if you are going to restrict the amount of money available to what is
available now--if you are going to do something new--it is going to
come from some place. I will tell you where it is going to come from.
It is going to come from clinics out in those reservations where there
is no choice.
There is only one opportunity for somebody who has broken an arm or
developed an illness or disease and needs to go someplace quickly to
find health care. They are going to go to the local Indian health
clinic. This money is going to come out of their hide because this
amendment offered provides a restriction that no additional resources
can exist.
I do not denigrate the idea offered by the Senator from Oklahoma. But
this clearly is not something that would be helpful to a lot of
American Indians. In fact, I believe it would be hurtful to a lot of
American Indians who are the ones who have no choice--who have no
choice at all--but must try to get their emergency care and must try to
get their basic health care met at those clinics.
I mentioned this morning a woman named Harriet Archambault whose
health care was in McLaughlin, SD, in a satellite clinic of the Indian
health care facility for the Standing Rock Tribe in Fort Yates, ND.
That was her health care: the McLaughlin, SD, satellite clinic. They
can handle 10 people in the morning and 10 people in the afternoon.
That is it. If you are not on the list of 10, that is it, and you
cannot make a reservation. You come and you sign in.
Well, she came five times, drove 18 miles one way each time. Five
times she came, and 5 times she was too late to be in the top 10. She
could not stay because she was taking care of her grandchildren. She
was the daycare provider for her grandchildren. Her medicine had run
out for hypertension and high blood pressure in mid-October. Five times
she got up early in the morning to drive nearly 20 miles, and she did
not get there in time. There were 10 people on the list ahead of her.
One month later she died. She tried five times and never got there, in
a remote satellite location.
The fact is, people are dying. Children are dying. Elders are dying.
There is not nearly enough money to keep the promise this country made
to American Indians. The amendment offered today is one I am very
interested in working with the Senator from Oklahoma on in a
significant reform package in which we dramatically increase the
resources to keep our promise, and then try to provide some competition
and some choice. I am interesting in doing that, frankly.
I am not interested in passing an amendment that says, let's do this
in a way that restricts funding for others, which is what this
amendment does. There is a specific restriction on funding, and that
means there is going to be less funding for those clinics, including
the satellite clinics. That is not something I am willing to entertain.
But, again, I appreciate finally getting an amendment offered. My
colleague indicated he will be back. I indicated earlier we are at
parade rest because one of our colleagues apparently has an objection,
through his staff, through leadership, and he is off, apparently, at a
meeting downtown, and has a speech, and he will be back sometime around
3:30 maybe. But in the meantime, through his staff, we are told we are
not able to move on anything.
I have a managers' package that is agreed to, I believe, and I want
to send it to the desk in a moment. My understanding is, we cannot move
to embrace it despite the fact it would be a unanimous consent, because
one of our colleagues is downtown and will not be back for an hour and
a half. That will make him gone for 3 hours. In the meantime, we sit
here with our hands in our pockets trying to figure out how on Earth we
explain this is a body that is supposed to get something done.

[[Page 2255]]

I said this morning I have often called this place 100 bad habits,
despite the fact I feel enormously privileged to be here. I love the
Senate. But I am not very happy about the way this place works today
because we deal with an important issue that is life or death to some
people, and we are having a difficult time.
Senator Murkowski has worked on this bill with me for a long period
of time. Before her, Senator McCain worked on this legislation. We are
finally on the floor of the Senate, and because of things that have
nothing at all to do with this bill, we are standing here frozen
because somebody is gone, apparently.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am happy to.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from North Dakota,
this is a critically important bill for a lot of very vulnerable
people, Native Americans, who have not been treated well throughout our
history. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his leadership in
trying to bring this bill to the floor. But could I ask the Senator
from North Dakota, how many days have we been on the bill on the floor
of the Senate?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, this is this third day we have been on the
floor of the Senate. Our hope was this would be the day in which we
complete action by late this afternoon. Obviously, it does not appear
that way.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, is it my understanding that one Senator
has announced he is off for lunch and some meetings and would like to
stop the Senate from any further consideration of this bill until he
decides to return? Is that the situation?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am told one of our colleagues, who is
upset about something, has gone off to give a speech downtown at a
meeting and will not return for a while. His staff indicates we are not
to move without his consent, and he won't provide consent until he
comes back, if then.
Mr. DURBIN. So the Senate is at a halt at this point until the
Senator's personal schedule accommodates his return?
Mr. DORGAN. Well, it sounds that way. But we will see. Again, it is
very frustrating. We have worked very hard to bring this legislation to
the floor of the Senate. I know a lot of people are counting on the
Congress to do the right thing. My hope is we can move forward. I think
we have about four amendments we have cleared. We have a managers'
package that is cleared. We will get votes on the Coburn amendment,
which is germane, right on target, on the bill. So there is no reason
we cannot move forward and get this piece of legislation done.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I would like, through the Chair, to ask
the Senator from North Dakota, why don't we go ahead and move the
package then, and we can preserve the right of that Senator to offer
his amendment when he returns. That is preserving his right as a
Senator if he wants to offer an amendment. But to stop the entire
amendment process and all the other possibilities--I hope we do not let
that happen.
Through the Chair, I ask the Senator from North Dakota, is that being
considered?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. Let me do this. Let me say the managers' package is
something we have negotiated. I believe it has been agreed to
unanimously. I do not know of any objection to the package itself. I do
know of some objections to the process because one Senator who is not
here has staff objecting.
Let me suggest in about 5 minutes I am going to send the managers'
package to the desk and ask for its consideration. If there is someone
who feels a managers' package that has been unanimously agreed to and
worked on very hard--by the way, let me say--and my colleague Senator
Murkowski can add to it--we have about five or six areas in the
managers' package that are very controversial and had caused us a lot
of problems. We worked and worked and negotiated with all of those for
whom this controversy exists, and we negotiated something that is
agreeable to everybody. It was a good thing to have done. Finally, this
managers' package, I think, is now agreeable to everybody, and it is a
good piece of work. So in about 5 minutes I wish to send it to the desk
and ask for its consideration.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, through the Chair,
for a question?
Mr. DORGAN. I would be happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you. In order to try to get my schedule and Senator
Byrd's schedule--I know Senator Byrd wishes to speak for about 20
minutes. I wish to ask unanimous consent if I could follow him because
there was an amendment that involved California. I was not able to be
here, and I wish to answer that. If I could follow Senator Byrd.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, how much time is Senator Byrd requesting?
Mr. BYRD. Fifteen minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Murkowski may wish to add some
comments, at which point I believe I will send the managers' package to
the desk and ask for its consideration.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, can I have an answer to my question?
Mr. DORGAN. I intend to answer the Senator.
Mrs. BOXER. Thank you.
Mr. DORGAN. Following that, I will be happy to yield the floor. As I
understand it, the Senator from California wishes to follow the Senator
from West Virginia.
Mrs. BOXER. If I might, yes.
Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from West Virginia wants 15 minutes. And the
Senator from California wants how much time?
Mrs. BOXER. I think if I have 15 minutes that would be fine.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me defer on the managers' amendment
for a moment, and let us begin with Senator Byrd's request for 15
minutes, followed by Senator Boxer. Then my hope would be that we can
come back to this bill. We have amendments pending and it is very
important that we finish the bill itself this afternoon.
Does Senator Murkowski wish to comment at this point before Senator
Byrd takes the floor?
Ms. MURKOWSKI. I will defer to Senator Byrd.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

War Funds

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on February 11, 2008, the Congressional
Budget Office responded to an inquiry from Senator Kent Conrad, the
chairman of the Committee on the Budget, regarding the costs to date of
U.S. operations and involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Allow me to
quote in full the critical summary line of this letter:

If the administration's request for 2008 is funded in full,
appropriations for military operations and other war-related
activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the war on
terrorism will rise to $188 billion this year and to a
cumulative total of $752 billion since 2001.

It can be difficult to truly grasp how large a number is $752
billion. Let me offer some comparisons. According to Forbes Magazine,
the world's most expensive car, a 1930 Bugatti Type 41 Royale, is worth
an estimated $10 million. For $752 billion, one could own a fleet--a
fleet--of 75,200 Bugatti Type 41 Royales; that is, if more than 6 had
ever been made, or for $752 billion one could purchase 442 space
shuttles at $1.7 billion each, according to NASA.
Here is one final comparison: According to the Bureau of the Census,
the average price of a home in the United States in 2007 was $311,600.
Let me repeat: According to the Bureau of the Census, the average price
of a home in the United States in 2007 was $311,600, assuming one could
still get a mortgage in today's real estate market. For $752 billion,
one could buy 2,413,000 homes--enough homes to house every family in a
city roughly the size of Jacksonville, FL or Indianapolis, IN.
That is $752 billion and counting, as the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request has come in, and Secretary Gates has suggested that
after the ``surge'' troops come home, troop levels in Iraq will not--
not--drop below

[[Page 2256]]

130,000 for at least--at least--the remainder of this year. In
Afghanistan, the 27,500 troops currently deployed will be augmented by
an additional 3,200 marines this spring. So I do not believe that this
budgetary comet will do anything but continue its meteoric rise.
We all might still count this $752 billion as well spent if we
thought we were getting good value for our money, if both nations were
being rebuilt and showing signs of stability and recovery. However,
there is evidence that the vast sums of money being thrown at Iraq and
Afghanistan are not all being well spent. Far too much money is being
siphoned off to line the pockets of greedy contractors while the work
which they are being paid to do goes undone or is poorly done.
Alarmingly, money, weapons, and oil profits have apparently been
delivered directly to insurgents and militias that are not under
government control in Afghanistan and Iraq. That must be stopped.
In Afghanistan, one U.S. think tank recently estimated that only $1
of aid out of every $10 actually reaches an Afghan. In Iraq, a local
Iraqi businessman told a reporter that:

I'd say that about 10 percent of business was corrupt under
Saddam. Now, it's about 95 percent. We used to have one
Saddam, now we have 25 of them.

Despite the growing reports of corrupt practices and the rising
number of allegations of the fraud, waste, and abuse of Government
contracts, not enough is being done to apply diplomatic pressure on the
Governments in Iraq and Afghanistan to clean up their acts, and not
enough resources are being applied to efforts to investigate and
prosecute contract fraud. Congress has been watching, holding hearings,
and complaining on behalf of the taxpayers, but much more--much more--
needs to be done. After 7 years, we cannot continue to hide behind
feeble excuses. Too much money is being lost to continue to let the
systemic abuses persist.
After 7 long years, 7 long years of occupation and reconstruction
efforts, much, much remains undone that was supposed to be done long,
long ago. As long as in-country government officials and all of the
associated contractors continue to profit from corruption and an
unchecked ability to commit fraud, waste, and abuse, there is little--
little, I say--incentive for anyone to make the progress that would
assist the United States and the rest of the international community in
departing.
American taxpayers and the Committee on Appropriations have invested
$752 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan. We expect to see that treasure
treated with the same respect that we give to our troops. They too have
worked hard. They too have sacrificed much to provide the security for
reconstruction efforts to take place. None of that sacrifice--none of
that sacrifice--should be thrown away on cases of fraud, waste, abuse,
and through rampant corruption. I--the personal pronoun I--intend to
conduct a hearing on this matter as a first step, as a first step in
what will be a long, long, hard look at just where--just where--the
taxpayers' hard-earned money has been going.
I intend to invite Senator Dorgan, I intend to invite Senator Leahy,
and I intend to invite Representative Waxman to testify on the findings
of their earlier investigations. I will also invite other witnesses to
offer their expertise on issues concerning the abuse, misuse, and loss
of U.S. funds to corrupt practices. I appreciate the encouragement and
support of our Democratic leader, Senator Reid, in tackling this issue.
This is not a partisan issue. Good governance and the wise use of
taxpayer dollars are always nonpartisan goals. It is the responsibility
of all of us--and I mean all of us--to determine the scope and the
scale of the problems and then to devise the best--nothing but the
best, and only the best--and fastest solutions to fix them.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
North Dakota is recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the announcement by the Senator from West
Virginia, chairman of the Appropriations Committee is, I think, good
news. It is the case that the Appropriations Committee appropriates a
great deal of money, and the question about oversight is very
important. The Senator from West Virginia talks about understanding and
needing to know how the money is spent, where the money is spent.
With nearly three quarters of a trillion dollars having been spent on
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the war on terror, there has been
so much waste, fraud, and abuse, and there has been too little
oversight. The Senator from West Virginia is showing great foresight
and courage in saying we are going to provide that oversight. I think
the Senate and the American people owe him a debt of gratitude for
launching this effort. I say thank you.
I know the Senator from California is going to speak. When we finish
the request, to be able to share with our colleagues, I may ask her to
yield so I might propound a unanimous consent request during her
presentation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.

Amendment No. 4067

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am speaking to an amendment that was
offered by Senator DeMint, which he said he wants to reoffer. I want to
address this amendment which unfairly targets and penalizes taxpaying
Americans by denying them some very important appropriations that were
approved by Congress in 2008.
Senator DeMint came to the floor to describe actions that the city of
Berkeley took last week in relation to the U.S. Marine Corps recruiting
office. Let me be completely clear about those actions. Three of the
members, in particular, wanted to send a letter expressing their
disapproval of the Marines having a recruiting center in Berkeley. The
language was offensive to many. I did not agree with anything they
said.
Now, on Tuesday, they explicitly stated that the ill-advised letter
they were planning to send to the Marines would no longer be sent.
Therefore, you would think Senator DeMint would then say, fine, I am
glad they changed their mind. In addition, the city said this in
writing.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the statement
they made about the Marines, if I might.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

City of Berkeley,

City Clerk Department,

Berkeley, CA, February 13, 2008.
To: Senator Barbara Boxer, Jennifer Tang:
Per your request, below is an excerpt from the February 12,
2008 City Council meeting Annotated Agenda in reference to
Item 25.
25. Reiteration of Berkeley's Opposition to the Iraq War
and Clarification of the City's Support for the Men and Women
who Voluntarily Serve this Country in the Military.
From: Councilmembers Olds and Capitelli.
Recommendation:
(1) That the City Council through adoption of this item,
publicly differentiate between the City's documented
opposition to the unjust and illegal war in Iraq and our
respect and support for those serving in the armed forces.
(2) Rescind point 2 of Item 12, of the January 29, 2008
Berkeley City Council Agenda, ``Marine Recruiting Office in
Berkeley,'' regarding communications with the Marine
Recruiting Station in Berkeley.
Financial Implications: None.
Contact: Betty Olds, Councilmember, District 6, 981-7160.
Action: M/S/C (Mario/Moore) to--
1. Accept Councilmembers Olds and Capitelli's
recommendation to publicly differentiate between the City's
documented opposition to the unjust and illegal war in Iraq
and our respect and support for those serving in the armed
forces, and
2. Accept the following statement submitted by Mayor Bates
and Councilmembers Anderson, Maio and Moore:
Given the confusion about the Council's action on January
29, 2008, a strong statement of the Berkeley City Council's
position regarding the Marine Recruiting Station is needed.
The City of Berkeley and the citizens are strongly opposed to
the war in Iraq. The war has resulted in over 4,000 soldiers
killed, tens of thousands wounded in body and spirit,
hundreds of soldier suicides, and millions of Iraqi people
killed, injured and displaced from their homes. In addition,
the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on this deeply
immoral war could have been spent to meet the needs of our
people and to strengthen our economy. We recognize the
recruiter's right to locate in our city and the right of
others to protest or support their presence. We

[[Page 2257]]

deeply respect and support the men and women in our armed
forces. However, we strongly oppose the war and the continued
recruitment of our young people into this war.
With the issuance of this statement there is no need to
send the letter to the Marine Corps that the City Council
approved on January 29, 2008.
Noes: Olds, Wozniak.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, they said they ``deeply respect and
support the men and women of our Armed Forces.'' I think the council
did the right thing. They realized they should not mix up the Iraq war,
which was brought to us by this President, and the warriors who fight
it. There is a difference. They recognized that. I am very glad about
that. You would think Senator DeMint would be very glad about that. He
is not. He is still angry and he is still wanting to fight the battle
of a couple weeks ago and not recognize the fact that this letter he
was railing about, which offended him and many others, was never sent.
That aside, the DeMint amendment is an attack on the rights of
citizens to participate in free speech. There are a lot of things that
go on in this country that I think are terrible; I think they are
wrong, mean spirited, and hurtful. I think a lot of things, because we
all have our own opinions on what is said. If every time I heard about
some city councilman in some city in another State saying something I
thought was offensive, that hurt our military, our seniors, disabled
people, minorities or children, I came out here and said: Oh, my
goodness, let's withhold funds from that city because of that city
councilman, we would have quite a situation on our hands.
State and local governments all across this Nation pass resolutions
and measures that many of us don't agree with on a host of issues.
Disagreements are part of the political discourse. Why on Earth would
we punish good, decent citizens because some members of their local
government or the sewer district or mosquito abatement district or
water district or others say something that is offensive? Yes, we have
a right to come to the floor, as Senator DeMint did, and say it is
terrible and wrong and take it back. That is fine. I welcome that. But
I don't sit around waiting to hear what they are saying in South
Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma--those are the States of the
Senators who want to take away these funds from the good people of
northern California. I don't sit around waiting to see what they might
say, and then say I am going to punish everybody because I don't agree
with that speech.
The other thing I found interesting is that in a press release the
Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, challenged the process by
which the funding requests were granted by the Appropriations
Committee. Today, he called them ``secret'' earmarks. Yet every one of
these projects was funded in the most open and transparent manner.
I will show you what those earmarks are. As a matter of fact, this is
an opportunity for me to celebrate those particular projects because
they are so important to the police, to the fire department, to the
children, to the disabled, to students, to the memory of a wonderful
Congressman Bob Matsui, and also to the environment. You will see what
I mean. Every document pertaining to those projects was made available
to the public. Every request was approved in the openness of the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees and the openness of the House and
Senate Chambers.
If the Senator from South Carolina, Senator DeMint, was so concerned
with these funding requests for our police, for our fire department,
for our children, the disabled community, for our environment, and for
our college students, he had the opportunity to challenge the funding
of those requests. He had that opportunity when the bill was on the
Senate floor. He didn't do that. Oh, no, he is going to challenge them
because someone in the city council--several members--said something
offensive that he didn't like and, therefore, as a result of that,
instead of standing up and talking to those people who made those
offensive comments and trying to change their mind, he tries to punish
all the people in the surrounding area. The reason, I would posit, that
the Senator didn't challenge these earmarks at the time they were made
is because they are excellent programs.
Congressional and executive funding requests, whether they are
earmarks from the President or Congress, should be awarded based on
merit, not based on what someone in a community said. It is just beyond
belief. They should be able to stand on their own merits and serve the
people we represent.
I am going to show you some photographs that talk about some of these
earmarks. The first is of these beautiful children standing in this
garden that is run for the benefit of public schools in the Berkeley
School District. These students learn how to plant and grow vegetables
and harvest the vegetables. They work the garden. They learn about
nutrition. They learn how to cook the food, serve the food, and clean
up. This is such a popular program that it is being replicated in
places as far away as Louisiana. We all know we have serious problems
with our kids with diabetes. We know our kids don't eat the way we want
them to because they are attracted to high-sugar foods and sodas and
all the things that are not good for them. Here is a program that
teaches them to love the whole notion of eating in a healthy way. That
is a program Senator DeMint went after, along with his friends who are
cosponsors. I wish to show you some other programs that are impacted.
This is unbelievable.
In this photo, we see a few of the most seriously disabled people you
can find in America today. They want to live independently. Here is Ed
Roberts, who needs oxygen every second, with a tube in his mouth. We
want these wonderful people--some of them who are veterans--to be able
to live independently. Here you see pictures of them doing that, with
paralyzed bodies--children, moms. He wants to take away the funding
because he disagreed with what some people said at the Berkeley City
Council, which they now have taken back. Outrageous. Outrageous.
Let's show you the other earmarks they are going after. Here are
students at UC Berkeley. There is a program named after Bob Matsui, the
beloved Congressman. They are going after that program as well.
Here is a picture of congestion in the San Francisco Bay area, where
you can see the Bay Bridge here; and you can barely tell it from where
you are sitting, Mr. President, but all these dots are cars. We have
the most congested areas in the country. We want to get funding for a
ferry boat to carry people and get them out of their cars and use the
waterways. This was Congresswoman Lee's earmark. He wants to cut this
because he didn't agree with members of the council who have now taken
back what they said.
Here are our heroes, the firefighters. They are part of the
recipients of an award that we said they deserve so there could be some
communication in our region between the fire and the police in the
jurisdiction, so that when we have a terror attack--and we hope we
never do--or when we have a fire--and we often do--or an earthquake,
which we often do, they have communications equipment. This is what
Senator DeMint wants to take away from law-abiding firefighters because
he didn't agree with something the city council said, which they took
back.
Here is the real point I have to make about all this. Senator
Chambliss is an original cosponsor of the DeMint amendment challenging
these earmarks. Let's look at an earmark he got in his State. It was
for the Daugherty County School System Healthy Lifestyle Program. Ours
is the Berkeley Unified School District School Lunch Initiative. I
don't see Senator Chambliss trying to give up his program. I would
never try to take that away from him because of something somebody said
in his State that I didn't agree with.
Here is Senator Cornyn, another proud sponsor of the DeMint amendment
to slash these earmarks: Ed Roberts Disability Services Campus in
Berkeley. I showed the people coming back from the war, paralyzed
veterans in wheelchairs. Senator Cornyn wants

[[Page 2258]]

to cut that earmark because the city council said something offensive
which they have now since taken back. I would never go after Senator
Cornyn's paratransit vehicle replacement in Abilene, TX.
Here we go: The Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center at the
University of South Carolina. We don't know who got that earmark
because it was secret. It was secret. But I would never try to take
away the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center. Then let them
leave alone the Bob Matsui Center for Public Service at UC Berkeley.
Senator Inhofe, my friend, is a proud sponsor of this amendment, too.
He has the Oklahoma City River Ferry Boat Transportation Program. He
was proud to get that earmark. I would never go after that if someone
in Oklahoma said something that I did not like, a city councilman, a
mayor. Maybe I wouldn't like it and I might write them a letter and say
what they said was wrong, unpatriotic, I don't agree with it. But I
would never go after an earmark that helps move people from place to
place. So let him leave alone the San Francisco water ferry.
Here is Senator Vitter, another proud cosponsor of the DeMint
amendment. I cannot tell my colleagues how many times I have helped
Senator Vitter in my committee get help for the people of Louisiana. Do
I agree with what every city council member says in Louisiana? Probably
not. And if I did disagree with them, if they said something I found
unpatriotic or not caring about our troops, I would send them a letter,
but I wouldn't go after Senator Vitter's earmark for the Baton Rouge
Communication Technology Pilot Program because I think it is important
that police, fire, and emergency workers, who are our heroes, have the
funding they need.
The final item I want to show my colleagues is this: This move by
Senator DeMint to take away the funding was addressed by the chair of
the Military Affairs Department, Commanding Officer, ROTC, at the
University of California. I want to read what he said about the
University of California at Berkeley. I will just read certain
statements:

Given the recent spate of controversy surrounding the U.S.
Marine recruiting office . . . I feel it is my obligation to
inform members of Congress of the relationship we have with
the university and the outstanding support it provides not
just to the ROTC Program but to all military personnel, their
dependents and veterans as well.
UC Berkeley has been and continues to be a very big
supporter of all our ROTC programs here on campus. They
should in no way be associated with or linked to the actions
of the Berkeley City Council which has taken on a very
outspoken stance against the United States Marine Corps
Recruiting Station in the city. . . .
I would like to ensure that those in favor of the Semper Fi
Act understand that UC Berkeley is a tremendous supporter of
all the military programs on campus as well as all the
military personnel, their dependents and veterans who attend
this university. It would be a travesty of justice to . . .
punish UC Berkeley for the actions of the Berkeley City
Council.

When this was written, I don't know whether Captain Laird knew that
the Berkeley City Council did not send that letter and instead finally
realized their mistake and said how much they support our men and women
in uniform.
The fact is, this kind of a punishment for a community such as this,
a community of families who care about their country, who are taxpaying
citizens, because of actions of a few, is an outrage. It would be a
terrible precedent if we now started punishing children, policemen,
firemen, disabled veterans, and students. If that is what we are going
to become in this Senate, then we do not deserve to be here. That is
absolutely wrong.
The Marine Corps has given 232 years of exemplary service to our
Nation and, tragically, 974 of the marines who served in Iraq paid the
ultimate price. More than 440 of those were based at Twenty-nine Palms
and Camp Pendleton in my home State of California. The Marines deserve
our respect and our gratitude and our support.
Again, I am glad that the council realized there is a difference
between a war and a warrior.
Again, Senator DeMint seems to be making political points on an issue
that essentially was resolved. But if he wants to come here and debate
with me why it is right to take away money from students, if he wants
to debate with me why it is OK to take away money from disabled
veterans, why it is OK to take away money from firefighters, many of
whom are veterans, many of whom put their lives on the line every day,
if he wants to have that debate, I will be on my feet, and I will have
that debate.
I know Senator Dorgan wishes to have the floor. Mr. President, is
Senator Dorgan ready to make his UC request?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, has the Senator from California completed?
Mrs. BOXER. I will yield to Senator Dorgan or I can complete in 2
minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from California to
complete her statement, after which I will be recognized.
Mrs. BOXER. The point I am making is, we all have our opinion on what
constitutes free speech. I support Senator DeMint's right to express
his opinion about what he thought of the proposed actions of the
Berkeley City Council. He has every right to do that. He has every
right to offer his amendment. But I have every right to come down here
and say I think not only is it mean-spirited, it is hurtful to the
wrong people. And I have every right to come down here and say: Senator
DeMint, they never sent that letter to the Marines, happily. They
rethought it.
If he wants to continue with this amendment, if he wants to offer it
to every bill we have, then I will be right down here with these
photographs and others that I have. I will be right down here with more
testimony from the military who will testify to how incredibly
welcoming UC Berkeley is to our men and women in uniform.
There will be wars in the future--we all hope there will not be, but
there may be--with which we do not agree, but we must never confuse our
anger at the people who would send our young people to a war of choice
or a wrongheaded war and the young people who are sent there. We must
come here every day to support those young men and women. Let's not use
this as a way to take cheap political shots because they do not deserve
it.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, we have been patiently waiting for some
hours now. It is pretty unbelievable to watch this process work. The
old saying about watching sausages being made or laws being made, it is
not a very attractive picture. That certainly is true today on the
floor of the Senate.
We have legislation we reported out from the Indian Affairs Committee
dealing with an obligation that this country has to provide Indian
health care. It is an obligation we promised in treaties. It is a trust
obligation reaffirmed by our courts, and it has been nearly 10 long
years getting to the floor to reauthorize the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act. It is not as if anybody is speeding around here.
We finally get to the floor of the Senate, we are on the third day,
and we have all kinds of amendments that have little to do with Indian
health care.
We have been standing at parade rest for 3 hours while one of our
colleagues has been giving speeches downtown and their staff has
indicated they must object to this request. I do not understand the 25
stages of approval required in this Chamber to say hello or goodbye.
Perhaps we can find a way to move on the issue that confronts the
Senate at this moment, and that is Indian health care. Even as we talk,
people die out there because there is full-scale rationing of health
care.
One part of this legislation that we have worked on is called the
managers' package. It is not a typical managers' package we see with
other legislation where there are a lot of additions. This managers'
package is a requirement we had to try to negotiate about five very
difficult and very controversial issues. We had great objections to
certain areas of the bill, so Senator Murkowski

[[Page 2259]]

and I and our staffs worked over the last month to negotiate, and we
reached agreement on five or six areas.
That agreement was pretty difficult to reach, but we did it with a
lot of people on both sides of the aisle. That is what is comprised of
this managers' package.

Amendment No. 4082 to Amendment No. 3899

Our managers' package is at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that
the pending amendment be set aside and that the managers' amendment,
which is at the desk, be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk
will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and
Ms. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 4082 to
amendment No. 3899.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

On page 139, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert the
following:

``(III) may include such health care facilities, and such
renovation or expansion needs of any health care facility, as
the Service may identify; and

On page 143, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the
following:

wellness centers, and staff quarters, and the renovation and
expan-

On page 145, line 13, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 145, line 16, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
On page 145, strike lines 17 and 18.
On page 146, line 9, strike ``hostels and''.
On page 147, strike lines 15 through 21 and insert the
following:
``(e) Funding Condition.--All funds appropriated under the
Act of November 2, 1921 (25 U.S.C. 13) (commonly known as the
`Snyder Act'), for the planning, design, construction, or
renovation of health facilities for the benefit of 1 or more
Indian Tribes shall be subject to the provisions of section
102 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act (25 U.S.C. 450f) or sections 504 and 505 of that Act (25
U.S.C. 458aaa-3, 458aaa-4).
Beginning on page 159, strike line 12 and all that follows
through page 161, line 16, and insert the following:

``SEC. 303. PREFERENCE TO INDIANS AND INDIAN FIRMS.

``(a) Discretionary Authority; Covered Activities.--The
Secretary, acting through the Service, may utilize the
negotiating authority of section 23 of the Act of June 25,
1910 (25 U.S.C. 47), to give preference to any Indian or any
enterprise, partnership, corporation, or other type of
business organization owned and controlled by an Indian or
Indians including former or currently federally recognized
Indian Tribes in the State of New York (hereinafter referred
to as an `Indian firm') in the construction and renovation of
Service facilities pursuant to section 301 and in the
construction of safe water and sanitary waste disposal
facilities pursuant to section 302. Such preference may be
accorded by the Secretary unless the Secretary finds,
pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by the
Secretary, that the project or function to be contracted for
will not be satisfactory or that the project or function
cannot be properly completed or maintained under the proposed
contract. The Secretary, in arriving at such a finding, shall
consider whether the Indian or Indian firm will be deficient
with respect to--
``(1) ownership and control by Indians;
``(2) equipment;
``(3) bookkeeping and accounting procedures;
``(4) substantive knowledge of the project or function to
be contracted for;
``(5) adequately trained personnel; or
``(6) other necessary components of contract performance.
``(b) Pay Rates.--For the purpose of implementing the
provisions of this title, the Secretary shall assure that the
rates of pay for personnel engaged in the construction or
renovation of facilities constructed or renovated in whole or
in part by funds made available pursuant to this title are
not less than the prevailing local wage rates for similar
work as determined in accordance with sections 3141 through
3144, 3146, and 3147 of title 40, United States Code.
On page 176, strike lines 12 through 15 and insert the
following:
``(3) staff quarters; and
``(4) specialized care facilities, such as behavioral
health and elder care facilities.
On page 196, line 15, insert ``, including programs to
provide outreach and enrollment through video, electronic
delivery methods, or telecommunication devices that allow
real-time or time-delayed communication between individual
Indians and the benefit program,'' after ``trust lands''.
On page 269, strike line 18 and insert the following:
``(d) Allocation of Certain Funds.--Twenty per-
On page 336, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

``SEC. 8__. TRIBAL HEALTH PROGRAM OPTION FOR COST SHARING.

``(a) In General.--Nothing in this Act limits the ability
of a Tribal Health Program operating any health program,
service, function, activity, or facility funded, in whole or
part, by the Service through, or provided for in, a compact
with the Service pursuant to title V of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 458aaa
et seq.) to charge an Indian for services provided by the
Tribal Health Program.
``(b) Service.--Nothing in this Act authorizes the
Service--
``(1) to charge an Indian for services; or
``(2) to require any Tribal Health Program to charge an
Indian for services.
On page 347, after line 24, add the following:

SEC. 104. MODIFICATION OF TERM.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act (as amended by section
101) and each provision of the Social Security Act amended by
title II are amended (as applicable)--
(1) by striking ``Urban Indian Organizations'' each place
it appears and inserting ``urban Indian organizations'';
(2) by striking ``Urban Indian Organization'' each place it
appears and inserting ``urban Indian organization'';
(3) by striking ``Urban Indians'' each place it appears and
inserting ``urban Indians'';
(4) by striking ``Urban Indian'' each place it appears and
inserting ``urban Indian'';
(5) by striking ``Urban Centers'' each place it appears and
inserting ``urban centers''; and
(6) by striking ``Urban Center'' each place it appears and
inserting ``urban center''.
(b) Exception.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
not apply with respect to--
(1) the matter preceding paragraph (1) of section 510 of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (as amended by section
101); and
(2) ``Urban Indian'' the first place it appears in section
513(a) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (as amended
by section 101).
(c) Modification of Definition.--Section 4 of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101) is
amended by striking paragraph (27) and inserting the
following:
``(27) The term `urban Indian' means any individual who
resides in an urban center and who meets 1 or more of the 4
criteria in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph
(12).''.
Beginning on page 358, strike line 23 and all that follows
through page 360, line 11, and insert the following:
(d) Satisfaction of Medicaid Documentation Requirements.--
Section 1903(x)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(x)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (vii); and
(2) by inserting after clause (iv), the following new
clauses:
``(v) Except as provided in clause (vi), a document issued
by a federally recognized Indian tribe evidencing membership
or enrollment in, or affiliation with, such tribe (such as a
tribal enrollment card or certificate of degree of Indian
blood).
``(vi)(I) With respect to those federally recognized Indian
tribes located within States having an international border
whose membership includes individuals who are not citizens of
the United States documentation (including tribal
documentation, if appropriate) that the Secretary determines
to be satisfactory documentary evidence of United States
citizenship or nationality under the regulations adopted
pursuant to subclause (II).
``(II) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment
of this subclause, the Secretary, in consultation with the
tribes referred to in subclause (I), shall promulgate interim
final regulations specifying the forms of documentation
(including tribal documentation, if appropriate) deemed to be
satisfactory evidence of the United States citizenship or
nationality of a member of any such Indian tribe for purposes
of satisfying the requirements of this subsection.
``(III) During the period that begins on the date of
enactment of this clause and ends on the effective date of
the interim final regulations promulgated under subclause
(II), a document issued by a federally recognized Indian
tribe referred to in subclause (I) evidencing membership or
enrollment in, or affiliation with, such tribe (such as a
tribal enrollment card or certificate of degree of Indian
blood) accompanied by a signed attestation that the
individual is a citizen of the United States and a
certification by the appropriate officer or agent of the
Indian tribe that the membership or other records maintained
by the Indian tribe indicate that the individual was born in
the United States is deemed to be a document described in
this subparagraph for purposes of satisfying the requirements
of this subsection.''.
On page 360, strike lines 21 and 22.
Beginning on page 361, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 362, line 4, and insert the following:

[[Page 2260]]

``(1) No cost sharing for indians furnished items or
services directly by or through indian health programs.--
``(A) No enrollment fees, premiums, or copayments.--
``(i) In general.--No enrollment fee, premium, or similar
charge, and no deduction, copayment, cost sharing, or similar
charge shall be imposed against an Indian who is furnished an
item or service directly by the Indian Health Service, an
Indian Tribe, a Tribal Organization, or an urban Indian
organization, or by a health care provider through referral
under the contract health service for which payment may be
made under this title.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply to an
individual only eligible for the programs or services under
sections 102 and 103 or title V of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, about 5 hours ago, we were hoping to send
that amendment to the desk and have it considered. We hoped to have a
vote on it. What we are waiting for at the moment is the remainder of
the unanimous consent request. The remainder of the unanimous consent
request I will propound, when we determine who offers levels of
approval in the Chamber, will be that we have a vote--the way it is
constructed is at 3 o'clock, but that was 25 minutes ago--that we have
a vote on two amendments.
One will be the managers' amendment I sent to the desk on behalf of
myself and Senator Murkowski, bipartisan, I believe, an amendment that
does not have objections anywhere in the Chamber because we have
resolved those objections, but we will have a recorded vote on that,
and then we will have a recorded vote on the amendment that has been
offered by Senator Coburn, amendment No. 4034.
My hope is that we will be able to propound a unanimous consent
request that will be approved in a few minutes, with a couple-minute
debate prior to each vote, and then we will have two votes. Our hope is
to begin that at 3 o'clock. My hope remains that will be the case. I
will not propound the unanimous consent request at the moment because I
understand it has not yet been cleared.
I understand it has now just been cleared, which is great news.
I ask unanimous consent for the following: that the pending
amendment, which is the managers' amendment that I just filed on behalf
of myself and Senator Murkowski, be set aside and that at 3 p.m. today,
the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendment, the managers'
amendment; that the amendment not be divisible; and that upon
disposition of that amendment, the Senate resume the Coburn amendment
No. 4034; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in
relationship to that amendment; and that no amendments be in order to
either amendment prior to the vote, with the second vote in sequence 10
minutes in duration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, the vote
will begin in about 3 minutes, and we will have two votes in sequence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 3906

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak on amendment No. 3906,
which has been pending. I believe I can do that between now and the
time of the vote. I ask to be recognized for the time remaining before
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, after high tax rates, the thing that
disturbs Americans the most about their Government is that their tax
dollars are too often misspent. Nowhere is this problem more prevalent
than in the Medicare Program where fraud is concerned.
Currently, Medicare fraud consumes an estimated $60 billion a year.
That is as much as 20 percent of the program lost to criminals scamming
the Federal Government.
In South Florida, the region has only 8 percent of the Nation's AIDS
patients. Yet 73 percent of Federal AIDS medication payments are sent
there. That alone is an estimated $2 billion of fraud.
We have only recently begun to uncover some of the cases of
widespread fraud and abuse. An 82-year-old constituent of mine kept
getting $10,000 Medicare payment statements. If you looked at the
bills, it appeared this elderly woman had artificial knees, ankles, one
glass eye, was in a wheelchair, and suffered from diabetes and AIDS.
The truth is, she is completely healthy. She had not called on
Medicare, and someone else was using her stolen Medicare number.
Her case is typical of many in my State and far too many other States
where Medicare fraud abuse has been reported.
Hard-working Americans are outraged by seeing their tax dollars lost
to criminal fraud. My amendment to the Indian health bill will double
the jail time, double the penalties, and give judges greater discretion
in sentencing those who are guilty of Medicare fraud. The message needs
to be stronger than a slap on the wrist. It has to be hard time.
But tougher penalties are only a first step. There is a larger
problem. We need better oversight, more accountability, and fewer
dollars sent to organizations that can't prove they are anything more
than a P.O. box. So I call upon my colleagues to join with me in
addressing this situation. Help put a stop to the billions and billions
of taxpayer dollars padding the pockets of criminals each and every
year. We owe it to the American people to handle their money with
greater care, and I believe we can do this by just cutting wasteful
spending and stiffening the penalties that already exist for fraud
cases.
There are a number of cases I can point to in my State, and these are
just cases that have come to the attention of my office. Maggie of
Sunrise talks about a doctor she had never seen billing Medicare for
$2,590 worth of services in July of 2006. Leslie of Punta Gorda
reported a fraudulent claim filed using his deceased wife's claim
number after her death. The claim was filed in April of 2006, and his
wife passed away in March of 2005.
There are many other examples like these. For that reason, I urge
passage of my amendment, and I know it may be part of the managers'
package, which I think would be a great step forward in stemming the
waste, fraud, and abuse in this program.
I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). The Senator's time has expired.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4082, the managers'
amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
Mr. DORGAN. Have the yeas and nays been ordered on the Coburn
amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a sufficient second, and the yeas and
nays have been ordered on the Coburn amendment as well.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and 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 95, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 24 Leg.]

YEAS--95

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

[[Page 2261]]

Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Tester
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Clinton
Graham
Inouye
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 4082) was agreed to.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 4034

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 2 minutes of debate evenly
divided on the Coburn amendment, No. 4034.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a pretty simple amendment. What
it says is we are going to give the Native Americans what we promised
them in our treaties. We are going to give it to them in the same way
we deliver security, choice, prosperity, and health care for Members of
Congress. We are going to give them an insurance policy. In basics, I
think my chairman agrees with it; he does not agree with the way we are
doing it at this time. I understand that. What you all should know is
three-quarters of the Native American population of this country lives
in urban areas; it does not live on the reservation. That is three-
quarters.
What this does is fulfill our commitment through giving them access
to quality choice and care--not substandard care, not rationed care,
but real care.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I oppose the amendment, as does my
colleague Senator Murkowski.
Senator Coburn offers some interesting ideas here, but he offers them
in the context of saying: We will do some different and additional
things with Indian health care, but we will explicitly restrict any
additional money that is in the bill itself. That means if you have
Indian reservations out in the country someplace, there is an Indian
health clinic, and that is the only health care available, I guarantee
you they will end up with less money to provide health care to those
Indians on those reservations given that restriction in the bill.
For that reason I do not support it, but I look forward to working
with my colleague from Oklahoma on ideas of this type.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) are necessarily absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and 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 28, nays 67, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 25 Leg.]

YEAS--28

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Corker
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Martinez
McConnell
Sessions
Shelby
Specter
Sununu
Vitter
Warner

NAYS--67

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--5

Clinton
Graham
Inouye
McCain
Obama
The amendmemt (No. 4034) was rejected.
Mr. DURBIN. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on
the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4036

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that we have
the regular order on Coburn amendment No. 4036.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is pending.
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if I might, the Senator from Oklahoma is
intending to debate and discuss amendment Nos. 4032 and 4036, and
requests recorded votes on both. First of all, I appreciate his
cooperation. I understand he is prepared to initiate that debate. What
I would like to suggest is whatever time he needs for that debate, we
could probably, by consent, with the consent of Senator Murkowski,
agree to a time for both those votes.
I might ask the Senator, how long would he like to debate both
amendments?
Mr. COBURN. Probably, Madam President, I will not use more than 30
minutes and probably less.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, would it be satisfactory to the Senator
from Oklahoma and Senator Murkowski if we set the two votes on
amendment No. 4032 and amendment No. 4036 no later than 4:20?
Mr. COBURN. That is 30 minutes for me and none for you.
Mr. DORGAN. Let's make it 4:30, Madam President.
Mr. COBURN. I do not have any problem with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, amendment No. 4036 is a real simple
amendment. What it says is we are going to prioritize the funds that go
into the Indian Health Service. We have had debate all day on whether
we are improving Indian health care when we add services but do not add
money, and we have not done the structural reforms that need to happen
in the Indian Health Service.
We know the Indian Health Service is plagued by rationing on a life-
and-limb basis. As to the quality of care we are offering in IHS, for
some places it is great, but on average it is less than what we offer
other people. Instead of fixing the problem with basic medical
services, this bill includes new services. We are not funding the
services we do now, and the services we are funding are not at the
level they need to be in terms of their quality.
This bill expands the burden of IHS to fund things that in terms of
priority are not as important, No. 1, but, more importantly, most have
an eligibility avenue with which to get these services through some
other Government program. So by supporting this amendment, you are not
denying the four new services because they are already available, just
not through the IHS.
This amendment would require funding go to what has already been
promised to tribal members before we expand to new promises. In other
words,

[[Page 2262]]

before we add new services, let's make sure we are funding the services
we are offering now and that we are funding them at a level of quality
that is acceptable.
So this would say IHS would have to prioritize basic medical services
before paying for new programs. We have talked a lot about the history
on this. We know where our problems are. The chairman is trying to move
in a direction to help solve some of the problems.
I disagree that we are making the major steps. I think we have to
totally reform IHS. I have said that to the chairman. He knows the
structural problems that are there. I think when we promise health
care, we ought to give it.
We talked earlier today that one in every four Native American women
have a baby without any prenatal care. The average number of visits for
those who have prenatal care is half what the national average is. So
just in prenatal care, in pediatrics, and diabetes we know we are
behind the curve. Yet we are going to add new services in the bill that
are already available in other ways.
We also know, as the chairman has said, that we spend half per capita
on Native Americans than we do on prisoners. We spend less than half
than we do on veterans. We spend a third based on what we spend on
Medicare. So we are obviously not there, and a lot of it is money.
There is no question about it. But it is not all money. It is
structural.
Obviously, that is the reason for my opposition to this bill because
I think we have an opportunity to go much further to totally change the
structure and quality and delivery and to get a lot of the bureaucracy
out. I think we also need to add money. We need to do all three.
This amendment is designed to make IHS prioritize the money. So even
though we authorize these programs--this does not eliminate the
authorization--it just says you cannot effectively do it until you have
funded adequately what you are already promising Native Americans.
What this bill will do, in my estimation, is drain resources
available to basic core medical services. It is also going to do
something else. Our tribes are getting to be pretty good businessmen.
What it is going to do is, it is going to put into individual tribes
businesses for these services.
So what is going to happen is, these services are going to be part of
the tribal organization business complex but not part of the service,
and so we are going to transfer funds outside IHS, transfer IHS moneys
into tribal organizations with no guarantees that the money that was
spent is going to come back into health care. So if we were to do this,
what I would rather is these be IHS services only, rather than out for
bid to be utilized that may be not at a competitive bid price so we
enhance private profitability rather than tribal health care. So there
is that other little problem. Again, if we make new promises, at a time
when we are not funding the promises we have, we are not helping the
Native American population.
This amendment is about priorities. It is not saying IHS cannot fund
these new programs. It is just saying we need to focus on basic medical
services first, such as prenatal care. When one in four Native
Americans do not have prenatal care, and we are going to add long-term
home health care, hospice, DME, and some of these other areas, when we
are not taking care of the women who walk in and deliver without
prenatal care, it does not make sense.
So I will put this amendment up. I am going to ask for the yeas and
nays on amendment 4036. I appreciate the consideration of the chairman
and his heart toward Native Americans. But a half promise fulfilled is
a promise not kept, and that is where we are on health care. Making us
prioritize--in some places we will be able to do this; where we have
effective, efficient care, they will have the money to offer these
services. In areas where we are not doing well, they should not be
expanding into new services when they are not taking care of the
services we have today.
So the flexibility is completely up to the IHS. Nothing limits it
other than you have to meet the core basic medical needs first before
you go into other areas.
With that, I yield the floor and await the response from my chairman.
Then I will talk about the other amendment in a moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, with the permission of the Senator from
Oklahoma, let me ask if he might also discuss his second amendment.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I will be happy to.
Mr. DORGAN. Thank you very much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.

Amendment No. 4032

Mr. COBURN. Madam President, amendment No. 4032, which the chairman
has graciously allowed me to discuss at this time, which I also would
like to call up and have as the pending order of business under the
regular order, is real simple. We do this in a lot of other places, but
we do not do it in IHS.
I ask unanimous consent for that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent has been granted.
Mr. COBURN. I thank the Chair.
This is a real straightforward amendment. It says if you are a tribal
member and you have been the victim of rape or sexual assault, the
right to have your assailant tested for HIV and AIDS and other sexually
transmitted diseases cannot be denied you. We have done this a lot of
times. Most of us agree with that. We think it is the right thing to do
when somebody is an assailant and we have people at risk, and not
putting those Native Americans into a period of a year waiting or
taking medicines they should not have to take because they do not know
the status of the person who committed an assault on them.
So it is very straightforward. I will not spend a lot of time on it.
I am not trying to inflame the issue. I think it is something Native
Americans ought to have that every other American today has.
I yield back and intend to ask for the yeas and nays at the
appropriate time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, let me talk for a moment about amendment
No. 4032, the HIV mandatory testing issue. I support that, I think, at
the request of the victim. I think that is a thoughtful amendment and
would have accepted it. I understand the Senator wishes a recorded
vote. I understand why that is the case. But I do think it is an
amendment that has a lot of merit.

Amendment No. 4036

With respect to the other amendment, No. 4036, I understand what the
Senator is trying to do. I am going to oppose the amendment and vote
against the amendment. He is talking about using the funds for
essential medical services. Yes, I am all in favor of that. But let me
also say that the issue of hospice care and some long-term care issues
we have added to this bill--if you visited a hospice care setting, it
is pretty hard to take a look at what hospice care is offering dying
patients and suggest that is not essential as well.
That is a wonderful health care option that is available to many in
this country. What we have tried to do in the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act is to expand some services. That is correct. The
Senator and I talked a little bit about that this morning. But they are
in most cases services that many other Americans have available to them
that we would hope and expect would be made available to American
Indians as well. My colleague and I both described this morning our
interest in adequately funding Indian health care. He said--and I
agree, and I said earlier--that about 60 percent of Indian health care
is delivered to American Indians, and 40 percent is withheld. That
means you have full-scale health care rationing going on. It should be
front-page, scandalous headlines in this country. It ought to be
trumpeting the news in this country. But it is not.

[[Page 2263]]

There is a giant sleep going on about what is happening to people out
there who are living in the shadows, desperately poor, in many cases an
hour, an hour and a half, 2 hours away from the nearest large-scale
health care clinic, so their opportunity to get health care is through
the Indian Health Service, and we are trying very hard to improve that.
But I understand the purpose of the amendment offered by the Senator.
I would hope, however, when we finish doing what he said he is going to
do, and what I said I am going to do, and when we talk about what we
are really going to fund this year, that we will have sufficient funds;
A, that we will have a system we are proud of, that delivers health
care to people who are sick and who were promised health care; and B,
to fully fund the services that most people expect would be available
to them and their loved ones, and that would include hospice care.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, will the Senator from North Dakota
yield?
Mr. DORGAN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, through the Chair, would the chairman
agree a large portion of people who are eligible for Indian health care
service today already have these services available to them through
another Federal Government program?
Mr. DORGAN. A large portion? I don't know that I would agree with
that. I don't believe I would at all.
Mr. COBURN. A large portion of them are Medicaid eligible. As a
matter of fact, 27 percent of the funds that go into IHS are people
from Medicaid. If they are Medicaid eligible, then they are eligible
for every one of these programs. A large portion are Medicare eligible.
A large portion of money that comes into IHS comes from Medicare, and
they are also eligible under that. So the majority of our Native
American population already have these services available to them under
two other programs.
The other question I would ask through the Chair of the chairman is--
there are other clinics and IHS facilities, I believe, and please
correct me, that are being run well and that will be able to utilize
these services for that smaller portion of Native Americans because
they will have the funds because they are meeting basic core medical
needs now. My amendment doesn't take that away. It just says if you are
in an IHS clinic and over half of them already have these services
available through another government program, why would we add that
when we are not taking care of the diabetes, the dialysis, and every
other thing we have?
My question to the chairman is--I would love for him to consider that
this is a better way to go rather than blanketly treating everybody the
same and that we have to prioritize, and that by having IHS Directors
make that priority--in different areas, that is true--in terms of what
goes through the tribal government, what we will get is better care.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, we look at this and, in many ways, see
the same side. I think the Senator from Oklahoma and I see a situation
in which gripping poverty exists in many areas, joblessness, inadequate
health care. The Senator from Oklahoma is correct there are
circumstances--I have been there, I have seen them--where the health
care is wonderful. I toured a clinic recently and the doctor--a
wonderful doctor at that clinic working for the Indian Health Service,
who is very dedicated and by all accounts a terrific doctor--said to
me: You know, we are waiting for this new x-ray equipment that is
supposed to come. The waiting room is full, by the way. The building is
in disrepair, it is an old building, but the doctor is giving me a
tour, and he says: We are waiting for this x-ray machine which is
really going to help us out.
I said: How long have you been waiting?
He said: Two years.
I said: What is the trouble?
He said: Well, I wish I knew. It is paperwork. Can't get it through
the regional office. The money is there. The money is there for it, but
we can't get the regional office to get the paperwork done to get the
x-ray machine.
So the Senator from Oklahoma and I both know there are circumstances
where there is unbelievable bureaucracy that is almost shameful, and
nothing gets done. There are other areas where there is sterling
medical care by men and women who, in that service, get up every
morning and say: I want to make a difference in the lives of people. So
all of that exists.
The point I have been trying to make most of today is when you have
40 percent of the health care needs unmet, we are in a desperate
situation. We need to fix that.
The Senator from Oklahoma has talked a lot about reform, and I am
very anxious, when we get this bill done--we will get it out of the
Senate, we will get it to conference, and hopefully get it signed into
law by the President. We will, for the first time in nearly a decade,
have advanced an improvement in Indian health care. I am very anxious
to turn immediately--and the Senator serves on our committee--to work
with him and Senator Murkowski from Alaska to say: All right, now,
let's put this on a different course with a much bolder, a much bigger
bite, to try to figure out how we dramatically improve health care.
That would not be done unless we have substantial additional income as
well. But income is not going to solve the problem by itself. You need
reform.
It is interesting. When the Senator talked earlier today about giving
American Indians the opportunity to go someplace with a card and say:
Here is my health care coverage--I am in favor of that. But that card
would not do much good for somebody who is sick and is living, for
example, in Fort Yates, ND, because the only option they have is to go
to that Indian Health Service or they can get in the car and drive a
fairly long way to find a hospital someplace. So we need to address
these issues.
I want the Indian Health Service to be better, to be more effective,
to provide better health care for American Indians, and I want to
reform the entire system to see if we can establish competition where
competition will work. I know Senator Coburn will readily agree there
are places in the country where you can't even talk about real
competition because you are living way out, way away from any other
facilities, and all that exists is the Indian health care facility.
If I might make one additional point I understand why--I quoted Chief
Joseph this morning. I understand why American Indians are a little
skeptical. They have been lied to, cheated. They have had their
agreements in writing, and they haven't been worth the paper on which
they are written. It is pretty unbelievable when you think about it. We
have all seen this, the promises that were made but never, ever kept.
The purpose of today and the purpose of our work is to say: You know
what. These were the first Americans and we have certain obligations to
them and we must do a better job of meeting those obligations.
So I don't know that I was particularly responsive to the Senator
from Oklahoma, but both of us want the same thing, we end up wanting
exactly the same goals out of this debate. And my hope is, working
together during the next couple of years we will take two steps, both
in the right direction and both in a constructive way to help American
Indians.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I just want a few more minutes and then
I am through.
The Senator from North Dakota makes a great point: that there are
people who are using reservation-based IHS facilities who are
essentially trapped. They are trapped. They don't get the option to go
somewhere else. What this bill does--and in many of those instances,
the core medical needs are not being met. What this bill does is makes
sure the core medical needs are going to be met because we are going to
add four new services for those people. So now they are trapped in a
system that doesn't deliver the quality, doesn't deliver the service,
and doesn't deliver the prevention, we are going to make it worse. We
are going to make it worse because we are going

[[Page 2264]]

to add services that are available to half of the Native American
population right now through another Government program, and we are
going to dilute the resources for the very people who are trapped on
reservations.
But the very point is, three-quarters of Native Americans are in an
urban area. They are not limited to that. They are not limited at all.
They should have had the choice to be able to go wherever they wanted
to go today. We turned that down. We had 29 people vote for that--or 28
people vote for that.
I know the chairman is going to work with me to try to get there
someday. But that is when you give Native Americans their due and meet
our commitments. When they have the same choice, the same security, the
same health care that you and I have, then we will have met our
commitment under our treaties, and not until then would we have met it.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, if the Senator would yield on that point
just briefly.
Mr. COBURN. I will yield.
Mr. DORGAN. Do you know why in many cases the urban Indians are a
population that is exclusive? Because we went through a period of time
when we did these zigzags. At one point in this country we said to the
Indian community: You know what. Yes, you are on a reservation. Here is
a one-way bus ticket. We want you to leave. So we sent them to the
cities. Now we promised them health care back on the reservation. Now
we say: You have a bus ticket one way. Go to the city. In fact, the
budget request this year once again says: By the way, we don't intend
to fund any--we don't intend to fund any health care for urban Indians.
Well, we should, and I think we will say to the President that we don't
agree with that recommendation. But we have done a lot of egregious
things in this country, even with respect to preventing Indians the
right to vote for the majority of the history of this country. They
didn't get the right to vote until about 90 years ago or so.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would like to reclaim my time, if I
might.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes, of course.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I want to make a couple of points
because what we have heard is a lot of negative today. I want to say
how proud I am of the Cherokees, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, and the
Creek in Oklahoma. I totally disagree with gaming. I think it
undermines virtue. I think it is destroying a lot of society. But
several of the tribes in my State have invested their dollars--not IHS
dollars, their dollars--in health care, and they need to be recognized.
Their facilities, most oftentimes, are fantastic, and their care is
fantastic. So I don't want us to leave the debate without recognizing
some of the vast improvements that where we have failed, the tribes
have actually picked it up and supplied it, and that means shame on us
because maybe there wouldn't be as much gaming if we were fulfilling
the needs. Gaming is not without its societal consequences, regardless
of how much we benefit in terms of dollars that come into the Treasury.
So I didn't want us to leave this without recognizing that we have
lots of great performance in lots of great areas. We also have lots of
great providers and doctors and workers in IHS, but we have some who
aren't. We also have some who couldn't get a job anywhere else, some
whom nobody else would hire. Yet we will hire them because we are so
short, both on funds and needs. That ought not to be there either. If
somebody is not competent to practice with the public, they shouldn't
be competent to practice at IHS and the same at the VA and the same in
our prisons and the same in other areas.
So it is my hope we will look straight forward. It is hard to run
against your own chairman on amendments on a bill, and we intentionally
did not put up these amendments at the request of the chairman when we
were doing the markup on the Indian health care bill.
Again, I will state in finality, and then sit down, these
``improvements'' in many areas will offer some improvement but in many
more areas will take away from core medical care that is offered to the
very people who aren't getting adequate care today. So it ought to be
flexible. It ought to be where the core medical needs are met, we are
offering these, and whether or not we shouldn't be offering them
because what we are doing is, we are taking that lady who is going to
be on dialysis, and we could have prevented it because we are not doing
the core medical things and we are looking at the wrong thing. We are
taking a gal who has early diabetic neuropathy and we are going to
condemn her to a life on dialysis or a kidney transplant, and most of
them would not get kidney transplants. They are going to get hooked up
to a machine for 8 hours a day because we are--but we are going to feel
good about ourselves saying we now have hospice and long-term care, and
all of these other things.
I think it is a mistake the way we have done that. It is my main
opposition to the bill. I think we have an opportunity to rigorously
and tremendously change the structure, the delivery of care. We have an
opportunity to change the paradigm under which we treat Native
Americans, to prevention. We have talked about suicide on all of the
reservations. The chairman and many have been concerned about
prevention of that. But we ought to be just as concerned about
prevention of all of the other diseases and change the paradigm under
which IHS works instead of more of the same.
So with that, I ask for the yeas and nays.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). Without objection, the Senator
may seek the yeas and nays on both amendments with one show of hands.
Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient
second. There is a sufficient second.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when we do
vote at 4:30, we vote on amendment No. 4036 first and amendment No.
4032 second, and that there be 2 minutes between the votes, a minute on
each side, and that there be no intervening second-degree amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendments Nos. 4070, 4073, 4066, and 4038 to Amendment No. 3899, and
Amendment No. 4015

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
pending amendments be set aside, and I call up these four amendments on
behalf of Senator DeMint: Nos. 4070, 4073, 4015, and 4066; and I call
up amendment No. 4038 on behalf of Mr. Vitter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments, en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski], for Mr. DeMint,
proposes amendments Nos. 4070, 4073, 4015, and 4066, en bloc.
The Senator from Alaska [Ms. Murkowski, for Mr. Vitter,
proposes an amendment numbered 4038.

The amendments are as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 4070

On page 309, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
``(c) Firearm Programs.--None of the funds made available
to carry out this Act may be used to carry out any
antifirearm program, gun buy-back program, or program to
discourage or stigmatize the private ownership of firearms
for collecting, hunting, or self-defense purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 4073

At the end, add the following:

TITLE III--APPLICABILITY

SEC. 3__. INDIAN TRIBES OPERATING CLASS III GAMING
ACTIVITIES.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not
apply to any Indian tribe carrying out any class III gaming
activity (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).

AMENDMENT NO. 4066

On page 207, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:

care organization;
``(4) a self-insured plan; or
``(5) a high deductible or health savings account plan.

AMENDMENT NO. 4038

On page 294, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the
following:

grams involving treatment for victims of sexual abuse who are
Indian children or children in an Indian household.

[[Page 2265]]

AMENDMENT NO. 4015

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
establish an Indian health savings account demonstration project)

On page __, between lines __ and __, insert the following
(at the end of title VIII of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, as amended by section 101(a) add the
following):

``SEC. 818. INDIAN HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project under which eligible participants shall
be provided with a subsidy for the purchase of a high
deductible health plan (as defined under section 223(c)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) and a contribution to a
health savings account (as defined in section 223(d) of such
Code) in order to--
``(1) improve Indian access to high quality health care
services;
``(2) provide incentives to Indian patients to seek
preventive medical care services;
``(3) create Indian patient awareness regarding the high
cost of medical care; and
``(4) encourage appropriate use of health care services by
Indians.
``(b) Eligible Participant.--
``(1) Voluntary enrollment for 12-month periods.--
``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `eligible
participant' means an Indian who--
``(i) is an eligible individual (as defined in section
223(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986); and
``(ii) voluntarily agrees to enroll in the project
conducted under this section (or in the case of a minor, is
voluntarily enrolled on their behalf by a parent or
caretaker) for a period of not less than 12 months in lieu of
obtaining items or services through any Indian Health Program
or any other federally-funded program during any period in
which the Indian is enrolled in the project.
``(B) Voluntary extensions of enrollment.--An eligible
participant may voluntarily extend the participant's
enrollment in the project for additional 12-month periods.
``(2) Hardship exception.--The Secretary shall specify
criteria for permitting an eligible participant to disenroll
from the project before the end of any 12-month period of
enrollment to prevent undue hardship.
``(c) Subsidy Amount.--The amount of a subsidy provided to
an eligible participant for a 12-month period shall not
exceed the amount equal to the average per capita expenditure
for an Indian obtaining items or services from any Indian
Health Program for the most recent fiscal year for which data
is available with respect to the same population category as
the eligible participant.
``(d) Special Rules.--
``(1) No deduction allowed for subsidy.--For purposes of
determining the amount allowable as a deduction with respect
to amounts contributed to a health savings account by an
eligible participant under section 223 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, the limitation which would (but for
this paragraph) apply under section 223(b) of such Code to
such participant for any taxable year shall be reduced (but
not below zero) by the amount of any subsidy provided to the
participant under this section for such taxable year.
``(2) Treatment.--The amount of a subsidy provided to an
eligible participant in the project shall not be counted as
income or assets for purposes of determining eligibility for
benefits under any Federal public assistance program.
``(3) Budget neutrality.--In conducting the demonstration
project under this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
the aggregate payments made to carry out the project do not
exceed the amount of Federal expenditures which would have
been made for the provision of health care items and services
to eligible participants if the project had not been
implemented.
``(e) Demonstration Period; Reports to Congress; Gao
Evaluation and Report.--
``(1) Demonstration period.--
``(A) Initial period.--The demonstration project
established under this section shall begin on January 1,
2007, and shall be conducted for a period of 5 years.
``(B) Extensions.--The Secretary may extend the project for
such additional periods as the Secretary determines
appropriate, unless the Secretary determines that the project
is unsuccessful in achieving the purposes described in
subsection (a), taking into account cost-effectiveness,
quality of care, and such other criteria as the Secretary may
specify.
``(2) Periodic reports to congress.--During the 5-year
period described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
periodically submit reports to Congress regarding the success
of demonstration project conducted under this section. Each
report shall include information concerning the populations
participating in the project and the impact of the project on
access to, and the availability of, high quality health care
services for Indians.
``(3) GAO evaluation and report.--
``(A) Evaluation.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall enter into a contract with an organization with
expertise in health economics, health insurance markets, and
actuarial science for the purpose of conducting a
comprehensive study regarding the effects of high deductible
health plans and health savings accounts in the Indian
community. The evaluation shall include an analysis of the
following issues:
``(i) Selection of, access to, and availability of, high
quality health care services.
``(ii) The use of preventive health services.
``(iii) Consumer choice.
``(iv) The scope of coverage provided by high deductible
health plans purchased in conjunction with health savings
accounts under the project.
``(v) Such other issues as the Comptroller General
determines appropriate.
``(B) Report.--Not later than January 1, 2013, the
Comptroller General shall submit a report to Congress on the
evaluation of demonstration project conducted under this
section.''.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, if I may take a few moments to speak
to some of the issues the Senator from Oklahoma has raised about the
prioritization, giving priority to the provision of those basic medical
services, medical needs.
I think we all agree that is the first requirement, to make sure
those services are provided for. In the State of Alaska, we hear from
those most vulnerable in our Alaska Native population, our elderly--the
elders in the village who have lived through some pretty incredible
times. At the end of their lives, they are certainly seeking basic
medical services. Yet we recognize that with the facilities we have
available to them, the services we have available to them, the medical
professionals we have available to them, it is very difficult to meet
all of those needs. So for them, the opportunity for hospice care,
assisted living service, long-term care service, or the home or
community-based service--that is singled out in the amendment. They are
looking at this not as a luxury, or an add-on, certainly, but something
that is basic, something that would be fundamental to a quality of life
in their final years.
This is a matter for many seniors, not just in the State of Alaska,
and for many who are looking to, again, provide for those services at a
level and in a manner that is culturally relevant and appropriate--the
community-based services, home-based services. I think it is important
that we recognize we are not without limitation when we are talking
about the services that are provided to American Indians and Alaska
Natives. You have heard time and time again on the Senate floor that we
are not meeting their needs; that we are funding at 60 percent; that
there is a curtailment or a shortage in services based on the
resources. So when we are able to enhance the quality of life, whether
it is through assistance, such as long-term care services or assisted
living or the community-based services, or whether it is enhancing the
end-of-life care, as we do throughout this Indian Health Care
Improvement Act, these are the things we ought to be encouraging, that
we ought to be moving forward with in a positive manner.
So I stand in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from
Oklahoma which says we cannot attend to any of these quality-of-life
issues--if it is in your final days--unless and until the Secretary has
given priority to the provision of these basic medical services to all
Indians.
It is, again, a situation where we want to attempt to do as much as
we possibly can. But I think if you were to tell the elder in the
community of Buckland that somehow or other services to help her in her
final years, to die gracefully and with dignity in her home, is
something she doesn't qualify for, is not eligible for, I think we
would all find that cuts to the quick.
Madam President, I understand that there are several Members who are
here and wish to speak briefly on FISA for a few minutes before we move
to our vote. I am prepared to yield to the Senator from Missouri.

FISA

Mr. BOND. Madam President, I will take a minute to update my
colleagues on some information we received from the Director of
National Intelligence in an open hearing that is going on in Hart 216
right now. I thought it was important to clarify some points that he
made in response to some very important questions raised by Chairman
Rockefeller.
Chairman Rockefeller asked what would happen if FISA expires--as it

[[Page 2266]]

does on February 15--without being renewed. He asked, could these
collections not continue? There is a very important ``yes, but''--for
acquisitions that have been ordered by the FISA Court which have years
in length; it is possible that those could continue. But the major
problem the Director sees and the attorneys with him see is that if
they needed to change targets, if they needed to change methods, if
they needed to change means by which they gathered the information,
they would not be able to do so.
Furthermore, he highlighted a very real problem having to do with the
private sector. As we have said on the floor before, the private sector
carriers are absolutely essential to the operation, not only of FISA,
foreign intelligence surveillance, but for work with the FBI and others
on criminal matters. The fact that we have left the telecom carriers,
that are alleged to have participated in the President's lawful terror
surveillance program without liability protection, they are being
advised by their general counsel of their responsibility under
Sarbanes-Oxley, and others, that they could only cooperate with a fresh
court order. Since there is no authority for additional court orders,
they have a grave question as to whether they are risking not only
their firm's reputation but under Sarbanes-Oxley certain duties to
shareholders. That is why he felt it was necessary to get this measure
that has passed the Senate implemented by the House.
I also noted in my comments that the House passed its bill almost as
long ago as the Senate passed its bill. At that time, the intelligence
community said it was not workable, that the Rockefeller-Bond proposal
that passed overwhelmingly 2 days ago was the only thing that was
workable; and the fact that the House says they don't have time to work
on it ignores the fact that they have known for a couple of months that
they were going to have to make significant revisions in their measure
if they wanted it to be passed and signed into law. So my sympathies
for the House. I understand they are pressed for time, but they knew
this was coming. They have a measure before them that could be passed,
which I hope they will pass.
One other thing. I asked the Director about some of the very
misdirected, improper, wrong and, in some instances, irresponsible
suggestions made on the floor about the tactics that the CIA may use in
questioning high-value detainees. The DNI made it clear, as I attempted
to make clear yesterday, all of the things banned by the Army Field
Manual, such as burning, electrocuting, beating, sexual harassment--all
those things are not only repugnant but they are not permitted to be
used by any of our intelligence agencies. He reiterated that
waterboarding is not permitted under the political guidelines that
include legislation and that we have passed here in direct orders.
So what was done yesterday does not prevent torture. That is
prevented already. It doesn't prevent cruel, degrading, and inhumane
interrogation techniques. It does not prevent other cruel, degrading,
or inhumane acts by the intelligence agencies. Those are already
prohibited.
What the measure that was passed yesterday does--were it to be signed
into law, and I certainly hope it will not be--would be to deny the
intelligence community the ability to use techniques that are similar
to but different from the techniques authorized in the Army Field
Manual. These enhanced techniques have been used only on roughly a
couple of dozen detainees in the custody of the CIA. They are lawful,
and they have produced some of the most important intelligence that the
intelligence community has gathered to identify high-level members of
al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations, and to interfere, impede,
and stop terror attacks directed not only at our troops abroad, our
allies, but the United States.
Unfortunately, some people were misled by comments that were
bordering on irresponsible on the floor yesterday, to say that we
banned torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading conduct. That is not
what happened. We tied the hands of the CIA with the purported
provision that would severely limit their ability to gain information
using totally lawful techniques in questioning high-value detainees.
Rather than being a blow for freedom, reaffirming our values, it merely
proposed to cripple our intelligence collection.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I commend the ranking member and
chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence for the outstanding
work they have done on this critical piece of legislation, passing it
in the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13 to 2, which was no easy
feat. This passed in the Senate by a strong bipartisan vote of 68 to
29, I believe. It is about as strong a bipartisan vote as you can
possibly get. This is a well-thought-out piece of legislation that,
once sent over to the House of Representatives, we were told the House
of Representatives, rather than to deal with this legislation, would
simply decide to fold their tent and go home. That is the height of
irresponsibility.
The Senator from Missouri described why it is so important for us to
be able to listen to our enemies: Because, simply, it saves American
lives. We learned a harsh lesson on September 11, 2001, which is that
we are not safe even within our own shores.
There are those who believe in a radical ideology that celebrates the
murder of innocent men, women, and children, and who are willing to use
instruments of destruction, whether they be primitive tools such as
flying an airplane into a building, or chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons--whatever they can get--to kill innocent civilians. We have to
do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Thank goodness, due to
the noble work of our men and women in uniform who are fighting in
places such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere around the world, we
are keeping the enemies of the United States on the run.
The best way we can deter these terrorist attacks is to listen in on
conversations and communications. That is the only way we are going to
be able to continue to do it. For the House of Representatives to know
that they are causing our intelligence community to go deaf to the
communications of terrorists who are plotting attacks against the
United States is the height of irresponsibility. I hope it is not true
and that they reconsider.
My hope is they will come back and they will pass this important
legislation that will encourage our telecommunications industry to
cooperate with the lawful requests of the Commander in Chief as
certified by the chief law enforcement officer of the United States,
and that is the Attorney General, so we can continue to listen to these
communications in a lawful and legal way and protect the American
people. For the House of Representatives to refuse to take up this
matter and to vote on it is, again, I say, the height of
irresponsibility, and it endangers American lives.
I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 4036

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
4036.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The result was announced--yeas 21, nays 73, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 26 Leg.]

YEAS--21

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Brownback
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cornyn
DeMint
Ensign
Enzi
Grassley
Gregg
Inhofe
Isakson
McConnell
Sessions
Shelby
Sununu
Vitter
Warner

[[Page 2267]]

NAYS--73

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brown
Bunning
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Craig
Crapo
Dodd
Dole
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Tester
Thune
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NOT VOTING--6

Boxer
Clinton
Graham
Inouye
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 4036) was rejected.

Amendment No. 4032

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally
divided on Coburn amendment No. 4032.
The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Madam President, this is a straightforward amendment that
says when somebody has been abused or sexually assaulted, they have the
right, postindictment, to have the person who assaulted them tested for
HIV and sexually transmitted diseases. It is current law in many other
areas, and I would appreciate your support.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I support the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been ordered on
amendment No. 4032. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Inouye), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily
absent.
Mr. KYL. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Are there any other Senators in the
Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 0, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 27 Leg.]

YEAS--94

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

NOT VOTING--6

Boxer
Clinton
Graham
Inouye
McCain
Obama
The amendment (No. 4032) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.

fisa

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have a serious crisis confronting
our country as a result of the House of Representatives' refusal to
take up the Senate-passed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. We
know for a fact the following: We know that the Senate approved
yesterday, with 69 votes, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
crafted by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond that came out of the
Intelligence Committee 13 to 2. This is about as bipartisan as it ever
gets around here. We know in addition this bill is the only bill that
can pass the House of Representatives. They took up yesterday a 21-day
extension of existing law, and it was defeated. It was defeated because
there were 20 to 25 House Democrats who didn't want the bill at all,
want it to die, want to walk away from it and leave the American people
unprotected.
In fact, there is a bipartisan majority for the Senate-passed bill in
the House, and that is the only bill for which there is a bipartisan
majority in the House. Now we have all learned that the House of
Representatives is going to close up shop and simply leave town,
arguing that somehow allowing this law to expire will not harm America.
We know that at the heart of this struggle is retroactive liability
for communications companies that stepped up, in the wake of the 9/11
disaster, at the request of the Government, to help protect us from
terrorism. As a result, there are numerous lawsuits pending against
these companies, I assume largely by the American Civil Liberties
Union. The CEOs and the boards of directors of these companies have a
fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. These lawsuits have the
potential to put them out of business. As a result of doing their duty
and responding to the request of the President of the United States to
help protect America, they run the risk of being put out of business.
That is what is before us. This retroactive liability problem
continues. It is not solved by continuation of existing law.
In addition, with the law expiring, it hampers opportunities
prospectively in the future to surveil new terrorist targets overseas.
So the notion that somehow no harm is done by allowing the law to
expire is simply incorrect. In fact, it borders on outrageous.
This was going to be another example of bipartisan cooperation on
behalf of the American people. We saw it at the end of the year last
year when we passed a bipartisan AMT fix without raising taxes on
anybody else. We passed an energy bill without a tax increase and
without a rate increase. We met the President's top line on the
appropriations bills. And, yes, we appropriated $70 billion for Iraq
and Afghanistan without any kind of micromanagement. At the beginning
of this year, we came together. It was a bit challenging in the Senate,
but we came together and passed a bipartisan stimulus bill to try to
deal with our slowing economy. We did it in record time. In fact, the
President had a signing ceremony 2 days ago.
I am wondering why this new bipartisan spirit we experienced in
December and again in January is breaking down on a matter that is
extraordinarily important to protecting the American people. It is
absolutely irresponsible for the House of Representatives to simply
throw up its hands and leave, particularly when the only measure that
enjoys a bipartisan majority in the House is exactly what enjoyed a
bipartisan majority in the Senate. It is the only measure that can pass
the House. So the refusal of the House leadership to take up and pass
the only bill that could possibly pass is an act of extraordinary
irresponsibility. Nothing else would pass over there.
I don't know why the House is even thinking about leaving town. They
have an important responsibility to help protect the American people.
The opportunity is right before them, and they will not take it.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I am happy to yield the Senator from Texas for a
question.
Mr. CORNYN. I ask the distinguished Republican leader whether the
voluntary cooperation of the telecommunications companies that have
cooperated at the request of the Government and upon certification by
the chief law enforcement agent of the country, the Attorney General,
is in jeopardy, if we merely continue the current law as opposed to
passing the bipartisan Senate bill? And if that is

[[Page 2268]]

the case, doesn't that just as effectively deny us access to terrorist
communications as if we did not pass the law itself?
Mr. McCONNELL. My understanding is the question suggests the answer.
The leadership of these companies has indeed a Hobson's choice, two bad
alternatives. They either continue to respond to the request of the
American Government to protect the homeland and then run the risk of
squandering all the assets of their companies and, thereby, generating
a lot of shareholder lawsuits against the directors for violating their
fiduciary responsibility. It is a terrible position to be put in. They
are entitled to be able to cooperate with the request of our Government
and not squander all the assets of their companies.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to my friend from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I would like to ask the distinguished
Republican leader if, in fact, because of the burden of these lawsuits,
some 40 different lawsuits against any telecommunications companies
that may have participated, if, in fact, they chose not to participate
in this program, is there any other option available to the
intelligence authorities to listen in on communications between
terrorists who are bent on wreaking havoc, death, and destruction on
the American people? Is there anywhere else to go?
Mr. McCONNELL. I don't think so, Mr. President. This is the only
solution to the problem. What is tragic, we know as a result of a
letter from the so-called blue dog Democrats, the more conservative
Democrats in the House, to Speaker Pelosi for sure that there is a
bipartisan majority in the House for passing the bill the Senate
passed. This is what the blue dog Democrats had to say to the Speaker.

Following the Senate's passage of a FISA bill, it will be
necessary for the House to quickly consider FISA legislation
to get a bill to the President before the Protect America Act
expires.

That, of course, will be Saturday.

We--

Referring to the blue dog Democrats----

fully support the Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation, should
it reach the House floor without substantial change. We
believe these components will ensure a strong national
security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe
and save American lives in our country.

The blue dog Democrats, coupled with House Republicans, make it
absolutely certain there is a bipartisan majority for our bill in the
House.

Further, the consequences of not passing such a measure
could place our national security at undue risk.

This is 21 blue dog Democrats in the House requesting the Speaker to
take up the bill that passed the Senate with 69 votes, obviously an
overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, pass it and send it to the President
for signature. This refusal to act is stunning, almost
incomprehensible.
Mr. CORNYN. Will the Senator yield for one final question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will.
Mr. CORNYN. The Republican leader is aware that the House of
Representatives only recently had widely publicized hearings into the
use of steroids and human growth hormone by baseball players. There has
also been an action taken recently to hold a former White House counsel
and the Chief of Staff of the President in contempt. Yet there appears
to be no time available on the House calendar to do things that
actually would protect the lives of the American people. Perhaps it is
an obvious answer, but it would seem to me to be clear that this ought
to be a high priority. Before we get to these kinds of political
machinations or perhaps publicity stunts, we ought to first protect the
security of the American people by passing this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the House
was dealing with steroid use in baseball and trying to punish some
White House official over some internal dispute. It does strike me that
is a strange use of time, when we are 2 days from the expiration of
arguably the most important piece of legislation we have passed since
9/11 to protect us here at home. It is no accident that we haven't been
attacked again since 9/11. There are two reasons for it. One is, we
went on the offense and have had great success in Afghanistan and Iraq,
killing a lot of terrorists, many of them at Guantanamo, which I happen
to think is a good place for them. A lot of the rest of them are on the
run. I am often asked: We don't have Osama bin Laden. I say: Well, we
wish we did. But I can assure you, he is not staying at the Four
Seasons in Islamabad. He is in some cold cave somewhere looking over
his shoulder, wondering when the final shoe is going to drop. So going
on offense was an important part of protecting America and also this
extraordinarily significant legislation about which we have had
testimony from the highest officials that it has actually helped us
thwart attacks against our homeland. There isn't anything we are doing
that is more important than this, certainly not looking at steroid use
in baseball. As important as that may be, it certainly does not rise to
this level, or censoring White House officials.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to my friend from Arizona for a question.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the first question I have is: Could the
intelligence community acquire new targets, if the Protect America Act
expires, without going to the FISA Court for some kind of an additional
warrant?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding they will not be
able to do that. So in addition to the retroactive liability issue,
which clearly is not solved by failing to act, we have this problem
that the Senator from Arizona has raised with regard to new targets. We
are clearly more vulnerable as a result of allowing this legislation to
expire, which will happen Saturday if the House of Representatives does
not act.
Mr. KYL. If the Senator will continue to yield, my recollection of
the words of Admiral McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, is
that--and I ask the leader to verify if I recall this correctly; I
think I am recalling it correctly--it doesn't matter whether the
Protect America Act expires or does not expire or is simply
reauthorized in its exiting form; the reality is, unless a new law is
passed that contains the retroactive liability protection feature, it
will become or is becoming increasingly difficult for the
telecommunications companies to provide the service the U.S. Government
needs them to provide to acquire this intelligence.
I wish to make sure I am not misstating this, that it is increasingly
difficult for these telecommunications companies to provide the service
our Government needs to collect this intelligence.
Mr. McCONNELL. My understanding is, the Senator from Arizona is
correct. It is not exactly that these public, spirited corporate
leaders do not want to help prevent terrorist attacks. It is that the
exposure to their companies as a result of these lawsuits runs the risk
of destroying the company and then opening them up to shareholders'
suits for irresponsible actions or violations of their fiduciary
responsibilities to their shareholders.
They are in an impossible position. We have, in effect, put them in
an impossible position by failing to provide for them the retroactive
immunity from liability they clearly deserve. These were public,
spirited Americans responding to a request from the Government to help
protect us at home. What they got for it was a couple of scores of
lawsuits.
Mr. KYL. I thank the leader.
Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I still have the floor.
Mr. REID. I am sorry about that.
Mr. McCONNELL. But I will be happy to yield.
Mr. REID. I did not want to interrupt the distinguished Republican
leader. Have you finished?
Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Whitehouse). The majority leader is
recognized.

[[Page 2269]]

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader
yield for a question from me?
Mr. REID. Sure.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I tried to get the distinguished Republican
leader to yield, but he was unwilling.
Let me ask the distinguished majority leader, is it not a fact that
these public, spirited telephone company owners are threatening to turn
off wiretaps, according to the press accounts, that have been legally
ordered through search warrants because the U.S. Government has failed
to pay them millions of dollars, and does not pay them the millions of
dollars? I just wonder if any of the legislation we are talking about
might be mandating our own Government to pay the bills for the
wiretaps.
I ask that only because it seems this public spiritedness goes one
way if they want to be immunized or the administration wants to be
immunized from anybody asking them questions, but it goes a different
way if it comes down to the question of getting paid.
Mr. REID. My understanding is, there are millions of dollars owed to
the telephone companies, Mr. President.
Mr. LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, my friend from Texas talked about a
publicity stunt. That is what we have, but it is inverse. The publicity
stunt is all from the White House, supported by the people in the
Senate, the Republicans, who always walk lockstep with whatever
President Bush wants.
First of all, Mr. President, legal scholars are almost uniform in
saying that existing orders are broad enough and they would be broad
enough for the next year. Whatever is happening now is good for next
year. In fact, if someone disagrees with that, you have existing FISA
law that allows application for an emergency.
Mr. President, let me say this: I sent to the President of the United
States today a letter. Let me read this:

Dear Mr. President:
I regret your reckless attempt to manufacture a crisis over
the reauthorization of foreign surveillance laws. Instead of
needlessly frightening the country, you should work with
Congress in a calm, constructive way to provide our
intelligence professionals with all needed tools while
respecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
Both the House and the Senate have passed bills to
reauthorize and improve the Protect America Act. Democrats
stand ready to negotiate with Republicans to resolve the
differences between the House and Senate bills. That is how
the legislative process works. Your unrealistic demand that
the House simply acquiesce in the Senate version is
preventing that negotiation from moving forward.
Our bicameral system of government was designed to ensure
broad bipartisan consensus for important laws. A FISA bill
negotiated between the House and the Senate would have firmer
support in Congress and among the American people, which
would serve the intelligence community's interest in creating
stronger legal certainty for surveillance activities.
That negotiation should take place immediately. In the
meantime, we should extend the current Protect America Act.
Earlier this week you threatened to veto an extension, and at
your behest Senate Republicans have blocked such a bill.
Yesterday every House Republican voted against an extension.

So it is obvious the marching orders have come from the White House.
That was a paraphrase from me. That was not in the letter. I continue
the letter:

Your opposition to an extension is inexplicable. Just last
week, Director of National Intelligence McConnell and
Attorney General Mukasey wrote to Congress that ``it is
critical that the authorities contained in the Protect
America Act not be allowed to expire.''

In commentary, Mr. President, I say this is from the head of the
National Intelligence Agency, Director McConnell, and General Mukasey,
our Attorney General. They said:

[I]t is critical that the authorities contained in the
Protect America Act not be allowed to expire.
Similarly, House Minority Leader Boehner has said
``allowing the Protect America Act to expire would undermine
our national security and endanger American lives, and that
is unacceptable.'' And you yourself said at the White House
today--

That is today, Thursday--

``There is really no excuse for letting this critical
legislation expire.'' I agree.

I agree, Mr. President.

Nonetheless, you have chosen to let the Protect America Act
expire. You bear responsibility for any intelligence
collection gap that may result.
Fortunately, your decision to allow the Protect America Act
to expire does not, in reality, threaten the safety of
Americans. As you are well aware, existing surveillance
orders under the law remain in effect for an additional year,
and the 1978 FISA law itself remains available for new
surveillance orders. Your suggestion that the law's
expiration would prevent intelligence agents from listening
to the conversations of terrorists is utterly false.
In sum, there is no crisis that should lead you to cancel
your trip to Africa. But whether or not you cancel your trip,
Democrats stand ready to negotiate a final bill, and we
remain willing to extend existing law for as short a time or
as long a time as is needed to complete work on such a bill.

I signed that ``Harry Reid.''
Mr. President, the President has created a crisis. As I have said on
the Senate floor, during the past 7 years he has become increasingly
proficient at scaring the American people. That is what he is trying to
do again today. Cancel his trip to Africa for this? But we, Mr.
President, are willing to work with him. The expiration of the law
stands on the shoulders of one person: George Bush. I am sure his ear
has been whispered in several times in the last week or so by the Vice
President. But the President is the one responsible ultimately. He has
instructed Republicans in the House not to agree to any extension, and
obviously the Senate Republicans also.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2615

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the consideration of Calendar No. 571, S. 2615; the bill be read a
third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
Mr. REID. This is a 15-day extension.
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. Reserving the right to object, there is no need
for an extension. This current law expires Saturday. We know 68 Members
of the Senate have already voted for a Protect America Act that would
extend the law for 6 years. We know a majority of the House of
Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, thinks that law ought to be
taken up and passed. That is what we ought to be doing.
I am sure the Democrats in the House are grateful to their good
friend, the majority leader, for trying to protect them from their
actions. But the fact is, there is only one reason we have a crisis. It
is because the House Democratic leadership refuses to act on a bill
that enjoys bipartisan majority support in the House of Representatives
that we have already passed overwhelmingly. Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3773

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
request the House to return the papers of H.R. 3773, FISA legislation;
and that if the House agrees to the request, the Senate insist on its
amendment, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on
the part of the Senate, with no intervening action or debate.
Is it my understanding the first request was objected to. Is that
right?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There was objection. Objection was heard.
Is there objection?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, there is
no need for a conference when you have an overwhelming bipartisan
majority of the Senate in favor of the bill and a bipartisan majority
of the House in favor of the same bill that the Senate has already
passed. There is no need to go to conference because we know where the
majority of the Senate is and we know where the majority of the House
is. Why would we want to have a conference when the work the Senate has
done, the Rockefeller-Bond bill, is supported by a bipartisan majority
in the House? Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The majority whip.

[[Page 2270]]

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, what we are witnessing is not a crisis in
security. It is a crisis in logic. How can the Republican leader stand
here and argue how endangered America would be if we allowed this law
to expire and then object to extending the law? How can the minority
leader, Senator McConnell, stand here and argue that we should pass
this legislation and then object when the majority leader asks for a
conference committee?
This is not a crisis in security. It is a crisis in logic. This is a
manufactured political crisis by the White House and the Republican
leaders. If the Republican leader was so focused on giving this power
to the President, he could have said, ``I do not object,'' when the
majority leader asked for a 15-day extension.
But, no, they want a press release. They want something to put in
front of the American people to take their minds off the state of our
economy, to take their minds off the fact that we are just,
unfortunately, a few lives away from losing 4,000 soldiers in this war
in Iraq. They want to manufacture a security crisis.
The Senator from Kentucky should know--and I am sure he has able
staff to alert him--the law, as it currently exists, the FISA law--even
if we do not change it--gives ample authority to this President to
continue to monitor the conversations of those who endanger the United
States.
But, instead, as Senator Harry Reid has said repeatedly, this
President is trying to make America afraid--make America afraid. I
thought there was a great leader who said once: The only thing we have
to fear is fear itself. It turns out that it is fear itself that is
motivating this Republican leadership. If they would have provided 30
votes yesterday in the House of Representatives, this law would have
been extended. But they had their marching orders from the White House
to vote no, and they did. So the attempt to extend it failed. If only
30 Members on the Republican side in the House had stood up and voted
to extend the law, it would have happened.
If the Republican minority leader, Senator McConnell, had not
objected just moments ago to the unanimous consent request of Senator
Reid, the Democratic leader, this law would have been extended.
It is obvious to those following the debate, the crisis is in the
logic on the Republican side. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot
complain that the law is going to expire, and then object to an
extension. It does not work that way. Even at the University of
Louisville, it does not work that way. Their philosophy department
would tell you that does not track, it does not follow.
So I would urge the Senator from Kentucky, if you really are
concerned about whether this law is extended, please reconsider your
objection to extending this law, as Senator Reid has asked repeatedly.
I think the American people know what is going on here. This is not
about security. This is about political cover. This is about
manufacturing a political argument and manufacturing a crisis--a crisis
of the White House's own creation. The President and his party bear
full responsibility if any intelligence gaps result.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
Mr. McCONNELL. Now, Mr. President, facts are a stubborn thing--a very
stubborn thing--and I am sure the Democrat leadership over in the House
appreciates the efforts being made by the majority leader and the
majority whip to protect them from the obvious. The obvious is--and
they know this even at the University of Illinois--that the majority of
the Senate has spoken, an overwhelming majority of the Senate, not just
on final passage which was 68 to 29, and cloture, which was 69 to 29,
but also the Feingold amendment was defeated 63 to 35, the Dodd
amendment 67 to 31, the Feingold amendment 60 to 37, the Specter-
Whitehouse amendment 68 to 30. This is not close. This bill went out of
the Senate with a riproaring, bipartisan majority. And we know for a
fact--and facts are a stubborn thing, I say to my good friend from
Illinois--we know for a fact that the Rockefeller-Bond bill is
supported by a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives. We
know that. It is a matter of simple addition. So why would we want to
have a short-term extension to provide an opportunity to resolve a
dispute that doesn't exist?
The majority has spoken in the Senate. The majority will speak in the
House if given the opportunity to speak. They are being denied the
opportunity to speak because the House runs in a different way from the
Senate, and the House leadership can simply refuse to take up a matter
that is supported by a bipartisan majority in the House. In this
particular instance--talk about a publicity stunt or creating a
crisis--what created the crisis was the refusal of the House of
Representatives to act. Now, the notion that somehow they didn't have
time--we have been dealing with this issue since last August--since
last August. The House had previously sent a bill over here that was
unacceptable. We are all familiar with the subject matter.
It is time to let a majority of the House of Representatives speak--
legislate. They are waiting there to be given permission to ratify the
fine work led by Senator Rockefeller and Senator Bond here in the
Senate and ratified by a total of 68 out of 100.
So we have a crisis, but the crisis is created by the majority in the
House and its refusal to accept the obvious, which is that a majority
of the Congress wishes to pass the legislation in the form that will
achieve a Presidential signature.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Texas for a question.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Republican
leader--the majority whip has said there is some sort of crisis in
logic, but I ask the minority leader to respond. Isn't the crisis in
logic that the telecommunications carriers, whose cooperation is
absolutely essential to the continuation of our ability to listen in on
communications between terrorists, isn't that what is at risk here, by
merely extending the current law and finally to come to grips with the
bipartisan legislation that passed the Senate and is supported by a
bipartisan majority in the House?
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Texas, he is
entirely correct. There are multiple lawsuits pending against the
companies. They are surely being pressured by their shareholders and
their boards of directors on the issue of whether continued cooperation
means the demise of the companies. The status quo, as the Senator from
Texas indicates, is not acceptable. Not only that, but we know for a
fact that the continuation of the status quo hampers the ability to go
up on new targets prospectively, so we not only have a deteriorating
situation in terms of continued cooperation from the communications
companies--not because they are not public-spirited citizens, not
because they don't want to help America, but because they run the risk
of squandering all the assets of their companies and enhanced exposure
to new actions that might occur by terrorists.
So the status quo is clearly not acceptable, I say to my friend from
Texas. I think his question suggests the answer.
This is a very serious matter and I regret that we are where we are.
We had gotten off, I thought, to a pretty good bipartisan start this
year. I had hoped--and frankly expected--that we would be having
another signing ceremony down at the White House on the Rockefeller-
Bond bill in the next few days and we could breathe easy that we had
done our job and had protected the American people to the maximum
extent possible for the foreseeable future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, facts are stubborn. The facts are that
within the last few days, we received a communication from the Attorney
General of the United States and the man who is the Director of
National Intelligence saying: ``It is critical the authorities
contained in the Protect America Act not be allowed to expire.'' That
is a

[[Page 2271]]

fact. That was followed up with a statement by the House minority
leader who said: ``Allowing the Protect America Act to expire would
undermine our national security and endanger American lives, and that
is unacceptable.'' And today, the President of the United States said:
``There is really no excuse for letting this critical legislation
expire.''
Those are the facts. So when we ask to accomplish what they want,
there is an objection.
It is very clear, this is not an effort by the White House to protect
the American people, it is an effort to protect the phone companies. It
is not the American people.
We heard from the Attorney General, we heard from the Director of
National Intelligence, the minority leader of the House, and the
President of the United States. We agreed to do what they want to do to
try to extend. The Republicans were given the orders not to do what
they wanted. Those are the facts.
Now another issue that is very important: The majority in the House
of Representatives and the majority in the Senate have both spoken. A
basic elementary rule of this Government is that we have a bicameral
legislature. We have the House and the Senate. In November, the House
passed by a majority what they thought should happen in the way of
extending this. We, a few days ago, decided what we thought we should
do. It is elementary that after that happens, there must be a
conference. They won't let us go to conference--``they'' meaning the
Republicans. So a majority of the House voted in November for a
different bill. That is why we need a negotiation. That is why we need
a conference. That is how a bill becomes law. That is the way it is.
That is the law. We have already decided that facts are stubborn.
Clearly, if we were arguing this case to a jury--and I think probably
as well the American people--they probably know that this is an effort
by the President to scare us and in exchange for that, he wants to try
to take care of the phone companies, not the American people.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, my name has been invoked frequently
here over the last several weeks as passing a bill which was not
favored by the majority of the people of my aisle, and the phrase
actually was used by the majority leader, who is never wrong, that we
did what the President wanted.
I didn't do what the President wanted. I did what I thought was the
right thing to do. I was joined by a variety of my colleagues,
including the Presiding Officer, who reserved the right to have other
views on the floor, which he did, but ended up voting for the bill.
What absolutely baffles me is that we are literally--we can do this
FISA bill. I am meeting tomorrow morning with the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee, who may be the only House member in town--I
have no idea, but I don't care because he is the chairman--on what we
can do to save this. I am absolutely convinced that we can have--in the
hearing this afternoon, the Presiding Officer heard me put this to the
Director of National Intelligence, who couldn't answer it because it
was not a policy question, but more of a political question. I said:
You are going to get the majority of your information all the way
through August. The President praised our bill and then came out the
next day and said: Of course, if the House doesn't pass it, we are
going to lose our intelligence and we will be vulnerable to the
terrorists. That was a misstatement, I think an annoying misstatement.
I don't understand. I simply don't understand, if something is good
and if the President is willing to sign a bill which this Senator in
his conscience feels is right, and it takes 15 days to do it, what the
minority leader needs to understand--and he served in the House. I am
sure he understands that they have now been jammed twice. They have
been jammed. There is something called human nature, and it is not
illegal to talk about human nature on the floor of the Senate. They
have been jammed. They have been pushed down to a 2-day period or a 3-
day period when they had to make a decision. They resent that. But if
they were given a period of time, they would come, in my judgment, to
where we are, and the bill would go to the President and he would sign
it.
Now, let me say something more. What people have to understand around
here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be
receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is
already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose
interest. Everybody tosses that around and says: Well, what do you
mean? I say: Well, what are they making out of this? What is the big
payoff for the telephone companies? They get paid a lot of money? No.
They get paid nothing. What do they get for this? They get $40 billion
worth of suits, grief, trashing, but they do it. But they don't have to
do it, because they do have shareholders to respond to, to answer to.
There is going to be a degrading of the nature of our intelligence in
some very crucial areas if we follow the path that the minority leader
is suggesting, because we will go right back to where we were last
August, and that will be a further jolt to the telecommunications
companies, because they will understand that you cannot count on the
Congress, you cannot count on us to make policy which will give
stability to their--not government agencies but to their corporations.
Fifteen days. We are off for a week, so maybe it has to be 25 days. I
don't know. I don't care about that. We could have the same bill on
this floor from the House. I am convinced of it. It is human nature.
Give them a chance to have a grudge. I am going to meet with the
chairman tomorrow. Let him rip into me for not giving the House an
adequate chance for the second time to discuss this matter. But I am
absolutely convinced that we could have that bill on the floor in this
body and pass it and send it to the President. Why they don't want to
do that, I do not know.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.

Amendment No. 4080 to Amendment No. 4070

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect
to amendment No. 4070, and I call up amendment No. 4080 as a second-
degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint] proposes an
amendment numbered 4080 to amendment No. 4070.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. RECISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page 2272]]

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it
is so ordered.

Amendment No. 3893, as Modified

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask for the regular order and call up
my amendment No. 3893. I send a modification to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
The amendment is so modified.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

At the end, add the following:

TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS

SEC. 301. RESOLUTION OF APOLOGY TO NATIVE PEOPLES OF UNITED
STATES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the ancestors of today's Native Peoples inhabited the
land of the present-day United States since time immemorial
and for thousands of years before the arrival of people of
European descent;
(2) for millennia, Native Peoples have honored, protected,
and stewarded this land we cherish;
(3) Native Peoples are spiritual people with a deep and
abiding belief in the Creator, and for millennia Native
Peoples have maintained a powerful spiritual connection to
this land, as evidenced by their customs and legends;
(4) the arrival of Europeans in North America opened a new
chapter in the history of Native Peoples;
(5) while establishment of permanent European settlements
in North America did stir conflict with nearby Indian tribes,
peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions also took
place;
(6) the foundational English settlements in Jamestown,
Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts, owed their survival in
large measure to the compassion and aid of Native Peoples in
the vicinities of the settlements;
(7) in the infancy of the United States, the founders of
the Republic expressed their desire for a just relationship
with the Indian tribes, as evidenced by the Northwest
Ordinance enacted by Congress in 1787, which begins with the
phrase, ``The utmost good faith shall always be observed
toward the Indians'';
(8) Indian tribes provided great assistance to the
fledgling Republic as it strengthened and grew, including
invaluable help to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on
their epic journey from St. Louis, Missouri, to the Pacific
Coast;
(9) Native Peoples and non-Native settlers engaged in
numerous armed conflicts in which unfortunately, both took
innocent lives, including those of women and children;
(10) the Federal Government violated many of the treaties
ratified by Congress and other diplomatic agreements with
Indian tribes;
(12) the United States forced Indian tribes and their
citizens to move away from their traditional homelands and
onto federally established and controlled reservations, in
accordance with such Acts as the Act of May 28, 1830 (4 Stat.
411, chapter 148) (commonly known as the ``Indian Removal
Act'');
(13) many Native Peoples suffered and perished--
(A) during the execution of the official Federal Government
policy of forced removal, including the infamous Trail of
Tears and Long Walk;
(B) during bloody armed confrontations and massacres, such
as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee
Massacre in 1890; and
(C) on numerous Indian reservations;
(14) the Federal Government condemned the traditions,
beliefs, and customs of Native Peoples and endeavored to
assimilate them by such policies as the redistribution of
land under the Act of February 8, 1887 (25 U.S.C. 331; 24
Stat. 388, chapter 119) (commonly known as the ``General
Allotment Act''), and the forcible removal of Native children
from their families to faraway boarding schools where their
Native practices and languages were degraded and forbidden;
(15) officials of the Federal Government and private United
States citizens harmed Native Peoples by the unlawful
acquisition of recognized tribal land and the theft of tribal
resources and assets from recognized tribal land;
(16) the policies of the Federal Government toward Indian
tribes and the breaking of covenants with Indian tribes have
contributed to the severe social ills and economic troubles
in many Native communities today;
(17) despite the wrongs committed against Native Peoples by
the United States, Native Peoples have remained committed to
the protection of this great land, as evidenced by the fact
that, on a per capita basis, more Native Peoples have served
in the United States Armed Forces and placed themselves in
harm's way in defense of the United States in every major
military conflict than any other ethnic group;
(18) Indian tribes have actively influenced the public life
of the United States by continued cooperation with Congress
and the Department of the Interior, through the involvement
of Native individuals in official Federal Government
positions, and by leadership of their own sovereign Indian
tribes;
(19) Indian tribes are resilient and determined to
preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their
unique cultural identities;
(20) the National Museum of the American Indian was
established within the Smithsonian Institution as a living
memorial to Native Peoples and their traditions; and
(21) Native Peoples are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, and among those are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
(b) Acknowledgment and Apology.--The United States, acting
through Congress--
(1) recognizes the special legal and political relationship
Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn
covenant with the land we share;
(2) commends and honors Native Peoples for the thousands of
years that they have stewarded and protected this land;
(3) recognizes that there have been years of official
depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of
covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes;
(4) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States
to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence,
maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by
citizens of the United States;
(5) expresses its regret for the ramifications of former
wrongs and its commitment to build on the positive
relationships of the past and present to move toward a
brighter future where all the people of this land live
reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward
and protect this land together;
(6) urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the
United States against Indian tribes in the history of the
United States in order to bring healing to this land; and
(7) commends the State governments that have begun
reconciliation efforts with recognized Indian tribes located
in their boundaries and encourages all State governments
similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with
Indian tribes within their boundaries.
(c) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this section--
(1) authorizes or supports any claim against the United
States; or
(2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United
States.

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, this is an amendment brought up at the
very outset of this debate. I understand there has been an agreement
that we can move forward with this amendment. So I have worked with the
chairman of the committee and the ranking member, and the modifications
have been made.
I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, my understanding is that we were going to
voice vote this amendment. Senator Mikulski is in the room, and she
will want to call up her amendment No. 4023. My hope is that we could
agree to these two amendments en bloc by voice vote.
Mr. BROWNBACK. We do not need a recorded vote. I will agree to a
voice vote.
First, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Coburn as a cosponsor
of my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 4023

Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my
amendment No. 4023 be considered en bloc with Senator Brownback's
amendment. I do not need a recorded vote. I am more than happy to
accept a voice vote.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, both amendments have been cleared. I ask
for a favorable consideration of the two amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Brownback
amendment No. 3893, as modified, and the Mikulski amendment No. 4023,
en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 3893, as modified, and 4023) were agreed to en
bloc.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 2273]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, be recognized for 7 minutes as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.

veterans benefits enhancement act

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak--again--
about S. 1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This
critical legislation would affect real change in the treatment of our
Nation's veterans.
Provisions in S. 1315 would improve life insurance programs for
disabled veterans, expand the traumatic injury protection program for
active duty servicemembers, and provide individuals with severe burns
specially adapted housing benefits. These provisions are vital to
improve benefits and services for our veterans.
However, for many months now, S. 1315 has been blocked from debate by
Republican Members opposed to a provision in the bill that would extend
certain VA benefits to Filipino veterans, residing in the Philippines,
who fought alongside U.S. troops during World War II. These veterans
have been denied these benefits for over 50 years. I believe it is time
to give these elderly veterans the benefits that they earned and so
richly deserve.
In the 62 years since the end of the Second World War, Filipino
veterans have worked tirelessly to secure the veterans status they were
promised when they agreed to fight under U.S. command during World War
II. They were considered U.S. veterans until that status was taken from
them by an Act of Congress in 1946.
At the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask that a letter to Senator
Craig from General Delfin Lorenzana, the head of the Office of
Veterans' Affairs for the Embassy of the Philippines, be printed in the
Record. This letter presents a historical overview of Filipino
involvement during World War II and what has ensued since that time.
General Lorenzana notes that these veterans fought in a war between
the United States and Japan, under the U.S. flag as part of the U.S.
Army Forces in the Far East. He notes that out of the nearly half-a-
million Filipino veterans who served, only 18,000 survive today. In
another decade, only a few of them will remain.
I am happy to note that many Filipino veterans enjoy eligibility for
benefits and health care services on the same basis as other U.S.
veterans. However, there is still work to be done in order to extend
these eligibilities to all of those who served with the United States
military during World War II.
Last June the committee held a markup where the then ranking member,
Senator Craig, offered an amendment to reduce the amount of pension
that Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines would receive under
S. 1315. I stress that the amendment was not to strip pension benefits
from the bill entirely--merely to reduce the benefit in line with what
Senator Craig viewed as appropriate. I disagreed with Senator Craig's
assessment and his amendment was not adopted.
In the months that followed markup, consideration of S. 1315 was put
off while Republican leadership on the committee suddenly changed
hands.
In late fall, my efforts to seek a middle ground between the level of
pension benefits in the bill as reported, and the level former Ranking
Member Craig sought during markup, were rejected. When a counteroffer
was finally made by the committee's new ranking member, Senator Burr,
supported by Senator Craig, it proposed to entirely strip pension
benefits from Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines from the
bill. This is not acceptable to me. It is possible, however, that it
might be acceptable to some in the Senate. That is why I continue to
ask that we move forward with deliberation of this measure. Let us have
a real debate on this bill, and then have an up-or-down vote.
I again ask that the Senate be allowed to debate this important
measure. Our committee must be permitted to finish our work. America's
veterans deserve no less.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from General
Lorenzana, which I mentioned earlier, be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Embassy of the Philippines,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2008.
Hon. Larry E. Craig,
Member, Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, Hart Senate
Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Craig: In November and December last year,
S1315, the Veterans Benefits Enhancement Act (which includes
benefits for surviving Filipino World War II veterans) was
brought to the Senate Floor for unanimous consent. On both
occasions, you strongly objected to the passage of the Bill,
specifically Title IV, the portion on Filipino WWII veterans,
citing reasons such as: the Filipino veterans are not U.S.
citizens; the proposed benefits are too generous; they would
have undue advantage over U.S. veterans residing in the U.S.;
we have treated them fairly by providing $620M in
reconstruction after the war ($6.7B in today's dollars); we
have a hospital in the Philippines; we are taking away money
from our veterans to give to a foreign veteran--a Filipino
(the Robin Hood in reverse effect).
It would be reasonable for such arguments to appeal to the
American public, especially those who are uninformed of the
complete facts of the issue. But in the interest of fairness,
it is necessary to see the entire picture.
First of all, Filipinos who served under the U.S. Army
pursuant to a military order by President Franklin D.
Roosevelt on July 26, 1941 were in fact U.S. veterans by U.S.
definition and the Rider to the Rescission Act of 1946 (PL
79-301) was, therefore, grossly discriminatory, unfair and
unjust.
The Filipino WWII Veterans claim is based on the
Philippines' status as a U.S. colony and a U.S. law, the
Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934, also known as the Philippine
Independence Act. This law was passed by the U.S. Congress on
March 24, 1934 to provide self-government to the Philippines
leading to its eventual independence from America after a
transition period of 10 years. This law mandates that all
citizens of the Philippines shall owe allegiance to the
United States. Under this law, the United States of America
retains control and supervision of national defense and
foreign affairs. The President of the United States of
America was likewise granted power to call into service all
military forces located within the Philippine Commonwealth
Government. This power was invoked and exercised by President
Franklin D. Roosevelt on July 26, 1941 when war with Japan
became imminent.
Some have argued that the responsibility for taking care of
Filipino veterans rests upon the Philippine Government
because they fought for their country. Our Government has
been doing this within its resources for more than 60 years.
In fact the Philippine Congress is passing a law that would
allow these veterans to continue receiving their old-age
pensions even after the U.S. has passed a law that would give
them veterans benefits.
That they fought for their country's liberation cannot be
denied. But primarily, these veterans fought in a war between
U.S. and Japan, under the U.S. flag as part of the United
States Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE). Japan invaded
the Philippines to defeat the American forces stationed
thereat which it considered an obstacle in its drive to the
resource-rich Dutch East Indies. Some historians have argued
that if the Philippines then had not been a colony of the
U.S., it could have been easily bypassed by Japan in its
southward drive. Because of the vagaries of history we will
never know this for sure, but the fact is, Thailand, a
country not under a colonial rule, was not invaded.
You claimed that the pension benefit is too generous ($375
for veterans with dependents, $300 for single veterans, and
$200 for widows of veterans). What is the price of the
services and sacrifices so generously given to America by
these veterans and the entire Filipino nation during that
Great War, Senator Craig? They were prepared to offer the
ultimate sacrifice for America. Their homeland was made a
battlefield in a war between Japan and the United States. An
estimated one million Filipinos, combatants and non-
combatants, died in that war. If at all, for so many of these
veterans, these benefits may be too little, too late.
And yet after the war, these veterans were denied their
benefits under U.S. laws by an Act of Congress (PL 79-301).
It was a discriminatory, unfair and unjust law because while
it barred these veterans from getting benefits it also
provided for widows and orphans of those who died in line of
duty and to those who had service-connected disabilities even
if only at 50 cents to the dollar. But were the services of
the survivors less important than those who were killed at
the onset of the war and later or those who were imprisoned,
wounded and incapacitated?
In reality, they were an indispensable part of the
underground Army that tied up large number of Japanese forces
otherwise deployed elsewhere. They aided and protected

[[Page 2274]]

American officers and soldiers who escaped capture. They
served in the underground units led by USAFFE officers. They
provided vital intelligence and forces-in-place that
facilitated the counter-invasion of the allied forces that
minimized allied casualties. They provided invaluable
intelligence and combat support in the rescue of 513 American
POWs in Cabanatuan in Central Luzon on January 28, 1945--
considered as the most successful rescue in the annals of the
U.S. Army. This rescue operation was later made into the
acclaimed book ``The Ghost Soldiers'' and eventually into a
movie ``The Great Raid''.
U.S. role in the Philippine postwar reconstruction and
rehabilitation was to be expected. The war, after all, was on
account of the United States. But these postwar
reconstruction and aid came at a great cost to the fledgling
Philippine Republic as this excerpt from a history book
states: ``The Philippines had gained independence in the
`ashes of victory'. Intense fighting, especially around
Manila in the last days of the Japanese retreat (February-
March 1945), had nearly destroyed the capital. The economy
generally was in disarray. Rehabilitation aid was obviously
needed, and President Roxas was willing to accept some
onerous conditions placed implicitly and explicitly by the
U.S. Congress. The Bell Act in the United States extended
free trade with the Philippines for 8 years, to be followed
by 20 years of gradually increasing tariffs. The United
States demanded and received a 99-year lease on a number of
Philippine military and naval bases in which U.S. authorities
had virtual territorial rights. And finally, as a specific
requirement for release of U.S. war-damage payments, the
Philippines had to amend its constitution to give U.S.
citizens equal rights with Filipinos in the exploitation of
its natural resources--the so-called Parity Amendment.'' The
aggressor nations were actually treated better.
Your statement that granting these benefits to the Filipino
veterans is stealing money from U.S. veterans and giving it
to a foreign veteran--a Filipino (the Reverse Robin Hood
effect), is most unfair to all these veterans, Filipinos and
Americans. They served the United States faithfully and
selflessly and it is uncharacteristic that they should be
pitted against each other over benefits. These Filipinos are
U.S. veterans at the end of WWII as pointed out earlier. Our
research into U.S. Congressional records of early 1946
indicates that, in fact, it was the Filipino veterans who
were stripped of their rightful benefits under U.S. laws by
an act of Congress. During the deliberation of the Rescission
Act of 1946, the Head of the Veterans Administration
testified that the Filipino soldiers who served under the
U.S. Army during World War II pursuant to the military order'
of President Franklin Roosevelt satisfy the statutory
definition of a U.S. veteran and that it would cost the U.S.
$3.2B to pay them on equal terms as their U.S. counterpart.
Subsequently, the Rider to P.L. 79-301 was inserted to become
Sec. 107, Title 38 of the U.S. Code which S1315 aims to
amend. How much is $3.2B in today's dollars, Senator Craig?
Furthermore, the Rider to P.L. 79-301 provided an
appropriation of $200M to the Philippine Army to compensate
Filipino veterans. Immediately upon enactment of P.L. 79-301,
the Philippine Resident Commissioner to the U.S., the
Honorable Carlos P. Romulo, protested the Rider and rejected
the $200M appropriation to the Philippine Army. Our research
yields no record of the amount going into the Philippine Army
budget in the years 1946-48. Again, how much is this in
today's dollars? By all accounts, this measure has saved the
U.S. billions of dollars at the expense of the Filipino
veterans.
Mr. Senator, these Filipino WWII veterans were no different
from the more than 15 million American men and women who were
discharged from the military service at the end of WWII. They
came from all walks of life and cross-section of the country
the same as their U.S. counterparts: from cities, small
towns, farms and villages. But the similarity ends there.
After the war the U.S. veterans could go to school under the
GI Bill of Rights. They were eligible to generous housing
loans, medical and other benefits. Educated and trained, they
became a vital cog of postwar America that propelled this
great nation to its preeminent place in the world today. Two
of your esteemed Senate colleagues, Senators John Warner and
Frank Lautenberg, both WWII veterans, jumpstarted their
careers through the GI Bill. No such luck came for the
Filipino veterans.
Senator Craig, the 110th Congress is in a position to
redress a 62-year old injustice done to Filipino veterans by
the same institution that you now serve, by passing S1315.
Out of the original 470,000 listed after the war which the
U.S. Army trimmed down to 260,143 in 1948, barely 18,000
survive today. They are in their mid-80s and in about a
decade only a few of them would be left. They are not seeking
equal benefits as their American counterparts. The Veterans
Federation of the Philippines welcomes and fully supports the
Senate Veterans Affairs' Committee markup. Your statement
that it would give them undue advantage over U.S. veterans
residing in the U.S. vis-a-vis the difference in the cost of
living in both countries is not the case on closer scrutiny.
Whilst the U.S. veterans have access to VA medical facilities
& medicines, loan guarantees, low insurance premiums and food
stamps the Filipino veterans do not. Only those in Luzon have
easy access to the Veterans Memorial Medical Center in Manila
(a hospital built by the U.S. in 1950 and conveyed to the
Philippine Government in 1953) but they usually pay for their
own medicines. Whatever meager income they have is augmented
by a 5,000 pesos old-age pension from the Philippine
Government. Furthermore, the appreciation of the Peso against
the Dollar which was 55:1 a year ago is now 40: 1, thus
greatly diminishing the real value of the proposed pension
benefits.
We hope that the debate on the Filipino WWII veterans issue
would focus more on the merits of their claims and not their
being non-U.S. citizens. After all, this was not an issue in
1941 when the U.S. President ordered them into the service of
the U.S. Army to fight under the U.S. flag. They were U.S.
veterans under U.S. law after the war and entitled to VA
benefits until PL 79-301 was passed.
As we commemorate the Anniversary of the Rescission Act of
1946 on February 18, we pray that this 62-year old claim for
recognition and benefits of these remaining gallant men and
women who served America with utmost loyalty and devotion
during WWII be finally granted.
Lastly, the Philippines is one of the leading allies of the
U.S. in today's war against terror. In the same way that the
Filipino soldiers in WWII shed their blood with U.S. soldiers
in defense of freedom and democracy, today's Filipino
soldiers help make the world a safer and more secure place to
live. Would it be too much to ask, therefore, that if only in
tribute to their long lasting partnership, that a great
injustice be formally corrected and our WWII veterans given
the recognition and benefits they so richly deserve. That's
all that we ask.
With my best wishes for your continued success, I remain
Sincerely yours,

Delfin N. Lorenzana,

Special Presidential Representative/
Head, Office of Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. AKAKA. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.

Amendments Nos. 4078, as Modified; to Amendment No. 3899, and 4083

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request that
has been cleared on both sides, to clear some amendments that are
agreed to.
I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so
that I may call up the following amendments en bloc: Coburn, No. 4078,
as modified; Vitter, No. 4038; Bingaman, No. 4083.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report the amendments.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for Mr. Coburn
and Mr. Bingaman, proposes amendments numbered 4078, as
modified, and 4083, en bloc.

The amendments are as follows:

amendment no. 4078, as modified

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. STUDY ON TOBACCO-RELATED DISEASE AND
DISPROPORTIONATE HEALTH EFFECTS ON TRIBAL
POPULATIONS.

``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008,
the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal
departments and agencies and acting through the epidemiology
centers established under section 209, shall solicit from
independent organizations bids to conduct, and shall submit
to Congress, no later than 5 years after enactment, a report
describing the results of, a study to determine possible
causes for the high prevalence of tobacco use among Indians.

amendment no. 4083

(Purpose: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to
conduct a study on payments for contract health services)

At the end of title I, add the following:

SEC. ___. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT
HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States (in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller
General'') shall conduct a study on the utilization of health
care

[[Page 2275]]

furnished by health care providers under the contract health
services program funded by the Indian Health Service and
operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian Tribe, or a
Tribal Organization (as those terms are defined in section 4
of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
(2) Analysis.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)
shall include an analysis of--
(A) the amounts reimbursed under the contract health
services program described in paragraph (1) for health care
furnished by entities, individual providers, and suppliers,
including a comparison of reimbursement for such health care
through other public programs and in the private sector;
(B) barriers to accessing care under such contract health
services program, including, but not limited to, barriers
relating to travel distances, cultural differences, and
public and private sector reluctance to furnish care to
patients under such program;
(C) the adequacy of existing Federal funding for health
care under such contract health services program; and
(D) any other items determined appropriate by the
Comptroller General.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with recommendations regarding--
(1) the appropriate level of Federal funding that should be
established for health care under the contract health
services program described in subsection (a)(1); and
(2) how to most efficiently utilize such funding.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a) and preparing the report under subsection (b), the
Comptroller General shall consult with the Indian Health
Service, Indian Tribes, and Tribal Organizations.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendments be agreed to en bloc: Martinez, No. 3906, as modified;
Bingaman, No. 4083; Barrasso, No. 3898; Coburn, No. 4078, as modified;
Coburn, No. 4029; and Vitter, No. 4038.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments (Nos. 3906, as modified; 4083; 3898; 4078, as
modified; 4029; and 4038) were agreed to en bloc.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. 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.

Amendment Nos. 4024, 4025, 4026, 4027, 4028, 4030, 4031, 4033, 4035,
and 4037 Withdrawn

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, Senator Coburn has indicated to me that
the pending Coburn amendments will not be dealt with further.
Therefore, on his behalf, I ask that the Coburn amendments be
withdrawn. I believe Senator Murkowski is with the same understanding.
He came to both of us. He offered some of his amendments. He got us to
accept other amendments without a vote. We appreciate very much his
cooperation. But the other pending amendments that were accepted
originally to be en bloc, we ask they be withdrawn.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have no objection on this side to
withdrawing the pending Coburn amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
amendments are withdrawn.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for 10 minutes as in morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

section 303

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator
from North Dakota for his leadership on the issue of Indian health
care. As he and the Senator from Alaska have emphasized during the
debate in recent days, our Government must ensure that Native Americans
have access to quality health care throughout our country.
Mr. DORGAN. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support.
Mr. KENNEDY. I understand that in the managers' amendment, section
303(b) of the bill has been modified so that the language is now
identical to current law; is that correct?
Mr. DORGAN. Yes. The intent of the provision in the managers'
amendment to the bill is to maintain current law. Generally, when
Indian health facilities are constructed or renovated, Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage rates apply. However, pursuant to current Federal law
and longstanding policy of the Department of Labor, Indian Health
Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs, when Indian tribes and tribal
organizations construct or renovate federally funded Indian health
facilities using their own employees, Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates
do not apply. Our intention in the managers' amendment is to maintain
the status quo of current law and policy in these regards.
Mr. KENNEDY. So this language does not change the construction or
application of existing statutes?
Mr. DORGAN. Correct, it does not change current law. It is our intent
that the prevailing wage provisions in both the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act and the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act will continue to apply when Federal funds are used for
the construction and renovation of Indian health facilities, except
where such work is carried out by tribal or tribal organization
employees.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is my understanding as well. The only reason that
the managers' amendment restates section 303, as opposed to simply
leaving section 303 in current law untouched, is a purely technical
matter arising from the difficulty, or awkwardness, of leaving only one
provision of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act in place while
restating or amending the rest of that act.
Mr. DORGAN. That is correct, that is why the managers' amendment
restates current section 303 verbatim.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. More specifically, it is my understanding that by
simply restating section 303 verbatim in this bill, Congress is not
superseding or altering the effect of the prevailing wage provisions of
the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act--including
the exception referred to by the Senator from North Dakota applicable
when construction or renovation work is carried out by employees of an
Indian tribe or tribal organization--the regulations promulgated under
that act.
Mr. KENNEDY. That is correct.
Mr. DORGAN. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of amendment No.
4023, which would halt draconian new rules that would hamstring cost-
effective case management services under the Medicaid Program.
In March of this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
plans to implement a regulation designed to limit case management
services: For children in foster care; for the elderly, who, if not for
case management, would be in nursing homes; for Americans with
disabilities; and or individuals with severe mental illness.
These are Americans who not only live with severe health or mental
disabilities, they live in poverty.
This administration is nothing if not consistent.
This administration consistently woos those with wealth and neglects
those in need.
Ohio has worked over the past 24 years to develop and fine tune an
effective system for providing case management to Medicaid
beneficiaries who meet a nursing home level of care but want to remain
in their homes.
Enabling these Ohioans, most of whom are elderly, to live
independently is not only right, it is smart.
Per capita nursing home care is more expensive than per capita home
health care.
And home and community-based care fosters independence, self-
determination, and rehabilitation.
Case managers are the foundation of this system of care. It cannot
work without them.
But case managers cannot do their jobs if they are hung up by rules
that just do not make sense.
CMS is attempting to chop the case management system into pieces,
wrap it in red tape, and sit back as it withers on the vine.
They are limiting case management, as if the lack of it is in some
way a reasonable solution to rising health care

[[Page 2276]]

costs. Nothing could be further from the truth.
At a time when our health care system is overburdened and our economy
is in a slump, why would we introduce chaos into cost-effective,
coordinated care?
If the administration hamstrings effective case management, Medicaid
costs will not drop, they will likely balloon. Without solid case
management grounded in seamless administration and service delivery,
state Medicaid Programs will lose ground.
They will forsake precious progress they have made toward eliminating
duplicative or unnecessary care, reducing hospitalizations, and
improving outcomes.
This rule is bad for Ohio and bad for the nation.
It is misguided, and frankly, it is cruel.
Whether your vote arises from compassion or common sense, I urge
every Member to support this amendment.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act and the reauthorization we are considering
today.
Passage of this bill in the Senate is long overdue. We haven't passed
an update to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act since 1992, and the
law has now been expired for 8 years.
Since this time, we have seen the continuation of unacceptable trends
in the health of American Indians and Alaskan Natives. American Indians
and Alaskan Natives across the country are 400 percent more likely to
die from tuberculosis, 291 percent more likely to die from diabetes
complications, and 67 percent more likely to die from influenza and
pneumonia than other groups.
In my State of Washington, the average life expectancy of an American
Indian is estimated to be 4 years below that of the general population,
as reported by the Indian Health Service for the years 2000 through
2002. This is a troubling increase from the gap of 2.8 years reported
by the Indian Health Service for 1994.
These disparities must not continue. We owe it to Indian Country to
make good on our promise--a promise embedded in long-standing trust
agreements--to ensure that the health needs of American Indians and
Alaskan Natives are taken care of.
Enactment of this bill, of which I am a proud cosponsor, is a
necessary step that will help us fully realize our obligations. The
Indian Health Care Improvement Act must be reauthorized, and most
importantly, modernized to ensure that the services delivered under the
Indian Health Service reflect the advances made in health care
delivery.
This reauthorization makes much needed improvements to the way health
care is administered to American Indians. It makes new authorizations
for home and community based care, a cost-effective and much desired
alternative to traditional long-term care facilities. It expands
behavioral health services to address disorders beyond the traditional
focus on alcohol and substance abuse. And it requires that individuals
in need of mental help get access to a continuum of care such as
hospitalization and detoxification services.
Importantly, this bill includes long-term reauthorization of health
services for urban Indians. As my colleagues know, urban Indians
account for a vast majority of the American Indian population, with
nearly 7 out of 10 American Indians and Alaskan Natives living in or
near an urban area.
Such a large population cannot be left behind in this
reauthorization. Urban Indians face similar health disparities as their
counterparts who live on reservations, and they are not removed from
our Nation's trust obligation because of where they live.
Washington State is grateful for the efforts of two urban Indian
organizations working to provide critically needed health care to this
underserved population. The Seattle Indian Health Board and the
N.A.T.I.V.E. Project of Spokane have remained strong components of our
State's health and social safety net, providing over 15,000 unique
patients with comprehensive primary care, mental health, and social
services.
The Seattle Indian Health Board also serves as a vital health
research and surveillance center for the country under its Urban Indian
Health Institute program. There is much to be learned about the issues
and barriers facing urban Indians, making the comprehensive collection
and analysis of information from this program indispensible to our work
to improve the health of our communities.
Continuing Federal support for these and the other 32 entities
currently receiving Federal resources for urban Indian health care must
remain a top priority under this Government's strategy to address the
disparities facing all American Indians.
I am excited that we have come so close to passing this
reauthorization. I hope to work with Chairman Dorgan, Vice Chairman
Murkowski, and my colleagues on the Indian Affairs and Finance
Committees to seeing this through and getting a bill signed into law.
However, I want to also urge my colleagues to remember that our trust
responsibility does not end with reauthorization of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act. It continues as we craft a budget for the coming
fiscal year and make the appropriations for the Indian Health Service.
The programs we are about to reauthorize are useless if we don't make
gains in the paltry amount of funds for health services, urban Indian
health, and facilities construction. As my colleagues know, the Indian
Health Service is only funded at 60 percent of estimated need.
Today's actions should be the beginning of a renewed commitment to
our first Americans. I look forward to starting a new chapter in our
relationship with Indian Country.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today the Senate is considering the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act Amendments. American Indians and Alaska
Natives--along with all other Americans--should receive modern,
efficient, and quality health care. Unfortunately, too many of those in
the Indian health system do not receive that care today. This important
legislation will change that.
Reforming our Nation's broken health care system is one of my highest
priorities and I strongly support efforts to shore up Indian health
care services, such as those proposed in this important legislation.
Like all Americans, American Indians and Alaska Natives cannot prosper
without access to modern, efficient, and quality health care.
The most recent census information available indicates there are 2.3
million American Indian and Alaska Native people in the United States.
In my State of Oregon alone there are nine federally recognized tribes,
and a large urban Indian population. Less than 40 percent of their
people reside on reservations. It is a continuing failure of this
Nation that American Indian and Alaska Native people rank at or near
the bottom of so many social and economic indicators.
Most striking of these indicators are the health statistics involving
American Indian and Alaska Natives. Diabetes, tuberculosis, alcoholism,
fetal alcohol syndrome, and increasingly, AIDS, plague America's Native
communities at rates far and above those of other Americans. As of
2007, there is a $1 billion backlog in unmet needs for health
facilities, contributing to the degenerating health of Native
communities.
The plight of Native American health care in this country is the
result of one simple and tragic fact: The Federal Government has failed
to meet its promise to Native Americans.
Through treaties and statutes, the Federal Government has promised to
provide health care to American Indians and Alaska Natives. A critical
aspect of this promise is sufficient funding for the Indian Health
Service, IHS, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. IHS
arranges health care services for Native Americans and provides some
services through direct care at hospitals, health centers, and health
stations, which may be federally or tribally operated. When services
are not offered or accessible onsite, IHS offers them, as funds permit,
through

[[Page 2277]]

contract care furnished by outside providers.
In addition, in the Indian Health Amendments of 1992, Congress
specifically pledged to ``assure the highest possible health status for
Indians and urban Indians and to provide all resources necessary to
effect that policy.'' These combined commitments are absolutely
essential to help the Federal Government meet its legal and moral
responsibilities to Native Americans.
Sadly, we haven't even come close to honoring these commitments.
Sufficient funding has not been provided. IHS is so underfunded and
understaffed that patients routinely are being denied care that most of
us would take for granted and, in many cases, would consider essential.
The resulting rationing of care means that all too often Indians are
forced to wait until their medical conditions become more serious--and
more difficult to treat--before they can even access necessary health
care. The chronic underfunding has only grown worse in recent years, as
Federal appropriations failed to keep up with the steep rise in public
and private health care costs and expenditures.
The results are startling and disturbing. While per capita health
care spending for the general U.S. population is about $7,000, the
Indian Health Service spends only about $2,100 per person on individual
health care services. The Government also spends considerably less on
health care for Indians than it spends for Medicare beneficiaries,
Medicaid recipients, and veterans.
It is appalling that we can live in one of the most prosperous
nations on Earth, where most--but by far not all--Americans have access
to health care services, yet we provide woefully inadequate health care
for our Native American population.
These resource shortcomings underscore the need to make the Indian
Health Service a priority in the Federal budget. It is also why I am
supporting an amendment offered by my colleague from the State of
Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, along with my colleague from Washington
State, Senator Maria Cantwell. It would provide for innovative
approaches in funding health care facilities by providing a way to
distribute funds more equally with the establishment of an area
distribution fund.
Each year, I travel to every county in Oregon to learn firsthand the
challenges confronting my constituents. I often find that my most
enlightening visits occur when I travel to Indian Country, especially
when I hear or read compelling stories about Indian health care
afforded to my tribal constituents. But I am also pleased that the
northwest region has its share of success stories and examples of
medical care for Native Americans that have worked.
With the support of the Native American Rehabilitation Association's
Diabetes Prevention Program, made possible by the IHS Special Diabetes
Program for Indians, diabetes patients are losing weight and improving
their lifestyle. I am also pleased to note that the One Sky Center, a
National Native Resource Center for Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services located at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland,
is the only National Resource Center of its kind in Indian Country.
Indian Country is in a crisis in combating alcohol, substance abuse,
and methamphetamine. There is a real need for such a center for not
only tribal people, but also for those who work and interface with
Indian Country to try to find solutions, leverage programs, and build
partnerships to address these key health issues.
In addition, on the national level, the recently reauthorized Special
Diabetes Program for Indians, SDPI, has had significant success and is
viewed as a model for improving preventive care and disease management
for this significant chronic illness. Tragically, Native Americans are
2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes than the general
U.S. population and diabetes mortality is believed to be 4.3 times
higher in the Native American population than in the general U.S.
population. The combination of this special program and the legislation
before us today could help make significant strides against this
ongoing public health threat that disproportionately hits Native
Americans. Importantly, the SDPI has given Indian health programs and
tribal communities invaluable resources and tools to help prevent and
treat diabetes. And it has had real medically measurable results. In
just 10 years, the mean blood sugar level has decreased by 13 percent.
Scientific research demonstrates that such a decrease results in a 40-
percent decrease in diabetes-related complications, such as blindness
and amputations. Furthermore, on the prevention front, it has also
increased school-based prevention programs for children, such as
increased physical activity programs, better school lunches, and
removal of junk food-filled vending machines, and diabetes awareness
education. There are also more community-based wellness centers
offering exercise and nutrition programs for individuals at risk for
diabetes.
Yet, this program has been funded apart from the traditional sources
of funding for Indian health care, the IHS. It is imperative that
Congress pass the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act Amendments so that
our country can begin to fill the many gaps in Indian health care and
have more success stories like the ones I just described.
I want to just take a few moments to reiterate how important it is
for all Americans that the Federal Government move to reform our
nation's health care system. It is very clear, in my view, that our
Nation faces a health care crisis. In fact, I think when we get on the
floor debating any health program, the Senate will see and the country
will see that this debate illustrates how broken our health care system
is.
Native Americans are not the only Americans who believed they would
have health care when they would need it, only to find that faced with
a serious or life-threatening illness the care or coverage available
doesn't match their need. Despite paying more per person for health
care services than any nation on Earth, so many go without care or
coverage. For some Americans, this happens when they have lost a job,
and hence the coverage that went with it, or they had minimal insurance
that doesn't come close to providing them the financial security needed
to cover the costs of the health care services they need. For 47
million Americans, often through no fault of their own and despite
having tried to be able to afford or purchase health coverage, they
find themselves with no health coverage at all. These fellow citizens
are at the mercy of hospital emergency rooms should health care tragedy
strike them or their families. Plus, in an unconscionably large number
of cases, they are unable to pay for needed care without risking
personal bankruptcy, if at all.
Many people agree with the need for change, but have a healthy
skepticism about whether real, meaningful structural reform is possible
in our lifetimes. I understand these doubts, and I do not underestimate
the challenge. Yet, I do believe we have the possibility of a real
ideological truce now in health care. More and more Senators of both
political parties have come to understand that to fix health care we
must cover everybody. If we don't cover everybody, people who are
uninsured shift their bills to those who have insurance. So colleagues
on my side of the aisle who made the point about getting everybody
coverage, in my view, have been correct, and clearly the country and
citizens of all political persuasions have come around to that point of
view.
There is also strong support for something the Republicans feel
strongly about, and that is not having the government run everything in
health care. There can be a role for a healthy private sector in
universal health care, one where there is a fairer and more efficient
market. And there ought to be more choices; in fact, there can be an
abundance of choices in a system like Members of Congress enjoy today.
I am very pleased that I could join with Senator Bennett of Utah, a
member of the Republican leadership, in offering a bill based on just
those principles. It is S. 334, the Healthy Americans Act, and it is
the first bipartisan

[[Page 2278]]

universal coverage bill in more than 13 years. The last bipartisan,
universal coverage health bill was offered by the late Senator Chafee
more than 13 years ago. Now we do have the opportunity for the Senate
to come together on a bipartisan basis and deal with the premier
challenge at home, and that is fixing American health care.
My fellow Senators, it is my hope that we pass the Indian Healthcare
Improvement Act Amendments as soon as possible and live up to our legal
and moral obligations to provide health care services to our Native
American population. I have been proud to join efforts to increase
funding for the Indian Health Service, and I will continue to fight for
more IHS funding because it benefits all people, Native and non-Native
people, in tribal and surrounding communities. I am pleased to support
these needed improvements and funding, which will move forward the
cause of improved Indian health care.

Life Insurance Benefits for Disabled Veterans

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, a few minutes ago the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs Committee came to the floor and talked about the
history of a bill, S. 1315, the spirited debate we had in committee and
the continued negotiations that have gone on since that markup. I am
here to announce that today I introduced an alternative bill to S.
1315. I know I am joined by millions in America who also salute our
Nation's veterans. These brave men and women and their families have
sacrificed so much to defend our country and to protect our freedoms.
As the ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I
take very seriously my responsibilities to ensure that our veterans are
getting the respect and benefits they deserve.
This appreciation is the very reason why I wish to talk about the
substitute to S. 1315. My bill is a commonsense alternative to an
omnibus veterans bill that was reported out of the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs last June contained over 35 provisions compiled from
other bills.
Unlike in past Congresses, S. 1315 does not enjoy the kind of
customary bipartisan support that such omnibus bills have received in
the past. Why is this? In addition to all the good things it would do
for the veterans, this bill also is a vehicle for a provision that
would take money away from helping veterans of the war on terror and
instead send the money overseas. I am talking about a provision that
would establish a flat rate special pension for World War II Filipino
veterans who did not suffer any wartime injuries, generally are not
U.S. citizens, and who do not even live in the United States. In a few
minutes, I will talk more about the Filipino provision benefits and why
it is wrong and the wrong priority at the wrong time.
First, I wish to share some good provisions of S. 1315 which I have
included in the alternative omnibus bill I have introduced today.
S. 1315 has some very important provisions to help our men and women
who have fought in the war on terror and should be passed as soon as
possible by this body.
It provides retroactive payments--between $25,000 and $100,000--to
all disabled veterans who sustained severe injuries since the war on
terror began. Currently, severely injured veterans can only receive
this retroactive payment if they sustained their injuries in Iraq or
Afghanistan. But if they were injured on the way to or returning from a
combat zone, they are not eligible. This provision would correct that
mistake.
It also increases the amount of insurance coverage available to
severely disabled veterans under the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance
Program.
Additionally, it provides adapted housing and auto grants to veterans
with severe burn injuries who require modifications to their homes or
their vehicles. And it provides severely injured service men and women
with housing grant assistance who temporarily live with family members
while still on Active Duty. My bill would keep these provisions and
other good provisions from S. 1315.
So what would my bill do that differs from S. 1315?
First, it would eliminate the provision that creates a special
pension for non-U.S. citizens, Filipino veterans who live in the
Philippines and do not have wartime injuries. This would free up over
$220 million to spend on benefits for veterans of Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
It is important to note it would still provide over $100 million to
grant full equity to Filipino veterans living in the United States and
full disability compensation for those living abroad who have service-
related injuries.
Also, my bill would create savings by changing how S. 1315 would fund
State approving agencies, the entities that accredit schools and
training programs for VA education benefits. My bill would begin to
transition these entities from entitlement funding to discretionary
appropriations. Subjecting these agencies to the annual appropriations
process would help make sure veterans are being well served by any
funds spent on this bureaucratic function.
My bill then takes these savings, the savings we have gained from
eliminating this pension fund for non-U.S. citizens and Filipinos not
injured in the conflict and it would provide funding to increase the
specially adapted housing grants for severely disabled veterans from
$50,000 to $55,000 and for less severely disabled veterans from $10,000
to $11,000. It would then annually adjust the amount of these grants
for inflation.
My bill would also increase the auto grant assistance for
traumatically injured veterans from $11,000 to $16,000, and then also
index that grant for inflation.
This benefit provides mobility and freedom to people such as SGT Eric
Edmundson--whom my colleague from North Carolina talks about
frequently--a young veteran from my State of North Carolina who lost
the use of his legs after being injured during combat. As a result,
Eric now uses a motorized wheelchair. The expense to get a van that is
wheelchair accessible is enormous. This provision makes it financially
possible for others, such as Eric, to afford what most of us take for
granted: mobility.
My bill would also provide annual increases in the funeral assistance
and plot assistance benefits to families of deceased veterans to keep
up with inflation.
It would increase ``kickers'' for members of the Guard and Reserve
from $350 to $425 per month, providing extra monthly education benefits
that may be paid to members with certain critical skills.
It also allows Guard and Reserve personnel activated for a cumulative
2 years after the war on terror began to receive maximum education
benefits. The current requirement is either 3 cumulative years or 2
continuous years of service. This change will make it easier for our
men and women who have gone on multiple deployments, including many of
the Guard and Reserve from my home State of North Carolina, to earn the
highest level of education benefits.
With these changes to S. 1315, we have a well-balanced package of
benefit enhancements for our Nation's veterans which could garner the
support of the entire Senate.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about S. 1315 in its current
form. The problem with S. 1315 is the provision that creates a special
pension for World War II Filipino veterans. This is both wrong and it
is costly. It is wrong because it takes money from American veterans
and sends it to the Philippines to create a special pension for
noncitizen, nonresident Filipino veterans with no service-connected
disabilities.
Allow me to explain this provision in S. 1315 and what it would
actually do.
It proposes to send $328 million over 10 years in benefits for
Filipino veterans. Although I am supportive of the increased benefits
for Filipino veterans residing in the United States and even increasing
benefits for Filipinos with service-connected injuries residing
elsewhere, I cannot support sending $221 million to the Philippines to
create a special pension for noninjured Filipino veterans.
To some, this may sound like a nice thing to do, and I fully respect
their

[[Page 2279]]

desire to recognize the valued service made by Filipino veterans in
defense of the Philippine islands. But I point out that our Government
has already done a great deal to provide for Filipinos who fought in
World War II.
For instance, after the war, the United States gave $620 million to
the Philippines for repair of public property and war damage claims;
provided partial-dollar VA disability compensation to Filipinos with
service-related disabilities, and provided benefits to the survivors of
Filipinos injured in the war.
The United States also provided $22.5 million for the construction
and equipping of a hospital in the Philippines for the care of Filipino
veterans and later donated that hospital to the Philippine Government.
On top of that, the United States continues to provide annual grants to
support the operation of that hospital in the Philippines.
For those Filipinos legally residing in the United States, the
benefits are even more robust. They are eligible for full-dollar
disability compensation, for cash burial benefits, access to our VA
health delivery clinics and medical centers, and burial in our national
cemeteries.
With these initiatives and others, our Government has taken a
significant step to recognize the service of Filipino veterans. More
importantly, the money that S. 1315 would send overseas to create a new
special pension for Filipinos is money that is needed in the United
States to support our men and women who have served our country,
especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simply put, with our Nation now at
war, this Filipino pension provision is the wrong priority at the wrong
time.
Since the committee's markup, we have tried to refocus this bill and
the priorities that so many of our colleagues share, such as enhancing
benefits for men and women fighting in the war on terror. Because those
efforts have not worked, I introduced today an alternative omnibus bill
to 1315. I kept most of the provisions found in 1315 because it is
generally a good bill. It would provide enhancements to a wide range of
benefits for our Nation's veterans.
In short, my bill serves as a fair and just compromise. It improves
benefits for Filipinos, but it also places the appropriate priority on
our returning OIF and OEF veterans. I believe it is a reasonable
alternative to S. 1315, and I believe it is one we can all embrace and
pass quickly. I ask my colleagues for their support.
I am ready to debate the contents of this bill against S. 1315. I am
sure, if the leadership sees fit, they will set the structure up to do
that. But it is important that every Member of the Senate and every
American understand we have done a tremendous job of supporting people
who have fought with us in battle, and the Filipinos are no different.
The reality is, at this time, we should focus on the needs of those who
are U.S. citizens, the needs of those who were injured in battle, but
not to create a special pension fund for individuals who had an
affiliation, and I might say that exceeds the annual income of most
Filipino residents.
I urge my colleagues to learn about this issue and to get ready to
engage in debate.
I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

honoring our armed forces

Sergeant Edward O. Philpot

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of a fallen
soldier. On October 23, 2007, SGT Edward O. Philpot of Manchester, KY,
was on patrol with U.S. soldiers and members of the Afghan National
Army in Kandahar, Afghanistan, conducting tactical convoy operations in
hostile territory. Sergeant Philpot was killed in a tragic humvee
rollover accident. He was 38 years old.
Sergeant Philpot handled a number of jobs in his unit, from gunner to
driver to humvee commander. He was proud to wear the uniform and proud
to serve his country.
``Ed had found his calling with the military,'' says Renee Crockett,
his sister. ``He loved being a soldier and felt he was finally doing
exactly what he was supposed to do.''
For his bravery in uniform, Sergeant Philpot received numerous medals
and awards, including the Bronze Star Medal.
Military service ran in Ed's family, as his Uncle Willard Philpot of
Manchester served in Vietnam and, sadly, perished in Thailand. Family
members saw a lot of similarities between Ed and his uncle, who died
before Ed was born. ``Both were quiet, warm, and caring individuals,
and both gave the ultimate sacrifice while serving their country,''
says Renee.
Raised by his parents, Ottas and Willa Philpot, Ed grew up a student
of history. He soon amassed a personal library of books on many
historical figures. He was also a fan of mystery books, and enjoyed a
sharp political debate.
Ed was born in Farmington, MI, and grew up in that State. As a child,
he spent all his holidays and most of his summers in Kentucky, in
Manchester, with his paternal grandparents Walter and Lillie Philpot,
and would travel back and forth often between Kentucky and Michigan.
When Ed was only 8 or 9 years old, he began to learn how to play the
saxophone. One day he took out his horn to practice and found a perfect
audience in Sandy, the family dog, sitting on the patio. Young Ed began
playing with all the charisma and passion he could muster, but it
wasn't good enough for Sandy, who ran all the way to the backyard and
buried her head beneath her paws. Thus ended Ed's musical career.
Ed graduated from Garden City High School in Garden City, MI, in 1987
and Coastal Carolina University in Conway, SC, in 1992. After college,
Ed returned to Manchester, where he spent some of the happiest times of
his youth.
Ed went into law enforcement, becoming the director of a home
incarceration program. In 1995, he married Stephanie, and they raised
three beautiful daughters, Hollen, Lily, and Ella Grace. Eventually, Ed
and his family settled in South Carolina.
Ed's family was the most important thing to him. ``He would take his
daughters out to the coffee shop for cookies on Saturday mornings,''
his sister Renee said. Ed loved to take walks with them and ride them
on his shoulders. He would also take them for daddy-daughter dates to
celebrate their accomplishments.
Sergeant Philpot's family ``was clearly his life and his
motivation,'' says MAJ Bill Connor, who served with him in Afghanistan.
``He spent his little bit of off-duty time going to the nearest bazaar
to buy trinkets for his daughters and his family.''
Ed enlisted in 2001 and served with the South Carolina Army National
Guard's 1st Battalion, 263rd Armor Regiment in Afghanistan, where he
was promoted to sergeant. He enjoyed the simple pleasure of giving
candy to Afghan children.
``He was one of the most dedicated men you would ever see,'' said SGT
Kenneth Page, who served alongside Sergeant Philpot. ``He always liked
to hang around at the armory, even when it wasn't drill weekend. He
just liked to be there.''
The Philpot family is in my prayers today as I recount Ed's story. We
are thinking of his wife Stephanie; his daughters Hollen, Lily, and
Ella Grace; his father Ottas; his mother Willa; his sister Renee
Crockett; his nephew Trevor Crockett; his niece Taylor Crockett; and
many other beloved family members and friends.
Ed was predeceased by his grandparents Walter and Lillie Philpot and
Tom and Viola Hollen, all of Manchester.
His funeral service was held October 30 last year in Manchester at
the Horse Creek Baptist Church. After the service, the funeral
procession stopped for a moment of silence in front of Hacker
Elementary School, where the entire

[[Page 2280]]

student body and staff assembled outside. Ed's parents had both
attended Hacker Elementary as children.
Thirty-eight young students each held a red, white, or blue balloon,
one for each year of Ed's life. At the same moment, they released the
balloons up into the air. The rest of the students held up American
flags, in honor of the soldier who had given his life for that same
flag.
``Ed was always quick with a smile and a positive attitude that was
remembered by all,'' says his sister Renee. ``He is definitely a
hero.''
I want the Philpot family to know that this Senate agrees, and today
we honor SGT Edward O. Philpot's life of honor and of service. His
immense sacrifice made on behalf of his Nation, State, and family
allows us all to live in freedom.

Important Mile Marker in War on Terror

Mr. President, an important mile marker in the war on terror was
passed late Tuesday night. A terrorist by the name of Imad Mugniyah,
one of the world's most wanted murderers and a top commander of
Hezbollah, was killed in Damascus. With his death, long-delayed justice
has finally been served.
News reports are still coming in, and so far no one has claimed
responsibility for his death. But we know one thing for certain: As
Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department put it, ``The
world is a better place without this man in it.''
Let me describe for my colleagues just a few of this murderer's many
heinous crimes. American officials accuse him of plotting the 1983
bombing of a U.S. Marine compound in Beirut, killing 241 troops.
He is accused of masterminding a car bomb which exploded at an
American embassy in Beirut, also in 1983, killing 63 people.
American prosecutors charged him in the hijacking of a TWA jetliner
in 1985. He is also accused of shipping arms to violent, radical
terrorist groups.
And then there is one brutal act that struck deep in the heart of my
hometown of Louisville, KY. Imad Mugniyah was behind the brutal
kidnapping, torture and murder of U.S. Marine COL William Richard
Higgins.
Colonel Higgins was a Kentuckian, born in Danville. He graduated from
Southern High School in Louisville, participated in ROTC at Miami
University in Ohio, and served multiple tours in Vietnam.
Over a 20-year military career, he received numerous medals and
awards, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense
Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star with
combat ``V'' and the Purple Heart.
On February 17, 1988, Colonel Higgins was captured by armed
terrorists in Lebanon while serving on a U.N. peacekeeping mission. He
was held, interrogated and tortured.
A year and a half after his capture, terrorists released a grisly
videotape of Colonel Higgins's lifeless body, hung by the neck, which
played on television sets around the world.
In Louisville, we built a memorial to Colonel Higgins on the grounds
of his alma mater, Southern High School.
We were outraged then and we are still outraged now to see what
happened to this good and brave man at the hands of thugs.
Now, at long last, we know justice has been brought to his murderers.
In an essay titled ``My Credo,'' Colonel Higgins once wrote: ``As an
officer of Marines, I believe it is my charge to set the example.''
Well, Colonel, the high-school students in Louisville who pass by
your memorial every day will always remember the example you set. You
served your country with pride, and now may rest in peace.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is difficult to speak publicly or
privately expressing your views that you are glad someone is dead, but
I say, through the Chair to my friend, the distinguished Republican
leader, I join in his remarks. This was a vicious man.
There is nothing we can do to restore the lives of those he is
responsible for killing, the number of which we don't know.
But what happened yesterday will cause this man not to be involved in
killing other innocent people. So as difficult as it is to recognize
that someone's life has been snuffed out, it goes without saying that
for mankind this was the right thing to do. However it happened, it was
the right thing to do. This was a person who was waiting for the next
opportunity to see what he could do to act out his devilish ways.

cloture motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the
substitute amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the Dorgan
substitute amendment No. 3899 to S. 1200, the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act Amendments.
Harry Reid, Russell D. Feingold, Kent Conrad, Richard
Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell,
Jon Tester, Jeff Bingaman, Carl Levin, Max Baucus,
Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein,
Debbie Stabenow, Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Akaka.

cloture motion

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a second cloture motion to the desk
on the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the clerk will report the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on S. 1200, the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act Amendments.
Harry Reid, Russell D. Feingold, Kent Conrad, Richard
Durbin, Amy Klobuchar, Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell,
Jon Tester, Jeff Bingaman, Carl Levin, Max Baucus,
Byron L. Dorgan, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein,
Debbie Stabenow, Ken Salazar, Daniel K. Akaka.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the
motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment occur at 5:30
p.m., Monday, February 25; that if cloture is invoked on the
substitute, all postcloture time be yielded back except for the times
specified in this agreement, and that the managers each have 10 minutes
of debate for their use; that all debate time be equally divided and
controlled in the usual form; that Senator DeMint be recognized for up
to 1 hour to speak with respect to any of his pending germane
amendments; that with respect to the Vitter amendment No. 3896 and a
first-degree germane amendment from the majority on the subject matter
of Vitter, that debate time on these two amendments be limited to 60
minutes each; that the Smith amendment No. 3897 be limited to 20
minutes of debate; that no further amendments be in order, and that
upon the use of time with respect to the DeMint amendments, the Senate
then proceed to vote in relation to the amendments; that the vote
sequence occur in the order in which the amendments are listed in this
agreement except the majority amendment with respect to the Vitter
amendment would occur first; that there be 2 minutes of debate prior to
each vote; further, that upon the disposition of all pending
amendments, the substitute, as amended be agreed to, and the bill be
read a third time, and the Senate then proceed to vote on the motion to
invoke cloture on the bill; that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture
time be yielded back, and without further intervening action or debate,
the Indian Affairs Committee be discharged from further consideration
of H.R. 1328, the House companion, and the Senate then proceed to its
consideration; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and the
text of S. 1200, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill
be advanced to third reading, passed, and

[[Page 2281]]

the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that upon passage of
H.R. 1328, S. 1200 be returned to the calendar; further, that the
mandatory quorum be waived; provided further that if cloture is not
invoked, this agreement is null and void.
I would further inform all Members that debate time utilized will be
utilized on Monday. We will have three votes on Monday beginning at
5:30, and we will have the other two votes Tuesday morning. Senator Kyl
asked for this. I think it is reasonable.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, let me say that I send my appreciation to
Chairman Dorgan and Ranking Member Murkowski. They worked very hard. Of
course, I want to express my appreciation to Senator Kyl who has been
involved in our getting to this point. He has been a big help to our
getting here. It has been a difficult road.
It is a bill that is long overdue but certainly is necessary to do. I
appreciate everyone's cooperation. I am going to confer briefly, in a
matter of minutes, with the distinguished Republican leader to
determine if there is any reason for us to be in session tomorrow. That
announcement will be made very quickly.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

MORNING BUSINESS

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent 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.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.

____________________

CELEBRATING PRESIDENT'S DAY

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on Monday, February 18, the United States
will celebrate President's Day. President's Day takes on a particular
significance this year, as the Nation is actively involved in the
selection process for a new President. It is heartening to see the
level of interest and participation in all of the Presidential campaign
events and in the primaries and caucuses. It is a sign that Americans'
faith in the basic processes of their Government is still strong, even
as a recent poll indicates that the public holds a very low opinion of
the current President and of Congress. In a 1789 letter to Richard
Price, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, ``Whenever the people are well-
informed, they can be trusted with their own Government. Whenever
things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied
upon to set them to rights.'' I believe we are witnessing the truth of
Thomas Jefferson's observation.
As early as 1796, Americans were observing the birthday of our first,
and still one of our greatest, Presidents, George Washington. According
to various old style calendars, George Washington was born on either
February 11 or February 22, 1732. On whichever date people preferred,
President Washington's birthday was feted with ``Birthnight Balls,''
speeches, and receptions. Here in the Senate, one of our most enduring
traditions is the annual reading of Washington's 1796 Farewell Address
by a current Member of the Senate. This practice began in 1862, and
became an annual event in 1893. Beginning in 1900, the Senator who read
the address then signed his or her name and perhaps wrote a brief
remark in a book maintained by the Secretary of the Senate. For the
historically curious, both Washington's Farewell Address and a
selection of the remarks from the book can be found on the Senate's Web
site (www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/
FarewellAddressBook.htm).
After the 1865 assassination of President Lincoln, another revered
President who was also born in February, similar memorial observations
sprang up around the Nation. In 1865, both Houses of Congress gathered
for a memorial address. President Lincoln's birthday became a legal
holiday in several States, although it did not become a Federal holiday
like President Washington's. However, in 1968, legislation was enacted
to simplify the Federal holiday schedule. As a result, Washington's
birthday observance was moved to the third Monday in February,
regardless of whether or not that day was February 22. Officially, this
holiday is still known as Washington's Birthday, but it has become
popularly known as President's Day to honor both Washington and
Lincoln, as well as all who have served as President.
Why were President Washington and President Lincoln so widely and
spontaneously revered by the public, even in the immediate aftermath of
their deaths, before time had a chance to burnish their memories and
fade their less enobling characteristics? Certainly, the great events
that were shaped for the better by their decisions were a major factor.
Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln made a name for themselves
as inspiring leaders of men and the Nation during pivotal wars in our
Nation's history. Both demonstrated true patriotism, a deep love of the
Nation that was the prism through which they viewed all problems and
made all decisions. Both men selflessly sacrificed their own personal
lives to serve the Nation throughout their lives.
In honor of President's Day, I urge everyone to listen to or read
Washington's Farewell Address and apply its wisdom to the Nation's
current situation and to the decision each of us will make in November.
A collaborative effort between George Washington and the authors of The
Federalist Papers, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay,
Henry Cabot Lodge wrote of the Farewell Address that ``. . . no man
ever left a nobler political testament.'' In it, Washington supported
the Federal Government as ``a main pillar in the edifice of your real
independence . . .'' warned against a party system that ``. . . serves
to . . . agitate the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false
alarms . . .'' and ``. . . kindles the animosity of one . . . against
another.'' He stressed the importance of religion and morality,
famously warned against the entanglements of permanent foreign
alliances, cautioned against an over-powerful military establishment as
`` . . . inauspicious to liberty . . .'' and urged the Nation to ``. .
. cherish public credit . . .'' by using it as little as possible. Only
then could the Nation avoid the accumulation of debt, because ``. . .
towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have
Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are
not . . . inconvenient and unpleasant.'' We cannot have our cake and
eat it, too--tax cuts and deficit spending cannot occur simultaneously
if the economy is to remain sound over the long run.
Washington's experience and wisdom may serve us well as the true
litmus test to apply to our prospective 44th President. Mr. President,
I close with a poem by the author of The Life of Abraham Lincoln,
Josiah Gilbert Holland (1819-1881) called ``God, Give Us Men!'' Penned
before women had won the right to vote, it nonetheless resonates today
and applies to anyone, man or woman, who would lead our Nation.

God, Give Us Men!

God, give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands;
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office can not buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue
And damn his treacherous flatteries without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog
In public duty, and in private thinking;

For while the rabble, with their thumb-worn creeds,
Their large professions and their little deeds,
Mingle in selfish strife, lo! Freedom weeps,
Wrong rules the land and waiting Justice sleeps.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sanders). The Senator from Florida.

[[Page 2282]]

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I never cease to be amazed at
our senior colleague, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, for the great
oratorical skills he has, the vast memory store he carries, of which we
have just had an example that from memory he can recite poems and he
can recite historical dates. He is such an inspiration to the rest of
the Senators, and he is, indeed, the pillar upon which this Senate
rests. Once again, we have been treated to the oratory of the great
Senator from the State of West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the distinguished
Senator.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I deeply thank the able and distinguished
Senator from the State of Florida in which I once lived. I thank him. I
cherish his friendship. May he ever be one for whom the motto ``E
pluribus unum'' will dwell in his heart.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, that is about the best
admonition this Senator could have. E pluribus unum--out of many, one.
I am grateful to the Senator from West Virginia for reminding not only
me but the whole Senate of that duty, that responsibility, that
obligation we all have.

____________________

FARC HOSTAGE TAKING

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, it has been 5 years since four
Americans disappeared in the jungles of Colombia while helping that
country's Government fight its war against narcoterrorism. Five years
ago yesterday, a single-engine plane carrying these Americans lost
engine power and crashed into the jungle. One of those Americans and a
Colombian colleague were brutally executed by the terrorist group the
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, commonly known as FARC. The
remaining three--Keith Stansell, Thomas Howes, and Goncalves--were
taken hostage by the FARC and have since languished in the Colombian
jungle prison, where they are held despite repeated appeals for their
freedom.
Fortunately, we think, through recent news crews, that those
Americans are still alive. They are being held somewhere in an
undisclosed location in the jungle along with untold numbers of other
hostages. These men were involved in our decades-long struggle against
drugs that are polluting our children's minds and the lawlessness in
Colombia. Their sacrifice and those of their families--and most of
those families live in Florida--is all too real. We can't forget them.
That is why I am making these remarks after this 5-long-years'
anniversary that occurred yesterday.
Last year, I introduced a resolution condemning the FARC for its use
of hostage taking and drug cultivation to visit terror upon peaceful
people. Our colleagues passed that resolution, which also called for
the immediate release of all those FARC hostages, including the
Americans I have mentioned.
I am here today, after 5 long years of these Americans' captivity, to
again remind our colleagues of the plight of these men and their
families and to ask for their support in doing everything possible, as
we continue to try to secure their freedom.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from Florida
raising the issue of people whom we hope to get out alive and also
appreciate the poetry of my colleague from West Virginia. I, too, am
amazed and quite a bit envious that he has so many poems memorized and
he can deliver them so well. It is a lost art, more of his generation
than mine, but maybe it will come back in the next.

____________________

CRISIS IN CONGO

Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to raise the awareness of my
colleagues to an issue. I will be putting in a bill on it and hope to
attract their attention.
I have worked on Africa for some period of time. A humanitarian
crisis of incredible proportions is taking place in many places in
Africa. We need to do more, and a lot more people are doing more.
I think we are at a moment where Africa is becoming a focus in both
Europe and the United States, left and right; for economic reasons, the
Chinese are going in very aggressively; for militant Islamic reasons,
people are coming in trying to penetrate into the continent.
One of the first things we need to do to be able to grow the
continent and allow people there to develop some sort of standard of
living, some sort of quality of life and to be able to live, is to get
the conflict out. One of the key things we need to go at in reducing
the conflict is getting the money out of the conflict. We have had some
success about this in the past.
A decade ago, people were talking about blood diamonds in Western
Africa and getting those out of the trafficked portion, out of the
commodity business, and getting them into legitimate means of commerce.
Out of that, we reduced the money into the conflict, and, as a result,
had a substantial impact on the conflict and reducing the conflict in
Western Africa.
I wish to show a picture to my colleagues, many of whom I think
probably are not aware of what it is. This is coltan. It is a booming
commodity that is in this item. I realize, and I hope my colleagues,
particularly the Senator from West Virginia, will allow me to show
this, what should not be on the Senate floor, but to show this for
purposes of demonstration of what this is doing and why it is
important.
This is a BlackBerry. Cell phones used to get hot when people would
use them for a period of time. They tried to figure out what can we do
to try to cool them down. They found a substance called coltan that
they were able to transition into tantalum. It now carries the current
in this electronic equipment. It doesn't get hot. Eighty percent of
Africa's coltan comes out of Congo. Eighty percent of the world's
coltan comes out of Africa, and most of this comes out of a conflict
region in Eastern Congo.
I believe most of this is funding a good portion of the conflict in
Eastern Congo, where 1,500 people a day are dying because they cannot
get access to medical care, they cannot get access to water, they
cannot get access to food--because of the conflict. And the conflict is
funded by this stuff: It is funded by coltan.
There is a long history of what has been taking place in Congo. Many
people remember reading such books as ``The Heart of Darkness'' and
``King Leopold's Ghost'' and about the raiding that has taken place in
Congo for a century. Unfortunately, we are in the latest chapter of
that conflict.
In Joseph Conrad's ``Heart of Darkness,'' Conrad describes King
Leopold's colonial project of the Democratic Republic of Congo, then
known as Congo Free State, as ``the vilest scramble for loot that ever
disfigured the history of human conscience.'' Solely for the purpose of
extracting a very precious manufacturing resource of the day--and that
resource was rubber--King Leopold seized Congo and exploited the local
population by turning it into a slave colony. During his 24-year
tyranny of Congo Free State, 13 million Congolese died. Leopold's
legacy lives on in the coltan mining processes of today.
That is chapter one.
Chapter 2: In November of 1965, Lieutenant-General Mobutu seized
power of Congo, then known as Zaire, in a bloodless coup. During his
32-year dictatorship, he consistently exploited the natural resources
of then Zaire. He evaded international humanitarian human rights
standards, and by the mid-1980s, Mobutu's personal fortune was
estimated at 5 billion U.S. dollars.
The end of the Cold War brought internal and external pressure upon
Mobutu for a democratic transition. In 1997, with the support of
Burundi, Uganda, and the Rwandan Tutsi Government, Laurent Kabila and
his forces pushed Mobutu out of Government in a full-scale rebellion.
A repetitive pattern of alliances made and broken began, and by 1998
Kabila's former allies in Uganda and Rwanda had turned against him. In
2001, Kabila was assassinated.

[[Page 2283]]

While he succeeded his father and took charge of the country in 2001,
it was not until November 2006 Joseph Kabila was democratically elected
as the Congolese President. However, his control of Congo is limited.
Today in the mineral-rich eastern region of Congo, violent thugs from
at least four factions wage near constant war for control.
Chapter 3: Sadly, 100 years later, Conrad's statement about the Congo
was not only astute but prophetic. The corruption and exploitation of
natural resources in the Congo has never stopped but has moved from
hand to hand and moved from one resource to another; from rubber to
diamonds, from diamonds to gold, from gold to coltan.
The issue of conflict coltan--so we are calling it ``conflict
coltan'' and ``conflict commodities''--is not new. The coltan rush hit
in the late 1990s, as the consumer electronic industry figured out we
have a problem, we have to solve this, and coltan arrived to the
rescue. By December of 2000, a pound of coltan was worth as much as
$400.
In 2001, a panel of experts for the United Nations went to eastern
Congo and wrote a report on their findings concerning the illegal
exploitation of natural resources and other forms of wealth. The U.N.
report documents the rebel groups' use of forced labor, illegal
monopolies, and civilian murder in their high-stakes game to extract
these valuable resources.
I wish to show you a picture.
This picture was taken in 2007 of some of the mining techniques of
this coltan in the coltan rush. You can see a child here, in a very
shallow mine, using a hammer and a pick to dig out coltan.
What is taking place is, many of these rebel groups will overrun a
village, scatter the men, go directly to the coltan area, taking the
women and children, and then start the extraction of coltan, to mine it
and put it on the backs of people to carry it out at $400 a pound.
The U.S. Geological Survey has identified that most of the coltan
mining in Congo is ``artisan.'' According to the U.N. report, most
coltan mining is done by poor people, and many of them are children.
These novice miners, who are often held against their will, sift for
coltan in riverbeds or dig it out of abandoned mines.
A report issued by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International
Studies, a review in 2002, found that the ``supply chain'' of coltan is
extensive and distorted. The SAIS review report states that Rwanda and
Uganda were directly or indirectly appointing local rebel faction
leaders and field commanders to serve as conduits for illicit trade
originating from the occupied territories of eastern Congo. The war
appears now to be self-financing.
Rebel movements were motivated by economic incentives rather than the
pursuit of political ideals.
Middlemen were then hired to form relationships with clients. They
then facilitated transactions between those who controlled the
resources and foreign corporations without the question of legitimacy.
At the time of the U.N. report of 2002, 34 foreign companies were
identified in importing minerals from the Congo via Rwanda.
The war in Congo officially ended in 2003 with a signed peace
agreement between the Congolese Government and the rebels.
Yet, at the same time, rebel factions still controlled the east, and
there was no centrally elected government in Congo. Rwandan and Ugandan
soldiers were still attacking territories in the provinces of Ituri and
the Kivu across the boarder in eastern Congo.
With the election of President Kabila in 2006, it was reported that
neighboring governments withdrew their troops from Congo.
But now chapter 4. The story continues. The U.N. and SAIS reports I
have cited were published in 2001 and 2002 respectively. However, these
pictures I am showing you were taken within the last 12 months.
The current fighting in eastern Congo--there was a peace agreement
recently signed, and then it was broken 2 days ago--involves renegade
GEN Laurent Nkunda and his group, the National Congress for the Defense
of the People, the Mai-Mai rebels, the Hutu extremists, and those loyal
to the Congolese Government.
Now, if all these names can seem a bit blurring to people, at the
bottom line, I hope you can remember two factors here: 1,500 people a
day dying because of this; $400 a pound for coltan, financing this
death and destruction daily.
After the release of the U.N. report, we saw companies within the
high-tech industry respond to the report by asking suppliers to certify
that the tantalum--that is what coltan is processed into--tantalum they
were purchasing did not originate from the eastern region of DRC.
These same companies stated that without certification they would not
buy from the region of Central Africa. They were requesting that their
tantalum be ``conflict free'' and from legit sources, and I applaud
their efforts. Today, we know that most of the world's tantalum is
supplied by Australia. That is the processed coltan. But now where does
Australia get the coltan and these companies get the coltan?
Recent reports state that the channel in which coltan was once being
smuggled out of Congo is still alive and active. And in this chain of
supply and demand, one simple bad actor involves us all.
Recent reports state that Rwanda and others are using the war in
Congo to continue the exploitation of coltan. Once it is extracted, we
are told, it is then sent down to Australia, where it is mixed with
Australian coltan--where 20 percent of the world's coltan comes from--
before being processed into tantalum. Processed tantalum is then traded
among countries and private companies on the international market.
But as some private companies and some foreign countries are not
required to produce public records of their tantalum trade, tracking
exact amounts is extremely difficult to obtain.
Australia, specifically, has a confidentiality clause for private
companies that purchase their tantalum. So we do not know. From 2002 to
2005, Australia accounted for 54 percent of the world's tantalum.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to say with any certainty that the
tantalum supply coming out of Australia is conflict free.
While we know this exploitation continues today, as it did 10 years
ago, and we see the immense difficulty in tracking it, we will not turn
a blind eye to this.
I met with people from the consumer electronics industry today to
tell them we are going to focus on this because if this can defund the
conflict so people can live free and be able to survive--get some clean
water, get some health care, get some food--then we need to go at this.
We should not fund this conflict. We should not be buying the product
if it is coming from conflict areas. We should be able to certify that
is the case.
I commend to my colleagues a recent report from the International
Rescue Committee entitled, ``Mortality in the Democratic Republic of
Congo, An Ongoing Crisis.'' This was released on January 22 of this
year, citing that 1,500 people a day are dying. In this report, we
learn that since 1998, 5.4 million people have died in Congo--5.4
million. These deaths can be directly or indirectly attributed to the
ongoing conflicts in the region, which can be attributed to the
exploitation of natural resources, primarily coltan mining.
Death comes at the butt of a gun and with the bite of a mosquito.
There casualties stem from the violence of this brutal ongoing war,
which has marred the country for the past 10 years, and from the
resulting displacement of the Congolese. When you flee for your life in
these areas of Congo, there often is no other town or village in which
to take shelter.
When you ask a Congolese about becoming displaced, their response to
you is: Which time? They flee into the bush for months at a time with
only the clothes on their back and a child in their arms.

[[Page 2284]]

Senator Durbin and I went to Congo together 2 years ago. We saw some
of the impact.
Chapter 5. I want to show you a specific story here, a heartbreaking
story of one young boy and his family.
This is a picture of a 3-year-old boy. He is one of the millions of
victims of displacement and malnourishment. His family fled into the
jungle from a rebel group that had burnt their village to the ground in
the North Kivu Province in the eastern part of Congo. They lived in the
jungle and had been constantly on the move. Food became scarce, and
meals became as sporadic as two to three a week.
When his mother brought him and his younger brother to the local
health clinic, they were immediately referred to an international
humanitarian organization in the area. There, this young boy was
diagnosed with malaria. They immediately began his treatments, which
his small, frail body rejected.
His doctors then discovered he had been eating that which his mother
could gather in the jungle and only once every 3 to 4 days. Due to lack
of nutrition, he was anemic. As they started his anemia treatment, his
body began to shut down; he rejected the oral and IV treatments.
This 3-year-old passed away within 8 hours of first being diagnosed--
minutes after this photo was taken. He is one of the millions of
victims from this raging, complex conflict. As the IRC reports, the war
is having direct and indirect impact on these deaths. While a small
portion is dying directly from the conflict--bullets, bombs, and rifle
butts--the majority are dying from malaria, malnourishment, diarrhea,
and poor neonatal care.
While children under the age of 5 make up 19 percent of the
population in the Congo, they comprise over 47 percent of the deaths in
the recent mortality study. Nineteen percent of the population under
the age of 5, 47 percent of the deaths in Congo.
The national rate of mortality is 60 percent higher in the Congo than
the average mortality rate in sub-Saharan Africa. Sexual violence and
rape is also on the rise in the Congo and has become a symptomatic tool
of war there.
The U.N. reported 4,500 sexual violence cases had been reported in
South Kivu the first half of 2007. Most of these cases reported have
been committed by some of the 6,000 to 7,000 members of foreign armed
groups operating in the eastern part of the Congo, funded by coltan
that we purchase to put in our Blackberries.
The U.N. reported that the Congolese national army, national police
force, and increasing numbers of civilians were also brutalizing women,
often during violent clashes with political rivals. Perpetrators are
now making no distinctions between women and children. The local
hospital in Goma, Congo, where Senator Durbin and I both visited, a
hospital named Heal Africa, tells a story of a 13-year-old girl who had
been raped so viciously by her perpetrators that she couldn't walk for
2 weeks. She then walked approximately 7 miles to a facility for
treatment. Her doctors reported her internal injuries were beyond their
imagination.
A collapse in infrastructure such as the one we see in the Congo does
not happen overnight. This is due to an ongoing 10-year conflict which
has exploited that country, its people, its children. Coltan and other
natural resources are at the root of that exploitation.
I want to show another display here. In spite of their sad history,
the Congo is a beautiful country with resilient people. It is a country
with so much potential for growth and development. Unfortunately, the
Congo's story is one of devastation, forced labor, child soldiers,
rape, curable illnesses left untreated, and deaths of 1,500 a day, as I
have stated, and all because, all because of--and funded by this--a
Blackberry that we buy.
My colleagues can see here in the pictures taken of a very
rudimentary mine, but a mining operation of coltan in the Congo; rebel
child soldiers--very common in this part of the world--well armed,
deadly; a coltan battery, and cell phones.
Peace agreements call for implementation of a commission to oversee
the conflict in this region. The Goma peace agreement was signed on
January 22, 2008. I mentioned that previously, and that has recently
been broken. The immediate cease-fire of the peace agreement was broken
the first time within 5 days after it took place. While we must play
our part, they must play their part as well, and I strongly urge all
parties in that region to respect their commitments within this
agreement.
The peace agreement calls for implementation of a commission to
oversee disarmament of the Nkunda rebels and the extremist fighters.
These fighters will either integrate into the Congolese national army
or demobilize.
I strongly urge the implementation of these terms. This is another
step in the right direction for the Congo and its people. However, I
feel that as long as there is demand for valuable Congolese resources
and thugs with the power to control these resources, this will not be
the final chapter of this conflict. It has happened for too long.
The United States is completely dependent on foreign supplies of
tantalum, and we admit to this. Both the ``Minerals Yearbook,''
published by the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Department of
Strategic and Critical Material Report to the Congress, coltan, also
known as tantalum, is classed as a ``critical'' mineral.
We have come to a point where we cannot live without this mineral.
However, neither can we ignore nor will we sit idly by while others
suffer. We need to be responsible as a nation and as consumers. We must
hold our suppliers accountable.
In the coming days I will be introducing legislation requiring
certification of the origin of coltan for all U.S.-based companies that
use tantalum in manufacturing. It will further require manufacturers
who use tantalum to have a certificate of origin. All we want to do
with this is make sure that the coltan, the tantalum we are using,
comes from legitimate sources. That is all we are asking. As a supply
chain, the Congolese government can set this up, saying that we
register and license and saying this is the coltan that is coming out
of here, coming from legitimate sources. I am fine with that. But we
want that and we want to know where it is coming from and that is that
it is not conflict coltan that is used to pay for the suffering of so
many people.
We all must be good actors in this chain. With 1,500 people dying a
day, there is no room for turning a blind eye on this matter.
American greatness has always been founded on our fundamental
goodness. We need to be a nation where the strong protect the weak and
people of privilege assist those in poverty. It says a lot about the
kind of America we all should work for when we speak out against this
type of tragedy and commit ourselves to those who are suffering there.
I will be sending around a ``Dear Colleague'' letter about this. I
will be happy to supply more information. There are a number of reports
from the United Nations and from Johns Hopkins that I have been citing,
and others. We have some photographs of what is taking place presently,
and I ask simply that if people are going to cause this suffering which
we completely disagree with, they are not going to do it by us paying
for it.
Mr. President, I thank the Chair.

____________________

COMMENDING SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, with great pleasure I extend my most
heartfelt congratulations to our esteemed colleague, the senior Senator
from Hawaii, Daniel K. Inouye, for casting his 15,000 vote in the
Senate.
Many times on this floor I have referred to Senator Inouye as my
``No. 1 hero,'' and he is. Few have ever served our country more
bravely and with more loyalty and determination than has Senator
Inouye.
Daniel Inouye was a member of the famed 442nd Infantry Regimental
Combat Team of World War II, the most decorated Army unit in U.S.
history.

[[Page 2285]]

During one bloody battle, Platoon Leader Inouye led an assault on a
heavily defended Nazi position. Although gravely wounded, he still
managed to destroy three Nazi machine gun nests. Anyone who is not
familiar with the details of this amazing display of heroism should
make it a point to become so.
For his incredible heroism, Dan Inouye was awarded the Distinguished
Service Cross, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, and the Congressional
Medal of Honor, making him one of only seven Senators to have achieved
our Nation's highest military honor. Senator Inouye is the Senate's
only Congressional Medal of Honor recipient from World War II.
In 1963, he became the first Japanese American to serve in the U.S.
Senate, where he continues to represent his State and our country with
great distinction and dedication. This man of incredible integrity has
worked tirelessly in the Senate on behalf of his constituents and our
country. Senator Inouye served on the Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities--Watergate Committee--the Select Committee on
Secret Military Assistance to Iran, and the Nicaraguan Opposition,
Iran-Contra. He is the next in line on the Democratic side to chair the
Senate Appropriations Committee and is currently the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. He also served as Secretary of
the Democratic Conference from 1977 to 1989. I have always respected
Danny's deep loyalty to the Senate. I will always appreciate his
loyalty to me when I was the Senate Democratic leader and I relied on
his sage advice.
Senator Inouye is now the fourth longest serving U.S. Senator in
history.
With today's vote, he is now the fourth U.S. Senator in history to
have cast 15,000 votes.
Mr. President, I again congratulate my good friend, my outstanding
colleague, and my ``No. 1 hero'' for another important milestone in his
outstanding life:

God, give us men!
A time like this demands strong minds,
Great hearts, true faith, and ready hands.
Men whom the lust of office does not kill;
Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
Men who possess opinions and a will;
Men who have honor; men who will not lie.

Men who can stand before the demagogue
And brave his treacherous flatteries without winking.
Tall men, sun-crowned;
Who live above the fog,
In public duty and in private thinking.
For while the rabble with its thumbworn creeds,
Its large professions and its little deeds,
Mingles in selfish strife,
Lo! Freedom weeps!
Wrong rules the land and waiting justice sleeps.
God give us men!

Men who serve not for selfish booty;
But real men, courageous, who flinch not at duty.
Men of dependable character;
Men of sterling worth;
Then wrongs will be redressed, and right will rule the earth.
God Give us Men!

____________________

REMEMBERING RICHARD DARMAN

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I was sad to learn that Richard Darman
passed away last week. Mr. Darman was a good man, an outstanding public
servant, and a great American. I liked him very much. Dick Darman was a
graduate of Harvard and Harvard Business School whose career in
Washington spanned two and a half decades. He served in five
Presidential administrations and worked in six Cabinet departments and
the White House.
Mr. Darman was a player in many of the important events of the last
quarter of the 20th Century. While serving in the Justice Department,
he helped arrange the plea bargain that eased Vice President Spiro T.
Agnew out of office. Along with his boss, Attorney General Elliot
Richardson, he was a victim of the infamous Saturday Night Massacre of
the Watergate era. He served in the Reagan administration, eventually
rising to the position of Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, where he
helped formulate the economic policies of the Reagan revolution and
helped negotiate the 1986 Tax Reform Act. And he served as Director of
the Office of Management and Budget in the administration of the first
President Bush.
It was during the 1990 budget summit that I really came to know and
respect Mr. Darman. I quickly learned that Budget Director Darman was a
pragmatist and a realist, who was opposed to budget gimmicks and simple
and easy solutions to our Nation's fiscal woes. Concerned about a
decade of devastating budget deficits he called for serious, realistic
steps to get our Nation's budget under control. And he was not opposed
to working with Democrats in seeking those solutions. As a result, we
were able to craft the landmark 1990 deficit-reduction plan--a deal
between a Republican-controlled White House and a Democratic Congress
that marked a high point of bipartisan cooperation. This budget
agreement helped reverse a decade of budget deficits and gave the
economy a boost that lasted for more than a decade. Along with
President Clinton's 1993 budget agreement, it helped lay the groundwork
for the fiscal balance and economic growth of the 1990s.
This incredibly successful budget agreement, unfortunately, destroyed
Mr. Darman's career in government. This man of deep integrity and
incredible intelligence was eventually forced out of Government because
too many people in his own political party had ideological differences
with the contents of the 1990 budget agreement.
Mr. President, I extend my most heartfelt condolences to his wife
Kathleen and his three sons and all of his family and friends. I am so
pleased and proud to consider myself as one of the latter.

____________________

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, with the enactment of bipartisan Freedom of
Information Act, FOIA, reform legislation late last year, Congress
demanded and won more openness and accountability in monitoring the
activities of our Government. But, regrettably, just weeks after this
historic open government legislation was signed into law, there are
troubling signs from the Bush administration regarding how this law
will be enforced.
Last week, the President buried a provision in the administration's
fiscal year 2009 budget proposal that would move the functions of the
new Office of Government Information Services, OGIS, which was created
under the OPEN Government Act, from the independent National Archives
and Records Administration to the Department of Justice. The
President's proposal is not only contrary to the express intent of the
Congress, but contrary to the very purpose of this legislation--to
ensure the timely and fair resolution of American's FOIA requests.
The Office of Government Information Services was established to,
among other things, mediate FOIA disputes between Federal agencies and
FOIA requestors, review and evaluate agency FOIA compliance and house
the newly established FOIA ombudsman. When Senator Cornyn and I drafted
the OPEN Government Act, we intentionally placed this critical office
in the National Archives, so that OGIS would be free from the influence
of the Federal agency that litigates FOIA disputes--the Department of
Justice. We also placed OGIS in the apolitical National Archives to
enhance this office's independence, so that all Americans can be
confident that their FOIA requests would be addressed openly and
fairly.
Given the clear intent of Congress to establish OGIS as an
independent office in the National Archives, the President's budget
proposal should not--and cannot--go unchallenged. What's more, given
the Justice Department's own abysmal record on FOIA compliance--a
recent Bureau of National Affairs Daily Report for Executives article
found that the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy is
burdened by increasing FOIA backlogs--it is simply unfathomable that
this agency would be entrusted with overseeing the processing of
American's FOIA requests.
When the Congress unanimously passed the OPEN Government Act just a
couple months ago, Democrats and

[[Page 2286]]

Republicans alike joined together in promising the American people a
more open and transparent government. I intend to work to ensure that
that this was not an empty promise, but one that will be honored and
fulfilled.
I call on all Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle and in
both Chambers, to join with me to ensure that the Office of Government
Information Services is promptly established and fully funded within
the National Archives. The American people have waited for more than a
decade for this office and for the other historic FOIA reforms
contained in the OPEN Government Act. They should not be forced to wait
any longer.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from a
coalition of more than 40 different open government organizations that
strongly oppose moving the Office of Government Information Services to
the Department of Justice be printed in the Record.
Congress must work to beat back the administration's ill-advised
attempts to undermine the intent of Congress in a bill that this
President signed into law. In the coming weeks and months, I will be
working with other advocates of FOIA in the Senate to do just that.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

February 6, 2008.
Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman
Hon. Thad Cochran, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran: We are
writing to express our concern that the Bush Administration's
proposed FY 2009 budget attempts to repeal a section of law
and shift funding for a new Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS) at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA) to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
President Bush signed the Openness Promotes Effectiveness in
our National Government Act (OPEN Government Act), which
creates OGIS at NARA, a mere five weeks ago. We urge you to
ensure the President's budget reflects congressional intent
and the explicit mandate of the statute as the budgetary
process unfolds.
Currently, the president's budget proposes: ``The
Department of Justice shall carry out the responsibilities of
the office established in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), from amounts made
available in the Department of Justice appropriation for
General Administration Salaries and Expenses. In addition,
subsection (h) of section 552 of title 5, United States Code,
is hereby repealed, and subsections (i) through (I) are
redesignated (h) through (k). (Commerce, Justice, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.)'' (Section 519 of Title V
of the Department of Commerce; p. 239 of the Appendix)
The OPEN Government Act (P.L. 110-175) established OGIS
specifically at NARA. It did so as a result of congressional
findings that interests promoted by the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA), as well as American traditions and
ideals regarding the value of an informed citizenry and the
legitimacy of representative government, were being
insufficiently served by the existing system of agency
practices and implementation, in which DOJ has been the lead
agency for 30 years. Additionally, since it is the
responsibility of the Department to defend its government-
agency clients in litigation brought by requestors, there is
a built-in conflict of interest in vesting DOJ with
responsibilities to resolve FOIA disputes informally and to
hold agencies accountable for FOIA implementation. Congress
specifically directed the creation of an ombudsman office
apart from the Department of Justice for mediation of
contested requests, thus reducing the amount, and concomitant
costs, of litigation--burdens whose reduction would be
beneficial to all. The new office, established with strong
bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress, also has the
critical mandate to evaluate agency implementation of FOIA
with a disinterested eye.
We strongly oppose this effort to use the budget process to
rewrite the law, undermining congressional intent and
flouting a specific statutory mandate. We urge you to
appropriate necessary funds to establish the Office of
Government Information Services in the National Archives and
Records Administration, as your legislation wisely requires,
and, to reinforce the intent of the OPEN Government Act,
reject Section 519 of the proposed budget.
Sincerely,
Access Reports, Inc.; American Association of Law
Libraries; American Association of Publishers; American
Civil Liberties Union; American Library Association;
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression;
Association of Research Libraries; Bill of Rights
Defense Committee; Californians Aware; Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington; Citizens for
Sunshine; Coalition on Political Assassinations;
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.; Electronic Frontier Foundation;
Essential Information; Feminists for Free Expression;
Government Accountability Project; Indiana Coalition
for Open Government; The James Madison Project; Justice
Through Music; League of Women Voters of the U.S.;
Liberty Coalition; Maine Association of Broadcasters;
Minnesota Coalition on Government Information; National
Coalition Against Censorship; National Freedom of
Information Coalition; The National Security Archives;
9/11 Research Group; OMB Watch; Open Society Policy
Center; OpenTheGovernment.org; PEN American Center;
Project On Government Oversight; Public Citizen;
Readthebill.org Foundation; The Rutherford Institute;
Society of Professional Journalists; Society of
Professional Journalists Montana Professional Chapter;
Special Libraries Association; Sunlight Foundation;
United States Bill of Rights Foundation; Velvet
Revolution; Washington Coalition for Open Government.

____________________

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEMATOLOGY

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I congratulate the American Society of
Hematology--ASH--on its 50th anniversary and to pay tribute to the
contributions they have made in preventing and eliminating blood
related diseases.
The society has grown substantially from its 200 members at its
inception in 1958, to over 15,000 members presently, and is recognized
as the world's premier organization in research promotion, clinical
care, education, training, and advocacy in the field of hematology.
Society members consist of practitioners and researchers who have
been able to translate Federal research dollars into effective
treatments for millions of people afflicted with diseases that were at
one time untreatable and fatal. The blood and blood-related diseases
studied and treated by hematologists include disorders such as leukemia
and lymphoma, thrombosis, anemia and bleeding, and congenital disorders
such as sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, and thalassemia. The
advancements in remedies of these disorders are a direct result of the
continuing efforts made by the AHS.
I sustained an episode with Hodgkin's lymphoma cancer 2 years ago.
That trauma, that illness, I think, could have been prevented had that
war on cancer declared by the President Nixon in 1970 been prosecuted
with sufficient intensity. All of us know people who have been stricken
by fatal diseases and many other maladies. It is my hope that other
organizations will use the success of the AHS as an example in
contributing to this Nation's desire for finding cures for the most
fatal diseases.
As chairman, and now ranking member of the appropriations
Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, I have been an ardent
supporter of securing Federal funds for the National Institutes of
Health the crown jewel of the Federal Government, maybe the only jewel
of the Federal Government. Health is the country's No. 1 capital asset,
and the American Society of Hematology has contributed to its success.
Hematologists have been instrumental in pioneering the use of
hydroxyurea in the treatment of sickle cell disease and have developed
the first successful cure of childhood leukemia. Moreover,
hematologists were responsible for the research that led to, Gleevac,
the first anticancer drug developed to target a molecular problem that
causes chronic myelogenous leukemia.
The American Society of Hematology has played an important role in
the unprecedented growth and advancement of hematology research. With
so many great successes over the past 50 years, I am confident the next
50 years will bring ASH and its over 15,000 members even more
accomplishments in treating and eliminating blood diseases.

____________________

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS

______

COMMENDING ESTHER G. KEE

Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me to honor
Mrs. Esther

[[Page 2287]]

G. Kee who is retiring as president of the United States-Asia Institute
which she cofounded with the late Joji Konoshima in 1979, with the
encouragement and support of then-President Jimmy Carter.
The objectives of the United States-Asia Institute are to promote
better understanding between the United States and Asia, to conduct
work and educational visits to Asia for Members of Congress and their
staff, to maintain close ties with Asian diplomatic missions, to
organize international and conferences and symposiums in the U.S. and
Asia on political, economic, and security topics, and to host small,
off-the-record meetings of American and Asian officials, businessmen
and academic leaders providing a venue for free and open discussions
and exchange of views.
Under Mrs. Kee's stewardship, the institute has successfully met its
objectives, and I am confident that it will continue to do so under the
tutelage of her successor. One of Mrs. Kee's most successful
initiatives has been staff codels which she has organized and led. As
an example, there were 70 staff codels with 800 senior congressional
staff that traveled to China to meet and discuss issues with high
government officials. This has facilitated mutual understanding, a core
objective, and people-to-people diplomacy the benefits of which will
continue to inure to our mutual benefit.
As Mrs. Kee retires from active leadership of the United States-Asia
Institute, I have every confidence that she will continue to be active
in the institute and United States-Asia relations as a valued adviser.
On a personal level, I look forward to her continued counsel and
advice.
Mahalo nui loa--thank you very much--Esther G. Kee, for all that you
have done on behalf of our country in its continuing and important
mission of promoting better understanding between the United States and
Asia.

____________________

CONGRATULATING JOSEPH M. DELL'OLIO

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I wish today to commend someone whom
I have admired for my entire time in this body, a man who has committed
his life to helping society's most vulnerable. Joe Dell'Olio, who is
retiring after 35 years at Child, Incorporated, is a dedicated public
servant in the true sense of the word.
Joe started at Child, Inc., of Wilmington after spending his early
career fighting to reduce Delaware's crime rate. In 1972, after just 2
years as the executive director of the Delaware Agency to Reduce Crime,
we saw the crime rate cut by 7 percent. As the head of the agency
responsible for leading that fight, perhaps no one was due more credit
than Joe.
Joe then joined Child, Inc. in 1973, the same year I was sworn in to
the Senate. As executive vice president, he was responsible for the
development and administration of a wide range of advocacy and service
programs for victims of domestic violence and their families. Joe and I
grew together as we fought to empower and protect victims of domestic
violence in our community.
While I labored in the Senate to write and pass the Violence Against
Women Act, Joe Dell'Olio was on the front lines in our battle. He was
the one on the street or in the counseling room. He was the one
securing legal help when victims could not afford it. And he was the
one who made sure someone was there when a victim had nowhere to go.
I consider the Violence Against Women Act my proudest legislative
accomplishment. But the Joe Dell'Olios of the world are the ones who
deserve the credit for our progress. Joe has received several awards,
including some from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and
Human Services.
Throughout my career, I have been privileged to work with some of the
finest public servants our Nation has ever known, those who committed
their lives to the greater good. None have been more unwaveringly
focused on a worthy cause than has Joe Dell'Olio, even as he raised a
loving family of his own. Joe's tireless sense of duty and his
unrelenting service never cease to amaze me.
I wish him the best in all his future endeavors.

____________________

100TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CITY OF LARKSPUR

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to
recognize the 100th anniversary of the city of Larkspur, located in
Marin County, CA.
The city of Larkspur was incorporated into the State of California on
March 1, 1908. This year, we celebrate its centennial anniversary. With
a downtown that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places,
the architecture that defines the city of Larkspur has fascinated and
charmed visitors for decades. Its historical structures and natural
surroundings provide residents and visitors alike a glimpse of
California the way it was at the start of the 20th century.
The city is divided into two distinct areas, with its historic
downtown area to the west of Highway 101 and Larkspur Landing, an
outdoor shopping area with sublime bay views, to the east of Highway
101. Just across the street from Larkspur Landing, travelers can catch
the Larkspur Ferry to the San Francisco Ferry Building, a ride that
offers spectacular views of Mount Tamalpais, Angel Island, and the
Golden Gate Bridge. This outstanding natural scenery in the midst of
such a finely preserved historical setting makes the slogan ``Meet me
in Larkspur'' a common phrase amongst residents and visitors alike.
From the preservation of historic Magnolia Avenue to the conservation
of the celebrated Blue Rock Inn, the city of Larkspur offers visitors a
vibrant look at smalltown California as it was in the early 1900s. For
100 years, the city of Larkspur has not only served as a recreational
escape and historical wonderland for those visiting the city but a
place to call home for its more than 11,000 residents. I commend the
city of Larkspur for maintaining the natural beauty and historical
significance that defines this fine city.
The city of Larkspur's vision and commitment to protecting its small
piece of California history should be commended. I congratulate the
city of Larkspur for its hard work on this special occasion, and I look
forward to future generations having the opportunity to visit and enjoy
this unique city.

____________________

RETIREMENT OF CAROLYN DOWNS

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the service of
Carolyn Downs. She has tirelessly worked on behalf of the poor
throughout her life, including many years of outstanding service as the
director of The Banquet in Sioux Falls, SD. Carolyn has been committed
to providing a safe place where people may gather to receive
nourishment and fellowship.
Throughout her 20 years at The Banquet, Carolyn has touched the lives
of innumerable needy individuals and families. Her devotion to feeding
the hungry sets an example to the community of a life devoted to the
betterment of people all over South Dakota. All of the guests that she
has served have seen what is described as her cheerful strength.
Her work at The Banquet has not only touched the lives of the hungry
but has given many South Dakotans an opportunity to volunteer and
become involved in their community. Carolyn's work has brought out the
best in people around her and is an inspiration to all of South Dakota.
Under her leadership, The Banquet turned into a vital resource center
institution for the hungry and is one of the pillars of the Sioux Falls
community. Her humility, grace, leadership skills, and humble service
will be greatly missed when she retires. All of her work has not been
for public praise or external reward but, rather, a deeply held belief
in serving others. The State of South Dakota and all of its residents
owe her a debt of gratitude for all that she had done to better it.
Carolyn will be retiring this February. Though her day-to-day
presence at The Banquet will be greatly missed,

[[Page 2288]]

her years of hard work are appreciated by all that volunteer and use
The Banquet. I applaud Carolyn Downs's service and thank her for her
time and efforts.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO LaBRADFORD EAGLE DEER

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, today I wish to offer a statement
about a distinguished South Dakota youth, LaBradford Eagle Deer.
LaBradford, 16, of St. Francis, SD, was one of two teens who
represented the United States at the United Nations' observation of the
20th International Day for the Eradication of Poverty last October. Six
young people from across the world were chosen to speak at the event on
a panel about what they thought needed to be done about poverty.
According to the United Nations' Web site, the U.N. General Assembly
declared October 17 as the International Day for the Eradication of
Poverty and invited all States to devote the day to presenting and
promoting, as appropriate in the national context, concrete activities
with regard to the eradication of poverty and destitution. The
resolution further invites intergovernmental and nongovernmental
organizations to assist States, at their request, in organizing
national activities for the observance of the day, and requests the
Secretary-General to take, within existing resources, the measures
necessary to ensure the success of the day's observance by the United
Nations.
Eagle Deer exemplifies the goals of this important day. Eagle Deer
lives on the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation, where almost half of
children younger than 17 live in poverty, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Center. Eagle Deer
discussed the hopelessness that poverty creates in a person saying,
``suicide, addiction, dropout and crime rates are so high in poverty-
stricken areas on our reservation, as well as other areas in the
world.''
Eagle Deer has taken a leading role to improve his community. An
honor student at Todd County High School, he is president of the St.
Francis Youth Center He coaches flag football and is himself involved
in cross country, basketball, and track. Staying true to his culture,
he has organized a traditional youth-honoring powwow. A sentiment that
I agree with, Eagle Deer values education as a pathway out of poverty.
LaBradford is an example to other poverty stricken children, and I
commend his efforts to alleviate the effects of poverty on children in
South Dakota and children worldwide.

____________________

REMEMBERING VADA SHEID

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that
today I honor one of the true pioneers for women in Arkansas, Vada Webb
Sheid, who passed away this past Monday. Mrs. Sheid was a remarkable
woman who was an enterprising entrepreneur and built a business,
Sheid's Furniture Company, with her husband Carl in Mountain Home.
But Mrs. Sheid is best remembered as a dedicated public servant who
became the first woman in Arkansas to serve in both the Arkansas House
of Representatives and Senate.
She began her public service at 19 years old when she became the
Izard County welfare director. Soon after, she met Carl, and they
opened the area's first self-serve food market in Mountain Home. During
World War II, Carl was drafted in the Army, and Mrs. Sheid went to work
as a payroll clerk for a company building the Norfork Dam. After the
war, they opened up a grocery store before finally starting the Sheid's
Furniture Company in 1957, which her family still runs today.
It was around this time that Mrs. Sheid began to consider furthering
her career in public service. She served as Baxter Country treasurer
from 1960 to 1964 before being elected to the Arkansas House. As a
State legislator, she focused on issues affecting the elderly and was
asked by then-Governor Dale Bumpers to serve as a representative to the
White House Conference on Aging.
In 1976, Mrs. Sheid sought higher office and was elected to the
Arkansas Senate. She served in that capacity until 1985. Shortly
thereafter, then-Governor Bill Clinton appointed her to the Arkansas
Police Commission, where she later served as chairman.
Mrs. Sheid had many great accomplishments in the Arkansas
Legislature. She sponsored legislation creating Arkansas State
University-Mountain Home and North Arkansas Community College in
Harrison. She also authored legislation to construct the twin bridges
over Lake Norfork, as well as numerous highway projects.
Mr. President, as a woman growing up in Arkansas, Vada Sheid was a
true inspiration to me and many others. The example she set is one that
I can only hope to follow. She will be missed by all Arkansans. At this
time, my thoughts and prayers go out to her family.

____________________

REMEMBERING MIKE WILSON

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I speak with great sadness as I
remember the life of a great Arkansan who passed away on February 8,
2008: Michael Evans ``Mike'' Wilson.
For the last 20 years, Mike served as the chairman and CEO of Lee
Wilson and Company, a business that began to transform and build the
Arkansas Delta region more than 100 years ago. Growing up the daughter
of a rice farmer in eastern Arkansas, I knew of the Wilson family and
how their name was synonymous with the values of hard work and
enterprise throughout our region.
Mike was not only the leader of his longtime family business; he was
also a tireless servant for the city of Wilson and the State of
Arkansas. He had served as mayor of Wilson since 1986 and was committed
to economic development and advancing educational opportunity in
Arkansas. He also lent his time to a considerable number of charitable
organizations' boards and committees to further those goals.
A 1965 graduate of the Citadel, Mike also loved his country. He
served our Nation in the U.S. Army upon graduation and achieved the
rank of captain before his honorable discharge.
He was passionate about life, and I consider him a true friend. He
will be missed by us all.
My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Pat, son Perry, daughter
Natalie, and their entire family at this time.

____________________

IN HONOR OF JOHN ROBERTS

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I wish to honor
John Roberts of Omaha, NE.
John was an independent and dedicated individual who found comfort in
life through helping others. He was a 2001 graduate of Omaha Westside
High School and a 2005 graduate of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
studying art history. His inquisitive nature toward different cultures
and languages, along with his desire to help others, led him to
volunteer for the Peace Corps. John was sworn in on December 8, 2005,
and served as a construction and skilled trades education volunteer on
the island of Erromango in the Republic of Vanuatu.
John's impact in Vanuatu was tangible to the people who lived in his
village. He was credited for strengthening South River's
transportation, income generation, and communications capabilities.
When his parents visited him in Vanuatu, they were proud to see the
sense of community John brought to his village. His father, Doug, said
the people loved him as though he were one of their own; one Erromango
community representative regarded him ``as our son.'' His sincerity and
enthusiasm to help those in need is epitomized by his Peace Corps
aspiration statement:

Why I have volunteered is a question that I do not fully
know the answer to. Coming from a stable farming family I was
always taught to help my neighbors but I also feel an
internal pull to help lend a hand. Somewhere back in my short
life, I made a choice to serve and have been doing so every
since. Instead of a single moment defining my reasons to
serve, a whole lifetime of learning is driving me to
volunteer for the Peace Corps.

On October 11, 2007, John passed away while working at his site, a
branch that was being cut by a student inadvertently struck John and
another

[[Page 2289]]

member of the community. He is survived by his parents Doug and Rose of
Omaha.
Today, I join all Americans in mourning the loss of this remarkable
young man. John Roberts' altruism, compassion, and exemplary service
will remain an inspiration for those who wish to follow in his
footsteps.

____________________

RECOGNIZING HAVEN'S CANDIES

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, as today is Valentine's Day--a day
when everyone deserves to enjoy at least a little chocolate--I commend
a small chocolatier from my home State of Maine that has produced
quality chocolates and candies for nearly a century. Haven's Candies of
Westbrook is an innovative candy factory that sells a wide variety of
chocolate favorites in addition to both traditional and original Maine
treats.
The early history of Haven's Candies has an element of romance to it.
Herbert Haven, the company's founder, followed his sweetheart from
Boston, MA, to Portland, ME, in the early 1900s. They were soon
married, and Herbert, who was the son of a candy maker, teamed up with
his wife to produce handcrafted candies in their kitchen, which they
began selling from the front parlor of their house in 1915. From this
humble start, Haven's Candies has grown to become a well-known name in
candy making. The company now has a factory and store in Westbrook, as
well as retail locations in Windham and Portland, one block from the
house where Haven's began. And as ranking member of the Senate
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am particularly
pleased that the U.S. Small Business Administration has been able to
help Haven's over the years through financing and other assistance.
Using time-tested methods, Haven's still handcrafts its candies.
Haven's offers customers an extensive array of exquisite goods,
including homemade fudge, marzipan, jumbo peanut butter cups, and
buttercrunch toffee. The company also produces a varied selection of
sugar-free candies, including peanut brittle and cashew turtles. Some
of the Maine-themed candies sold at Haven's include the needham, a
chocolate with a soft potato, coconut, and vanilla center, and
delicious blueberry creams, celebrating Maine's rich heritage of
blueberry harvesting. Perhaps Haven's most impressive production is its
salt water taffy. Made by hand, its dozens of unique flavors include
creamsicle, maple, and watermelon. Haven's salt water taffy has
attracted significant attention, and retailers of the candy include
Maine's own L. L. Bean.
Haven's production methods allow for the romantic in all of us to
surprise our sweethearts any day of the week. The company can make
monogrammed chocolates and offers personalized packaging to create
anyone's favorite combination of sweets. For Valentine's Day, Haven's
offers chocolate-dipped strawberries, fancy hearts filled with a mix of
chocolates, and the unique Valentine party tray, which includes a great
variety of chocolates surrounding a heart-shaped tray filled with mixed
nuts. Haven's also makes assorted holiday gifts for other occasions,
including Easter and Father's Day. The company holds a free open house
every Columbus Day when children can make their own candy at the
factory. Additionally, Haven's raises funds annually for the Center for
Grieving Children by hosting ``make your own candy cane'' events.
On Valentine's Day, we take the opportunity to enjoy the sweeter side
of life. Luckily for the employees of Haven's Candies, they get to
enjoy it every day! Not only is the candy they produce scrumptious, but
their work ethic is exemplary, and their dedication to putting smiles
on the faces of children of all ages is commendable. I congratulate
owner Andy Charles and everyone at Haven's who continue to make
delectable candies nearly 100 years after this company's remarkable
inception and wish them future success.

____________________

MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

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

____________________

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session the Presiding Officer laid before the Senate
messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry
nominations which were referred to the appropriate committees.
(The nominations received today are printed at the end of the Senate
proceedings.)

____________________

MEASURES PLACED ON THE CALENDAR

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

S. 2633. A bill to provide for the safe redeployment of
United States troops from Iraq.
S. 2634. A bill to require a report setting forth the
global strategy of the United States to combat and defeat al
Qaeda and its affiliates.
S. 2636. A bill to provide needed housing reform.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. HAGEL:
S. 2637. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to provide an exclusion for gain from the sale of farmland to
encourage the continued use of the property for farming, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2638. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled
Federal elections and establish polling place hours; to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
By Mr. JOHNSON (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 2639. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
provide for an assured adequate level of funding for veterans
health care; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, and Mr. Craig):
S. 2640. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to
enhance and improve insurance, housing, labor and education,
and other benefits for veterans, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
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; to the
Committee on Finance.
By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Ms.
Cantwell):
S. 2642. A bill to establish a national renewable energy
standard, to extend and create renewable energy tax
incentives, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
By Mr. CARPER (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Biden, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Alexander,
Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Gregg):
S. 2643. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to require the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to
promulgate regulations to control hazardous air pollutant
emissions from electric utility steam generating units; to
the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Mr. BROWN:
S. 2644. A bill to clarify and improve information for
members and former members of the Armed Forces on upgrades of
discharge, to prohibit personality disorder discharges in
cases of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain
injury, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
By Mr. STEVENS:
S. 2645. A bill to require the Commandant of the Coast
Guard, in consultation with the Under Secretary of Commerce
for Oceans and Atmosphere, to conduct an evaluation and
review of certain vessel discharges; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
By Mr. CRAIG:
S. 2646. A bill for the relief of Thomas Stephen Long,
Patricia Merryl Long, Stephanie Bianca Long, and Chelsea Ann
Long; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2647. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fan
assisted, plug-in, scented oil dispensing, electrothermic
appliances; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2648. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of
1998 to improve programs

[[Page 2290]]

carried out through youth opportunity grants, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. ISAKSON:
S. 2649. A bill to allow an income tax exception to
limitations on personal casualty losses for losses occurring
in tornado disaster areas; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Martinez, Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs.
Hutchison):
S. 2650. A bill to provide for a 5-year carryback of
certain net operating losses and to suspend the 90 percent
alternative minimum tax limit on certain net operating
losses; to the Committee on Finance.
By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2651. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to make
technical corrections to the renewable fuel standard; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens,
Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Dole,
Mr. Graham, and Mr. Alexander):
S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make a grant to the National World War II Museum Foundation
for facilities and programs of America's National World War
II Museum; to the Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2653. A bill to further United States security by
restoring and enhancing the competitiveness of the United
States for international students, scholars, scientists, and
exchange visitors and by facilitating business travel to the
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr.
Chambliss):
S. 2654. A bill to provide for enhanced reimbursement of
servicemembers and veterans for certain travel expenses; to
the Committee on Armed Services.

____________________

SUBMISSION OF CONCURRENT AND SENATE RESOLUTIONS

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

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Menendez,
Mr. Specter, and Mr. Brown):
S. Res. 454. A resolution designating the month of March
2008 as ``MRSA Awareness Month''; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Brownback,
Mr. Feingold, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. Res. 455. A resolution calling for peace in Darfur; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Collins, and Mr.
Sununu):
S. Res. 456. A resolution directing the United States to
undertake bilateral discussions with Canada to negotiate an
agreement to conserve populations of large whales at risk of
extinction that migrate along the Atlantic seaboard of North
America; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
By Mr. REID:
S. Res. 457. A resolution recognizing the cultural and
historical significance of the Chinese New Year or Spring
Festival; considered and agreed to.

____________________

ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS

S. 60

At the request of Mr. Inouye, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mrs. Clinton) was added as a cosponsor of S. 60, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to provide a means for continued improvement
in emergency medical services for children.

S. 702

At the request of Mr. Kohl, the name of the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
Leahy) was added as a cosponsor of S. 702, a bill to authorize the
Attorney General to award grants to State courts to develop and
implement State courts interpreter programs.

S. 791

At the request of Mr. Levin, the name of the Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) was added as a cosponsor of S. 791, a bill
to establish a collaborative program to protect the Great Lakes, and
for other purposes.

S. 911

At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Durbin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 911, a bill to amend the
Public Health Service Act to advance medical research and treatments
into pediatric cancers, ensure patients and families have access to the
current treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers,
establish a population-based national childhood cancer database, and
promote public awareness of pediatric cancers.

S. 1010

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1010, a bill to amend
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to encourage guaranteed lifetime
income payments from annuities and similar payments of life insurance
proceeds at dates later than death by excluding from income a portion
of such payments.

S. 1277

At the request of Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, the name of the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1277, a
bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to clarify the
treatment of payment under the Medicare program for clinical laboratory
tests furnished by critical access hospitals.

S. 1328

At the request of Mr. Leahy, the name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
Akaka) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1328, a bill to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate discrimination in the
immigration laws by permitting permanent partners of United States
citizens and lawful permanent residents to obtain lawful permanent
resident status in the same manner as spouses of citizens and lawful
permanent residents and to penalize immigration fraud in connection
with permanent partnerships.

S. 1382

At the request of Mr. Reid, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
McCain) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1382, a bill to amend the Public
Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of an Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis Registry.

S. 1418

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1418, a bill to provide
assistance to improve the health of newborns, children, and mothers in
developing countries, and for other purposes.

S. 1430

At the request of Mr. Pryor, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
1430, a bill to authorize State and local governments to direct
divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments
of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector, and for other purposes.

S. 1499

At the request of Mrs. Boxer, the name of the Senator from Maryland
(Mr. Cardin) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1499, a bill to amend the
Clean Air Act to reduce air pollution from marine vessels.

S. 1846

At the request of Mr. Bond, the name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
Stevens) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1846, a bill to improve defense
cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the United States.

S. 1906

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1906, a bill to
understand and comprehensively address the oral health problems
associated with methamphetamine use.

S. 1907

At the request of Mr. Baucus, the name of the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Byrd) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1907, a bill to
amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
to understand and comprehensively address the inmate oral health
problems associated with methamphetamine use, and for other purposes.

S. 1921

At the request of Mr. Webb, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1921, a bill to amend
the American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 to extend the
authorization for that Act, and for other purposes.

S. 1926

At the request of Mr. Dodd, the name of the Senator from Illinois
(Mr. Obama) was added as a cosponsor of S. 1926, a bill to establish
the National Infrastructure Bank to provide funding

[[Page 2291]]

for qualified infrastructure projects, and for other purposes.

S. 2045

At the request of Mr. Pryor, the name of the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
Wyden) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2045, a bill to reform the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to provide greater protection for
children's products, to improve the screening of noncompliant consumer
products, to improve the effectiveness of consumer product recall
programs, and for other purposes.

S. 2136

At the request of Mr. Durbin, the names of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
Kerry) were added as cosponsors of S. 2136, a bill to address the
treatment of primary mortgages in bankruptcy, and for other purposes.

S. 2182

At the request of Mr. Reed, the name of the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Lieberman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2182, a bill to amend
the Public Health Service Act with respect to mental health services.

S. 2209

At the request of Mr. Hatch, the name of the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. Bunning) 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. 2218

At the request of Mr. Roberts, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Brownback) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2218, a bill to provide
for the award of a military service medal to members of the Armed
Forces who were exposed to ionizing radiation as a result of
participation in a test of atomic weapons.

S. 2369

At the request of Mr. Cornyn, his name was added as a cosponsor of S.
2369, a bill to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide that
certain tax planning inventions are not patentable, and for other
purposes.

S. 2401

At the request of Ms. Cantwell, the name of the Senator from Kansas
(Mr. Roberts) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2401, a bill to amend the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a refund of motor fuel excise
taxes for the actual off-highway use of certain mobile machinery
vehicles.

S. 2543

At the request of Mr. Ensign, the name of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
Craig) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2543, a bill to amend title 18,
United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in
circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion
decisions.

S. 2550

At the request of Mrs. Hutchison, the name of the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2550, a bill to
amend title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs from collecting certain debts owed to the United
States by members of the Armed Forces and veterans who die as a result
of an injury incurred or aggravated on active duty in a combat zone,
and for other purposes.

S. 2578

At the request of Mr. Coleman, the name of the Senator from New York
(Mr. Schumer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2578, a bill to
temporarily delay application of proposed changes to Medicaid payment
rules for case management and targeted case management services.

S. 2580

At the request of Mr. Smith, the name of the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. Coleman) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2580, a bill to amend the
Higher Education Act of 1965 to improve the participation in higher
education of, and to increase opportunities in employment for,
residents of rural areas.

S. 2595

At the request of Mrs. Feinstein, the name of the Senator from
California (Mrs. Boxer) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2595, a bill to
create a national licensing system for residential mortgage loan
originators, to develop minimum standards of conduct to be enforced by
State regulators, and for other purposes.

S. 2596

At the request of Mr. DeMint, the name of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Isakson) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2596, a bill to rescind
funds appropriated by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, for
the City of Berkeley, California, and any entities located in such
city, and to provide that such funds shall be transferred to the
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps account of the Department of
Defense for the purposes of recruiting.

S. 2618

At the request of Ms. Klobuchar, the names of the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) and the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
were added as cosponsors of S. 2618, a bill to amend the Public Health
Service Act to provide for research with respect to various forms of
muscular dystrophy, including Becker, congenital, distal, Duchenne,
Emery-Dreifuss Facioscapulohumeral, limb-girdle, myotonic, and
oculopharyngeal muscular dystrophies.

S. 2625

At the request of Mr. Harkin, the names of the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. Wyden) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer) were added as
cosponsors of S. 2625, a bill to ensure that deferred Department of
Veterans Affairs disability benefits that are received in a lump sum
amount or in prospective monthly amounts, be excluded from
consideration as annual income when determining eligibility for low-
income housing programs.

S. 2627

At the request of Mr. Domenici, the name of the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. Kyl) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2627, a bill to provide for a
biennial budget process and a biennial appropriations process and to
enhance oversight and the performance of the Federal Government.

S. 2633

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2633, a bill to
provide for the safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq.

S. 2634

At the request of Mr. Feingold, the name of the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez) was added as a cosponsor of S. 2634, a bill to
require a report setting forth the global strategy of the United States
to combat and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates.

S. RES. 439

At the request of Mr. Lugar, the names of the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. Chambliss) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) were added as
cosponsors of S. Res. 439, a resolution expressing the strong support
of the Senate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into
a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine.

S. RES. 449

At the request of Mr. Smith, the names of the Senator from California
(Mrs. Feinstein) and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss) were
added as cosponsors of S. Res. 449, a resolution condemning in the
strongest possible terms President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's
statements regarding the State of Israel and the Holocaust and calling
for all member States of the United Nations to do the same.

AMENDMENT NO. 3893

At the request of Mr. Brownback, the name of the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) was added as a cosponsor of amendment No. 3893
proposed to S. 1200, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend the Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 3896

At the request of Mr. Vitter, the names of the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain)
were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 3896 proposed to S. 1200, a
bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and
extend the Act.

AMENDMENT NO. 3967

At the request of Mr. Coburn, the names of the Senator from Georgia

[[Page 2292]]

(Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) and the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) were added as cosponsors of
amendment No. 3967 intended to be proposed to S. 2483, a bill to
authorize certain programs and activities in the Forest Service, the
Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy, and for other
purposes.

AMENDMENT NO. 4023

At the request of Ms. Mikulski, the names of the Senator from Maine
(Ms. Collins), the Senator from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the Senator from
Ohio (Mr. Voinovich), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Casey), the Senator from New York (Mrs.
Clinton), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the Senator from
Oregon (Mr. Wyden) were added as cosponsors of amendment No. 4023
proposed to S. 1200, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend the Act.

____________________

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2638. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting
Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and
Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first
weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to
legislation that I first proposed in 1997.
Currently, we are in the midst of the most serious business of our
democracy--the primary elections to select the nominees to be our next
President. We all want every eligible voter to participate and cast a
vote. But recent elections have Shown us that unneeded obstacles are
preventing citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of
defective ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election
galvanized Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The
Help American Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an
important step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in
the administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to
replace outdated voting systems and improve election administration.
However, there is much that still needs to be done.
With more and more voters needing to cast their ballots on election
day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it
easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to
voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own
State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee
ballot. These States constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens
of the U.S. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election
offices or at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now
conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are
critical if we are to conduct fair elections, for it has become
unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up
at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. And if we
continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken
machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create
barriers to voting.
That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to
undermine our elections.
Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period
of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern
time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous States also
open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to
close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both
Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious
observances.
Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental U.S. also
addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of the country,
or even a State, from influencing voting in places where polls are
still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the pool of
buildings available for polling stations and people available to work
at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.
Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter
turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls
without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that
holding elections on a nonworking day can increase voter turnout. In
one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends
and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter
participation rates.
In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform
recommended that we move our federal election day to a national
holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not
well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I
share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a nonworking day.
Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and
landowning voters were often coming to town anyway.
Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to
make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday
voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse
and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have
two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only
12 hours on a Tuesday, from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., voters often have only
one or two hours to vote. As we have seen in recent elections, long
lines in many polling places have kept some voters waiting much longer
than one or 2 hours. If voters have children, and are dropping them off
at day care, or if they have a long work commute, there is just not
enough time in a workday to vote.
With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable
norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our
Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to
participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives
in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all
aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend
may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the
integrity of future elections and full participation by as many
Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a
common sense proposal whose time has come.
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. 2638

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 ``Weekend Voting Act''.

SEC. 2. CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.

Section 25 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended
to read as follows:
``Sec. 25. The first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday in November, in every even numbered year, are
established as the days for the election, in each of the
States and Territories of the United States, of
Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on
the 3d day of January thereafter.''.

SEC. 3. CHANGE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.

Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Tuesday next after the first Monday'' and
inserting ``first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday''.

[[Page 2293]]

SEC. 4. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Presidential general election.--Chapter 1 of title 3,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 1 as section 1A; and
(B) by inserting before section 1A the following:

``Sec. 1. Polling place hours

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Presidential general election.--The term
`Presidential general election' means the election for
electors of President and Vice President.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places in the continental united states.--
Each polling place in the continental United States shall be
open, with respect to a Presidential general election,
beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. eastern standard time and
ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. eastern standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a Presidential
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local
time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6 a.m. local time
on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in which the
polling place is located.''.
(2) Congressional general election.--Section 25 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating section 25 as section 25A; and
(B) by inserting before section 25A the following:

``SEC. 25. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Congressional general election.--The term
`congressional general election' means the general election
for the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate
or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places inside the continental united
states.--Each polling place in the continental United States
shall be open, with respect to a congressional general
election, beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. eastern standard
time and ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. eastern standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a congressional
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10 a.m. local time
and ending on Sunday at 6 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6 a.m. local time
on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in which the
polling place is located.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 3, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1 and inserting the following:

``1. Polling place hours.
``1A. Time of appointing electors.''.

(2) Sections 871(b) and 1751(f) of title 18, United States
Code, are each amended by striking ``title 3, United States
Code, sections 1 and 2'' and inserting ``sections 1A and 2 of
title 3''.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Kohl):
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; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor for the purpose of
introducing a bill. The bill's title is the Nursing Home Transparency
and Improvement Act of 2008.
I introduce this bill along with Senator Kohl of Wisconsin. It is a
bipartisan bill. Senator Kohl, because he is in the majority, has the
distinguished pleasure of serving as chairman of a special committee on
aging which is also a very important responsibility, particularly since
our Government spends about more than $50 billion a year on nursing
home care for elderly, among other things that are the responsibility
tie of that committee.
The bill that we are introducing is an important piece of legislation
that aims to bring some overdue transparency to consumers regarding
nursing home quality. It also provides long-needed improvements to our
enforcement system.
This legislation further strengthens nursing home staff training
requirements. In America today, there are over 1.7 million elderly and
disabled individuals in roughly 17,000 nursing homes.
As the baby boom generation ages, that number probably will rise,
unless we do something about the problems of osteoporosis and
Alzheimer's and diabetes. Hopefully, we can do those things so our
nursing homes do not fill up more. But those are some of the health
problems that are facing 77 million baby boomers. Some of them
undoubtedly will end up in nursing homes.
So we have to have not only a tremendous interest in ensuring nursing
home quality based upon the number of people who are already there, but
we are going to have more in the future.
While many people are using alternatives such as home care or other
methods of community-based care, nursing homes are going to remain a
critical option for our elderly and our disabled. I always think in
terms of nursing homes being at the end of a continuum of care for
people who need some help.
People want to stay in their own home. When there is a question, can
they do that without endangering them, bring some help to the home,
relatives or home health care types.
If that is not the right environment, then assisted living. And then
other things that might eventually bring a person to a nursing home.
But a nursing home is a last resort. I say that because during my
tenure as chairman of the Aging Committee from 1997 to the year 2001,
versus the period of time I was chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, dealing with a lot of aging issues, interacting with a lot
of older people, I have never once had anybody say to me that: I am
just dying to get into a nursing home.
So I think it is important we do whatever we can to keep people out
of nursing homes. But there are some people, a lot of people, and a
growing number of people who are going to need that type of care.
So we have to be concerned about the quality of care in nursing
homes. We surely owe it to them to make sure they receive the safe and
quality care they deserve. Unfortunately in many areas, the nursing
homes, we have a few bad apples always spoiling the barrel. Too many
Americans receive poor care, often in a subset of a nursing home.
Unfortunately, this subset of chronic offenders stays in business, in
many ways keeping their poor track records hidden from the public at
large and often facing little or no enforcement from the Federal
Government.
As ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, I have a
longstanding commitment to ensuring that nursing home residents receive
the safe and quality care we expect for our own loved ones. But this
effort requires transparency, transparency in the nursing home industry
so consumers are armed with information, consumers having information
they need to make the best decisions possible for loved ones. This same
transparency also provides additional market incentives for bad homes
to improve.
This effort also requires a strong mandatory enforcement and
monitoring system to ensure safe and quality care at facilities that
would not take the steps needed to do so voluntarily.
The Grassley-Kohl legislation seeks to strengthen both areas,
transparency and enforcement. It is a bill that is good for consumers,
good for nursing home residents, and good even for the nursing home
community.
Let's look at transparency. In the market for nursing home care,
similar to all markets, consumers must have adequate data to make
informed choices. For years people looking at a nursing home for
themselves or loved ones had no way of knowing whether that home was--
this is kind of a legal term in the regulations--a ``special focus
facility,'' a designation meaning they had been singled out as a
consistently poor performer.

[[Page 2294]]

Why should consumers not have access to this information? The
Government has it and so should consumers. To that end, this bill
requires that the ``special focus facilities'' designation be placed on
the CMS website. Nursing Home Compare is the name of that website.
By giving consumers this information, we will both give consumers
information necessary to make informed choices and poorly performing
homes an extra incentive to shape up or consumers then can go
elsewhere.
This bill also requires more transparency about ownership
information. What is so secretive about who owns a nursing home? Also,
it provides transparency in inspection reports and more accountability
for large nursing home chains and the development of a standardized
resident complaint form so there is a clear and easy way to report
problems and have them resolved.
The bill would also bring more transparency on what portion of a
nursing home's spending is used for direct care for residents and also
bring more uniformity to the reporting of nursing staffing levels so
people can make an apples-to-apples comparison between nursing homes.
But even with improved transparency, there are some nursing homes
that will not improve on their own. In the nursing home industry, most
homes provide quality care on a consistent basis. But as in many
sectors, this industry is given a bad name by a few bad apples that
spoil the barrel.
So we need to give inspectors better enforcement tools. The current
system provides incentives to correct problems only temporarily and
allows homes to avoid regulatory sanctions while continuing to deliver
substandard care to residents. That system must be fixed.
In ongoing correspondence that I have had with Terry Weems, the
Acting Administrator of CMS, that agency has requested the statutory
authority to collect civil monetary penalties sooner and hold them in
escrow pending appeal. To that end, this bill requires penalties be
collected within 90 days following a hearing; after that, they be held
in escrow pending appeal.
Penalties should also be meaningful. Too often they are assessed at
the lowest possible amount, if at all. Penalties should be more than
merely the cost of doing business, they should be collected in a
reasonable timeframe and should not be rescinded easily.
These changes would help prod the industry's bad actors to get their
act together or get out of business. In addition to increased
transparency and improved enforcement, this bill provides commonsense
solutions to a number of other problems as well.
This legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services
to establish a national independent monitoring program to tackle
problems specific to interstate and large intrastate nursing home
chains. This legislation directs the Government Accountability Office
to, one, conduct studies on the role, if any, of financial problems in
the poor performance of special focus facilities; identify best
practices at the State level in temporary management programs; and,
three, determine what are the barriers preventing the purchase of
nursing homes with a record of poor quality.
Finally, in the case of nursing homes being closed due to prior
safety or quality of care, the bill requires that residents and their
representatives be given a sufficient notice so they can adequately
plan a transfer to a better performing nursing home. I happen to be
very sensitive to the fact that nursing home residents are often old
and fragile. Moving them into new facilities is often very traumatic.
So we have to make sure these residents are transferred appropriately
and with the time and care deserved.
This bill would also strengthen training requirements for nursing
staff, by including dementia and abuse prevention training as part of
the preemployment training.
The Grassley-Kohl bill also requires a study on the appropriateness
of increasing training requirements for nurse aids and supervisory
staff.
I am proud to introduce this bill today, along with the distinguished
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, the chairman of the Aging Committee.
He and I have a long history of working on issues together,
particularly for the elderly. We will continue to do everything we can
to make sure America's nursing home residents receive the safe and
quality care they deserve. Increasing transparency, improved
enforcement tools, and strengthening training requirements will go a
long way toward achieving this goal.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Nursing Home
Transparency and Improvement Act of 2008 with my distinguished
colleague, Senator Grassley. Senator Grassley conducted a great deal of
valuable oversight for nursing homes during his tenure as Aging
Committee chairman from 1997 through 2000, and he continues to make
major contributions in this area today. Working toward higher standards
of nursing home quality is a tradition of which I am proud to be a
part.
It is staggering to think that the most recent major law dictating
Federal standards for quality, for data reporting, and for enforcement
was passed in 1987. Twenty-one years later, we know that it has spurred
important improvements in the quality of care provided in nursing
homes. Yet we are far from finished, and there are additional
improvements that need to be made.
The first is in the area of transparency. If consumers can easily
tell which homes have a solid enforcement track record, which are well-
staffed, which are owned by a chain with a good reputation for
providing excellent services--and which homes are not--then this sort
of disclosure can serve as a powerful motivation for homes to provide
the best possible care, to hire and keep the most dedicated staff, and
to always prioritize the interests of residents. The court of public
opinion and the strength of market forces are powerful and inexpensive
tools we should be putting to good use.
Our legislation will make sure all this information is available to
consumers in a timely and easy-to-use fashion. We want Americans to be
able to use the Federal Government's Web site, Nursing Home Compare,
with ease. We want Americans to have access to the type of information
that matters, such as the number of hours of care their loved one will
receive from staff every day. We want Americans to be able to use this
Web site to lodge complaints of mistreatment or neglect. These are
simple, effective ideas, and our bill will make them a reality.
The second area in need of improvement is our Government's system of
nursing home quality enforcement. Under the current system, nursing
homes that are not providing good care, or--even worse--are putting
their residents in harms way, can escape penalty from the Government by
abusing a lengthy appeal process, while they slip in and out of
compliance with Federal regulations. This is unacceptable. We need the
threat of sanctions to mean something--and under my bill with Senator
Grassley, they will. Our legislation will require that all civil
monetary penalties be collected and placed in an escrow account as soon
as they are levied, pending the final resolution of any appeal.
Financial penalties will be increased for serious quality deficiencies
that cause actual harm to nursing home residents or put them in
``immediate jeopardy.''
In addition, our policy enables regulators to respond effectively
when serious quality problems are evident in order to protect the
safety of residents. The bill requires that States and facilities
provide a secure and orderly process when relocating residents due to a
nursing home closure. It also proposes national demonstrations to
promote innovations in information technology and ``culture change'' in
order to improve resident care.
The Federal Government now spends $75 billion annually on nursing
homes through Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is projected to rise
as costs associated with the boomer generation increase. Congress has a
responsibility to demand high-quality services for residents and
accountability from the nursing home industry in return for this huge
investment of public resources. I urge my colleagues to join

[[Page 2295]]

Senator Grassley and myself in sponsoring this commonsense piece of
legislation.
______

By Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 2642. A bill to establish a national renewable energy standard, to
extend and create renewable energy tax incentives, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I am here to talk about the American
Renewable Energy Act which I am introducing today, along with my
colleagues, Senator Snowe from Maine and Senator Cantwell from
Washington.
Last week, we passed a short-term stimulus package that will help
change the economic direction of this country by putting money in the
hands of American families, including our seniors and veterans. Last
week's action was a start, but we must begin focusing on long-term
policies that will help our economy long after these rebate checks have
been cashed. If we do not do that, we are going to be back exactly in
the place we were before. We need long-term policies that will
encourage sustainable economic growth in every corner of this country.
In January, I traveled all around my State on a Main Street tour of
Minnesota. We talked about the economic challenges facing the people of
our State, but we also talked about the opportunities. Energy was a
topic that came up everywhere. It came up when people were filling up
their cars and trucks with gas, and it came up when we talked about the
opportunities.
I visited southwestern Minnesota, which is home to hundreds of large-
scale wind turbines, helping to make Minnesota the Nation's third
largest producer of wind energy. Along with ethanol, these wind-energy
farms have spurred a rural economic renaissance in our part of the
State.
For example, in 1995, SMI & Hydraulics, Inc., began their business in
Porter, MN, primarily as a welding and cylinder repair shop for local
farmers and businesses. Today, SMI & Hydraulics manufactures the bases
for the wind towers we sell all across this country. It just recently
expanded its facility to 100,000 square feet and created over 100 new
jobs, many of which are traditional manufacturing jobs.
My colleagues have to understand, these places are like barns. They
started out as farmers' barns and have expanded and expanded as they
have been able to meet this country's rising energy needs.
The success of companies such as SMI & Hydraulics is not unique to
Minnesota. Renewable energy has been a bright spot in an otherwise
lagging economy. Last year, the renewable electricity sector pumped
more than $20 billion into the U.S. economy, generating tens of
thousands of jobs in construction, transportation, and manufacturing.
Throughout the country, renewable energy has led us down a path
toward new jobs, lower energy bills, and enhanced economic development.
That is why today I am introducing this bill, along with my friends
Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell, to help lead us further down the
path to a better, cleaner, more prosperous energy future, with new
opportunities for investment, innovation, and job creation.
Our bill, as I said, is called the American Renewable Energy Act.
There are two key elements of this legislation.
First, the American Renewable Energy Act creates strong, consistent
incentives for private sector investment in renewable energy resources
and technology by extending tax incentives, such as the production tax
credit, for 5 years. Of course, this covers wind, solar, geothermal,
hydro, and other forms of renewable energy, and making sure that is in
place so we can spur the kind of investment that will create jobs and
allow us to be on the same path other countries around the world are
on.
Second, the legislation establishes a national renewable energy
standard requiring that 20 percent of our energy come from renewable
sources, such as wind, solar, and biofuels, by the year 2025. A
national renewable energy standard will create a large market for clean
sources of energy, reducing global warming pollution, and strengthening
our economy.
Let me briefly describe each of these elements. First, the renewable
energy tax incentives. Already the industries for solar, wind, and
biomass are expanding at annual rates exceeding 30 percent. But at the
same time, we are no longer the world leader in two important clean
energy fields. Even though all the technology was developed in our
country, we rank third in wind power production behind Denmark and
Spain, and we are now third in photovoltaic power installed, behind
Germany and Japan.
Ironically, these countries surpassed us largely by adopting
technologies that had been first developed here in the United States.
We came up with the right ideas, but we didn't capitalize on these
incentives by having these innovations, by having the right policies in
place to support their commercial development and rise and support the
jobs that would have come with developing the technology. Our foreign
competition was able to leapfrog over American businesses because these
other countries have government-driven investment incentives,
aggressive renewable energy targets, and other bold national policies.
What I am proposing with my legislation is a package of tax
incentives to spur investment in advanced clean technologies to serve
the growing market for renewable energy sources. Specifically, in the
bill Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell and I are introducing today, we
want to extend and expand the existing Federal production tax credit
for renewable energy, and I want to make sure it is a long-term credit
and businesses will have the clarity and certainty they need to make
their own large-scale, long-term capital investments in these
technologies.
Currently, the production tax credit and other key energy efficiency
tax incentives are set to expire at the end of this year. Our
legislation will extend these tax incentives for 5 years.
To pay for these incentives, the legislation will repeal several tax
giveaways that currently go to the major oil companies. ExxonMobil
shattered another record profit, earning $11.7 billion last quarter and
totaling over $40 billion in profits in 2007. Big oil doesn't need
these tax incentives, but our rural economies do.
Over the years, the production tax credit has been a problem because
of its short-term green light-red light nature. The cycle begins with
strong investment and growth in the renewable power industry, thanks to
the tax incentive, but then the investment and growth slow down as the
tax incentive nears expiration and is allowed to lapse. When the
incentive gets restored, the renewable power industry takes time to
regain its footing, and then experiences strong growth again until the
incentive nears expiration again. Up and down, up and down, up and
down. It is no way to run a government policy that should be geared
toward creating more jobs in our country.
In fact, the American Wind Energy Association has recently noted that
the slowdown in wind industry activity actually starts about 8 months
before the tax credit's expiration date. These are large-scale,
capital-intensive projects that often take long years to develop. But
uncertainty about the future of the production tax credit discourages
project development and investment. Extending the tax credit for 5
years would create a much stronger incentive and investment environment
for renewable energy development.
Simply put, a new economic sector is emerging. It is one that can
shift the Nation's economy to clean energy production, generation, and
use. But without the continued support of tax incentives to help this
emerging industry compete on a level playing field, the opportunity
will be lost.
Over the past few years, the solar energy industry has witnessed
unprecedented growth. This growth pumped over $2 billion into the U.S.
economy and created 6,000 new jobs. Developing solar energy is an
economic engine for our country. From 2006 to 2007, the job

[[Page 2296]]

base in the solar energy industry grew by 103 percent. Almost all of
this growth is directly attributable to the solar investment tax
credits that are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. If we
allow these credits to expire, those jobs will dry up. We will lose out
on creating new companies and we will lose out on creating new
opportunities for clean energy.
I have focused on wind and solar, but there are amazing opportunities
in other renewable energy fields, including hydro. There are amazing
opportunities with geothermal. But we are never going to reach the full
potential for jobs in this country if we keep going back and forth, up
and down. We have to have a policy that is geared to the long term.
I will also say that in visiting with farmers and ranchers around our
State, the other thing we need to do--but we will have to focus on in
another bill--is look at creating incentives for individuals and small
businesses that may want to put up their own wind turbine. That is a
subject for another day, but we have to do everything we can to promote
this renewable energy.
The second element in this legislation would provide an additional
incentive for investment in renewable energy technology and resources.
It would establish an aggressive, nationwide renewable electricity
standard, one requiring that all electricity providers generate or
purchase 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by the
year 2025.
Currently, as I show on this chart here, there are 24 States, plus
the District of Columbia, that have renewable electricity standards.
Together, these States account for more than half of the electricity
sales in the United States. You can see what these States are doing
here. All on their own, the States have risen to the occasion, and
said: Well, the Federal Government isn't doing anything, so I guess we
will do it on our own.
California is at 20 percent, Minnesota at 27.4 percent by 2025--one
of the most aggressive standards in the country. Bipartisan agreement,
a Democratic legislature, and a Republican Governor reached this
agreement with our utilities, including Excel Industry signing on and
not opposing this agreement. We have New York at 24 percent, Wisconsin
at 10 percent by 2015; 15 percent by 2015 for Montana--15 percent by
2020. Look at these States along the way, all over this country, and we
are seeing these standards taking place.
While Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and other States are already
headed down the path toward a new clean energy economy, the Federal
Government hasn't even made it to the trail yet. The Federal Government
is still stuck in the fossil age. There is a famous phrase: ``the
laboratories of democracy.'' That is how Supreme Court Justice Louis
Brandeis described the special role of States in our Federal system. In
this model, States are where new ideas emerge and innovative proposals
are tested. But Brandeis did not mean for this to serve as an excuse
for inaction by the Federal Government. Good ideas and successful
innovations are supposed to emerge from the laboratory and serve as a
model for national policy and action. The responsibility is on us.
We know what is going on in these States around the country. The
courage we are seeing in the States as they seize opportunities offered
by renewable energy should be matched by courage in Washington. I think
it is time for the Federal Government to follow the lead of Minnesota,
Washington, Maine, and other States around the country and adopt a
forward-looking renewable energy standard.
There are many benefits from having a strong national standard. It
would save money for American consumers, as much as $100 billion in
lower electricity and natural gas bills. It would aid in the fight
against climate change by preventing well over 3 billion tons of carbon
dioxide from being emitted into the atmosphere by 2030. It would create
jobs and increase income across the country, especially in rural areas.
Each large utility-scale wind turbine that goes on line generates over
$1.5 million in economic activity. Each turbine provides about $5,000
in lease payments for 20 years or more to farmers, ranchers, or other
landowners.
You can see from this chart the job creation with this national
renewable electricity standard set at 20 percent--355,000 new jobs,
nearly twice as much as generating electricity from fossil fuels; $72.6
billion in new capital investment; $16.2 billion in income to farmers,
ranchers, and rural landowners; $5 billion in new local tax revenues.
Then look at these consumer savings--$49 billion in lower electricity
and natural gas bills; a healthier environment; reductions in global
warming pollution equal to taking nearly 71 million cars off the road;
less air pollution, damage to land, and less water use. These are the
benefits.
We pay for it by taking back some of those tax giveaways we give to
those oil companies--ExxonMobil, $11.7 billion in one quarter. So are
we going to give them more money or try to create 355,000 new jobs in
this country? That is the choice.
I believe the combination of an aggressive renewable electricity
standard and a strong package of tax incentives can begin to move our
Nation to a new, cleaner, and more prosperous energy path. It is long
overdue. The private sector is already beginning to invest in this
energy future, and they are ready to invest more. But our Government
must provide the right policies and incentives so they will be prepared
to make the large-scale, long-term investments that are required to
make it happen.
The opportunities are enormous for creating new technologies, new
industries, new businesses, and new jobs, while at the same time
promoting our energy independence, strengthening our national security,
and protecting our global environment. This piece of legislation,
cosponsored by my friends Senator Snowe and Senator Cantwell, this
bipartisan piece of legislation is about leading the new economy, not
following along; not doing countless rebate checks after rebate
checks--which we need to do right now, but we are never going to get on
the path to a new economic future unless we lead the way, and this is
Washington's time to lead. This is about making America the global
energy leader instead of the lagger. It is about creating a better
economy for the next generation by leading a whole new industry. It is
about not being complacent. It is about getting on a new energy path.
I believe an aggressive renewable electricity standard, coupled with
strong tax incentives, leads us down this path. I urge all of my
colleagues to support the American Renewable Energy Act.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 2647. A bill to suspend temporarily the duty on fan assisted,
plugin, scented oil dispensing, electrothermic appliances; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that
would temporarily suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air
fresheners imported by S.C. Johnson, a company headquartered in Racine,
WI.
I understand the importance of manufacturing and the role it plays in
our everyday lives. It is no secret that the Bush administration has
enfeebled the manufacturing sector, cutting needed funding that helps
manufacturers stay competitive. Since 2001, Wisconsin has been hit
hard, losing over 63,000 manufacturing jobs. A healthy manufacturing
sector is key to better jobs, rising productivity and higher standards
of living. Every individual and industry depends on manufactured goods.
The production of those goods creates the quality jobs that keep so
many Amerian families healthy and strong.
This legislation would suspend the duty on fan assisted, plug-in air
fresheners which S.C. Johnson assembles and packages in Racine, WI.
Currently, there is no domestic manufacturer, which forces S.C. Johnson
to import the product that has a 2.7 percent tariff. Suspending the
tariff will cut production costs, keep jobs at home and allow S.C.
Johnson to be more competitive in the global marketplace.
S.C. Johnson was created in 1886 as a parquet flooring company and
today is

[[Page 2297]]

one of the world's leading manufacturers of household products
including Ziploc storage containers, Windex glass cleaner, Raid insect
repellant, and Glade fragrances. Today, S.C. Johnson employs 3,000
people in Wisconsin and provides products in more than 110 countries
around the world.
______

By Mr. SCHUMER:
S. 2648. A bill to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to
improve programs carried out through youth opportunity grants, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the STEP-UP
Act. The STEP-UP Act is a comprehensive policy solution directed toward
fighting unemployment, particularly among less educated African
American men, by implementing innovative and
successful job training efforts and improving existing tools like the
Earned Income Tax Credit and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.
In America and my home state of New York there is a growing crisis of
joblessness for African American men. The crisis is profound,
persistent and perplexing. Across the country and in our own backyard,
far too many black men lack an adequate education and face difficulty
finding and keeping work. The numbers are staggering and getting worse.
Poverty is not new. African American disadvantage is--sadly--not new.
But now is the time for fresh solutions and urgent action, especially
now that we are facing an economic recession. We know all too well,
that when our economy faces a downturn, the most vulnerable members of
the labor force face the greatest challenges in the job market.
My goal today is to both shine a firm spotlight on a problem has
received scant attention, inadequate resources, intermittent focus and
poor coordination and also to introduce legislation that will offer
some solid, practical steps forward. To be clear, the provisions in the
STEP-UP ACT will be open to all Americans, but the legislation contains
services and incentives that are particularly needed among young
African American men.
I am introducing the STEP-UP ACT for several reasons.
First, the problem of African American male unemployment is severe
and it is worsening. Consider this: In 2000, 65 percent of black male
high school dropouts in their 20's were jobless--in other words not
looking or unable to find work--and by 2004, the share had grown to 72
percent ``jobless.'' That translates to almost one out of three men. By
comparison the rate for white male high school dropouts was 34
percent and Hispanic males 19 percent. Between 1992 and 1999--the
greatest economic expansion in our nation's history--the labor force
participation of young black men actually declined from 83.5 percent to
79.4 percent. Clearly the rising tide did not lift all boats.
Second, there is an unprecedented need to fill unskilled and semi
skilled jobs across the countries as baby boomers retire, and there is
a large supply of jobless black men who could fill them.
Third, after much trial and error, we now have several successful job
training programs that work, as well as federal policy options with a
proven track record of making a real difference in the labor force. Yet
sadly, while the programs are finally working, the Federal funding has
gone down by 90 percent.
There is a complex interplay of forces that led us to this point, and
many of them are familiar culprits such as: Failing schools,
dysfunctional families, high incarceration rates, overt and subtle
racism, and the decimation of manufacturing jobs that typically
afforded opportunities to men.
All these political, cultural, economic and personal elements combine
to erect a steeplechase of barriers that is far too difficult to
traverse for far too many urban black men.
While this is a sensitive subject, there is also a subculture of the
street that provides easy money and allows some to eschew personal
responsibility. But we can't sit passively by and let that subculture
claim another generation of these men. The public sector--on all
levels--has an obligation to intercede. The Reverend Johnny Ray
Youngblood, a pastor and friend of mine from Brooklyn, said it best:
``Government has a moral responsibility to compete against, and win
against, subcultures that are immoral, illegal and really inhuman.''
Let me be clear: There is a host of dedicated, even heroic, leaders
who have been addressing these issues every day for years. There are
ideas and leaders out there can turn this problem around. However, on
the Federal level, there has been no comprehensive public policy
response to this situation. We have allowed the problems of black men
to grow worse unabated.
Last year, as Chairman of the Joint Economic Committee, I held a
hearing on this very issue. Our witnesses provided testimony that
vividly illustrated how devastating this crisis truly is. This hearing
was an eye-opener for me and my colleagues. The hearing also began a
dialog in Congress on how we can move forward legislatively to expand
job opportunities and incentives for African American men.
I believe there is a rare confluence of forces that should be
exploited--now--to ramp up efforts to aggressively attack the plight of
jobless black men. The American labor force is in transition and
therein lies the opportunity. By 2010 as many as 64 million Americans
from the generations born before and after World War II will approach
retirement age. Over this period we will be losing 20 percent of our
entire workforce--a turnover rate the likes of which our country has
never experienced.
Many of the new jobs I am speaking about don't require college
degrees, many are entry level, but many can pay upwards of $40,000 with
benefits. And the best part is, they can't be outsourced or downsized--
because they're crucial to keeping cities working. A nurse, welder,
mechanic or long-haul commercial driver doesn't do us any good if he or
she is working in Bangalore. We have never before had such a clear
picture of where the jobs will be--or what we have to do to connect our
struggling young people to them.
What we need to do now is ensure that black men have access to the
best, most successful job training programs that can prepare them for
these jobs. After years of trying, I believe there is a new paradigm
for job training that will make this possible. For the past year, I
have been working on the STEP-UP Act to do just that.
Let me tell you about one innovative job training program that was
founded in East Harlem but has been replicated successfully throughout
the United States and Europe: its called STRIVE and it offers some good
clues on what makes a job program work.
Here is the most important thing you need to know about STRIVE: 70
percent of their graduates retain their jobs after 2 years, compared to
a 40 percent city-wide average. I visited them to see firsthand how
they do it. It impressed me so much I brought 3 Senators to visit
STRIVE's offices in Washington, DC, and it blew their hair back as
well.
First, STRIVE's core program does not begin with teaching
participants how to read an account ledger or hammer in a nail. It
begins with what they call ``soft skills'' like how to dress for work,
interact with your boss and superiors, and accept criticism. Seems
obvious enough, but for many it is harder than it should be to tell the
difference between constructive criticism and a provocative ``dis''
that, in the code of the street, demands an aggressive reaction.
In addition to focusing on those elemental ``soft skills,'' STRIVE
provides intensive follow-up, long-term involvement with additional
training opportunities, and wrap-around services to address the whole
host of obstacles that black men face when trying to enter and remain
in the workforce.
Our current Federal job-training program--the Workforce Investment
Act--WIA--has been steadily underfunded in recent years. To give a
sense of how much we have walked away from such initiatives, in 1978 we
spent $9.5 billion on jobs programs--$30 billion in today's

[[Page 2298]]

dollars. In 2007 we spent only $5.1 billion. On top of that, WIA does
not mandate or even encourage the STRIVE model. The WIA program hasn't
been reauthorized since it expired in 2003 and it needs to be updated
to incorporate the lessons of STRIVE.
My bill, the STEP-UP Act, moves our job training agenda closer to the
STRIVE model. If we can duplicate some semblage of STRIVE's 70 percent
success rates--which they have duplicated in 22 locations around the
country--we can begin to really move the employment needle in the right
direction.
The STEP-UP Act reauthorizes funding for the Youth Opportunity
Program, YO, which was originally established in 1998 to provide grants
to programs that offer intensive job training and placement services
for hard-to-serve youth between the ages of 16 to 24. When it was
created, the YO program was meant to be the ``model'' job training
program, the shining star in a system replete with false starts and
failed efforts. It drew on the best practices from a generation of
previous job training efforts, understanding that attacking the scourge
of unemployment meant offering comprehensive services to at risk youth.
Preparing young men and women for the workforce has to be more than
just teaching someone to touch-type or hammer a nail. A job training
program can put anyone into a job, but their efforts will only be
successful if we give them a comprehensive skill set and support
services.
This legislation draws on the strengths of the YO program but makes
some important modifications based on the experience of grantees.
First, programs that receive YO grants will be required to provide
``wrap-around'' services. This means not only workforce training, but
also those ``soft skills'' that are so essential to keeping a job.
Secondly, the STEP-UP Act encourages grantees to engage with local
resources, such as labor organizations, educational institutions, as
well as the private sector. By bringing in private businesses, we can
truly bridge the gap between training and employment.
Finally, to make sure we don't travel willy-nilly down the same path,
we must invest in proven models, we must track progress and we must
make adjustments to improve programs as the facts flow in. That is why
the STEP-UP Act mandates strict oversight of job training programs that
will participate in the Youth Opportunity Grant programs. My bill
requires the Secretary of Labor to perform evaluations of participants
after the 24 months and report to Congress on the best practices
implemented by participants. Too frequently, we have funded job
training efforts but we have not demanded results. The Department of
Labor needs to dedicate themselves to understanding what programs work
best and why.
To summarize for a moment: we know the jobs are out there for young
black men, we know there are training programs that work, so what's the
missing link? The missing link is ensuring that work pays well enough
to help lure young men into the workforce.
Given the limited earning potential for many young African American
males, there can be a lot of bottom line reasons not to work in the
formal economy. Working a tough job in a warehouse for $7 an hour would
put less than $300 a week and around $13,000 a year in your pocket. In
2008, those wages don't go too far.
We need to make work pay for African American men.
The STEP-UP Act offers an economic incentive to join the workforce
through a targeted expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC. My
bill doubles the current credit from $438 up to $875. Effectively, this
broadens the scope of the credit and you will be able to receive some
credit up until your income reaches $22,880. For someone without kids
or a family to support, the extra money you would get from this program
would make a real difference.
The second thing my bill does is extend the EITC to those low-wage
earners who have kids and are current on their child support payments.
There are lots of men out there who really want to work and do right by
their families. It can be an uphill battle for them, but many find a
way to make it happen.
Considering that about a third of low-income noncustodial fathers
nationwide are black, a federal EITC expansion could have a big impact
for them. Here is how my bill does it: If you are a dad paying your
child support, the existing childless tax credit is quadrupled from
$438 to $1,719 a year. This is still much smaller than the credit a
family with one child will receive, which is $2,917 in 2008.
Let me be clear: enhancing the EITC is not just about getting men
working but about strengthening families, and encouraging low-income
fathers to fulfill their parenting responsibilities and stay current on
their child support payments. Studies have documented a direct
correlation between fathers who pay child support and their involvement
in their children's lives. If we can get men working and they become a
positive force in the lives of their sons and daughters, we will have
achieved two very worthy objectives.
The Earned Income Tax Credit is just one example of a tax incentive
that translates to real dollars for working families. Another issue
that I want to address is the problem of keeping people in the
workforce. Too many men are cycling in and out of employment. We need
to make steady employment pay.
The Work Opportunity Tax Credit, or WOTC, is one incentive that I
think needs to be strengthened and modified. Currently, WOTC is only a
credit for employers, and at its maximum it is worth $2,400 if the
worker is employed for 400 hours or more. So if a worker making $7 an
hour stays on the job for about 5 months, then his employer gets the
maximum credit, but he does not receive anything for hitting this
benchmark.
The STEP-UP Act expands WOTC to include employees so that it is not
only an employer credit, and to maximize its potential over time.
Specifically, once a worker has reached 1,500 hours on the job, or 52
weeks, both the employer and employee should get a $500 credit. We need
to encourage employers to really invest in their workers and to ensure
that workers are staying on the job.
Today I am asking my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
carefully consider this legislation. Given the severity of the African
American jobless problem and the unprecedented opportunity that will
result from the mass retirement of workers from the post war
generation, shame on us if we do not figure out how to take action to
put people who want to work into jobs that pay. It is up to us to align
these tools and make them work. We must. Not only must it be a moral
imperative that we give more opportunity to African American men, it
must be a national imperative to keep our country competitive in the
21st century. I ask my colleagues to join me in this effort and take
this initial step towards success.
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. 2648

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 ``Supporting Training and
Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act'' or
the ``STEP UP Act''.

TITLE I--YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANT PROGRAM

SEC. 101. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) Finding employment that provides steady income and a
career track is a problem for young, undereducated men and
women who lack educational credentials and are disconnected
from the labor market.
(2) That problem is particularly acute for young African-
American men. In 2006, over \1/5\, or 21.8 percent, of black
men ages 16 through 24 were unemployed. This is roughly
double the unemployment rate for all young men (11.2
percent).
(3) Even over a period of relative economic growth,
employment for disconnected African-American men has
declined. In 1999, 65

[[Page 2299]]

percent of African-American male high school dropouts were
jobless and not looking for work. In 2004, that rate had
risen to 72 percent.
(4) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was established in
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide intensive job
training and placement activities as well as other
educational, social, and recreational services to at-risk,
hard-to-serve youth.
(5) The Youth Opportunity Grant Program built upon the most
promising strategies of previous demonstration programs that
strongly suggest the effectiveness of intensive case
management and follow-up services in assisting disconnected
young men and women in finding long-term employment.
(6) By reauthorizing and refining the Youth Opportunity
Grant Program, Congress could help make strides against those
serious problems faced by both young African-American men and
other disconnected youth.
(7) Over the course of the Youth Opportunity Grant Program,
36 localities with high poverty rates received funding
through grants. The Youth Opportunity Grant Program was
effective in assisting hard-to-reach populations. The
Department of Labor estimates that 42 percent of the eligible
youth and 62 percent of the eligible out-of-school youth in
the target areas enrolled in the Youth Opportunity Grant
Program.
(8) Further understanding of the successes of, challenges
faced by, and shortcomings of, the Youth Opportunity Grant
Program in the past, and in the future, will require
extensive evaluation and study by the Department of Labor.

SEC. 102. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

Section 169 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2914) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 169. YOUTH OPPORTUNITY GRANTS.

``(a) Grants.--
``(1) In general.--Using funds made available under
subsection (j), the Secretary shall make grants to eligible
local boards described in subsection (c) and eligible
entities described in subsection (d) to carry out programs
that provide activities described in subsection (b) for youth
and young adults. The boards and entities shall carry out the
programs to increase the long-term employment of youth and
young adults who seek assistance and who live in empowerment
zones, enterprise communities, or high poverty areas.
``(2) Definition.--In this section:
``(A) Hard-to-serve young adult.--The term `hard-to-serve
young adult' means an individual who is--
``(i) not less than age 25 and not more than age 30; and
``(ii)(I) an unemployed individual;
``(II) a school dropout;
``(III) an individual who has not received a secondary
school diploma or its recognized equivalent;
``(IV) an ex-offender; or
``(V) a noncustodial parent with a child support
obligation.
``(B) Youth or young adult.--The term `youth or young
adult' means an individual who is not less than age 14 and
not more than age 30.
``(3) Grant period.--The Secretary may make a grant under
this section for a 2-year period, and may renew the grant for
each of the 3 succeeding years.
``(4) Grant awards.--In making grants under this section,
the Secretary shall ensure that grants are distributed
equitably among local boards and entities serving urban areas
and local boards and entities serving rural areas, taking
into consideration the poverty rate in such urban and rural
areas, as described in subsection (c)(3)(B).
``(b) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--A local board or entity that receives a
grant under this section shall use the funds made available
through the grant to provide job training and employment
activities and related services, including--
``(A) activities that meet the requirements of section 129;
``(B) youth development activities such as activities
relating to leadership development, citizenship, and re-entry
from the justice and juvenile justice systems, community
service, and recreation activities; and
``(C)(i) workforce preparation and attitudinal training;
``(ii) sector-specific skills training as described in
subsection (f)(1)(D);
``(iii) educational completion services, including classes
that lead to a secondary school diploma or its recognized
equivalent (and programs to prepare for such a class),
remedial reading and mathematics classes (including classes
to prepare an individual to read and do mathematics at a
college level), and skills certification and credentialing
programs;
``(iv) access to internships, transitional jobs, work
experience, and nontraditional employment opportunities;
``(v) access to other services either directly or through
an organization that enters into a strategic partnership
described in subsection (e) with the local board or entity,
including parenting classes for fathers and mothers,
financial literacy services, services to improve health care
(and mental health care) treatment and access, and services
to improve access to affordable housing and shelter; and
``(vi) assistance in obtaining the earned income credit
under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and
obtaining benefits through government entitlement programs,
such as the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) and unemployment
compensation programs, as well as other State and local
entitlement programs that may be applicable.
``(2) Intensive placement and follow-up services.--In
providing activities under this section, a local board or
entity shall provide--
``(A) intensive placement services; and
``(B) follow-up services, including case management, every
2 months for not less than 24 months after the completion of
participation in the other activities described in this
subsection, as appropriate.
``(3) Limitation on use for hard-to-serve young adults.--
The local board or entity shall not use more than 25 percent
of the funds made available through the grant to provide
activities for hard-to-serve young adults.
``(c) Eligible Local Boards.--To be eligible to receive a
grant under this section, a local board shall serve a
community that--
``(1) has been designated as an empowerment zone or
enterprise community under section 1391 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986;
``(2)(A) is a State without a zone or community described
in paragraph (1); and
``(B) has been designated as a high poverty area by the
Governor of the State; or
``(3) is 1 of 2 areas in a State that--
``(A) have been designated by the Governor as areas for
which a local board may apply for a grant under this section;
and
``(B) meet the poverty rate criteria set forth in
subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(d) Eligible Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under this section, an entity (other than a local board)
shall--
``(1) be a recipient of financial assistance under section
166; and
``(2) serve a community that--
``(A) meets the poverty rate criteria set forth in
subsections (a)(4), (b), and (d) of section 1392 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986; and
``(B) is located on an Indian reservation or serves
Oklahoma Indians, or Native villages or Native groups (as
such terms are defined in section 3 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1602)).
``(e) Strategic Partnerships.--
``(1) Local boards.--An eligible local board may--
``(A) work independently to provide activities under this
section; or
``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide
activities under this section with 1 or more entities
consisting of--
``(i) a community-based job training provider who is an
eligible provider identified in accordance with section
122(e)(3), or another provider selected by the local board;
``(ii) State or local government entities;
``(iii) labor organizations;
``(iv) other entities described in the statement of need
required by subsection (f)(1)(C);
``(v) private sector employers;
``(vi) educational institutions, including secondary
schools (which may be public schools, parochial schools, or
other private schools) or community colleges; or
``(vii) entities in the judicial system, entities in the
juvenile justice system, or organizations representing
probation and parole officers.
``(2) Entities.--An eligible entity may--
``(A) work independently to provide activities under this
section; or
``(B) enter into a strategic partnership to provide
activities under this section with--
``(i) the local board; and
``(ii) 1 or more entities described in paragraph (1)(B).
``(f) Application.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section, a local board or entity shall submit an
application (individually or as part of a strategic
partnership described in subsection (e)) to the Secretary at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require, including--
``(1)(A) a description of the activities that the local
board or entity will provide under this section to youth and
young adults in the community described in subsection (c) or
(d);
``(B) a description of the strategic partnership referred
to in subsection (e), if any, that the applicant intends to
enter into to provide activities under this section;
``(C)(i) information describing how the applicant will
coordinate the planning and implementation of the activities
to be carried out under the grant with entities serving youth
in the community involved, including the one-stop operator
and one-stop partners in the local workforce investment
system, educational institutions including institutions of
higher education, child welfare agencies, entities in the
juvenile justice system, foster care agencies, and such other
community-based organizations as may be appropriate; and

[[Page 2300]]

``(ii) a statement of need for the community;
``(D) information identifying employment sectors in the
local and regional economy that could employ youth and young
adults served under the grant and a plan to provide sector-
specific skills training for jobs in those sectors and
employment opportunities in those sectors; and
``(E) information identifying the specific role, if any,
that private sector employers in growing employment sectors
in the local and regional economy will play in that plan,
including information describing their skills training
curricula and job placement programs;
``(2) a description of the performance measures negotiated
under subsection (h), and the manner in which the local
boards or entities will carry out the activities to meet the
performance measures;
``(3) a description of the manner in which the activities
will be linked to activities described in section 129; and
``(4) a description of the community support, including
financial support through leveraging additional public and
private resources, for the activities.
``(g) Consideration.--In making grants under this section,
the Secretary shall give special consideration to a local
board or entity that submits an application under subsection
(f) as part of a strategic partnership described in
subsection (e) that includes a private sector employer if the
employer agrees to--
``(1) commit to hire youth and young adults who complete
the program carried out under the grant involved;
``(2) provide personnel, facilities, equipment, and a
skills training curriculum for the program;
``(3) provide internships, mentoring, and apprenticeship
opportunities for participants in the program; or
``(4) provide funding, scholarships, and access to
specified employer-based resources for the program.
``(h) Performance Measures.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall negotiate and reach
agreement with the local board or entity on performance
measures, for the indicators of performance referred to in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 136(b)(2), that will be
used under paragraph (3) to evaluate the performance of the
local board or entity in carrying out the activities
described in subsection (b). Each local performance measure
shall consist of such an indicator of performance, and a
performance level referred to in paragraph (2).
``(2) Performance levels.--The Secretary shall negotiate
and reach agreement with the local board or entity regarding
the--
``(A) overall performance levels expected to be achieved by
the local board or entity on the indicators of performance;
and
``(B) separate performance levels for those indicators for
the performance of the board or entity--
``(i) regarding participants in the activities who are not
less than age 14 and not more than age 24; and
``(ii) regarding participants in the activities who are not
less than age 25 and not more than age 30.
``(3) Evaluations and reports.--
``(A) Evaluations.--
``(i) Evaluations of prior activities.--Not later than 2
years after the date of enactment of the Supporting Training
and Employment Potential for Underemployed Populations Act,
the Secretary shall complete the evaluations described in
paragraph (1) of local boards and entities, using performance
measures with overall performance levels described in
paragraph (2)(A), concerning activities carried out under
subsection (b) prior to that date of enactment.
``(ii) Evaluations of new activities.--Not later than 2
years after a local board or entity receives a grant under
this section after that date of enactment, the Secretary
shall conduct the evaluations described in paragraph (1) of
that local board or entity, using performance measures with
overall performance levels described in paragraph (2)(A) and
performance measures with separate performance levels
described in paragraph (2)(B).
``(iii) Comparison groups.--The evaluations conducted under
this paragraph shall include evaluations of carefully matched
comparison groups.
``(B) Reports.--The Secretary shall prepare a report, based
on the evaluations described in subparagraph (A)(i), that
contains the baseline data obtained and that begins to detail
the best practices of recipients of grants under this section
throughout the Nation. The Secretary shall prepare an annual
report, based on the evaluations described in subparagraph
(A)(ii), that contains the data obtained and that details the
best practices of recipients of grants under this section
throughout the Nation, with attention to how different
activities impact both different demographic sectors of the
population and different age groups in the population.
``(4) Use.--If the Secretary, in conducting evaluations
under paragraph (3), determines that a local board or entity
fails to meet the performance measures for 2 fiscal years,
the local board or entity shall not be eligible to receive a
grant under this section for a subsequent fiscal year.
``(i) Incentives for Business Partners.--The Secretary
shall establish a plan to increase the availability of bonds
through the Federal Bonding Program carried out through the
Employment and Training Administration to employers that are
partners in the programs carried out under this section.
``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $250,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent fiscal year.''.

SEC. 103. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

Section 127 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29
U.S.C. 2852) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by striking ``sections'' and inserting ``section''; and
(B) by striking ``and 169'' and all that follows and
inserting ``; and''; and
(2) in subsection (b)(1)(A)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``provide youth
opportunity'' and all that follows through ``grants) and'';
and
(B) by striking clause (iv).

TITLE II--EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT ENHANCEMENT

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Earned Income Tax Credit
Enhancement Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) The earned income tax credit is considered one of the
most successful antipoverty programs in the United States.
Previous expansions of the earned income tax credit in the
1990s were instrumental in lifting families, especially
single parents, out of poverty by increasing income and
building assets.
(2) However, the earned income tax credit provides little
assistance for childless workers and noncustodial parents.
The credit for childless workers is only 15 percent of the
credit for a worker with 1 child.
(3) Increasing the maximum earned income tax credit amount
for childless workers would help to lift more individuals out
of poverty and mirror the successful credit expansion of the
1990s. Additionally, lowering the age of eligibility will
extend this important credit to the growing population of
young adults living in poverty.
(4) Although the effectiveness of the work opportunity tax
credit has come under scrutiny, the credit is limited in
scope. The credit is only available to employers and offers
no benefits to employees to encourage job retention.
Additionally, the credit only addresses short-term job
retention, not long-term employment.
(5) Expanding the work opportunity credit to employees and
increasing the time period of the credit's availability could
provide greater incentives for employees to stay in their
jobs and for employers to retain these workers over long-term
periods.

SEC. 203. ENHANCEMENTS TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

(a) Credit Allowed for Certain Childless Individuals Over
Age 18.--
(1) In general.--Subclause (II) of section 32(c)(1)(A)(ii)
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to eligible
individual) is amended by striking ``age 25'' and inserting
``age 21''.
(2) Exception for full-time students.--Paragraph (1) of
section 32(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end
the following new subparagraph:
``(G) Exception for full time students.--The term `eligible
individual' shall not include any individual described in
subparagraph (A)(ii) if such individual has not attained the
age of 25 before the close of the taxable year and is a full
time student for more than one half of such taxable year.''.
(b) Modification of Credit Amount for Individuals Without
Qualifying Children.--
(1) Modification of credit percentage.--The last row in the
table in section 32(b)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by striking ``7.65'' in the middle column and
inserting ``15.30''.
(2) Modification of phaseout amount.--Subparagraph (A) of
section 32(b)(2) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B)--
``(i) in the case of an eligible individual with 1
qualifying child--

``(I) the earned income amount is $6,330, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610,

``(ii) in the case of an eligible individual with 2 or more
qualifying children--

``(I) the earned income amount is $8,890, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is $11,610, and

``(iii) in the case of an eligible individual with no
qualifying children--

``(I) the earned income amount is $4,220, and
``(II) the phaseout amount is 200 percent of the dollar
amount applicable under subclause (I).''.

(c) Increased Credit for Certain Individuals Without
Qualifying Children.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking
subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the following:
``(B) Increased credit for certain individuals without
qualifying children.--In the case of an eligible individual
described in

[[Page 2301]]

subparagraph (C), the credit percentage under subparagraph
(A) shall be 30.6 percent.
``(C) Eligible individual described.--An eligible
individual is described in this subparagraph with respect to
a taxable year if--
``(i) with respect to such eligible individual for the
taxable year, another individual--

``(I) bears a relationship to the eligible individual
described in section 152(c)(2),
``(II) meets the requirements of section 152(c)(3), and
``(III) has the same principal place of abode as the
eligible individual for less than one-half of such taxable
year,

``(ii) such eligible individual is required to make child
support payments with respect to the individual described in
clause (i), and
``(iii) such eligible individual has made all such required
child support payments during the taxable year.

For purposes of clause (iii), an eligible individual shall be
treated as having made all required child support payments
during a taxable year if such eligible individual has made
child support payments in an amount not less than the total
amount of child support payments required for such eligible
individual for such taxable year.''.
(2) Notification of failure to pay child support.--Section
464(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 664(b)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) The Secretary shall use notices of past-due support
under this section in administering the earned income tax
credit under section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
for eligible individuals described in subsection (b)(1)(C) of
such section. The regulations promulgated pursuant to this
subsection shall require States to submit such notices at a
time adequate to allow the Secretary to properly administer
such credit for such individuals.''.
(d) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Section 901 of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset provisions) shall not apply to the amendments made by
section 303 of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief
for earned income credit; earned income to include only
amounts includible in gross income; simplification of earned
income credit).
(e) Election to Average Earned Income.--Paragraph (2) of
section 32(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(n) Election to Average Earned Income.--
``(1) In general.--Under rules established by the
Secretary, in the case of an eligible individual who has made
an election under this subsection, subsection (a) shall be
applied--
``(A) by substituting `the taxpayer's 2-year averaged
earned income' for `the taxpayer's earned income for the
taxable year' in paragraph (1) thereof, and
``(B) by substituting `2-year averaged earned income' for
`earned income' in paragraph (2)(B) thereof.
``(2) 2-year averaged earned income.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `2-year averaged earned income' means,
with respect to any taxable year, the average of--
``(A) the taxpayer's earned income for such taxable year,
and
``(B) the taxpayer's earned income for the preceding
taxable year.''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.

SEC. 204. CARRYBACK AND CARRYFORWARD OF STANDARD DEDUCTION
AND PERSONAL EXEMPTION DEDUCTIONS.

(a) Standard Deduction.--Section 63 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to taxable income defined) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Carryback and Carryforward of Deductions for
Individuals Who Do Not Itemize.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an eligible taxpayer, if
the sum of the deductions described in subsection (b) exceeds
the amount of the adjusted gross income of such taxpayer for
such taxable year (hereinafter in this subsection referred to
as the `unused deduction year'), such excess may be--
``(A) carried back to the preceding taxable year, and
``(B) carried forward to each of the 2 taxable years
following the unused deduction year
``(2) Amount carried to each year.--
``(A) Entire amount carried to first year.--The entire
amount of the unused deduction for an unused deduction year
shall be carried to the earliest of the 3 taxable years to
which (by reason of paragraph (1)) such deduction may be
carried.
``(B) Amount carried to other 2 years.--The amount of the
unused deduction for the unused deduction year shall be
carried to each of the other 2 taxable years to the extent
that such unused deduction may not be used for a prior
taxable year because of the amount of adjusted gross income
of the taxpayer for such taxable year.
``(3) Eligible taxpayer.--For purposes of this subsection,
the term `eligible taxpayer' means, with respect to any
taxable year, a taxpayer with respect to whom a credit under
section 32 is allowable for such taxable year.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 205. ADVANCED REFUNDABLE CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED
GROUPS.

(a) Allowance of Credit.--
(1) In general.--Subpart C of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
refundable credits) is amended by redesignating section 36 as
section 37 and by inserting after section 35 the following
new section:

``SEC. 36. EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an eligible
individual, there shall be allowed as credit against the tax
imposed by this title for the taxable year an amount equal to
$500.
``(b) Eligible Individual.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) In general.--The term `eligible individual' means an
individual who is a member of a targeted group and--
``(A) who--
``(i) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for an employer during
any period beginning on the date such individual was hired
and ending with or within the taxable year, and
``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during
such period, or
``(B) who--
``(i) began work with an employer during any 52-week period
ending with or within such taxable year, and
``(ii) was continuously employed by such employer during
such 52-week period.
``(2) Member of a targeted group.--The term `member of a
targeted group' has the meaning given such term under section
51(d).
``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of subsection (a)--
``(1) only 1 employer may be taken into account with
respect to any eligible individual for any taxable year, and
``(2) an individual may not be treated as an eligible
individual more than once with respect to any employer.

For purposes of this subsection, rules similar to the rules
of subsections (a) and (b) of section 52 shall apply.
``(d) Coordination With Advance Payments.--
``(1) Recapture of excess advance payments.--If any payment
is made to the individual by an employer under section 3511
during any calendar year, then the tax imposed by this
chapter for the individual's last taxable year beginning in
such calendar year shall be increased by the aggregate amount
of such payments.
``(2) Reconciliation of payments advanced and credit
allowed.--Any increase in tax under paragraph (1) shall not
be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of
determining the amount of any credit (other than the credit
allowed by subsection (a)) allowed under this part.
``(e) Coordination With Certain Means Tested Programs.--For
purposes of--
``(1) the United States Housing Act of 1937,
``(2) title V of the Housing Act of 1949,
``(3) section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1965,
``(4) sections 221(d)(3), 235, and 236 of the National
Housing Act, and
``(5) the Food Stamp Act of 1977,

sany refund made to an individual (or the spouse of an
individual) by reason of this section, and any payment made
to such individual (or such spouse) by an employer under
section 3511, shall not be treated as income (and shall not
be taken into account in determining resources for the month
of its receipt and the following month).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1324(b)(2) of title 31, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period at the end ``, or
enacted by section 204 of the Earned Income Tax Credit
Enhancement Act of 2007''.
(B) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 is amended by redesignating the item relating to section
36 as relating to section 37 and by inserting after the item
relating to section 35 the following new item:

``Sec. 36. Employment credit for members of targeted groups.''.
(b) Advanced Payments.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 25 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to general provisions relating to employment
taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 3511. ADVANCED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CREDIT FOR
MEMBERS OF TARGETED GROUPS.

``(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, every employer making a payment of wages for a
payroll period to an individual who is an eligible employee
with respect to such payroll period shall, at the time of
paying such wages, make an additional payment to such
employee of $500.
``(b) Eligible Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term `eligible employee' means, with respect to any payroll
period, an individual--
``(1) who is an eligible individual (as defined by section
36(b)), and
``(2) with respect to whom an eligibility certificate under
this section is in effect.

[[Page 2302]]

``(c) Eligibility Certificate.--For purposes of this title,
an eligibility certificate under this section is a statement
furnished by an employee to the employer which--
``(1) certifies that the employee is a member of a targeted
group (as defined in section 51(d)),
``(2) certifies that the employee does not have an
eligibility certificate under this section in effect for the
calendar year with respect to the payment of wages by another
employer, and
``(3) contains such other information as the Secretary may
require.
``(d) Payments to Be Treated as Payments of Withholding and
FICA Taxes.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this title, payments
made by an employer under subsection (a) to his employees for
any payroll period--
``(A) shall not be treated as the payment of compensation,
and
``(B) shall be treated as made out of--
``(i) amounts required to be deducted and withheld for the
payroll period under section 3401 (relating to wage
withholding), and
``(ii) amounts required to be deducted for the payroll
period under section 3102 (relating to FICA employee taxes),
and
``(iii) amounts of the taxes imposed for the payroll period
under section 3111 (relating to FICA employer taxes),

as if the employer had paid to the Secretary, on the day on
which the wages are paid to the employees, an amount equal to
such payments.
``(2) Advance payments exceed taxes due.--In the case of
any employer, if for any payroll period the sum of the
aggregate amount of payments under subsection (a) plus any
amount paid under section 3507 exceeds the sum of the amounts
referred to in paragraph (1)(B), each such advance payment
shall be reduced by an amount which bears the same ratio to
such excess as such advance payment bears to the aggregate
amount of all such advance payments.
``(3) Employer may make full advance payments.--The
Secretary shall prescribe regulations under which an employer
may elect (in lieu of any application of paragraph (2))--
``(A) to pay in full all amounts under subsection (a), and
``(B) to have additional amounts paid by reason of this
paragraph treated as the advance payment of taxes imposed by
this title.
``(4) Failure to make advance payments.--For purposes of
this title (including penalties), failure to make any advance
payment under this section at the time provided therefor
shall be treated as the failure at such time to deduct and
withhold under chapter 24 an amount equal to the amount of
such advance payment.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
25 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new item:

``Sec. 3511. Advanced payment of employment credit for members of
targeted groups.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 206. MODIFICATIONS TO WORK OPPORTUNITY CREDIT.

(a) Expansion to Youth Opportunity Program Participants,
WIA Youth Activity Participants, and Young Offenders.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 51(d) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to members of
targeted groups) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of
subparagraph (H), and by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(J) a youth opportunity program participant,
``(K) a qualified WIA youth activity participant, or
``(L) a qualified young offender.''.
(2) Definitions.--Subsection (d) of section 51 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by redesignating
paragraphs (11), (12), and (13) as paragraphs (14), (15), and
(16), respectively, and by inserting after paragraph (10) the
following new paragraph:
``(11) Youth opportunity program participant.--The term
`youth opportunity program participant' means an individual
who is certified by an eligible local board or eligible
entity (as such board and entity are described in section 169
of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998)--
``(A) as having completed a program carried out under that
section, and
``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual completed such a
program.
``(12) Qualified wia youth activity participant.--The term
`qualified WIA youth activity participant' means any
individual who is certified by a designated local agency--
``(A) as an eligible youth (as defined in section 101 of
the Workforce Investment Act of 1998) who--
``(i) is not less than age 18 and not more than age 21, and
``(ii) has been enrolled in or has received a youth
activity (as so defined) under chapter 4 of subtitle B of
title I of such Act, and
``(B) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual was so enrolled
or so received such activity.
``(13) Qualified young offender.--The term `qualified young
offender' means any individual who is certified by a
designated local agency--
``(A) as being not less than age 18 and not more than age
21,
``(B) as having been convicted of a misdemeanor, and
``(C) as having a hiring date which is not more than 1 year
after the last date on which such individual was so convicted
or was released from prison.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to individuals who begin work for the employer
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Additional Work Opportunity Credit for Retained
Employees.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 51 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amount of credit)
is amended by striking ``equal to 40 percent of the qualified
first-year wages for such year.'' and inserting ``equal to
the sum of--
``(1) 40 percent of the qualified first year wages for such
year, plus
``(2) $500 for each retained employee.''.
(2) Retained employee.--Section 51 of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(l) Retained Employee.--For purposes of this section, the
term `retained employee' means an employee who is a member of
a targeted group and--
``(1) who--
``(A) has worked exactly 1,500 hours for the taxpayer
during any period beginning on the date such employee was
hired and ending with or within the taxable year, and
``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during
such period, or
``(2) who--
``(A) began work with the taxpayer during any 52-week
period ending with or within such taxable year, and
``(B) was continuously employed by such taxpayer during
such 52-week period.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, no employee may be
treated as a retained employee more than once with respect to
any taxpayer.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 207. PUBLICATION OF CHANGES AND ASSISTANCE WITH
PREPARATION.

The Secretary of the Treasury shall--
(1) publicly disseminate information with respect to the
amendments made by this title (including the dissemination of
such information to State and local government one-stop job
centers), and
(2) provide appropriate assistance to taxpayers (through
low-income taxpayer clinics and other sources) for the
purpose of allowing taxpayers to benefit from the amendments
made by this title.
______

By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Cornyn, Ms. Stabenow, and Mrs. Hutchison):
S. 2650. A bill to provide for a 5-year carryback of certain net
operating losses and to suspend the 90 percent alternative minimum tax
limit on certain net operating losses; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation to expand a widely used business tax benefit whereby
business owners balance out net losses over prior years when the
business has a net operating gain. Spreading out this tax liability
helps a business to decrease the adverse impact of a difficult year.
Specifically, this legislation increases the general net operating
loss, NOL, carryback period from 2 years to 5 years in the case of an
NOL for any taxable year ending during 2006, 2007, or 2008.
I am pleased with the quick passage of H.R. 5140, the Recovery
Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the American People Act of 2008. It
provides tax rebates for individuals, capital investment incentives for
businesses, and important modifications to our housing laws that will
enable more homeowners to refinance their unmanageable mortgages.
However, it is my belief that several important items were left behind
that deserved to be included. The bill I am introducing today is
identical to Section 113 of a modified Senate Finance Committee
Economic Stimulus package, Senate Amendment No. 3983 to H.R. 5140. On
February 6, 2008, the Senate rejected this broader package on a
procedural vote, leaving it just one vote short of the 60 that were
required. I am still hopeful that Congress will revisit some of these
important

[[Page 2303]]

issues in 2008, either as stand-alone legislation or as part of another
stimulus package if it is determined to be appropriate.
One particular industry that would benefit from passage of this
legislation is the home building industry, which is currently
struggling due to a huge inventory of new homes under construction with
few buyers. Under present law, a business loss can only be deducted
from taxes paid from the previous 2 years. If the loss cannot be
carried back, it must be used in the future. Many home builders are now
reporting financial losses when a few years ago they were generating
jobs, providing local development, and paying taxes. Expanding the NOL
carry-back provision to 5 years would enable builders and other
businesses to receive an immediate rebate on taxes paid in previous
years and provide a much needed infusion of capital to their
businesses. The inability to do so will result in the need to either
increase high-cost borrowing or further liquidate land and homes, which
would only compound the existing inventory problem.
The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that passage of this
provision as part of the Senate Finance Committee Stimulus package
would have cost $15 billion in 2008 and $5.1 billion over 10 years.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation that will
help numerous industries that are currently struggling to survive in a
harsh economic downturn.
______

By Mr. INHOFE:
S. 2651. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to make technical
corrections to the renewable fuel standard; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Technical
Corrections to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard. This bill
is a measured response to the overly aggressive biofuels increase
mandated by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 passed in
December. The Energy bill's mandates allow no room for error in a fuels
industry already constrained by tight supplies, full capacity,
environmental regulation, and volatile market conditions. This
technical corrections bill is not an effort to substantively overhaul
the RFS program but rather is an attempt to smooth its unintended
consequences. Recognizing the delicate political balance surrounding
RFS, these simple fixes are intended to provide flexibility for the
fuels industry in meeting these mandates. As ranking member on the
Environment and Public Works Committee I did not support the 2007
Energy bill. The enactment of these technical corrections would not
change my overall opposition to the current flaws enacted to the RFS
program, but my bill does make this new RFS less onerous.
The first correction to the Clean Air Act's renewable fuels standard
allows a carryover of ethanol credits. This improvement does nothing to
change the currently mandated numbers. Rather, it provides flexibility
to an industry facing many uncertainties. In 2007, the industry used
approximately 2 billion gallons of ethanol over and above the necessary
levels prescribed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, EPACT. However,
EPACT language and EPA rulemaking do not allow for 2-year consecutive
``carryover'' of credits. This means that although the industry has
exceeded the 2007 requirements, they would be unable to apply these
credits after 12 months. My bill would accommodate the uncertain levels
of production from year to year. Considering the myriad variables
involved in the ethanol production process including crop yields, land
use, and feed stock prices, it only makes sense to allow more
flexibility.
Another fix extends the small refinery exemption by 2 years. This
language also does nothing to change mandated levels. A small refinery
produces less than 75,000 barrels average daily aggregate and EPACT
exempts these facilities from the renewable fuels numbers until 2011.
These refineries are dealing with drastically smaller economies of
scale in production. In order to protect these refineries from
potential economic hardship and subsequent job loss, this exemption
should be extended from the year 2011 to 2013.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and
quickly pass the bill I am introducing today.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Stevens, Mr.
Lautenberg, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Cochran, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham, and
Mr. Alexander):
S. 2652. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Defense to make a grant
to the National World War II Museum Foundation for facilities and
programs of America's National World War II Museum; to the Committee on
Armed Services.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Second World War will probably be
known as one of the greatest achievements in American history. The
ultimate victory over enemies in the Pacific and in Europe is a
testament to the uncommon valor of American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen,
and Marines. The years 1941 to 1945 also witnessed an unprecedented
mobilization of domestic industry which supplied our fighting men on
two distant fronts. As the generation that faced this challenge comes
to a close, it is important that we take the time to honor them for the
many sacrifices they made. It was the gallantry of American troops
abroad and the tireless devotion of workers at home that brought the
end of this Great War.
I come to the floor today, to honor all of the 16 million World War
II veterans and their families for the many sacrifices they made.
Today, along with eight of my colleagues, I would like to introduce
America's National World War II Museum Expansion Act.
On June 6, 2000, the 56th anniversary of the D-Day invasion of
Normandy, the National D-Day Museum, operated in New Orleans, LA,
opened their doors. The museum is the only museum in the U.S. that
exists for the exclusive purpose of accounting for the American
experience during World War II, both on the battlefront and at home.
The museum educates on all of the branches of the Armed Forces and the
Merchant Marine.
The museum was founded by the late World War II historian Stephen
Ambrose. The museum and the decision to locate it in New Orleans was
the result of a conversation Mr. Ambrose had with President Dwight D.
Eisenhower. It was said in the conversation that President Eisenhower
and former Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces in Europe,
credited Andrew Jackson Higgins, the man behind Higgins Industries in
New Orleans, as the ``man who won the war for us''. Higgins designed
and produced amphibious landing crafts that became known as the Higgins
Boats. These boats were used in every major amphibious operation of
World War II, including D-Day, and responsible for transporting the men
from the ship to the shore.
The museum is a premier educational institution, which educates
diverse audiences through its collection of artifacts, photographs,
letters, documents, and personal testimonies of participants in the war
and on the home front. It is important that we continue preserving,
maintaining, and interpreting the artifacts, documents, images, and
history collected by the museum. For these reasons, in 2003 Congress
designated the National D-Day Museum in New Orleans as America's
National World War II Museum. Since the designation, the Museum Board
has embarked on an extraordinary expansion, with plans to quadruple its
size. The museum will account for all service branches and campaigns of
the war, including the war on the home front.
This bill is a one time permanent $50 million authorization for the
expansion of the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.
Specifically, the $50 million authorization would provide funding for
the U.S. Freedom Pavilion, which is part of the museum's expansion. The
U.S. Freedom Pavilion will be the main entrance building to the main
theatre, exhibit halls, and other pavilions. Among its major exhibits,
the Freedom Pavilion will contain an interactive exhibition honoring
all of

[[Page 2304]]

the World War II veterans who have also served the nation as President,
or as a member of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. House of Representatives
between the years of 1941 and 1945.
A combination of State, local, and private funding, totaling $240
million, will match the $50 million Federal authorization. To date, the
State of Louisiana has already dedicated $33 million toward the
expansion, and has pledged additional funds up to $50 million to match
dollar for dollar the $50 million Federal authorization, if approved by
Congress. The private sector support has already surpassed $40 million,
and the remaining balance of the expansion will be raised privately.
A House companion bill, H.R. 2923, has been introduced by Chairman
Dingell and is cosponsored by 11 other members, including all members
of the Louisiana U.S. House of Representatives Delegation. In closing,
I want to give many thanks to Senators Inouye, Stevens, Lautenberg,
Vitter, Dole, Alexander, Cochran and Graham, for joining me in helping
to preserve an important piece of our history. I would like to give
special thanks to Senator Inouye, Senator Stevens, and Senator
Lautenberg. This museum is a tribute to you and your fellow servicemen.
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. 2652

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 ``America's National World War
II Museum Expansion Act''.

SEC. 2. GRANT TO NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM FOUNDATION FOR
AMERICA'S NATIONAL WORLD WAR II MUSEUM.

(a) Grant.--The Secretary of Defense may make a grant in
the amount of $50,000,000 to the National World War II Museum
Foundation for use in accordance with subsection (b) for the
museum in New Orleans, Louisiana, designated as America's
National World War II Museum by section 8134 of the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law
108-87; 117 Stat. 1103) (referred to in this section as the
``Museum'').
(b) Use of Funds.--The grant under subsection (a) shall be
used for the following:
(1) The planning, design, and construction of a new
facility for the Museum, to be known as the United States
Freedom Pavilion, and its exhibitions, and the planning,
design, and construction of a new canopy over the courtyard
of the Museum, to be known as the Canopy of Peace.
(2) The public display of artifacts, photographs, letters,
documents, and personal histories dating from 1939 to 1945,
including exhibits portraying American sacrifices both on the
battlefield and on the home front and the industrial
mobilization of the American home front.
(3) Educational outreach programs for teachers and
students.
(4) Traveling exhibitions on the history and lessons of
World War II for United States military facilities.
(5) Educational programs to foster the expansion of
European and Pacific exhibits at the Museum to be included in
the Center for the Study of the American Spirit.
(6) Projects that enable the Museum to function as a
liaison between museums, scholars, and members of the general
public in the United States and around the world.
(7) A readily accessible repository of information and
materials reflecting the historical, social, and cultural
effects of World War II.
(8) The preservation, interpretation, and public exhibition
of memorabilia, models, artifacts of significance (and
replicas), and oral histories from the combat experience of
members of the United States Armed Forces.
(9) Other appropriate activities relating to the management
and operation of the United States Freedom Pavilion,
including the sale of concessions, appropriate mementos, and
other materials, the proceeds of which would help support the
overall operation of the Museum and the United States Freedom
Pavilion.
(c) Report.--Not later than 60 months after receiving a
grant under this section, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report documenting how the Museum used the grants
funds and evaluating the success of the projects and
activities funded by the grant.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this Act.
______

By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Mr. Bingaman):
S. 2653. A bill to further United States security by restoring and
enhancing the competitiveness of the United States for international
students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors and by
facilitating business travel to the United States; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, today, along with my distinguished
colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, I am introducing
legislation to restore and enhance our Nation's competitiveness for
international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors,
and better facilitate legitimate business travel to the U.S.
In the immediate aftermath of the events of 9/11, it was necessary to
take the steps we did to improve and enhance our Nation's security. But
in the more than 6 years since 9/11, these well-intentioned changes
have had unintended consequences, stifling legitimate academic and
scientific exchange and international business travel, and tarnishing
our Nation's image around the world.
Three years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced a similar bill
designed to reverse the decline in the number of foreign students
studying at American colleges and universities. At that time,
international applications to U.S. graduate schools and to English as a
Second Language, ESL, programs were plummeting, and visa delays were
numbering in the thousands. Visa delays were also negatively impacting
the scientific and business communities, resulting in billions of
dollars of losses for the U.S. economy, as scientific research,
conferences, and business meetings had to be canceled and shifted to
overseas locations.
Over the past 3 years, there have been improvements with visa
issuance, and it is the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs,
particularly Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, who deserves much of the
credit. I am pleased with their advancements to enhance consular staff;
adopt newer, more efficient technology; offer international students,
scholars, and exchange visitors preferential consideration when
scheduling in-person interview appointments; and extend security
clearance validity. The Department also has established a business visa
center to field inquiries from U.S. businesses and their worldwide
counterparts, although the center cannot expedite in-person interview
appointments or the processing of visa applications.
This is not to say that visa delays have disappeared entirely. Delays
do continue to occur, albeit not at the huge volume they once were.
Because of this, there is a lot of lingering uncertainty about the
process which generates a great deal of concern for international
students, scholars, exchange visitors, and business travelers, and
reinforces a perception that America is not a welcoming place for
international visitors.
Indeed, serious concerns remain regarding the U.S. position in the
competition for international talent, particularly among higher
education, the scientific community, and the private sector. Our
competitiveness problem is not just a visa problem--we cannot solve it
simply by fixing the visa problems that were created after 9/11.
The U.S. now faces strong competition for international students,
scholars, scientists, and exchange visitors. The United Kingdom,
Australia, New Zealand, and the European Union all have coordinated,
government-led strategic plans in place for attracting international
students and scholars to their colleges and universities. Even our
neighbor to the north, Canada, plans to announce a strategic plan this
year. Meanwhile, traditional sending countries such as China and India
are expanding their own higher education offerings, both to retain more
of their own students and to attract international students. In the
face of this competition, the U.S. still struggles along with piecemeal
efforts, with each positive action seemingly cancelled out by a
negative action and persistent negative perceptions. The results are
worrisome.
While international student enrollment in the U.S. declined in both
the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 academic years,

[[Page 2305]]

and remained stagnant in 2005-2006, over the same period, enrollment in
the United Kingdom jumped more than 80,000, in Australia and France
more than 50,000, and in Germany and Japan more than 20,000. In 2006,
then-U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a goal of attracting an
additional 100,000 international students to Great Britain in the next
5 years.
Although we have started to see the enrollment numbers tick upwards
slightly just this past year--in Minnesota, 9,048 international
students were studying at colleges and universities last academic year,
contributing $186.4 million to the state's economy--it is still below
the peak level of 9,143 achieved in 2003-2004, so there is still ground
to make up for what was lost over the past 3 years to ensure we regain
our place as the most desired destination for study and for research.
Even if we return to pre-9/11 numbers, we may find we have lost market
share to competing nations.
Why should this matter to the U.S.? Recent public opinion polls taken
around the world show that the U.S. has fallen out of favor. But these
same polls also show that foreigners who have personally visited the
U.S. have a significantly more favorable opinion than those who have
never visited.
International students and scholars benefit greatly from their
experiences in the U.S., not only from their studies and research, but
also from living in daily American life. They carry these experiences
home, often becoming ambassadors of goodwill and understanding. Many go
on to achieve leadership positions in their home countries in
government, business, or education. These exchanges also benefit
American students, researchers and business colleagues, who similarly
have the opportunity to learn about another culture in this globalized
world.
Two expert commissions recently issued recommendations citing
international educational exchange as a critical form of public
diplomacy outreach. Last November, the Center for Strategic and
International Studies' Commission on Smart Power cited international
educational exchange as a key element for improving America's declining
standing and influence in the world. Just last month, the Secure
Borders and Open Doors Advisory Committee, a federal advisory committee
tasked by the Departments of Homeland Security and State to provide
recommendations on the Departments' missions to protect not only
America's security but also our economic livelihood, ideals, image, and
strategic relationships with the world, cited the need for a proactive
national strategy to mobilize all the tools and assets at our disposal
to attract international students and scholars to the U.S.
International students and scholars are not only important for public
diplomacy, they also are essential for our Nation's global
competitiveness. They make significant contributions to our economic
growth and innovation. According to recent National Science Board data,
nearly half of all graduate enrollments at U.S. colleges and
universities in the science and engineering fields are international
students. And these students often go on to positively impact future
research and technology output in this country. I strongly support
efforts to build up America's own supply of science and technology
talent, but we also must continue to actively attract international
talent to our shores if we are to retain our innovative edge.
It is a reality of our time that, at the high-skill level, the
temporary immigration system has become a conveyor belt of talent into
the permanent immigration system. Most foreign students do want to go
home after graduation, but some want to stay and use the knowledge they
have acquired at our universities. For example, Ms. Indra Nooyi, the
current CEO of PepsiCo, the world's fourth largest food and beverage
company, is herself a former international student who received her
master's degree from Yale University's School of Management.
So it is for all these important reasons that Senator Bingaman and I
once again introduce legislation on this important issue: The American
Competitiveness Through International Openness Now, ACTION, Act of
2008.
This year's bill once again calls for the establishment of a
strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the U.S. in
recruiting international students, scholars and exchange visitors. The
U.S. can no longer sit back and rest on its laurels when engaging in
this global competition, especially when all of our competitors clearly
have stepped up their game.
Our biggest problem is our inability to marshal the efforts of all
the relevant agencies into one coherent effort. Too often, these
agencies work in an uncoordinated manner, or worse, at cross purposes.
The PR blunder cases, where one arm of our government sets up exchange
programs to attract people and another arm of the government detains
them at the border, is only the tip of the iceberg. Our legislation
would create a White House-chaired International Education Coordinating
Council to guide the work of the myriad agencies that affect our
competitiveness for international students and exchange visitors.
One of the most important provisions in the legislation would remove
the nonimmigrant intent requirement for international students, the so-
called 214(b) rule. This outdated requirement that all applicants for
student visas must intend to return home after their studies makes no
sense, especially when talent-starved high-tech industries actively
court international students upon graduation. As I stated earlier, our
ability to attract international talent is essential to sustaining our
competitive edge in the world. Retaining such a requirement is simply
out of step in this day and age, especially when most of our
competitors are going out of their way to enact policies to make it
easier for international students to stay after graduation.
The bill calls for further improvement in the timeliness and
efficiency of the visa issuance process for those in the sciences. It
directs the Secretary of State to issue guidance to reduce the length
of time to issue visas to scientists to a maximum of 30 days, and to
provide a special review process for those cases that are delayed more
than 45 days. It also directs the Secretary of State to review and
update the Technology Alert List on a regular basis, and to consult
with academia and the private sector as part of this review, to ensure
the list reflects the current state of technology.
It also calls for expediting visa reviews for so-called ``Trusted
Travelers'': easily identifiable, low-risk frequent travelers who have
a history of past visa approvals, haven't violated their immigration
status, and have provided their biometric data, plus any additional
information required, to the consulate. This would both ease travel for
these individuals and permit consular resources to be focused on more
important cases. There is also a provision to also allow expedited visa
reviews for international students, scholars and exchange visitors who
leave the United States temporarily to visit their families or attend
conferences and require a new visa to return to the same program.
Today, these people can be stranded abroad for months without being
able to return to their programs.
The legislation calls for the reinstatement of domestic or stateside
visa renewals for those here on employment-based non-immigrant visas.
This practice was discontinued in 2004, because U.S. consulates abroad
were better equipped to collect the required biometric data from the
renewal applicant. Given today's available technology, we should seek
to reinstate this practice. This would help to alleviate the volume of
renewal applicants at our overseas consulates, as well as help renewal
applicants who often opt to forgo travel overseas due to the
uncertainty of timely and efficient processing of their renewal
applications.
Finally, there has been much public debate about driver's licenses
and Real ID. In our well-intentioned efforts to ensure that only
persons in the U.S. legally are able to acquire driver's licenses, we
have unintentionally hamstrung the ability of legal nonimmigrants to
have licenses. Real ID's unrealistic documentation and renewal

[[Page 2306]]

requirements for international students and scholars send yet another
negative signal about America's openness to them, and frankly ignore
technical advances which could provide both better assurances about a
person's legal status and licenses of a longer validity. Our bill will
correct this problem in a way that will strengthen, not weaken, the
integrity of driver's licenses.
For all of these reasons, our legislation is endorsed by NAFSA:
Association of International Educators, the world's largest
professional association advocating for international education and
exchange programs, by the National Foreign Trade Council, the Nation's
premier business organization dedicated to advancing global commerce,
and by USA Engage, a leading broad-based coalition of trade
associations promoting global economic engagement.
The American way of life owes its success and vitality to its
historic ability to harness the best in knowledge and ideas, not only
those that are homegrown, but also those that come from outside our
borders. The longer we wait to take action, the more we risk missing
out on future U.S. academic, business, and research success.
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. 2653

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 ``American Competitiveness
Through International Openness Now Act of 2008'' or as the
``ACTION Act of 2008''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Although the United States is engaged in a global
competition for international students and scholars, the
United States lacks a comprehensive strategy for conducting
and succeeding in this competition.
(2) In January 2008, the Secure Borders and Open Doors
Advisory Committee of the Homeland Security Advisory Council
issued a report that specifically cites international
education as a key component of public diplomacy, stating:
``America is losing competitiveness for international
students for one primary reason . . . because our competitors
have--and America lacks--a proactive national strategy that
enables us to mobilize all the tools and assets at our
disposal, and that enables the federal bureaucracy to work
together in a coherent fashion, to attract international
students.''
(3) Attracting the world's most talented students and
scholars to campuses and research institutes in the United
States will contribute significantly to the leadership,
competitiveness, and security of this Nation.
(4) The international student market has been transformed
in the 21st century. Traditional competitor countries have
adopted and implemented strategies for capturing a greater
share of the market. New competitors, primarily the European
Higher Education Area, have entered the market. Traditional
sending countries, such as China and India, are expanding
their indigenous higher education capacity, both to retain
their own students and to attract international students. All
of these changes are giving international students many more
options for pursuing higher education outside their home
countries.
(5) The number of international students enrolled in United
States higher education institutions declined in the academic
years 2003-04 and 2004-05, and remained constant in academic
year 2005-06. In academic year 2006-07, international student
enrollments increased 3 percent, yet remained below the peak
level, achieved in the 2002-03 academic year.
(6) From 2003 to 2006, international student enrollments
increased--
(A) by more than 80,000 in the United Kingdom;
(B) by more than 50,000 in Australia and France; and
(C) by more than 20,000 in Germany and Japan.
(7) Anecdotal evidence indicates that international
students, scholars, and scientists continue to find the
process of gaining entry to the United States to be demeaning
and unnecessarily cumbersome.
(8) While intensive English programs in the United States
are a gateway to degree programs, international student
enrollments in such programs have declined by almost 50
percent since 2000, and many schools offering such programs
have closed. This is due primarily to the difficulty of
obtaining a United States visa for the purpose of studying
English.
(9) At a time when talent is both scarce and mobile and
attracting talent is essential to the leadership,
competitiveness, and security of the United States, it is as
important for our Nation's visa system to be a gateway for
international talent as it is for it to be a barrier to
international criminals. Although the Department of State has
made significant progress in improving the United States visa
system, the system still does not effectively serve this dual
purpose.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of
the United States--
(1) to make international educational exchange a priority
in order to promote United States leadership,
competitiveness, and security;
(2) to restore United States competitiveness for
international students, scholars, scientists, and exchange
visitors;
(3) to ensure that all agencies of the United States
Government work together to create a welcoming environment
for legitimate international students, scholars, scientists,
and exchange visitors, without sacrificing safety;
(4) to pursue a visa policy that keeps the United States
safe, prosperous, and free, by--
(A) addressing legitimate security concerns; and
(B) keeping the United States a welcoming Nation; and
(5) to ensure that United States consulates have adequate
resources to perform their required duties.

SEC. 4. ENHANCING UNITED STATES COMPETITIVENESS FOR
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS, SCHOLARS, SCIENTISTS,
AND EXCHANGE VISITORS.

(a) Strategic Plan.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
a strategic plan for increasing the competitiveness of the
United States for international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
(2) Content.--The strategic plan submitted under this
subsection shall include--
(A) a clear directive to the Department of State, the
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education,
the Department of Commerce, the Department of Energy, and
other Federal departments that impact--
(i) the propensity of international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors to visit the United States;
(ii) the ability of such individuals to gain entry into the
United States; and
(iii) the ability of such individuals to obtain a driver's
license, Social Security card, and other documents essential
to daily life in the United States;
(B) a marketing plan, including continued improvements in
the use of the Internet and other media resources, to promote
and facilitate study in the United States by international
students;
(C) a clear division of labor among the departments
referred to in subparagraph (A);
(D) a plan to enhance the role of the educational advising
centers of the Department of State that are located in
foreign countries to promote study in the United States and
to prescreen visa applicants;
(E) a clarification of the lines of authority and
responsibility for international students in the Department
of Commerce;
(F) a clear role for the Department of Education in
increasing the competitiveness of the United States for
international students; and
(G) a clear delineation of the lines of authority and
streamlined procedures within the Department of Homeland
Security related to international students, scholars,
scientists, and exchange visitors.
(b) International Education Coordination Council.--
(1) Establishment.--There is established in the Executive
Office of the President a council to be known as the
International Education Coordination Council (referred to in
this subsection as the ``Council'').
(2) Purpose.--The Council shall coordinate the activities
of the Federal Government in order to further the purposes of
this Act.
(3) Chair.--The President shall designate an official of
the Executive Office of the President to preside over the
Council.
(4) Composition.--The Council shall be composed of the
following positions, or their designees:
(A) The Secretary of State.
(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(C) The Secretary of Education.
(D) The Secretary of Commerce.
(E) The Secretary of Energy.
(F) The Secretary of Labor.
(G) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(H) The Commissioner of Social Security.
(I) The head of any other agency designated by the
President.
(c) Elimination of Nonimmigrant Intent Criterion for
Students.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(a)(15)(F)(i) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)(i))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``having a residence in a foreign country
which he has no intention of abandoning,'' and inserting
``having the intention, capability, and sufficient financial

[[Page 2307]]

resources to complete a course of study in the United
States,''; and
(B) by striking ``and solely''.
(2) Presumption of status.--Section 214(b) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act is amended by striking
``subparagraph (L) or'' and inserting ``subparagraph (F),
(L), or''.
(d) Countering Visa Fraud.--The Secretary of State shall--
(1) require United States consular offices, with particular
emphasis on consular offices in countries that send large
numbers of international students and exchange visitors to
the United States, to submit to the Secretary plans for
countering visa fraud that respond to the particular fraud-
related problems in the countries where such offices are
located; and
(2) not later than 180 days after enactment of this Act,
report to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate
and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives on the measures taken to counter visa fraud
under the plans submitted under paragraph (1).
(e) Improving the Security Clearance Process for
Scientists.--
(1) Duration of security clearances.--The Secretary shall
extend the duration of security clearances for scientists
admitted under section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)) until sooner of--
(A) the expiration of the program for which the scientist
was admitted; or
(B) the date that is 5 years after the beginning of such
extension.
(2) Portability of security clearances.--
(A) Validity across nonimmigrant classifications.--Except
as provided under subparagraph (B), a security clearance
issued with respect to an individual classified within a
nonimmigrant classification shall remain valid with respect
to a change of the individual to another nonimmigrant
classification if the security clearance approved in
connection with the first classification is in substantially
the same field as the field involved in the subsequent
classification.
(B) National interest waiver.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply with respect to an applicant for a security clearance
if the Secretary determines that the application of such
subparagraph with respect to such applicant is not in the
national security interests of the United States.
(3) Visa processing time.--The Secretary shall issue
appropriate guidance to--
(A) reduce the length of time required to issue visas to
scientists to a maximum of 30 days; and
(B) provide for a special review process to resolve
instances in which the length of time required to issue visas
to scientists exceeds 45 days.
(4) Review of technology alert list.--
(A) Interagency process.--The Secretary shall establish an
interagency group to review the technology alert list not
less frequently than once every 2 years.
(B) Chair.--The interagency review group established
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be chaired by an
appropriate official of the Department of State.
(C) Consultation.--As part of its assessment of the current
state of technology, the interagency review group shall
consult with academic experts and with companies that
manufacture and distribute the items on the technology alert
list.
(D) Implementation.--The Secretary shall--
(i) promptly revise the technology alert list in accordance
with the recommendations of the group; and
(ii) promptly notify consular officials of the Department
of State of the revisions.
(5) Annual report.--
(A) Submission.--The Secretary shall submit an annual
report on the implementation of this subsection to--
(i) the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of
the Senate;
(ii) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(iii) the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate;
(iv) the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives;
(v) the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives; and
(vi) the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.
(B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A)
shall include such information as the Secretary determines
appropriate, including--
(i) progress made to reduce the length of time required to
process visas to scientists, including the average processing
time to complete security clearances for visa applicants in
each nonimmigrant visa classification under section
101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act;
(ii) any revisions made to the technology alert list under
paragraph (4);
(iii) the number of individuals in each nonimmigrant visa
classification who have--

(I) received a security clearance in the preceding year;
(II) been approved for a visa after receiving such
clearance; or
(III) been denied such clearance; and

(iv) the distribution of such individuals by country of
nationality.
(6) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Scientists.--The term ``scientists'' means individuals
subject to clearance under section 212(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(3)(A)(i)(II)).
(B) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of State.
(C) Technology alert list.--The term ``technology alert
list'' means the list of goods, technology, and sensitive
information that is maintained by the Department of State.
(f) Short-Term Study on Tourist Visa.--Section
101(a)(15)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(B)) is amended by inserting ``for a period
longer than 90 days'' after ``study''.
(g) Drivers' Licenses for International Students and
Exchange Visitors.--Section 202(c)(2)(C) of the Real ID Act
of 2005 (49 U.S.C. 30301 note) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(v) Provisions for nonimmigrants monitored under the
student and exchange visitor information system.--With
respect to a nonimmigrant subject to the monitoring system
required under section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1372)--

``(I) notwithstanding clause (ii), a temporary driver's
license or temporary identification card issued to such
nonimmigrant pursuant to this subparagraph shall be valid for
the shorter of--

``(aa) the period of time of the nonimmigrant's authorized
stay in the United States; or
``(bb) the standard issuance period for drivers' licenses
provided by the State; and

``(II) valid status under that monitoring system shall be
deemed to be valid documentary evidence that the nonimmigrant
maintains status for purposes of clause (iv).''.

(h) Change of Status for Certain F-visa Holders Seeking
Adjustment of Status.--An individual who has been in valid
status under section 101(a)(15)(F) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(F)) shall be considered
to have remained in such status until the beginning of a
fiscal year if--
(1) a petition under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of such
Act has been filed on behalf of such individual and has been
approved for such fiscal year;
(2) the cap with respect to such petitions provided in
paragraph (1)(A) or (5)(C) of section 214(g) of such Act was
reached before such fiscal year; and
(3) such individual's valid status under section
101(a)(15)(F) of such Act would otherwise terminate not more
than 6 months before such fiscal year.
(i) Social Security Enumeration at Ports of Entry.--
(1) Finding.--Congress finds that section
205(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)) requires the Commissioner of Social
Security to assign Social Security numbers, to the maximum
extent practicable, to aliens at the time of their lawful
admission to the United States--
(A) for permanent residence; or
(B) under any other status which permits such aliens to
engage in employment in the United States.
(2) Memorandum of understanding.--Pursuant to such section,
not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Commissioner of Social Security, the Secretary
of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall reach
agreement on a memorandum of understanding to expand the
enumeration-at-entry program to include all eligible
individuals seeking admission to the United States under
section 101(a)(15)(J) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(J)).
(3) Implementation.--Not later than 1 year after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the expanded enumeration-at-
entry program described in paragraph (2) shall become
effective at all United States ports of entry.

SEC. 5. FACILITATING BUSINESS AND ACADEMIC TRAVEL.

(a) Expedited Visa Reviews for Trusted Travelers.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall
establish a trusted traveler program for international
students, researchers, scholars, and individuals engaged in
business, which shall operate in accordance with such
guidance and procedures as the Secretary may determine.
(2) Trusted traveler described.--The trusted traveler
program shall provide for expedited visa review for--
(A) frequent low-risk visitors to the United States, who--
(i) have a history of visa approvals;
(ii) have not violated their immigration status;
(iii) have provided biometric data; and
(iv) have agreed to provide the consulate with such
information as the Secretary may require; and
(B) aliens admitted under subparagraph (F) or (J) of
section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(15), who--
(i) are pursuing a program in the United States;
(ii) have not violated their immigration status;
(iii) have left the United States temporarily; and

[[Page 2308]]

(iv) require a new visa to return to the same program.
(3) Authority to waive personal appearance.--
Notwithstanding section 222(h) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202(h)), the Secretary may waive
the requirement for an in-person interview by a consular
officer with respect to trusted travelers described in
paragraph (2).
(b) Enhancing Consular Resources and Performance.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of State shall--
(A) issue instructions providing for--
(i) enhanced staffing of United States consulates with high
demand for visas and long visa-processing backlogs; and
(ii) enhanced training, in partnership with institutions of
higher education, leaders in educational exchange, and the
business community, for consular officers with respect to
processing visas for international students and scholars and
individuals traveling for business;
(B) issue strong operational guidance to all United States
consular posts to eliminate inconsistencies in visa
processing; and
(C) through regular reviews, hold such posts accountable
for removing such inconsistencies.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives
on the implementation of this subsection.
(c) Restoration of Revalidation Procedures for Employment-
Based Visas.--
(1) In general.--Section 222 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1202) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) The Secretary of State shall issue regulations to
permit an alien granted a nonimmigrant visa under
subparagraph (E), (H), (I), (L), (O), or (P) of section
101(a)(15) to apply for a renewal of such visa within the
United States if--
``(1) such visa is valid or did not expire more than 12
months before the date of such application;
``(2) the alien is seeking a nonimmigrant visa under the
same subparagraph under which the alien had previously
received a visa; and
``(3) the alien has complied with the immigration laws of
the United States.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Section 222(h) of such Act is
amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph (1), by
striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting ``Except as
provided under subsection (i), and notwithstanding''.
(d) Comprehensive Human Capital Workforce Plan.--The
Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall jointly--
(1) develop a plan for the appropriate selection, training,
and supervision of Federal Government officials whose contact
with foreign citizens impacts the international image of the
United States, including consular and customs and border
protection officials; and
(2) submit an annual report on the implementation of the
plan described in paragraph (1) to--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(C) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives; and
(D) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives.

____________________

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

______

SENATE RESOLUTION 454--DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MARCH 2008 AS ``MRSA
AWARENESS MONTH''

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Specter, and
Mr. Brown) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary:

S. Res. 454

Whereas Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
is a type of infection that is resistant to treatment with
the usual antibiotics and is one of the most common pathogens
that cause Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) in the
United States and in many parts of the world;
Whereas a study led by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention estimates that in 2005 more than 94,000 invasive
MRSA infections occurred in the United States and more than
18,500 of these infections resulted in death;
Whereas the percentage of Staphylococcus aureus infections
in the United States that are attributable to MRSA has grown
from 2 percent in 1974 to 63 percent in 2004;
Whereas the annual number of hospitalizations associated
with MRSA infections, including both HAIs and community-based
infections, more than tripled between 1999 and 2005, from
108,600 to 368,600;
Whereas approximately 85 percent of all invasive MRSA
infections were associated with healthcare;
Whereas serious MRSA infections occur most frequently among
individuals in hospitals and healthcare facilities,
particularly the elderly, those undergoing dialysis, and
those with surgical wounds;
Whereas individuals infected with MRSA are most likely to
have longer and more expensive hospital stays, with an
average cost of $35,000;
Whereas there has been an increase in reported community-
acquired staph infection outbreaks, including antibiotic-
resistant strains, in States such as Illinois, New York,
Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida,
and the District of Columbia;
Whereas clusters of community-acquired MRSA infections have
been reported since the late 1990s among competitive sports
teams, correctional facilities, schools, workplaces, military
facilities, and other community settings;
Whereas a person who is not infected with MRSA can be a
vehicle for the transmission of infections through skin-to-
skin contact; and
Whereas many instances of MRSA transmission can be
prevented through the use of appropriate hygienic practices,
such as hand washing and appropriate first aid for open
wounds and active skin infections, are followed: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the need to apply what is already known
about reducing the transmission of infections in hospitals,
effectively using diagnostics, and ensuring appropriate use
and utilization of antibiotics to meet patient and public
health needs;
(2) recognizes the need to pursue operational research to
find the best ways of preventing hospital- and community-
acquired Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
and developing new antibiotics for improving care for MRSA
patients;
(3) recognizes the importance of raising awareness of MRSA
and methods of preventing MRSA infections;
(4) supports the work of advocates, healthcare
practitioners, and science-based experts in educating,
supporting, and providing hope for individuals and their
families affected by community and healthcare associated
infections; and
(5) designates the month of March 2008 as ``MRSA Awareness
Month''.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, in response to the emerging threat of
methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, infections, I
introduced legislation in November to improve the prevention,
detection, and treatment of community and healthcare-associated
infections. The Community and Healthcare Associated Infections
Reduction Act of 2007 builds on what hospitals are already doing and
what infectious disease experts and government agencies agree is
critical to reducing the emergence of these infections.
In the last few months, the problem has persisted and Congress has
done little. The problem is not going away. Just last month a hospital
in Chicago treated a patient with a nasty sore on his wrist that was
attributable to MRSA. Unfortunately, the hospital found that the
infection was unresponsive to two medications that have been
recommended, mainstay treatments for MRSA. The already-formidable
microbe has strengthened its defenses.
Scientists are constantly trying to learn more information about MRSA
and its impact on communities, even while healthcare professionals are
fighting to keep patients safe. Although MRSA infections can be mild or
moderate, almost 100,000 become serious and lead to 19,000 deaths each
year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The CDC estimates that in 2005 in the U.S., 94,000 people developed
an invasive drug-resistant staph infection. Out of 94,000 infections,
researchers found that more than half were acquired in the health care
system--people who had recently had surgery or were on kidney dialysis,
for example. The 9,000--often needless--American deaths from these
infections every year account for more than the number of people who
died from HIV/AIDS, homicide, emphysema, or Parkinson's.
MRSA infections are a persistent crisis. In 2002, Illinois hospitals
diagnosed 6,841 cases of MRSA. In 2006, that number was 10,714. Steady
growth in the incidence of MRSA cases shows a 56.7 percent increase
over a 5-year period. As a result, the State of Illinois has taken
aggressive steps to identify the infection before it grows out of
control. Illinois was the first State to require testing of all high-
risk hospital patients and isolation of those who carry the MRSA
bacteria. Twenty-two States have passed laws that will give their
residents important information about

[[Page 2309]]

hospital infections. Nineteen States have laws that require public
reporting of infection rates.
Hospitals are actively working to identify and control infections,
implementing infection control plans to maintain the safety of
patients. For example, Evanston Northwestern Hospital is now placing
patients who test positive for MRSA in ``contact isolation.'' That
means patients are placed in private rooms or rooms with other MRSA-
positive patients. Also, patients who developed symptoms of infection
at the hospitals are tested and treated on the premises. The strategy
is working. Evanston Northwestern went from 1,200 cases of patient-to-
patient MRSA transmission in 2003 to 80 cases in 2006, and the
$600,000-a-year program saved twice as much as it cost.
But we can't leave it up to the hospitals to control these
infections. About half of the infections that end up being treated in
hospitals were actually picked up in the community. Schools in
Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and
Kentucky have had to close to help contain the spread of an infection.
School officials in Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia
have reported student deaths from bacteria, while officials in at least
four other States reported cases of students being infected.
Today, I am introducing a bipartisan resolution with the support of
my colleagues Senator Hatch, Senator Menendez, Senator Specter, and
Senator Brown to designate March as MRSA Awareness Month. We hope this
resolution will bring more attention to the need to address this
critical public health issue--not only by communities and healthcare
organizations, but by the Federal Government.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 455--CALLING FOR PEACE IN DARFUR

Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Biden, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Feingold, Mr.
Coleman, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Menendez) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations:

S. Res. 455

Whereas, during the past 4 years in Darfur, hundreds of
thousands of innocent victims have been murdered, tortured,
and raped, with more than 2,000,000 people driven from their
homes;
Whereas some but not all of the parties to the conflict in
Darfur participated in the first round of a United Nations-
African Union peace process launched in October 2007 in
Sirte, Libya;
Whereas the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) reached
between the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's
Liberation Movement (SPLM) in January 2005 has not been fully
or evenly implemented;
Whereas the Government of Sudan has continued to obstruct
the deployment of a joint United Nations-African Union
peacekeeping force to Darfur that would include non-African
elements;
Whereas elements of armed rebel movements in Darfur,
including the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), have made
violent threats against the deploying peacekeeping force;
Whereas 13 former world leaders and current activists,
including former president Jimmy Carter, former United
Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Bangladeshi
microfinance champion Muhammed Yunus, and Archbishop Desmond
Tutu, have called for the immediate deployment of the
peacekeeping force; and
Whereas, while these and other issues remain pending, it is
the people of Darfur, including those living in refugee
camps, who suffer the continuing consequences: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) calls upon the Government of Sudan and other
signatories and non-signatories to the May 5, 2006, Darfur
Peace Agreement to declare and respect an immediate cessation
of hostilities, cease distributing arms to internally
displaced persons, and enable humanitarian organizations to
have full unfettered access to populations in need;
(2) calls upon the Government of Sudan to facilitate the
immediate and unfettered deployment of the United Nations-
African Union peacekeeping force, including any and all non-
African peacekeepers;
(3) urges all invited individuals and movements to attend
the next round of peace negotiations and not set
preconditions for such participation;
(4) calls upon the diverse rebel movements to set aside
their differences and work together in order to better
represent the people of Darfur and end their continued
suffering;
(5) encourages the participation in future talks of
traditional Arab and African leaders from Darfur, women's
groups, local nongovernmental organizations, and leaders from
internally displaced persons (IDP) camps;
(6) condemns any intimidation or threats against camp or
civil society leaders to discourage them from attending the
peace talks, whether by the Government of Sudan or rebel
leaders;
(7) condemns any action by any party, government or rebel,
that undermines or delays the peace process in Darfur; and
(8) calls upon all parties to the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) to support and respect all terms of the
agreement.

Mr. DUBRIN. Mr. President, time and time again I have come to the
floor to speak about the ongoing genocide in Darfur.
For more than 4 years the world has watched this humanitarian crisis
unfold--thousands murdered, tortured, raped, and chased from their
homes. Thousands more languishing year after year in refugee camps.
Many of us on both sides of the aisle have repeatedly called for
greater U.S. and international action. President Bush has called the
situation genocide and British Prime Minister Brown said ``Darfur is
the greatest humanitarian crisis the world faces today.''
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made ending the crisis in
Darfur one of his top priorities.
Thirteen former world leaders and current activists--a group of
``Elders''--including former president Jimmy Carter, former U.N.
Secretary General Kofi Annan, Bangladeshi microfinance champion
Muhammed Yunus, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have called for the
immediate deployment of a peacekeeping force to Darfur.
Here at home, thousands of students, churches, and other activists
have helped raise awareness of the horrible human suffering in Darfur.
Such efforts led to an important vote last year by the U.N. Security
Council to deploy 26,000 peacekeepers from the U.N. and African Union.
This peacekeeping force would go to Darfur to halt the violence and
create conditions for a long-term political settlement.
Late last year, Congress passed the Sudan Divestment and
Accountability Act, which will help concerned Americans ensure that
their investments do not support the murderous regime in Khartoum.
Yet, despite such overwhelming calls for action, the Sudanese
government continues to brutalize its own people and thumb its nose at
the international community.
Earlier this week Sudanese army and allied militia forces, with the
help of helicopter gunships and planes, conducted yet another major
assault in Darfur, burning villages, killing civilians, and forcing
thousands more to flee into increasingly unstable Chad.
Equally troubling are blatant efforts by the Sudanese government to
obstruct deployment of the peacekeeping force. For example, Sudan's
leaders have balked at deployment of non-African forces. Last month
government forces fired upon a peacekeeping convoy.
In recent months the regime has even appointed notorious figures
complicit in the Darfur genocide to senior government positions. Two
are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
Incredibly, one such figure, Ahmed Haroun, was actually appointed to
be Minister of Humanitarian Affairs, ostensibly to assist the very
people he helped displace.
It is time to bring an end to the violence and set the conditions for
a long-term political settlement.
Last week Senator Biden led a resolution that called on the President
to immediately address any equipment shortcomings with the peacekeeping
force.
I wholeheartedly agree.
The White House must not allow a modest shortage of equipment to
prolong the suffering in Darfur.
Today I am introducing a resolution, along with Senators Biden,
Brownback, Coleman, Feingold, Menendez, and Voinovich calling for an
immediate halt to the violence and a commitment from all sides to
participate in the next round of peace talks.

[[Page 2310]]

The resolution also calls upon the government of Sudan to facilitate
the immediate and unfettered deployment of the U.N.-African Union
peacekeeping force, including any and all non-African peacekeepers.
The resolution calls upon the diverse rebel movements to set aside
their differences and work together in order to better represent the
people of Darfur and end their continued suffering.
The resolution condemns any action by any party--government or
rebel--that undermines or delays the peace process.
The resolution call upon the government of Sudan to enable
humanitarian organizations to have full unfettered access to
populations in need; and it calls upon all parties to the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement between North and South Sudan to support and respect
all terms of the agreement.
We have allowed the humanitarian crisis in Darfur to continue for far
too long. We have allowed a brutal regime to repeatedly obstruct and
ignore the international community.
I call on my colleagues to join us as we call on the U.S. to put is
full weight behind deployment of a peacekeeping force and pushing all
sides toward a long-term political solution.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 456--DIRECTING THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERTAKE
BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH CANADA TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT TO CONSERVE
POPULATIONS OF LARGE WHALES AT RISK OF EXTINCTION THAT MIGRATE ALONG
THE ATLANTIC SEABOARD OF NORTH AMERICA

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Sununu) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign
Relations:

S. Res. 456

Whereas populations of large whales in the north Atlantic,
including north Atlantic right whales, fin whales, and
humpback whales, were substantially reduced, largely due to
commercial whaling efforts that ended more than 60 years ago
in the United States and more than 30 years ago in Canada,
and rebuilding and protecting these species requires
significant conservation efforts;
Whereas the United States and Canada share the goals of
marine resource conservation through sound scientific
research and seek to protect large whales at risk of
extinction;
Whereas north Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and
fin whales are listed as ``endangered'' under the United
States Endangered Species Act and ``depleted'' under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, and north Atlantic right whales
are listed as ``endangered'' and fin whales are listed as a
species of ``special concern'' under Canada's Species at Risk
Act;
Whereas north Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and
fin whales, migrate throughout the north Atlantic Ocean,
including through the waters of the United States and Canada
along the eastern Atlantic Seaboard;
Whereas the populations of large whales in the north
Atlantic Ocean are affected by natural factors including
availability of forage and oceanographic conditions such as
water temperature, salinity, and currents, and additional
research on these topics will facilitate whale conservation;
Whereas some fishermen in both the United States and Canada
employ fixed gear types within the migratory range of large
whales, thereby exposing the species to risks of
entanglement, and ships transiting both United States and
Canadian waters have been known to strike large whales
resulting in injury or death of the cetaceans;
Whereas the United States has taken significant regulatory
and advisory steps to reduce the impacts of its fishing and
shipping activities on large whale species, including
restrictions on fixed fishing gear, closures of areas to
certain types of fishing effort seasonally, and advisory
restrictions on vessel traffic;
Whereas effective regulations to ensure conservation and
protection of these large whale species must be a
transboundary, bilateral effort that equitably distributes
the costs and benefits of whale conservation among regulated
and other concerned parties in each Nation, including the
United States and Canadian governments, the fishing and
shipping industries, States, Canadian provinces, and
interested nongovernmental organizations;
Whereas Canada and the United States have a history of
cooperation on transboundary marine resource issues,
including a joint effort by the Canadian Department of
Fisheries and Oceans and the United States' Provincetown
Center for Coastal Studies and the New England Aquarium to
assist entangled large whales in the Bay of Fundy and Gulf of
Maine;
Whereas the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration has long been involved with a series of
bilateral discussions with Canada concerning the United
States Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, and the
Canadian Species at Risk Plan;
Whereas encouraging collaboration between representatives
of the United States and Canadian Federal governments,
affected States and Canadian provinces, affected fishing and
shipping industries, and non-governmental organizations will
facilitate the parties' ability to develop a sound,
scientifically supported, mutually acceptable agreement: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, by the Senate, That--
(1) the United States should undertake bilateral
discussions with Canada to negotiate an agreement for the
conservation and protection of migratory or transboundary
populations of large whales at risk of extinction in the
northwest Atlantic Ocean;
(2) the agreement negotiated pursuant to paragraph (1)
should contain mechanisms, inter alia, for reducing incidents
of endangered large whales becoming entangled in fishing
gear, being struck by ships, or otherwise adversely impacted
by human activity;
(3) the mechanisms developed pursuant to paragraph (2)
should ensure that--
(A) the costs and benefits of whale conservation
regulations are to the extent feasible fairly and equitably
distributed among regulated and other concerned parties
including the United States and Canadian governments, the
fishing and shipping industries, States, Canadian provinces,
and interested nongovernmental organizations;
(B) the full economic impact on fishing communities is
considered in the development of such measures; and
(C) the best available science on whale behavior, including
diving, feeding, and migration, is used to develop
conservation mechanisms;
(4) as any bilateral agreement is negotiated and
implemented, the United States and Canada should consult
with, inter alia, affected fishery management agencies,
coastal States and provinces impacted by the agreement, and
appropriate industry and nongovernmental organizations; and
(5) until the agreement pursuant to paragraph (1) becomes
operational, the United States should continue to undertake
efforts to reduce the impacts of human activity on endangered
large whales while taking steps, to the extent consistent
with United States law, to minimize the economic impact of
such efforts on affected industries.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution
directing the U.S. to undertake bilateral discussions with Canada to
negotiate an agreement to conserve endangered large whales that migrate
along the Atlantic seaboard of North America. I would also like to
thank my colleagues, Senators Collins and Sununu for their
cosponsorship. Whales do not recognize international boundaries, and it
is critical that we work with our neighbors to develop consistent means
to protect whales from potentially harmful interactions with fishing
gear, ships, and other manmade threats.
Both the U.S. and Canada have taken steps to reduce the impacts of
their respective maritime industries on endangered whale populations,
but neither country can provide adequate protection working
independently of the other. Large whales, including critically
endangered north Atlantic right whales, humpback whales, and fin
whales, migrate throughout the north Atlantic Ocean, crossing
frequently between Canadian and U.S. waters where fishermen on both
sides of the boundary employ fishing methods that pose a risk of
entanglement, and transiting ships have been known to strike the
cetaceans, resulting in serious injury or death.
The U.S. has long been a global leader in marine mammal protection.
The Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan, developed under the
auspices of the National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, carries a
mandate to reduce incidents of whale entanglement with fishing gear and
of ship strikes, and it has issued numerous regulations aimed at
achieving its goals. Unfortunately, many of its regulations on the U.S.
fishing industry have not been matched by their management counterparts
north of the border. Most recently, in October of this year, NMFS
issued new regulations, including a mandate for lobster fishermen to
use sinking rope to connect their strings of lobster pots. The intent
of this rule is to reduce the amount of rope in the water column and
thus the risk of a whale becoming

[[Page 2311]]

entangled. Traditionally, lobstermen have fished using floating rope
because in the strong tides and rocky sea floor we experience in many
areas off the coast of Maine, sinking rope can chaff, abrade, and break
quite easily. These rules, which are due to take effect in October of
this year will increase fishermen's overhead cost by requiring more
frequent replacement of degraded rope, and pose a safety hazard for our
lobstermen. Canadian fishermen experience no similar restrictions on
their gear, thereby reducing their overhead costs relative to U.S.
fishermen. This not only gives them a competitive advantage in the
marketplace, but also provides no benefit to the endangered species of
whales our lobstermen are making sacrifices to protect.
Canada should be praised, however, for its efforts to implement
regulations on its shipping industry, including imposing speed limits
in areas whales are known to frequent. NMFS's Take Reduction Team has
developed similar regulations for shippers transiting areas of U.S.
waters, and NMFS sent its final rule to the Office of Management and
Budget nearly 1 year ago, but to date, that office has failed to
release it. I find it inexcusable that the administration finds it
acceptable to impose harsh restrictions on the lobster industry, which
is comprised of hardworking small businessmen struggling to make ends
meet, but refuses to impose restrictions on a multi-billion dollar
industry. This despite the fact that the cost of the ship strike rules,
expressed as a percentage of the affected industry's total earnings,
will be a fraction of the cost of the gear restrictions. This inequity
is exacerbated by the fact that since 2001, nearly three times more
whales have been confirmed killed by ship strikes than by entanglement
in fishing gear.
I expect that this resolution will serve to spur productive
conversations between the U.S. and Canada that will ultimately lead to
development of bilateral whale protection measures. By agreeing to
equal protection measures in U.S. and Canadian waters, we can not only
guarantee more comprehensive protection for endangered whales, but also
a fair distribution of cost to affected industries and a level playing
field for both U.S. and Canadian products.

____________________

SENATE RESOLUTION 457--RECOGNIZING THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHINESE NEW YEAR OR SPRING FESTIVAL

Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was considered and
agreed to:

S. Res. 457

Whereas the Chinese New Year is celebrated on the second
new moon following the winter solstice;
Whereas February 7, 2008, marks the first day of the
Chinese New Year for 2008, also known as the Year of the Rat
or the Year of Wu Zi;
Whereas the Chinese New Year festivities begin on the first
day of the first lunar month and end 15 days later with the
celebration of the Lantern Festival;
Whereas there are approximately 3,500,000 Chinese-Americans
in the United States, many of whom will be commemorating this
important occasion;
Whereas this day will be marked by celebrations throughout
our country as Chinese-Americans gather to watch the dragon
and lion dances; and
Whereas the United States Postal Service will debut a new
stamp series for the 12 animals in the Chinese calendar on
February 9, 2008, with the series continuing through 2019:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes the cultural and historical significance of
the Chinese New Year or Spring Festival;
(2) in observance of the Chinese New Year, expresses its
deepest respect for Chinese-Americans and all those
throughout the world who will be celebrating this significant
occasion; and
(3) wishes Chinese-Americans and all those who observe this
holiday a happy and prosperous new year.

____________________

AMENDMENTS SUBMITTED AND PROPOSED

SA 4038. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and
extend the Act.
SA 4039. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4040. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4041. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4042. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4043. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4044. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4045. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4046. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4047. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4048. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4049. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4050. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4051. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4052. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4053. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4054. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4055. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4056. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy,

[[Page 2312]]

Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the
bill S. 1200, supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4057. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4058. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4059. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4060. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4061. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4062. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4063. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4064. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4065. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4066. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra.
SA 4067. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3894 proposed by Mr. Bingaman (for
himself and Mr. Thune) to the amendment SA 3899 proposed by
Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar)
to the bill S. 1200, supra.
SA 4068. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4069. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4070. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra.
SA 4071. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4072. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4073. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra.
SA 4074. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4075. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4076. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4077. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4078. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra.
SA 4079. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4080. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 4070 submitted by Mr. DeMINT to the
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of
Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, supra.
SA 4081. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be
proposed to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for
himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200,
supra; which was ordered to lie on the table.
SA 4082. Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Ms. Murkowski)
proposed an amendment to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr.
Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the
bill S. 1200, supra.
SA 4083. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted
an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 3899
proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, Mr.
Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and
Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, supra.
SA 4084. Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden) proposed an amendment to
the resolution S. Res. 444, expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the strong alliance that has been forged
between the United States and the Republic of Korea and
congratulating Myung-Bak Lee on his election to the
presidency of the Republic of Korea.

____________________

TEXT OF AMENDMENTS

SA 4038. Mr. VITTER submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie on the
table; as follows:

On page 294, strike lines 11 through 15 and insert the
following:

grams involving treatment for victims of sexual abuse who are
Indian children or children in an Indian household.
______

SA 4039. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 7, strike line 17 and all that follows
through page 9, line 5.
______

SA 4040. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 7, line 23, strike ``and Urban Indians''.
______

SA 4041. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith,

[[Page 2313]]

Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 8, lines 19 and 20, strike ``, and conference with
Urban Indian Organizations,''.
______

SA 4042. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 11, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the
following:
``(B) providing immunizations.
______

SA 4043. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 11, strike lines 17 through 19 and insert the
following:

medicine, environmental health and engineering, and allied
health professions.
______

SA 4044. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 11, strike lines 21 through 23 and insert the
following:
``(A) improving health, including by raising public
awareness about
______

SA 4045. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike lines 3 and 4.
______

SA 4046. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike lines 5 and 6.
______

SA 4047. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike lines 7 and 8.
______

SA 4048. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike lines 9 and 10.
______

SA 4049. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike line 18.
______

SA 4050. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 12, strike line 24.
______

SA 4051. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 13, strike lines 5 and 6.
______

SA 4052. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 13, strike line 15.
______

SA 4053. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 13, strike line 19.
______

SA 4054. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 14, strike line 1.
______

SA 4055. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 14, strike line 8.
______

SA 4056. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 14, strike lines 10 and 11 and insert the
following:

by the Service or a Tribal Health Program to pro-
______

SA 4057. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 14, line 20, strike ``(i)''.

[[Page 2314]]

On page 15, line 2, strike ``or''.
On page 15, strike lines 3 and 4.
______

SA 4058. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 15, line 6, insert ``or'' after the semicolon.

On page 15, strike lines 8 through 10 and insert the
following:
Interior to be an Indian for any purpose.
______

SA 4059. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 16, lines 5 and 6, strike ``including former
reservations in Oklahoma, Indian allotments, and'' and insert
``including Indian allotments and''.
______

SA 4060. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 18, strike lines 12 through 20 and insert the
following:

the States in which they reside.
``(B) The individual is determined to be an
______

SA 4061. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 48, strike lines 13 and 14 and insert the
following:

efforts of an Indian Health Program; and
______

SA 4062. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 92, strike lines 22 and 23.
______

SA 4063. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 92, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the
following:

and therapeutic and residential treatment centers.
______

SA 4064. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 159, strike line 12 and all that follows
through page 161, line 16.
______

SA 4065. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 170, strike line 14 and all that follows
through page 172, line 1, and insert the following:
``(1) General projects.--The Secretary may approve under
this section demonstration projects that meet the following
criteria:
``(A) There is a need for a new facility or program, such
as a program for convenient care services, or the
reorientation of an existing facility or program.
``(B) A significant number of Indians, including Indians
with low health status, will be served by the project.
``(C) The project has the potential to deliver services in
an efficient and effective manner.
``(D) The project is economically viable.
``(E) For projects carried out by an Indian Tribe or Tribal
Organization, the Indian Tribe or Tribal Organization has the
administrative and financial capability to administer the
project.
``(F) The project is integrated with providers of related
health and social services and is coordinated with, and
avoids duplication of, existing services in order to expand
the availability of services.
On page 173, line 5, strike ``(1)(A)'' and insert ``(1)''.
On page 173, line 22, strike ``(1)(A)'' and insert ``(1)''.
______

SA 4066. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 207, strike lines 4 and 5 and insert the following:

care organization;
``(4) a self-insured plan; or
``(5) a high deductible or health savings account plan.
______

SA 4067. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3894 proposed by Mr. Bingaman (for himself and Mr. Thune)
to the amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; as follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. RECISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

SA 4068. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Beginning on page 221, strike line 1 and all that follows
through page 245, line 24.
______

SA 4069. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 260, between lines 15 and 16, insert the following:

[[Page 2315]]

``(g) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no funds shall be made available under this section for
any needle exchange program.
______

SA 4070. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

SA 4071. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 364, strike lines 7 through 9 and insert the
following:

or colony, including
______

SA 4072. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 364, strike lines 17 through 23.
On page 364, line 24, strike ``(D)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 365, line 1, strike ``through (C)'' and insert
``and (B)''.
______

SA 4073. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

At the end, add the following:

TITLE III--APPLICABILITY

SEC. 3__. INDIAN TRIBES OPERATING CLASS III GAMING
ACTIVITIES.

SA 4074. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

At the end add the following:

TITLE III--APPLICABILITY

SEC. 3__. INDIAN TRIBES WITH CERTAIN GAMING REVENUES.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall not
apply to any Indian tribe for each calendar year during which
the revenues of the Indian tribe from any class III gaming
activity (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)) are in excess of
$100,000,000.
______

SA 4075. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Strike paragraph (12) of section 4 of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101) and insert
the following:
``(12) The term `Indian' means any individual who is a
member of an Indian Tribe.
______

SA 4076. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

In section 213(a) of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(as amended by section 101), strike paragraphs (1) through
(4) and insert the following:
``(1) hospice care; and
``(2) home- and community-based services.
______

SA 4077. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

Strike section 814 of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act (as amended by section 101) (relating to establishment of
a National Bipartisan Commission on Indian Health Care).
______

SA 4078. Mr. COBURN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

At the appropriate place in title VIII of the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act (as amended by section 101), insert the
following:

``SEC. 8__. STUDY ON TOBACCO-RELATED DISEASE AND
DISPROPORTIONATE HEALTH EFFECTS ON TRIBAL
POPULATIONS.

``Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments of 2008,
the Secretary, in consultation with appropriate Federal
departments and agencies and acting through the epidemiology
centers established under section 209, shall solicit from
independent organizations bids to conduct, and shall submit
to Congress a report describing the results of, a study to
determine possible causes for the high prevalence of tobacco
use among Indians.
______

SA 4079. Mr. BINGAMAN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

At the end of title I, add the following:

SEC. ___. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT
HEALTH SERVICES.

SA 4080. Mr. DeMINT submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by
him to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act to

[[Page 2316]]

revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie on the table; as
follows:

At the appropriate place, add the following:

SEC. __. RECISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS.

SA 4081. Mr. DURBIN submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to
amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms. Murkowski,
Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, and Mr.
Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; which was ordered to lie
on the table; as follows:

On page 397, after line 2, add the following:

SEC. 213. EXTENSION OF PROHIBITION ON MEDICAID PUBLIC
PROVIDER AND GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION RULES.

Section 7002(a)(1) of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans'
Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-28) is amended in
the matter preceding subparagraph (A) by striking ``1 year''
and inserting ``2 years''.
______

SA 4082. Mr. DORGAN (for himself and Ms. Murkowski) proposed an
amendment to amendment SA 3899 proposed by Mr. Dorgan (for himself, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska,
and Mr. Salazar) to the bill S. 1200, to amend the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act; as follows:

On page 139, strike lines 5 through 9 and insert the
following:

``(III) may include such health care facilities, and such
renovation or expansion needs of any health care facility, as
the Service may identify; and

On page 143, strike lines 15 through 17 and insert the
following:

wellness centers, and staff quarters, and the renovation and
expan-

``SEC. 303. PREFERENCE TO INDIANS AND INDIAN FIRMS.

``SEC. 8__. TRIBAL HEALTH PROGRAM OPTION FOR COST SHARING.

SEC. 104. MODIFICATION OF TERM.

[[Page 2317]]

interim final regulations specifying the forms of
documentation (including tribal documentation, if
appropriate) deemed to be satisfactory evidence of the United
States citizenship or nationality of a member of any such
Indian tribe for purposes of satisfying the requirements of
this subsection.
``(III) During the period that begins on the date of
enactment of this clause and ends on the effective date of
the interim final regulations promulgated under subclause
(II), a document issued by a federally recognized Indian
tribe referred to in subclause (I) evidencing membership or
enrollment in, or affiliation with, such tribe (such as a
tribal enrollment card or certificate of degree of Indian
blood) accompanied by a signed attestation that the
individual is a citizen of the United States and a
certification by the appropriate officer or agent of the
Indian tribe that the membership or other records maintained
by the Indian tribe indicate that the individual was born in
the United States is deemed to be a document described in
this subparagraph for purposes of satisfying the requirements
of this subsection.''.
On page 360, strike lines 21 and 22.
Beginning on page 361, strike line 19 and all that follows
through page 362, line 4, and insert the following:
``(1) No cost sharing for indians furnished items or
services directly by or through indian health programs.--
``(A) No enrollment fees, premiums, or copayments.--
``(i) In general.--No enrollment fee, premium, or similar
charge, and no deduction, copayment, cost sharing, or similar
charge shall be imposed against an Indian who is furnished an
item or service directly by the Indian Health Service, an
Indian Tribe, a Tribal Organization, or an urban Indian
organization, or by a health care provider through referral
under the contract health service for which payment may be
made under this title.
``(ii) Exception.--Clause (i) shall not apply to an
individual only eligible for the programs or services under
sections 102 and 103 or title V of the Indian Health Care
Improvement Act.
______

SA 4083. Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Thune) submitted an
amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 1200, to amend
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act to revise and extend the Act;
which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

At the end of title I, add the following:

SEC. ___. GAO STUDY AND REPORT ON PAYMENTS FOR CONTRACT
HEALTH SERVICES.

(a) Study.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States (in this section referred to as the ``Comptroller
General'') shall conduct a study on the utilization of health
care furnished by health care providers under the contract
health services program funded by the Indian Health Service
and operated by the Indian Health Service, an Indian Tribe,
or a Tribal Organization (as those terms are defined in
section 4 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act).
(2) Analysis.--The study conducted under paragraph (1)
shall include an analysis of--
(A) the amounts reimbursed under the contract health
services program described in paragraph (1) for health care
furnished by entities, individual providers, and suppliers,
including a comparison of reimbursement for such health care
through other public programs and in the private sector;
(B) barriers to accessing care under such contract health
services program, including, but not limited to, barriers
relating to travel distances, cultural differences, and
public and private sector reluctance to furnish care to
patients under such program;
(C) the adequacy of existing Federal funding for health
care under such contract health services program; and
(D) any other items determined appropriate by the
Comptroller General.
(b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit
to Congress a report on the study conducted under subsection
(a), together with recommendations regarding--
(1) the appropriate level of Federal funding that should be
established for health care under the contract health
services program described in subsection (a)(1); and
(2) how to most efficiently utilize such funding.
(c) Consultation.--In conducting the study under subsection
(a) and preparing the report under subsection (b), the
Comptroller General shall consult with the Indian Health
Service, Indian Tribes, and Tribal Organizations.
______

SA 4084. Mr. REID (for Mr. Biden) proposed an amendment to the
resolution S. Res. 444, expressing the sense of the Senate regarding
the strong alliance that has been forged between the United States and
the Republic of Korea and congratulating Myung-Bak Lee on his election
to the presidency of the Republic of Korea; as follows:

On page 2, strike ``the Republic of Korea is the United
States seventh largest training partner and the United States
is the third largest trading partner of the Republic of
Korea, with nearly $80,000,000,000 in goods and services
passing between the 2 countries each year'' and insert ``the
economic relationship between the United States and the
Republic of Korea is deep and growing and has been mutually
beneficial to both countries''.

____________________

NOTICE OF HEARING

subcommittee on water and power

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the
information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been
scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on February
28, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building in Washington, DC.
The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following
bills: S. 177/H.R. 2085, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
convey to the McGee Creek Authority certain facilities of the McGee
Creek Project, Oklahoma, and for other purposes; S. 1473/H.R. 1855, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Madera
Irrigation District for purposes of supporting the Madera Water Supply
Enhancement Project; S. 1474/H.R. 1139, to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to plan, design and construct facilities to provide water
for irrigation, municipal, domestic, and other uses from the Bunker
Hill Groundwater Basin, Santa Ana River, California, and for other
purposes; S. 1929, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study
of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed; S.
2370, to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated
with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes; H.R. 2381,
to promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific
basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.
Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may
testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written
testimony for the hearing record should send it to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC
20510-6150, or by email to Gina_W[email protected].
For further information, please contact Michael Connor at (202) 224-
5479 or Gina Weinstock at (202) 224-5684.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO MEET

Committee on Armed Services

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 11:10 a.m. in open session,
in order to receive testimony on the strategy in Afghanistan and recent
reports by the Afghanistan study group and the Atlantic Council of the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Armed Services

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 2:30 p.m. in open session, in
order to receive testimony on the strategy in Afghanistan and recent
reports by the Afghanistan study group and the Atlantic Council of the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on February 14, 2008, at 10 a.m., in
order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The State of the United States
Economy and Financial Markets.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 2318]]

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
an Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the
session of the Senate in order to conduct a hearing on Thursday,
February, 14, 2008, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD366 of the Dirksen Senate
Office Building. At this hearing, the Committee will hear testimony
regarding the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the USDA
Forest Service.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on environment and public works

Mr. DORGAN. 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 Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. in
room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a
hearing entitled, ``Legislative Hearing on the Marine Vessel Emissions
Reduction Act of 2007, S. 1499.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on finance

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on
Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building, in order to hear testimony on ``International
Aspects of a Climate Change Cap and Trade Program''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Foreign Relations

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session
of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 3:45 p.m. in order to
hold a committee coffee with Her Excellency Dora Bakoyannis, Foreign
Minister of the Hellenic Republic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to
meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday,
February 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. in SD-430.

Agenda

S. 579. Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007; S.
1810, Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act; S.
999, Stroke Treatment and Ongoing Prevention Act of 2007; S. 1760,
Healthy Start Reauthorization Act of 2007; H.R. 20, Melanie Blocker-
Stokes Postpartum Depression Research and Care Act; S. 1042,
Consistency, Accuracy, Responsibility, and Excellence in Medical
Imaging and Radiation Therapy Act of 2007.
Nominations: Jonathan Baron, (National Board for Education
Sciences), Frank Handy, (National Board for Education Sciences), Sally
Shaywitz, (National Board for Education Sciences), Jamsheed Choksy,
(National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities), Gary Glenn, (National
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities), David Hertz, (National
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities), Marvin Scott, (National
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities), Carol Swain, (National
Foundation on the Arts and Humanities), Julia Bland, (National Museum
and Library Science Board), Jan Cellucci, (National Museum and Library
Science Board), William Hagenah, (National Museum and Library Science
Board), Mark Herring, (National Museum and Library Science Board),
Javaid Anwar, (Truman Scholarship Foundation), and Neil Romano,
(Assistant Secretary of Labor Department).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

committee on homeland security and governmental affairs

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet
during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at
1:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Homeland
Security Department's Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2009.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.

committee on indian affairs

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate, on Thursday, February 14, at 9:30 a.m. in room 628 of the
Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct an Oversight Hearing
on the President's fiscal year 2009 Budget Request for Tribal Programs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so orderd.

committee on the judiciary

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate, in order to conduct an executive business meeting on
Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen
Senate Office Building.

Agenda:

I. Bills: S. 2304, Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime
Reduction Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 (Domenici,
Kennedy, Specter, Leahy); S. 2449, Sunshine in Litigation Act of 2007
(Kohl, Leahy, Graham); S. 352, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007
(Grassley, Schumer, Leahy, Specter, Graham, Feingold, Cornyn, Durbin);
S. 2136, Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2007
(Durbin; Schumer, Whitehouse, Biden); S. 2133, Home Owners ``Mortgage
and Equity Savings Act'' (Specter, Coleman).
II. Nominations: Kevin J. O'Connor to be Associate Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Gregory G. Katsas to be Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Division, Department of Justice.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal
workforce, and the district of columbia

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia be authorized to meet during the session of the
Senate on Thursday, February 14, 2008, at 9:45 a.m., in order to
conduct a hearing entitled, ``Building and Strengthening the Federal
Acquisition Workforce.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

select committee on intelligence

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select
Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of
the Senate on February 14, 2008, at 2:30 p.m., to hold an open hearing.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

PRIVILEGES OF THE FLOOR

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Colin
Brooks, a fellow in my office, be given floor privileges for the
remainder of the 110th Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

LIHEAP

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I feel I wouldn't be doing my duty if I
didn't refer to the distinguished Chair at this time and indicate what
a tremendous job he has done in advocating for some of the poorest
people in America. But for you, the issue dealing with people being
cold in their homes, not having money to pay their heating and other
bills--mainly heating--would not be on the floor of this body. We are
going to get that done. We have to get it done before the cold is gone.
I say to my friend, being from Vermont, you experience the bitter
winters. We in Nevada experience the very hot summers, and people in
Nevada who are poor and infirm suffer as much from the heat as people
in

[[Page 2319]]

Vermont do from the cold. So just because winter is not in its full
throes a month from now, we are going to continue to push on this issue
until we get it done. We are not going to wait until next year to do
that.

____________________

UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 2633 AND S. 2634

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday,
February 25, notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order to move to
proceed to the following in the order listed, and that cloture be
filed; and once the motion has been made and cloture filed, the motion
to proceed be withdrawn and the mandatory quorum be waived, with the
cloture vote occurring on Tuesday, February 26, upon disposition of
H.R. 1328, with 2 minutes of debate prior to each cloture vote
specified in this agreement, equally divided and controlled between the
leaders or their designees: Calendar No. 575, S. 2633, safe
redeployment of U.S. troops, and Calendar No. 576, S. 2634, global
strategy report on terrorism.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

NEW DIRECTION FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE, NATIONAL SECURITY, AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT AND THE RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY CONSERVATION TAX ACT
OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 340,
H.R. 3221, and ask the clerk to report the cloture motion.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 340, H.R. 3221.
Harry Reid, John D. Rockefeller, IV, Russell D. Feingold,
Max Baucus, Charles E. Schumer, Kent Conrad, Patty
Murray, Amy Klobuchar, Jeff Bingaman, Richard Durbin,
Mark L. Pryor, Carl Levin, Edward M. Kennedy, Patrick
J. Leahy, Bernard Sanders, Debbie Stabenow, Byron L.
Dorgan.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture
vote not occur prior to the aforementioned cloture votes, and that the
mandatory quorum be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I now withdraw the motion, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

____________________

CAMERON GULBRANSEN KIDS AND CARS SAFETY ACT OF 2007

Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Clinton,
Senator Sununu, and myself, I ask unanimous consent that the Commerce
Committee be discharged and the Senate proceed to the immediate
consideration of H.R. 1216, the Kids and Cars Safety Act, otherwise
known as the Cameron Gulbransen Kids and Cars Safety Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1216) to direct the Secretary of
Transportation to issue regulations to reduce the incidence
of child injury and death occurring inside and outside of
light motor vehicles, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SUNUNU. Reserving the right to object, and I certainly will not,
given that the Senator from Florida has offered the consent on my
behalf, I thank him for stepping forward and offering his request.
This is legislation that I coauthored with Senator Clinton. On the
House side, there were Representatives Jan Schakowsky and Peter King
who introduced companion legislation. It addresses the issue of known
traffic accidents. There were 230 children killed last year in
nontraffic auto accidents. We worked very cooperatively with Senator
Nelson and others on the Commerce Committee to put together a package
that could be implemented quickly and effectively to help reduce this
unnecessary loss of life.
I thank Senator Nelson for his work on the committee and certainly
offer my praise for the work done on the other side. I am pleased to
see that this legislation is going to be passed and sent to the
President and become law. Again, I thank the Senator from Florida.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read
a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the
table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the
Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 1216) was ordered to be read a third time, was read
the third time, and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida. Mr. NELSON of
Florida. Mr. President, I just want to say this has been a long time
coming. There was a hiccup back in December. We tried to get it cleared
then. This is the backover bill, the horror of any parents that their
child is behind the car, and they cannot see the child or a neighbor is
backing from their garage down their driveway, and they cannot see the
child.
So what this bill will require is a device that can be either a
sensor or a viewer. It will require that in future vehicles. It will
also require that when automatic windows go up, if they hit an object,
such as a child's neck and head, automatically that window goes down.
This is much-needed legislation. We are very appreciative that the
Senate has cleared this action, and we can get it over to the House and
try to get it passed.
I yield the floor.

____________________

ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of S.
Res. 444 and that the Senate then proceed to its 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. 444) expressing the sense of the
Senate regarding the strong alliance that has been forged
between the United States and the Republic of Korea and
congratulating Myung-Bak Lee on his election to the
presidency of the Republic of Korea.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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, and the motions to reconsider be
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, and that any
statements be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 444) was agreed to.
The amendment (No. 4084) was agreed to, as follows:

(Purpose: To modify the description of the economic relationship
between the United States and the Republic of Korea)

The preamble, as amended, was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, as amended, reads as follows:

S. Res. 444

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea enjoy a
comprehensive alliance

[[Page 2320]]

partnership founded in shared strategic interests and
cemented by a commitment to democratic values;
Whereas the alliance between the United States and the
Republic of Korea has been forged in blood and honed by
struggles against common adversaries;
Whereas on December 19, 2007, the Senate passed S. Res.
279, marking the 125th anniversary of the 1882 Treaty of
Peace, Amity, Commerce and Navigation between the Kingdom of
Chosun (Korea) and the United States, and recognizing that
``the strength and endurance of the alliance between the
United States and the Republic of Korea should be
acknowledged and celebrated'';
Whereas during the 60 years since the founding of the
Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948, the Republic of Korea,
with unwavering commitment and support from the United
States, has accomplished a remarkable economic and political
transformation, rising from poverty to become the 11th
largest economy in the world and a thriving multi-party
democracy;
Whereas the economic relationship between the United States
and the Republic of Korea is deep and growing and has been
mutually beneficial to both countries;
Whereas there are deep cultural and personal ties between
the people of the United States and the people of the
Republic of Korea, as exemplified by the large flow of
visitors and exchanges each year between the 2 countries and
the nearly 2,000,000 Korean Americans who currently reside in
the United States;
Whereas the United States and the Republic of Korea are
working together to address the threat posed by North Korea's
nuclear weapons program and to build a lasting peace on the
Korean Peninsula;
Whereas this alliance is promoting international peace and
security, economic prosperity, human rights and the rule of
law, not only on the Korean Peninsula, but also throughout
the world; and
Whereas Myung-Bak Lee, who won election to become the next
President of the Republic of Korea, has affirmed his deep
commitment to further strengthening the alliance between the
United States and the Republic of Korea, by expanding areas
of cooperation and realizing the full potential of our
mutually beneficial partnership: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate congratulates Myung-Bak Lee on
his election to the presidency of the Republic of Korea and
wishes him and the Korean people well on his inauguration on
February 25, 2008.

____________________

EXPRESSING STRONG SUPPORT OF SENATE FOR NATO TO ENTER INTO A MEMBERSHIP
ACTION PLAN WITH GEORGIA AND UKRAINE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 574, S. Res. 439.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 439) expressing the strong support of
the Senate for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to
enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution
be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider
be laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 439) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 439

Whereas the sustained commitment of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) to mutual defense has made
possible the democratic transformation of Central and Eastern
Europe and Eurasia;
Whereas NATO members can and should play a critical role in
addressing the security challenges of the post-Cold War era
in creating the stable environment needed for emerging
democracies in Europe and Eurasia;
Whereas lasting stability and security in Europe and
Eurasia require the military, economic, and political
integration of emerging democracies into existing European
structures;
Whereas, in an era of threats from terrorism and the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, NATO is
increasingly contributing to security in the face of global
security challenges for the protection and interests of its
member states;
Whereas the Government of Georgia and the Government of
Ukraine have each expressed a desire to join the Euro-
Atlantic community, and Georgia and Ukraine are working
closely with NATO and its members to meet criteria for
eventual NATO membership;
Whereas, at the NATO-Ukraine Commission Foreign Ministerial
meeting in Vilnius in April 2005, NATO and Ukraine launched
an Intensified Dialogue on membership between the Alliance
and Ukraine;
Whereas, following a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers in
New York on September 21, 2006, NATO Secretary General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer announced the launching of an Intensified
Dialogue on membership between NATO and Georgia;
Whereas the Riga Summit Declaration, issued by the heads of
state and government participating in the meeting of the
North Atlantic Council in November 2006, reaffirms that
NATO's door remains open to new members and that NATO will
continue to review the process for new membership, stating
``We reaffirm that the Alliance will continue with Georgia
and Ukraine its Intensified Dialogues which cover the full
range of political, military, financial, and security issues
relating to those countries' aspirations to membership,
without prejudice to any eventual Alliance decision. We
reaffirm the importance of the NATO-Ukraine Distinctive
Partnership, which has its 10th anniversary next year and
welcome the progress that has been made in the framework of
our Intensified Dialogue. We appreciate Ukraine's substantial
contributions to our common security, including through
participation in NATO-led operations and efforts to promote
regional cooperation. We encourage Ukraine to continue to
contribute to regional security. We are determined to
continue to assist, through practical cooperation, in the
implementation of far-reaching reform efforts, notably in the
fields of national security, defense, reform of the defense-
industrial sector and fighting corruption. We welcome the
commencement of an Intensified Dialogue with Georgia as well
as Georgia's contribution to international peacekeeping and
security operations. We will continue to engage actively with
Georgia in support of its reform process. We encourage
Georgia to continue progress on political, economic and
military reforms, including strengthening judicial reform, as
well as the peaceful resolution of outstanding conflicts on
its territory. We reaffirm that it is of great importance
that all parties in the region should engage constructively
to promote regional peace and stability.'';
Whereas, in January 2008, Ukraine forwarded to NATO
Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer a letter, signed by
President Victor Yushchenko, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko,
and Verkhovna Rada Speaker Arseny Yatensyuk, requesting that
NATO integrate Ukraine into the Membership Action Plan;
Whereas, in January 2008, Georgia held a referendum on NATO
and 76.22 percent of the votes supported membership;
Whereas participation in a Membership Action Plan does not
guarantee future membership in the NATO Alliance; and
Whereas NATO membership requires significant national and
international commitments and sacrifices and is not possible
without the support of the populations of the NATO member
States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
(1) the Senate--
(A) reaffirms its previous expressions of support for
continued enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) to include qualified candidates; and
(B) supports the commitment to further enlargement of NATO
to include democratic governments that are able and willing
to meet the responsibilities of membership;
(2) the expansion of NATO contributes to NATO's continued
effectiveness and relevance;
(3) Georgia and Ukraine are strong allies that have made
important progress in the areas of defense, 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; and
(5) the United States should take the lead in supporting
the awarding of a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and
Ukraine as soon as possible.

____________________

RECOGNIZING CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CHINESE NEW YEAR OR
SPRING FESTIVAL

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to consideration of S. Res. 457.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S. Res. 457) recognizing the cultural and
historical significance of the Chinese New Year or Spring
Festival.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I come to the floor today with the distinct
honor of supporting a resolution recognizing

[[Page 2321]]

the cultural and historical significance of the Chinese New Year, held
annually on the first day of the first lunar month of the Chinese
calendar.
For the approximately 3.5 million Chinese-Americans currently living
in the United States, the Chinese New Year represents one of the most
important times for families and friends to get together and celebrate
their rich cultural history. In my home county, Clark County, NV,
thousands of Chinese-Americans, and Asian-Americans of various
nationalities and ethnicities, recently celebrated the inception of the
Year of the Rat.
In fact, February 7, 2008, of our calendar, the date on which the
Year of the Rat began, marked the beginning of year 4705 of the Chinese
calendar. I am so proud to recognize and offer my best wishes to all
those Nevadans and Americans who have followed in the footsteps of so
many past generations to observe this 2-week long festival, which
culminates in the Lantern Festival to be held on the fifteenth day of
the first lunar month.
Throughout this 15-day celebration, many members of Nevada's Chinese-
American community will take this opportunity to spend time with their
families and engage in traditional activities, such as the dragon and
lion dances. To all of my friends back in Clark County, and throughout
Nevada as a whole who observe this holiday, I wish you a joyous and
prosperous New Year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed
to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon
the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in
the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The resolution (S. Res. 457) was agreed to.
The preamble was agreed to.
The resolution, with its preamble, reads as follows:

S. Res. 457

____________________

PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL ADJOURNMENT OR RECESS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now proceed
to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 293.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the concurrent
resolution by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows.

A concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 293) providing for a
conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives and a
conditional recess or adjournment of the Senate.

There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the
resolution.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be
agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no
intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 293) was agreed to, as
follows:

H. Con. Res. 293

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate
concurring), That when the House adjourns on the legislative
day of Thursday, February 14, 2008, on a motion offered
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Friday,
February 15, 2008, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first; that when the House adjourns on the
legislative day of Friday, February 15, 2008, on a motion
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand adjourned until 10
a.m. on Tuesday, February 19, 2008, or until the time of any
reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent
resolution, whichever occurs first; that when the House
adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, February 19,
2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned until noon on Thursday, February 21, 2008, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; that when the
House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, February
21, 2008, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent
resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, February 25, 2008, or until
the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when
the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Friday,
February 15, 2008, through Friday, February 22, 2008, on a
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its
Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or
adjourned until noon on Monday, February 25, 2008, or such
other time on that day as may be specified in the motion to
recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly
pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution,
whichever occurs first.
Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader
of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly
after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and
the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members
of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble at
such place and time as they may designate if, in their
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

____________________

APPOINTMENTS

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,
pursuant to section 5 of title I of Division H of Public Law 110-161,
appoints the following Senator as vice chairman of the U.S.-Japan
Interparliamentary Group conference for the 110th Congress: the Senator
from Alaska, Mr. Stevens.
The Chair, on behalf of the Democratic Leader, pursuant to the
provisions of Public Law 110-161, appoints the following individuals to
serve as members of the National Commission on Children and Disasters:
Mark Shriver of Maryland and Sheila Leslie of Nevada.
The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, pursuant to the
provisions of 2 U.S.C. Sec. 1151, as amended, appoints the following
individual to the Board of Trustees of the Open World Leadership
Center: the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Wicker.
The Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, pursuant to the
provisions of Public Law 100-702, reappoints the following individual
to the Federal Judicial Center Foundation Board: John B. White, Jr., of
South Carolina.

____________________

AUTHORITY FOR COMMITTEES TO REPORT

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that Senate committees may report
legislative and Executive Calendar business, notwithstanding a recess
or adjournment of the Senate, on Friday, February 22, 2008, from 10
a.m. to 12 noon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

APPOINTMENT AUTHORIZATION

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding
the recess or adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate,
the President of the Senate pro tempore, and the majority and minority
leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees,
boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by
law, by concurrent action of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

[[Page 2322]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ORDER FOR RECORD TO REMAIN OPEN

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent, notwithstanding the Senate being
in pro forma session on Friday, February 15, that the Record remain
open until 12 noon for bill introductions and statements.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

ORDER OF PROCEDURE

Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its
business today, it stand in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday,
February 15; that on Friday, the Senate meet in pro forma session only
with no business conducted; that the Senate recess until 11 a.m. on
Tuesday, February 19, for a pro forma session only, with no business
conducted; the Senate then recess until 10 a.m. on Friday, February 22,
for a pro forma session only; that at the close of Friday's session,
the Senate adjourn until 3 p.m. on Monday, February 25; further that
the Journal of proceedings be agreed to, the morning hour be deemed
expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later
in the day, and following the reading of the Washington's Farewell
Address, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1200, the Indian Health
Care Improvement Act, as under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________

RECESS UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

Mr. REID. 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 8:13 p.m., recessed until
Friday, February 15, 2008, at 10 a.m.

____________________

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate:

FEDERAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND

JEFFREY ROBERT BROWN, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL SUPPLEMENTARY MEDICAL
INSURANCE TRUST FUND FOR A TERM OF FOUR YEARS, VICE THOMAS R.
SAVING.

THE JUDICIARY

DAVID GUSTAFSON, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES TAX COURT FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN YEARS, VICE CAROLYN P.
CHIECHI, TERM EXPIRED.
ELIZABETH CREWSON PARIS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE
A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT FOR A TERM OF FIFTEEN
YEARS, VICE JOEL GERBER, RETIRED.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

JOSEPH EVAN LEBARON, OF OREGON, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE STATE OF QATAR.
STEPHEN JAMES NOLAN, OF VIRGINIA, A CAREER MEMBER OF THE
SENIOR FOREIGN SERVICE, CLASS OF MINISTER-COUNSELOR, TO BE
AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY AND PLENIPOTENTIARY OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA TO THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA.

INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION, UNITED STATES AND CANADA

SAMUEL W. SPECK, OF OHIO, TO BE A COMMISSIONER ON THE PART
OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION,
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, VICE DENNIS L. SCHORNACK.

THE JUDICIARY

WILLIAM T. LAWRENCE, OF INDIANA, TO BE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA, VICE
JOHN DANIEL TINDER, ELEVATED.

IN THE ARMY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES ARMY TO THE GRADE INDICATED WHILE ASSIGNED TO A
POSITION OF IMPORTANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 601:

To be general

LT. GEN. WALTER L. SHARP, 0000

IN THE MARINE CORPS

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES MARINE CORPS RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER
TITLE 10, U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be brigadier general

COL. JAMES M. LARIVIERE, 0000
COL. KENNETH J. LEE, 0000

IN THE NAVY

THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) MOIRA N. FLANDERS, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) TIMOTHY V. FLYNN III, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) VICTOR C. SEE, JR., 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) KAREN A. FLAHERTY, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICER FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) RAYMOND P. ENGLISH, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR PROMOTION IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY RESERVE TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10,
U.S.C., SECTION 12203:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) JULIUS S. CAESAR, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) WENDI B. CARPENTER, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) GARLAND P. WRIGHT, 0000
THE FOLLOWING NAMED OFFICERS FOR APPOINTMENT IN THE UNITED
STATES NAVY TO THE GRADE INDICATED UNDER TITLE 10, U.S.C.,
SECTION 624:

To be rear admiral

REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM R. BURKE, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) MARK H. BUZBY, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) PHILIP H. CULLOM, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) MARK I. FOX, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) TIMOTHY M. GIARDINA, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) ROBERT S. HARWARD, JR., 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) WILLIAM H. HILARIDES, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) DANIEL HOLLOWAY, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) DOUGLAS J. MCANENY, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) JOHN W. MILLER, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) MICHAEL S. O'BRYAN, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) FRANK C. PANDOLFE, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) DAVID L. PHILMAN, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) BRIAN C. PRINDLE, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) DONALD P. QUINN, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) WALTER M. SKINNER, 0000
REAR ADM. (LH) JAMES P. WISECUP, 0000

[[Page 2323]]

EXTENSIONS OF REMARKS
____________________

HONORING STATION MENEMSHA AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE SUMNER I. KIMBALL
AWARD

______

HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor United States
Coast Guard Station Menemsha, of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, as
the recipient of the prestigious Sumner I. Kimball Readiness Award.
The Kimball Award is a rarity in the United States Coast Guard, as
very few units attain this level of outstanding performance. It demands
a grade of 90 percent or higher during a rigorous week-long inspection,
requiring a combination of exemplary test scores, crew proficiency,
superb vessel condition, excellent performance in drills, a successful
and progressive unit training program, survival systems readiness and
good administrative work by all members.
This award actually marks the second time that Menemsha has been
given this prestigious honor--they won it for the first time in 2004.
This award is named after the Maine native who introduced training,
performance standards and accountability into the life saving
organization that eventually became the Coast Guard. This honor is
extremely difficult to achieve, and even more noteworthy considering
the high-tech vessel the crew must master and maintain, the 47-foot
Motor Lifeboat. Of the 200 Coast Guard stations throughout the country,
only a handful receive the Kimball Award, and only two stations that
operate the 47-foot MLB were so honored.
The Menemsha Coast Guard station has come a long way. In the early
1990s it was in danger of closing, but the people of Martha's Vineyard
rallied to save it. For a brief period it was used by the Town of
Chilmark, and then it became a substation of the Woods Hole station. In
recent years, it became a full-time station and--time and time again--
has proven its importance. This award is not just a testament to the
station, but it is a tribute to the hard-working men and women who
serve our Coast Guard and who are willing to put their life on the line
to protect the safety of mariners and the integrity of our coast.
On the Vineyard, the Coast Guard is an important part of the
community. Those who first served as life savers came from the island,
and are part of a very proud tradition that began here years ago.
Today, those who serve in Station Menemsha are not just representing a
Federal agency, but are very much members of the community, honoring
the proud tradition of service that the people of Martha's Vineyard
hold dear.
Station Menemsha's remarkable achievement is not just about receiving
an award; it is a testament to the professionalism and dedication that
each member of the station brings to the job. In their line of work,
readiness and competence is the difference between life and death.
I would like to congratulate and recognize Station Chief Steve Barr
and the men and women stationed at Menemsha for their exemplary
service:
BM3 Dustin Shaw, BM2 Matthew Sponable, BM2 Bill Robertson, SK2 Rachel
Glade, MK3 Christopher Guice, FN Julie Lopatka, BMCM Jack Downey. BMC
Chris Bobrowski, FN Shannon Heintzelman, BM3 Rajeah Wilson, BM2 Lance
Nelligan, MK3 Greg Lockwood, SN Derek Perendy, BM3 Daniel Carrillo, MK1
Mike Micucci, MK2 Nicholas Prescott, SN Jarrett Dube, RADM Timothy
Sullivan, MK3 Andrew Chace, BM2 Patrick Bryant, BM3 Andrew Leblanc, BM3
Joe Pancotti, CAPT Raymond Perry, and BM3 Mark Chaknis.

[From the Martha's Vineyard Times, Jan. 31, 2008]

Station Menemsha Wins Rare Readiness Award

(By Steve Myrick)

Last summer, a fishing boat in a dangerous stretch of water
off Aquinnah was taking on water. The call for help came to
United States Coast Guard Station Menemsha.
Petty Officer Second Class Lance Nelligan scrambled his
crew, and guided the station's 47-foot motor lifeboat to the
distressed vessel, where the fishing crew was moments away
from abandoning their sinking boat.
``They came across Devil's Bridge,'' said Petty Officer
Nelligan, ``bounced a couple of rocks, split a whole bunch of
big cracks in the bottom of their hull. We were able to get
out there, we put two people on board to rig a pump and get
the boat pumped.''
Petty Officer Nelligan recounts the story of his day's work
the way most people mention writing a sales report, replacing
a fan belt, or waiting on a customer. The skill, training,
and preparation of his crew saved a valuable boat and got two
very grateful fisherman safely back to port. But to him, it's
no big deal.
But the Sumner I. Kimball Award? Now that's a big deal to
Petty Officer Nelligan. ``To have somebody come in and say
the job that you're doing is award worthy, is a really big
deal,'' he said. ``The things that we're tested on, it's
absolutely everything you can think of. It takes a lot, a
lot, a lot of work to keep those boats ready, and keep the
crew ready.''
``In my mind,'' adds Petty Officer Second Class Bill
Robertson, ``this is almost the Super Bowl of the Coast
Guard.''

Boat of note

The Kimball Award is named for the Maine native who
introduced training, performance standards, and
accountability into the life saving organization that
eventually became the Coast Guard.
The honor is extremely difficult to achieve, and even more
noteworthy considering the high-tech vessel the crew must
master and maintain. It is a test of readiness, including the
condition of the vessel, along with the skill and training of
the crew, administered by inspectors so tough that they
inspire awe among the enlisted men and women.
``This isn't flag football, everybody gets a trophy sort of
a deal,'' said Rear Admiral Tim Sullivan, who flew to the
Island to present the honor to station personnel this past
Friday. Admiral Sullivan commands the Coast Guard's First
District, which includes eight northeast states and 2000
miles of coastline from the Maine to northern New Jersey.
Of more than 200 Coast Guard stations throughout the
country, only a handful receive the Kimball Award, and only
two stations that operate the 47-foot motor lifeboat were so
honored.
``It's the most complicated boat we have, it's a beast of a
machine,'' said Lieutenant Commander Chris Cederholm, who
represented Coast Guard Group Woods Hole at the ceremony.
``This award will become a benchmark,'' Admiral Sullivan
said. ``You guys really set a benchmark as a crew. Your
outstanding performance is really your gift to a lot of
future generations. A lot of folks will follow behind you,
they will have to stand on a lot of big blue shoulders.
People are going to be standing on your shoulders. This is a
day you'll look back on, maybe when you're an old grey
admiral. Think about that legacy, of people that will follow
behind you.''
Coast Guard Petty Officers (left to right) BM2 Bill
Robertson and BM2 Lance Nelligan were all smiles, holding the
pennant they will fly aboard Station Menemsha's 47-foot motor
lifeboat. The pennant symbolizes the Kimball Award, earned by
only one other boat of this kind in the entire Coast Guard
this year. Click photo for larger version.

Tough test

Seven months after the grueling evaluation, MK First Class
Mike Micucci, the head engineer, still scolds himself about
one of the most serious faults the inspectors found in the
material condition of his vessel: a missing screw in a
plastic cover. It was nothing that would have interfered in
the boat's operation, but it cost him a precious point in the
rating system.
``I can't believe I missed that,'' said Petty Officer
Micucci. ``The guys that come and do the inspections, they
know what to look for, you have to be one step ahead of
them.''
Senior Station Chief Steve Barr was unable to attend the
ceremony. At the moment his station personnel received the
award, he was welcoming newborn son Isaac into the world.
``He's got a good excuse,'' said Admiral Sullivan.
``Another little Coastie coming along.''
``I wish I could have been there, absolutely,'' said Chief
Barr. ``It's a joy for me that my crew got this award, with
or without me. The fact that we got this Kimball with the 47-
foot motor lifeboat is just amazing. It's a big deal, and we
have a lot of junior people there. They did exceptionally
well. I'm very proud of all their hard work.''

[[Page 2324]]

Ready and able

As difficult as the Kimball Award is to get, it is not
difficult to understand how the station achieved the honor.
Speaking to the personnel offers a glimpse of the
professionalism, pride, and dedication which courses through
the ranks. They understand that the award represents more
than passing an exam on a specific day. They know an engine
leak, a poorly maintained pump, or a navigation error may
mean points deducted from the Kimball award grade sheet.
``They watch us plot position, lay down courses,'' said Petty
Officer Nelligan. ``How we organize the crew, how we get our
boat set up, how we're going to respond. They're pretty much
testing everything that could possible go wrong.''
The unit also realizes these things can mean life or death
when it's not a drill. ``We are a search and rescue
station,'' said Petty Officer Nelligan. ``It's the middle of
the night, it's the middle of the day, during a meal, those
are the times you really have to snap to and get the boats
ready.''
Petty Officer Nelligan joined the Coast Guard shortly after
the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center in
New York City. ``I wanted to be involved in some branch of
the service that I knew was going to protect my family, and
this country,'' said the Dennis native.
Petty Officer Robertson, who grew up in Wrentham, is a six-
year veteran of the Coast Guard. He flashes a broad grin when
recalling the day Chief Barr told the assembled crew that
they had won the Kimball Award. ``Definitely a lot of big
smiles and high fives,'' he said.
Petty Officer Robertson likes the Menemsha assignment so
much, he asked to extend his duty an extra year. ``I like the
whole Island vibe, the whole atmosphere,'' he said. ``We have
a blast in the summer, we have a really tight-knit crew here.
We work hard and play hard.''
The pride carries over to the town of Chilmark, which has
come to think of the station as its own. ``They are an
integral part of our community,'' said Chilmark selectman
Frank Fenner Jr., who along with selectman Riggs Parker, and
a large contingent of town officers, police officers,
residents, attended the morning ceremony. ``I'm proud that
this station is doing so well.''

____________________

HORRIFIC ATTACK ON BAGHDAD MARKET

______

HON. DAVID G. REICHERT

of washington

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. On
February 1, 2008, two young women with developmental disabilities
walked into a Baghdad market, most likely unaware that they were being
used as walking bombs, about to be remotely detonated.
In a horrific and coordinated attack, these vulnerable women lost
their lives, along with more than 70 other innocent bystanders.
As the godfather of a young boy who has developmental disabilities
and as a strong advocate for that community, it is my hope that we
continue to fight against the exploitation of these heroic people
anywhere in the world.
This horrific attack is the latest demonstration of the kind of
uncivilized evil that we are confronting in the war on terror. We have
even heard rumors this week that young children are being used by these
terrorists. What kind of human being would stoop to this level to
achieve their aims?
Madam Speaker, this event should serve as an example why our Nation
must continue to protect the rights of the innocent and to continue to
preserve freedom for everyone.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO DEBBIE HALEY

______

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to
pay tribute to a longtime civic and political leader from East
Houston--Debbie Haley of Terrell--who died recently at the age of 72.
Mrs. Haley was an outstanding citizen who devoted a lifetime to helping
those in her community, and she will be missed by all those who knew
her.
Leona Deborah Penn Haley was born on February 24, 1935, in Queens, a
borough of New York City, the daughter of Edward and Rella Penn. She
was a graduate of Queens College. From 1958 to 1966, Haley taught in
elementary schools in New York and Nashville, TN. In 1968, Haley and
her husband, a physician, moved to Houston.
Mrs. Haley emphasized education as the key to advancing minority
interests. Founder of the Texas Black Caucus, in 1976, she was a
delegate to the Democratic National Convention.
Debbie Haley was also a president of the Cultural Arts Council of
Houston and Harris County. For years, she also was a board member of
the United Negro College Fund.
Madam Speaker, Debbie Haley's commitment to her community, her legacy
of generosity, and her selflessness serve as an example to all
Americans. It is people like Debbie, working together in communities in
Texas that make our Nation so great. We can celebrate the power of one
individual, Debbie Haley, by bringing the best out of all us in our
neighbors, our community, and our Nation.
In addition to her son Anthony, survivors include her husband, Ronald
Haley of Houston; two other sons, Sean Haley of Pearland and Kyle Haley
of North Hollywood, Calif.; and a daughter, Rhonda Sewell of Sugar
Land.
She was well-loved and well-respected in Houston and Texas, and she
will be missed by all those who knew her. Madam Speaker, I am honored
today to pay a final tribute to this outstanding community leader,
Debbie Haley.

____________________

HONORING MR. VIC TRUJILLO

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate
Mr. Vic Trujillo for receiving the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award. I am
pleased to recognize his service and the many contributions he has made
to our community.
For the last 12 years, Lions Club member Vic Trujillo and his wife
Ida volunteered side by side. Their dedication to the community
blossomed into a program to prevent neighbors from going hungry while
empowering youth to help others. Mr. Trujillo has continued the
family's commitment to community service even after his wife's passing.
Partnering with schools in the tri-town area of Firestone, Frederick,
and Dacono, the Trujillos have created a canned-good competition in
which area schools compete to collect the most canned goods. Prairie
Ridge Elementary School won the most recent competition--collecting
well over 4,000 canned food items. With the cans from other schools,
this program fills the tri-town food closets each year--providing about
60 families with donated food every month. For people who do not have
homes or food, this service is life-saving. To augment the canned
resources, Mr. Trujillo has also encouraged these schools to sponsor a
community bingo game.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in congratulating
Mr. Vic Trujillo for his exceptional community work and to express our
appreciation for his efforts. I'm proud to acknowledge his reception of
the ``7-Everyday Hero'' award and wish him good health, happiness, and
success in his future endeavors.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on February 12, 2008, I was unavoidably
detained and missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how
I would have voted had I been there.
H. Res. 954, rollcall No. 43--Honoring the life of senior Border
Patrol agent Luis A. Aguilar, who lost his life in the line of duty
near Yuma, Arizona, on January 19, 2008. Had I been here, I would have
voted ``yes.''
H. Res. 909, rollcall No. 44--Commemorating the courage of the
Haitian soldiers that fought for American independence in the ``Siege
of Savannah'' and for Haiti's independence and renunciation of slavery.
Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''
H. Con. Res. 281, rollcall No. 45--Celebrating the birth of Abraham
Lincoln and recognizing the prominence the Declaration of Independence
played in the development of Abraham Lincoln's beliefs. Had I been
here, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

HONORING JOHN MIKOLAJCIK, OF AMERICAN CANYON, CALIFORNIA

______

HON. MIKE THOMPSON

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize
John

[[Page 2325]]

Mikolajcik in honor of his service to the city and people of American
Canyon, California.
Mr. Mikolajcik was bom in Cohoes, New York, on April 30, 1921. He
received his call of duty a day after Pearl Harbor. He enlisted in the
United States Marine Corps, where he served 4\1/2\ years as a mess
sergeant. In 1954 he built and opened the Mid City Nursery in American
Canyon, a nursery which has continued to flourish throughout the years.
He began his career of public service when he was appointed to the
American Canyon School Board, which was consolidated into the Napa
Valley Unified School District, serving a total of 22 years. Thanks to
the guidance of Mr. Mikolajcik, American Canyon now has three
elementary schools, two middle schools and a high school projected to
open in the near future.
Mr. Mikolajcik was a strong proponent of American Canyon during his
tenure on the Napa City Council, where he served two terms from 1980 to
1988. Mr. Mikolajcik was at the forefront of the negotiations to
integrate American Canyon into Napa County, and in 1992 that goal was
achieved. He continued in his civic efforts and served one term on the
Napa County Planning Commission, where he was involved in the formation
of a volunteer fire department and a water and recreation district.
Madam Speaker, it is appropriate at this time that we thank John
Mikolajcik for his years of dedication and service on behalf of the
Napa Valley. He has been a model citizen and leader in American Canyon
and his presence there has enriched the lives of everyone in our
community.

____________________

COMMENDING DR. KHEM AGGARWAL FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIGHER EDUCATION

______

HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER

of louisiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Dr. Khem
Aggarwal for his outstanding contributions to the field of higher
education.
Dr. Aggarwal has been an educator in higher education for over 50
years, having served in his homeland, India, for 13 years, at the
University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, Wis., from 1983 to 1986, Temple
University, Philadelphia, Pa., from 1981 to 1983, and currently serving
as Professor of Mathematics at Louisiana State University at
Alexandria, Alexandria, La., where he has been teaching since 1986.
Dr. Aggarwal has made a tremendous impact on the achievements and
successes of students who have enrolled in his college courses. His
first priority has and continues to be ensuring the academic
development of his students, as evidenced by time spent with them both
inside and outside of the classroom setting.
Throughout his tenure at Louisiana State University at Alexandria,
alumnae as well as university graduates have consistently reported how
Dr. Aggarwal contributed to their success in their chosen career
fields. Moreover, his colleagues regard him as an excellent professor
and deem him a gracious and grateful person deserving of recognition
and honor for his active role in the advancement of higher education.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in commending Dr. Khem
Aggarwal for his exceptional contributions and remarkable influence on
the field of higher education.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO GULF COPPER & MANUFACTURING

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 27, the Galveston Chamber of
Commerce will present its business of the year award to Gulf Copper &
Manufacturing Corporation, Gulf Copper, in recognition of the many
contributions that it has made to the Galveston community. I am pleased
to join my friends from the Galveston Chamber of Commerce in paying
tribute to Gulf Copper.
Gulf Copper is an employee-owned company that has been in existence
for over 50 years. Originally specializing in the installation of
copper tubing on marine vessels, Gulf Copper has since expanded into
the offshore, military marine, petrochemical, and industrial markets
with base services including full topside marine repair, steel
fabrication, steel and mechanical repair, machining, painting, and
blasting. These expansions of service are helping Gulf Cooper achieve
their objective of being the preferred provider of marine and
industrial fabrication and repair services in the Texas gulf coast.
Gulf Copper's customer list includes most major U.S. commercial ship
operators as well as the U.S. Government Maritime Administration, Coast
Guard, U.S. Navy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Military
Sealift Command.
Gulf Copper's success has brought many benefits to Galveston. For
example, Gulf Cooper is responsible for pumping a seven-digit revenue
stream into the Port of Galveston. Gulf Cooper is also a source of
employment for many residents of Galveston County. In June 2007, Gulf
Copper Dry Dock and Rig Repair added an additional 683 employees to its
already large staff. Gulf Copper has also helped attract London-based
Rolls Royce Commercial Marine to the Galveston area.
Gulf Copper also benefits the people of Galveston by serving as a
model of corporate civic involvement. The company has helped promote
Galveston's Oceans of Opportunities Job Fair and works with Galveston
College to promote Workforce Investment Act-funded welding and pipe
fitting classes.
Gina Spagnola, president of the Galveston Chamber of Commerce, said
that Gulf Copper deserves this award because: ``They are actively
involved in the Galveston community and have made a positive impact on
both employers and workers. This chamber and the City of Galveston are
grateful for Gulf Copper's commitment to our community.''
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the Galveston Chamber of Commerce
in honoring the management and staff of Gulf Copper for all of their
contributions to the economy and community of Galveston, Texas.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 43, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

HONORING AN ADVOCATE FOR ARMY QUALITY OF LIFE, WILLIAM A. ARMBRUSTER

______

HON. SAM FARR

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. FARR. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a tireless public
servant who has dedicated much of his career to improving the quality
of life for our soldiers and their families. William A. Armbruster
shortly will be retiring from the Army as he steps down from his role
as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Privatization and
Partnerships.
I first came to know Bill through the Army's collaboration with
myself and local officials over re-use issues at the former Fort Ord,
which was closed in a BRAC action in 1991. More importantly, Bill was
pivotal in shepherding plans to privatize Army housing at the Presidio
of Monterey--now known as the Ord Military Community--in one of the
most successful Residential Community Initiatives ever undertaken in
the United States. In Monterey there is a strong military presence
including the Army and Navy and related agencies. Both services were in
dire need of upgrading their housing to accommodate growing numbers of
personnel. Rather than expend millions of dollars in rehabbing
inadequate barracks and family quarters for soldiers and their families
who are attached to the Defense Language Institute, Bill helped craft a
first-in-the-nation joint RCI project between the Army and the Navy
using private capital to leverage new and improved housing stock. Now
not only do both the DLI and the Naval Postgraduate School have premier
housing for their personnel, they have it at minimal cost to the
Federal government.
This is the sort of creative thinker Bill Armbruster is. He uses the
power of his office to make positive changes in his department and for
the men and women who serve our military.
Even more recently Bill has been front-and-center on negotiating a
complicated land swap at the former Fort Ord that, again, will result
in much needed housing for Army personnel and for the first time will
make available this housing to essential personnel attached to the DLI
and other Federal agencies. This deal, colloquially known as the
Stilwell Kidney exchange, involves the Army, the City of Seaside, the
California State Parks system and

[[Page 2326]]

the American Youth Hostel. It has taken 4 years to accomplish. But Bill
stuck with it because he knew it was the right thing to do to advance
the mission of the Army and the nation.
Madam Speaker, I will miss Bill Armbruster for his creativity, his
dedication and especially his humaneness. He was always looking out for
our service men and women's quality of life. It has been a joy to work
with a man of such integrity, and I wish him well in the years ahead.

____________________

THE KING LEGACY AWARD FOR INTERNATIONAL SERVICE

______

HON. JESSE L. JACKSON, JR.

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today to bring
attention to ``The King Legacy Award for International Service.'' In
January 2007, Greek Ambassador Alexandros Mallias received this coveted
award for his contributions to peace in the Balkans, to Greek-American
relations, and to efforts to prevent such abhorrent practices as human
trafficking, which is a modern form of slavery.
Accepting the award, the Greek ambassador spoke of Dr. King's
struggle for freedom and against discrimination in the context of the
search for justice memorialized by classic Greek tragic playwrights,
like Aeschylus in his play ``Prometheus Bound'' and Sophocles in his
play ``Antigone.'' He also highlighted the inspiration given by Dr.
King to struggles for democracy worldwide, including Greece during
military dictatorship in the late 1960s, and against discrimination,
noting also that AHEPA, the largest and oldest Greek-American
association, was founded in Atlanta, GA in 1922, precisely to defend
Greek immigrants from persecution and segregation.
Below is an article Ambassador Mallias wrote on Dr. King and the
Greek classics.

[From the Washington Times, Jan. 29, 2008]

Dr. King and the Greek Classics

(By Alexandros P. Mallias)

This year will mark the 40th anniversary of the death of
Martin Luther King, Jr. His death on April 4, 1968, found my
country in the midst of one of its darkest hours, as the one
year anniversary of an oppressive military dictatorship
neared.
With my fellow citizens living under military rule and
deprived of the very basic freedoms, I was inspired by the
people of Birmingham, Ala., of Memphis and Atlanta, who, in a
most dignified way, poured into the streets, standing up for
what was rightly theirs.
Across the Atlantic, the civil-rights movement reached us
in the clarion voice of Martin Luther King Jr., and hope
stirred in the hearts of many Greek people like myself that
``We'', too, ``Shall Overcome.''
Upon my arrival in Washington as Greece's ambassador, and
influenced by what I call the current ``Golden Age for the
Classics'' in the United States, I have gone back to the
staples of my education with new appreciation--Sophocles,
Plato, Homer, Heraclitus, Thucydides. And I realized that the
Rev. King's speeches and homilies are fraught with references
to the Greek classics.
I pored over his writings and speeches and realized his was
no simple preaching. I began to sense he had a profound
understanding of what we call the ``classics.'' In his Nobel
acceptance speech, he spoke of Greek literature, of Homer and
the temptresses Sirens, of Orpheus--not in dry academic
fashion, but as part and parcel of his understanding of the
world.
As the beneficiary of a classical education, as were most
young Greeks of my generation, the words of Dr. King brought
to mind great orators of ancient Greece--Demosthenes, for
one, who had to overcome his own particular limitations.
In his sermon ``Loving Your Enemies,'' delivered at Dexter
Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Ala., Nov. 17, 1957, Dr.
King expounded on the power and comprehensiveness of the
Greek language, explaining how Greek ``comes to our aid
beautifully in giving us the real meaning and depth of the
whole philosophy of love . . . for you see the Greek language
has three words for love . . . eros . . . a sort of aesthetic
love. Plato talks about it a great deal in his dialogues, a
sort of yearning of the soul for the realm of the gods. Then
the Greek language talks about philia . . . the intimate
affection between personal friends. The Greek language comes
out with another word for love. It is the word agape . . .
the understanding, creative, redemptive good will for all
men. It is a love that seeks nothing in return.''
Erudite men and women have researched the education of Dr.
King, concluding that he studied the ancient Greek classics
at length and drew inspiration not only from the Bible, but
also from ancient Greek philosophers, playwrights and
political figures.
Dr. King's ``Letter From Birmingham Jail'' of April 16,
1963, was addressed to his fellow clergymen and expounded
upon his own theory of civil disobedience: ``I submit that an
individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is
unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment
. . . is in reality expressing the highest respect for law''
brought to mind Antigone, a reluctant but inevitably brave
heroine, in Sophocles' namesake play, who said: ``I will not
obey an unjust law, and if something happens because of it--
so be it.''
This was not wasted on classics professor Lewis Sussman of
the University of Florida, who wrote extensively on this
connection.
I need no further proof of the inspiration Dr. King
imparted from the classics than his own words in the last
speech of his life, ``I've Been to the Mountaintop,'' which
resounded around the world on April 3, 1968, just one day
before his assassination in Memphis: ``I would take my mental
flight by Egypt through, or rather across the Red Sea,
through the wilderness on toward the promised land. And in
spite of its magnificence, I wouldn't stop there. I would
move on by Greece, and take my mind to Mount Olympus. And I
would see Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Euripides and
Aristophanes assembled around the Parthenon as they discussed
the great and eternal issues of reality.''
Dr. King's words continue to inspire me. And what I impart
from him is similar to what I imparted from the ancient Greek
tradition that the ``good life'' is the one in which the
individual partakes in the responsibility and concerns of all
society.

____________________

HONORING ALIPIO COCO CABRERA

______

HON. ALBIO SIRES

of new jersey

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Alipio Coco
Cabrera on his 25th anniversary in radio and television broadcasting.
Coco can be considered a communicator by nature. He was born in Villa
Mella, Dominican Republic. He started his career as a journalist for
``Noti Tiempo'' commercial radio station as well as a writer for ``El
Nacional'' newspaper. Coco immigrated to the United States in 1978,
settling in New York City. He continued to work for Dominican Republic
Media but also became a radio correspondent for ``Radio Mil and
Nacional.''
Coco received a contract with Hispanic Broadcasting Association, HBC,
to work on many of their projects. He is now part of the powerful radio
and television chain known as Univision. He can be heard on various
radio programs, ``Coco and Gisela,'' ``Coco Clasicos,'' and ``The Coco
and Celines Show'' on 105.9 Latin Mix. This show is known as one of the
most important morning radio shows in the New York area. He has also
made guest appearances on Univision TV shows such as ``Despierta
America,'' ``Al Despertar'' and ``Don Francisco Presenta.''
Throughout his career, Coco has received numerous national and
international awards, which include: ``Cassandra Distinguished Radio
Personality,'' presented by the Association of Arts & Journalism of
Santo Domingo. He was the first Dominican to receive this award that
lived outside the country. In 2007, Coco received the ``Distinguished
Journalist and Citizen Award'' presented by Dr. Pedro Henriquez Urena,
director of Human Rights Organization of Santo Domingo.
Alipio Coco Cabrera is a veteran of radio and is best known for his
unique style and electric personality. It is only fitting that on
February 17, 2008, he will be honored for 25 years in the radio
broadcasting business at a banquet to be held at the United Palace
Theater in New York City.
Please join me in honoring Alipio Coco Cabrera for his outstanding
achievements and in congratulating him, his children Jean Carols and
Jacyra.

____________________

RECOGNIZING UNO, THE FIRST BEAGLE TO WIN ``BEST IN SHOW'' AT THE 2008
WESTMINSTER KENNEL CLUB DOG SHOW

______

HON. JERRY F. COSTELLO

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. COSTELLO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to
join me in recognizing Uno, the first beagle to win ``Best In Show'' at
the 132nd Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show at Madison Square Garden.
Uno was bred and is co-owned by Kathy Weichert, of Belleville, IL.
While Uno came

[[Page 2327]]

into this competition with 32 previous best in show ribbons, he faced
considerable competition at this year's Westminster event. Not only had
no beagle ever won ``Best In Show'' at Westminster, no beagle had even
placed first in the hound division since 1939.
Uno not only won the recognition of the judges at this year's
Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, but he was also the fan's favorite as
was made evident by the rousing, standing ovation from the capacity
crowd at Madison Square Garden when his victory was announced.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Kathy
Weichert, owner of K-Run Kennels in Belleville, IL and recognizing Uno,
this year's ``Best In Show'' winner at the 2008 Westminster Kennel Club
Dog Show.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO CHARLES E. POWERS

______

HON. JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.

of south carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mayor Charles E.
Powers, the former mayor of Fort Mill, SC, a town I have the honor of
representing. I call his service to the attention of the House because
his long years in office are a model for local government.
Charles Powers served as mayor of Fort Mill for 24 years, and before
that, as a member of the city council. During all these years, he
worked and raised a family, but the City claimed his devotion. As
mayor, he was totally committed. Fort Mill came first.
While serving as mayor, Charles Powers oversaw his small town as it
grew and grew in the backwash of Charlotte, NC. He made sure that Fort
Mill got its share of the growth, yet never lost its hometown quality,
its hospitality and friendship. He helped Fort Mill remain a special
place, and not become a bedroom suburb of Charlotte. He had the vision
to see the need for a new city hall, for a local library, for a
visitors' center on Main Street, and for numerous other projects. Under
his leadership, things got done. Fort Mill flourished as an all-
American town.
In his latest race for re-election, Charles Powers did not have the
good fortune of winning, but he took defeat with the grace and goodwill
that always marked his years in office.
Just a few days ago, Charles Powers, in his well worn role as
ambassador of good will, opened the door of a local convenience store,
and spoke kindly to the stranger going out. Before he realized that the
man had just robbed the store, the stranger turned his pistol on
Charles Powers and shot him. Fortunately, Charles Powers survived the
assault, and is out and about Fort Mill again.
Local elected officials like Charles Powers deal with problems that
nettle people most, from potholes to public schools. Leaders like him
solve those problems and make our democracy work and our communities
livable. When they step down after years of service, they deserve our
recognition and respect.

____________________

IN TRIBUTE TO ABRAHAM BALDWIN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE

______

HON. JIM MARSHALL

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Abraham
Baldwin Agricultural College as it marks 100 years since its doors
first opened for classes.
The school, which is known throughout Georgia as ABAC, has grown from
a high school with three instructors and 27 students to more than 3,600
students with a reputation as one of the Nation's 10 best community
colleges.
Located in Tifton, GA, the school is the product of a 1906 Georgia
law that established a district agricultural high school in each of
Georgia's congressional districts. Mr. H.H. Tift successfully led an
effort to secure the school for Tifton, which outbid other area cities.
The school--originally named The Second District A&M School--opened its
doors on February 20, 1908.
Madam Speaker, students received a high school education that let
them go on to careers in farming, business and medicine, but as
education improved in rural areas, the State saw the need for a men's
senior State college in South Georgia. In 1924, the school began the
transition from a high school curriculum to a college program as the
South Georgia A&M College.
This would be the first of several changes to the school's name and
purpose. The biggest change came in the midst of the Great Depression
in 1933, when the college's focus was narrowed to just agriculture and
home economics and it was renamed the Abraham Baldwin Agricultural
College to honor a Georgia signer of the United States Constitution.
Madam Speaker, the school's focus has expanded over the years and now
includes 57 diverse programs of study, including bachelor of applied
science degrees in diversified agriculture and in turfgrass and golf
course management.
ABAC's programs in turfgrass and golf course management have been
cited as some of the best in North America, and the college has also
been recognized for its top marks in student-facility interaction and
academic challenge.
Madam Speaker, I am confident my colleagues will join me in honoring
ABAC for its 100 years of service to Georgia's students.

____________________

HONORING CLARENCE, NEW YORK

______

HON. THOMAS M. REYNOLDS

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today
in celebration and recognition of the 200th anniversary of Clarence,
NY.
The roots of this historic town date back to 1799, when Asa Ransom
became the first to settle there. Ransom opened a tavern, sawmill and
gristmill in the area that is today known as the Clarence Hollow. Also
among the first to settle in Clarence was Asa Harris, who opened a
tavern on the other side of the town in 1807.
It was 1 year later on March 11, 1808, that Clarence was
incorporated. This made Clarence the oldest town in Erie County. After
its incorporation, Clarence continued to attract farmers and
businesses; churches also began to spring up throughout the 52 square
mile town. This growing town played a large role in Western New York
during the War of 1812. When people fled the City of Buffalo in 1813
due to the fires set by the British, many took refuge in Clarence.
Among those who sought shelter were the Salisbury Brothers, who
published the Buffalo Gazette from the Asa Harris Tavern.
The late 1800s saw a number of cultural advances in the then small
town of Clarence. The first carrousel built in the United States was
constructed in Clarence in 1897 by Carl Newman and Carl Landow. This
hand operated carrousel was utilized by the people of Clarence for over
30 years. Also, the importance of education has a strong history in the
town. In 1897, the Parker Union Academy received a large addition,
including two towers, one for an observatory and one for a bell. The
dedication to the improvement of the school system has been a tradition
carried on to the current students in Clarence. A most recent
achievement in this area was the Blue Ribbon National School of
Excellence award that Clarence High School earned in the 2001-2002
school year.
After World War II, Clarence experienced a great period of growth.
The population rose from 2,948 residents to about 13,267 by 1960. The
population was not the only thing growing in Clarence in the first half
of the twentieth century; the discovery of natural resources opened the
doors for many businesses and industries. After gypsum was detected in
1925, the National Gypsum Company was formed and mined for gypsum until
1982. Other resources that were discovered in Clarence during this
period were sand and gravel, which provided supplies for many important
industries in western New York.
The expansion of industry and culture was also fueled by the
implantable pacemaker, patented by Wilson Greatbatch in 1962. Following
the invention of this lifesaving device, Greatbatch founded the Wilson
Greatbatch LTD. in 1970. The location of this research facility in
Clarence opened the doors for a number of employment opportunities and
technological advances.
Finally, the history of Clarence can not be discussed without noting
that the town's greatest resource is the hard-working members of the
community. In Clarence, you find generous, down-to-earth, friendly
people who are willing to help their neighbors. More than anything else
to celebrate on this 200th anniversary is the good-hearted and gracious
people of Clarence.
Thus, Madam Speaker, in recognition of its rich history, agricultural
tradition, innovation, and its wonderful residents, I ask that this
Honorable Body join me in celebrating the 200th anniversary of the Town
of Clarence.

[[Page 2328]]

____________________

HONORING STATION POINT ALLERTON AS THE RECIPIENT OF THE SUMNER I.
KIMBALL AWARD

______

HON. WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor those serving in
the United States Coast Guard at Station Point Allerton of Hull,
Massachusetts. They are the proud recipient of the prestigious Sumner
I. Kimball Readiness Award.
The crew at Station Point Allerton has upheld a long tradition of
life saving and mission excellence that was started by Joshua James and
Sumner Kimball, the General Superintendent of the Life-Saving Service
from 1878-1916. James and Kimball were among the most celebrated life
savers in the world and they both served just a short distance from
their current Coast Guard station.
The Sumner I. Kimball Readiness Award was established in April of
2001 to recognize United States Coast Guard Boat Force units that are
truly the best of the best. It is a rarity in the Coast Guard, as very
few units attain this level of outstanding performance. It demands a
grade of 90 percent or higher during a rigorous week-long inspection,
requiring a combination of exemplary test scores, crew proficiency,
superb vessel condition, excellent performance in drills, a successful
and progressive unit training program, survival systems readiness and
good administrative work by all members. In their line of work,
readiness and competence is the difference between life and death.
What makes this feat more impressive is that all 6 boats and their
substation, Station (small) Scituate, had to perform at this remarkably
high level. I would like to congratulate Commanding Officer Thomas J.
Guthlein and the men and women stationed at Point Allerton for their
exemplary service:
BMC Michael Dibartolomeo, MKC Kevin Nuzzolilli, BM1 Luis Catala, BM1
Sean Goodwin, BM1 Wayne Lougee, BM1 Christopher Carson, MK1 Robert
Chofay, SK1 Michael Murphy, BM2 Phillip Garrett, BM2 James Mankus, BM2
Nicholas Linstrom, BM2 Kleverson Lemos, BM2 Logan Adkisson, MK2 Dominc
Michael, MK2 Michael Cella, MK3 Ryan Fahey, FS2 Patrick Kelly, FS2 John
Robbins, BM3 Noah Rowland, BM3 Adam Griffin, BM3 Christopher Dangelo,
BM3 Matthew Renner, BM3 Jonathan Cunningham, BM3 Jessica Adams, BM3
Glenn Fenstra, MK3 David Northrop, MK3 Manish Moideen, SN Brittany
Coyne, SN Daniel Williams, SN Adam Ruffner, SN Roger Souliere, FN
Angela Klingler, SN Tony Layne.
It is very fitting that such this particular Coast Guard unit receive
this very prestigious award. It is given in honor of Sumner Kimball who
established the tradition of training and preparedness years ago off
the waters of Hull. Even more remarkable, is the fact that this is the
second time that Station Point Allerton has received this award, with
the first being in 2002. This award is not just a testament to the
station, but it is a tribute to the hard working men and women who
serve our Coast Guard and who are willing to put their life on the line
to protect the safety of mariners and the integrity of our coast.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO U.S. AMBASSADOR SPEARMAN

______

HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, today I pay
tribute to the life of Leonard H.O. Spearman, an outstanding individual
who served as ambassador to two African countries and later headed an
advisory board to historically black colleges, who passed away on
January 16, 2008, at the age of 78 in Katy, Texas.
Leonard Hall O'Connell Spearman, Sr., was a native of Tallahassee,
Florida, and a 1947 graduate of what is now Florida A&M University,
where he played cornet in a band that included saxophonist Julian
``Cannonball'' Adderley.
At the University of Michigan, he received a master's degree, 1950,
and a doctorate, 1960, in clinical psychology. He was a psychology
professor and a dean at Southern University in Baton Rouge before
moving to Washington in 1970 to work for the old Department of Health,
Education and Welfare. He spent 9 years at HEW, helping shape the
educational opportunity programs for disadvantaged students, as well as
Federal student loan programs.
Later, he served as U.S. ambassador to Rwanda and Lesotho during the
administration of President George H.W. Bush.
After leaving his ambassadorial posts, he taught educational
administration at Texas Southern until 1998. From 1993 to 2001, he
chaired the nonprofit organization, Rural Electrification for African
Development, which advocated solar technology in African villages. Dr.
Spearman was honored for his work in education and public service by
the National Council of Negro Women among other groups.
I ask my colleagues to join me in extending our condolences to the
family of Ambassador Spearman, his wife of 57 years, Valeria Benbow
Spearman, and three children, Lynn Dickerson of Baton Rouge, Leonard
H.O. Spearman, Jr., of Katy, and Charles M. Spearman of Alexandria,
Virginia; a brother, Rawn W. Spearman, Sr., of Virginia Beach; two
sisters, Olivia Parker of Washington, DC, and Agenoria Paschal of
Miami, Florida; and seven grandchildren.
Ambassador Spearman was a true American hero whose accomplishments
are a testament to his humanitarian spirit.

____________________

HONORING SIR FRANKLIN MILLER

______

HON. MARK UDALL

of colorado

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate
one of my esteemed colleagues and former classmates, Sir Franklin
Miller, for receiving honorary knighthood by the British Government.
Queen Elizabeth II, during her fall 2007 visit to Washington, DC,
awarded Mr. Miller with honorary knighthood--a Knight Commander of the
Order of the British Empire--in gratitude for his work to strengthen
U.S.-U.K. defense collaboration during his career with the Department
of Defense and as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush. I am
pleased to recognize his commitment to America's security.
Frank and I were both members of the Williams College Class of 1972.
After graduating, he served as Communications Officer and Anti-
Submarine Warfare Officer aboard the USS Joseph Hewes, a Knox-class
frigate, with deployments in the Mediterranean Sea, Indian and Atlantic
Oceans. In 1977, he returned to school and received his MPA from
Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs.
His talents at defense studies brought him to the State Department's
Bureau of Political- Military Affairs from 1977 to 1979. For 22 years,
he served under seven Secretaries in a series of progressively senior
positions. His final assignments were twice as Acting Assistant
Secretary for International Security Policy and once as Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategy and Threat Reduction.
Frank Miller served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush
and as Senior Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the
National Security Council staff between 2001 and 2005. This made him
responsible for Presidential policy initiatives in the fields of
nuclear deterrence policy, strategic arms reduction, national space
policy, defense trade reform, land-mines, and transforming the American
and NATO militaries.
He heroically assumed responsibility for the operation and
management of the White House Situation Room immediately following the
attacks on the World Trade Center Towers on September 11, 2001. This
led him to direct interagency support of both Operation Enduring
Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom.
For his distinguished service, he was honored five times with the
Defense Department's highest civilian award, the Defense Distinguished
Civilian Service Medal. In addition, he has been awarded the Norwegian
Royal Order of Merit, Grand Officer, and the French Legion of Honor,
Officer. Knighthood is another fitting tribute to Sir Miller's
distinguished 31-year career.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me to congratulate Sir
Miller for his recent knighthood. We are grateful to Sir Miller for his
outstanding commitment and service to improving the security of this
country. I wish him good health, happiness, and success in his future
endeavors.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. KENNY C. HULSHOF

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. HULSHOF. Madam Speaker, on February 6, 2008, I was unavoidably
detained and

[[Page 2329]]

missed votes. Listed below are the votes I missed and how I would have
voted had I been there.
H. Res. 867, rollcall No. 29, Commending the Houston Dynamo soccer
team for winning the 2007 Major League Soccer Cup: Had I been here, I
would have voted ``yes.''
H. Res. 942, rollcall No. 30, Recognizing the significance of Black
History Month: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''
H. Res. 943, rollcall No. 31, Remembering the Space Shuttle
Challenger disaster and honoring its crew members, who lost their lives
on January 28, 1986: Had I been here, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

HONORING THE LOUISIANA SBDC 25TH ANNIVERSARY

______

HON. RODNEY ALEXANDER

of louisiana

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. ALEXANDER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th
Anniversary of the Louisiana Small Business Development Center
(Louisiana SBDC).
For over a quarter century, the Louisiana SBDC, a network of nine
service centers operating in Louisiana, has provided communities
throughout the state with the means to launch new businesses and
maintain successful existing businesses through offering consulting,
business education classes, information resources and other specialized
services.
Just in the last six years, the Louisiana SBDC has counseled over
25,000 entrepreneurs, created nearly 7,000 new jobs, and has assisted
small businesses in securing nearly $359 million dollars in financing.
Initiatives such as the Louisiana SBDC with its track record of success
are just what our nation needs during this time of decline in our
economy. This work is made possible through the Louisiana SBDC's
partnership with the U.S. Small Business Administration, Louisiana
Economic Development, participating universities and economic
development agencies.
With the help of federal funding, The University of Louisiana at
Monroe's College of Business in partnership with the Louisiana SBDC, is
poised to develop the Northeast Louisiana Business and Community
Development Center. This allows the Louisiana SBDC to continue its
mission in Northeast Louisiana and provide for greater opportunity for
rural businesses. This center will be a source of entrepreneurship
expertise for rural communities in this area, and I expect great things
for Louisiana's 5th Congressional District's economy to emerge from the
efforts of this center.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the 25th
Anniversary of the LSBDC as it continues its commitment to empowering
local citizens to reach their goals of establishing successful new
businesses, which create not only a stronger Louisiana but a stronger
national economy.

____________________

HONORING H.O. TANNER TEACHERS

______

HON. RON PAUL

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, on February 21 the Texas Delta Xi Chapter of
the Honorary Educators Organization Alpha Delta Kappa will honor those
Texas Delta Xi teachers who attended the H.O. Tanner School in Texas,
and then returned to teach at H.O. Tanner after completing their
education. H.O. Tanner was constructed in 1900 in order to ensure that
Texas' segregation laws did not prevent African-American children from
obtaining a quality education.
Laws dictating what schools a child can and cannot attend, based
solely on that child's race, are a shameful aspect of America's
history. It is hard to think of a better way to celebrate Black History
Month than by honoring those who did not allow the burden of the ``Jim
Crow'' laws stop them from obtaining an education, and then used their
education to serve the children of their community by devoting their
lives to teaching.
It is therefore with the greatest pleasure that I join Texas Delta
Chapter of Alpha Delta Kappa in honoring Geneva Barrett, Cora Mack,
Berniece Smith, and Sister Julia Mack, who taught kindergarten at the
``new'' Henry O. Tanner; Sister Mary Crecy, Geneva Barrett (both of
whom will be honored posthumously), and Mary Dixon who taught at the
original Henry O. Tanner School; and Sisters Julia and Cora Mack who
attended classes on the ``new'' H.O. Tanner campus.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 44 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO JILL THOMPSON

______

HON. IKE SKELTON

of missouri

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. SKELTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Jill
Thompson. Mrs. Thompson, a registered nurse, was administrator of the
Lafayette County, Missouri, Health Department. Sadly, Mrs. Thompson
lost her fight with cancer on January 26, 2008.
Mrs. Thompson was an employee at the Lafayette County Health
Department for 29 years. She also served two terms as the rural health
department representative from the Northwest District on the
Partnership Council, was president of the Missouri Association of
Public Health Agencies, and served on the board of the West Central
Missouri Area Health Education Center. She is fondly remembered by her
colleagues as someone who was incredibly dedicated to public health and
passionate about serving her community.
Further recognizing her commitment to public health, Mrs. Thompson
was a founding member of the Sounds of the Heart organization, which
raised money to place automated external defibrillators in locations
throughout the community. She was also a member of the Cancer
Assistance Relief organization. This organization provides cancer
patients with rides to doctors' appointments and hospitals.
Friends and family will never forget her warm personality,
dedication, and intelligence. Mrs. Thompson is survived by her husband
Larry, three children, and two grandchildren. I'm sure Members of the
House will join me in paying tribute to the life of Jill Thompson for
her vision and leadership in the field of public health in the State of
Missouri.

____________________

HONORING THE DEDICATION OF THE MARY E. SMITHEY PACE LEARNING CENTER

______

HON. KENNY MARCHANT

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. MARCHANT. Madam Speaker, I wish to honor the dedication and
renaming of the PACE School to the Mary E. Smithey PACE Learning Center
in Duncanville, Texas.
On Sunday, February 17, 2008, a ceremony will be held honoring Mary
E. Smithey for her many years as a teacher in the Duncanville school
system. When Mrs. Smithey began teaching in Duncanville in 1946, she
was one of eight teachers who served 287 students in grades one through
twelve in one school building, now known as Central Elementary. Mrs.
Smithey was the first retiree of the Duncanville Teachers Association
and spoke highly of her career, particularly of her students.
Mary E. Smithey was an exemplary teacher who was loved and respected
by her students, their families and her peers. Mrs. Smithey, along with
her husband, Grady Sr., have held long careers in public service in
their community and the tradition continues as three of their
grandchildren are teachers. The Smithey's two sons, Grady Jr. and Gary
Ervin, are Duncanville school graduates.
The Mary E. Smithey PACE Learning Center is an alternative school for
students, grades 9 to 12, who need additional assistance in their
education. The smaller class sizes and individual learning available at
this campus help young people gain confidence and success. Students
study a core curriculum, along with electives, on a flexible schedule
allowing them the opportunity to achieve a high school diploma.
I am honored to pay tribute to Mary E. Smithey and the Duncanville
Independent School District in the dedication and renaming of the PACE
School in her memory. The objectives of the PACE Learning Center will
perpetuate Mrs. Smithey's legacy in education for many years to come. I
am privileged to represent the Duncanville ISD in the 24th District of
Texas.

[[Page 2330]]

____________________

DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP CHRISTODOULOS

______

HON. EDWARD R. ROYCE

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. ROYCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the life of the
Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, Mr. Christodoulos, who passed away
late last month.
Since becoming ordained as a deacon in 1961 and a priest in 1965,
Archbishop Christodoulos showed a dedication to his faith and people
that earned great admiration and respect among his followers. He was a
leading voice on the origins of Christianity, and on the role
Christianity had in the creation of the European world and the identity
of its citizens.
It was obvious to many that Archbishop Christodoulos cared greatly
for his people and worked tirelessly to represent his faithful
followers. He also actively sought to bring faith to younger
generations, jocularly inviting them back to the church as they were
``earrings and all.''
Madam Speaker, Archbishop Christodoulos was a remarkable man whose
death will be mourned by many. His legacy, however, will impact
generations of loyal Greek Orthodox and other members of the Dyophysite
faith.

____________________

DAY OF REMEMBRANCE

______

HON. DORIS O. MATSUI

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, on February 19, this Nation will recognize
the 66th anniversary of the ``Day of Remembrance.'' This was the day in
1942 that President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which led to
the internment of over 120,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry.
The President's decision to intern Americans was an avoidable
consequence of racial prejudice and wartime hysteria. The government at
all levels was blinded by war, and made decisions that were contrary to
our Constitution. The failure of each branch of government to uphold
the rights of individuals must be taught so that future generations
resist succumbing to the politics of fear.
Because of one of the darkest periods of our Nation's history, we
learned of the damage that could be done when we let the politics of
fear cloud our judgment. I hope every American will take this day to
reaffirm their commitment to our Constitution and the rights and
protections it guarantees for all of us. This commitment is a way to
prevent such injustice from ever becoming a reality again.
Congress has not only recognized a Day of Remembrance, but it also
supports and funds internment site preservation as the physical
reminder of past inequality. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to ensure that future generations will be able to visit the
internment camps to gain a better understanding of the previous
generation's experience.
This year also marks the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the
Civil Liberties Act of 1988. This act proves what is great about our
country. When this act passed, our Nation formally acknowledged and
apologized for violations of civil liberties and constitutional rights
of over 100,000 interned Americans.
As we look back on a time in our Nation's history, and how our
country has responded since, we should have hope for the future. Around
the world, human rights violations continue unabated. Yet, we can
combat this by working with a single purpose towards a future wherein
every person, regardless of race, gender, nationality or creed enjoys
equal treatment in this world.
And today, 66 years after the signing of Executive Order 9066, we
must renew our commitment to bringing these rights to all people.

____________________

IN HONOR OF MR. JOHN R. COCHRAN

______

HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE

of delaware

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise
today to reccognize Mr. John Cochran, Business Development Executive of
Bank of America Card Services. John will retire this year from his
position as a leader in a company with the largest credit card
portfolio in North America, having over 40 million customers amounting
to $190 billion in high-interest loans.
During his time at Bank of America, John was responsible for all
business development endeavors for Bank of America Card Services. Prior
to the January 2006 merger with Bank of America, John was the chief
operating officer of MBNA Corporation, which he also helped to found in
1982. Under John's direction as head of Business Development, MBNA
became a pioneer in issuing so-called ``affinity'' credit cards--cards
endorsed by alumni associations, interest groups, professional
organizations, clothing manufacturers, sports teams, and others. Cards
emblazoned with the logo of a much-loved alma mater or team proved to
be appealing to many consumers and, as a result of John's ingenuity,
MBNA enjoyed runaway growth. Within 10 years, MBNA had become one of
Delaware's largest employers, and remains so today under the Bank of
America name. John is also the person behind Bank of America's 3 major
affinity relationships: the National Education Association, Ducks
Unlimited, and the American Automobile Association, all 3 of which will
celebrate 27 years of successful marketing agreements with Bank of
America this year.
John was born and raised in Baltimore, Maryland. He attended Loyola
College, where he currently sits on the board and has served as its
chairman. Though not a Delaware native, John contributes to the State
of Delaware in more ways than just furthering private sector
development. John is a member of the board of directors of the Delaware
Council for Economic Education. He is also a member of the board of
trustees of the Delaware Public Policy Institute.
I acknowledge Mr. John Cochran for his many years of service and
numerous contributions to Bank of America, the credit card industry,
and the State of Delaware. I am confident that as he enjoys his
retirement with his wife and children, and cheers for his beloved
Baltimore Orioles, he will remain an active and influential member of
our community.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. GWEN MOORE

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, February 13, I
was detained and unable to vote on rollcall 46. Had I been present I
would have voted ``no.''

____________________

IN MEMORY OF GLADYS JOY KENNEDY

______

HON. ADAM B. SCHIFF

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Gladys Joy
Kennedy. Ms. Kennedy was a devoted and active member of the Pasadena
community.
Gladys Joy Kennedy was born on June 1, 1965, the beloved child of
Thomas Foster Kennedy, now deceased, and Leola Sudduth Kennedy of
Pasadena, California. Gladys, a twin, was the ninth of 10 children. A
Pasadena area resident all of her life, she attended Cleveland
Elementary School, McKinley Junior High School, and Blair High School.
Gladys was active in many churches in the Pasadena area, including
Holy Deliverance Church and Lincoln Avenue Baptist Church. She was a
proud and devout member of the Metropolitan Baptist Church in Altadena,
where she was an enthusiastic and devoted volunteer. Gladys also
volunteered extensively for the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, Pasadena Branch, and assisted with
numerous local political campaigns.
Gladys Joy will be greatly missed, and I extend my sincere
condolences upon the untimely and very sad loss of Gladys Joy to the
extended Kennedy family.

____________________

PAYING TRIBUTE TO GARY DOUGLAS MEADE

______

HON. RICK BOUCHER

of virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BOUCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Gary Douglas Meade
and pay tribute to his 43-year public service career to the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
Douglas Meade, the son of a coal miner, grew up on a farm in Wise
County, Virginia. He started his public service career in 1964 as a
social worker in Wise County. In 1970 after receiving a master's degree
in social work

[[Page 2331]]

from Virginia Commonwealth University, Douglas worked briefly for the
Virginia Department of Social Services in Richmond, Virginia, before
returning back to his native roots in southwest Virginia.
For the past 36 years, Douglas has been the director of the
Washington County, Virginia, Department of Social Services. His office
administers and provides annually over $40 million in services to
citizens of Washington County. In fiscal year 2007-2008, the Washington
County Department of Social Services will touch the life in some way of
over 16,000 county citizens. Over the years, Douglas has served on
numerous State and local task forces and committees that focused on
improving the quality of life and opportunities for rural Virginians.
Currently he is involved in several southwest Virginia regional
initiatives that are focused on improving the job skills, employment
opportunity, health care access, and educational attainment of area
citizens.
Through his advocacy and public policy development work, Douglas has
worked extensively with the Virginia General Assembly and has done some
work at the Federal level. He has been recognized as a leader in his
field and has received numerous awards. In 1994, Douglas received the
President's Award, the Distinguished Service Award, and a Certificate
of Appreciation from the Virginia League of Social Service Executives
for his work.
Douglas' rural upbringing has helped form his strong work ethic,
values and community spirit. His warmth and eternal optimism brighten
the lives of his family and friends.
In 2005, Douglas graduated from the nationally renowned University of
Virginia's Sorenson Political Leadership Institute. After retiring from
a 43-year career in social services, Douglas has not ruled out running
for a political office or continuing, in some way, his commitment to
public service.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to honor the distinguished career of
Douglas Meade and the outstanding public service he has given to the
Commonwealth of Virginia.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 45 I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, on Thursday,
February 7, 2008, I was unavoidably detained in my Congressional
district. I would have voted as follows:
Rollcall No. 32: ``yes,'' on Ordering the Previous Question; rollcall
No. 33: ``yes,'' On Agreeing to the Resolution; rollcall No. 34:
``yes,'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H. Con. Res. 283;
rollcall No. 35: ``yes,'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R.
4848; rollcall No. 36: ``yes,'' on Agreeing to the Amendment; rollcall
No. 37: ``yes,'' on Agreeing to the Amendment; rollcall No. 38:
``yes,'' on Agreeing to the Amendment; rollcall No. 39: ``no,'' on
Motion to Recommit; rollcall No. 40: ``yes,'' on Passage of H.R. 4137;
rollcall No. 41: ``yes,'' on Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.
Res. 947; rollcall No. 42: ``no,'' on Agreeing to the Senate Amendment
to H.R. 5140.

____________________

INTRODUCTION OF THE WATERFRONT BROWNFIELDS REVITALIZATION ACT

______

HON. LOUISE McINTOSH SLAUGHTER

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the
Waterfront Brownfields Revitalization Act. This bill will authorize a
much-needed grant program to assist communities that are overcoming the
unique challenges of waterfront brownfields and foster innovative
approaches to remediation.
America's industrial heritage was established along the banks of its
rivers, lakes, and coasts. Our Nation's vast and interconnected natural
water system helped provide the power that fueled our rise to
international prominence, and allowed us to move our manufactured goods
efficiently to all corners of the country. However, that legacy also
includes many decades of environmental contamination on the waterfront.
Abandoned factories, dilapidated mills and underutilized ports can be
found along the shores of many metropolitan areas. As localities seek
to reconnect with their waterfronts and revitalize their downtowns,
brownfield barriers threaten to derail community efforts to create
jobs, promote recreational opportunities, restore the ecology, increase
tourism, and grow their tax base.
Waterfront brownfields present challenges beyond typical
environmental assessment and cleanup projects. Hydrology, water
quality, wetlands, endangered species, habitat, dredged materials,
flooding, environmental infrastructure, navigation, and other
considerations must be carefully addressed so as not to exacerbate
existing site contamination. Typically, waterfront brownfields require
the involvement of multiple governmental agencies. As such, waterfront
brownfields require special attention and resources to overcome their
larger hurdles.
In my own district, the city of Rochester, NY, is currently working
to revitalize its beautiful waterfront, while attempting to cope with
the unique challenges that waterfront brownfields present. The city is
undertaking a major community revitalization strategy to redevelop its
port and waterfront area into a mixed use development, which will
include housing, commercial, retail, and educational uses, enhanced
recreation, new parks and open space, and improved public access to
Lake Ontario, the Genesee River and the surrounding ecosystem. However,
because the Port of Rochester was used extensively for industrial
purposes from the late 1800s into the first half of the 20th century,
significant environmental remediation will be required prior to
redevelopment.
Initial investigations have found that more than 10 acres of the site
contain up to several feet of slag from a former iron works. Portions
of the site are impacted from petroleum releases and unsuitable fill
materials. Old Genesee River deposits on the site and bank sediments
have been shown to contain high levels of heavy metals cadmium and
silver as well as pesticides and furans. The marina must also be
dredged. Before the waterfront reuse can proceed, the Port of Rochester
must first address an estimated $500,000 in environmental assessment
issues related to contaminated sediments, beneficial reuse of
sediments, groundwater contamination, and waste characterization
related to the construction of the marina--and an unknown level of
remediation.
Madam Speaker, Rochester is not alone in facing these types of
complicated and expensive challenges to redevelopment. Cities all
across the country are dealing with similar roadblocks as they try to
engage incorporate waterfront real estate into their redevelopment
plans, from Yuma, AZ, and Portland, OR, in the west, to Savannah, GA,
and Philadelphia, PA, in the east, and almost everywhere in between
where lakes and rivers exist.
My bill recognizes that the Federal Government can be an effective
partner to communities interested in reconnecting with their
waterfronts. Specifically, this legislation would authorize the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency to establish a waterfront brownfields
pilot demonstration program to provide localities and other eligible
entities with up to $500,000 to assess and clean up waterfront
brownfields. The bill would also establish an interagency taskforce on
waterfront brownfields restoration to identify barriers and potential
solutions to waterfront brownfields revitalization, and seek methods
for Federal interagency collaboration on such projects.
As cities across the country struggle to thrive in a changing global
economy, and as our domestic manufacturing continues to diminish, it is
imperative that Congress do all that it can to help these cities
redevelop and succeed. Industrialization and manufacturing helped make
this country the power that it is today, but as manufacturing has moved
overseas it has not only taken jobs and changed the economic base of
many industrial cities, it has also left behind decades of
contamination. This legislation will give these cities the support they
need to redevelop in an environmentally safe way, and utilize their
waterfront as an incredible economic asset.

[[Page 2332]]

____________________

INTRODUCING TECHNOLOGIES FOR RESTORING USERS' SECURITY AND TRUST
(TRUST) IN HEALTH INFORMATION ACT

______

HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, the development of a nationwide
interoperable health information infrastructure holds tremendous
promise for improving patient care, reducing medical errors and
lowering costs. Today's health care system needs to be transformed to
improve health care quality, safety and affordability, and
interoperable health information networks can play an important role in
this transformation.
At the same time, without sufficient privacy and security safeguards,
such electronic systems could turn the dream of integrated, seamless
health IT networks into a nightmare for consumers, reducing the
likelihood that patients and providers will embrace and utilize such
systems. If we fail to require strong privacy and security standards
now, during the early stages of development of nationwide interoperable
health IT systems, we run the risk that Americans' medical secrets will
be extremely vulnerable to being lost or stolen from these systems,
whose weak privacy and security safeguards will be an open invitation
to identity thieves, fraudsters and others seeking unauthorized access.
The great Irish poet William Butler Yeats famously wrote that ``In
dreams begins responsibility.'' The dream of a nationwide, seamless,
effective health IT infrastructure certainly is enticing. Let us hope
that we can realize this dream in the future. Today Congress has a
responsibility to ensure that patients' personal medical secrets are
not put at risk in the process.
According to a report released last year by the Government
Accountability Office, GAO, the Department of Health and Human
Services, HHS, has taken some steps to identify solutions for
protecting patient privacy in health IT systems, but HHS has ``not yet
defined an overall approach for integrating its various privacy-related
initiatives and addressing key privacy principles, nor has it defined
milestones for integrating the results of these activities.'' (GAO-07-
400T) Over the past 3 years, repeated breaches of electronic systems
containing Americans' Social Security numbers, addresses and other
sensitive personal information have reinforced the need for strong data
safeguards for Americans' medical records. According to Privacy Rights
Clearinghouse, a non-profit consumer organization, more than 218
million data records of U.S. residents have been exposed due to
security breaches since January 2005.
I am pleased that Representative Rahm Emanuel is joining me in
introducing the Technologies for Restoring Users' Security and Trust,
TRUST, in Health Information Act. The TRUST Health Information Act
promotes development of a nationwide interoperable health IT
infrastructure that improves patient care, reduces costs and protects
the privacy and security of Americans' personal medical information.
The Trust Act contains provisions to encourage the development of
health IT networks through grants and standard-setting processes while
also ensuring that patients' medical records will be protected by
strong privacy and security safeguards. For example, the TRUST Act:
Empowers patients to keep their medical records out of health IT
databases unless they first give their consent;
Requires patients to be notified if the systems that contain their
health information is breached and their information is exposed;
Mandates the use of data security safeguards such as encryption and
other technologies that render the information unreadable to
individuals who are not authorized to access it;
Authorizes grant funding to enable the purchase and enhance the use
of qualified health IT systems; and
Establishes a public-private partnership to make recommendations
concerning health IT standards, criteria for the electronic exchange of
personal health information and related purposes to encourage the
creation of a nationwide interoperable health information technology
infrastructure.
Patient privacy and security protections are enablers of, not
impediments to, successful nationwide interoperable health IT systems.
Only after patients have confidence in these protections will they
trust their sensitive medical information to such systems.
The Trust Act is supported by Patient Privacy Rights, Microsoft
Corporation, the American Psychoanalytic Association, American
Association of Practicing Psychiatrists and the National Association of
Social Workers.

____________________

RECOGNIZING JAMES BENJAMIN FARMER

______

HON. WALTER B. JONES

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I proudly pause to
recognize James Benjamin Farmer, 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 6, and in
earning the most prestigious award of Eagle Scout.
Benjamin has been active with his troop, participating in many Scout
activities. Over the years Benjamin has been involved with Scouting, he
has not only earned numerous merit badges, but also the respect of his
family, peers, and community. For his Eagle Scout Project, Benjamin
renovated a room that now serves as a Sunday School Classroom at First
Baptist Church in Kinston, NC.
Madam Speaker, I proudly ask you to join me in commending James
Benjamin Farmer for his accomplishments with the Boy Scouts of America
and for his efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction of
Eagle Scout.

____________________

SUNSET MEMORIAL

______

HON. TRENT FRANKS

of arizona

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Speaker, I stand once again before this
body with another Sunset Memorial.
It is February 14, 2008, in the land of the free and the home of the
brave, and before the sun set today in America, almost 4,000 more
defenseless unborn children were killed by abortion on demand--just
today. That is more than the number of innocent American lives that we
lost on September 11th, only it happens every day.
It has now been exactly 12,806 days since the tragic judicial fiat
called Roe v. Wade was handed down. Since then, the very foundation of
this Nation has been stained by the blood of almost 50 million of our
own children.
Some of them, Madam Speaker, cried and screamed as they died, but
because it was amniotic fluid passing over their vocal cords instead of
air, we couldn't hear them. And all of them had at least four things in
common.
They were each just little babies who had done nothing wrong to
anyone. Each one of them died a nameless and lonely death. And each of
their mothers, whether she realizes it immediately or not, will never
be the same. And all the gifts that these children might have brought
to humanity are now lost forever.
Yet even in the full glare of such tragedy, this generation clings to
blindness and invincible ignorance while history repeats itself and our
own silent genocide mercilessly annihilates the most helpless of all
victims to date, those yet unborn.
Madam Speaker, perhaps it is important for those of us in this
Chamber to remind ourselves again 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.''
Madam Speaker, protecting the lives of our innocent citizens and
their constitutional rights is why we are all here. It is our sworn
oath. 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.''
The bedrock foundation of this Republic is the declaration, not the
casual notion, but the 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. It is who we are.
And yet Madam Speaker, another day has passed, and we in this body
have failed again to honor that commitment. We failed our sworn oath
and our God-given responsibility as we broke faith with nearly 4,000
more innocent American babies who died without the protection we should
have been giving them.
But perhaps tonight, Madam Speaker, maybe someone new who heard this
sunset memorial will finally realize that abortion really

[[Page 2333]]

does kill a baby, that it hurts mothers in ways that we can never
express, and that 12,806 days spent killing nearly 50 million unborn
children in America is enough; and that this Nation is great enough to
find a better way than abortion on demand.
So tonight, Madam Speaker, may we each remind ourselves that our own
days in this sunshine of life are numbered and that all too soon each
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 hear the cries of the
unborn at last. May that be the day we find the humanity, the courage,
and the will to embrace together our human and our constitutional duty
to protect the least of these, our tiny American brothers and sisters,
from this murderous scourge upon our Nation called abortion on demand.
It is February 14, 2008--12,806 days since Roe v. Wade first stained
the foundation of this Nation with the blood of its own children--this,
in the land of free and the home of the brave.

____________________

ARMS SALES TO SAUDI ARABIA

______

HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BERMAN. Madam Speaker, as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue
between the Gulf States and the United States, the President has
proposed the commercial sale of a number of significant U.S-produced
weapon systems that the President believes will contribute to U.S.
national security in the Gulf Region.
There has been a good deal of controversy surrounding these proposed
arms sales included in the Gulf Security Dialogue, and, in particular,
the sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to Saudi Arabia.
The Foreign Affairs Committee has taken the reported concerns
seriously. The Committee has held four highly classified briefings on
the Gulf Security Dialogue. As part of this ongoing dialogue, Chairman
Lantos asked the Secretary of State to provide to the Committee, in
writing, additional assurances that can be released publicly that this
sale will not threaten our interests or those of our friends in the
region. Chairman Lantos received a letter with these assurances from
the Secretary of State.
Madam Speaker, as the Acting Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, I ask that this letter be printed in full in the Record so
that all of our colleagues in the Congress can be aware of the
assurances which the Committee has received.

The Secretary of State,

Washington, DC, February 6, 2008.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you regarding the
proposed sale of Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) to
Saudi Arabia under the rubric of the Gulf Security Dialogue.
Over the last year, we have consulted closely with Congress
and our partners in the region on the proposed sale. This
sale is important to U.S. national interests in the Gulf
region. It will strengthen our relationship with Saudi Arabia
and will enhance regional security and stability.
The United States has offered for sale a number of military
goods to friendly governments in the region to support U.S.
interests. In preparing these sales, we have worked closely
with our friends in the region to ensure the proposed
transfers strengthen stability and security regarding
potential challenges from Iran or other threats in the
region. We have consulted closely about this sale with Israel
and remain committed to the preservation of Israel's
qualitative military edge. I can assure you that the sale of
JDAMs to Saudi Arabia will not affect Israel's qualitative
military edge. The Government of Israel understands the
reasons for this sale and does not object to it.
We are mindful of the sensitivity of some of the technology
being transferred, and will continue to keep Congress
informed on the details of this sale, particularly of any
changes in the arrangements we have briefed the committee. We
have had, and will continue to have, thorough discussions
with the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding its obligations
resulting from this sale. As a result of these discussions,
we are confident that the Government of Saudi Arabia will
undertake all necessary measures to secure these weapons and
to assure their use only in ways which we support. In
particular, the Government of Saudi Arabia will provide
adequate security for the JDAMs such that these weapons will
not fall into the hands of other nations or groups. Moreover,
the Government of Saudi Arabia will ensure that these weapons
will not be used against U.S. forces or the forces of U.S.
allies.
I hope this resolves any concerns that might exist about
this sale. We would be happy to discuss further with you, if
you desire. We look forward to working with you to secure the
advancement of U.S. interests in the Gulf region.
Sincerely,
Condoleezza Rice.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. RUBEN HINOJOSA

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, I rise to inform you that I was
unavoidably detained in my district over the past few days to come to
the floor of the House of Representatives to cast my vote on certain
rollcall votes.
Had I been present, I would have voted the following way:
I would have voted ``aye'' for rollcall Nos. 43 through 45, rollcall
Nos. 48 through 51, and rollcall Nos. 53 through 57.
I would have voted ``nay'' for rollcall Nos. 46, 47, 52.

____________________

REMEMBERING RAFIQ HARIRI AND THE IMPORTANCE OF LEBANON

______

HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. ACKERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in a mixture of sadness and
outrage to commemorate the third anniversary of Rafiq Hariri's
assassination. Sadness because the former Prime Minister, a man of
vision and courage, was cut down in his prime as he stood up for the
idea of a Lebanon as a nation free from external control, a sovereign,
united and independent Lebanon that would regain its rightful place
among the nations of the Middle East.
Three years ago a massive car bomb deprived the Hariri family of a
husband and father and deprived the Lebanese people of a leader. It
would prove to be the first in a dozen political assassinations that
have plagued that nation for the last three years orchestrated by the
enemies of a free and democratic Lebanon.
And it is this fact, Madam Speaker that fills me with outrage and
should fill all our colleagues with outrage as well. Lebanon's future
continues to be strangled by Iran and Syria whose agents Hezbollah,
Amal and Michel Aoun, try to take through violence and intimidation
what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. The slow strangulation of
the state has left Lebanon without a President for almost 3 months,
paralyzing the nation and raising the specter of renewed civil war.
On the third anniversary of former Prime Minister Hariri's murder,
the international community must renew its commitment to the people of
Lebanon and again speak out against the campaign of naked aggression
that has left the March 14 movement only two parliamentarians away from
losing their hard won majority. We must renew our demand that Damascus
and Tehran lift their boots off Lebanon's neck. And we must ensure that
justice is done in the case of Rafiq Hariri and all the other victims
of the 3 year campaign to deny Lebanon its rightful place among free
and independent nations. Toward that end, the United States and the
rest of the international community must make it crystal clear to Syria
that the Special Tribunal established by the United Nations Security
Council to investigate the terrorist attack on February 14, 2005, is
not a bargaining chip to be traded away. The interests of justice in
this case far outweigh any concession that the government of Syria
might hope to offer. The guilty must be held accountable for their
crimes.
The international community has spoken frequently and eloquently
through United Nations Security Council resolutions in support of the
sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of
Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of
Lebanon, and has demanded the disarmament of all armed groups in
Lebanon. These goals and this unity of purpose must not be abandoned or
allowed to wither either from self-interest or distraction. The enemies
of Lebanon believe they have time on their side--that they merely need
to wait us out and Lebanon will once again be theirs to control.
The conflict in Lebanon is not a sideshow in the Middle East, it is
the main event. Lebanon is where Tehran intends to fulfill its
aspirations to regional hegemony and Shiite dominance. There is too
much at stake for Lebanon and for the entire region for the world to
leave the Lebanese to the mercies of the radical mullahs in Tehran, the
thugs in Damascus and their terrorist allies, Hezbollah.

[[Page 2334]]

I urge all my colleagues to not only remember Rafiq Hariri and his
sacrifice but to speak out in support of the legitimate democratic
aspirations of the people of Lebanon. They want only what we enjoy
every day--a free, sovereign and democratic state, the servant only of
its own people and the master of its own destiny. It's worth fighting
for.

____________________

HONORING THE HIROSHIMA-NAGASAKI A-BOMB EXHIBITION

______

HON. TAMMY BALDWIN

of wisconsin

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Hiroshima-
Nagasaki A-bomb Exhibition at the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda. Because of
the dedicated efforts of a coalition of Madison organizations, the
Hiroshima-Nagasaki A-bomb Exhibition Committee, and the Hiroshima Peace
Culture Foundation, this exhibition has made an incredibly important
contribution toward educating Wisconsinites and our country about the
devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused by nuclear weapons.
I am heartened by the mission of these organizations to spread peace
and international understanding and grateful to the citizens of Madison
who helped bring this vital message to our Capitol. I further commend
the Exhibition's goal to raise awareness about abolishing nuclear
weapons. This is an issue that demands our close attention.
I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm my support for
nonproliferation strategies designed to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction from U.S. and worldwide arsenals. I strongly support the
Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which sets
forth objectives to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons
technology and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. I
also believe we need to terminate efforts to enhance U.S. military
capabilities of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
My thanks go out to the citizens and organizations of Wisconsin who
have dared to imagine peace and help make it a reality.

____________________

CONGRATULATING ROB COGORNO ON HIS SERVICE TO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES

______

HON. JAMES P. McGOVERN

of massachusetts

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Rob
Cogorno, who will soon be leaving his Congressional career here in the
House of Representatives for new opportunities off of Capitol Hill.
Rob's formal title is Floor Director for the Majority Leader, but he
is truly a servant of this institution. Rob has worked for several
Members of Congress over his 25-year Capitol Hill career, but the
reality is that he has truly served both this institution and the
ideals that make it what it is.
As a former Congressional staffer, I recognize the value of our
staff. We would not be who we are and our country would not be where it
is without, in part, our dedicated, smart and hardworking staff.
Throughout his career in the House, Rob has served both the individual
Members of Congress he worked for and all the Members of Congress of
this institution.
Rob is a strategist. He's a master of the procedures that make the
House run. He knows what makes the Democratic Caucus tick. He knows how
the various groups that make up our Caucus think. He did more than make
the trains run on time or make sure that we, as Members of Congress,
had an outlet for our various requests. He gave us his unvarnished
opinion, in his calm, easy-going, unflappable way, and at times, he was
on the receiving end of some very ``spirited'' rants and complaints
from Members of Congress and their staff. But he always behaved
professionally and always worked for what he thought was right.
Rob's knowledge and experience will not be easily filled. But more
importantly, there will not be another Rob Cogorno in this institution.
Yes, there will be other staffers who will fill his role, but Rob
cannot be replaced.
The House is losing one of its own--someone who loves and respects
this institution; someone who not only believes in the ideals that make
up the Democratic party but also believes in fairness for all who make
up this body; and someone who has worked every single day to make our
country and this world a better place.
Rob--you will be missed, but you won't be forgotten. I appreciate
what you've done for this institution and for the Nation, and I thank
you for your hard work and dedication. Good luck in the next phase of
your professional life.

____________________

HONORING THE 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NAGORNO KARABAKH FREEDOM MOVEMENT

______

HON. MICHAEL R. McNULTY

of new york

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. McNULTY. Madam Speaker, I join today with many of my colleagues
in extending my congratulations to the people of Nagorno Karabakh on
the anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Freedom Movement.
On February 20, 1988, the people of Nagorno Karabakh officially
petitioned the Soviet government to reunite with Armenia and reverse
the injustice perpetrated by the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin.
This peaceful and legal request was met with violent reaction by the
Soviet and Azerbaijani leadership and escalated into full military
aggression against Nagorno Karabakh. The people of Nagorno Karabakh
bravely defended their right to live in freedom on their ancestral
land.
Today, Nagorno Karabakh continues to strengthen its statehood with a
democratically elected government, a capable defense force, and an
independent foreign policy.
I stand with the people of Nagorno Karabakh in celebrating their
continuing freedom and democracy.

____________________

HONORING STEVEN J. BREEZE

______

HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. SHIMKUS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Centralia, Illinois
native Steven J. Breeze on being awarded the United States Air Force
Distinguished Flying Cross and upon his promotion to Lieutenant
Colonel.
Lt. Col. Breeze was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his
role in a March 22, 2003 mission during Operation Iraqi Freedom. His
low level flight lasted 3 hours, covering 590 miles. His skills saved
58 lives and delivered an assault force on time to their destination.
I am proud to recognize Lt. Col. Breeze for his service to the United
States of America. I join a grateful Nation in thanking him for his
service and congratulating him on this award.

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. ROBIN HAYES

of north carolina

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. HAYES. Madam Speaker, on February 13, 2008, I was unable to
participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have
voted as follows;
Rollcall vote 43, I would have voted ``yea.''
Rollcall vote 44, I would have voted ``yea.''
Rollcall vote 45, I would have voted ``yea.''

____________________

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

______

HON. SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR.

of georgia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably
absent yesterday afternoon, February 13, on very urgent business. Had I
been present for the five votes which occurred yesterday, I would have
voted ``aye'' on H. Res. 976, rollcall vote No. 48; I would have voted
``aye'' on H. Res. 976, rollcall vote No. 49; I would have voted
``aye'' on H. Res. 976, rollcall vote No. 50; I would have voted
``aye'' on H. Res. 976, rollcall vote No. 51; and I would have voted
``no'' on Motion to Adjourn, rollcall vote No. 52.

____________________

COMMEMORATING THE OPENING OF THE DENTON COUNTY AFRICAN AMERICAN MUSEUM

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the opening
of the

[[Page 2335]]

Denton County African American Museum. This museum is being dedicated
on Saturday, February 16, 2008, and will reflect the resilience and
determination of the African American citizens of Denton County.
The museum is located in an original Quakertown house that was
restored under the guidance of the Historical Park Foundation of Denton
County. With its dedication, the Denton County African American Museum
joins the Courthouse-on-the-Square Museum and the Bayless-Selby House
Museum as part of the Denton County Museums.
The Museum's historical exhibits will feature African American
families of Denton County as well as the Quakertown experience. It will
also house the collection of artifacts from Dr. Edwin D. Moten,
Denton's first African American doctor. The collection includes more
than 600 letters written by Dr. Moten to family, friends, and
professional colleagues as well as photographs, postcards, medical
records, medicine cases, his medical shingle from in front of his
office, prescription pads and narcotics register from Denton County.
As someone who practiced medicine in the Denton area for nearly 30
years, I am fascinated by the pieces in Dr. Moten's collection from
both a medical and a historical perspective. My own grandfather, Dr.
Harry Clifton Burgess, was a contemporary of Dr. Moten. While it is
interesting to think about how these men practiced before the advent of
anesthesia and antibiotics, it is also inspiring to think of the
courage that someone like Dr. Moten would have had to practice in such
inhospitable conditions both personally and professionally. His
perseverance during these harsh conditions is remarkable.
Madam Speaker, today I commend people like Dr. Edwin Moten for their
inspiration and proudly rise to recognize the culturally rich addition
of this important museum to Denton and the entire north Texas area. I
also call on north Texans and all Americans to reflect and recall the
courage, perseverance, and spirit of those honored in the new Denton
County African American Museum. It is an honor to represent the 26th
Congressional District of Texas and to commemorate this historical
occasion.

____________________

HONORING HELEN LODGE, DR. JOREA MARPLE, SARAH STEBBINS, AND JENNIFER
BAILEY

______

HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO

of west virginia

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mrs. CAPITO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor four outstanding
women in my district who are being honored for their commitment to
their communities and for serving as role models to countless young
women, empowering them to succeed. The Young Women's Christian
Association of Charleston, WV named Helen Lodge, Dr. Jorea Marple,
Sarah Stebbins, and Jennifer Bailey as the 2008 Women of Achievement
Honorees.
Helen has spent her career as a dynamic leader and advocate for
health and nutrition in West Virginia. Early in her career, she was
integral in the West Virginia State Legislature passing legislation to
require early detection testing for newborns for phenylketonuria, PKU,
a simple test that can prevent mental deficiency in newborns. She has
received numerous recognitions throughout her career and currently
chairs the West Virginia Board of Licensed Dieticians. As active leader
in her Charleston community, Helen assists with the fundraising efforts
of the West Virginia Symphony League and Youth Symphony and the
American Heart Association.
Dr. Jorea Marple represents one of the most noble professions,
educating our young people. Her 30-year career includes stints as a
teacher, reading specialist, graduate and undergraduate instructor, and
a former superintendent of Kanawha County schools. Her most noteworthy
achievement is authoring the book, An Insider's Guide to Making School
Systems Work. Dr. Marple currently serves as Assistant State
Superintendent of the West Virginia Department of Education overseeing
curriculum and instruction.
Sarah Stebbins is a pioneer among women in the development of
information technology in the aeronautics and astronautics industries.
A graduate of WVU, she began her career in the development of early
computers and later worked as an aerospace research analyst for the Air
Force and as a project leader in the Naval Research Lab in the Space
Systems Development Department. Her most notable achievement is helping
with the software development of the Global Positioning System, a
technology that has revolutionized the way we view and navigate our
world and beyond. Sarah retired in her hometown of Charleston, WV with
her husband and family.
Finally, I would like to honor Jennifer Bailey, the recipient of the
YWCA Women of Achievement Empowerment Award. Jennifer stands as a
success story among the mission of the YWCA and is an inspiration to
women in all walks of life for her ability to persevere and overcome
numerous obstacles. The YWCA was there for Jennifer every step of the
way in helping her overcome numerous personal obstacles. Jennifer now
enjoys spending time with her son, working in retail, and maintaining a
4.0 G.P.A. in her classes.
Again, I congratulate Helen Lodge, Dr. Jorea Marple, Sarah Stebbins,
and Jennifer Bailey, who will be honored February 21, 2008. It is an
honor to represent such distinguished and inspiring women in West
Virginia's Second Congressional District.

____________________

HONORING ST. LOUIS PARK FOR AWARD WINNING YOUTH PROGRAMS

______

HON. KEITH ELLISON

of minnesota

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I rise today honor the great city of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota for winning the America's Promise Alliance's 100
Best Communities for Young People competition for the third year in a
row. St. Louis Park is one of the cities in the Fifth Congressional
District of Minnesota.
St. Louis Park is an amazing community for young people because
residents engage youth with meaningful artistic, cultural and civic
opportunities. One such opportunity is the Friends of the Arts program,
which pairs youth with donated musical instruments and offers creative
writing classes for teens. A local church, the Lutheran Church of the
Reformation, offers young artists the ability to improve their artistic
skills and a platform to perform or display their work.
Residents of St. Louis Park's Lake Forest Neighborhood organize a
program called ``Arts Crawl'' which sponsors family art programs and
raises scholarship funds for youth. Additionally, the city government
makes an effort to invite young people to community events and
meetings.
The City of St. Louis Park and its residents are committed to a
brighter future for their city, their state and their country. I
applaud Mayor Jeff Jacobs, the residents of St. Louis Park and
especially the young people for their hard work and dedication to
improving their communities.

____________________

A TRIBUTE TO THE LATE RUSSELL HAMMER

______

HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

of california

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late
Rusty Hammer, a dedicated leader and advocate on behalf of the Los
Angeles business community and a dear friend, who passed away recently
after a long battle with cancer.
I had the privilege of working with Rusty during his 5 years as
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Los Angeles Chamber of
Commerce.
At the chamber's helm, Rusty dedicated himself to improving the
quality of life and economic prosperity of the Los Angeles Chamber's
1,500 members and their more than 600,000 employees throughout the Los
Angeles region.
Under Rusty's dedicated leadership, the Los Angeles Chamber
successfully built partnerships between business, community, labor and
civic organizations. Today, these partnerships have reestablished the
Chamber as the Los Angeles region's premier business advocacy
organization.
Rusty's talents, innovative strategic thinking and willingness to
work with stakeholders on all sides of the political spectrum played an
integral role in the Los Angeles area's economic growth. I observed
this first hand during the chamber's annual trips to Washington, DC,
which became immensely productive and influential under Rusty's
leadership.
While we all deeply miss Rusty, I know his work and many
contributions will continue to benefit the Los Angeles business
community for many years to come. My thoughts and prayers are with
Rusty's special wife, Pam, and their family during this difficult time.
Madam Speaker, in honor of Rusty's life, I would like to submit for
the Record his obituary that appeared in the Los Angeles Times

[[Page 2336]]

on January 30. It provides more insight into Rusty's full and
accomplished life.

Russell Hammer, 54; Head of L.A. Business Group

(By Elaine Woo)

Russell J. ``Rusty'' Hammer, former president and chief
executive of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, died
Monday at a hospice in San Jose. He was 54.
The cause was leukemia, according to a chamber spokeswoman.
Hammer was credited with revitalizing the Los Angeles
business group, which he led for five years until 2006, when
he stepped down because of his illness. During his tenure,
chamber membership grew from 1,200 to 1,600 companies, and
new initiatives helped to refocus the organization on local,
state and national policy issues.
``He had a substantial impact on the chamber and also on
the people he worked with,'' said George Kieffer, a Los
Angeles attorney who was chairman of the chamber during the
first few years of Hammer's presidency. ``The chamber has an
extraordinary legacy but . . . had become less active in the
business community and the greater civic community. Rusty
played a very big part in turning that around.''
Born on May 12, 1953, in Orleans, France, Hammer grew up in
San Jose. He received a bachelor's degree in political
science at the University of Santa Clara in 1975 and a
master's in public administration from San Jose State
University in 1979.
He entered politics at an early age, organizing high school
students for Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's presidential campaign
in 1968. Hammer ran for office himself in 1972, becoming at
18 the youngest person elected to the Campbell, Calif., City
Council. At 21, he became mayor and made headlines as the
nation's youngest mayor.
After two terms as mayor, he entered business and served in
a variety of management positions, later rising to president
of Quadrex Corp., an engineering firm.
In 1994 he was recruited to become chief executive of the
Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Over the next
seven years he raised the profile of the Sacramento chamber,
leading it to take a prominent role in local issues, such as
the effort to save McClellan Air Force Base, and starting a
public policy seminar that attracted world figures, including
Henry Kissinger and Margaret Thatcher.
When he arrived in Los Angeles in 2001, Hammer worked in a
similar fashion, finding ways to make the Los Angeles chamber
more relevant to members. He reached out to other local
business groups, small companies and entrepreneurs and
organized events that offered a regional perspective, such as
a 2002 conference on transportation that drew 500
participants from business and government.
In 2003 he was diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia and
spent 303 days in a hospital undergoing intensive treatment.
While battling his illness, he helped organize a Silicon
Valley branch of the Wellness Community, a support group for
cancer patients.
He also wrote a book, ``When Cancer Calls . . . Say Yes to
Life,'' which he published on his own last year. The book
discusses how his battle against cancer forced major
adjustments in his life and changed his values.
He told the San Jose Mercury News last year that he was
inspired to write the book by his children, twins Gerald and
Jennifer, who told him he could not die until he had taught
them everything he could about how to approach life. He is
also survived by his wife, Pamela.

____________________

CELEBRATING THE 35TH ANNIVERSARY OF CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ACTION AND
THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NORTH TEXAS COMMUNITY

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Christian
Community Action for celebrating its 35th anniversary. Christian
Community Action, an organization devoted to helping those in need, has
made a tremendous impact on area citizens during its tenure in the
north Texas community.
Founded on February 22, 1973, Christian Community Action began by
serving local congregations. The group soon began distributing fliers
in needy areas offering assistance to those local families who needed
it most. CCA provided gifts of food, clothing, housewares, and repair
work, but soon realized that for the group to have the effect they
wanted, they needed to find a way to expand their reach and obtain
financial resources.
It was this decision that caused the organization to connect with
area families on a much more personal level. CCA caseworkers learned
all about each family's income, budgeting, and spending habits, which
presented them with both the information they needed to provide
assistance and the coveted opportunity to bond with those they served.
Beginning in 1975, Christian Community Action began focusing on
larger scale initiatives, such as resale shops. Now the CCA has evolved
from a small bible study group to a thriving organization serving
Lewisville and the surrounding area with three CCA resale stores, an
adult health center, food services, and education and vocational
training.
I would also like to commend Christian Community Action on the
importance of the role they play in helping meet the health assistance
needs in Denton County, where there is no county hospital to assist. As
an OB/GYN in Denton County for almost 30 years, I'm acutely aware of
the needs of the mothers and young children and I especially thank
Christian Community Action for their mission in meeting these health
needs.
It was also through my work with Christian Community Action that the
idea for a program within the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
increase awareness for second-hand retailers regarding recalled
products was initiated. This project was successfully adopted in the
Consumer Product Safety Modernization Act, and I commend CCA for their
dedication to improving awareness about dangerous recalled products for
similar organizations all across the United States.
With more than 2,500 volunteers, CCA touches the lives of
approximately 12,000 people every year. However, they are far more than
a charity group. To the 1,500 patients treated in the health center
each year; to the parents of the children provided with lunches, school
supplies, Christmas presents, and clothes; to the 1,660 people who have
been given educational and vocational training; to these people,
Christian Community Action offers hope. The building blocks provided by
the CCA create a foundation for those in our community to create better
lives for themselves.
Madam Speaker, it is with great honor that I stand here today to
honor Christian Community Action on their anniversary. Thirty-five
years of service is a milestone to be celebrated.

____________________

TRIBUTE TO REVEREND DR. JEREMIAH A. WRIGHT, JR., SENIOR PASTOR OF THE
TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST (TUCC) OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

______

HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

of illinois

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and honor the
Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., who delivered his final sermon on
Sunday, February 10, 2008, as the Senior Pastor of the Trinity United
Church of Christ of Chicago, IL.
Dr. Wright was born on September 22, 1941, in Philadelphia, PA to the
union of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Sr. and Dr. Mary Henderson
Wright. His parents were his earliest influences, instilling in him the
possibility of balancing the intellectual with the spiritual. Upon
completion of his elementary and secondary education in Philadelphia,
Dr. Wright matriculated at Virginia Union University. After 3\1/2\
years at Virginia Union, Dr. Wright left school and entered the U.S.
Marine Corps. He transferred from the USMC into the U.S. Navy where he
served as a cardiopulmonary technician.
After 6 years with distinction in the military, Dr. Wright
transferred to Howard University where he completed his undergraduate
studies and received his first master's degree. His second master's
degree was from the University of Chicago Divinity School and he
furthered his academic pursuits with a doctorate from the United
Theological Seminary. In addition to Dr. Wright's four earned degrees,
he has been the recipient of eight honorary doctorates. He is the
recipient of numerous awards, including three presidential
commendations.
An accomplished musician, theologian and author, Wright has written
four books, numerous articles and countless sermons and was named one
of Ebony's top 15 preachers. Dr. Wright has lectured at seminaries and
universities across the United States and has represented Trinity and
The United Church of Christ around the world.
Dr. Wright became Pastor of Trinity UCC on March 1, 1972. Under his
leadership, the membership grew from 87 members to nearly 10,000 today
with over 70 ministries offered to enhance the Christian journey. Dr.
Wright shares his life and ministry with his wife, Rev. Ramah Reed
Wright, and is the father of five children and grandfather of three.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the life achievements of
Reverend Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., Senior Pastor of the Trinity
United Church of Christ and I want to encourage Dr. Wright to continue
to be ``Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian''. I am truly
honored to pay tribute to this

[[Page 2337]]

outstanding Servant of God and I am privileged to enter these words
into the Congressional Record of the United States House of
Representatives.

____________________

IN HONOR OF PHILLIP MORRIS

______

HON. STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES

of ohio

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor Phillip
Morris, a good friend and a great constituent of the Eleventh
Congressional District of Ohio.
Phillip Morris is characterized by many as an ``affable and
altruistic man.'' Phillip Morris joined the staff of the Case Western
Reserve University law school on October 4, 1971, as building
superintendent when the law school was located on Adelbert Road in
Cleveland, Ohio. Since then he has worked tirelessly providing support
for over one hundred faculty and staff, over six hundred students, and
to keep the facilities of the building running smoothly.
Phillip's calm demeanor and great sense of humor have become an
invaluable presence at the law school as well as his ability to prepare
the building for classes and special events. Phillip has also been
described by some as, ``The ultimate handyman''. When Phillip is not
working in the law school, he can be found working on carpentry and
construction projects at his home.
In 2004, Phillip Morris was chosen as one of three recipients of the
President's Award for Distinguished Service at Case Western Reserve
University. This is the highest award that the University confers on
its staff personnel. The award recognizes an individual's dedication to
provide outstanding service to the Case Western Reserve University
community.
Phillip Morris retired from his work on February 1, 2008. Phillip and
his wife will enjoy retirement in their newly purchased home in the
suburbs of Nashville, Tennessee.
On behalf of the Eleventh Congressional District of Ohio it gives me
great pleasure to congratulate my friend, Phillip Morris, for his
service to Case Western Reserve University, and the Eleventh
Congressional district of Ohio.

____________________

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA COAST GUARD AUXILIARY TEAM WINS INTERNATIONAL
SEARCH AND RESCUE COMPETITION

______

HON. C.W. BILL YOUNG

of florida

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, For the first time ever, an
American team has won the International Search and Rescue Competition
in Toronto, Canada and I am proud to say that the four members of the
team are from Pinellas County, Florida, which I have the privilege to
represent.
Representing the Coast Guard Atlantic Area, the Seventh Coast Guard
District, Sector St. Petersburg, and Search and Rescue Station Sand
Key, team captain Kevin McConn of Tarpon Springs, and Don Hoge, Jim
Ryder, and Max Garrison all of Dunedin beat 11 other U.S. and Canadian
teams, scoring an impressive 88 out of 104 possible points. They
finished 35 points ahead of the second place team.
Two volunteer Coast Guard Auxiliary Flotillas combined into one team
that trained together for more than 5,000 hours during an 8-month
period. To get to Toronto, they first had to win district and regional
events.
The international competition emphasizes events that are designed to
test teams' abilities to plan, communicate, and carry out a maritime
search and rescue mission. These are skills that all Coast Guard
sailors and auxiliary members must know and be able to execute on a
moment's notice to save a life or lives at sea.
The team will be honored on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, during
ceremonies at Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station Sand Key when they
will officially receive the winning trophy for the 2007 International
Search and Rescue competition. Rear Admiral David Kunkel, the
commanding officer of Coast Guard District Seven, will preside at the
ceremony.
Coast Guard Search and Rescue Station Sand Key is one of four major
Coast Guard installations I have the privilege to represent in the 10th
Congressional District of Florida and this winning team is symbolic of
all the men and women of the United States Coast Guard who serve to
defend our coastline and protect lives every day of the year,
regardless of the threat and the weather.
Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating these volunteers from
Pinellas County that through hard work, dedication, professionalism,
and spirited teamwork have brought great honor to our Nation and the
United States Coast Guard and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary.

Auxiliary Wins International Search and Rescue Competition

A quartet of U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliarists from Pinellas
County Fla., beat five other U.S. teams and six Canadian
teams at the 2007 International Search and Rescue Competition
in Toronto Harbor, Canada Sept. 28-29.
For the first time in the eight year history of the
competition, American lifesavers carried home the coveted
trophy.
To get to ISAR, teams of lifesavers must compete in
preliminary regional events. Teams are judged in skill areas
in the field of Maritime Search and Rescue. ISAR 2007
featured events that are designed to test the volunteers'
ability to plan, communicate and prosecute a maritime search
and rescue mission.
A Person-In-the-Water Recovery Event evaluated each team's
ability to safely approach and retrieve a person or other
object in the water and rescue a person from a burning boat.
Other events included: Search and Rescue Planning,
Seamanship, Communications, Dewatering Line Toss and
Marlinspike and two surprise events, one with the boat
helmsman blindfolded and taking direction from a crewman and
another where crews rowed out to retrieve and backboard a
mannequin and bring this simulated victim to shore.
The winning American team consisted of team captain Kevin
McConn, 48, of Tarpon Springs, Don Hoge, 59, Jim Ryder, 69,
and Max Garrison, 65, all of Dunedin, Fla. In events that
included skills involving strength and speed, these veteran
American mariners beat out teams that included much younger
U.S. and Canadian competitors. Scoring an impressive 88 out
of a possible 104 points, the Florida Auxiliarists bested the
closest competitors, a Canadian team, by an impressive 35
points.

____________________

CONGRATULATING GREG WEATHERFORD ON HIS COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTIONS

______

HON. MICHAEL C. BURGESS

of texas

in the house of representatives

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a student from
my district who has been nationally recognized for commendable
volunteer service in his community. Greg Weatherford of Little Elm,
Texas has been acknowledged as a distinguished finalist in Texas by the
2008 Prudential Spirit of Community Awards program, an annual honor
conferred on the most impressive student volunteers in each State and
the District of Columbia.
Greg, a senior at Little Elm High School, established the youth
service organization ``Young People Who Care'' 4 years ago. This group
gives students the opportunity to become active in their community.
``Young People Who Care'' has established, among other things, a
district-wide peer tutoring program, a school and community
beautification committee, and a school-wide recycling program. Greg
will receive an engraved bronze medallion for his achievements.
The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards was created by Prudential
Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary
School Principals in 1995 to emphasize to all youth volunteers that
their contributions are vitally important and highly valued, and to
inspire other young people to follow in their footsteps. Since its
founding, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition
effort based solely on community service, and has honored more than
80,000 young volunteers at the local, State, and national level.
Greg should be extremely proud of his achievement. I heartily applaud
him for the positive impact he has had on the community. Greg has
demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly
extraordinary in today's world, and deserves our sincere admiration and
respect. It is an honor to represent such an extraordinary young person
in the 26th district of Texas, and I earnestly look forward to the
positive contributions he will undoubtedly bestow upon the north Texas
community.